HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190122_Geotechnical Report_1-18-2019~] COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
I l
I
l J
I J
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
of
Proposed Additions
at
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, Calif omia
BY:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
W. 0. 566418-01, dated January 18, 2019
FOR:
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
PA2019-008
~ l
l
l
. j
l
-J
I
C J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1200 West Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92833 ■ Ph: (714) 870-1211 ■ Fax: (714) 870-1222 ■ e-mail: coastgeotec@sbcglobal.net
January 18, 2019
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman:
Subject:
w.o. 566418-01
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of
Proposed Additions at 2016 East Ocean
Front, Newport Beach, California
In accordance with the request of Mr; Mark Becker, 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 undergrolmd 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 the homeowner
in the November 30, 2018 proposal.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of a new garage with a second
story level and covered entry addition to the existing garage. 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 near 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 sq.II1ples for laboratory analysis.
4. Laboratory analyses of soil samples including determination of in-situ and maximum density, in-
situ and optimum moisture content, shear strength characteristics, expansion potential, and sulfate
content.
PA2019-008
, 1
i
j
, )
l
I
1
c_J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 2
Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations of the
proposed development.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located at 2016 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, near level, and bordered by East Ocean Front to the north, the
beach to the south, and developed residential properties to the east and west.
The lot is currently developed with a single-family residence, hardscape and landscape. The
proposed site configuration is further shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2.
RECORD SEARCH
A search of records was performed through the City of Newport Beach online database for
applicable geotechnical records for the subject lot. The subject lot is identified as Block D, Lot 5 of
Tract 518. Geotechnical records were found forthe subject lot.
• Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Additions and Remodel to Existing Residence,
2016 East Ocean Front, Newport Beach, California ... , by Petra Geotechnical Inc. J.N.
254-01 dated June 19, 2001. Borings and a test pit were completed in the upper pad.
Native marine soils were found at one to one and a half feet below existing grade. The
report recommended grading and compaction of the upper one to two feet below
proposed finish grade for all new construction areas as well as a new foundation system.
Some read records have been attached to this report and are found in Appendix C.
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.
EXPLORATORY PROGRAM
The field investigation was performed on January 4, 2019, consisting of the excavations of two
exploratory borings at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavations
progressed, a representative from this office visually classified the earth materials encountered, and
secured representative samples for laboratory testing.
Geotechnical characteristics of subsurface conditions were assessed by either driving a split spoon
ring sampler or an SPT sampler into the earth material.
PA2019-008
, l
7
· 1
I
. J
l
-l
l
' j
J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 3
Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
The split spoon sampler was driven into the earth material to obtain undisturbed ring samples for
detailed testing in our laboratory. A solid barrel-type spoon sampler was used having an inside
diameter of2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end.
The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil
below the depth of the boring approximately eighteen inches. The end portion of this sample was
retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers
and transported to the laboratory .
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for Boring No. 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 inteiyals 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 of 30 inches. Drive sampling was obtained at two
feet intervals for the upper level foundations in accordance with City guidelines. Considering that
the upper three feet of the pad area will be recompacted, SPT sampling commenced at three feet
below grade.
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 silty, fine to medium-grained sand, tan to tan brown in
color, dry to damp and generally loose to medium dense. The fills were encountered to a depth of
about one and a half to two feet below existing grade.
Native soils encountered consisted of fine to coarse-grained sand, tan, light gray to light gray tan in
color, damp to wet with depth and generally medium dense to the maximum depth explored of
twelve and a half feet.
The data presented on these logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered
and applies only at the specific boring locations, time and date excavated. It is not warranted to
be representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations.
Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on the appended Plates Band C.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at eight feet below existing ground surface in both of the borings.
The groundwater level is expected to fluctuate with tidal changes. Plate 1.2 in Appendix B shows
PA2019-008
-l
!
, f
l
l J
l l
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 4
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
the subject site area to have a historic high groundwater depth of less than ten feet below existing
ground surface. In our liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses, a groundwater elevation of six
feet below ground surface is used for more conservative calculations in accordance with City
policy.
SEISMICITY
Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can
occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and
Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in
Southern California for several decades. Early studies were directed toward earthquake prediction
estimation of the effects of strong ground shaking. Studies indicate that earthquake prediction is
not practical and not sufficiently accurate to benefit the general public. Governmental agencies are
shifting their focus to earthquake resistant structures as opposed to prediction. The purpose of the
code seismic design parameters , is to prevent collapse during strong ground shaking.
Cosmetic damage should be expected.
Within the past 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-Inglewood Fault Zone is a broad zone of left-
stepping en echelon faults and folds striking southeastward from near Santa Monica across the
Los Angeles basin to Newport Beach. Altogether these various faults constitute a system more
than 150 miles long that extends into Ba}a California, Mexico. Faults having similar trends and
projections occur offshore from San Clemente and San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion
Faults). A near-shore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone was the source of the
destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The reported recurrence interval for a large event along
this fault zone is 1,200 to 1,300 years with an expected slip of one meter.
• San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault: The seismic hazards in Southern California have been
further complicated with the recent realization that major earthquakes can occur on large thrust
faults that are concealed at depths between 5 to 20 km, referred to as "blind thrusts." The uplift
PA2019-008
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 5
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
of the San Joaquin Hills is produced by a southwest dipping blind thrust fault that extends at
least 14 km from northwestern Huntington Mesa to Dana Point and comes to within 2 km of the
ground surface. Work by Grant et al. (1997 and 1999) suggest that uplift of the San Joaquin Hills
began in the Late Quaternary and continues during the Holocene. Uplift rates have been
estimated between 0.25 and 0.5 mm/yr. If the entire length of the fault ruptured, the earthquake
has been estimated to generate an Mw 6.8 event.
We are of the opinion that the more active Newport Inglewood fault is the causative fault for the
subject site. The site is located approximately within a kilometer north.east 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.
PA2019-008
r l
I
: I
LJ
J
}
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 6
· Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map published by the State of California, Newport Beach
Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, the site is not mapped as being in an area subject to potential
seismic induced landslides.
Seismic Induced Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, non-cohesive granular soils
exhibit severe reduction in strength and stability when subjected to high-intensity ground
shaking. The mechanism by which liquefaction occurs is the progressive increase in excess pore
pressure generated by the shaking associated with the seismic event and the tendency for loose
non-cohesive soils to consolidate. As the excess pore fluid pressure approaches the in-situ
overburden pressure, the soils exhibit behavior similar to a dense fluid with a corresponding
significant decrease in shear strength and increase in compressibility. Liquefaction o"ccurs 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. 723 PGAM and a groundwater level at six 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 l~teral displacement can occur on the grotmd surface due to movement of non-liquefied
soils along zones of liquefied soils. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be
PA2019-008
. i
l
I
-l
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 7
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
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.
Earthquake-induced Settlements
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 ofliquefaction.
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
sah1rated sands) is 0.02 inch. According to City policy, the City's shallow mitigation method may
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
Tstmamis 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
PA2019-008
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 8
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
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 CBC codes, City policy, and industry standards residential structures
subject to seismic hazards are designed to protect life and safety. Under this design objective the
requirements of protecting life and safety could be met but the structure could be damaged. The
damage to the structure could range from minimal to being non-functional. The reduction of risk,
for the occurrence of structural damage from a seismic event, is generally associated with the
structure's foundation system.
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.
Since the vertical seismic settlement for the site is less than four inches, it is recommended that
structural mitigation be used. To provide structural mitigation for the potential liquefaction
effects for the proposed additions, (1) the structures shall be placyd on competent native soils, (2)
bottom of all footings shall be a minimum of 24 inches below grade, (3) foundations shall be
continuous and 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.
The owner shall recognize and accept that use of existing foundations in conjunction with new
structural elements may result in differential settlement or movement resulting from expansive
soils. Possible minor structural and cosmetic cracking between new and existing foundations may
develop as subgrade soils adjust to the newly established moisture regime. The risk of cracking
shall be considered in choice of floor covering, and appropriate construction methods and care
shall be implemented where inflexible and frangible finish surfaces are proposed.
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 development will not have an adverse effect on adjacent
property or vice versa, provided site work is performed in accordance with the guidelines of
project geotechnical reports, approved plans, applicable codes, industry standards, City
inspections, and required geotechnical observation and testing.
PA2019-008
I
l
I -J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 9
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
The following recommendations are subject to change based on review of final foundation and
grading plans.
• New foundations are recommended to be supported by competent native soils.
• To minimize caving of property line or existing wall cuts required for grade beam and retaining
wall construction, temporary shoring and bracing should be installed, where necessary. For
similar projects in the past, this system consisted of one and one-eighth inch thick plywood
braced with driven metal fence posts. The bracing should be driven to a depth of at least 1.5
times the retained height, measured from the bottom of the proposed cut. Bracing should be
placed every two feet. fustallation should be verified at the time of construction by COAST
GEOTECHNICAL, fuc.
• New slab areas and new exterior hardscape areas may be supported by compacted fill soil
demonstrating a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Subgrade soils will require grading as
outlined in this report.
• The client, along with the structural engineer, will need to assess the condition of the existing
structure and decide if existing conditions are tolerable or if mitigation should be considered to
improve the structural integrity of the residence, and to minimize future cracking of brittle
building materials transitioning from new and old construction, or from changes in structural
loadings. Geotechnically it is recommended that all foundations have a similar embedment depth
and bearing material to minimize differential movement in the structure.
• Where existing foundations are to carry new loads they shall be underpinned per design of the
structural engineer.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of the site as understood 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.
PROPOSED GRADING
Grading plans were not available at the time our work was performed. The following
recommendations are subject to change based on review of final grading plans.
Based on our understanding of proposed construction and existing soil conditions, earthwork is
anticipated to consist of grading to provide uniform support for slab and hardscape and to improve
site drainage.
GENERAL GRADING NOTES
All existing strnctures 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".
PA2019-008
I L__J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 10
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 20, and shall be
tested and approved by our laboratory. Samples must be submitted 48 hours prior to import.
Grading and/or foundation recommendations are subject to modification upon review of final plans
by the Geotechnical Engineer. Please submit plans to COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. when
available.
GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Where grading is needed the following guidelines shall be utilized.
Areas to receive fill shall be processed prior to placing additional fill soil. Areas of new concrete
slabs or hardscape shall be over-excavated and recompacted to provide uniform support. Existing
surfaces shall be over-excavated a minimum of one foot below foundations which should be about
three feet below existing grade and compacted in thin lifts to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction.
Exposed excavation bottoms shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer. Field
recommendations will be made depending on conditions encountered. Upon approval, the
excavation bottoms shall be processed; moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content and
compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
Subsequent fills shall be placed in six to eight inch lifts, moisturized to a minimum of 3 to 4 % over
optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This process
shall be utilized to final grade.
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 ON NATIVE SOILS
The proposed additions may be supported by continuous spread footings placed a minimum depth
of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade, bearing 12 inches into competent native soils, utilizing an
allowable bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot. Footings shall be at least 15 inches wide
for the proposed two-story addition. 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. Detailed calculations of
these bearing values are shown on Plate G.
It is recommended that all footings be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2
bottom). The structural engineer's reinforcing requirements should be followed if more stringent.
New footings shall be dowelled into existing footings with #4 bars at 24 inches on center.
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.
PA2019-008
r-1
, l
l
r
-I
l ,_J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 11
Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation
LATERAL DESIGN
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead
load and a coefficient of friction of .30. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used to
resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of :finished grade, increasing at the rate
of 250 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot, may
be used for native soils at this site. Where passive pressure and :friction are combined when
evaluating the lateral resistance, the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of the
values given above. Detailed calculations of the passive pressure and coefficient of friction are
shown on Plate H.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab on grades shall be designed in accordance with 2016 CBC codes.
Site soils are non plastic.
Minimum geotecbnical 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 inches on center each way. Structural design may require additional reinforcement and slab
thickness.
Sub grade soils shall exhibit a minimum of 90% relative compaction to the depth determined by the
geotecbnical 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 sub grade soils prior to placement of the
capillary break or vapor barrier.
Section 4.505 .2.1 of the California Green Code requires the use of a capillary break between the
slab sub grade and vapor barrier. The. capillary break material shall comply with the requirements
of the local jurisdiction and shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness. Geotechnically
coarse clean sand is acceptable; however, some localities require the use of four inches of gravel
(1/2-inch or larger clean aggregate). If gravels are used, a heavy filter fabric (Mirafi 140N) shall
be placed over the gravels prior to placement of the recommended vapor· barrier to minimize
puncturing of the vapor barrier. Additionally, a vibratory plate should be used over the gravels
prior to placement of the recommended filter fabric to smooth out any sharp protuberances and
consolidate the gravels.
Slab areas should be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of an engineered plastic film ( as
described by ASTM:E-1745). 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
0.0lperms (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.
PA2019-008
r I
C }
I
I
l
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 12
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 2019
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. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from
fresh concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least two inches of sand is
spread over the vapor barrier prior to placement of concrete.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Based on 2016 CBC the following seismic design parameters are provided. These seismic design
values were determined utilizing latitude 33.596126 and longitude -117.886197 and calculations
from the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Map Tool on the USGS website. A conservative site
class D was assigned to the site earth materials.
• Site Class = D
• Mapped 0.2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss = 1.722g
• Mapped One Second Spectral Response Acceleration S1 = 0.633g
• Site Coefficient from Table 1613A3.3(1), Fa= 1.0
• Site Coefficient from Table 1613A3 .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, SM1 = 0.950g
• 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, Sns = 1.148g
• 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, Sm= 0.633g
SETTLEMENT
For additions to the existing residence 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 1mder previous sections.
Where additions are planned the structural engineer, will need to assess the condition of the
existing structure and decide if existing conditions are tolerable or if mitigation should be
considered to improve the struch1ral integrity of the residence, and to minimize future cracking of
brittle building materials transitioning from new and old construction. Geotechnically it is
recommended that all foundations have a similar embedment depth and bearing material to
minimize differential movement in the structure.
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.
PA2019-008
. l
l
I l
l -l
-l
J
I ,J
I LJ
J
CoA.ST GEOTECHNICAL, INc.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 13
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
All utility line backfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a 1111lllll1Um of
90% relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of two-foot vertical intervals.
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.
SOLUBLE SULFATES
An on-site soil sample showed a soluble sulfate content of 41 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 strnctures
via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas~ The strncture should utilize roof gutters and
down spouts tied directly to yard drainage.
Pipes used for storm/site water drainage should be strong 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 fine material, 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
of Table 1102.5 of the 2016 California Plumbing Code.
Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constrncted against the perimeter of the
structure. If such landscaping ( against the perimeter of a strncture) 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 5% slope away from strnctures for landscape areas
within ten feet of the residence, with 2% slope allowable where justified. Our justification is the
use roof drains tied into area drains, the use of area drains, and site grading which will mitigate the
potential for moisture problems beneath a slab on grade. Hardscape areas shall be sloped a
minimum of 2% where within ten feet of the residence unless allowed otherwise by the building
official. Minimum drainage shall be one percent for hardscape areas and two percent for landscape
areas for all other areas.
We do not recommend the use of bottomless trench drains, within five feet of the strncture, to
conform with infiltration best management practice (BMP) such as infiltration trenches, infiltration
PA2019-008
C I
l
l . j
-l
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 14
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
basins, dry wells, permeable pavements or similar systems designed primarily to percolate water
into the subsurface soils. 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 _
by the City of Newport Beach, the following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably
be required by the City:
• Site grading
• Foundation excavation review for the all structures
• Reinforcement placement for all foundations
• Slab subgrade compaction testing
• Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures
• Compaction of utility trench backfill
• Hardscape subgrade testing
• Temporary construction cuts
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.
PA2019-008
I . j
C I
J
J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 15
Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation
LIMITATIONS
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18. 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
Ul/1./r,,'C,,F.JT[C~
Daniel E. ere ,
Staff Geologist
PA2019-008
7
7 I
J
7
C I
I
' J
I
~
J
J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 16
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
APPENDIXA
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 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 January 4, 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.
Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained by pushing or driving a
sampling spoon into the material. A solid barrel-type spoon was used having an inside diameter of
2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. The barrel is
lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the
depth of boring approximately 6 to 18 inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for
testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported
to the laboratory.
Description of the soils encountered is presented on the attached Boring Logs. The data presented
on this log is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the
specific boring locations and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of
subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
LABORATORY TESTING
Field samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to
develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions.
Field moisture and dry densities were calculated for each undisturbed sample. The samples were
obtained per ASTM:D-2937 and tested under ASTM:D-2216.
Maximum density-optimum moisture relationships were established per ASTM:D-1557 for use in
evaluation of in-situ conditions and for future use during grading operations.
Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM:D-3080, on specimens at near
saturation under various normal loads. The results of tests are based on an 80% peak strength or
ultimate strength, whichever is lower, and are attached as Plates D and E.
Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of earth materials 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 F.
PA2019-008
! j
l
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman 17
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (ASTM:D-1557)
Direct Shear (ASTM:D-3080)
1 0-5 (remolded) 100 32
2 3.5 50 32
Expansion Index (ASTM:D-4829)
Chemical Analysis {USEPA Method 375.4)
w. 0. 566418-01
January 18, 2019
PA2019-008
"l
I l
-j
I ,_J
J
J
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) .
.Ll1ATERIALS
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.
PA2019-008
, )
I
, '/
I , I
l
l I
'-j
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.
PA2019-008
-i
l
. l
,,
I
l
[
I
. J
I
' j
SITE VICINITY MAP
NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE
CALIFORNIA -ORANGE CO.
7.5 :MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
Geotechnical· Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGIC SURVEY
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 1
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
. l
:1
J
SITE PLAN
East Ocean Front
----------_.+._--.-,-1d,5--¥55_-1..~..Iis~=\_t='.:.._=-+-:i::=:_'=':-:__::---='=--='='=--~~l __ _
Area of Proposed
Additions ~
w
ing#2
tt
Boring #1
iF========i, _,__......,,..,,.,. ___________ ...)
I I
I
UJ rn ::,
0 :c
C!) z ~ ~
z :s a. u.. 0 ~
~ a.
UJ
ii5
Scale: 1" ~ 16'
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 2
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
1 I
J
I J
J
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
39
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEISMIC: HAZARDS ZONES,
'nollneatad In compliance with . Chapter 7.B, Dlvlnlan 2 of the C:illfamia Public Resources Cade
·. · · -(Selsmle Hazarr/s...Mspp!ng . ..A&t) ..
. N_EWPORi" B~CH QUADRANGLE
OFFICIAL MAP
liquefaction Zone Released: April 7, 1997
Landslide Zone Released: April 15, 1998
106 ----~ . ---~
171
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Zones of Required Investigation:
Liquefaction. . . .
Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,
geotechnlcal.and groundwater conditions indlcate·a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in. Publlci Resources Code· Section 2693{c) would be ~ulred. '
E,arthquake,-lnduced Landslides
Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movenierit, or local
topographic, geologlcal, geotechnical and subsurface water conditiom,
Indicate a potential "for permanent ground displacements such that
mitigation as de(lned In Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 3
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
, l
j
. I
1 l
. r
l
I -I
J
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ALONG PROPERTY LINES
BUILDING
FACE ----
F.F.
NEW ~
FOOTING-----· _
(24")
.. """"" r-
C
s
/
4
/
/
/
~
SCALE: 1"~ 2'
WALL/PL
Y.Topof
/ Slope
...
/I /
// l~EMPORARY 1-------y SLOPE /: /
// -: ~ BENCHING 7------~------:1' 1:~JECTION
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
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 4
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
l
1
I J
.J
POTENTIAL TSUNAMI RUNUP INUNDATION CAUSED BY A
SUBMARINE LANDSLIDE
Projcc:t Number: 2706
Dale: 200 a
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
.........
Scale: 1:60.,000
o,_.s ...... ,,,,_,,o"""""""""'o,...s..._=....,,.,,,,..1.5 Miler
EXPLANATION
Area that would be inundated by a
tsunami generated by a submarine
landslid9 offshore of Newport Beach
(areas at or lo\'ver than 3 2 foot elevation
.. ., Newport Beach City BoLmdary
---Sphere of I nfl usnce
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 5
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC .
PA2019-008
l
.}
: l
: l
:J
I ,J
Temporary Shoring Detail
NOTE: INSTALLATION TO EE VERIFIED.AT THE TIHE Of
CONSTRUCTION BY COAST 6EOTECHNICAL
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 6
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
--1
I
I J
I __ J
J
_J
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOGS
f
UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS OR NO 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
NO. 4 SIEVE 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 SILTS 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 SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY 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 I.D. SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
KEY TO SAMPLE TYPE: U = UNDISTURBED SAMPLE B = BULK S = SPT SAMPLE
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
. I
i
l !
l
. }
. I
' j
' f
J
I I
' }
.i
1
J
,J
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1.
2.
3.
(Text Supercedes)
12"
15"
18"
24"
24"
24"
24"
4 #5 Bars
2 Top
2 Bottom
5" Actual
#4 Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
15 mil
Membrane
#4 Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
Same as Adj.
Ext. Ftg.
4" Clean
Aggregate
12"
15"
18"
24"
24"
24"
24"
4 #5 Bars
2 Top
2 Bottom
5" Actual
#4 Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
15 mil
Membrane
#4 Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
Same as Adj.
Ext. Ftg.
4" Clean
Aggregate
Above Opt.
To
Depth of Ftg.
(No Testing)
Basement slabs shall have a minimum thickness of six inches.
12"
15"
18"
24"
24"
24"
24"
4 #5 Bars
2 Top
2 Bottom
5" Actual
#4Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
15 mil
Membrane
#4 Bars on
12"
Centers Both
Ways
Same as Adj.
Ext. Ftg.
4" Clean
Aggregate
110% of Opt
M/Cto
Depth
Footing
PLATEA
15" 15"
15" 15"
18" 18"
24" 30"
24" 36"
24" 30"
24" 36"
4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars
2Top 2 Top
2 Bottom 2 Bottom
5" Actual 5" Actual
#4 Bars on #4 Bars on
12" 12"
Centers Both Centers Both
Ways Ways
15 mil 15 mil
Membrane Membrane
#4 Bars on #4 Bars on
12" Center 12" Center
Both Ways Both Ways
Free Floating Free Floating
Same as Adj. Same as Adj.
Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg.
4" Clean 4" Clean
Aggregate Aggregate
130% of Opt 130% of Opt
MIC to Depth MIC to Depth
Footing Footing
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.
Aggregate should be ½-inch or larger.
PA2019-008
' --,
I I
r-1
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 I
Date: 1/4/2019 Elevation: E.G.
r 1 --en -->-·.
Cl)~ (.) .
Cl) .... Cl) ~ C
I-.2 C en :5 $ a. ~ I.. Cl) Q) Cl) en ~ E Description 0 .... a.. (lj (.) C ..c 0 en , l rJ) > m u: '6 0 (lj .... ·u5 rJ) C. u C z a.. ~~ Cl) l 0 0
I ~ U B u
···1 Brick and Concrete ( 4")
FILL: SAND ---silty, fine to medium-grained, dry to Tan to Tan Loose
I damp, with gravels Brown
-l NATIVE: SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, Tan to Light Medium
~ damp Gray Tan Dense
-I SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp Tan to Light Medium
15 3 3.9 Gray Dense
' { 5
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp Tan to Light Medium
J 19 4 5.5 Gray Dense
I SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, very Tan to Light Dense
31 2 15.4 moist to wet Gray
SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, wet Tan to Light Dense
I 34 5
-I
23.7 10 Tan Gray
-l SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, wet Tan to Light Dense
48 4 24.2 Tan Gray
J End of boring at 12.5 feet
Groundwater at 8 feet
Sands are subject to caving
J 15
J
l I ,.}
I Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 566418
J 2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California Plate B
J COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J
PA2019-008
r 1
--,
I
-1 I
I
i
I
-l
Date:
~ ·u5
C-.. (1)(5
0 a.. ~---
0
98.2
99.9
101.1
100.8
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2
1/4/2019 Elevation: E.G.
--Cl) -->,
Cl)~
()
Cl) ~ C :5 s 0. !:::, s... Cl) 0 +"' en ~ E .c Description 0 en
·o o C\:l +"' u 'ci.i
Cl) a. C ~~ Cl) 0 0 u U B
Brick and Concrete ( 4")
FILL: SAND ---slightly silty, fine to medium-Tan to Tan Loose to
grained, dry Brown Medium -Dense
2
2.8 SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, dry Tan Medium
Dense
-
3.2 SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, dry to Tan Medium
4 -damp Dense
-
5.8
6 -
-
14.8 SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, very Tan Medium
moist to wet Dense
8 -
End of boring at 8 feet -Groundwater at 8 feet
Sands are subject to caving
Boring pinches shut below groundwater
10-
-
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 566418
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California Plate C
COAST GEOTECHNJCAL, INC.
PA2019-008
r-1
l
-l
I )
l l
I
__J
J
SHEAR TEST RESULT
[ Boring No.1 @ 0 to 5 Feet (Re molded to 90%) )
O" CJ) u5 c.. ;g
CJ)
CJ)
5
4
~ 2
ci5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Remolded soil samples were tested at saturated conditions.
The sample had a dry density of 100.8 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 24.6 %.
Cohesion = 100 psf
Friction Angle = 32 degrees
Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate No. D
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
l -l
Cl) Cl)
[
5
4
~ 2 u5
SHEAR TEST RESULT
Boring No.2 @ 3.5 feet
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 99.9 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 25.2 %.
Cohesion = 50 psf
Friction Angle = 32 degrees
Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate No. E
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
7
l
' }
--C a,
(.) ,._
a, e:.
C: 0 ;
n3 :'2
0 ti)
C: 0 0
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
[ Boring No. 2 @ 3.5 Feet l
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot}
0.1 1 10
0.00
0--~
r--;i , __ --1.00 ~r-,...
~"'---............. -------..........
1"---. , ..
2.00 r--. r---...
1----~ "' ----" --~ I',._ ---" 3.00
.......,.
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
0 Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
• Test Specimen Submerged
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 566418
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, Californi'a Plate No. F
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Bearing Capacity Calculations are based on "Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory"
Bearing Material: Native soil
Properties:
Wet Density (y) = 11 o pcf
Cohesion (C) = 50 psf
Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees
Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet
Footing Width (B) = 1.3 feet
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 * 50 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.4 * 110 * 1.25 * 30.22
= 2306 + 5099 + 1662 = 9067 psf
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Square Footing
3022 psf
Use 1800 psf
Ou = 1.0 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.5 y B Ny (Continuous Footing)
= 1.0 * 50 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.5 * 110 * 1.25 * 30.22
= 177 4 + 5099 + 2077 = 8950 psf
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing
Oa11 = Ou/ F.S. =
Use 1800 psf
2983 psf
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate G
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
_l
l
. I
J
J
J
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
50 psf
Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees
Coefficient of Friction = tan ~
Therefore,
Coefficient of Friction = tan ~
= tan¢ = 0.625
Assumed H = 2 feet
Use 0.35
Pp= 0.5 y H2 tan2 ( 45° + ¢ / 2) + 2 CH tan ( 45° + ¢ / 2)
= 0.5 * 110 * 4 * 3.254 + 2 * 50 * 2 * 1.804
= 716 + 361 = 1077 lbs/ LF
1/2 EFP H2 = 1077 EFP: passive pressure
EFP = 539 psf / LF
Allowable Passive Pressure = 250 psf / LF ( with F.S. = 2.16 )
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate H
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
7 l
-l
l
-l
l
J
. J
l . I
J
J
J
J
J
··APPENDIX B
Liquefaction Analysis by SPT
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
L_ L_ L_ r I L..-..-~ L_~ 1..._. __
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS BY SPT
FOR BORING NO. 1
C = ( P / a ' )112 < 2 P = 2089 psf N a O , a
(N1)60 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs
CSR= Tav / a0' = 0.65 ( a0 I a0') rd ( amax / g)
_ _____ .. ;; 7 ____J 7 ----------1
:::•bc~:tffi • <~'~!~ ,. :~•:!.'~'•'' ~'~:~;· 6: ~:• ·~:.• . ~: .. ~ ~~:,~; ;.~·· ~~~;:: :P.;/;~ ~:=:~ .~~i ~:-,~ .... . .. ~.~''"'"
3 330.0 I 330.0 15 2.00 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 28.4 0.99 I 0.47 3 0.37 I 1.15 I 0.43 0.91
5 550.0 I 550.0 19 1.95 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 35.0 0.99 I 0.47 4 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 1.48
7 785.0 I 722.6 31 1.70 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 49.8 0.99 I 0.51 2 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 1.37
9 1035.0 I 847.8 34 1.57 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 50.4 0.98 I 0.56 5 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 1.23
11 1285.0 I 973.0 48 1.471 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20 66.5 0.98 I 0.61 4 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69 1.13
Note: 1. Moist unit weight of 110 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 6 feet
2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.723 g
3. According to Figure 7 .1, soil layers having (N1 )60 higher than 30 are not considered liquefiable.
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation I Work Order 566418
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California Plate M
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
__J
PA2019-008
7 !
l
im••Oa-~•.,~
Op()o-file Report 97--08
• Borehcl,; .Sit&
Plate 1.2 Hlstorleally Highest Ground Water Cootoors and Borehcle Log Data Looatlon:s, Newport Beach Quadrangle,
PA2019-008
7
r T
: l
J
I
I
I
00
101
I
20! J
QJ
4or
.£: !
I ' I
-= 501 0.
4l
C
60
I
70
I ' I I
sol
I I
90
100
0.1 0.2
CC"mcx)d rd=---(Tmax)r
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
I I I I I ! ;
i
I -· 1 -/.-J.:. > >f ht\~ 1
. ·,. i: . •, ~ . ·>:, :':--'.-:-,::.:-,. ·, .... ··:~~
0.9
·FIG. 1 -RANGE OF VALUES OF rd FOR DIFFERENT SOIL PROFILES
1.0
PA2019-008
\
J
_J
_J
J
J
J
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 Cs
Donut Hammer
Automatic Trip
Hammer
Borehole Diameter 65 mm to 115 mm Cs
150mm
200mm
Rod Length** 3mto4m CR
4mto6m
6rnto 10m
10mto30m
>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
(PJ cr\.)o.s;
0.4:::;CN:::;2 *
0.60 to 1.17
0.45 to 1.00
0.9 to 1.6
1.0
1.05
1.15
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.2
PA2019-008
r T
{
l
J
J
I .J
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
0.6-r-----------. .-37-,.----------------,
.29
Percent Fines = 35
I
I
15
O.Si-------+------+'---+----"!i------+-------1
CRR curves for 5,15, and
35 percent fines, respectively
FINES CONTENT~ 5%
Marainal No
Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction
Pan -American data ■ a
Japanese data • Q e
Chinese data A A
· 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
PA2019-008
{
I l
r I
l -I
-l
_J
I ,J
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
~ Cl.l ~
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
05
0
-+-Seed and Idriss, (1982) -i----~-~-----~......-1 -II-Idriss
5.0 6.0
x Ambraseys(1985)
rkshop ◊ Arango ( 1996)
7.0
♦ Arango (l 996)
----Andrus and Stokoe
A Youd and Noble, PL<20%
A Youd and Noble, PL<32%
.A Youd and Noble, PL<50%
8.0 9.0
Earthquake Magnitude, Mw
Figure 7.2. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators
(After Youd and Idriss, 1997)
51
PA2019-008
:J l
l
APPENDIXC
Calculations of Seismically Induced Settlement
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
I . l
I J
I , l
CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Calculations of seismically-induced settlement for the subject site are performed based
on the " Evaluation Of Settle_ment In Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking " 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)60 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs
Where CN = (Pa/ a0') 112 < 2, Pa= 2089 psf
(N1 )50 = corrected N value
= field N value
= correction factor depending on effective overburden pressure
a0' = effective overburden pressure, in psf
3. Calculate the maximum shear modulus
Gmax = 20 (N1)60 1/3 ( aa' ) 112
Gmax = maximum shear modulus,. in ksf
a' 0 = effective overburden pressure, in psf
4. From the depth in Figure 1, find the stress reduction coefficient, rd
5. Calculate Yeff (Gaff/ Gmax)
Yeff ( Gaff/ Gmax ) = 0.65 amax ao rd I ( g Gmax )
amax = 0.723 g and M = 7.2 ( for the subject site)
Yeff = effective shear strain induced by earthquake shaking
Geff = effective shear modulus at induced strain level
( cont'd )
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate N1
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
,. )
(
I
j
. I
!
--1
I -I
-l
-l
,J
J
I ,.J
CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
amax = maximum ground surface acceleration
a0 = total overburden pressure
g = acceleration of gravity
6. From Yeff ( Geff I Gmax) and a0' in Figure 2, find Yeff (cyclic shear strain)
7. From Yeff and (N1)60 in Figure 3, find cc.M. = 7.5 (volumetric strain due to compaction)
8. Interpolation from Table 1, cc.M. = 1.2 = 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 c c.M. = 1.2
10. Calculate the total settlement
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 566418
Plate N2
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-008
L__, ------"---~--r -~I~ ,---.I
SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF DRY SAND
FOR BORING NO. 1
!~~11 lll~f 11111i1 il;ii~ 111~~11111~~111 If ~11!1 l!IIM]lll1 11~~~~~1 !l!~lill llllli11\1! l~ij~~ffi~~i 111111111~~~i!ll'I!! !lt~i~!~! llt~~]i~!I 11~~~1~il l~~~~,~~t
1 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 330 330 15 28.4 1108 0.99 13.9 *10-5 40 *10-5 0.025 0.024 0.047 0.01
2 4.0 6.0 5.0 I 2.0 I 550 I 550 19 I 35.0 I 1534 I 0.99 I 16.7 *10-5 I 44 *10-5 1 0.020 I o.019 I 0.038 0.01
Based on : 1. Moist unit weight of 110 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 6 feet
2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0. 723 g
3. Gmax = 20 (N1 )50 1/3 ( ao' ) 1/2
4. Yeff ( Geff I Gmax) = 0.65 amax ao rd/ ( g Gmax)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TOTAL 0.02
Work Order 566418
Plate No. N3
PA2019-008
I
. j
-C:
C
'-
(./1
'-0
4,)
.i::..
f./)
-4
10
. -~ 10 '---~-_.___,_-J,.._....,_..._._.._._ __ _.__.__""'-"'--'--l-..:I....U-----"-----
10-5 ,o-4
Yeff {Getf /Gma,J
. . .
FIG~ ·:z. -PLOT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDUCED STRAIN
I
IN SAND DEPOSITS
PA2019-008
-I
l
: I
I __ _J
u
LJ ..
C
0
C:
0
"--V,
-~ '--
~5 ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' '\
'
' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' '\
'
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' .,
' '
' ' '\
15 Cycles
' '
' '
' '
' '\
'
'
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '\.
' ' ........
FIG. ·3 -RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUMETRIC STRAIN; SHEAR STRAIN, ·
AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE FOR DRY SANDS.
PA2019-008
I
-j
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
cycles at 0.65 Tma.x
(2)
26
15
10
5
2-3
Volumetric strain ratio,
Ec;N / Ec,-N-1s
(3)
1.25 ·
LO
0.85
0.6
0.4
PA2019-008
I
-I
I
l
-J
I
C J
,__l
J
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
CRR1.s = 1 + bx + dx 2 + fx 3 + hx 4
(4)
where CRR7_5 is the cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes; x = (N1)60; a= 0.048; b
= -0.1248; c = -0.004721; d = 0.009578; e = 0.0006136; f= -0.0003285; g = -1.673E-05; and h =
3.714E-06. Th.is equation is valid for (N1)60 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. (1~85) 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 ~vailable, Seed et al. developed CRR curves for various fines contents as shown on Figure 2.
After a lengthy review by the workshop participants, consensus was gained that the correction for
fines content should be a function of penetration resistance as well as fines content. The participants
also agreed that other grain characteristics, such as soil plasticity may affect liquefaction resistance;
hence any correlation based solely on penetration resistance and fines content should be used with
~ngineering judgement and caution. The following equations, developed by I.M. Idriss with
assistance from R.B. Seed are recommended for correcting standard penetration reststance
detennined for silty sands to an equivalent clean sand penetration resistance:
where ex and p are coefficients detennined from. the following equations:
a=O
· a= exp[l.76 -(19O/FC2)]
a=S.O
P=l.O
p = [0.99 + (FC1.5/1OOO)]
p = 1.2
for FC s; 5%
for 5% < FC < 35%
forFC ~ 35%
forFC ~ 5%
for 5% <FC < 35%
forFC ~ 35% .
(5)
(6a)
(6b)
(6c)
(7a)
(7b)
(7c)
where FC is the fines content measured from laboratory gradation tests on retrieved soil samples.
7
PA2019-008
7
LJ
l __ J
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards ln California ·
0.6r---~r-------r-----.------,-------
Volumetric Strain-%
0.5 10 5 4 3 2 0.5
I
I
0.4
ImL
a;.' 0
0.3
0.2
·0.1
.,
I
I
I ,'
I ./.,0.2 . I I
I I
l I
/. //p.t
I I 1
I I I I I·/ / I /
I I I I I I
'/ / / / I
/ / / I / I I / / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / / ./
/ / /,/'
// // // // '//
'// '// 1// 1/✓
1/
10 40 50
Figure 7.11. Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio, (N1)60 and Volumetric Strain
for Saturated Clean Sands and Magnitude= 7.5 (After Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987)
60
PA2019-008
_r _ L_ L_, L_ L_, _r -~ ___J ~-_J __] __J
SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF SATURATED SOILS
FOR BORING NO. 1
lll~l~~ll ll~~l~t~~II !llll~~~ltilll 11111~;),1111111~ijij~~llllf 1~111111i~illlllj l!ii~lllli!lli~ffiij~u~'~lllll11Mffl~~l~lilil lll~m~l!llllllll~f-~lil'111i~~~@IJfil~ 11111■~~~11111
1 6.0 8.0 2.0 I 49.8 2 o.oo I 1.00 49.8 0.51
2 8.0 10.0 2.0 I 50.4 5 o.oo I 1.00 50.5 0.56
3 10.0 12.0 2.0 I 66.5 4 o.oo I 1.00 66.5 0.61
Note: 1. Groundwater at 6 feet, magnitude of 7.2, and peak ground acceleration of 0.723 g
2. (N1 )50 cs = a + /3 (N1)60
3. For volumetric strain refer to Figure 7.11
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2016 East Ocean Front
Newport Beach, California
1.15
1.15
1.15
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
0.44 0.0 0.00
0.49 0.0 0.00
0.53 0.0 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
Work Order 566418
Plate No. 0
l ___J
PA2019-008
, l
j
j
j
j
j
j
2016 East Ocean Front, Newport Beach, CA 92661, USA
Latitude, Longitude: 33.596126, -117.88619699999998
Date
Design Code Reference Document
Risk Category
1/14/2019, 2:43:31 PM
ASCE?-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
0.633
1.722
0.95
1.148
0.633
Value
D
1.5
0.714
0.714
8
1.722
1.93
3.217
0.633
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
MCEG 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
PA2019-008
·-1
r1
rl
,-,
, l
~
ct! Cl)
MCER Response Spectrum
2.0
1.5 r\
........
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
.... \
\ .\
' '1~
I
2.5 5.0
Period, T (sec)
............ Sa(g)
Design Response Spectrum
1.5
1.0 n
""_,,.,\
0.5 \
0.0
0.0
'-~-
2.5
I
5.0
Period, T (sec)
-Sa(g)
j
7.5
!
7.5
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, §.!;6.QQ /_Q§.t!P.Q. and its sponsors and contribut_ors 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.
PA2019-008
, I
I
: l
: I
:--1.
: I
I
-j
J
. I
l_j
J
J
J
J
J
APPENDIXC
City Records Search Data
PA2019-008
J
L l
J
J
Lj
.J
J
EXPLO~ATION LOG
Project: Proposed Additions to Existing Residence
Location: 2016 E. Ocean Front, Newport Beach
Job No.: 254-01 Client: Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman
Drill Method: Hand Auger Driving Weight: Hand Driven
Material Description
Depth Lith-
(Feet) ology
· ,: TOPSOIL 1
Silty Sand (SM}: Black; very moist; loose to medium dense; fin -to
coarse-grained sand~ abundance of roots and rootlets. i
-
-
----'
-5-
MARINE SANDS
Sand (SP): Light yeHowish-brown; moist; medium dense; fine-r
medium-grained sand; abundance of she[! fragments.
Decrease in shel1 fragments.
.__ -
E ~ ... 0 I.? ~ tu CL ..., a.. (!)
9 ;,;
N s
(!) 0 ..J z 0 ~ 0 ..,/. ~
--·
-Increase in moisture.
-10-. •'
,•
....... - · Encountered groundwater. I
Total Depth= 11.25 feet
Groundwater at 11 feet
No Caving
Hole backfilled with excavated soils.
I
Petra GeotechnicaJ, Inc.
Boring No.:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
w Samples
a· Blows C B t Per 0 U
e r I
r Foot e k
----
[
--
[
---
--
[
If: -i--
B .. 1
13
5/31/01
EG
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content
(%)
4.6
6.4
7.2
Ory
Density
(pct)
IOL6
93.6
88.0
Other
Lab
Tests
MAX
pH
RES
DSU
PLATEA-!
PA2019-008
-I
'J
0 a3 ul
b 0
J ~ .... w Q..
-, a. (.!)
LJ
9 ~ N
N ~
CJ 0 ~
,J z 0 ~ 0 ..l ~
J
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Propos~d Additions to Existing Residence
Location: 2016 E. Ocean Front, Newport Beach
Job No.: 254-01 Client: Mr. and Mrs. Acker an
I
DriJ 1 Method; Hand Auger Driving Weight: Hand Driven
Depth
(feet)
-
Lith-
ology
Material Description
... TOPSOIL i · · Silty Sand (SM): Black; mofat; fine .. to coarse-grained sand; loo e
. . upper 4 inches becomes medium dense below; abundance of ro s and
rootlets.
Sand (SP): Light yellowish-brown; slightly moist; loose to medi m MARINE SANDS t
dense; fine-to medium-grained sand; caving slightly.
I
--.: .. · :-. ·. Increase in moisture and density.
.. . . . --
--..
Total depth == 6.0 feet
No groundwater
No Caving
Hole backfiIIed with excavated soils.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc .
Boring No.: B-2
Elevation: 13
Date: 5/31/01
Logged By: EG
Samples Laboratory Tests Wi---.,..-,r-1-----,..---....-----1
a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other ! Per ~ t Content Density Lab
c Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests
-3.6 95.1
i.-
---6.8 93.8
-
PLATE A-2
PA2019-008
I
I J
J
Mr. and Mrs. Ackerman
2016 E. Ocean Front, Newport Beach
Test Pit Depth
Number __(ftJ_
TP-1
0.0-0.5
0.5 -2.0
PETRA GEOTECHNJCAL~ INC.
J.N. 254-01
TEST PIT LOG
Description
TOPSOIL
Silty Sand (SM): Black; moist; loose upper 4 inches
becomes medi]m dense belowi fine-to-coarse
grained sand; a undance of coarse gravel; abundance
of roots and ro tlets.
@ 1.0 feet: Encbuntered approximateJy 3-inch
diameter PVC Jipe with gravel bedding.
MARINE SANDS l
Sand (Sp): ligh yellow-brown, moist, medium dense
to dense, fine t medium grained.
Depth of Existi1g Footing-9 inches
Total Depth -2 jO feet
I.
I I
PA2019-008
r I,___ L_ L_
.-·: ... ~ _:~=~ -·· -
·...:,: ::: . .-·: .· :.; ..
} ...
I • ••• :· ._,
·. ·.
! : I
. . . j
:.:_· I
I.· I
Q . -!±: .. -· , I ~~1--. :._ ~--·. -~--._· I
.1· ..
1 \Ii i0;
;J
L__ L_
. I
r , __ _ 7 __ _j
l L-----...--MP--j" I I I I/ --
/ r• I -~ - . . < ~ . . ' j-· 1--~ ~: •. -·. l--=-~---~---\-'-~]l ~~--7 I
. .. II . r
~~L : -
E:")('l~iliJt;;-
~lO&(J&"6
1+.o r.F.
D~4S, .. I \ \)_ ·1· I ll
J_1 \
I
.-. L__ l • I I I 11 I j Ii ii ' - --"T"~---;,. \-
'T == ~ ~ -110.4 ...
I
I' I I I I' I Ill It a·t-1
.i~.& .1 loi-u·) \
. ~N -()
.~Xl6Tl!-IGr ~
I . I
__J
!z-
()
~ .1L
z ~ \}
!
it)-~~-~~~~
;~} f\ ::~/~~•~ 1•-·. ~-~:~~·:•••!--. -~--~l~~]~ \~I I
.--·· ··----+---·-----------+---1H--~ .. J: __ _ G-A~~
10..-. r.~
I • ~ --~-----: ' / • • • • • • . I --~,; .s,LJ ~-··. , ' . . ~
.. ~(>Pl>
-: :-. ~ ··}:~~~-:~~ , -~?tJitrt -SITE PLAN
1/8..,,.1'-0"
-c:, e.
'." .: .. -~~~~i-... : . TIM NICOL -ARCHITECTURE
EXPLANATION
_ _j
<i~(_:~-
! • ... ]<, 0 .... .Ek2...... Location of Exploratory Borings and Test Pit . W/1/%1 ··= ~ Cf J!.m"floN (!!. I-sf f1-f2· •. -TP-1
RA GEOJECHN -: .. '· . -;~~: ...
___ ] __j
cit.
PA2019-008