HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2020-1955 - SoilsECHNICAL
ICES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING GEOLOGY,�y
r
GRADING AND SOILS MONITORING AND TESTING
ut'
� b
4
t
L
t"f.^
}i
f }.
r � � `3� s 'tr" gar � �'�tt�•�,`i
r � � r � € tyyi ."'i�it ✓ � , r < r�'gw lUl �gli',rW �✓
,,ram.. �p,✓Ni 5 �
air
r
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT
REMODELING OF RESIDENCE
2000 DEBORAH LANE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED FOR:
DAVE AND CAROL DRAKE
2000 DEBORAH LANE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED BY:
KOURY GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
14280 EUCLID AVENUE
CHINO, CALIFORNIA 91710
PROJECT NO. 15-0285
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................
1
2.
SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................
2
3.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................2
4.
FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................
3
5.
LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................................
3
6.
SOILS CONDITIONS...................................................................................................3
7.
GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................4
8.
SITE GEOLOGY...........................................................................................................
4
9.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................5
9.1. General....................................................................................................................5
9.2. Landsliding..............................................................................................................6
9.3. Liquefaction and Dry Settlement............................................................................
6
10.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................
7
10.1. General.................................................................................................................7
10.2. Grading................................................................................................................8
10.3. General Grading Requirements...........................................................................
9
10.4. Fill Materials........................................................................................................
9
10.5. Temporary Excavations.....................................................................................
10
10.6. Floor Slabs.........................................................................................................
11
10.7. Seismic Coefficients..........................................................................................
12
10.8. Foundations.......................................................................................................
12
10.9. Utility Trench Backfill.......................................................................................
14
10.10. Drainage.............................................................................................................14
11.
SOIL EXPANSIVITY.................................................................................................15
12.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING..............................................................................
15
13.
CLOSURE...................................................................................................................
16
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................
16
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
17
I�OURY
SERVICESN INCL
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
Dave and Carol Drake
2000 Deborah Lane
Newport Beach, California 92660
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Building Renovation
2000 Deborah Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Lot 40, Tract No. 1805, M.M. 61/40
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary limited geotechnical investigation
performed by Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc. (KGS) for the proposed renovation of the
subject residence. The investigation was performed to provide geotechnical/geohazard
information for the design and construction of the proposed improvements from a
geotechnical standpoint.
The recommendations provided within this submittal are based on the results of our field
exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our services were performed in
general accordance with our Proposal No. 15-0285 dated November 3, 2015.
Our professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in
this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared exclusively for
the Dave and Carol Drake and their consultants for the subject project. The report has not
been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for the
purposes of other parties or other uses.
Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc. - (909) 606-6111 - www kourvoeo corn Chino Gardena San Diego
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
2. SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is bounded by Deborah Lane on the west and by other single family
measures about 63 to 67 feet in
residences on the north, south and east. The residential site
width and 110 feet in length. The site support a single family residence measuring roughly
50 by 50 feet in plan and a detached garage with an attached office measuring
nce there is a
approximately 20 by 30 feet in Plan- d Tha concreteepaved drivewaylranges
extending from Deborah Lane to the two car garage
in width from approximately 10 to 19 feet and is about 80 feet long. There is a lawn area
measuring about 24 by 50 feet between the city sidewalk and the planter in front of the
residence. There is a narrow (5 to 6 feet wide) sideward on the south side of the residence
and a rear backyard on the east side of the site. The front lawn contains a large tree near
the street, and the rear yard has also some lawn, planters and trees.
nage is
The site generally slopes toward the street in the west direction. Surface drat ground
generally by sheet flow toward the street. A site vicinity map with approximate
contour elevations is presented in Appendix A as Figure A-1. The site elevation ranges
from about 88 feet at the rear of the residence to 85 feet in front (NAVD88). The adjacent
properties have elevations within a few feet of the site elevation. There are no significant
slopes or high retaining walls between the properties.
3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Koury understands the proposed site improvements consist of building additions not
exceeding 208 square feet. There will be a new 17-square foot bedroom addition in front
of the residence toward the street. There will be a 19-square feet addition toward the
driveway on the north side. A new family room addition of 172 square feet will be located
on the southeast corner of the residence in an area that is presently used as a patio. The
improvements will also include new floor ventilation in localized areas.
Page 2 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
he reviewed
There will be new 2"x4" relatively light interior and exterior stud walls. T
foundation plan indicates 18" and 24" wide continuous footings and 24"square footing.
the Foundation Plan S.1 indicates
and 24"
footings -
The Footing foundation
Schedule On
plan reviewed, we understand that the maximum structural loads
Based on the found
will be 6 kips for columns and 3 kips per lineal foot for the walls.
4. FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration program consisted of drilling two soil test borings on November 10,
2015 using a truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill rig. The borings were drilled to
depths of 21'/z feet. The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map,Figure
A_2 Appendix A. Standard penetration test samples, California ring samples, and bulk
low counts,
samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing. The depths, bresent d in
and description of the samples are shown on the attached boring logs p
Appendix B of this report. The drilling subcontractor used a 140-1bs automatic hammer
falling 30 inches to drive the samplers 18 inches into the soils.
5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests, including moisture content, dry unit weight, pocket penetrometer, and
btained from the borings to aid in
4200 sieve wash were performed on selected samples o
the classification of the materials encountered and to evaluatetaeir en pnendt Bring rand or in
The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boringto s in A p
Appendix C.
6. SOILS CONDITIONS
The subsurface soil profile encountered in the borings consists of approximately 3 feet of
fill underlain by alluvium deposits. The silty sandy fill was found to be fine to medium
grained, dry to slightly moist, and loose to medium dense. Deeper fill may be present at
utility locations.
Page 3 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
The alluvial soils underlying the fill consisted predominantly of silty sand. These soils
were found to be generally medium dense. Within the borings drilled, the alluvium is
underlain by very old lacustrine/paralic deposit consisting of interbeds of clayey sand, silty
sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and clay. Our #200 sieve wash tests indicated the fines
content of the silty sand for the fill, alluvium, and Paralic deposits range from about 11 to
36 percent. The laboratory data indicates moisture content in the range of 4 to 28 percent
for the silty sand. The clay soils indicated moisture contents slightly above 30 percent.
n the
The soil conditions described
scsbd and the eport are laboratory test oesults. soils
Var'iationsobserved
between test
and
borings drilled for
beyond the borings should be anticipated.
7. GROUNDWATER
The proposed improvements are located at approximate elevations 86 feet (NAVD88). At
the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in our borings at a depth of about 16
feet. The water encountered appears to be perched on a clay layer. The groundwater
sented in the "Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03 for the Newport Beach and
contour map pre
artment of Conservation, Division
Anaheim Quadrangles", published by the California Dep
of Mines and Geology (1997), indicates a historic groundwater depth deeper than 30 feet as
shown on Figure A-4. Based on our findings, other than nuisance surface water infiltration
from rain or irrigation, it is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during the course
of renovation.
8. SITE GEOLOGY
The project area is located in southern Orange County along the western flank of the
California. The Peninsular Ranges
Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern
ain ranges Separated by
are a series of northwest-southeasttrending valleys mount
re parallel tot e major of the
trending valleys. These mountains a
area. The Peninsular Ranges Province is bounded on the east by the Colorado Desert
Page 4 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
Province and on the north by the Transverse Ranges Province. The Peninsular Ranges
extend southward beyond the U.S. - Mexican border into Baja California.
The Geologic Map of Orange County (Bedrossian and Roffers, 2010) shows the site to be
underlain by Middle to Early Pleistocene very old Lacustrine, Playa, and Estuarine
(Paralic) Deposits consisting of moderately to well consolidated, highly dissected fine-
grained sand, silt, mud, and clay from lake, playa and estuarine deposits of various types
(see Figure A-3). The borings drilled during our investigation in November 2015
encountered primarily silty sand, clayey sand and clay consistent with regional mapping.
9. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
9.1. General
The residence, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active
region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and
Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along e
northwest -trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto,Newport-
Inglewood
and Whittier -Elsinore fault zones.
By definition of the California Geological Survey (CGS), an active fault is one which has
had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). CGS
has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the
Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in
delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard
Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within
Special Studies Zone to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the
trace of active faults.
The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on
California Geological Survey maps, the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the
Newport Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3 miles west of the
Page 5 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
site, which is zoned as an active fault by the California Geological Survey. No evidence of
active or potentially active faulting was observed on the site during our investigation.
Surface rupture is not considered to be a significant potential hazard to the site.
Based on the information available at this time, it is our opinion that an MwTl earthquake
may occur on the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. Large earthquakes could occur on other
faults in the general area, but because of their greater distance and/or lower probability of
the site from a seismic shaking standpound ue to
occurrence, they are less important to motion
the proximity of the site to active faults, near field effects from strong gr
associated with large earthquakes along these faults may occur at the site. These near field
effects, including "fling" and directivity of strong ground motion, may result in high
accelerations at the site. Figure A-6, Fault Map, presented in Appendix A, shows the
approximate locations of the nearby active or potentially active faults.
9.2. Landsliding
The site is not located in a Landslide Hazards Zone on the State of California Seismic
Hazards Zones Map. No evidence for landsliding was observed on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Therefore, due to the lack of significant topographic changes at the project
site, landsliding is not a potential hazard.
9.3. Liquefaction and Dry Settlement
Liquefaction may occur when saturated, loose to medium dense, cohesionless soils are
densified by ground shaking or vibrations. The densification results in increased pore water
pressures if the soils are not sufficiently permeable to dissipate these pressures during and
immediately following an earthquake. When the pore water pressure is equal to or exceeds
the overburden pressure, liquefaction of the affected soil layers occurs. For liquefaction to
occur, three conditions are required:
Page 6 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
• Ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration;
• Groundwater level at or above the level of the susceptible soils
during the ground shaking; and
• Soils that are susceptible to liquefaction.
The Liquefaction Hazard zone on the State of California Seismic Hazards Zones Map for the
Newport Beach Quadrangle indicates that the site is not located in a generalized liquefaction
susceptibility zone as shown on Figure A-5. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the
moderate blow count recorded in our borings, and the age of the deposits, the potential for
liquefaction is very low. We also evaluated the potential for seismic dry settlement.
For seismic dry settlement evaluation, we used an earthquake magnitude of Mw7.0
obtained from a seismic -hazard deaggregation along with a site accelerations of 0.68g
(PGAM) obtained from the U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application. The California
sampler blow counts were multiplied by a factor of 0.6 to obtain the equivalent SPT blow
counts. The SPT tests were performed with an automatic hammer and unlined SPT
samplers. Using the EQLique&Settle 2 and the LiquifyPro software, we calculated the dry
settlement to be negligible.
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1. General
In our opinion, the planned improvements are feasible from a geotechnical engineering
point of view provided the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are
followed. The proposed additions may be supported on conventional isolated and/or strip
footings underlain by engineered fill.
The following sections contain geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the subject improvements and include our recommendations and
discussions about bearing capacity, settlement, flatworks, slabs -on -grade, temporary
excavations, and utility trenches.
Page 7 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
10.2. Grading
10.2.1. Building Pad
The grading is anticipated to be minor and to consist of localized overexcavation and
recompaction. Any existing pavement, foundation, vegetation, abandoned underground
utilities and other debris should be removed from the proposed building addition areas. The
proposed additions will require removal of localized planters, hardscape and landscape.
We anticipate the need to perform an overexcavation of one foot below the new footings and
two feet below the new slab for the family room addition. Following the overexcavation, the
subgrade should be checked by the Geotechnical Engineer representative to determine if
additional overexcavation is needed. Upon approval of the overexcavation bottom, the
subgrade should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 92% relative compaction.
The sand backfill should be moisture conditioned above moisture content, placed in loose lifts
not exceeding 6 inches and lifts compacted to 95% relative compaction. Adjacent to
landscaped areas, the overexcavation should extend laterally a distance approximately equal to
the depth of overexcavation unless prohibited by existing utilities or structures. Due to the
presence of planters adjacent to some of the proposed additions, wet soils requiring dry back
may be encountered.
10.2.2. Exterior Flatwork and Pavement Areas
In the event that new exterior flatwork and pavement is required, similarly to the building
footprint area, we recommend the placement of at least 12 inches of new engineered fill for
the subgrade of all new non-structural flatwork. Except for vehicular pavement areas, all fill
outside the structure areas should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction at
moisture content above optimum except as indicated otherwise.
For new vehicular pavement areas, we recommend overexcavation of 12 inches of subgrade
material. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches,
moisture conditioned and recompacted. Within pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of
subgrade should be compacted to 95% relative compaction.
Page 8 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
10.3. General Grading Requirements
1. All fills, unless otherwise specifically stated in the report, should be compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557
Method of Soil Compaction.
2. No fill should be placed until the area to receive the fill has been adequately
prepared and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative.
3. Fill soils should be kept free of debris and organic material.
4. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 3 inches may not be placed in the fill without
approval of the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, and in a manner
specified for each occurrence. There should not be any concentrations of particles
sizes of 2 inches or greater; proper mixing should be performed.
5. The fill material should be placed in lifts which, when loose, should not exceed 8
inches per lift. Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed
during the spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture.
6. When the moisture content of the fill material is lower than the specified value or is
too low to obtain adequate compaction, water should be added and thoroughly
dispersed until the soil has a moisture content above optimum.
7. When the moisture content of the fill material is too high to obtain adequate
compaction, the fill material should be aerated by blading or other satisfactory
methods until the soil has a moisture content as specified herein.
8. Permanent fill and cut slopes should not be constructed at gradients steeper than
2:1(H: V).
10.4. Fill Materials
10.4.1.Onsite Materials
The onsite shallow silty sand encountered in the borings are considered non expansive and
are suitable for backfilling purposes provided they are free of deleterious materials and
oversize particles. Import materials may also be used for backfilling purpose. The onsite
or imported materials being used for backfilling should be non -expansive (El less than 20),
and should be in compliance with the specifications of this report.
Page 9 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
10.4.2. Import
Import materials, if needed, should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be
relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. The imported
materials should have an expansion index (EI) less than 20 and should be free of organic
materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 2 inches with no more than 35% passing the #200
sieve. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least 35 pounds, should be
submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours before fill operations. Other
than aggregate base and bedding sand, all proposed import materials should be tested for
corrosivity, should be environmentally cleared from contamination and should be approved
by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to being imported onsite.
10.5. Temporary Excavations
The shallow undisturbed site soils are expected to be temporarily stable when excavated at a
gradient of/4:1 (H:V) for excavations that are unsurcharged and less than 4 feet in height. For
deeper excavations up to a depth of 8 feet, we recommend a gradient no steeper than 1:1
(H:V) unless shoring is used. The top of slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and
storage loads within 6 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when
considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; we should be advised of such
heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established.
When excavating adjacent to existing footings or building supports, proper means should be
employed to prevent any possible damage to the existing structures. Un-shored excavations
should not extend below a 1'/4:1 (H:V) plane extending downward from the lower edge of
adjacent footings. The use of temporary jack support or slot cut maybe required to support
the structure during adjacent overexcavation. Where there is insufficient space to slope back
an excavation, shoring may be required. All regulations of State and Federal OSHA should be
followed.
Temporary excavations are assumed to be those that will remain un-shored for a period of
time not exceeding one week. In dry weather, the excavation slopes should be kept moist, but
Page 10 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
not soaked. If excavations are made during the rainy season (normally from November
through April), particular care should be taken to protect slopes against erosion. Mitigative
measures, such as installation of berms, plastic sheeting, or other devices, may be warranted to
prevent surface water from flowing over or ponding at the top of excavations.
10.6. Floor Slabs
10.6.1. General
The grading recommendations for the new floor slab addition are provided in Section
10.2.1. The building floor slab, as a minimum, should have a nominal thickness of 4
inches and should contain as a minimum No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 16 inches on
centers. The Structural Engineer should ultimately determine the size and spacing of the
reinforcement and the concrete strength to be used.
10.6.2 Moisture Sensitive Floor Coverings
Water vapor transmitted through floor slabs is a common cause of floor covering problems.
In areas where moisture -sensitive floor coverings (such as tile, hardwood floors, linoleum
or carpeting) are planned, a vapor retarder should be installed below the concrete slab to
reduce excess vapor transmission through the slab.
The function of the recommended impermeable membrane (vapor retarder) is to reduce the
amount of soil moisture or water vapor that is transmitted through the floor slab. The
membrane should be at least 10-mil thick, Class A, and care should be taken to preserve the
continuity and integrity of the membrane beneath the floor slab. The vapor retarder should
conform to ASTM E1745.
We normally recommend the placement of 1 to 2 inches of coarse sand above the vapor
retarder; however, the placement of sand above the vapor retarder is the purview of the
Structural Engineer. If no sand is placed above the vapor retarder, a concrete with a low
water -cement ratio should be used.
Page 11 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
Another factor affecting vapor transmission through floor slabs is the water to cement ratio
in the concrete used for the floor slab. A high water to cement ratio increases the porosity
of the concrete, thereby facilitating the transmission of water vapor through the slab. The
project Structural Engineer should provide recommendations for design of concrete for
footings and floor slabs in accordance with the latest version of the applicable codes.
10.7. Seismic Coefficients
Under the Earthquake Design Regulations of Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the CBC 2013,
the following coefficients and factors were determined for the lateral -force design for the
proposed structure at the site. Figure A-7 presents a design response spectrum.
Table 1 — Seismic Factors
Site Class (CBC 2013 - 1613.3.2)
D
Seismic Design Category for Occupancy Category II (CBC 1613.3.5)
D
Acceleration Parameter for Short- (0.2 Second), Ss
1.680
Acceleration Parameter for 1.0 Second, Sl
.6 16
Adjusted Maximum Spectral Response Parameter for
1 .680
Short Period (0.2 Second), SMs
0.925
Adjusted Maximum Spectral Response Parameter for
1.0 Second Period, SMi
1.120
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDs
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDI
0.616
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
0.681
Site Coordinates: Longitude: W-117.899676° Latitude: N33.6334438°
(WGS84)
10.8. Foundations
Genera[: For the purpose of preparing this report, we assumed that the proposed structure
renovation will impose maximum loads of about 6 kips for columns and 3 kips per lineal
foot for walls. We were not provided with the order of moment acting on foundations.
The proposed footings should be founded on at least one foot of engineered fill compacted
to 95 percent relative compaction. The recommendations for preparation of the soils
underlying the footings are provided in the "Grading" section of this report. The Structural
Page 12 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
Engineer should design foundations and floor slabs in accordance with the requirements of
the applicable building code.
Footings supporting the proposed structure should have a minimum width of 2 feet for
isolated footings and 1.5 feet for continuous footings. The bottom of footings should be
located at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. A net vertical bearing
value of 1,500 psf may be used to design the footings. A one-third increase in the bearing
value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. The footings should be
reinforced with at least two No. 4 bars top and bottom or other reinforcement as determined
by the Structural Engineer.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along
the vertical sides of the foundations, friction acting at the base of the foundations, or a
combination of the two. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the
footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils comprised of compacted granular earth
materials. The passive resistance of level properly compacted fill soils in direct contact
with the footings may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a
density of 200 pcf, to a maximum pressure of 2,000 psf. A one-third increase in the
passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the
passive resistance of the soils may be combined provided that the passive resistance is
reduced by one-third. We recommend that the first 12 inches of soil cover be neglected in
the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not protected from erosion or
disturbance by a slab, pavement or in a similar manner.
Estimated Settlement. Based on the results of our analyses and provided that our
recommendations in preceding sections of this report are followed, we estimated that the
total static settlement of isolated and/or strip footings under sustained loads will be on the
order of '/a to '/z inch for the estimated maximum structural loads. The maximum static
differential settlement, over a horizontal distance of 20 feet, should be on the order of 'A
inch for similarly loaded footings. The differential settlement between new footings and
existing footing should be taken equal to the total settlement. Most of the settlement is
anticipated occurring during construction or shortly after loading.
Page 13 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
10.9. Utility Trench Backfill
Bedding material immediately around utility lines and extending to a point 12 inches above
the line should consist of either sand, fine-grained gravel, or sand -cement slurry to support
and/or to protect the lines. A minimum of 4-inch thick bedding material should be placed
below the bottom of the utility lines, on a firm and unyielding subgrade. The bedding
material should meet the specifications given in the latest edition of the "Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction" (Greenbook). Sand or gravel should be
compacted in accordance with the Greenbook specifications.
Above the bedding, up to finished subgrade in areas other than landscape and up to one
foot below flatworks and pavements, utility trenches should be backfilled with onsite sand
and mechanically compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density of the soils.
Below pavements, a minimum relative compaction of 95% is required in the upper 12
inches of the subgrade. For utility trenches within the building, the backfill should be
compacted to the minimum required relative compaction indicated under the "Grading"
section of this report. The material should be observed, tested and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant. The trench materials should be placed in accordance with
Sections 306-1.2.1 and 306-1.3 of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction" (Greenbook).
When adjacent to any footings, utility trenches and pipes should be laid above an
imaginary line measured at a gradient of 1`/4:1 (H:v) projected down from the bottom
edges of any footings. Otherwise, the pipe should be designed to accept the lateral effect
from the footing load, or the footing bottom should be deepened as needed to comply with
this requirement. Backfill consisting of 2-sack sand -cement slurry may also be used.
10.10. Drainage
Foundation, slabs, flatwork, and pavement performance depends greatly on proper drainage
within and along the boundary of the development. Perimeter grades around the building
Page 14 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
should be sloped in a manner allowing water to drain away from the structure and not pond
next to the foundations. Roof downdrains should be connected to underground pipes
carrying water away from the building area or have extenders so water does not drain and
pond next to the building. Per the 2013 CBC, new landscape areas within 10 feet of the
building should slope away at gradients of at least 5 percent. Paved areas within 10 feet of
the building should slope away at gradients of at least 2 percent. Proper drainage is
recommended for all surfaces to reduce the potential settlement due to water infiltration.
We recommend minimizing the size and number of planters adjacent to the building and
other foundations and using drought resistant planting. Solid bottom planters are
recommended immediately adjacent to foundations.
11. SOIL EXPANSIVITY
The subsurface soils encountered at shallow depths consist mostly of silty sands. These
types of material generally have a low susceptibility to expansion when facing seasonal
cycles of saturation/desiccation. As such, the recommendations provided in this report will
suffice and should be incorporated into the design and construction.
12.OBSERVATION AND TESTING
This report has been prepared assuming that Koury Geotechnical Services, hic. will
perform all geotechnical-related field observations and testing. If the recommendations
presented in this report are utilized, and observation of the geotechnical work is performed
by others, the party performing the observations must review this report and assume
responsibility for recommendations contained herein. That party would then assume the
title of "Geotechnical Consultant of Record". A representative of the Geotechnical
Consultant should be present to observe all grading operations as well as all footing
the results of these observations and related testing
excavations. A report presenting
should be issued upon completion of these operations.
Page 15 of 17
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
13. CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations presented in this report were based on the results of our
field and laboratory investigations, combined with professional engineering experience and
judgment. The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
principles and practice. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied.
Subsurface variations between borings should be anticipated. KGS should be notified if
subsurface conditions are encountered, which differ from those described in this report.
Samples obtained during this investigation will be retained in our laboratory for a period of
45 days from the date of this report and will be disposed after this period.
Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, or the recommendations
contained herewith, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
KOURY GEOTECHNICAL
a's'Ex,�D
:2077.
*
N0acq es B. Ro�.y P. G.E. y OFnCtmco
Principal Geotechnical Engineers
Distribution: a df co via e-mail)
1. Addressee (2 wet stamped copy + P PY
2. File (B)
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps and Plans
Vicinity Map — Figure A-1
Boring Location Map — Figure A-2
Geology Map — Figure A-3
Historical Groundwater Map — Figure A-4
Fault Map — Figure A-5
Response Spectrum — Figure A-6
Page 16 of 17
Appendix B: Field Exploratory Boring Logs
Borings B-1 and B-2
Appendix C: Calculations
REFERENCES
November 16, 2015
Project No.: 15-0285
1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997Seismic Hazard CouZone Repo
a rt 03 for
Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles,
2. California Geological Survey, Department of Water Resources, 2010,
Geological
Compilation of Quaternary Surfrcial Deposits in Southern California, Orange County
compiled by Trinda L. Bedrossian and Peter D. Roffers, 2010.
3. California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center.
4. State of California, Department of Conservation, 2010 Fault Activity Map of California.
5. Standards Specification for Public Works Construction, 2012, Public Works Standard,
Ina
rt Quadrangle, California -Orange County, 7.5 Minutes
6. Inc.
Topographic Map, Newpo
Series, 1965.
Page 17 of 17
APPENDIX A
Maps and Plans
_ w a t t f. r
If
fly r + 11 �A
Pas 2p' itt q} "/. l '*� >✓n+i�ae!. 'r �, '
�$ fYqi
a ({[, R1ii�lY, w rro • Schr ^c. 'T' y i � r
kr.ti
1
YY y f+• ° �. s L
a ay x. A y
.`..
'32 pa�,{
i�rota'
Pae Il t4�;r�YR +e;.'r e;;� 'rf•a �y�� on.� `` I t,2 .Me.y ''R! {J,','.
�,f°
�� (. "?a�d`
R.■� .Traver "'* N`k�
�
�-«,,,,..mot: ,- 'j?y 7tgt''p�''^';'if
xflfl ri.Y,w 5L �.a� .J,iC' t �k 3M, p," ",��`.'��' site
17,
7anki ll I1pRy. ff4, 'i:'y , ' a �' h`11irHe1 `y ,pyfr,�Park i,�}' ��rR9
44O
•': V
wit CeTp
�!1`{�fa ►+ ,x �1r`
Ik � s y 1 * 4@ ; E.'+a jfE r a lri4� VIaW n � v y
vF" s
_ '�
7 J'p
jg
gy{��IYLe p ll� ,� I ,�` ,t� .a � 'E� s 2�. � .n` '�„1 • 'Y j"f
rPUrrat Mo5�+rt�i ' r i 11,t uk f.,r'
� �'!F unw�(rLnrfuTTrYw;�'•�a � " 'ti �¢eir <tt, � s �'
It
r+� �k x t �� .F' 'a d�`i i7t Rh " Ft' ��O ° -� f 1�, .'fi�•, t J 1.
f"v
�.,..ati... " xr
,,.� I.��t'
,� � �.' i7 s �? � �17 m r� irsktlt
t
y h'��.�-'`rt,
,7'
4 „ter, R r ° v ,�.! �`-. + y ,'!.,, f N �t
ki` f
�v.. 7 f
i
1 ,• j, a rj> c Ltalrlt .0 'XJJ)r vihX �t'iIIrt74r li-! ".. i4;:"s
Parkfg8 qht
U
v Party 4..1 r` t�, r Tef�. ` 5i sa SE y r rl �5Yn i1
rr
ay 7
g§
i iiY d NeAAfAk
T
iSe
` �allroa
6 1 Mile
ri`PnniRK flX. N
Reference: USGS Topographic Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle, California -Orange County, 7.5 Minute Series, 1965��--
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, Contour Interval 5 feet
Project Name: Project No.: 15-0285 Drawing Title: Figure:
KO_URY Drake Residence Vicinity Map A-1
SEOTECHNI A Date: November2015
PROP-UNe
—._— _._._.- —--_.--.—.—.--- .—._. _.—.—.—
r
I
_-_______ _ __ _ _ _ _ 6'-O"
I I SETRAC
I
I I
� I
(E)OFFICE
(E)G GE I
I I
SOUR SHADE INDICATES. NEW
WILY RN ADDRION AREA - 172 SF i
�_i N"eEo noomo'{rLVI
y ARFA = 19 SF li
oo! I
n
i
New Addition
I
I I i I
a'-2" TO
(N)FAVE
Addition � b
i I�- (E)W-2"
NON-coNl
0 i $
/IDDWELLING z
I u
eeo-s ADDRION AREA
it = 17 SF N N N
m �o
so
I.' IF)DRV Y
I�
�(E)SIDEµ'ALK� �
DEBORAH LN.
Legend 0 20'
B-2 ® Approximate Boring Location and Number Reference: Site Plan prepared by Richart Design Architect
h Project Name: Project No.: 15-0255 Drawing Title: Figure:
KOUR L. Drake Residence Boring Location Map A-2
sEwVic s".'wC Date: November2015
I
itf
A
1 ii
i
r j
*r� n
f 4 FS
.ita. Y
tl
I '1
Iy
,I
i
Itil
i {
t
L.
" r+r r IsIfIZI,
,
t ..
;t 33'�tr�f7s1=#t2 d�4'>z4 kj 'ii,C C
'
�+ 3� Depth to ground water in feet
Site
OMile
• Borehole
and Borehole Lo Data Locations, New ort Beach Quadran
Figure:
e.
Plate 1.2 Historical)
Hi hest Ground Water Contours
Project No.: 1S-O285
Drawing Title:
Project Name:
Historic High A_4
URY
Drake Residence Date: November 2015
Groundwater Map
EXPLANATION
Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines where well located, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by
younger rocks or by lakes or bays. Fault traces are queried where continuation or existence is uncertain. Concealed faults in the Great Valley are based on maps of selected
subsurface horizons, so locations shown are approximate and may indicate stmctural trend only. All offshore faults based on seismic reflection profile records are shown as
solid lines where well defined, dashed where inferred, queried where uncertain.
FAULT CLASSIFICATION COLOR CODE (Indicating Recency of Movement)
Fault along which historic (last 200 years) displacement has occurred and is associated with one or more of the following:
(a) a recorded earthquake with surface rupture. (Also included are some well-defined surface breaks caused by ground shaking during
earthquakes, e.g. extensive ground breakage, not on the White Wolf fault, caused by the Arvin -Tehachapi earthquake of 1952). The date
of the associated earthquake is indicated. Where repeated surface ruptures on the same fault have occurred, only the date of the latest
movement may be indicated, especially if earlier reports are not well documented as to location of ground breaks.
(b) fault creep slippage - slow ground displacement usually without accompanying earthquakes.
(c) displaced survey lines.
A triangle to the right or left of the date indicates termination point of observed surface displacement. Solid red triangle indicates known
,location of rupture termination point. Open black triangle indicates uncertain or estimated location of rupture termination point.
Date bracketed by triangles indicates local fault break.
► 1851
No triangle by date indicates an intennediate point along fault break.
1992
Fault that exhibits fault creep slippage. Hachures indicate linear extent of fault creep. Annotation (creep with leader) indicates representa-
tive locations where fault creep has been observed and recorded.
CREEP
1968 Square on Fault indicates where fault creep slippage has occured that has been triggered by an earthquake on some other fault. Dale of
causative earthquake indicated. Squares to right and left of date indicate termi- not points between which triggered creep slippage has
1968 ■ ■ 18se occurred (creep either continuous or intermittent between these end points).
4�. Holocene fault displacement (during past 11,700 years) without historic record. Geomorphic evidence for Holocene faulting includes sag
°-- '-- `ponds, scarps showing little erosion, or the following Features in Holocene age deposits: offset stream courses, linear scarps, shutter ridg-
es, and triangular faceted spurs. Recency of faulting offshore is based on the interpreted age of the youngest strata displaced by faulting.
Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years). Geomorphic evidence similar to that described for Holocene faults ex-
cept features are less distinct. Faulting may be younger, but lack of younger overlying deposits precludes more accurate age classification.
i Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated). Most faults of this category show evidence of displacement some- time during the past 1.6 millio
years; possible exceptions are faults which displace rocks of undifferenti- ated Plio-Pleistocene age. Unnumbered Quaternary faults were
based on Fault Map of California, 1975. See Bulletin 201, Appendix D for source data.
-- Pre-Quatemary fault (older that 1.6 million years) or fault without recognized Quaternary displacement. Some faults are shown in this
category because the source of mapping used was of reconnaissnce nature, or was not done with the object of dating fault displacements.
ADDITIONAL FAULT SYMBOLS
T—__-------s-, Bar and ball on downthrown side (relative or apparent).
_---------- ?—Arrows along fault indicate relative or apparent direction of lateral movement.
------------ Arrow on fault indicates direction of dip.
y -, Low angle fault (barbs on upper plate). Fault surface generally dips less than 45° but locally may have been subsequently steepened. On
T--T-----�-- offshore faults, barbs simply indicate a reverse fault regardless of steepness of dip
OTHER SYMBOLS
ae1 Numbers refer to annotations listed in the appendices of the accompanying report. Annotations include fault name, age of fault displace-
ment, and pertinent references including Earthquake Fault Zone maps where a fault has been zoned by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
--- - ----- Fault Zoning Act. This Act requires the State Geolo- gist to delineate zones to encompass faults with Holocene displacement.
Structural discontinuity (offshore) separating differing Neogene structural domains. May indicate disconti- unities between basement
rocks.
//�m rawley Seismic Zone, a linear zone of seismicity locally up to 10 kwide associated with the releasing step between the Imperial and
San Andreas faults
Project Name: Project No.: 15-0255 Drawing Title: Figure:
KOURY Drake Residence Date: Fault Map Legend A-6a
SERVI Ee, INC November 2015
p�S'
Bid Park ,;,.Fullerton
Place
Cerritos,a]
akea{bod
442 0 Anaheim
'! ,°Gr tz,>a
� f,P..I'fklaf
S
Stanlon sti Y5n°4llciu
Ilfjt d:G'RLFi �' 22
i
s,
Westr4mP'ster ;
Sant;
"$e:t1Be,•,
4
..vY...v n i :" SUN*' "r4%�al c� *'t'F6T .4" - t, • �...
�. Irvine V
♦ ' � - � *F'CCrt
�1UftY,. ir7 t I`S.'1TI
W Mesa 111
95� S'. . ;&'a r. �.,,'
G
I g
Def a
Pauli
DESCRIPTION
Rece.cl
.(
Ti
Pas nl
Sl mbol
'j
of
S
1
(App cJ
Mweme"1 ON LAND
OFFSRORE
r
}. `"t � �� •2 fiM1 [ ( A � ft.. A �Ia'�%j
1
(. I
pM.n en
�
A.°
na gu
S
e•
M
eae °0
(r t 3 ' 3 A '�s 4'Z�p"��2 ''j K�
Y
+ 1.� � r. 4lPfLallfl8 013�
9
°x°�vv°�
0 2 4 Miles;" N
4'b"l°n
Reference: 2010 Fault Activity Map of California, CA Geological Survey Web Site,
`"'"'°°"
''°°°' °""' " `"'°°"""°"'"tea° """A"°
See following page, Figure A-6a, for explanation
Project Name:
Project No.: 15-0285
Drawing Title:
Figure:
GEKOURY_ _
y"'' _`
Drake Residence
Date: November 2015
Fault Map
A-6
Z a= Design Maps Summary Report
User -Specified Input
Report Title Drake Residence
Fri November 13, 2015 20:41:47 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard.
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.633440N,117.8996°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil"
Risk Category I/II/III
I ournain vaileyr
Muratin tnn Beac i n
A?A
n t a,mesa -
�( rgj
y 3f „'GJ T 0
� � tJ l• f�1 tt � J #
ItNe art Beach
51
J�l N IC7 Rli I
SITE lA r 1M
�MEfi1Cl?
,� 99ee77
�mapquest 02e15'napduRstsOmeaata®aszs qfy,>� ,.� CdMapQuest:
USGS-Provided Output
Ss = 1.680 g S„, = 1.680 g Sos = 1.120 g
S,= 0.616g S„,= 0.925g Sp,= 0.616g
For information on how the SS and SS values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk -targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the "2009 NEHRP"building code reference document.
MCEa Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum
1.97
1.10 1.xD
1.53 1.06
1.36 0.96
1.19 0.64
a 1.02 0.72
N 0.95 wA D.6o
0.69 0.49
0.51 0.36
0.34 0.24
0.17 0.12
o.00 o.DO
0.00 0,20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.00 o.0o 0.20 0.40 0.90 0.00 1.00 1.20 1,40 1.60 1.90 2.00
Period, T (sec) Period, T (sec)
For PGA„, T„ C., and C„ values, please view the detailed report.
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the
accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subjectrmatter knowledge.
Project Name: Project No.: 15-0285 Drawing Title: Figure:
KOURY Drake Residence Response Spectrum A-7
G-wms.p NICI Date: November 201$
SERVIgES. INC.
APPENDIX B
Field Exploratory Boring Logs
KEY TO LOGS
SOILS CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPHIC
LOG
USCS
SYMBOL
.TYPICAL NAMES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
-
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAVELS
LESS THAN 5 %
FINES
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
GRAINED
SOILS
MORETHAN50%
OFCOARSE
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 12%
FINES
G``
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY MIXTURES
CLEAN
SANDS
I, p.'
SW
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
MORE THAN 50%
SANDS
LESS THAN 5%
FINES
SP
POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
OF MATERIAL IS
SANDS WITH
FINES
•'
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
50%OR MORE OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
N0.4 SIEVE
MORETHANI2%
FINES
;ti
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,
SILTS AND CLAYS
11
ML
SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50
/
,+
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
p
SILTS AND CLAYS
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILTS
50%OR MORE OF
MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
NO.200 SIEVE SIZE
LIQUID LIMIT IS 50 OR MORE
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
SILT AND CLAY SAND .GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS
�I FINE syMEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
KEY TO LOGS (continued)
BLOW COUNTS
VS. CON5151 tIN11,
SPT/CD
GRANULAR SOILS (SANDS,
GRAVELS, etc.)
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS (SILTS, CLAYS, etc.)
*BLOWS/FOOT
*BLOWSIFOOT
RELATIVE DENSITY
SPT CD
CONSISTENCY
SPT CD
SOFT
0-4 0-4
VERY LOOSE
0-4 0-8
FIRM
5-8 5-9
LOOSE
5-10 9-18
STIFF
9-15 10-18
MEDIUM DENSE
11-30 19-54
VERY STIFF
16-30 19-39
DENSE
31-50 55-90
HARD
over 30 over 39
VERY DENSE
over 50 over 90
* CONVERSION BETWEEN CALIFORNIA DRIVE SAMPLERS (CD) AND STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST (SPT) BLOW COUNT HAS BEEN CALCULATED USING "FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HAND
BOOK" BY H.Y. FANG, VALUES ARE FOR 140 Lbs HAMMER WEIGHT ONLY)
1-10%
TRACE
10 - 20%
LITTLE
20 - 35%
SOME
35-50%
AND
*THE FOLLOWING "DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY/ RANGES OF MOISTURE CONTENTS" HAVE BEEN
USED FOR MOISTURE CLASSIFICATION IN THE LOGS.
APPROXIMATE MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITION
DEFINITION
DESCRIPTION
DRY Dry to the touch; no observable moisture
SLIGHTLY MOIST I Some moisture but still a dry appearance
MOIST I Damp, but no visible water
VERY MOIST Enough moisture to wet the hands
WET I Almost saturated; visible free water
Boring Log
f'�
Project No.: 15-0285 Boring No.: B-1
KOURY
Project Name: Custom Drake Residence
Sheet : 1
Of : 1
GEOTECHNICAL
SE VI ES, INC.
Drilling Method : Hollow Stem 8" Auger
Sampling Method: Bulk - CD - SPT Ground Elevation: 87'
G
o.
o
x 9
m
. 3
a N
Hammer Weight : 140 1b Drop Height: 30" Drilling Co.:
Geobo en
u 8 c m .-
s
z
~ w
Location : See Figure A-2 Date Drilled:
11-10-2015
E o c Z rn m
a m
m
N
Additional
2 o
o
Description
Tests
roo
y 3
w
' o rass over o 0 of
Fill:
Silty SAND; fine to medium, medium dense, slightly moist,
#200 Wash
Fines = 21 %
1 10.5
orange brown
SM
ALLUVIUM:
Silty SAND; fine to medium, medium dense, slightly moist,
6
5
orange brown
#200 Wash
2 6.0 111
Fines = 22%
17
8
#200 ash
5
VERY OLD PARALICILACUSTRINE DEPOSITS (Qvol):
Fines = 28%
3 14.8
2
0
Clayey SAND; medium dense, moist, orange brown
#200 Wash
6
10
Fines = 34%
4 11.5 120
0
Silty sand layers
12
m
SC
o -
r
#200 Wash
5
10
5 29 9
15
Poorly Graded SAND with SILT; floe to medium, medium
1 Eines= M
Fines =11
14
SP-SM
dense, wet, gray
Lean to Fat CLAY; lenses of sandy silt, very stiff, moist, gray
CLICH
#200 West
6
20
Fines = 95°
6 33.1 92 144
P - 2
End of Boring @ 21' 6"
Perched groundwater encountered at 16'
Bulk ® CD N SPT
Boring Log
Project No.: 15-0285 goring No.:
B-2
/ ■ �1��
Project Name : Custom Drake Residence Sheet.: 1 Of :
1
�y'�V �ESNIINCt'
Drilling Method : Hollow Stem 8" Auger
Sampling Method : Bulk - CD - SPT Ground Elevation: 87'
e u
e.
c
.� ,°0
u
0
a w
Drilling Co.: Geoboden
Hammer Weight: 140 lb Drop Height: 30" 9
Data Drilled: 11-10-2015
z ;! •E a m
3
n w o
t `—'
c
F- O
Location: See Figure A-2
Additional
m •�
F) V p 3 W
a u
p E
.-
(°n
Description
Tests
(E
N
g s e o s
Fill:
Silty SAND; fine to medium, medium dense, slightly moist,
#200 Wash
orange brown
1 4.1
ALLUVIUM:
SM
Silty SAND; fine to medium, medium dense, slightly moist,
7
5
orange brown
#200 Wash
Fines = 27%
2 11.4 7
12
200 ash
14
®
VERY OLD PARALICILACUSTRINE DEPOSITS (Qvol):
Fines=24%
3 14.3 119 15
19
®®:
®
Clayey SAND; layers of silty sand, medium dense, moist, orange
brown and gray
#200 Wash
10
Fines = 28
8
4 16.9 9
®.
Sc
Silty sand layers
11
:Pa
13 15 I r!'
5 27.7 100 24 SM
Silty SAND; fine to medium, medium dense, wet, gray Fines =
22.0
1
6 1 30.5
Lean to fat CLAY; layers of sandy silt, very stiff, moist, gray I #200 V
CLICH c;,,oe =
End of Boring @ 21'6"
Perched groundwater encountered at 16'
SPT
Bulk ® CD N
APPENDIX C
Calculations
W
F
N
W
H
O
LL
F
H
7
a
Z
J
9
w
Z
W
0
N n
E E ^2 O
O M`-'r U
@ N
LL � U II LL
@ L � T'. N
@ W
rn
a a=
aNaa�
N
o E
rn o
CI U
rN
U �a
@ O C d
(D O d O
¢cvm @a
rn 0 c
W ¢ @ rn
0 L) 5 E C
W O Ul 0 6
IL LL mU I'I. o
� �NUTR
Oco ma
W -oN NraN
fA N.�U)r W `o
W Q d M am
d d @ W @ �
m
W U 'AE
a @ s E a
W M X W N
9 IY @ N
L M @ L
T N p C
0 N€¢
N LL r
m w �
c O
0 0
L LL
a
i
0
A N
A
C; a 000
A �`
e
C
C
O
U
N
C
LL
4 4iu-U
i1'y;dad
ii `43daa
11 `4idap
a
J
Y
0
We provide geotechnical engineering services
to both private and public sector clients. We
perform soils and geology investigation during the
design phase, as well as grading observation and
soils testing during the course of construction.
We provide in-depth geotechnical services for
complex projects.
I�OURY___
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES, INC.
MAIN OFFICE
14280 Euclid Avenue
Chino, California 91710
Phone: (909) 606-6111
Fax: (909) 993-1300
BRANCH OFFICE
17800 South Main Street, Suite 302
Gardena, California 90248
Phone: (310) 818-0117
Fax: (310) 818-0118
www.kourygeo.com