HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2023-0118_20230627_Preliminary Geotechnical Soils Report
June 27, 2023
Gloria Mariman Project No: 72729-00
c/o Laidlaw Shultz Architects Report No: 23-9371
3111 Second Avenue
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Attention: Andrew Heermann
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed New Single-Family Residence
54 Linda Isle
Newport Beach, California
INTRODUCTION
This report presents findings and conclusions of a preliminary geotechnical investigation
undertaken to relate onsite and certain regional geotechnical conditions to the construction of a
new single-family residence on the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based
upon the conceptual architectural plans for the property prepared by Laidlaw Shultz Architects.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the
absence of finalized foundation and grading plans, the formulation of which are partially
dependent upon the recommendations presented herein.
Scope of Investigation
The investigation included the following:
1. Analysis of pertinent reports, maps, aerial photographs, and published literature
pertaining to the site and nearby areas, as well as project plans, in order to relate
geotechnical conditions to proposed construction.
2. Field reconnaissance and logging of three limited-access cone penetration tests to
evaluate the character and geometrical distribution of soil materials below the proposed
construction areas.
3. Analyses of data and the preparation of this geotechnical report presenting our
conclusions and recommendations for site development in accordance with the 2022
California Building Code and the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy CBC
1803.5.11-12. This report is suitable for use by your design professionals, contractors,
and submittal to the City of Newport Beach.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 2
Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Figure 1 - USGS Geologic Location Map
Figure 2 - CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map
Figure 3 - Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
Figure 4 - Conceptual Shoring/Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
Figure 5 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - CPT Logs
Appendix C - Field Exploration and Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Analyses
Appendix E - Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix F - Utility Trench Backfill Guidelines
Site Description
The roughly rectangular-shaped bayfront property fronts 46± feet along Linda Isle and extends
northerly 125± feet to the rear property boundary. Topographically, the lot is comprised of a
relatively flat building pad at an average elevation near 10± feet (NAVD88) supported by an
existing bulkhead near the rear property boundary. The site is developed with a circa-1970 two-
story single-family residence. The adjacent properties to the east and west are developed with
similar single-family homes.
Proposed Development
Architectural plans for the lot indicate proposed site development generally consists of the
demolition of the existing residences to facilitate construction of a new two-story, at-grade,
single-family residence. The new residence is anticipated to be supported on a stiffened
foundation system constructed in new engineered fill as recommended herein. The replacement
or reinforcement of the existing bulkhead is also envisioned.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting
The property is located on Linda Isle adjacent to Newport Bay as depicted on the USGS
Geologic Index Map, Figure 1. It is located 0.8± miles northerly of the Pacific shoreline and is
0.25± miles southwesterly of a former sea bluff on the inland side of Linda Isle. Review of old
topographic maps indicates that prior to dredging of Newport Bay, the site location was a low
lying, likely intertidal area adjacent to a shallow channel of the natural bay. The site is underlain
at a depth by an accumulation of bay and beach deposits and subsequent dredge fill placed
during land reclamation. A younger generation of fill from construction of the existing roads and
residence may underlie the property at the surface.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 3
Earth Materials
Based on the results of our CPT study, Dredge Fill underlies the site at the surface to an
interpreted depth of 4.5± feet and generally consist of sand and silty sand. Bay deposits underlie
the dredge fill and is capped with a ½± foot thick layer of bay mud at an elevation roughly
equivalent to mean sea level. Below this depth, silty sand and sand were encountered to a
maximum explored depth of 17± feet. Cone penetrometer test data reveal that the earth materials
underlying the site are variably dense within the upper 8± feet, becoming very dense below. As
recommended below, recompacted dredge fill is considered suitable for the support of new
foundations and slabs.
Onsite materials are non-expansive on the basis of visual classification, and laboratory testing of
the similar soils on nearby sites indicates negligible soluble sulfate concentrations. These soils
are generally considered suitable for use as compacted fill.
Review of Energy Environment
It is important to note the subject property is located within Newport Harbor and not subject to
the high energy coastal environment. The Orange County coastline is subject to episodic swell
and wind-wave events which can result in coastal erosion. Swell sources include local and
distant Pacific storms from the central and eastern North Pacific, and tropical and winter storms
from the south. Documented anomalous southerly wave events in historic times include a
tropical storm which struck coastal Orange County on September 24 and 25, 1939, large swells
from a nearby hurricane in August 1972, large southern hemisphere groundswell in June 1977,
and combined seas and swell concurrent with a record high tide on January 27, 1983 (US Army
Corp of Engineers, 1993).
Given these events, the tropical storm of 1939 is considered to be the most significant wind and
wave/swell event to affect the site and most of the Orange County coast in historical times. It is
noted that this storm destroyed all of the beach piers in Orange County.
Summary of Coastal Stability
As previously stated, the subject property is located within Newport Harbor and not subject to
the high energy coastal environment. The property is protected on the seaward side by an
existing bulkhead. Supplemental protection from coastal hazards along the rear of the property
is therefore not anticipated during a 75-year life span of the improvements.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not measured but generally occurs at depths correlating to tide level.
Therefore, groundwater depths should be expected to fluctuate in response to tidal shifts.
Groundwater is not considered to be a geotechnical constraint affecting the design and
construction of proposed at-grade improvements.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 4
Street Flooding and Surface Drainage
Localized street flooding associated with heavy rains and high tides has been a recurrent
phenomenon in some low-lying areas of Newport Beach. The potential for flooding affecting
proposed development should be evaluated by the project civil engineer. The proposed
development will modify surface drainage, which must be controlled and outletted through
appropriate civil engineering design.
Seismic Considerations
Published Studies
One of the principals of seismic analyses and prediction is the premise that earthquakes are more
likely to occur on geologically younger faults, and less likely to occur on older faults. For many
years studies have described faults with Holocene movement (within the last 11,000 years) as
“Active”, and faults with documented Pleistocene movement (within the last 1.6 million years)
and with undetermined Holocene movement as “Potentially Active”. Informally, many studies
have described faults documented to have no Holocene movement as “Inactive”. Recent
geologic and seismic publications are attempting to clarify the nomenclature describing faults to
more accurately represent the potential affects from earthquakes.
Reports by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicate faults with documented
Holocene or Historic (within the last 200 years) movement should be considered Active.
However, Potentially Active faults are more appropriately characterized in terms of the last
period of documented movement. The Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, C.W.; 2010)
defines four categories for onshore Potentially Active faults. The categories are associated with
the time of the last displacement evidenced on a given fault and are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1, Definitions of Fault Activity in California
It is important to note these categories embrace all Pre-Holocene faults as Potentially Active, and
provide no methodology to designate a given fault as “Inactive”. Although the likelihood of an
earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over
geologic time, the potential for such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the
current level of understanding.
Activity Category Recency of Movement
Active Historic Within the last 200 years
Holocene Within the last 11,000 years
Potentially Active
Late Quaternary Within the last 700,000 years
Quaternary Within the last 1.6 million years
Pre-Quaternary Before the last 1.6 million years
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 5
Local and Regional Faults
The closest published active fault to the site is the offshore extension of the Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone, approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. (CGS, 2004). Other active faults in the
vicinity of the site include the San Joaquin Hills, approximately 3.4 miles away, the Palos Verdes
Fault, approximately 12.9 miles to the west, the Coronado Bank Fault, approximately 34 miles to
the south, and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 53 miles to the northeast.
The California Geological Survey updated the Fault Parameters and Earthquake Catalog for the
probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps, (Cao, T., et. al., 2002). The update added the “San Joaquin
Hills” blind thrust fault, theorized to exist from Newport Beach to Dana Point, and ramping up
inland to the Irvine area, and essentially underlying the site. Earthquakes of significant
magnitude (M6.6) are presently postulated for this structure, which could be equivalent to or
exceed accelerations from those along the NISZ. With the fault’s location at approximately 3.4
miles distance, it is calculated as the most significant seismic source to affect the site.
Historic Ground Motion Analyses
Utilizing attenuation relationships (Bozorgnia, et al.; 1999, unconstrained/Holocene sediments),
one can estimate the ground motion history of the site. The study indicates the maximum site
acceleration from 1800 to 2004 was approximately 0.5g and occurred during the magnitude 6.3
Long Beach Earthquake 3.7 miles from the site on March 11, 1933.
It is noted that the estimation of historic peak ground acceleration presented above is provided
for the interest of the client and is required by local (City or County) review agencies. The value
derived is not directly utilized in structural design of residential structures. Seismic parameters
for use by the structural engineer in accordance with 2022 California Building Code in design of
the proposed structure(s) are presented in the recommendations portion of this report.
Site Classification for Seismic Design
For the purposes of determining seismic design parameters provided in the Recommendations
portion of this report pertaining to the new structures, the upper one hundred feet of soil
underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022
CBC and Section 20 of ASCE 7-16. Although the soils underlying the site are liquefiable and
classify as F per the 2022 CBC, requiring a site-response analysis, proposed new structures are
anticipated to have fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds (to be verified by the
structural engineer). As such, Section 20.3.1 in ASCE 7-16 provides an exception that indicates
such liquefiable sites may be classified in accordance with Table 20.3-1 without performing an
evaluation.
Given the exception and the results of our onsite and nearby field investigations, which indicate
the site is predominantly underlain by earth materials with average interpreted N-values between
15 and 50, seismic design criteria may be calculated using a site classification of D. However,
the Site Class remains F.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 6
Tsunami Appraisal
No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the
“Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (Legg et al, 2003) provides a
framework for understanding the impact of locally seismic and/or landslide generated tsunamis.
Based on the results of this work, typical maximum run-up heights were estimated to vary from 1
to 2 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of unknown bathymetry on wavefield
interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run-up heights could range
from 2 to 4 meters, or more.
Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential
Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (California
Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) identifies the site and all of the Newport/Balboa peninsula
and harbor within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. In accordance with City of
Newport Beach Building Code Policies CBC-1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12, our office has performed
an analysis for liquefaction potential based on the CPT data collected during our onsite
investigation.
The results of our analysis presented in Appendix D indicate liquefaction settlement within the
zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation ranges up to 0.6± inches. Given our experience
throughout the surrounding area, which indicates foundations designed in accordance with the
parameters recommended below can tolerate 3± inches of differential settlement, a stiffened
foundation system or mat slab designed in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation
Methods” may be utilized.
Lateral spreading analyses performed for this investigation indicate up to 5± inches of lateral
displacement could occur during the design earthquake event assuming the existing bulkhead is
considered as a “free face.” As this magnitude is less than the threshold for mitigation as
identified in Special Publication 117 (2008) lateral spreading is not considered a design
requirement affecting the design of the new residence or bulkhead.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998)
for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, Figure 2, indicates this lot is not located within a “zone of
required investigation” for earthquake induced landslides, but is located in a liquefaction hazard
zone. Please refer to the Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential above for more information.
Other secondary seismic hazards can include deep rupture, shallow ground cracking, and tsunami
inundation. With the absence of active faulting onsite, the potential for deep fault rupture is not
present. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility
at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. Regarding tsunami
inundation, please refer to the appropriate section above for more information.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 7
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed development at the subject site is considered geotechnically feasible
provided the recommendations herein are integrated into design, construction, and long-
term maintenance of the property. Proposed construction should not affect or be affected
by adjacent properties provided appropriate construction methods and care are
implemented.
2. The property is underlain at a depth by bedrock strata of Monterey Formation, which are
successively overlain by sandy bay/beach deposits, and 5± feet of dredge fill.
3. The removal and re-compaction of the upper 3± feet of existing soil for the entire site is
recommended prior to construction of foundations.
4. Granular onsite soils are non-expansive and are expected to have a negligible soil soluble
sulfate level, and a severe potential for corrosion of buried metal based on laboratory
testing on a nearby project (Reference 8).
5. No active faults are known to transect the site and therefore the site is not expected to be
adversely affected by surface rupturing. It will, however, be affected by ground motions
from earthquakes during the design life of the residence.
6. Liquefaction analysis performed in accordance with City Building Code Policies CBC-
1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12, and SP 117A, indicate seismic settlement within the zone 10
feet below the proposed foundation level is less than 1 inch, but may marginally exceed 1
inch considering potential liquefaction at depths greater than 10 feet; lateral spreading
analyses indicate displacement may be up to 5.5± inches assuming free-face conditions.
A mat slab or stiffened foundation system designed in accordance with the City’s
“Shallow Mitigation Methods” is therefore recommended.
7. Lateral spreading effects will be reduced by the replacement of the existing bulkhead,
which should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented below.
8. Groundwater was not measurable during our field exploration but has been recorded at
the depth of 6+ feet below ground surface on a nearby site (Reference 8). Groundwater is
not considered to be a design or construction constraint.
9. The potential of street flooding affecting the residence during its lifetime is deferred to
the project civil engineer.
10. Surface discharge onto or off the site should be appropriately controlled with proper
engineering design and site grading.
11. The new residence may be founded in competent recompacted engineered backfill
utilizing a mat slab or stiffened foundation system design in accordance with City of
Newport Building Code Policy 1803.5.11-12.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
1. General
Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein and the
Standard Grading Specifications in Appendix F. Grading is anticipated to consist of
remedial over-excavation and minor export of soils to construct proposed building pad
and foundation subgrades. Processing, over-excavation and re-compaction should be
observed, tested and approved in writing by a representative of this firm.
2. Remedial Grading
Remedial grading is recommended to include removal and re-compaction of existing
loose beach deposit for the entire site to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing site
grades. Locally deeper removals may be required pending field review by the geologist.
3. Removal of Existing Improvements
Existing vegetation, organic materials and/or construction and demolition debris should
be removed and disposed of offsite.
4. Compaction Standard
Onsite soil materials are anticipated to be suitable for re-use as compacted fill providing
they are free of rubble and debris. Materials should be placed at 120 percent of optimum
moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the soil engineer to
at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as evaluated by ASTM D1557.
5. Temporary Construction Slopes
Temporary slopes 3 feet or less high may be cut no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical)
pending field review by the geologist during grading.
Although not anticipated, significant temporary slopes higher than 3 feet exposing onsite
materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that
the onsite soils may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1½:1 may be
appropriate; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated
by the contractor during construction.
The safety of temporary construction slopes is deferred to the general contractor, who
should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of
Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006).
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 9
Shoring should be anticipated where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback,
in any location where onsite personnel may be in close proximity to open excavations.
Shoring also should be anticipated where wet materials exist.
Foundation Design Parameters
Due to the potential for liquefaction at the site, we recommend that a stiffened foundation or mat
slab be used for the proposed structure in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building
Code Policy No. CBC-1803.5.11-12. Such a foundation system should be founded on properly
compacted fill derived from onsite materials.
1. Bearing Capacity and Settlement
The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab placed on approved recompacted fill with a
thickness of 12 inches or more is 2,000 pounds per square foot. Foundation settlement
from structural loading is estimated to be ¾ inch total and ½ inch differential spanning over
a distance of 20 feet. Foundation settlement should occur mostly during construction.
2. Lateral Loads
Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction acting on the bottom
of foundations. Passive pressure may be computed from an equivalent fluid density of 150
pounds per cubic foot above the groundwater table, not to exceed 2,000 pounds per square
foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used in computing the frictional resistance.
These values may be combined without reduction.
3. Reinforcement
Foundations and slabs should be reinforced in conformance with the requirements of the
structural engineer. From a geotechnical viewpoint, a minimum of two No. 5 bars should
be incorporated at the top and bottom of continuous footings in order to reduce the
potential for cracking during seismic shaking or as a result of subsurface imperfections.
Structural Design of Bulkhead Anchor System
The anchor system should be designed to resist 60 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid
pressure. The anchors should be inclined downward at a nominal 15-20 degrees from horizontal.
Passive pressure may be computed from an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot
above the groundwater table, not to exceed 2,500 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of
friction of 0.35 may be used in computing the frictional resistance.
Anchor lengths, reinforcement and connection details should be in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 10
Design of Retaining Walls
1. Lateral Loads
Active pressure forces acting on walls retaining level backfill may be designed using an
equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls should be designed
for an earth pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid density above the
groundwater table and 28 pounds per cubic foot below the groundwater table. Walls
below groundwater should be designed to resist hydrostatic loading. The total earth and
hydrostatic design pressure forces acting on below grade walls may be computed based
on an equivalent fluid pressure of 92 pounds per cubic foot for restrained walls.
Structural surcharges from adjacent structures or improvements, as well as groundwater
surcharges, if applicable, should also be considered in retaining wall design.
A dynamic lateral force should be applied to retaining walls 6 feet or more in height. The
site is classified as being in Seismic Design Category D (Type II occupancy, SDs > 0.5g,
SD1 > 0.2g) with a modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.605 per ASCE 7-
16. Seismic design of retaining walls over 6 feet in height may be based on the
accelerations for seismic analyses developed in accordance with P/BC 2020-083 and
Section 1803.5.12 of the Los Angeles Building Code utilizing an additional dynamic load
of 19 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure applied acting at 2/3 H above the
base of the foundations. Final design requirements should be determined by the structural
engineer.
2. Retaining Wall Foundations
Conventional spread footings founded in engineered fill may be designed for an
allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot with a minimum width of 15
inches and a minimum embedment into the underlying soil of 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent grade. The design value may be increased one-third for short duration wind or
seismic loading. Settlement is anticipated to be less than approximately 3/4-inch total
and 1/2-inch differential over a distance of 20 feet and is anticipated to occur primarily
during construction.
Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and by friction acting on the
bottom of the foundations. The allowable passive pressure forces may be computed
using an equivalent fluid density of 150 pounds per cubic foot up to a maximum of 2,000
pounds per square foot for recompacted fill above groundwater. A friction coefficient of
0.30 may be used between the soil and the base of the footings. These values may be
combined without reduction.
3. Subdrains
The drainage scheme depicted on Figures 3 and 4, or a geotechnically approved
alternative, should be used to control seepage forces behind retaining
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 11
walls. Waterproofing of retaining walls is recommended and should be applied in
accordance with the architect’s specifications or those of a waterproofing consultant.
4. Waterproofing Considerations
If below grade improvements are proposed, the lower portions may be exposed to
continuous groundwater, and waterproofing will be required. Waterproofing
specifications are to be developed and provided by the builder, architect, or a
waterproofing consultant.
Design of Shoring
Shoring should be designed for the same parameters as given above for retaining walls. Active
pressure forces acting on shoring walls retaining level backfill may be designed using an
equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Shoring placed within the influence of
existing improvements should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pcf.
Minimum 24-inch diameter piles or caissons embedded a minimum of 15 feet or more below
grade. Lateral passive resistance below the groundwater table for the portion of the caisson
deeper than 10 feet may be based upon 150 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure for
sand acting on a tributary area of twice the pile diameter. The passive pressure should not
exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. Piles embedded at least 15 feet below grade may use an
allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot, and a skin friction of 150 pounds per
square foot for the portion of the caisson deeper than 10 feet.
Caisson excavations are anticipated to encounter groundwater and caving sands. Casing and
below groundwater caisson construction methods are anticipated to be required.
Vibratory techniques for placement of piles should not be utilized, as damage to adjoining
property improvements may otherwise occur. It is the contractor’s responsibility to develop
appropriate means and methods of construction to avoid damage to adjacent properties.
Hardscape Design and Construction
Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations embedded in recompacted fill
designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented above. Foundations
should have a design depth of 18 inches or more.
Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be
provided at maximum 6 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping
and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct
drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principal
foundation elements should be sealed and drained.
Flatwork elements should be a minimum 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars
16 inches on center both ways.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 12
Seismic Design
Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided by the USGS
(ASCE 7-16) to satisfy the 2022 CBC design criteria:
Table 2, Site and Seismic Design Criteria
for the 2022 CBC
Design
Parameters
Recommended
Values
Site Class
Site Longitude (degrees)
Site Latitude (degrees)
SS (g) B
S1 (g) B
SMS (g) D1
SM1 (g) D1
SDS (g) D1
SD1 (g) D1
Fa
Fv
Seismic Design Category
PGAM
F1
-117.903
33.613
1.383
0.492
1.383
0.891
0.922
0.594
1.00
1.81
D
0.665
1This evaluation assumes the fundamental period of vibration of proposed
structures does not exceed 0.5 seconds and meets the exemptions of
Section 11.4.8.
Finished Grade and Surface Drainage
Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of
footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code, Section 1804.4
is recommended. Roofs should be guttered and discharge conducted away from the house in a
non-erosive manner as specified by the project civil engineer or landscape architect. Proper
interception and disposal of all onsite surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil
engineering or landscape architectural design.
Concrete
Soil soluble sulfate testing indicates negligible sulfate content. On-site concrete may be exposed
to seawater. It is recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate
concrete mix to address the structural and exposure requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete
expert, it is recommended that the 2022 California Building Code, Section 1904.1 be utilized,
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 13
which refers to ACI 318, Table 4.3.1, and 4.2.1. The appropriate exposure should be evaluated
by the architect and/or structural engineer.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix G, Utility Trench Backfill
Guidelines. It is the owners and contractor's responsibility to inform subcontractors of these
requirements and to notify Geofirm when backfill placement is to begin.
Foundation Plan Review
In order to help assure conformance with recommendations of this report and as a condition of
the use of this report, the undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications
prior to submission of such to the building official for issuance of permits. Such review is to be
performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the design concept and
the information provided herein. This review shall not include review of the accuracy or
completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes,
construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety
precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Geofirm’s review shall be
conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit
adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that Geofirm has reviewed the
entire system of which the item is a component. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any
deviation from the Construction Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the
Contractor. Geofirm shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which
submissions of correlated items have not been received.
Jobsite Safety
Neither the professional activities of Geofirm, nor the presence of Geofirm’s employees and
subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its
obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means,
methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and
coordination the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety
precautions required by any regulatory agencies. Geofirm and its personnel have no authority to
exercise any control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their
work or any health or safety programs or procedures. The General Contractor shall be solely
responsible for jobsite safety.
Pre-Grade Meeting
A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the owner, contractor, architect, civil
engineer, soils engineer, engineering geologist, and building official prior to commencement of
construction, to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or
additional recommendations.
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 14
Monitoring
Complete documentation of the pre- and post-construction conditions of adjacent improvements
should be undertaken. In addition, monitoring of ground movement and construction vibrations
should be made as an integral part of the construction. Such documentation should include:
1. A sufficient number of photographs to establish the existing condition of nearby
structures.
2. Establishment of a sufficient number of ground elevation control stations so that potential
subsidence or heave associated with grading and lateral movement can be detected.
Monitoring of such points should be accomplished during all grading, shoring (if any)
and excavation work, and continued until retaining walls are backfilled or site grading is
complete.
Observation and Testing
The 2022 California Building Code, Section 1705.6 requires geotechnical observation and
testing during construction to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, that foundation
excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and
proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill
materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous
verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling.
A Geofirm representative shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction,
as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the progress and quality of the work completed
by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a
detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow Geofirm, as an experienced
professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in
general, if the work is proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Geofirm shall not supervise, direct, or have control over the Contractor’s work nor have any
responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected
by the Contractor nor the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the
work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor.
Geofirm shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of the Contractor, subcontractor, any
entity performing any portion of the work, or any agents or employees of any of them.
Geofirm does not guarantee the performance of the Contractor and shall not be responsible for
the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contractor documents or any
applicable law, codes, rules or regulations.
These observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a
time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and
June 27, 2023 Project No: 72729-00
Report No: 23-9371
Page No: 15
ongoing geotechnically involved phases of construction is that of the owner and his contractor.
Typically, at least 24 hours’ notice is required.
LIMITATIONS
This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the
engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty is offered or implied.
Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered
and are not meant to imply a control of nature. As site geotechnical conditions may alter with
time, the recommendations presented herein are considered valid for a time period of one year
from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed
development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental
investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report in any form cannot be
approved unless specific written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is
obtained from this firm.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this
office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFIRM
Erik R. Hilde, PG Jesse D. Bearfield, PE 84335
Associate Engineering Geologist, EG 2303 Associate Engineer
Date Signed: 6/27/2023
ERH/JDB : mr
Distribution: Addressee via email
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
USGS Geologic Location Map, Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle
72729-00 June 2023 1
SITE
54 Linda Isle
Newport Beach
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle
72729-00 June 2023 2
SITE
54 Linda Isle
Newport Beach
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
72729-00 June 2023 3
Onsite Native Soil Cap for exterior ; (1.5'-2.0' MAX. thick)Select NoncohesiveGranular Backfill(SE > 30)
Retaining Wall Footing
Geotextile Filter Fabric
4" Perforated Plastic Collector Pipe (Below Adjacent Finish Grade)
Single-sized 1/2"- 3/4" Drain Rock(1 cubic foot per lineal foot)
Limit of Wall Excavation - See Report for Recommended Geometery
Typical Retaining Wall
Notes: This system consists of a geotextile fabric-wrapped gravel envelope. Collection is with a
4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe embedded in the gravel envelope and tied to a 4-inch
diameter non-perforated plastic pipe which discharges at convenient locations. The outlet pipe
should be placed such that the flow gradient is not less than 2.0 percent. The geotextile fabric-
wrapped gravel envelope should be placed at a similar gradient
All drain pipes should be Schedule 40 PVC or ABS SDR-35. Perforations may be either bored 1/4-inch diameter holes or 3/16-inch slots placed on the bottom one-third of the pipe perimeter. If the pipe is to be bored, a minimum of 10 holes should be uniformly placed per foot of length. If slots are made, they should not exceed 2-1/2 inches in length and should not be closer than 2 inches. Total length of slots should not be less than 50 percent of the pipe length and should be uniformly spaced.
The fabric pore spaces should not exceed equivalent 30 mesh openings or be less than equivalent 100 mesh openings. The fabric should be placed such that a minimum lap of 8-inches exists at all splices.
12"-18"
Finish Grade - Design May Vary per Architect or Civil Engineer
Alternative Weep Hole(s) for Exterior Applications, Design per Architect or Civil Engineer
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
Conceptual Shoring/Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
72729-00 June 2023 4
Caisson
Waterproofing per Architectural Plan
Finished Reinforced Retaining Wall and/or Shotcrete Wall between Caissons
Native Soil
Shoring Lagging
Mirafi Quickdrain, or approved equivalent, outletted to sump pump
Miradrain or approved equivalent
Retained Earth Material
Embedded Reinforcement per Structural
GEOTECHNICAL PLOT PLAN
54 LINDA ISLE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIASCALE: 1"=10'
72729-00 23-9371 JUNE 2023 5JOB NO.:REPORT NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
CPT-2
CPT-1
CPT-1A
CPT-2
Qdf DREDGE FILL
BAY/BEACH DEPOSITS
APPROXIMATE CONE PENETRATION TEST
LOCATION
EXPLANATION
Qb
Qdf
Qb
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Al Atik, Linda, M. ASCE, and Sitar, Nicholas, M.ASCE, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures
on Cantilever Retaining Structures, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October.
2. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K.W., and Niazi, M. M., 1999, “Vertical Ground Motion:
Characteristics, Relationship with Horizontal Component, and Building Code
Implications”, Proceedings of the SMIP99 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data,
pp. 23-49, dated September 15.
3. California Building Code, 2022 Edition.
4. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport
Beach Quadrangle.”
5. California Geological Survey, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
6. Geofirm, 2016, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 34 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72221-00, Report No.
16-7800, dated January 14.
7. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 74 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72499-00, Report No.
20-8721, dated June 15.
8. Geofirm, 2022, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 56 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72633-00, Report No.
22-9107, dated July 1.
9. Grant et al, 1999, “Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin
Hills, South Los Angeles Basin, California.”
10. Legg, Mark R., et al, 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal
Cities,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. January
11. Morton, P.K., et al, 1973, “Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County,” California
Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15.
12. United States Geological Survey, 2002, "Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa
Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, southern California, Version 1.0".
APPENDIX B
CPT LOGS
Project:Stoney-Miller Consultants
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 9.47 ft, Date: 6/2/202354 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA
CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
4003002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/5/2023, 11:50:38 AM 1
Project file:
Project:Stoney-Miller Consultants
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 13.85 ft, Date: 6/2/202354 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA
CPT-1A
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
4003002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/5/2023, 11:50:38 AM 2
Project file:
Project:Stoney-Miller Consultants
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 17.07 ft, Date: 6/2/202354 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA
CPT-2
Location:
Cone resistance
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
4003002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/5/2023, 11:50:38 AM 3
Project file:
APPENDIX C
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX C
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
I. Field Exploration Procedures
Our field services consisted of three CPT soundings to a maximum depth of 17.5 feet.
Logs of our CPT soundings are included in Appendix B.
A representative, near-surface bulk sample was bagged and transported to the laboratory
for classification and physical testing during a previous nearby exploration at 34 Linda
Isle, Reference 6. The test results presented below are from that investigation.
II. Testing Procedures
A. Corrosivity Series (34 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, Reference #6)
Soluble sulfates, pH and minimum resistivity were determined in accordance with
California Test Method 417, ASTM D 4972, and California Test Method 643,
respectively. The results are presented below:
Sample Designation - B-1 @ 0-2’
pH - 7.1
Soluble Sulfate - 205 mg/kg
Minimum Resistivity - 328 ohm-cm
B. Particle Size Analyses (34 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, Reference #6)
Particle size analyses were performed on samples in accordance with ASTM
D422. The results of the tests are presented graphically on Figure C-1.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND
D60
0.269
D100
0.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH
POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)
finemedium
3 1002416301 200610501/2
2.50
HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS1.5 8 143/4 3/8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PI Cc CuLLPL
B-1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
coarse fine coarse SILT OR CLAY
B-1 0.189.5
Classification
140342040660
%Clay%Silt
3.595.3
%Sand%Gravel
0.8
D10
0.108
D30
0.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH
1.12
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Client: Rudy and Gloria Mariman
Figure No. C-1
Address: 34 Linda Isle; Newport Beachc CAProject Number: 72221-00
Project Name: Mariman
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING ANALYSES
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value
7.500.67
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Mariman Location : 54 Linda Isle, Newport Beach
Stoney Miller Consultants, Inc/ Geofirm
33 Journey, Alisio Viejo, CA
CPT file : CPT-1
6.00 ft
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied:
No
N/AN/A
NoYes
Clay like behavior
applied:Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes
15.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)2001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
1
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)2001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq 10.80.60.40.20-0.2
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)2001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210
Th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
l
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e
s
a
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
,
H
2
(
m
)
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
CPT-1 (2.84)
Analysis PGA: 0.67
PGA 0.4
0g -
0
.5
0
g
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 3002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v 0.50.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)2001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)6543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 22
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Abbreviations
qt:Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)2001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Corrected norm. cone resista
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resista FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Cyclic shear strain
Gamma max (%)6050403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements
Geometric parameters: Level ground (or gently sloping) with free face (L: 131.00 ft - H: 9.00 ft)
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:22 PM 24
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
qt: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)
Ic: Soil Behaviour Type IndexQtn,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance
F.S.: Factor of safety
γmax: Maximum cyclic shear strainLDI: Lateral displacement index
Abbreviations Surface condition
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value
7.500.67
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Mariman Location : 54 Linda Isle, Newport Beach
Stoney Miller Consultants, Inc/ Geofirm
33 Journey, Alisio Viejo, CA
CPT file : CPT-1A
6.00 ft
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied:
No
N/AN/A
NoYes
Clay like behavior
applied:Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes
15.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
1
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)3210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq 10.80.60.40.20-0.2
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
SandSand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistanc
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210
Th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
l
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e
s
a
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
,
H
2
(
m
)
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
CPT-1A (3.24)
Analysis PGA: 0.67
PGA 0.4
0g -
0
.5
0
g
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 3002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistanc SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v 0.50.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
NoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/ANo
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)6543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 26
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Abbreviations
qt:Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1A
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Corrected norm. cone resista
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resist FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Cyclic shear strain
Gamma max (%)6050403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements
Geometric parameters: Gently sloping ground without free face (Slope 1.00 %)
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:39:48 PM 29
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
qt: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)
Ic: Soil Behaviour Type IndexQtn,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance
F.S.: Factor of safety
γmax: Maximum cyclic shear strainLDI: Lateral displacement index
Abbreviations Surface condition
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value
7.500.67
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Mariman Location : 54 Linda Isle, Newport Beach
Stoney Miller Consultants, Inc/ Geofirm
33 Journey, Alisio Viejo, CA
CPT file : CPT-2
6.00 ft
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Yes
5.00 ft120.00 lb/ft3
NoYes
Clay like behavior
applied:Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes
15.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Plot CRR plot
FILL
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 CRR plot
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
FILL
Factor of safety 21.510.50
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 FS Plot
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
1
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)50-5
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sandSand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq 10.80.60.40.20-0.2
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sandSand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistanc
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
CRR plot
FILL
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
FILL
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot Liquefaction potential
FILL
LPI 20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
FILL
Settlement (in)0.150.10.050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
FILL
Displacement (in)1.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
lic
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
* (CS
R
*)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210
Th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
l
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e
s
a
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
,
H
2
(
m
)
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Analysis PGA: 0.67
PGA 0.4
0g -
0
.5
0
g
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 4003002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistanc SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v 0.50.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value7.50
0.676.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:Fill height:
5.00 ft1
2.60Based on SBT
Yes5.00 ft
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
120.00 lb/ft3
No
YesSands only
Yes15.00 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot FS Plot
FILL
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot Vertical settlements
FILL
Settlement (in)0.150.10.050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
FILL
Volumentric strain (%)6543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 29
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
Abbreviations
qt:Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Corrected norm. cone resista
Qtn,cs 200150100500
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resist FS Plot
FILL
Factor of safety 21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot Cyclic shear strain
FILL
Gamma max (%)6050403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements
FILL
Displacement (in)1.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements
Geometric parameters: Level ground (or gently sloping) with free face (L: 131.00 ft - H: 10.00 ft)
CLiq v.3.5.2.5 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/19/2023, 2:40:32 PM 33
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72729 (Mariman) 54 Linda Isle\CPT Liquefaction\72729-00 Cliq.clq
qt: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)
Ic: Soil Behaviour Type IndexQtn,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance
F.S.: Factor of safety
γmax: Maximum cyclic shear strainLDI: Lateral displacement index
Abbreviations Surface condition
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations
observed by Geofirm or its designated representative. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a
registered geotechnical engineer.
The placement, spreading, mixing, watering and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with
these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation,
and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the soils engineer signing the soils
report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the soils engineer shall have the authority
to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to
permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in
the final report issued by the soils engineer.
SITE PREPARATION
All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and
removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable
material.
Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the soils engineer as being unsuitable for
placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part
of a compacted fill must be approved by the soils engineer.
The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is
free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used.
After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be diced or bladed by the
contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content
and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in
depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner
prescribed by the soils engineer.
MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials approved by the soils engineer. These
materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils
from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic vegetable matter
and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps
greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-
inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely
surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a
perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils.
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the
laboratory by the soils engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than
that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material
shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL
The material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed and
compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer.
When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soils engineer, water
shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified.
When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical
engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other
satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified.
After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to
90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557-70 (five
layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-
wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment
shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient
passes to obtain the desired density uniformly.
A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will
be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in
increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted
inner core, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
The geotechnical engineer shall observe the placement of fill during the grading process and will
file a written report upon completion of grading stating his observations as to compliance with
these specifications.
One density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000
cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests.
Any cleanouts and processed ground to receive fill must be observed by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical
engineer when these areas are ready for observation.
PROTECTION OF WORK
During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage
controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent
ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site.
After the geotechnical engineer has terminated his observations of the completed grading, no
further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the soils engineer, if
it is to be subject to the recommendations of this report.
APPENDIX F
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES
APPENDIX F
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES
The following guidelines pertinent to utility trench backfills have been adopted by the County of
Orange, Environmental Management Agency Grading Section, effective March 31, 1986. The
application of the guidelines is strictly enforced by the County reviewers and inspectors.
1. Each utility subcontractor (gas, electric, water, sewer, telephone, cable TV, irrigation,
drainage, etc.) shall submit to the developer for dissemination to his consultants (civil
engineer, geotechnical engineer, and utility contractor) a plot plan of utility lines installed
under his purview which identifies line type, material, size, depth, and approximate
location.
2. The developer or his agent shall provide a composite plot plan of all utilities or a copy of
all individual utility plot plans to his geotechnical engineer for use in evaluating whether
all utility trench backfills are suitable for the intended use.
3. The geotechnical engineer shall provide the County with a report which includes a plot
plan showing the location of all utility trenches which:
A. Are located within the load influence zone of a structure (1:1 projection)
B. Are located beneath any hardscape
C. Are parallel and in close proximity to the top or toe of a slope and may adversely
impact slope stability if improperly backfilled
D. Are located on the face of a slope in a trench 18 or more inches in depth.
Typically, trenches that are less than 18 inches in depth will not be within the load
influence zone if located next to a structure, and will not have a significant effect on
slope stability if constructed near the top or toe of a slope and need not be shown on the
plot plan unless determined to be significant by the geotechnical engineer. This plot plan
may be prepared by someone other than the soil engineer, but must meet his approval.
4. Backfill compaction test locations must be shown on the plot plan described in No. 3
above, and a table of test data provided in the geotechnical report.
5. The geotechnical report (utility trench backfill) must state that all utility trenches within
the subject lots have been backfilled in a manner suitable for the intended use. This
includes the backfill of all trenches shown on the plot plan described in No. 3 and the
backfill of those trenches which did not need to be plotted on this plan.