Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2021-300_20211217_Geotechnical Investigation_12-15-21December 15, 2021 Steve and Vinnie Haag Project No: 72615-00 24828 Rose Park Court Report No: 21-9054 Newhall, California 91321 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Single-Family Residence 4003 Marcus Avenue Newport Beach, California INTRODUCTION This report presents findings and conclusions of a preliminary geotechnical investigation undertaken to relate onsite and certain regional geotechnical conditions to the construction of a new single-family residence on the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon a review of conceptual architectural plans for the property prepared by Toblesky Greene Architects. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence of finalized foundation and grading plans, the formulation of which are partially dependent upon the recommendations presented herein. Scope of Investigation The investigation included the following: 1.Analysis of pertinent reports, maps, aerial photographs, historic laboratory and boring data, and published literature pertaining to the site and nearby areas, as well as project plans, in order to relate geotechnical conditions to proposed construction. 2.Advance one cone penetration test (CPT) to approximately 12.5 feet in order to further evaluate the geotechnical conditions and to perform a liquefaction analysis. 3.Analyses of data and the preparation of this geotechnical report presenting conclusions and recommendations for site development in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code and the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policies. This report is suitable for use by your design professionals, contractors, and submittal to the City of Newport Beach. STONEY MILLER GEOFIRM CONSULTANTS, INC. 33 JOURNEY, SUITE 200 · ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 · 949-380-4886 PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 2 Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Figure 1 - USGS Geologic Location Map Figure 2 - CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map Figure 3 - Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Figure 4 - Typical Slab Subdrain Detail Figure 5 - Geotechnical Plot Plan Appendix A - References Appendix B - Exploration Logs Appendix C - Liquefaction Analysis Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications Appendix E - Utility Trench Backfill Guidelines Site Description The generally rectangular-shaped property fronts 30± feet along Marcus Avenue and extends easterly 100.0± feet to the rear property boundary along the Rivo Alto Waterway. The lot is generally flat with a gradient sloping from a high point of 8.5 feet on the northwest side yard (NAVD88) to a low point of 7.5 feet in the southern portion of the lot. The existing 0.07-acre property is improved with a two-story wood-framed structure and perimeter hardscape. The home is separated from a similar, two-story residences on it’s southeast and northwest sides. Proposed Development Based on a review of conceptual plans prepared by Toblesky Green Architects, proposed site development generally consists of the demolition of the existing residence to facilitate construction of a new two-story, single-family residence of wood and steel frame structure, and exterior hardscaping. The new residence is anticipated to be supported on a stiffened mat foundation system constructed in new engineered fill as recommended herein. The proposed residence first floor elevation will be raised approximately 18 inches above current grades to an elevation of 10 feet. No significant retaining walls are anticipated at this time. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting The property is located on Newport Isle adjacent to Newport Bay as depicted on the USGS Geologic Index Map, Figure 1. Review of old topographic maps indicates that prior to dredging of Newport Bay, the site location was a low lying, likely intertidal area adjacent to a shallow channel of the natural bay. The site is underlain at a depth in excess of 50 feet by an accumulation of intertidal bay and beach deposits and subsequent dredge fill placed during land reclamation. A younger generation of fill from construction of the existing roads and residence may underlie portions of the property at the surface. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 3 Earth Materials The bedrock underlying the property at significant depth is assigned to strata of the Monterey Formation on the basis of regional mapping. Where exposed offsite on local bluffs, strata of the Monterey consists of weakly cemented sequences of siltstone and claystone forming a laminated to thinly bedded shale. This material was not observed during our exploration and is not anticipated to be encountered during construction at the site. Based upon nearby studies, review of regional geologic mapping, and our onsite investigation the site is underlain at depth by intertidal bay deposits, which are successively overlain by dredge fill. Intertidal bay deposits generally consist of about 18-inches of very dark gray, variably silty and clayey bay mud, overlying saturated, medium dense, fine to medium quartzo-feldspathic sand with some organic matter. Dredge fill overlies the intertidal bay/beach deposits and consists of 5.5± feet of tan light-brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium grained quartzo-feldspathic sand with many shell fragments. Following demolition, the pad will be raised and the upper 2± feet of fill below existing grade is considered unsuitable in its present form to support new structural loads but may be removed and recompacted to produce acceptable engineered fill. Onsite materials are non- expansive on the basis of visual classification, and are anticipated to be corrosive in the marine environment. Groundwater Exploratory testing onsite and on nearby properties encountered groundwater at depth of 5+ feet below ground surface (approximately elevation 3+ feet (NAVD88)). This groundwater level is anticipated to experience some fluctuation in response to the tidal cycle and/or during periods of heavy rain. The design groundwater level is recommended to be equal to an elevation of 3.5 ± feet (NAVD88). Surface Runoff and Street Flooding Proposed development will modify and may increase post-development surficial discharge, which must be controlled by appropriate civil engineering design. Localized street flooding associated with heavy rains and high tides has been a recurrent phenomenon in the Newport Bay communities. The potential for street flooding affecting proposed development should be evaluated by the project civil engineer. Seismic Considerations Published Studies One of the principals of seismic analyses and prediction is the premise that earthquakes are more likely to occur on geologically younger faults, and less likely to occur on older faults. For many years studies have described faults with Holocene movement (within the last 11,700 years) as “Active”, and faults with documented Pleistocene movement (within the last 1.6 million years) and with undetermined Holocene movement as “Potentially Active”. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 4 Informally, many studies have described faults documented to have no Holocene movement as “Inactive”. Recent geologic and seismic publications are attempting to clarify the nomenclature describing faults to more accurately represent the potential affects from earthquakes. Reports by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicate faults with documented Holocene or Historic (within the last 200 years) movement should be considered Active. However, Potentially Active faults are more appropriately characterized in terms of the last period of documented movement. The Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, C.W.; 2010) defines three categories for onshore Potentially Active faults. The categories are associated with the time of the last displacement evidenced on a given fault and are summarized in Table 1. Table 1, Definitions of Fault Activity in California Activity Category Recency of Movement Active Historic Within the last 200 years Holocene Within the last 11,700 years Potentially Active Late Quaternary Within the last 700,000 years Quaternary Within the last 1.6 million years Pre-Quaternary Before the last 1.6 million years It is important to note these categories embrace all Pre-Holocene faults as Potentially Active, and provide no methodology to designate a given fault as “Inactive”. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding. Local and Regional Faults The closest published active fault to the site is the offshore extension of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 0.5 miles northwest, (CGS, 2005). Other active faults in the vicinity of the site include the San Joaquin Hills, approximately 5.8 miles northeast, the Palos Verdes Fault, approximately 12.6 miles to the west-northwest; the Coronado Bank Fault, approximately 23.6 miles southwest; the Elsinore Fault, approximately 24.3 miles to the east, and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 47.8 miles to the northeast. The California Geological Survey updated the Fault Parameters and Earthquake Catalog for the probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps in 2002. This update included the addition of the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault indicated above, theorized to exist from Newport Beach to Dana Point, and ramping up inland to the Irvine area, and essentially underlying the site. Earthquakes of Magnitude 7.0+ are presently postulated for this structure. With the Newport- Inglewood fault’s location at approximately 1.1 miles distant, and a calculated possible magnitude 7.2 event, it is calculated as the most significant seismic source to affect the subject site. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 5 Historic Ground Motion Analyses The USGS earthquake catalog indicates that the maximum historic site acceleration from 1800 to 2020 was approximately 0.3g and occurred during the magnitude 6.3 Long Beach Earthquake 3.6 miles from the site on March 11, 1933. It is noted that the estimation of historic peak ground acceleration presented above is provided for the interest of the client and is required by local (City or County) review agencies. The value derived is not directly utilized in structural design of residential structures. Seismic parameters for use by the structural engineer in accordance with 2019 California Building Code in design of the proposed structure(s) are presented in the recommendations portion of this report. Site Classification for Seismic Design For the purposes of determining seismic design parameters provided in the Recommendations portion of this report pertaining to the new structures, the upper one hundred feet of soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC and Section 20.1 of ASCE 7-16. Although the soils underlying the site are liquefiable and defined as site class F per the 2019 CBC, requiring a site-response analysis, proposed new structures are anticipated to have fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds (to be verified by the structural engineer). As such, Section 20.3.1 in ASCE 7-16 provides an exception that indicates such liquefiable sites may be classified in accordance with Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 without performing a site-specific evaluation. Given the exception and the results of our onsite and nearby field investigations, which indicate the site is predominantly underlain by dredge fill and sedimentary deposits with average N-values between 15 and 50, seismic design criteria may be calculated using a site classification of D. However, the Site Class remains F. Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (California Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) identifies the site and all of the Newport/Balboa peninsula and harbor within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. In accordance with City of Newport Beach Building Code Policies CBC-1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12, our office has performed an analysis for liquefaction potential based on the cone penetration test data collected during our onsite investigation. Based on the results of our analysis presented in Appendix C, which indicates liquefaction settlement within the zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation level is less than 1-inch, a stiffened foundation system or mat slab designed in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation Methods” is recommended. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 6 Tsunami Appraisal No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (Legg et al, 2003) provides a framework for understanding the impact of locally seismic and/or landslide generated tsunamis. Based on the results of this work, typical maximum run-up heights were estimated to vary from 1 to 1.5 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of unknown bathymetry on wavefield interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run-up heights could range from 2 meters, or more. Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, Figure 2, indicates this lot is not located within a “zone of required investigation” for earthquake induced landslides, but is located in a liquefaction hazard zone. Please refer to the Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential above for more information. Other secondary seismic hazards can include deep rupture, shallow ground cracking, and tsunami inundation. With the absence of active faulting onsite, the potential for deep fault rupture is not present. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. Regarding tsunami inundation, please refer to the appropriate section above for more information. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed development at the subject site is considered geotechnically feasible provided recommendations herein are integrated into design, construction, and long- term maintenance. Proposed construction should not affect or be affected by adjacent properties providing appropriate construction methods and care is utilized during construction. 2. The property is underlain at a significant depth by bedrock strata of the Monterey Formation, which are successively overlain by tidal bay/beach deposits, and 5± feet of dredge fill. 3. The upper 2± feet of existing dredge fill is considered unsuitable in its present form to support new foundations but may be removed and recompacted to produce acceptable engineered fill, pending observation by a licensed geologist. 4. Granular onsite soils are non-expansive and are expected to be corrosive in the marine environment. Concrete in a marine environment should consider a moderate sulfate exposure for design purposes. The concrete mix should be designed by a concrete expert in consideration of structural requirements. The appropriate exposure should be evaluated by the architect and/or structural engineer. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 7 5. No active faults are known to transect the site and therefore the site is not expected to be adversely affected by surface rupturing. It will, however, be affected by ground motions from earthquakes during the design life of the residence. 6. Liquefaction analysis performed in accordance with City Building Code Policies CBC- 1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12 indicates seismic settlement in the zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation level is less than 1-inch. Therefore, a mat slab or stiffened foundation system designed in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation Methods” is recommended. 7. Groundwater was recorded at a depth of 5+ feet below ground surface. Groundwater will fluctuate based on tidal conditions and other factors, and likely will be a design and construction constraint depending on the depth of improvements and excavations. The design groundwater level is recommended to be 3.5± feet (NAVD88). 8. The potential for street flooding to affect the residence during its lifetime is deferred to the project civil engineer. 9. Surface discharge onto or off the site should be appropriately controlled with proper engineering design and site grading and are deferred to the project civil engineer. 10. The residence should be founded in competent recompacted engineered backfill utilizing a mat slab or stiffened foundation system. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading 1. General Grading is anticipated to consist of remedial over-excavation and minor export of soils to construct proposed building pad and foundation subgrades. Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein and the Standard Grading Specifications in Appendix D. Processing, over-excavation and re-compaction should be observed, tested and approved in writing by a representative of this firm. 2. Remedial Grading and Subgrade Preparation Remedial grading is recommended to include removal and re-compaction of existing loose dredge fill to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing site grades. Locally deeper removals may be required pending field review by the geologist. Imported fill material is anticipated to achieve the proposed pad grades. As groundwater may be a construction nuisance during high tide levels, saturated conditions may be encountered during over-excavation grading. In this instance, subgrade stabilization, such as the placement of geotextile filter fabric, crushed rock, PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 8 and another layer of filter fabric should be anticipated prior to placement of backfill. Typically, a crushed rock layer of at least 1 foot is adequate. 3. Removal of Existing Improvements Existing vegetation, organic materials and/or construction and demolition debris should be removed and disposed of offsite. 4. Compaction Standard Onsite soil materials are anticipated to be suitable for re-use as compacted fill provided they are free of rubble and debris. Materials should be placed at 120 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the soil engineer to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 5. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary slopes exposing onsite materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that the onsite soils may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) may be appropriate; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the contractor during construction. The safety of temporary construction slopes is deferred to the general contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). Shoring should be anticipated where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback, or in any location where onsite personnel may be in close proximity to open excavations. Shoring also should be anticipated where wet materials exist. Foundation Design Parameters Due to the potential for liquefaction at the site, we recommend that a stiffened foundation or mat slab be used for the proposed structure in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy No. CBC-1803.5.11-12. Such a foundation system should be founded on properly compacted fill derived from onsite materials. 1. Bearing Capacity and Settlement The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab placed on approved recompacted fill with a thickness of 12 inches or more is 2000 pounds per square foot. Foundation settlement from structural loading is estimated to be ¾ inch total and ½ inch differential over a distance of 20 feet. Foundation settlement should occur mostly during construction. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 9 2. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction acting on the bottom of foundations. Passive pressure may be computed from an equivalent fluid density of 150 pounds per cubic foot above the groundwater table, not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used in computing the frictional resistance. These values may be combined without reduction. 3. Reinforcement Foundations and slabs should be reinforced in conformance with the requirements of the structural engineer. From a geotechnical viewpoint, a minimum of two No. 5 bars should be incorporated at the top and bottom of continuous footings in order to reduce the potential for cracking during seismic shaking or as a result of subsurface imperfections. Monitoring Complete documentation of the pre- and post-construction conditions of adjacent improvements should be undertaken. In addition, monitoring of ground movement and construction vibrations should be made as an integral part of the construction. Such documentation should include: 1. A sufficient number of photographs to establish the existing condition of nearby structures. 2. Establishment of a sufficient number of ground elevation control stations so that potential subsidence or heave associated with grading and lateral movement can be detected. Monitoring of such points should be accomplished during all grading, shoring (if any) and excavation work, and continued until retaining walls are backfilled or site grading is complete. 3. Ground vibration monitoring during construction to capture peak particle velocities of drilling, tracking, and excavation activities is recommended. Vibration monitors should be Sigicom model C-22 tri-axial geophones or equivalent. Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations embedded in recompacted fill designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented above. Foundations should have a design depth of 18 inches or more. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 6 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principal foundation elements should be sealed and drained. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 10 Flatwork elements should be a minimum 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at 16 inches on center both ways. Seismic Design Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided by the USGS (ASCE 7-16) to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria: Table 2, Site and Seismic Design Criteria for 2019 CBC Design Parameters1 Recommended Values Site Class Site Longitude (degrees) Site Latitude (degrees) Ss (g) B S1 (g) B SMs (g) D SM1 (g) D SDs (g) D SD1 (g) D Fa Fv Seismic Design Category F -117.9350 33.6196 1.387 0.495 1.387 0.894 0.925 0.596 1.0 1.805 D 1This evaluation assumes the fundamental period of vibration of proposed structures does not exceed 0.5 second. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code, Section 1804.4 is recommended. Roofs should be guttered and discharge conducted away from the house in a non-erosive manner as specified by the project civil engineer or landscape architect. Proper interception and disposal of all onsite surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape architectural design. Concrete On-site concrete may be exposed to seawater. It is recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural and exposure requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is recommended that the 2019 California Building Code, Section 1904.1 be utilized, which refers to ACI 318, Table 4.3. The appropriate exposure should be evaluated by the architect and/or structural engineer. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 11 Foundation Plan Review In order to help assure conformance with recommendations of this report and as a condition of the use of this report, the undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications prior to submission of such to the building official for issuance of permits. Such review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the design concept and the information provided herein. This review shall not include review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Geofirm’s review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that Geofirm has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Construction Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. Geofirm shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix E, Utility Trench Backfill Guidelines. It is the owners and contractors responsibility to inform subcontractors of these requirements and to notify Geofirm when backfill placement is to begin. Jobsite Safety Neither the professional activities of Geofirm, nor the presence of Geofirm’s employees and subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and coordination the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. Geofirm and its personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their work or any health or safety programs or procedures. The General Contractor shall be solely responsible for jobsite safety. Pre-Grade Meeting A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the owner, contractor, architect, civil engineer, soils engineer, engineering geologist, and building official prior to commencement of construction to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 12 Observation and Testing The 2019 California Building Code, Section 1705.6 requires geotechnical observation and testing during construction to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling. A Geofirm representative shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the progress and quality of the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow Geofirm, as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the work is proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Geofirm shall not supervise, direct, or have control over the Contractor’s work nor have any responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected by the Contractor nor the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of the Contractor, subcontractor, any entity performing any portion of the work, or any agents or employees of any of them. Geofirm does not guarantee the performance of the Contractor and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contractor documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. These observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing geotechnically involved phases of construction is that of the owner and his contractor. Typically, at least 24 hours’ notice is required. PA2021-300 December 15, 2021 Project No: 72615-00 Report No: 21-9054 Page No: 13 LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty is offered or implied. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply a control of nature. As site geotechnical conditions may alter with time, the recommendations presented herein are considered valid for a time period of one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report in any form cannot be approved unless specific written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is obtained from this firm. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOFIRM Kevin A. Trigg, P.G. Russell C. Lamb, P.E. Chief Engineering Geologist, E.G.1619 Chief Geotechnical Engineer, G.E. 2207 Date Signed: 12/ 15 / 21 KAT/RCL:hsm Distribution: Addressee Via Email Russell C.Lamb,PPPPPP.PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP E. innnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.GG E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.E.22222222222222222222220202020202020202020202020202020202020202777777777777777777777 KeKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKvin AAA.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Tririiririiiririririiiiiiriiririiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg, ,,P.PPPPPP G.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Chief EnEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEgineering Geologggggisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PA2021-300 JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:USGS Geologic Location Map, Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle72615-00December 20211Haag Property4003 Marcus AvenueNewport Beach. . . New po rt· -~each . . ...... . . . . . . . . ~ r-....... -Fi .. rr-, ~ L..::::J '= ...... . . . PA2021-300 JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle72615-00December 20212Haag Property4003 Marcus AvenueNewport Beach..,__ "--~ "-, ~----+ --~~ ~~. ~' ....... -"--·-. .. ~ ,,, ~ \ .. ,. C> ., ./ " NEWPOR',f_BE'..A~ ' I •, v 1rJ ·· '·-?() ~ .. ~ r----Fi .. .., ~ L.:::::I ca._.. C) 0 MAP EXPLANATION Zones of Required Investigation: Liquefaction Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. Earthquake-Induced Landslides Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. --. "'--. PA2021-300 JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE: Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail 72615-00 December 2021 3 Onsite Native Soil Cap for exterior ; (1.5'-2.0' MAX. thick)Select Noncohesive Granular Backfill (SE >30) Retaining Wall Footing Geotextile Filter Fabric 4" Perforated Plastic Collector Pipe (Below Adjacent Finish Grade) Single-sized 1/2"- 3/4" Drain Rock (1 cubic foot per lineal foot) Limit of Wall Excavation - See Report for Recommended Geometery Typical Retaining Wall Notes:This system consists of a geotextile fabric-wrapped gravel envelope. Collection is with a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe embedded in the gravel envelope and tied to a 4-inch diameter non-perforated plastic pipe which discharges at convenient locations. The outlet pipe should be placed such that the flow gradient is not less than 2.0 percent. The geotextile fabric- wrapped gravel envelope should be placed at a similar gradient All drain pipes should be Schedule 40 PVC or ABS SDR-35. Perforations may be either bored 1/4-inch diameter holes or 3/16-inch slots placed on the bottom one-third of the pipe perimeter. If the pipe is to be bored, a minimum of 10 holes should be uniformly placed per foot of length. If slots are made, they should not exceed 2-1/2 inches in length and should not be closer than 2 inches. Total length of slots should not be less than 50 percent of the pipe length and should be uniformly spaced. The fabric pore spaces should not exceed equivalent 30 mesh openings or be less than equivalent 100 mesh openings. The fabric should be placed such that a minimum lap of 8-inches exists at all splices. 12"-18" Finish Grade - Design May Vary per Architect or Civil Engineer Alternative Weep Hole(s) for Exterior Applications, Design per Architect or Civil Engineer ~ c:::;; Gil c::I -Fir-rT""'1 PA2021-300 JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE: Typical Slab Subdrain Detail 72615-00 December 2021 4 12" Gravel Blanket Single Sized 1/2 to 3/4-inch Drain Rock Geotechnically suitable subgrade Geotextile Filter Perforated 4" PVC Schedule 40 Drain Pipe, or equivalent 12" min 12" min Concrete Slab 1/2 to 3/4-inch Rock 15 mil Vapor Retarder ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦·•···········································~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦◄ •♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦◄ •♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT~♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦·---+..------♦-----♦-♦,---it..:~t••··············· . . .... ~ STONEY MILLER GEOFIRM CONSULTANTS. INC. 33 JOURNEY, SUITE 200 • ALISO VIUO, CA 92656 · 949-380-4886 -♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦-!♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦-♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... ~♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦--♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦• -♦♦♦♦· ►♦♦♦♦♦-!♦♦♦♦· ►♦♦♦♦♦-::::: ::::::~ ♦♦♦♦· ►♦♦♦♦♦.II ~·································· -♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦• -♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦t• = = i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦~::.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ~ :::::::::::::·· ♦♦,::::::♦♦♦ ♦♦♦t ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ~.. ♦♦♦♦♦♦~ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ , ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.111 ~♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦] 1············ -♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦• -♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦-!::::::::::~~ ~ ::::::::::::-♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.,. ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •• ~.-~.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.II PA2021-300 MARC U S AVEN U E EXIST C U R B & G U T T E R D / W N 37°13'30'' W 30.0 0' D / W 2.9' RIDG E E L. = 3 2.2' CONC. D E C K & D E C O RA TI V E F E N C E N 37° 13' 30'' W 30.00' RIVO ALT O W A T E R W A YGAS METERF.L. 8.00F.F. 8.98N 52°46'51''E100.00'( CONC. )RIDGE EL. = 31.2'F.F. 8.80G.F. 8.318.0'10'( CONC. )XPLANTERXXXXXXXXN 52°46'51''E 100.00'G.F. 8.18EXIST. PLASTIC FENCE ONCONC. CURBF.L. 7.25F.S. 8.47T.C. 7.29EXIST. RESIDENCEF.S. 8.36EXIST. LOW RETAINING WALL( HT. 10.0 )F.S. 8.85EXIST. RESIDENCEEXIST. RESIDENCEFIRE PIT( CONC. )EXIST. WOOD FENCEF.S. 8.55W.M.F.S. 8.92F.F. 8.8515'F.F. 8.90EDIS O N F.S. 8.193.3'T.C. 7.74SEWER C.O.F.S. 8.58F.S. 8.22F.S. 8.91F.S. 7.75F.S. 8.18F.S. 8.36F.S. 8.48F.S. 7.47SEWER C.O.F.S. 7.91TOP OF WALL 7.49F.G. 7.0F.S. 8.55INLETF.G. 7.5F.S. 8.00F.S. 8.13F.S. 8.03F.S. 7.49F.S. 8.26F.S. 8.20F.S. 7.69F.S. 7.94F.S. 8.07GEOTECHNICAL PLOT PLAN4300 MARCUS AVENUENEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA72615-00DECEMBER 20205JOB NO.:REPORT NO.:DATE:21-9054FIGURE:SCALE: 1"=20'CPT-1DfARTIFICIAL FILLINTERTIDAL BAY DEPOSITSAPPROXIMATE CPT LOCATIONEXPLANATIONQbCPT-1/HA-1HA-1APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER BORINGLOCATIONDfQb@5.5'\ \ \ \ \ \ \ f l i 0 I ~ t PA2021-300 APPENDIX A REFERENCES PA2021-300 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Al Atik, Linda, M. ASCE, and Sitar, Nicholas, M.ASCE, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October. 2. California Building Code, 2019 Edition. 3. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle.” 4. California Geological Survey, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. 5. Geofirm, 2005, “Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Proposed Single Family Residence, 801 Via Lido Soud, Newport Beach, California”, dated August 29, Project No. 71561-00, Report No. 05-5549. 6. Geofirm, 2007, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Single Family Residence, 149 Via Venezia, Newport Beach, California”, dated January 24, Project No. 71702-00, Report No. 07-5967. 7. Geofirm, 2017, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Single Family Residence, 941 Via Lido Soud, Newport Beach, California”, dated August 22, Project No. 72327-00, Report No. 17-8113. 8. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family Residence, 205 Via Koron, Newport Beach, California”, dated March 31, Project No. 72489-00, Report No. 20-8686. 9. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family Residence, 115 & 119 Via Mentone, Newport Beach, California”, dated April 7, Project No. 72488-00, Report No. 20-8683. 10. Grant et al, 1999, “Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, South Los Angeles Basin, California.” 11. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. 12. Legg, Mark R., et al, 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. January PA2021-300 13. Morton, P.K., et al, 1973, “Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. 14. United States Geological Survey, 2002, “Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, southern California, Version 1.0”. 15. United States Geological Survey – Earthquake Hazards Program, 2019, “Unified Hazards Tool”. Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php 16. United States Geological Survey – Earthquake Hazards Program, 2019, “Earthquake Catalog” Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ PA2021-300 APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS PA2021-300                 ! "" !"##$%&                            !  "       #$ !% &                                         #$ % &#$' (    ) ((   ( * ( (  "+" ,-$(.   #/#$$(.  ! /0 (1 ( 2 /#$* ( /#$  K~ --------'---I'\ V J / ~ '-i--_p i---.... I ' r--.... \ ""' "' \ I ) ' I .... (~ ' 1 l PA2021-300            ! "#!$   %&    ! "'!$         ! "$ (     ) * $!$+ (     $+ ,- ,  *  .  **    . /    01 2*  * 3, 4#'56 7  ! 8'9#$2::    #'484':'#   2/ ,; + ! ,2#     !  <   ! =::/  > *  ,    "#$%(     : $ #: #$ ':,*: # '  = $ 9 8 ? @ #: ## #' # #= #$ #9 #8 #? #@ ': -- ---I --- --->--- ---~ >--- ---- ---- --->--- --->--- ---- --- .... -.... - .... ->--- .... -- --- .... ->--- .... -.... - .... -- --- .... ->--- .... ->--- ~ = PA2021-300 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS PA2021-300 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method:Fines correction method: Points to test:Earthquake magnitude M w:Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.67 G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation: Project title : 72615-00 Location : 4003 Marcus Avenue, Newport Isle CPT file : CPT-1 5.00 ft5.00 ft12.60Based on SBT Use fill:Fill height: Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied: NoN/AN/ANoYes Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method: Sands onlyYes12.54 ftMethod based Cone resistance qt (tsf)1000Depth (ft)12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990)4321 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefact ion Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%)1086420 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clq 1 STONEY MILLER GEOFIRM CONSULTANTS. INC. 33 JOURNEY, SUITE 200 · ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 · 949-380-4886 ' ' ' -------►----------' ' _______ I" _________ _ ' :::::l::::::::: .L::::::: =F:=: ---r---------- ' ' ::::::::::T:::~: ------------r--------- :::::::::::r::::. :: ------------~---------- I I I I I I I I ___ 1,, ____ ... ____ .,L. ____ ._ ___ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ .. ____ ... ____ .,L. ____ 1,, ___ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I ----►----•---------►----' I I I I I I I I I I I ---,-----T-----,-----r----1 I I I I I I I I I I I ---,-----T-----,-----r----1 I I I ~~~~~f ~tJ~ -------t----r---- ··::f :::r¥T:: ---r----r----T----r------t----t----+----t----4Jll~: ---r----t·---r----r------1----r---t··--1---- ---~----t··--t----~---- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------r------r------r------r------r--1 ---1 ·--1 ·--!----- -------l--------l--------l--------l--------l--------l--------l--------l------· l-------1 : : : : : : I ••• ! : -,..: ♦ • ♦ • !♦♦ ~·· t : I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I l ------t------t------t------t------t------t-----·l ------~ ----r------- • 0 , ·• I I I I 0 0 it I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___ J ___ J ___ J ___ J ___ J ___ J _____ I.__ ___ tr ___ _J _____ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :::::i:::::r::::r::::F :r:-:::r::::r::::r::::F ' ' ' ' _ ______ ., ________ .,_ ------ ' ' ' ' ' ' -------◄--------◄-------' ' ' ' ' ' -------.,--------.,-------' ' :::::::t:::::l: :::::: :::::::f:::::1 ' ' -------.J---------' ' ' -------◄------ -------~--' ' ' ' -------1--------1-----' ' ' ' ::::::r::~:::::: -------1--------1-------- :::::l:::::f::::: -------~--------~-------- PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Cone resistanceqt (tsf)150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)43210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.50Soil Behaviour TypeSensitive fine grainedSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM2Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ftSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grainedI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ,1, ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ 1,. ____ 1,. ___ ..a,. ___ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ,1, ____ 1,. ___ ..a,. ___ ..a,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,.----►---+---◄----◄---- ♦----►---+---+---◄----·---- ♦----►---+---◄----◄----·----►----►---+---◄----•----·----►----♦-----♦-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----►---+---◄----◄---- ♦----►---+---+---◄----♦----♦----►---+---◄----◄----♦----►----►---+---◄----♦----♦----►----♦----+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"T"---,----,----T----r---"T"---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---,----,----T----r----r---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---"T" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"T"---,----,----T----r---"T"---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---,----,----T----r----r---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---"T" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"'T"---,----,----T----r---"'T"---"'T"---,----T----T----r---"'T"---,----.,----T----r-----,.---"'T"---,----T----T----r----"'T"---"'T" ----~----i----i----i----t----~----i-----i----i----t----t----~----i----i----i----t----~----~----i----i----t----t----~----i-----i-,iiiif l~J~~1~~~~~~l~~b~:bl~~~~1~~~~~1;1~~~t~=1=~t:l~t==r1==:~:li:1 □□□ I -+ ■□□ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---◄----◄-----1----◄----◄----◄----◄-----1----◄----◄ -◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄--' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■■■ PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.50Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSensitive fine grainedSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM3Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ftI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ,1, ____ ... ___ ..,_ ___ ,.1 ____ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ 1,. ____ 1,. ___ ..a,. ___ ,.1 ____ ,1, ____ ,1, ____ 1,. ___ ..a,. ___ ..a,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,.----►---+---◄----◄---- ♦----►---+---+---◄----·---- ♦----►---+---◄----◄----·----►----►---+---◄----•----·----►----♦-----♦-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----►---+---◄----◄---- ♦----►---+---+---◄----♦----♦----►---+---◄----◄----♦----►----►---+---◄----♦----♦----►----♦----+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"T"---,----,----T----r---"T"---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---,----,----T----r----r---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---"T" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"T"---,----,----T----r---"T"---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---,----,----T----r----r---"T"---,----T----T----r---"T"---"T" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---"'T"---,----,----T----r---"'T"---"'T"---,----T----T----r---"'T"---,----.,----T----r-----,.---"'T"---,----T----T----r----"'T"---"'T" ----~----i----i----i----t----~----i-----i----i----t----t----~----i----i----i----t----~----~----i----i----t----t----~----i-----i-~~~~rl~J~~j~~~~~~i~~b~:bi:~~~1~~~~~1;1~~~r1=~r=f :~1==r1==:~:liil -+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -◄----◄----◄-----1----◄----◄----◄----◄-----1----◄----◄ ---◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄----◄--• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---◄----·----·----►----►-------◄----◄----·----♦----►----►-------+---◄----◄----♦----►----►----♦-----♦----◄----◄----·----· ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---1----r----r----r----r---r---1----1----r----r----r----r---r---r---1----1----r----r----r---r---r---1----1----r----r ~ ---rl-l--r---r-r-r-rl--r----r----r---rt--r-r-r----r----r---r-r-r-rl-f ---r-t-r----r----r---r-r-r-r---l--r----r---r-rt---rl--r----r--t--r-r-rl--r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I □□□ ■□□ ■■■ PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Total cone resistanceqt (tsf)150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Total cone resistanceLiquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)SBTn IndexIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5SBTn IndexNorm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Norm. cone resistanceGrain char. factorKc109876543210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Grain char. factorCorrected norm. cone resistanceQtn,cs200150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Corrected norm. cone resistanceCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM4Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ft' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~---.. ----.&.-----'-----&.----&.----L---.f----.. -----'------'-----&.----L---...L.---...4---.J--.&.----'-----"'---...L.---....l..---.J----"----.&.-_.,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---◄----·----·----►----►-----◄----♦ ----► ----► -----------◄----◄----. - -+ ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---,----T----T----r----,-----,----,----T----T----r----,-----r----,----,----,----T----,-----,-----,-----,-----,-----,----T--T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . :~lJ~f:f ~f:~~tJl~f i~i 7:::t: ---f-I • --r----r---t---I I • ---t----t---t---t---1---. . . , I I I • • , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I __ 1,, ____ 1,, ___ _,_ ___ _._ ___ ., ____ ., ____ ,1,_ _,a, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --♦----►----►-----------◄----◄----♦- -♦ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••••T••••r-••••r-•••-,-•••-r•••-,•-••-,•••-T• •y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t---(t---(t--t---(t---(t---1 ---1---t---(t---(t---1----(t---( PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5FS PlotDuring earthq.Liquefaction potentialLPI20151050Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Liquefaction potentialVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.60.40.20Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Lateral displacementsCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM5Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ftAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow riskrrrrrrrrr -rrrrrnrr ' ' ' ' ' rn --rn ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' rrrrrrn1 rrrrrrrrr1 ■□□ ■□□□■ PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1110Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000Liquefaction analysis summary plotsQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo Liquefact ionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT-1 (3.08)Analysis PGA: 0.67PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM6Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ft' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I :s : : : : : -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~.i,-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-____ L, -+ ➔ f ~ ➔ ----------l---------. ! t-----~-____ :::: :j::::::--J : :::::::: :[:::::: :::J: :::::::: : : . : : : : : ----------i-----------t---:----t----------i-----------t-----____ ! __________ ! ___________ . ----------1-----------t---•---+----------1-----------t-----------t--------1-----------l ! • ! ! ! ! ! 1 r •t •i t r 1 : : \: : : : : __________ i ___________ i_____ --t---•--i-----------t-----------i----------: :=:r:=r:=r:+=r:1:=r :: PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Norm. cone resistanceQtn2001000Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Norm. cone resistanceCheck for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))Grain char. factorKc109876543210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Grain char. factorCorrected norm. cone resistanceQtn,cs200150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Corrected norm. cone resistanceSBTn IndexIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5SBTn IndexLiquefied Su/Sig'vSu/Sig'v0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Peak Su ratioLiq. Su ratioLiquefied Su/Sig'vCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AM7Project file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.675.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/ANoYesSands onlyYes12.54 ftI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --'----""----.1.----L----L---..L.--____ _, ____ ... ___ .&.-------L -..L.---..L.----' ----'----""----L----L---..L.---..L.----'-----'----.1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -◄----·----·----►----►----------◄----·-------►----------◄ ---◄----·----►----►-----------◄----◄----· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -◄----• ----·----►----► ------◄----◄ ----·-------► ----► ----------◄----· ----► ----► -----------◄----◄----• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -,----T----T----r----r---"'T"-,----,----T----T--r----r---"'T"----,----,----T----r----r---"'T"---"'T"---,----,----T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t--t---(t--t---(--(-(t--t---i --t--t---(t---1----(--(--(-(t- r ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ::c1::i f i~:tJlll :r ::f :t::: --+ · · --r----r---t---; · · · ---r----r---t---t---r--· · · · · · · · · · PA2021-300 This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, IncCPT name: CPT-1Cone resistanceqt (tsf)150100500Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)1211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.60.40.20Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Vertical settlementsEstimation of post-earthquake settlementsStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)12.51211.51110.5109.598.587.576.565.554.543.532.521.510.5Strain plotCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/14/2021, 10:31:42 AMProject file: V:\72450-72999\72615-00 Haag 4003 Marcus Avenue\Lab and Logs\2021-12-07 CPT Kehoe\72615-00.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---◄----♦----♦----►----►----+----◄----◄----♦----♦----►----►---+---+---◄---- ◄----♦----►----►---+-------◄----◄----♦----♦ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ::~::::1=1:::r:r+Tll=r:t::r:r:n:::r::i::TllTllll TllTlTlTr--r1--t T-;-1r-nrrrn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -(t--t---(t---(t---(--(t---1 ---(t--t---(t---(t---(--(t PA2021-300 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PA2021-300 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by Geofirm or its designated representative. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the soils engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the soils engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the soils engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the soils engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the soils engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be diced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the soils engineer. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials approved by the soils engineer. These materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps PA2021-300 greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4- inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the soils engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL The material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soils engineer, water shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557-70 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple- wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING The geotechnical engineer shall observe the placement of fill during the grading process and will file a written report upon completion of grading stating his observations as to compliance with these specifications. One density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests. PA2021-300 Any cleanouts and processed ground to receive fill must be observed by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer when these areas are ready for observation. PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the geotechnical engineer has terminated his observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the soils engineer, if it is to be subject to the recommendations of this report. PA2021-300 APPENDIX E UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES PA2021-300 APPENDIX E UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES The following guidelines pertinent to utility trench backfills have been adopted by the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency Grading Section, effective March 31, 1986. The application of the guidelines is strictly enforced by the County reviewers and inspectors. 1. Each utility subcontractor (gas, electric, water, sewer, telephone, cable TV, irrigation, drainage, etc.) shall submit to the developer for dissemination to his consultants (civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and utility contractor) a plot plan of utility lines installed under his purview which identifies line type, material, size, depth, and approximate location. 2. The developer or his agent shall provide a composite plot plan of all utilities or a copy of all individual utility plot plans to his geotechnical engineer for use in evaluating whether all utility trench backfills are suitable for the intended use. 3. The geotechnical engineer shall provide the County with a report which includes a plot plan showing the location of all utility trenches which: A. Are located within the load influence zone of a structure (1:1 projection) B. Are located beneath any hardscape C. Are parallel and in close proximity to the top or toe of a slope and may adversely impact slope stability if improperly backfilled D. Are located on the face of a slope in a trench 18 or more inches in depth. Typically, trenches that are less than 18 inches in depth will not be within the load influence zone if located next to a structure, and will not have a significant effect on slope stability if constructed near the top or toe of a slope and need not be shown on the plot plan unless determined to be significant by the geotechnical engineer. This plot plan may be prepared by someone other than the soil engineer, but must meet his approval. 4. Backfill compaction test locations must be shown on the plot plan described in No. 3 above, and a table of test data provided in the geotechnical report. 5. The geotechnical report (utility trench backfill) must state that all utility trenches within the subject lots have been backfilled in a manner suitable for the intended use. This includes the backfill of all trenches shown on the plot plan described in No. 3 and the backfill of those trenches which did not need to be plotted on this plan. PA2021-300