HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-0196_20220516_Geotechnical Investigation Report-.
EGA
co11s 11/ta 11ts
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
LOCATED AT
550 S. BAYFRONT (Balboa Island)
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Presented to:
LARRY & LINDA RODMAN
1175 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10128
c/o:
Ian Harrison, Architect
220 Newport Center Drive, 11 -342
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
EGA Co11sulta11ts, l11c.
375-C Monte Vista Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92627
ph (949) 642-9309
fax (949) 642-1290
May 16, 2022
Project No. IH383.1
r11,gi11eeri11g
,11,eotech11irol
appliralio11s
3 7 5 -C Mo n t c V is t a ,\ v c nu e • Cos t a ~I cs a, CA 9 2 6 2 7 • ( 9 4 9) 6 4 2 -9 3 0 9 • F ,\ X ( 9 4 9 ) 6 4 2 · I 2 9 0
PA2022-0196
·' EGA
t11gi11u ri11g
i!/Olerh11iuil
applicnli1111s
COIISJJ!ta11ts
Site: Proposed Residential Development: 550 S. Bayfront
Newport Beach (Balboa Island). California
Executive Summary
May 16, 2022
Project No. IH383.1
Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our
experience, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by
proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the
soil and native materials, and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re-development.
The following key elements are conclusions confirmed from this investigation:
A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property.
The site is located in the seismically active Southern California area, and within 2 kilometers of the
Type B Newport-Inglewood Fault. As such, the proposed development shall be designed in
accordance with seismic considerations specified in the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and
the City of Newport Beach requirements.
Foundation specifications herein include added provisions for potential liquefaction on-site per City
policy CBC 1803.11-12.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Design Item Recommendations
Footing & Grade Beam Widths:
Footing & Grade Beam Depths:
min. 15 inches with two No. 5 bars top and bottom
min. 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade
Footing Bearing Pressure Conventional:
Passive Lateral Resistence:
1,750 psf -building, continuous; 2,250 psf -pad footings
250 psf per foot
Coefficient of Friction: 0.30
Building Pad Over-Excavation:
Soil Expansion:
min. 2½ ft. below existing grade, + scarify bottom 6 in.
Non-Expansive Silty Sands
Soil Sulfate Content: Negligible, 4 ppm [SO)
Sandy Soil Max. Density: 103.0 pct@ 11.0 % Opt. Moisture
Buildlng Slab:
* Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 5 inches
thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions.
* Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center.
* Concrete building slabs shall be underlain by 2" clean sand, underlain by a min. 15 mil thick
vapor barrier, with all laps sealed, underlain by 4" of ¾ -inch gravel (capillary break).
Seismic Values (per CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16):
Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2)
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S,
Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM,
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, S05
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S01
D
1.386 g
0.492 g
1.2
1.8
1.663 g
0.886 g
1.109 g
0.590 g
PGAm = 0. 729 g
Note: EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm associated seismic values for the
proposed residential development.
3 7 S -C Mo n r c Vi st a A,· en u c • Cos ra M e s a , C A 9 2 6 2 7 • ( 9 4 9) 6 4 2 -9 ~ 0 9 • 1: AX ( 9 4 9) 6 4 2 -I 2 9 0
PA2022-0196
EGA
consultants
LARRY & LINDA RODMAN
1175 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10128
c/o:
Subject:
Dear Team,
Ian Harrison, Architect
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 550 S. BAYFRONT (Balboa Island)
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
t11gi11eeri11J!.
,~eotedJJJiral
applicalio11s
May 16, 2022
Project No. IH383.1
In accordance with your request and with the 2019 CBC, we have completed our
Geotechnical Investigation of the above referenced site. This investigation was
performed to determine the site soil conditions and to provide geotechnical parameters
for the proposed re-grading and construction at the subject site.
It is our understanding that the proposed re-development shall include the demolition of
the existing residence and the construction of a new residential dwelling with associated
improvements.
This report presents the results of the investigation (including Liquefaction
Computations) along with grading and foundation recommendations pertaining to the
development of the proposed residential development.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
EGA Co11suff(l11fs, Inc.
~-
DAVID A. WORTHINGTON, CEG 2124
Principal Engineering Geologist/CEO
~~
JOHN F. EGGERS
Staff Geologist
E.DG
avid
orthingto
PAULDURAN ~~~ 64
Sr. Project
o. C 5836
X p "I ]"1--* No. CEG2124
CERTIFIED 11 / *
cc· (3) Addressee
GINEERIN
OlOGIS
CA
3 7 5 -C Monte Vista /\ve n u e • Costa Mes a, CA 92627 • (949) 642-9 309 • FAX (949) 64 2 -1290
PA2022-0196
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
May 16, 2022
Project No. IH383.1
FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT
INTRODUCTION
550 S. BAYFRONT (Balboa Island)
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
In response to your request and in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building
Department requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation
at the subject site located at 550 S. Bayfront, in the City of Newport Beach (Balboa
Island), State of California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ).
The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at
the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site re-
development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed construction. We
were also requested to evaluate the potential for on-site geotechnical hazards. This
report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and
recommendations.
SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of our investigation included the following tasks:
• Review of readily available published and unpublished reports;
• Geologic reconnaissance and document research;
• Excavation and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings to a total depth of
10 feet below existing grade;
• Continuous Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding to a depth of 50½ feet
below grade (results of the CPT sounding are included herein);
• Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory
borings;
• Engineering and geologic analysis including seismicity coefficients in
accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC);
• Seismic and Liquefaction analysis and settlement computations (in
accordance with California Geological Survey, SP 11 7 A);
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
2
PA2022-0196
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
The subject bayfront property is an approximate 30 ft. wide by 85 ft. long, rectangular
lot located at 550 S. Bayfront within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The
subject site is located in the southwest corner of Balboa Island, within the Newport Bay.
For the purpose of clarity in this report, the lot is bound to the north by S. Bayfront, to
the east and west by similar residential lots, and to the south by a pedestrian strada,
seawall, and channel waters of the Newport Bay.
The Newport Bay is located approximately 10 feet south of the subject site. The Pacific
Ocean is located approximately 0.6 kilometers southwest of the property (across the
Balboa Peninsula, see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ).
The subject lot consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or
adjacent to the site. The lot size is roughly 2,550 sq. ft.
Currently, the lot is occupied by a two-story cottage situated on a graded level pad . All
structures are supported on continuous perimeter footings with slab-on-grade floors.
An attached two-car garage is located along the northern portion of the lot and is
accessed by S. Bayfront.
The site is legally described as Lot 7, Block 15, of the Re-Subdivision of Balboa Island
Section 1, (APN 050-062-14).
The existing lot layout and dimensions are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein.
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Building/grading plans were not available during the preparation of this report.
However, based on preliminary discussions with the project architect, Ian Harrison, the
proposed residential development shall include the demolition of the existing structures,
and the construction of a new two-story, single family dwelling with a roof top deck. The
proposed residential construction shall include an attached two-car garage.
We assume that the proposed building will consist of wood-frame and masonry block
construction or building materials of similar type and load . The building foundations will
consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the
footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2,250 and 1,750 pounds per
square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads
exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of
this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not
expected to vary significantly.
Based on the digital elevation model by NOAA National Centers for Environmental
Information (NCEI -NAVD88, Last Modified September 23, 2016), the site elevation is
approximately 9 ft. above MSL (see reference No. 10). Based on the preliminary plans,
550 S. Rayfront, Newport Ucach (Balboa Island). CA
Soils R~porl • Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. 11-tJKJ. I
May 16. 2022
PA2022-0196
the proposed finish floor elevation shall be 9+ ft. above mean sea level (MSL) to
conform with City and United States FEMA flood elevation requirements.
Note: The precise determination, measuring, and documenting of the site elevations,
hub locations, property boundaries, etc., is the responsibility of the project licensed land
surveyor.
No basement or retaining walls are planned.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of two (2) exploratory borings
(B-1 and 8-2) to a maximum depth of 10 feet and one CPT probe (CPT-1) to a depth of
50½ below grade (continuous soil profile). Prior to drilling, the underground detection
and markup service (Underground Service Alert of Southern California) was ordered
and completed under DigAlert Confirmation.
Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for labora-
tory testing. Geologic/CPT logs of the soil boring/probes are included in Appendix A.
The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologist from our firm who
obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate locations
of the borings are shown on Figure 2 (Plot Plan).
Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with
23/a inch diameter, 1-inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting
representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data
are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our
subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed:
*
*
*
Dry Density and Moisture Content
(ASTM: D 2216)
Soil Classification
(ASTM: D 2487)
Direct Shear
(ASTM: D 3080)
550 S. Bayfront. Newport Beach (Balboa Island). CA
Soils Report • Proposed Rodman Residence
l'rojcct No IH3ll3. l
1'.lay 16. 2022 4
PA2022-0196
*
*
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
(ASTM: D 1557)
Sulfate Content
(CA 417, ACI 318-14)
All laboratory testing was performed by our sub-contractor, G3SoiIWorks, Inc., of Costa
Mesa, California.
Geotechnical test results are included in Appendix B, herein.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The site soil and geologic conditions are as follows :
Seepage and Groundwater
According to the Orange County Water District (OCWD), there are no water
wells located within the general vicinity of the subject property. Channel waters
of the Newport Bay are located approximately 10 feet south of the subject site,
and the Pacific Ocean is located approximately 0.6 kilometers southwest of the
property.
Seepage or surface water ponding was not noted on the subject site at the time
of our study. Our data indicates that the groundwater encountered is subject to
significant tidal fluctuations. Groundwater was encountered in our test
excavation at depth of approximately 7 feet below grade. Based on our review,
the groundwater highs approach the tidal highs in the bay, and groundwater
lows drop slightly below mean sea level. From a construction standpoint, any
excavations advanced down to within the tidal zones should be expected to
experience severe caving.
A tidal chart typical for April 8, 2022 is presented as Figure 4, herein.
Balboa Island Topography and Bathymetry
Elevations across the greater Balboa Island range from approximately 8 feet
along the bulkhead lines at the seawall perimeters; ascending to almost 13 feet
near the central backbone of the Island. Significant raising of the greater and
Little Balboa Island seawalls to an elevation of 1 O+ ft . above MSL is underway
since 2016. Common area sandy beaches have been groomed and re-
groomed with import sands which feather gently to the bay waters.
From the bulkhead and beach shorelines, the nearshore bay floors generally
descends at an inclination of approximately 10: 1 (horizontal to vertical), down to
approximate elevations of -10 to -12 feet along the channel limit line (depending
550 S. Bayfrunt. Newport lkach (Balboa Island). CA
Soils Repon -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project Nu 111383.1
Mn) 16. 2022
PA2022-0196
on tidal fluctuations).
Balboa Island and Newport Bay History
Similar to surrounding islands in the Newport Bay (e.g. Linda Isle, Bay Island,
and Lido Island), Balboa Island's (includes Collins and Little Balboa) surface is
primarily man-made (graded approx. 10 ft. above the high-tide zone in the
1920's). However, the island feature is located on a naturally-formed,
subaqueous, back-barrier coastal landmass.
It is situated on the landward side of a coastal bar formed by a transgressive
sea and littoral currents at the seaward edge of a stream delta or lagoon. The
Newport Bay coastal estuary was originally formed as the lower reach of the
Santa Ana River. However, in 1915, due to severe silting that resulted from
flooding of the Santa Ana River (and also the construction of man-made
channel), the Santa Ana River was structurally realigned. Consequently, the
Newport Bay is currently fed only by the San Diego Creek which drains a
comparatively small area. The mouth of the San Diego Creek is located at the
Jamboree Road bridge roughly 6 kilometers northeast of the subject site (Upper
Back Bay).
Geologic Setting
Regionally, the site is located within the western boundary of the Coastal Plain
of Orange County. The Coastal Plain lies within the southwest portion of the
Los Angeles Basin and consists of semi-consolidated marine and non-marine
deposits ranging in age from Miocene to recent. The Coastal Plain is bound by
the Tustin Plan and the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast and the San
Joaquin Hills to the southeast.
Based on available geologic maps the site is underlain by a thin mantle of
marine (Qm)/hydraulic sands and/or engineered fill. The shallow soil layer is
underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic/terrace deposits (Qop/Qtm) which are
described as medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained, moderately to
well-cemented sand and silty sand (see reference No. 2).
The old paralic/terrace deposits are underlain by massive bedrock of the
Monterey Formation (Tm). Roadside exposures of massive bedrock of the
Monterey Formation (Tm) are visible on the inland side of East Pacific Coast
Highway and Bayside Avenue, roughly one kilometer north and northeast of the
site (Dover Shores and Bayside bluffs).
A Geologic Map is presented as Figure 3, herein (reference: Morton, D.M., and
Miller, F.K., 2006).
Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the nearby CPT probe,
550 S. Rayfront. Newpon IJcach (Balboa lsl.md}. CA
Soils Repon -Proposed Rodnmn Rcsid~111:e
Pn~j,:ct No II 1383 I
May 16. 2022 6
PA2022-0196
bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered approximately
28 feet below grade.
Faulting
A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the
subject property (reference No. 2, and Figure No. 3).
Seismicity
The seismic hazards most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking
following a large earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood (onshore), Palos
Verdes (offshore), San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier-Elsinore, or
Cucamonga Faults.
The site is primarily underlain by fill and beach sands with thin layers of silt/clay.
For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock
acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground acceleration. The
effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the 2019 California
Building Code or the standards of care established by the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area
in similar geologic settings. The grading/building specifications outlined in this
report are in part, intended to mitigate seismic shaking.
Based on our review of the "Seismic Zone Map," issued by the State of
California, there are no mapped earthquake landslide zones on the site. The
proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic
requirements contained in the 2019 CBC as adopted by the City of Newport
Beach building codes.
Based on Ch apter 16 of the 2019 CBC and on Maps of Known Active Near-
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ASCE 7-16
Standard), the site shall be designed using the following seismic parameters:
20 I 9 CBC Scism ic Design Parameters
Equiva lent Lateral Force Method
srrr AO ORESS 550 S B fr N B h CA ~ ay ont, ewport eac,
Site Latitude (Decimal Degrees)
Site Longitude (Decimal Ocgrces)
Site Class Definition
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S1
550 S. Ba}fro111. Newport lknch (Oulboa Island), CA
Soi ls Report -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. IH383. I
May 16. 2022 7
33 .604588
-11 7.89581 88
D
1.386 g
0.492 g
PA2022-0196
Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.2
Long Period Site Coefficient at Is Period, Fv 1.8
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.663 g
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period, S~11 0.886 g
Design Spectral Response Accelerat ion at 0.2s Period, Sus 1.109 g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Is Period S0 1 0.590 g
In accordance with the USGS Design Maps, and assuming Site Class "D", the
mean peak ground acceleration (PGAm) per USGS is 0. 729 g. The stated
PGAm is based on a 2% probability of exceedance in a 50 year span (see
copies of the USG$ Design Maps Detailed Report, Appendix D, herein)
EGA Consultants recommends the structural engineer review and confirm
associated seismic values for the proposed residential development.
FINDINGS
Subsurface Soils
As encountered in our test borings, the site is underlain by hydraulic fill sands
and native materials as follows :
Fill {AO
Fill sands were encountered in each of the borings to a depth of
approximately 2 feet below ground. The fill soils consist generally of
yellowish brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense, fine-grained
silty sand with trace roots and shell fragments. The expansion potential of
the fill soils was judged to be "non-expansive" when exposed to an increase
in moisture content.
Based on the laboratory results dated April 19, 2022, the site maximum dry
density is 103.0 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 11.0% (per ASTM D
1557). The complete laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B,
herein.
Hydraulic-Native Sands (Qm), Terrace Deposits (Qtm) and Bedrock (Tm)
The fill materials are hydraulic and native sands as encountered in each of
the test borings (B-1, B-2, and CPT-1). The native sands consist generally
of light to olive gray, moist to saturated, medium dense, non-cemented,
fine-to medium-grained, sand and silty sand with trace shell fragments.
550 S Bayfronl. Nt,,11ort Beach (Dnlboa Island). CA
Soils Report • Propo~cd Rodnrnn Residence
Proj~ct No. IH383. I
May 16. 2022 8
PA2022-0196
The native sands are underlain by marine sands (Qm) and terrace deposits
(Qtm) deposits, which are underlain by Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock
consisting of medium dense to very dense, fine to medium grained,
moderately to well-cemented sand and siltstone to the maximum depths
explored (50½ ft. below grade).
Based on the geologic map (Figure 3) correlation with the CPT probe (CPT-
1), bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) was likely encountered
approximately 28 feet below grade.
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (Per SP117A)
Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to
earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular
sandy soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock, gravels,
clays, and silts are not significantly affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is
generally known to occur only in saturated or near saturated granular soils. The
site is underlain by fill/eolian sands, old paralic deposits, and bedrock of the
Monterey Formation .
It is our understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic
settlement potential of one (1.0) inch in the upper ten feet, and three (3.0)
inches for soil depths of ten to fifty feet. In the event settlement values exceed
these threshold values, then additional analysis and/or additional mitigation is
required.
The CPT testing was performed in accordance with the "Standard Test Method
for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of
Soils," (ASTM 05778-12). The seismically induced settlement for the proposed
structure was evaluated based on the "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by
I.M . Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8, 2008 as well as the "CPT
and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and
I.M . Idriss, dated April 2014.
The analysis was provided by two 10-Jeet deep 4 " diameter hand-auger
borings, and a 50+ feet deep 1. 7" diameter CPT probe advanced by Kehoe
Testing & Engineering. The exploratory borings and probe locations are shown
in the Plot Plan, Figure 2, herein.
The CPT test consists of a sounding to the specified depth using an integrated
cone system manufactured by Vertek. The cone penetrometer was pushed
using a 30-ton CPT rig, with samples taken approximately every 2.5 cm, or 0.98
inches. The following parameters are measured: Cone Resistance (qc), Sleeve
Friction (fs), Dynamic Pore Pressure (u), Inclination, and Penetration Speed.
The parameters were recorded using a laptop computer, and compared with
550 S. Bayfront, Newpon Hcach (Balboa lslaml). CA
Soi ls Report -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. IH383 I
May 16, 2022 9
PA2022-0196
baseline readings to adjust for temperature or zero load offsets.
The Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992 paper titled "Evaluation of Settlements in
Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes" was reviewed. The
paper discusses that if given the factor of safety and the density in each layer of
a sand deposit at a given site, the volumetric strain can be calculated, and then
by integrating the volume changes through the depth, the amount of settlement
at the ground surface can be estimated.
The liquefaction analysis is based on the accepted document of Idriss and
Boulanger (2014), which integrates the findings established by Ishihara and
Yoshimine (1992). The total value for seismic induced settlement due to
liquefaction is calculated in the last three columns of the spreadsheet in
Appendix E herein.
The computations and results of our Liquefaction Analysis, based on CPT blow
counts of Boring CPT-1 (Appendix E). The seismically induced settlement
analysis was evaluated based on methods published in the references Nos. "a"
through "I" (see "Associated References", herein). The liquefaction and seismic
settlement calculations indicate seismic settlement (includes dry and saturated
sands) in the upper 50 feet is less than 3.0 inches, and in the upper 10 feet is
less than 1. 0 inch (post soil cement treatment -see page 5 of Plate A) and
hence shallow mitigation methods for liquefaction may be implemented per City
Code Policy (No. CBC 1803.5.11-2 last revised 7/3/2014).
Based on our liquefaction analysis, and in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Policy No. CBC 1803.5.11-12 (NBMC, Chapter 15), we recommend the
following mitigative methods to minimize the effects of shallow liquefaction:
1. Tie all pad footings with grade beams.
2. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade.
3. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the
top and two at the bottom).
4. Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a
minimum of 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12
inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported
on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the
slab.
5. Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center.
6. Additionally, to further reduce the effects of the thin shallow zones of
potentially liquefiable soils, the building slab shall include 15" w by 24" d
interior grade beams ("cross beams") to be reinforced with two No. 5 rebars
(two at the top and two at the bottom).
7. Additionally, for cohesion treatment of the site sand fills; soil-cement shall
be used in the upper 3 feet. To achieve this, during grading -dry bags of
550 S. Oayfront. Newport Beach (Balboa lslund). CA
Soils Rcporl • Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. 111383.1
May 16. 2022 10
PA2022-0196
Portland Cement shall be mixed in the scarified over-excavation bottoms
and into each of the overlying fill lifts. Water via a 2-inch hose shall be
vigorously induced during the pad grading operations.
The foundation specifications outlined above will act to decrease the potential
settlement due to liquefaction and/or seismically induced lateral deformation to
tolerable amounts. The above specifications eliminate the use of piles and
associated construction vibrations and groundwater displacement induced by
caisson drilling or pile-driving. If the above specifications are incorporated, the
proposed structure shall be stable and adequate for the intended uses and the
proposed construction will not adversely impact the subject or adjacent
properties. Remedial grading reduces the calculated seismic settlement to less
than 1.0 inch in the upper 10 feet (see Appendix E, page 5 of Plate A, herein).
Other Geologic Hazards
Other geologic hazards such as landsliding, or expansive soils, do not appear to
be evident at the subject site.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our geotechnical study of the site, our review of available reports and
literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements at the
site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant
geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design,
and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil
and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site re-
development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections discuss the principle geotechnical concerns which should be
considered for proper site re-development.
Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following
recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines included
in Appendix C. It is our understanding that the majority of grading will be limited
to the re-grading of the building pad for the proposed construction. In general, it
is anticipated that the removal of the upper 2½ feet (plus 6 inches of
scarification) within the building footprint (slab-on-grade portion) will require
removal and recompaction to prepare the site for construction. The removals
should be accomplished so that all fill and backfill existing as part of the
previous site use and demolition operations are removed.
550 S. Uayfronl, Newport Deach (Aalhoa Island). CA
Soils R(porl -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. IH.183.1
May 16. 2022 11
PA2022-0196
Where feasible, the limits of the pad fill shall be defined by a 3 foot envelope
encompassing the building footprint. Care should be taken to protect the
adjacent property improvements.
A minimum one foot thick fill blanket should be placed throughout the exterior
improvements (approaches, parking and planter areas). The fill blanket will be
achieved by re-working (scarifying) the upper 12 inches of the existing grade.
Remedial Grading -Soil Cement
Due to in situ granular sands, we recommend a minimum four (4) pallets (40
bags dry mix, each weighing 94 pounds and approximately 1.33 cubic yards) of
Portland cement be blended into the newly-placed fill. The first application of
the Portland Cement shall be placed on the bottom of the scarified over-
excavation(s). This option may be eliminated or reduced if suitable import fills
are trucked-in.
Site Preparation
Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of
surface structures and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation
in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and debris should
then be disposed of off-site. A minimum of 2½ feet of the soils below existing
grade will require removal and recompaction in the areas to receive building pad
fill. Following removal and scarification of 6 inches, the excavated surface
should be inspected by the soils engineer or his designated representative prior
to the placement of any fill in footing trenches. Holes or pockets of
undocumented fill resulting from removal of buried obstructions discovered
during this inspection should be filled with suitable compacted fill.
Fills
The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free
of organic materials, debris, and materials larger than four (4) inches in
diameter. After removal of any loose, compressible soils, all areas to receive fill
and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of
12 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D
1557). If necessary, import soils for near-surface fills should be predominately
granular, possess a very low expansion potential, and be approved by the
geotechnical engineer.
Lift thicknesses will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. In
general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Placement
and compaction of fill should be in accordance with local grading ordinances
550 S. 0arfronl. Newport Beach (Halhoa Island). CA
Soils R~p11r1 • Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. II 13H3. I
May 16. 2022 12
PA2022-0196
under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We
recommend that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over
optimum (based on ASTM: D 1557).
We recommend that oversize materials (materials over 4 inches) should they be
encountered, be stockpiled and removed from the site.
Trench Backfill
The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of
rock sizes over 4 inches in dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill
should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 inches in compacted
thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(ASTM: D 1557).
Geotechnical Design Parameters
The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed
structure (also, see "Liquefaction Analysis" section, above):
Conventional Foundation Design
Structures on properly compacted fill may be supported by conventional,
continuous or isolated spread footings. All perimeter and footings should be a
minimum of 24 inches deep (measured in the field below lowest adjacent grade)
and a minimum 15 inches wide.
At this depth (24 inches) footings founded in fill materials may be designed for
an allowable bearing value of 1,750 and 2,250 psf (for dead-plus-live load) for
continuous wall and isolated spread footings, respectively. These values may
be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic
forces.
Continuous perimeter footings should be reinforced with No. 5 rebar (two at the
top and two at the bottom). Reinforcement requirements may be increased if
recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be
decreased from the previous recommendations.
Slabs-on-grade
Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a
minimum of 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches
on center in both directions. The slabs shall be doweled into the footings using
No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. The reinforcement shall be supported on
chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab.
550 S. Aayfronl, Ncwpon Deach (Ualboa Island), Ci\
Soils Rrporl -Proposed Rodman Residence
Projcr.:l No. 111383.1
May 16. 2022 13
PA2022-0196
Interior slabs shall be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a min. 15 mil
plastic vapor barrier, with all laps sealed, over 4 inches¾ -inch crushed rock
(see "Capillary Break," below).
Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for
the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of
concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a
slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly
on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations.
Capillary Break Below Interior Slabs
In accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code Section
4.505.2.1, we provide the following building specification for the subject site
(living area and garages slabs):
Concrete building slabs shall be directly underlain by a min. 2 inches of
clean/washed sand, underlain by a min.15 mil-thick moisture barrier (e.g.
"Stego Wrap"), with all laps sealed, underlain by 4 inches of ¾-inch gravel.
We do not advise placing sand directly on the gravel layer as this would reverse
the effects of vapor retardation (due to siltation of fines).
The above specification meets or exceeds the Section 4.505.2.1 requirement.
Mat Foundation Design (Optional)
Due to cohesionless sands during construction, a mat slab foundation system is
a recommended option. Mat slabs founded in compacted fill or competent
native materials may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 800 psf (for
dead-plus-live load). These values may be increased by one-third for loads of
short duration, including wind or seismic forces. The actual design of the
foundation and slabs should be completed by the structural engineer.
MIN. DESIGN ITEM
Mat foundations:
allowable bearing pressure:
passive lateral resistence:
mat slab thickness:
steel reinforcement:
coefficient of friction:
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction:
RECOMMENDATIONS
800 psf
250 psf per foot
min. 12 inches with thickened edges(+ 6 inches)
no. 5 bars@ 12" o.c. each way, top and bottom
0.30
ks = 90 lbs/in3
If applicable, the mat slab shall be directly underlain by a min. 2-inch thick layer
of washed sand, underlain by min. 15-mil Stego wrap ( or equiv., lapped and
550 S. B.tyfront. Newport Beach (Balboa lshmd). CJ\
Sc11ls Report • Proposed Rodman Residence
Projc,I No. 111383.1
M H)' 16. 2022 1 4
PA2022-0196
sealed), underlain by 4 inches of gravel (¾-inch crushed rock), underlain by
competent native materials (see "Capillary Break Section below).
For mat slabs, we do not recommend expansion or felt joints be used.
Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project
structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous
recommendations.
Cement Type for Concrete in Contact with On-Site Earth Materials
Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Section 1904.2 of
the 2019 CBC (in the event of soil import, soils shall be tested a specified
accordingly). Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess
negligible sulfate exposure, 4 ppm.
ACI 318 BUILDING CODE -Table 19.3.1 .1
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCR ETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Sulfate Water soluble Sulfate (SO,) in Cement Type Maximum water-Minimum fc',
Exposure sulfate (SO,) in soil water, ppm cementitious material normal-weight
percent by weight ratio, by weight, normal and light weight
weight concrete concrete, psi
Negligible 0.00 ,; so,< 0.10 0 <SO,<150 ---------------·
(SO)
Moderate 0.10 < so,< 0.20 150 < so,< 1500 11.IP(MS}, 0.50 4000
[S1) IS(MS),P(MS)
l(PM)(MS),
l(SM)(MS)
Severe 0.20 ~ so,< 2.00 1500 <so,< V 0.45 4500
(S2] 10,000
Very Severe SO,> 2.00 SO,> 10,000 V plus 0.45 4500
[S3) pozzalan
As a conservative approach, and due to the marine environment, we
recommend cement with a minimum strength f'c of 3,000 psi be used for
concrete in contact with on-site earth materials.
Settlement
Utilizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the
majority of any post-grading settlement will occur during construction activities.
We estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the
order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½ inch over 20
feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for
properly designed and constructed foundations.
550 S. Ailylronl. Newport Ueach (llalhoa Island). CA
S,)ils R~port • Proposed Rodman Residence
Projccl No. 111383.1
May 16. 2022 1,. ·'
PA2022-0196
Lateral Load Resistance
Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing
pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of
friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.30 may be assumed.
Exterior Slabs-on-grade (Hardscape)
Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a
minimum of 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18 inches
on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to
insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab.
Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in
two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are
intended to direct cracking.
Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on
grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement.
Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for
the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of
concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs.
Surface Drainage
Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage
should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the
street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided
adjacent to the structures. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from
the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area
drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away
from the top of slopes.
Review of Plans
The specifications and parameters outlined in this report shall be considered
minimum requirements and incorporated into the Grading, and Foundation
Plans if applicable. This office should review the Plans when available. If
approved, the geotechnical consultant shall sign/stamp the applicable Plans
from a geotechnical standpoint.
550 S. Bayfront, Newpon Hcach (Ualhoa Island), C/\
Soils Repon -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. IH383. I
Ma) 16. 2022 1 6
PA2022-0196
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION ANO TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION
We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide geotechnical
engineering services, including geotechnical observation/testing, during the construction phase
of the project. This is to verify the compliance with the design, specifications and or
recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated.
Geotechnical observations/testing should be performed at the following stages:
During ANY grading operations, including excavation, removal, filling, compaction,
and backfilling, etc.
After excavations for footings (or thickened edges) and/or grade beams verify the
adequacy of underlying materials.
• After pre-soaking of new slab sub-grade earth materials and placement of capillary
break, plastic membrane, prior to pouring concrete.
During backfill of drainage and utility line trenches, to verify proper compaction.
• When/if any unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered.
Prior to interior and exterior slab pours to ensure proper subgrade compaction and
moisture barriers.
Please schedule an inspection with the geotechnical consultant prior to the
pouring of all interior and exterior slabs.
LIMITATIONS
The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing
contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any
warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data,
interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this
office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties'
interpretations or use of the information developed in this report.
The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a
representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading
operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in
accordance with the specifications outlined in this report.
We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The
contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be
unsafe.
550 S. Hayfront. Newport Hcach (fialboa Island). CA
Suils Report -Proposed Rodman Rcsidcn~c
Project No. 111383. l
May 16. 2022 17
PA2022-0196
Associated References re: Liquefaction Analysis
a. "Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California," by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, dated
March 13, 1997; Revised September 11, 2008.
b. "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California," by G.R. Martin and M. Lew,
University of Southern California Earthquake Center dated March, 1999.
c. "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes" by I.M. Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, dated September 8,
2008.
d. "Soils and Foundations, 8th Edition," by Cheng Liu and Jack B. Evett, dated August 4, 2013.
e. "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahaji Tokimatsu and H.
Bolton Seed, Dated August 1987.
f. "Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles" By Bernard R. Wair, Jason T. Jong,
Thomas Shantz Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Dated December, 2012.
g. "Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test,"
by J. David Rogers, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, pp. 161-179, dated May, 2006.
h. "Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables" By Burt G. Look, Dated 2007.
I. "Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance
Approach," by Hiroshan Hettiarachi and Timothy Brown, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 830-834, dated June, 2009.
j. "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration
Testing of Soils," (ASTM D5778-12), dated 2012.
k. "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes," by
Ishihara and Yoshimine, dated 1992.
I. "CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures" by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss,
dated April 2014.
REFERENCES
1. "USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Newport Beach OE S, California
Quadrangle," dated December 12, 2021 .
2. "Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California," Version
1.0, compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, dated 2006.
3. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California," by Roger W.
Reensfelder, dated 197 4.
4. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,"
prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by
International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998.
5. "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction," by American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.1 R-
04, dated 2004.
6. "California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2," by California Building
Standards Commission, 2019.
7. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County,
California," by the California Department of Conservation, 1997.
8. "2015 International Building Code," by the International Code Council, dated June 5, 2014.
9. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth
printing 1985.
10. "Digital Elevation Model NAVD88 Mosaic," by NOAA National Centers for Environmental
Information (NCEI), Created August 20, 2015, last modified September 23, 2016.
550 S. Uayfronl, Newport B~ach (Balboa Island), CA
Soils Report -Proposed Rodman Residence
l'rojccl No. IH383. I
May 16. 2022 18
PA2022-0196
-
"· .. '< ~-,
-ro1no11 -
. J ~ -·-n1q~~ ~c --~ I
;, '"~ I ·__1 , \ ~ ....... Beaco11 I Jaf;:_
' N. BAY -F. RON r.
, ~
I
~
Bal
Bal
I each
. '~ -. -...
. ·~ .... '-. -
USGS US Topo 7.5-minute map for Newport Beach OE S, CA, dated December 12, 2021.
EGA SITE LOCATION MAP
Consultants 550 S. BAY FRONT
Project No: IH383.1
Date: MAY 2022
engineering geotechnical applications NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Figure No: 1
PA2022-0196
-,----------------------CPT-1
$-
LU u z LU C)
V\ LU ex:
1-z LU u <{ a <{
19 z
~ x LU
...J
0.:
-I 1./'1
oo I
S. BAY FRONT ALLEY
30'
~ 8-1
I
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
30'
8-2 0
S. BAY FRONT ALLEY
NEWPORT BAY
I -1./'1 I oo
_;
0.:
EGA PLOT PLAN
Consultants 550 S. BAY FRONT
LU u z
LU C)
vi w a:::
I-z LU u <{ ...,
C)
<{
19 z
~ V\ x LU
I
'
LEGEND
GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS
BY EGA CONSULTANTS
CONE PENETRATION TEST
BY KEHOE TESTING AND
ENGINEERING
St.i\W 1 ..
Project No: IH383.1
Date: MAY 2022
engineering gcotechnieal applications NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Figure No: 2
PA2022-0196
• • • • • • • • •
[::_-,_.:0~-.:_-:,;·!:j Eolian deposits (late Holocene)-Active or recently active
.,:.-•• ;,, ... , ·: 1 •:. sand dune deposits; unconsolidated. I Marine deposits (late Holocene)-Active or recently active
beach deposits; sand, unconsolidated.
I . 0 ... ·. I Estuarine deposits (late Holocene)-Sand, silt, and clay;
_ · es . unconsolidated, contains variable amounts of organic
matter.
~0-0-p-4~, Old parallc deposits, Unit 4 (late to middle Pleistocene)-
.__ __ _,_ Slit, sand and cobbles resting on 34-37 m Stuart Mesa
terrace. Age about 200,000-300,000 years.
n.-.. I Old parallc deposits, Unit 3 (late to middle Plelstocene)-
.__.....,,., __ _,_ Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 45-46 m Guy Fleming
terrace. Age about 320,000-340,000 years.
Qomf, I Old parallc deposits, Unit 2 (late to middle Plelstocene)-
...__ __ _J_ Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 55 m Parry Grove terrace.
Age about 413,000 years.
Source:
Old parallc deposits, Unit 1 (late to middle
Plelstocene)-Silt, sand and cobbles resting on 61-63 m
Golf Course terrace. Age about 450,000 years.
I Old parallc deposits, Units 3-6, undivided (late to
CloPa-6 middle Pleistocene)-Sllt, sand and cobbles on 45-55 m
~--~ terraces.
Qopf I Old parallc deposits (late to middle Pleistocene) overlain
'------' by alluvial fan deposits-Old paralic deposits capped by
sandy alluvial-fan deposits.
-
Capistrano Formation (early Pliocene and Mlocene)-
Marine sandstone. Siltstone fades-Siltstone and
mudstone; white to pale gray, massive to crudely bedded,
friable.
Tm I Monterey Formation (Mlocene)-Marine siltstone and
.__ __ _,_ sandstone; siliceous and diatomaceous .
Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. Preliminary Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological
Surve . Publish d 2 6. 1:100 000 scale.
EGA
Consultants
engineering gcotechnical applications
GEOLOGIC MAP
550 S. BAY FRONT
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Project No: IH383.1
Date: MAY 2022
Figure No: 3
PA2022-0196
Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance
Corona del Mar Tide Chart for April 8, 2022
tloonset
01:41A
Moonr ise
11:25A
la 2a 3a 4a 5a 6.; 7a 8a 9.:1 10 11 12 lp 2p 3p 4p 5p 6p 7p 8p 9p 10 11
EGA
Consultants
Tides.net station (1788}
Newport Beach, Newport Bay Entrance
Corona del Mar
Friday, April 8, 2022
Sun 6:29am-7:17pm
high tide 1:38am (4.07ft}
low tide 10:53am (0.71ft)
TIDAL CHART
engineering geotechnical applications
550 S. BAY FRONT
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Project No:
Date:
Figure No:
8
7
6
5
4
...,
3 ~ ....
2
1
0
-1
-2
IH383.1
MAY 2022
4
PA2022-0196
APPENDIX A
GEOLOGIC LOGS
(8-1 and 8-2)
and
CPT Data Report by Kehoe Testing & Engineering
(CPT-1)
PA2022-0196
UNIFIED SO IL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
ASTM D-2457
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)
GRAVELS
More than 50%
of coarse
fraction larger
than No. 4
sieve size
SANOS
50% or more
of coarse
II racuon sma er
than No. 4
sieve size
t• Clean Grc1_v_e_I~.t L_~~Jhan 5% fines)
:•; GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand 1 mixtures. little or no fines
GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines ~~-~---
~ravl}IS .~!!!) Ones M.9.f~ th1_1!1g'!. fi~~-
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-sHI mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
,, ... , Clean Sands Less than 5% .. fi.!le~~-----
:{}
n f{; ,•::;.
SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines ---1-----------
SP Poorly graded sands. gravelly sands,
little or no fines
Sands with fines (More than 12% fines I
SM SIity sands, sand-sill mixtures
SC Clayey sands. sand-clay mixtures
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve si2.e.)
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
LiQuid limit
less than
50%
SILTS
ANO
CLAYS
Liquid limit
50%
or greater
HIGHLY ORGANIC
SOILS
. ·-
-·
Cohesionless
Sands and Silts
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
CL
OL
MH
CH
--
OH
PT
Inorganic sills and very fine sands, rock
nour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
sills with slight plasticity
Inorganic days of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy days,
silly clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty days of
low plasticity
Inorganic silts, mlcaceous or
dlatomaceous fine sandy or silly soils,
elastic silts
Inorganic days of high plasliclly, fat
clays
-··--
Organic clays of medium to high
ptasllclty. organic silts
Peat and other highly organic soils
RELATIVE DENSITY
Blows/ft* Blows/ft0
0-4 0-30
4-10 30-60
10-30 80-200
30-50 200-400
Over50 Over400
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
D50 D30
GW cu = --greater than 4; Cc • ---between t and 3
Oto 010 xO60
GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
GM Atterberg limits below "A" Above "A" line with P.I. between line or P.I. less than 4 4 and 7 are borderline cases
GC Atterberg limits above • A" requiring use of dual symbols
line with P.I. greater than 7
cu D50 D30 : --groaler than 4; Cc • ---between 1 and 3 SW 0 10 D10XD50
SP Not meeting all gradation r9QuiremenIs for GW
SM Atterberg limits below • A" Limits planing in shaded zono line or P.1. less than 4 with P.I. between 4 and 7 are
Allerberg limits above 'A" borderline cases requiring use
SC line with P.l. greater than 7 of dual symbols.
Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending
on pe1cenIage of f,nes (fracbon smaller than No. 200 sieve size),
coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:
Less than 5 percent ........ , ........................... GW. GP, SW. SP
More than 12 percent .................................. GM, GC, SM, SC
510 12 percent ................... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols
PLASTICITY CHART
60.---....---.----.-...-----.--~-..--""T"""--.-v-
t ~l-~f--+-+-+--..--+--+-+-71"i--i ~ CH /V
~ 40 " ALINE:
0 I/ Pl ; 0)3(Ll.·20) ilri 30 1----+--+---l>---+--+--,lfl"--+--'-t~-+--~ CL V MH OH
~ 20 1----+--+---l--+-..,,,,.+--+-+---l--+---1 ... .,/ ~ 10~:::'.::::'.::i;cc:;:.-i:;;::j:L= .. =-:;p':,c.L_8it-0.-L-t-t--t-1--i--"7
O O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (0/4)
80 90 100
CONSISTENCY
Cohesive Solis Blows/ft* Blows/ft**
Very soft 0-4 0-4
Soft 2-4 4·11
Firm 4-8 11-50
Stiff 8-16 50-110
Very stiff 16-32 110-220
Hard Over 32 Over 220
• Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8 inch 1.0. Split Spoon sampler
(Standard Penetration Test).
•• Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 0 .0., 2.41 I.D. Sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow
count convergence to standard penetration test was done in accordance with Fig. 1.24 of Foundation Engineering
Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Von Nost rand Reinhold, 1991.
PA2022-0196
··-. .. +·-------··-•
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1
Job Number: IH383.1 Boring No: B-1
Project: 550 S. Bayfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2
Rodman Residence
Date Started: 4/8/2022 Rig: Mob. 4" augers
Date Completed: 4/8/2022 Grnd Elev. +/-9 ft. NAVD88
Sample '$. 't; Direct
Type )( Q. Shear
Q) i 't; a, -~ CJ)
■ThinWall ~2.S"Ring Q. ~ t-a, 8-~ i Ill CJ) u. ! Tube Sample C ~ w .s ~ 0 Ill C a, . Q. t-
.,t; (.) C ,Q a -&-~ 5 :, [Z] Bulk [D standard Split :g static Water ~ Ill ·5 iii :i !I! C: E (.) w Q. CJ) co Sample Spoon Sample Table a :, I ~ '5 .3 6 E t-C Ill )( ::> 'i5 w ·x 0 ~ <V
!::n u n ~!::<'111 PTIQl'J :i:
I I-ILL: Yellow,sn brown tine silty sand, trace roots, Opt %
1 SM shell fraaments moist loose to medium dense. 12.5 97.6 103.0 29.0 36 11.0%
X At 2 ft.: Light olive gray, fine to medium grained Sult
SP sand, moist to very moist. medium dense. ~ ppm
[Z 16.5 ISO)
5 -
SP ~ ~ At 6 ft.: Becomes olive gray, fine sand, saturated. 26.8
~ At 7 ft.: Groundwater, dense fine sand.
At 8 ft.: Olive gray, saturated, dense, fine sand. 35.5
SM At 10 ft. becomes dark gray, saturated, silty sand.
10
Total Depth: 10 ft.
Groundwater at 7 ft.
No Caving (sleeved).
Backfilled and Compacted 4/8/2022.
15 -
20 -
25 -
30 -
35 -
40
EGA Consultants ~ 1
PA2022-0196
........ _ ·---·-·· -... .......... ···-·--
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1
Job Number: IH383.1 Boring No: B-2
Project: 550 S. Bayfront, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location: See Figure 2
Rodman Residence
Date Started: 4/8/2022 Rig: Mob. 4" augers
Date Completed: 4/8/2022 Grnd Elev. +/- 9 ft. NAVD88
Sample * u Direct
Type >< Q. Shear
l ~ 'tJ QI .i (/)
■ThinWall ~2.S"Ring Q. -0 t--
QI $ ;:, .E "' (/)
Q. ! Tube Sample C C 'iii ~ .£ >-0 'iii C ~ . Q. t--"" (.) C 0 -e-a:: t ~ .3 s [2) Bulk [I] standard Split i static Water !!! ~ -~ E (.) w en ~ u CD Sample Spoon Sample Table ~ IO :) J: i!' Q. E t--C ~ ::) ·o 0 ·;. 0
~ IO
<:nil f'lt:C:f'OIPTIOIII ~
I E..!.!,J,,_: Yellowish brown fine silty sand, trace roots, Opl %
1 SM shell fraaments moist loose to medium dense. 14.4 101 .3 103.0 29.0 36 11.0%
At 2 ft.: Light olive gray, fine to medium grained X Sult
SP sand, moist to very moist, medium dense, with 4ppm z trace shell fragments. 16.2 [SOI
5 -
SP ~ ~ At 6 ft.: Becomes olive gray, fine sand, saturated. 28.7
At 7 ft.: Groundwater, dense fine sand.
At 8 ft.: Olive gray, saturated, dense, fine sand.
SM At 10 ft. Becomes dark gray, saturated, silty sand.
10
Total Depth: 10 ft.
Groundwater at 7 ft.
No Caving (sleeved).
Backfilled and Compacted 4/8/2022.
15 -
20 -
25 -
30 -
35 -
40
EGA Consultants ~ 2
PA2022-0196
Ki'!V Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
rich@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: EGA Consultants, LLC
Location: 542 S. Bayfront Newport Beach, CA
Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u o o 0
2 2 2
4 .. 4
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
:2 12 12
14 14 14
16 16 16
18 18 18
20 20 20
22 ~ 22 z-22 ~ ~ .... .... -24 24 24 ..c ~ 0. 26 £ 0. 26 £ Q. 26 ~ 28 ~ 28 ~ 28
30 30 30
32 32 32
34 34 3<
36 36 36
38 38 38
40 40 40
42 42 42
44 44 44
46 46 46
48 48 48
so so
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 ' 8 ·5 0 5 10 Tip resistance (tsf) Frie tion (tsf) Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 5/16/2017, 10:25:21 AM
Project file: C:\EGANewport8chS-15\Site2bayfront\Plot Data\PIOts.cpt
Frictio n ratio
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
~ 22 ~ ~ ~ -,_
24 .......
£ 0. 26 R ~ 28 ~
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
so
IS 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8
Rf (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
~
36
38
40
42
«
46
48
50
0
CPT-1
Total depth: 50.72 ft, Date: 5/15/2017
Cone Type: Vertek
Soil Behavio urType
Send & slty san:l
S d ty san:! & saroy silt
Sa,d & silty sard
Sa,d
Sood & sily sand
Sa:'ld
Said
Sa,d & silly sand
Sa,d
S cfld & sd ty sand
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SITT (Robertson, 2010)
0
PA2022-0196
'7:t qc (!If) fl (!If)
91.79 0.41
88.17 Ml
91.27 0.)1
4 109.13 0.42
59.6! Ml
US.II 0,52
7 187.86 0.'H
I 171.◄7 0.9◄
9 15A.1J 0.6)
10 119.'6 0.8<
11 221.7 0.94
12 2112'4 0.63
ll 184 0.94
14 112.Jl I, IS
IS 195.7 1.2S
16 207,lf 1J6
17 224.41
11 220.,7
19 217.42
20 276.SZ
21 269,Sl
22 249.27
2] 271.41
24 m .l6
IS 194,59
26 J9l,7S
17 410-JI
28 596.1
29 S70.07
lG 166.19
31 +77.55
l2 607.17
)) 631,16
J4 512,55
lS 467,94
l6 324.66
37 )11.16
:II +I0.37
39 )95.78
40 396.21
41 ))5.7]
42 35S.'9
43 469.4
+4 ◄13.M
4S J7U6
46 159.1!6
47 Ill.II
◄• 304.◄1
49 )73.12
50 Jn.09
1J6
1,J6
1.46
1.-46
1.46
1,2S
1.25
1.15
J.JS
1,57
2.11
l.12
1.61
2,92
).76
l.34
2,19
1,78
2.09
l.86
4.51
5.11
s.ss
6.16
4.8
S,◄l
6.47
6.06
S.01
5.22
4,2a
J.97
4,7
2.61
HTn -fft/11
◄.9SE..Ol
l.l)H>3
7 4,16£,0)
4.)lE-Cll
5.llf-01
M2E-03
1 5.011:.03
1 J.9Sr-oJ
◄,4lE-Ol
8.4◄E.03
7 6.91E.Ol
7 1,10(-02
7 3.41£-0l
6 l,20<-0l
6 2.29£-0)
2,llf-OJ
7 2.97E-03
7 2,12(-0J
6 2.ISl:'-03
7 4,98£,0)
•.42f,OJ
4,16€-0)
7 S.SOE-Ol
7 4.07f,()J
7 7,17£-0)
1,lU-02
1.SSE-02
1.961;-0l
7 1.&Df-02
1 M7f-Ol
7 ).'4{-0)
7 1.2'41'::.()2
7 0,00(♦00
2.CIJH2
1.29E-Ol
6 1.1,eo04
6 6.0SE-04
1.lOf-Ol
6 S.41E-&I
6 +.16C-<>4
6 U,OC-04
6 4.)6[-()4
6 7.t1H>4
6 S.7+E-04
6 6.'491:-04
4.TSe~
'4,1Sf-()1
6 4.7lf,04
• u1,-o.
1 2.S)l!-0)
Sl'TNIO
(blow1/ft)
14
II
15
I)
11
19
lO
21
25
33
)4
ll
Jo
ll
ll
)5
37
31
37
44
43
40
42
:II
45
56
J()
8l .,,
n
n ..
" 61
66
61
65
75
n
76
66
71)
8S
ao
n
71
62
60
71
6)
=~ Of(¥.) ~~) l,(Csf) '-t(taf)
397.al 100 46 117,41 397.82
41S.o7 S,8 15 331.17 US.07
'408.11
<84.54
)80.19
S'\1.8
812.\9
IOS,17
681,)7
159.24
902.!1
79U6
8§2.6
914.86
974.28
1021.6
1066.0l
l066Sl
lt»4.97
1196,)1
1191.49
lH>U6
1142.4
1064.5)
1181.24
111l,17
1na.11
2012.31
liS~.66
1926.83
2165.86
1na.b8
l89'M7
1645.1
17'05.05
1966.65
2160.87
246).49
me.oa
2S85.S8
2217,15
2)91.S9
2832.81
1616.7
ll68.86
2381.lJ
2096.66
X>l6.S7
IJU,◄7
1806.83
90
95 ,.
91
100
100
9!
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
45 !25.62 400,11
45 366.6 ◄&I.S4
43 J<>l.SS Jao.49
45 o, .• , 5·\1,1
47 644.02 812.19
46 6,41.,◄2 W,17
15 ~).65 Ut.l7
'46 665.57 151.24
47 720.ll 91>2.82
46 6)7,]9 793.56
46 6S0.26 852.6
46 129.94 914.66
46 m .JS 974,28
46 '21.19 1029.6
46 850.S5 1066.02
46 B50.~ 1066,U
46 873.65 1094.97
17 95-1.U 1196.31
47 950.66 1191.49
46 ea1.,, uou,
◄7 911.◄9 1142,1
46 849.36 1064.Sl
47 911,81 lllM,2 ..
45 1127.Sl l◄IJ.17
◄9 l378.t1 l7U.U
SO 1605.S7 2012.11
49 1S60.l6 \Cl§S.66
49 1~))',lf, 19(6,13
49 1728.08 21,,.16
50 177$.l 2'18.68
49 ISIS.SJ 1899,◄1
'49 lll2,S2 1615,4
4e: ll60,◄I 17i:>5,05
◄7 1S69.l◄ 1966.65
48 1724.1 2160.87
49 1965.SS 2'41.41
4ll 1011.01 2SSS.Otl
~ 2062.'7 US5.sa
◄7 1769.l◄ Ul7.•5
"8 1908.11 2J9l.S9
◄9 2200,2◄ 28)2,H
48 2111.73 l616.7
49 1890.04 ll68.$6
17 1900 2381,)J
17 1672,87 2096.66
41 1608.96 )016.57
47 1815,06 2Jll,17
47 1441.61 l&l6.U
NIA SU (bf) SU ™'• Koci'
0.3]
0.33
O.ll
0.33
0.33
0.))
0.)3
0.33
O.ll
O.ll
0.33
O.Jl
O.Jl
0.33
0.3)
0.33
0,33
o.n
O.ll
O.lJ
0,3l
0.))
0,3l
0.33
0.Jl
o.J3
0,3)
0.33
0.3)
0,)3
O.Jl
0,3)
O.ll
O.Jl
0,33
0,33
O,ll
O.ll
O.JJ
0.33
o:n
Q.]]
0.33
0.33
0.3l
0.33
O,ll
O.JJ
0.)3
O.ll
MOS. 8ayf"ronL Nu~B•acn, CA
EGA~At.-vits.lrlc
P1ojo(.1 No.: SH3&3 1
O(R Vs (ft/s) ..,.":..,
1160.9) -0.J
1165.1< -0.27
un.86 -0.2s
12'1.ZS -0.26
0 113S.37 ..0.21
1)6).5,6 -0,16
16.S&.3 ..0.31
C 16St.61 ..0.3
0 1Sl9,3S -0,17
0 1106.11 ..0,11
1741.9 -0.)1
1~$.14 -0.>9
1699.57 -<),29
0 1760.SJ -0.29
1816.8 -0,)
0 1867.67 -0.3
0 1900.42
D J(j00,86
0 1926.05
2013.ll
2009.14
o 1034.SS
0 1967,)2
0 189".09
D 20UJ.Ul
0 2188.08
2◄19.6+
2611.01
0 2574,02
0 2554.96
0 2106.ll
0 2747.83
0 1516.)t
0 2.361.0)
O )~3.~S
2511.2$
2'105.JJ
0 2881.96
2943,1
0 2959.6!
2740.t
75"6.49
)097,97
0 m..'4
0 ISJl.91
O 2&11>.l8
1665,2
}61l.8
2799,01
2◄7◄.14
-0.l
-0.J
-0,l
-0.32
-0.)2
-0.l
-0,31
-0.29
-0.ll
~).)S
-0.)8
-0,4
-0,]9
-0.37
-0,:11
-<l.1
-0.4
.0.37
-0.)6
-0.U
-0,)4
-0.)7
-0,)6
-0.3S
-<l.ll
-0.34
-0,3)
-O.J6
-0.34
-0.Jl
-0,31
-0.ll
-0.)3
-0.Jl
••
20
lO
lO
0 20
0 lO
O 20
0 20
0 20
lO
O lO
O lO
lO
lO
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
lO
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
lO
lO
20
20
lO
20
JO
lO
lO
20
20
20
lO
20
lO
CPT-1 mar,c.td to S0.72 futon MJy IS, ,017
by KetlOO THl:NJ •l'ld fngineori,vJ. Inc
PA2022-0196
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY RESULTS
PA2022-0196
Gl:.OLOGY · GEO TECH· GROUN DWATER
EGA Consultants
375-C Monte Vista Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92627
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. David Worthington, C.E .G.
Laboratory Test Results
550 S Bay Front
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Worthington:
April 19, 2022
Project No. 114-964-10
G3Soi1Works, Inc. performed the requested laboratory tests on the soil specimens delivered to
our office for the subject project. The results of these tests are included as an attachment to this
report.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. Should you have
any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
G3Soi1Works, Inc.
By:
350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa. CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.corn
PA2022-0196
EGA Consultants
Laboratory Test Results
550 S Bay Front
Newport Beach, California
April 19, 2022
Project No. 114-764-10
Page 2 of 3
LABORATORY TEST RES UL TS
Summarized below are the results of requested laboratory testing on samples submitted to our
office.
Dry Density and Moisture Content
Tabulated below are the requested results of field dry density and moisture contents of
undisturbed soils samples retained in 2.42-inch inside diameter by 1-lnch height rings. Moisture
only results were obtained from small bulk samples.
Sample Dry Density Moisture Content
Identification (pcf) (%)
B-1 @ 2.5' 97.6 12.5
B-1 @4.0' 101 .3 14.4
Soll Classification
Requested soil samples were classified using ASTM D2487 as a guideline and are based on
visual and textural methods only. These classifications are shown below:
Sample Identification Soll Description Group Symbol
Poorly-graded sand, yellowish
8 -1@ 0-3' brown, fine-to medium-grained, SP
contains shells and shell fragments
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test was performed on the submitted bulk
soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The results are shown below:
Sample Identification Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture
(pcf) Content(%)
B-1@ 0-3' 103.0 11 .0
350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa. CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com
PA2022-0196
EGA Consultants
Laboratory Test Results
550 S Bay Front
Newport Beach, California
Sulfate Content
April 19, 2022
Project No. 114-764-10
Page 3 of 3
A selected bulk sample was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with Hach
procedure. The test result is shown below:
Sample Identification Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil Sulfate Exposure
(PPM) (ACI 318-08, Table 4.2.1)
B-2@ 0-3' 4 so
Direct Shear
The results of direct shear testing (ASTM D3080) on sample identified as B-2 @ 2.5 feet are
plotted on Figure S-1 . Soil specimen was soaked in a confined state and sheared under varied
loads ranging from 1.0 ksf to 4.0 ksf with a direct shear machine set at a controlled rate of strain
of 0.01 inch per minute.
350 Fischer Ave. Front • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • P: 714 668 5600 • www.G3Soi1Works.com
PA2022-0196
4,000
3,750
3,500
3,250
3,000
2,750
LL 2,500
(/) a..
Cl) 2,250
(/) w ~ I-2,000
(/)
~
t1i 1,750
:r:
(/) 1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
0
. . ..
. , ... -····•·' .......
... , ................ . . . . . .
.:.: ...... :. ; ... :. . ,.,., ·-····· .. ,
' ~ ... : .... ;. : ' ~ ... ,
: .. · ... '. ~ . : . ; '
........... '<···
. . . ·: .. ··· .. ··.·:•:•:·· •, . ,., ...... ' .... .
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Undisturbed
. ' ... , ... · ... ,: i :, .; .;. :-: ~.
•I• I •\•~,•. • ' ,•, • . . .
.\,i, ••,•··
• ' i . ~ . ~ . : . :-. : .. ·: · . ~ .
! ~ . . '. : · • '. .
..... ····· ... . . . . . . . . ·•·.••,••.•····••1
.....................
,,i,,,
·-·•,•·,•· .. •··• ., .... ,.,,·. . ., . ,., .
. . . . ..... .
\ . . . . ' ' i • ~ ..... ·. . . • ; ' • i
. . . .... , ............................. .
;, ...
·····•······
. .. .
... :., ; ... :.:: ,j,j.;.· .• ; ....... .;.j, ·l l ::;.: •:: .,.,.\ ............ ,., . . . . . . . .
. .
•:-• ~ • I • • • :-:• • • • • ~ : •
. . . ... ... ~-. . ,,, ... , .. ,,''.
•i 'I.;.,', '••\'I • i •
~ .•. i . . \,,, .. , ... ,.,,,,\, . . . . . . . .
............... . '.
·:-·:·-:·: :·:·: ··:-··-···· .... .
:-. ,: . . ~ . ~ ... :-. ; ' ·: ... ~ .
.· .· . .', . ' ·.:.; ... ; .. · .. : .
•·-,, -~ ... , , . ' :·:·:-'.·:·:
···········. ··, .. '.,. . . .:. . i. ; .•. ~. : .... ;. ·-. '.'.; . -.. • .
.-.• -.. · ... ,.1,1,-. •. .-.•. ,., .•..... . . . . .... ' ...
. . . . ·~ ., ....................... ' ' .......... .
. -. ' .. -·· .... , ' .. , .... , . . . . ' . ' . . . ··-··•1 •1•,·,·-··.··-·
.; ........ ; .. ·,
. ... ~ . ; : . ~ . ,' . ,' .
.... ' .... . . . . . . . .,., .. , ........ , . . ; . ; . ; . ~ -'.· .: .. :. "' i. ..
' ! . ! . ! . :• -:, .. •: ~' : .
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
NORMAL STRESS, PSF
550 S Bay Front, Newport Beach COHESION 36 psf.
FRICTION ANGLE 29.0 degrees
symbol boring depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft.)
FIGURE S-1
DIRECT SHEAR TEST • 8-2 2.5
PN: 114-764-10 REPORT DATE: 4/19/2022
,'in F,~r1,," Av•· F,nnr
Co~t,, rv .. ,., <. 4 9Jo2h
Phom•· C 714 / 0f.P. 'if.00
\'\'N\-vG3So1IWork ... c oJT
FIG. S-1
PA2022-0196
MOISTURE CONTENT WORKSHEET
PROJECT LOCATION: 550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
BORING ID 8-1 B-1
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) 4' 6'
MOISTURE CAN ID F B
WET SOIL AND TARE (g) 303.4
DRY SOIL AND TARE (g) 267.5
MOISTURE LOSS (g) 35.9
MOISTURE CAN TARE (g) 50.4
DRY SOIL ONLY (g) 217.1
MOISTURE CONTENT(%} 16.5
BORING ID
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.)
MOISTURE CAN ID
WET SOIL ANO TARE (g)
ORY SOIL AND TARE (g)
MOISTURE LOSS (g)
MOISTURE CAN TARE (g)
DRY SOIL ONLY (g)
MOISTURE CONTENT{%)
moisture loss Moisture Content= m = f Wt. o Dry Soil
308.4
253.8
54.6
50.2
203.6
26.8
B-1
8'
H
351.5
272.8
78.7
50.8
222.0
35.5
Ywet
Ydry = m + 1
B-2
4'
V
334.4
294.8
39.6
50.4
244.4
16.2
DATE: Drilled 4/8/2022
B-2
6'
K
280.1
228.8
51.3
50.1
178.7
28.7
SHEET 1 OF 1
EGA CONSULTANTS, INC.
PA2022-0196
APPENDIXC
GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING GUIDELINES
PA2022-0196
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
I. GENERAL
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and
earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of
subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical
report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the
provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the
consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which
could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical
report.
II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that
he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the
responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work
schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly.
The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work
in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, and these
specifications. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting
in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may reject
the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be
performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test
Method ASTM: D 1557.
550 S. Aaylronl, Newport I-leach (Balboa Island), CA
Soils Report -Propus~<l Rodman Residence
Proj~ct No. IH383 . I
May 16, 2022
PA2022-0196
Ill. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED
1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and
otherwise disposed of.
2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support
of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is
not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay
lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of
uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.
3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extendin_g to
such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition,
should be over excavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant.
4. Moisture Conditioning: Over excavated and processed soils should be watered,
dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture
content near optimum.
5. Recompaction: Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly
mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent.
6. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1
(horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm
material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated
in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1
should be benched or otherwise over excavated when considered necessary by
the consultant.
7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and
toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement.
IV. FILL MATERIAL
1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor
550 S. 13ayfront. Newport Reach (Oalboa Island). CA
Soils Rc11ort -Proposed Rodman Residence
Pwjcc1 No. II 1383.1
May 16. 2022 2
PA2022-0196
gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas
designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as
satisfactory fill material.
2. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a
maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill,
unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by
the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of
oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed
within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or
underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant.
3. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material
should be approved by the geotechnical consultant.
V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in
near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The
consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are
such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness.
Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during
spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer.
2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be
watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or
blended with drier material. Moisture-conditioning and mixing of fill layers should
continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum.
3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90
percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately
sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to
efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.
4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal
compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at
550 S. Bayfrunt. Newpon Reach (fJnlboa Island). CA
Soils Report -Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No IH383. I
May 16, 2022 3
PA2022-0196
frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods
producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative
compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent.
5. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of
compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of
tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be
taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of
embankment.
VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
VII .
Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground and should not
be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant,
however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade,
or material.
EXCAVATION
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the
consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be
performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should
be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for
construction of the fill portion of the slope.
550 S. 13ayfrom. Newport 13each (Ralboa Island). CA
Soils Report • Proposed Rodman Residence
Project No. IHJSJ. I
Mny 16. 2022 4
PA2022-0196
APPENDIX D
USGS Design Maps Detailed Report
PA2022-0196
L\TC Hazards by Location
Search Information
Address:
Coordinates:
Elevation:
Times tamp:
Hazard Type:
Reference
Document:
Risk Category:
Site Class:
550 S Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA 92662,
USA
33.604588, -117 .8958188
11 ft
2022-05-15104:38: 19.5362
Seismic
ASCE7-16
II
D-default
Basic Parameters
Name Value Description
Ss 1.386 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)
S1 0.492 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)
SMs 1.663 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 • null Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Sos 1.109 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA
So1 • null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA
* See Section 11.4.8
•Additional Information
Name Value Description
soc • null Seismic design category
Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2s
Fv • null Site amplification factor at 1.0s
CRs 0.906 Coefficient of risk (0.2s)
CR1 0.92 Coefficient of risk (1.0s)
PGA 0.607 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.729 Site modified peak ground acceleration
PA2022-0196
TL 8
SsRT 1.386
SsUH 1.53
SsD 2.621
S1RT 0.492
S1UH 0.535
S1D 0.823
PGAd 1.057
• See Section 11.4. 8
Long-period transition period (s)
Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s)
Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years)
Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s)
Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s)
Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years)
Factored deterministic acceleration value (1 .0s)
Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA)
Tile results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made durmg the building
code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with tile local Authority Having Jurisdiction before
proceeding with design.
Disclaimer
Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services.
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility
or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does
not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge
in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the
report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of
this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the
building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report.
PA2022-0196
APPENDIX E
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES/SETTLEMENT COMPUTATIONS
PA2022-0196
Input Parameters:
Peak Ground Acceleration:
Earthquake Magnitude:
Water Table Depth (m):
0.729
7.2
0.66
Average y above watertable (kN/m "3): 16
Average y below water table (kN/m"3): 18
Borehole diameter (mm): 34.925
Requires correction for Sample Liners (YES/NO):
I
Sample Depth Measured (N) Soil Type
Number (m) {USCS)
1 0.30
2 0.61
3 0.91
4 1.22
5 1.52
6 1.83
7 2.13
8 2.44
9 2.74
10 3.05
11 3.35
12 3.66
13 3.96
14 4.27
15 4.57
16 4.88
17 5.18
18 5.49
19 5.79
20 6.10
21 6.40
22 6.71
23 7.01
24 7.32
25 7.62
EGA
consultants
14 SM
15 SM
15 SM
17 SM
11 SM
19 SM
30 SM
29 SM
25 SM
33 SM
34 SW
31 SM
30 SM
31 SM
33 SM
35 SM
37 SM
37 SM
37 SM
44 SM
43 SM
40 SM
42 SM
38 SW
45 SM
engineerillt,!
geotechnicai
applications
NO
Flag "Clay" Fines Energy
"Unsaturated" Content Ratio
·unreliable" (%) (ER)%
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
3 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
13 65
3 65
13 65
CE CB CR
1.08 0.75
1.08 0.75
l.08 1 0.75
1.08 1 0.75
1.08 1 0.8
1.08 1 0.8
1.08 1 0.8
1.08 0.8
1.08 0.85
1.08 I 0.85
1.08 1 0.85
1.08 l 0.85
1.08 0.85
1.08 1 0.85
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 0.95
1.08 0.95
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 1 0.95
1.08 0.95
1.08 0.95
1.08 0.95
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383.1
May 2022
CS N60 crVC crVC' CN
11.38 4.88 4.88 1.70
1 12.19 9.75 9.75 1.70
12.19 15.14 12.64 1.70
I 13.81 20.63 15.14 1.70
1 9.53 26.11 17.64 1.70
1 16.47 31.60 20.13 l.70
1 26.00 37.08 22.63 1.70
25.13 42.57 25.13 1.70
1 23.02 48.06 27.62 1.70
I 30.39 53.54 30.12 1.70
1 31.31 59.03 32.61 1.70
28.55 64.52 35.11 1.70
1 27.63 70.00 37.61 1.64
1 28.55 75.49 40.10 1.59
1 33.96 80.98 42.60 1.54
1 36.02 86.46 45.10 1.50
1 38.08 91.95 47.59 1.46
1 38.08 97.44 50.09 1.42
1 38.08 102.92 52.58 1.39
1 45.28 108.41 55.08 1.36
1 44.25 113.89 57.58 1.33
1 41.17 119.38 60.07 1.30
1 43.23 124.87 62.57 1.27
1 39.11 130.35 65.07 1.25
1 46.31 135.84 67.56 1.22
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 1
PA2022-0196
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383. l
May 2022
26 7.92 56 SW 3 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 57.63 141.33 70.06 1.20
27 8.23 70 SW 3 65 1.08 1 0.95 1 72.04 146.81 72.56 1.18
28 8.53 83 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 89.92 152.30 75.05 1.16
29 8.84 80 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 86.67 157.79 77.55 1.14
30 9.14 72 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 78.00 163.27 80.04 1.13
31 9.45 77 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 83.42 168.76 82.54 1.11
32 9.75 88 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 95.33 174.24 85.04 1.09
33 10.06 83 SW 3 65 1.08 1 89.92 179.73 87.53 1.08
34 10.36 69 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 74.75 185.22 90.03 1.06
35 10.67 68 SW 3 65 1.08 1 1 1 73.67 190.70 92.53 1.05
36 10.97 61 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 66.08 196.19 95.02 1.03
37 11.28 65 SM 13 65 1.08 1 I 1 70.42 201.68 97.52 1.02
38 11.58 79 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 l 85.58 207.16 100.01 1.01
39 11.89 77 SM 13 65 1.08 l 1 1 83.42 212.65 102.51 0.99
40 12.19 76 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 82.33 218.14 105.01 0.98
41 12.50 66 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 71.50 223.62 107.50 0.97
42 12.80 70 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 75.83 229.11 110.00 0.96
43 13.11 88 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 95.33 234.60 112.50 0.95
44 13.41 80 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 86.67 240.08 114.99 0.94
45 13.72 72 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 78.00 245.57 117.49 0.93
46 14.02 71 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 l 76.92 251.05 119.98 0.92
47 14.33 62 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 67.17 256.54 122.48 0.91
48 14.63 60 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 65.00 262.03 124.98 0.90
49 14.94 71 SM 13 65 1.08 1 1 1 76.92 267.51 127.47 0.89
50 15.24 63 SM 13 65 1.08 l 1 1 68.25 273.00 129.97 0.88
Auger Diameter: 1.375 inches
Hammer Weight: n.a.
Drop: continuous push
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft by Kehoe Testing and Engineering on May 15,2017 (CPT Data Logs attached herein)
References:
ldnss. 1.M. and Boulanger. R.W. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. E3r-..hquake Engm,-enng Research Institute. 8 September 2008.
Liu. C. and Evett. J.B. Soils and Foundations. 8th Edition. 4 August 2013.
Martin. G.R. and Lew, M. Recommendations for lmplementotion of DMG Special Publication I 17. University of Southern California Earthquoke Center. March 1999.
California Department of Con...,rvation, CGS. Special Publication 117A: Guidelines/or Evaluating and Mitigaang SeiS1mc Haz,,rd< in Californio . Rev 11 Sept 2008.
·cPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures· by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss, dated April 2014.
-Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes." by Ishihara and Yoshimine. dated 1992.
consultants
enginc1 ering
georechnical
applications
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 2
PA2022-0196
(N1)60 6Nfor (N1)60-CS Stress CSR
Fines reduction
Content coeff, rd
19.34 2.51 21.85 1.00 0.48
20.72 2.51 23.23 1.00 0.47
20.72 2.51 23.23 1.00 0.57
23.48 2.51 25.99 1.00 0.64
16.21 2.51 18.71 0.99 0.70
27.99 2.51 30.50 0.99 0.74
44.20 2.51 46.71 0.99 0.77
42.73 2.51 45.23 0.98 0.79
39.14 2.51 41.64 0.98 0.81
51.66 2.51 54.17 0.98 0.82
53.22 0.00 53.22 0.97 0.83
48.49 2.51 51.00 0.97 0.84
45.34 2.51 47.85 0.97 0.85
45.37 2.51 47.88 0.96 0.86
52.38 2.51 54.89 0.96 0.86
53.99 2.51 56.50 0.95 0.87
55.56 2.51 58.07 0.95 0.87
54.16 2.51 56.67 0.95 0.87
52.86 2.51 55.37 0.94 0.87
61.42 2.51 63.93 0.94 0.87
58.71 2.51 61.21 0.93 0.87
53.46 2.51 55.97 0.93 0.87
55.01 2.51 57.51 0.92 0.87
48.80 0.00 48.80 0.92 0.87
56.72 2.51 59.22 0.91 0.87
engineering
geotechnical
applications
consultants
MSF for sand Ka for sand CRR for M=7.S CRR
& o-VC'= 1 atm
1.08 1.10 0.23
1.08 1.10 0.25
1.08 1.10 0.25
1.08 1.10 0.32
1.08 1.10 0.19
1.08 1.10 0.52
1.08 l.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 l.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
1.08 1.10 2.00
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.38
0.23
0.62
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383.1
May 2022
Factor of Limiting shear
Safety strain ylim
0.58 0.13
0.64 0.11
0.53 0.11
0.58 0.08
0.33 0.18
0.84 0.04
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.01
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 3
PA2022-0196
69.31 0.00 69.31 0.91 0.87 1.08 1.10
85.14 0.00 85.14 0.90 0.87 1.08 1.10
104.48 0.00 104.48 0.90 0.87 1.08 1.09
99.07 0.00 99.07 0.89 0.86 1.08 1.08
87.76 0.00 87.76 0.89 0.86 1.08 1.07
92.42 2.51 94.93 0.88 0.86 1.08 1.06
104.06 0.00 104.06 0.88 0.85 1.08 1.05
96.74 0.00 96.74 0.87 0.85 1.08 1.04
79.30 0.00 79.30 0.87 0.85 1.08 1.03
77.09 0.00 77.09 0.86 0.84 1.08 1.03
68.24 2.51 70.75 0.86 0.84 1.08 1.02
71.78 2.51 74.29 0.85 0.84 1.08 1.01
86.14 2.51 88.65 0.85 0.83 1.08 1.00
82.93 2.51 85.44 0.84 0.83 1.08 1.00
80.88 2.51 83.38 0.84 0.83 1.08 0.99
69.41 2.51 71.92 0.83 0.82 1.08 0.98
72.78 2.51 75.29 0.83 0.82 1.08 0.97
90.48 2.51 92.98 0.82 0.81 1.08 0.97
81.35 2.51 83.86 0.82 0.81 1.08 0.96
72.44 2.51 74.94 0.81 0.81 1.08 0.96
70.68 2.51 73.19 0.81 0.80 1.08 0.95
61.09 2.51 63.60 0.80 0.80 1.08 0.94
58.53 2.51 61.03 0.80 0.79 1.08 0.94
68.58 2.51 71.08 0.79 0.79 1.08 0.93
60.26 2.51 62.77 0.79 0.78 1.08 0.93
References:
Idriss. l.M. and Boulanger. R.W. Soil liquefacUon During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008.
Liu. C. and Evett. J.B. Soi/sand Foundations. 8th Edition. 4 August 2013.
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383. l
May 2022
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Martin. G.R. and Lew. M. Recommendations for lmplementacion of DMG Special Publication 117. University of Southern California Earthquake Center. March J 999.
Cahforma Department of Conservation. CGS. Special Pubhcation I I 7A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hozards in California. Rev 11 Sept 2008.
-cPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggcnng Procedures-by R.W. Boulanger and I.M. Idriss. dated April 2014.
-Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction Du1ing Earthquakes.-by Ishihara and Yoshimine. d.lted 1992.
consultants
engine,:ring
geotecl111ical
applications
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 4
PA2022-0196
Parameter Fa Maximum ~Hi (m} ~LOii (m} Vertical
shear strain reconsol.
ymax Strain tv
0.42 0.13 0.30 0.04 0.02
0.34 0.11 0.30 0.03 0.02
0.34 0.11 0.30 0.03 0.02
0.17 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.02
0.58 0.18 0.30 0.06 0.02
-0.12 0.04 0.30 0.01 O.Ql
-1.32 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.21 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-0.93 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.93 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.85 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.67 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.42 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.42 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.99 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.13 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.26 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.14 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.03 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.76 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.08 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.21 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-1.49 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
-2.36 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
engine ering
geotechnical
applications
consultants
llSi(m} llSi (ft}
o.oi 0.02
0.01 0.02
O.Q1 0.02
0.01 0.02
0.0 1 0.02
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
llSi (inches}
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.29
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383.1
May 2022
I = 1.35
n=lO
0.00 Post Soil Cement (Remedial
0.00 I Grading):
0.00 = 0.61
0.00 n=lO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 5
PA2022-0196
-3.23 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-4.67 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-6.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-5.98 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
.4_91 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-5.59 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-6.46 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-5.76 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-4.13 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.93 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.36 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.68 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-5.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-4.70 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-4.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.47 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.77 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-5.40 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-4.55 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.74 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.58 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2.73 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2.51 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-3.39 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2.66 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Settlement: 0.031
References:
Idriss. l.M. and Boubnger. R.W. Soil liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 8 September 2008.
Liu. C. and E\'ett. J.8.Soilsand Foundations. 8th Edio'on. 4August 2013.
550 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA
IH383.1
May 2022
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.111 us!
~•rtin. G.R. and Lew. M. Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Sp<!d al Publication I I 7. Uni\'ersity of Sou them Califomia Earthquake Cent<r. March 1999.
Californi.i Department of Conservation. CGS. Spedal Publication 117A: Guide/int> for £valuating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California . Rev 11. Sept. 2008.
·cPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures· by R.W. Boulanger and l.M. Idriss. dated April 2014.
·Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes." by Ishihara and Yoshi mine. dated 199Z.
I
EGA
consultants
engineering
geotech11ic al
applications
PLATE A
CPT-1 advanced to 50.72 ft. on 5/15/2017
by Kehoe Testing and Engineering
Page 6
•
PA2022-0196