App E - Prelim Geotech Inv ASMBLD
Appendix E:
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
E-1: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
23241 Arroyo Vista Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 phone: 949.888.6513 fax: 949.888.1380 info@gmugeo.com
www.gmugeo.com
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Addition to Terrace Apartments,
200 City Boulevard West
Orange, California
Prepared For
DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
November 22, 2017
GMU Project No. 17-176-00
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
23241 Arroyo Vista Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 phone: 949.888.6513 fax: 949.888.1380 info@gmugeo.com
www.gmugeo.com
TRANSMITTAL
DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO. DATE: November 22, 2017
9990 Santa Monica Boulevard PROJECT: 17-176-00
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
ATTENTION: Mr. Sidh Solanki
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition at Terrace
Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange, California
DISTRIBUTION:
Electronic copy to addressee
cc: Van Tilburg, Banvard & Soderbergh (electronic copy)
Attn: Mr. Roger Wolf
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 i GMU Project 17-096-00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 1
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 2
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................ 2
LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................................... 3
GEOLOGIC FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ..................................................................................................... 3
Geologic Formations ...................................................................................................................... 3
GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................. 3
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................................................................................................................. 4
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................... 4
LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT .............................................................................. 4
Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................... 4
Secondary Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................... 4
Seismic Settlement ......................................................................................................................... 5
LANDSLIDES ....................................................................................................................................... 5
TSUNAMI, SEICHE, AND FLOODING .............................................................................................. 5
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 5
SOIL EXPANSION ............................................................................................................................... 5
SOIL CORROSION ............................................................................................................................... 5
PRELIMINARY PERCOLATION TESTING ...................................................................................... 6
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 7
Rippability ...................................................................................................................................... 7
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................... 7
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 8
GENERAL SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING .......................................................................... 8
General ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Clearing and Grubbing ................................................................................................................... 8
Corrective Grading ......................................................................................................................... 8
Temporary Excavations ................................................................................................................ 10
Temporary Shoring ...................................................................................................................... 11
STRUCTURE SEISMIC DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 14
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – AT-GRADE TOWNHOMES........................ 15
General ......................................................................................................................................... 15
General Foundation Design Parameters – At-Grade Townhomes ............................................... 15
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – SUBTERRANEAN LEVELS ....................... 17
General ......................................................................................................................................... 17
General Foundation Design Parameters – Conventional Spread/Continuous Footings ............... 17
General Foundation Design Parameters – Mat Foundation ......................................................... 19
Geopiers or Equivalent Gravel Piers ............................................................................................ 19
BASEMENT WALLS .......................................................................................................................... 20
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 ii GMU Project 17-176-00
General ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Foundation Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 20
Lateral Earth Pressure .................................................................................................................. 20
Dynamic Lateral Load .................................................................................................................. 20
Drainage ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Waterproofing .............................................................................................................................. 21
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE .............................................................................................................. 21
FERROUS METAL CORROSION PROTECTION ........................................................................... 21
MOISTURE VAPOR TRANSMISSION ............................................................................................. 22
Moisture Vapor Retarder .............................................................................................................. 22
SURFACE DRAINAGE ...................................................................................................................... 23
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 23
General ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Pipe Zone (Bedding and Shading)................................................................................................ 23
Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................. 24
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 24
CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 25
SITE INFILTRATION ......................................................................................................................... 25
CONCRETE FLATWORK DESIGN .................................................................................................. 26
PLAN REVIEW / GEOTECHNICAL TESTING DURING GRADING / FUTURE REPORT ......... 27
Plan Review ................................................................................................................................. 27
Geotechnical Testing .................................................................................................................... 27
Future Report................................................................................................................................ 27
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 28
CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 29
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 30
PLATES
Plate 1 -- Location Map
Plate 2 -- Drill Hole and Percolation Locations Map
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Geotechnical Exploration Procedures, Drill Hole Logs,
and Cone Penetration Testing Data by GMU
APPENDIX A-1: Cone Penetration Testing Data by GMU
APPENDIX B: Geotechnical Laboratory Procedures and Test Results by GMU
APPENDIX C: Liquefaction Analysis
APPENDIX D: Percolation Test Result
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation performed
for the proposed additions to the Terrace Apartments project located at 200 City Boulevard West,
in the City of Orange, California. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the subsurface conditions
at the site and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations related to the design and
construction of the proposed structures. The preliminary geotechnical recommendations should be
reviewed when structural loads and wall/column locations become available.
SCOPE
The scope of our services, as outlined in our August 18, 2017 proposal is as follows:
1. Reviewed the reference conceptual plans dated February 2, 2017 (references listed on Page
30).
2. Marked eleven (11) truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger (HSA) drill holes, and seven (7)
cone penetration testing (CPT) soundings, coordinated with Domino Realty Management
Co., and contacted Underground Service Alert (USA/Dig Alert) in order to provide
advanced notification of the subsurface drill holes and CPT’s planned within the subject
site.
3. Performed a field subsurface exploration program consisting of:
Advancing a total of eleven (11) HSA drill holes to a maximum depth of 71.5 feet
below the existing ground surface (in order to classify the subsurface material and
obtain representative samples for laboratory testing to be utilized during design).
Utilizing four of the eleven HSA drill holes to perform percolation testing.
Performing seven (7) CPT soundings to a maximum depth of 75 feet below the
existing ground surface.
Logging of all field exploration work and obtaining bulk, drive, and SPT soil
samples for geotechnical laboratory testing.
4. Performed laboratory testing on soil samples obtained from the HSA drill holes. Testing
included moisture and density, Atterberg limits, particle size distribution, maximum
density and optimum moisture content, direct shear testing, consolidation, R-value, and full
chemical analysis.
5. Interpreted and evaluated the acquired field and laboratory data. Performed geotechnical
engineering analysis to evaluate potential geological hazards and develop preliminary
geotechnical conclusions and recommendations that are contained herein.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 2 GMU Project 17-176-00
6. Prepared this geotechnical investigation report.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is currently occupied by the existing Terrace Apartments, and is bound by Lewis Street
and existing asphalt-paved parking lot on the west, by an existing asphalt-paved parking lot on the
north, by an existing asphalt-paved parking lot, City Boulevard West and The City Way East on
the east, and asphalt-paved parking lot on the south. The general location of the project is shown
on Plate 1 – Location Map.
The site relatively flat and consist of existing three-story, above-grade apartment homes over one-
level of subterranean parking. The site is also occupied by asphalt-concrete pavement, car ports,
trees and planter areas.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of development of three (3) four-story
buildings over two (2) story of subterranean parking structure and twenty eight (28) two-story at-
grade three (3) story townhomes. Two of the four story structures are planned to be constructed
adjacent to City Boulevard West and the third four-story building is planned to be constructed
adjacent to Lewis Street. The townhomes are planned to be constructed along the north and south
side of the property. In addition, it is our understanding the project will also include construction
of new asphalt-concrete pavement and associated site work. The site layout and our field
investigation locations are shown on Plate 2 – Geotechnical Map.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
GMU conducted a subsurface exploration program to evaluate the soil conditions within the
project limits. A total of eleven (11) exploratory drill holes and seven (7) CPT soundings were
performed which consisted of the following:
Eleven (11) hollow-stem-auger exploratory drill holes to a maximum depth of 71.5 feet
below the existing ground surface in order to determine site specific subsurface geologic
and groundwater conditions and to obtain bulk and drive samples for geotechnical testing.
Seven (7) CPT soundings to a maximum depth of 75 feet below the existing ground surface.
The drill holes were logged by our staff engineer and samples were collected and transported to
our facility for observation and testing. The drill holes and CPT locations are shown on Plate 2 –
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 3 GMU Project 17-176-00
Drill Hole and Percolation Locations Map. Drill hole logs are contained in Appendix A and CPT
reports are presented in Appendix A-1.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing for the subject investigation was performed on samples collected during our
field investigation and included the following tests:
In-place moisture and density
Maximum density and optimum moisture content
Particle size distribution
Atterberg limits
Consolidation tests
Direct shear tests
R-value
Corrosion series testing (sulfate content, chloride content, pH, and soil resistivity)
The results of our laboratory testing are summarized on Table B-1 included in Appendix B –
Geotechnical Laboratory Procedures and Test Results.
GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located within the Los Angeles Basin within the Peninsular Range Province. According
to the geologic map of the Santa Ana (CGS, 2006), the project site is underlain by younger alluvial
fan deposits (Qyf) that are typically comprised of sand, clay, silts and gravel.
Geologic Formations
Earth materials encountered during our subsurface investigation consist of approximately two to
three feet of artificial fill (Qaf) overlaying the alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) extending to the total
depth of exploration. In general, the artificial fill consists of damp to moist, loose to medium dense,
silty sand material. The alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) consists of moist, loose to dense sands, and
moist to very moist, firm to stiff, clay and silts material.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not observed during our exploration to a maximum depth of 71.5 feet below the
existing grade. The historical high depth to groundwater is reportedly 50 feet below the existing
grade at the project site (CDMG 2001). Groundwater conditions may vary across the site due to
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 4 GMU Project 17-176-00
stratigraphic and hydrologic conditions, and may change over time as a consequence of seasonal
and meteorological fluctuations, or activities by humans at this site and nearby sites. However,
based on the above findings, groundwater is unlikely to impact the proposed development.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active faults
are shown on the reviewed geologic maps crossing the site, however, the site is located in the
seismically active region of Southern California. The nearest known active faults are the San
Joaquin hills and the Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) systems, which are located approximately 6 miles
from the site and capable of generating a maximum earthquake magnitude (Mw) of 6.9 and 7.1,
respectively.
Given the proximity of the site to these and numerous other active and potentially active faults,
the site will likely be subject to earthquake ground motions in the future. A site PGAM of 0.53g
was calculated for the site in conformance with the 2016 CBC. This PGAM is primarily dominated
by earthquakes with a mean magnitude of 6.6 at a mean distance of 9 miles from the site using the
USGS 2014 Interactive Deaggregation website.
LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT
Liquefaction
Based on our review of the State of California Official Map of Seismic Hazard for the Anaheim
Quadrangle, the site is not located within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. In
addition, based on the lack of shallow groundwater, relatively uniform soil stratum across the site,
and our liquefaction analysis, it is our professional opinion that the liquefaction potential at the
site is very low.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Seismically induced dry sand settlement is the ground settlement due to densification of loose, dry,
cohesionless soils during strong earthquake shaking. Based on our secondary seismic hazard
analysis, it is our professional opinion that the potential for seismically induced dry-sand
settlement is low to moderate.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 5 GMU Project 17-176-00
Seismic Settlement
Based on our seismic settlement analysis results and review of overall soil conditions, we
recommend that an average total seismic settlement of less than ½ inch with differential settlement
of less than ¼ inch over a 30 feet span be used for the structural design of the at-grade townhomes.
LANDSLIDES
Based on our review of available geologic maps, literature, topographic maps, aerial photographs,
and our subsurface evaluation, no landslides or related features underlie or are adjacent to the
subject site. Due to the relatively level nature of the site and surrounding areas, the potential for
landslides to occur at the project site is considered negligible.
TSUNAMI, SEICHE, AND FLOODING
The site is not located on any State of California – County of Orange Tsunami Inundation Map for
Emergency Planning. The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced
tsunamis is considered to be negligible because the site is located several miles inland from the
Pacific Ocean coast at an elevation exceeding the maximum height of potential tsunami
inundation.
The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced seiches is considered to
be negligible due to the lack of any significant enclosed bodies of water located in the vicinity of
the site.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FINDINGS
SOIL EXPANSION
Based on our evaluation and experience with similar material types, the sandy soils encountered
near the ground surface at the site exhibit a very low expansion potential, however, the clay soils
encountered at the basement level exhibit a low to medium expansion potential.
SOIL CORROSION
Based on laboratory test results for pH, soluble chlorides, sulfate, and minimum resistivity of the
site soils obtained during our subsurface investigation, the on-site soils should be considered to
have the following:
A moderate sulfate exposure to concrete per ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.2.1
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 6 GMU Project 17-176-00
A low to high minimum resistivity indicating conditions that are severely corrosive to
ferrous metals.
A chloride content of up to 2064 ppm (severely corrosive to ferrous metals).
Metal structures which will be in direct contact with the soil (i.e., underground metal conduits,
pipelines, metal sign posts, etc.) and/or in close proximity to the soil (wrought iron fencing, etc.)
may be subject to corrosion. The use of special coatings or cathodic protection around buried
metal structures has been shown to be beneficial in reducing corrosion potential. Corrosion of
ferrous metal reinforcing elements in structural concrete should be reduced by increasing the
thickness of concrete cover and the use of the recommended maximum water/cement ratio for
concrete. The results of the laboratory chemical tests performed within the site are presented in
Table B-1 in Appendix B.
The laboratory testing program performed for this project does not address the potential for
corrosion to copper piping. In this regard, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to perform
more detailed testing and develop appropriate mitigation measures (if necessary). The above
discussion is provided for general guidance in regards to the corrosiveness of the on-site soils to
typical metal structures used for construction. Detailed corrosion testing and recommendations for
protecting buried ferrous metal and/or copper elements are beyond our purview. If detailed
recommendations are required, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to develop appropriate
mitigation measures.
PRELIMINARY PERCOLATION TESTING
Four (4) preliminary percolation tests were performed in general conformance with the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board Technical Guidance Document (TGD), Appendices dated
March 2011. The “Shallow Percolation” test procedure contained in Section VII.3.8 was utilized.
The percolation borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 11 feet below the existing grade
using a hollow-stem-auger, truck-mounted drill rig. The calculated infiltration rates are presented
in Table 1 below. We note that that the project civil engineer should apply a safety factor to the
infiltration rates presented below in accordance with the TGD manual.
Table 1: Calculated Infiltration Rates
Drill Hole Depth Below Finish
Grade (feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
DH-8 5.20 4.34
DH-9 11.0 3.86
DH-10 10.7 20.00
DH-11 5.0 20.06
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 7 GMU Project 17-176-00
The preliminary percolation test hole locations are shown on the attached Drill Hole and
Percolation Locations Map, Plate 2. The results of the percolation testing are summarized in
Appendix D of this report and site infiltration recommendations are presented later in this report.
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
Rippability
The majority of the soil materials underlying the site can be excavated with scrapers and other
conventional grading equipment.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our geotechnical findings, the following is a summary of our conclusions:
1. The project area is not underlain by any known active faults.
2. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered and is not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the proposed development.
3. The site is not subject to liquefaction, however, there is a potential for minor dry seismic
settlement to be incorporated into the design.
4. Site soils within the at-grade foundation influence zone are anticipated to have a low
expansion potential based on our recent laboratory test results and local experience,
however, site clayey soils within the below-grade foundation influence zone are anticipated
to have a low to medium expansion potential. Recommendations for the proposed
developments are based on a “low to medium” expansive condition.
5. Corrosion testing indicates that the on-site soils have a moderate sulfate exposure and are
severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals and reinforcing steel. Consequently, any metal
exposed to the soil shall be protected. In addition, due to high levels of chlorides, steel
reinforcement will require proper concrete cover.
6. Based on our percolation testing and calculated infiltration rates, the site soils in the upper
5 to 10 feet are deemed feasible for infiltration of water.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 8 GMU Project 17-176-00
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
General
The following recommendations pertain to any required grading associated with the proposed
improvements and corrective grading needed to support the proposed improvements. All site
preparation and grading should be performed in accordance with the City of Orange grading code
requirements and the recommendations presented in this report.
Clearing and Grubbing
All significant organic material such as weeds, brush, tree branches, or roots, or construction debris
such as old irrigation lines, asphalt concrete, and other decomposable material should be removed
from the area to be graded. No rock or broken concrete greater than 6 inches in diameter should
be utilized in the fills.
Corrective Grading
Remedial grading will serve to create a firm and workable platform for construction of the
proposed developments such as new 4-story apartment buildings, new townhomes, and pavements
and flatwork. The fill material encountered during our subsurface investigation will require some
remedial grading in order to densify any disturbed soil and undocumented artificial fill that may
be encountered during the grading operation.
It should be noted that the recommendations provided herein are based on our subsurface
exploration and knowledge of the on-site geology. Actual removals may vary in configuration and
volume based on observations of geologic materials and conditions encountered during grading.
The bottom of all remedial grading removals should be observed by a GMU representative to
verify the suitability of in-place soil prior to performing scarification and recompaction. Remedial
grading recommendations are outlined below.
Subterranean Structures Building Pads: In order to create a firm and stable platform on
which to construct the new subterranean structures foundations, we recommend the
following:
o The subterranean structures building pads should be excavated to a depth of at least
3 feet below the bottom of the foundation.
o The bottom of the over excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least
6 inches, moisture conditioned to 2% above optimum moisture content and
recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction as determined in accordance with
ASTM D1557.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 9 GMU Project 17-176-00
o Following the approval of the over-excavation bottom by a representative of GMU,
the onsite material may be used as fill material to achieve the planned pad grade.
o The fill material should then be placed in 6- to- 8-inch-thick lifts, moisture
conditioned to 2% above optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve 90%
relative compaction.
Additionally, we anticipate to encounter unstable clay material at the pad elevation of the
proposed subterranean parking structures. If unstable/saturated soils are encountered at the
bottom of the excavation, the unstable soil may be mitigated by performing the following:
Upon reaching the bottom of the over-exavation, the relatively soft subgrade should
be kept relatively undisturbed (with very limited heavy equipment driving over it).
A blanket of approximately 24 inches of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) should
be placed over the relatively undisturbed bottom. The thickness of the CAB will
depend on the amount of CAB to create a stable platform, however, it is not
anticipated to exceed 24 inches.
The lower foot of CAB should be placed in a 6-to-8-inch-thick lift and compacted
to 90 percent relative compaction.
The final 12 inches of CAB should also be placed in a 6-to-8-inch-thick lift and
compacted to 95 percent relative compaction and the top of the 24 inches of CAB
should be proof rolled under the observation of a representative of GMU.
If the 24 inches of CAB are deemed stable by GMU, the engineered fill to reach
the final pad grade may consist of onsite sandy soils, placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick
lifts, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90
percent relative compaction.
A representative of GMU should observe the excavation bottom prior to utilizing
this mitigation method.
If the subterranean buildings foundation elements are supported by Geopier or equivalent
ground improvement system, then the proposed buildings slab-on-grade should be
supported on 24 inches of engineered fill.
At-Grade Townhomes Foundations and Slabs: Grading recommendations for support of
new townhomes foundations and slabs should consist of the following:
o The townhomes pads should be excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below the
bottom of the footing or 4 feet from existing grade, whichever is greater. The lateral
extent of the overexcavation should be at least 4 feet beyond the edge of the future
footings, where space is available.
o The bottom of the over-excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least
6 inches, moisture conditioned to 2% above optimum moisture content, and
recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
o Following the approval of the over-excavation bottom by a representative of GMU,
the onsite material may be used as fill material to achieve the planned slab subgrade
elevation.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 10 GMU Project 17-176-00
o The fill material should then be placed in 6- to- 8-inch-thick lifts, moisture
conditioned to 2% above optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve 90%
relative compaction.
Flatwork/Pavement Areas: Grading recommendations for the support of the asphalt and
concrete pavement and flatwork should consist of the following:
o The pavement/flatwork section should be over-excavated to a depth of at least 1
foot below the bottom of the pavement structural/flatwork section (i.e., 1 foot below
the bottom of the aggregate base).
o The bottom of the over-excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least
8 inches, moisture conditioned to least 2% above optimum moisture content, and
recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
o Following the approval of the over-excavation bottom by a representative of GMU,
the onsite material may be used as fill material to achieve the planned subgrade
elevation.
o The fill material should then be placed in 6- to- 8-inch-thick lifts, moisture
conditioned to at least 2% above optimum moisture content, and compacted to
achieve 90% relative compaction.
If the existing loose fill materials are found to be disturbed to depths greater than the
proposed remedial grading, then the depth of over-excavation and re-compaction should
be increased accordingly in local areas as recommended by a representative of GMU.
Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations for demolitions, earthwork, footings, and utility trenches are expected. We
anticipate that unsurcharged excavations with vertical side slopes less than 3 feet high will
generally be stable, however, some sloughing of cohesionless sandy materials encountered near
the existing grade at the site should be expected. Our recommendations for temporary excavations
are as follows:
Temporary, unsurcharged excavation sides over 3 feet in height should be sloped no steeper
than an inclination of 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical).
Where sloped excavations are created, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that
vehicles and storage loads do no encroach within 10 feet of the tops of the excavated slopes.
A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete
trucks and cranes. GMU should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific
setback requirements can be established.
If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms
are recommended to be graded along the tops of the slopes in order to prevent runoff water
from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.
Our temporary excavation recommendations are provided only as minimum guidelines. All work
associated with temporary excavations should meet the minimal requirements as set forth by CAL-
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 11 GMU Project 17-176-00
OSHA. Temporary slope construction, maintenance, and safety are the responsibility of the
contractor.
Temporary Shoring
Temporary shoring is anticipated to be placed along the perimeter of the proposed basement
parking garage. Based on the assumed finished floor elevation and anticipated foundation
excavations and corrective grading, shored walls may be on the order of 35 to 40 feet high.
Where shoring is required, restrained shoring will most likely be necessary to limit deflections and
disruption to nearby improvements. It has been our experience that cantilever shoring might be
feasible for temporary shoring to a height of only about 10 to 15 feet where allowable deflections
are limited.
The temporary shoring should be designed for additional surcharges due to adjacent loads such as
from construction vehicles, street traffic, and adjacent buildings. To prevent excessive surcharging
of the walls, we recommend that heavy loads such as construction equipment and stockpiles of
materials be kept at least 15 feet from the top of the excavations. If this is not possible, the shoring
must be designed to resist the additional anticipated lateral loads. Shoring systems should be
designed with sufficient rigidity to prevent detrimental lateral displacements.
For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used.
It may be assumed that the drained soils, with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring, will
exert an active equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf.
Tied-back or braced shoring should be designed to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth
pressure as recommended in Table 2 below.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 12 GMU Project 17-176-00
Table 2: Temporary Shoring System Design Parameter
Design Parameter Design Value
Minimum Lateral Wall Surcharge1 120 psf
Earth Pressure2
From ground surface to (2/3)H1 (ft)
Increase from 0 to 39H psf
Earth Pressure3
Between (2/3)H1 and (1/3)H (ft)
Uniform pressure of 39H psf
Earth Pressure4
Below (2/3)(Hn+1) (ft)
Reduce from 39H to 0 psf
Passive Pressure5 350 psf to a maximum value of
3,500 psf
Note:
1 For the upper 5 feet (minimum for incidental loading)
2 Where H1 is the distance from ground surface at top of wall to uppermost
level of anchors.
3 Where H is the height of wall.
4 Where Hn+1 is the distance from the base of excavation to lowermost
ground anchor.
5 May assume to act over 2 times the diameter of soldier piles, neglecting
the upper 1.5D (D = diameter of pile).
SOLDIER PILES: The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained earth material
may be used to resist the vertical component of the anchor loads. The coefficient of friction may
be taken as 0.35 based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean mix concrete and
retained soils. The portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to
resist the downward loads. The downward capacity may be determined using an average allowable
unit skin friction of 300 psf per foot of embedment below the excavation bottom. This allowable
unit skin friction incorporates a factor of safety of 2.0.
TIEBACK ANCHORS: Frictional anchors consisting of high stress thread bars are recommended.
For design purposes, the active wedge adjacent to the shoring may be defined by a plane 35 degree
from vertical through the bottom plane of the excavation. Anchors should extend a minimum of
20 feet beyond the assumed active wedge. Drilled friction anchors may be designed for an
allowable unit skin friction of 300 psf. Pressure grouted anchors may be designed using a skin
friction of 1,600 psf.
ANCHOR TESTING: All quality control and quality assurance tests should be performed based
on the FHWA (1999) requirements. Two of the initial anchors should be tested to 200% of their
design capacity for 24 hours. Ten anchors around the site should be tested to 200% of their
capacity for a quick (½-hour) test. All anchors shall be proof tested to 150% of their design
capacity.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 13 GMU Project 17-176-00
LAGGING: Lagging should be designed for the full design pressure, but be limited to a maximum
of 400 psf. GMU representative should observe the installation of lagging to insure uniform
support of the excavated embankment.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS: Shoring construction shall meet as a
minimum, the quality control and quality assurance and construction specifications provided in
FHWA (1999) guidelines. In addition, the following should be considered:
For the movements of shoring to be reduced, the designer will have to provide for a uniform
and timely mobilization of the soil pressures.
Tiebacks or interior bracing should be loaded to the design loads prior to excavation of the
adjacent soil so that load induced strains in the retaining system will not result in the system
moving toward the excavation.
A relatively stiff shoring system should be designed to limit deflections under loading. In
general, we recommend designing a shoring system to deflect less than about ½-inch.
In addition, ground subsidence and deflections can be caused by other factors, such as voids
created behind the shoring system by over-excavation, soil sloughing, erosion of sand or
silt layers due to perched water, etc. All voids behind the shoring system should be filled
with a 1 ½ sac sand-cement slurry as soon as the lagging is installed to minimize potential
movement or settlement.
PILE DRILLING CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION: The following recommendations
should be considered during the drilling for the soldier piles:
Piles drilled adjacent to one another should be drilled alternatively on different days to
minimize disturbance to the open excavations.
Drilling of the solider pile shafts can be accomplished using conventional drilling
equipment.
Caving should be anticipated within the upper approximately 35 feet, where layers of loose
to medium dense sand were encountered during our field exploration.
In the event of soil caving, it may be necessary to use casing and/or drilling mud to permit
the installation of the soldier piles. The contractor should implement appropriate measures
to stabilize the drilled holes.
Drilled holes for soldier piles should not be left open overnight.
Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole is complete.
The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie.
Once concrete pumping is initiated, the bottom of the tremie should remain below the
surface of the concrete to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions.
If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.
ANCHOR INSTALLATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATION: The following
recommendations should be considered during the installation of the tie-back anchors:
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 14 GMU Project 17-176-00
Caving should be anticipated during the drilling of tiebacks. In the event of soil caving, it
may be necessary to use casing to permit the tie-back installation. The contractor should
implement appropriate measures to stabilize the drilled holes.
The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out. Pressure
grouting is recommended.
MONITORING: In conjunction with the shoring installation, as previously discussed, a
monitoring program should be set up and carried out by the contractor to determine the effects of
the construction on adjacent buildings and other improvements such as streets, sidewalks, utilities
and parking areas. At minimum, we recommend the following:
Horizontal and vertical surveying of reference points on the shoring and on adjacent streets
and buildings, in addition to an initial pre-construction photographic, video and/or survey
of adjacent improvements.
All supported and/or sensitive utilities should be located and monitored by the contractor.
Reference points should be set up and read prior to the start of construction activities.
Points should also be set on the shoring as soon as initial installations are made.
Alternatively, inclinometers could be installed by the contractor at critical locations for a
more detailed monitoring of shoring deflections.
Surveys should be made at least once a week, and more frequently during critical
construction activities, or if significant deflections are noted.
GMU can provide inclinometer materials and has the equipment and software to read and analyze
the data quickly.
STRUCTURE SEISMIC DESIGN
No active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site, therefore, the potential for primary
ground rupture due to faulting on-site is very low. However, the site will likely be subject to
seismic shaking at some time in the future.
Based on our field exploration and the site soil profile, the site should be designated as Site Class D
based on the measured shear wave velocities at CPT-2 and CPT-4, resulting in Vs30 of 865 feet/sec
and 855 feet/sec respectively. The seismic design coefficients based on ASCE 7-10 and 2016 CBC
are listed in Table 3 below.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 15 GMU Project 17-176-00
Table 3: 2016 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients
Categorization/Coefficient Design Value
Site Class based on Soil Profile (ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1) D
Short Period Spectral Acceleration Ss** 1.479
1-sec. Period Spectral Acceleration S1** 0.539
Site Coefficient Fa (Table 11.4-1)** 1.000
Site Coefficient Fv (Table 11.4-2)** 1.500
Short Period MCE* Spectral Acceleration SMS** 1.479
1-sec. Period MCE Spectral Acceleration SM1** 0.809
Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration SDS** 0.986
1-sec. Period Design Spectral Acceleration SD1** 0.539
MCE Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) * 0.531
Site Coefficient FPGA (Table 11.8-1)** 1.000
MCE Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) * 0.531
Mean Contributing Magnitude to MCE Event 6.6
* MCE: Maximum Considered Earthquake
** Values Obtained from USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website are based on the ASCE7-
10 and 2016 CBC and site coordinates of N33.7861o and W117.8950o.
It should be recognized that much of southern California is subject to some level of damaging
ground shaking as a result of movement along the major active (and potentially active) fault zones
that characterize this region. Design utilizing the 2016 CBC is not meant to completely protect
against damage or loss of function. Therefore, the preceding parameters should be considered as
minimum design criteria.
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – AT-GRADE TOWNHOMES
General
The criteria contained in the following section may be used for the design and construction of the
proposed townhomes. Foundation design parameters are presented below.
General Foundation Design Parameters – At-Grade Townhomes
o Bearing Material: Engineered Fill
o Removal and Re-compaction Depth: 4 feet from existing grade or a minimum of
2 feet below the bottom of foundations, whichever is deeper
o Minimum Footing Size:
Width: 24 inches
Depth: 24 inches embedment below lowest adjacent soil grade (depth)
o Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,500 psf for the minimum footing size given above.
May be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of footing depth and
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 16 GMU Project 17-176-00
by 250 for each additional foot of footing width to a maximum of 3,500 psf
Above value may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind or
seismic
o Settlement:
Static Settlement:
Total: 0.5 inches
Differential: 0.25 inches over a span of 30 feet
Seismic Settlement:
Total: 0.5 inches
Differential: 0.25 inches over a span of 30 feet
o Lateral Foundation Resistance:
Allowable passive resistance: 240 psf/ft (disregard upper 6 inches, max
2,400 psf)
Allowable friction coefficient: 0.35
Above values may be combined without reduction and may be increased by
1/3 for temporary loads such as wind or seismic
Slab Subsection and Slab Design
Minimum Thickness: The minimum slab thickness shall be 5 inches.
Minimum Slab Reinforcement: Minimum slab reinforcement shall not be less than No.
4 bars placed at 18 inches on center. Welded wire mesh is not recommended. Care should
be taken to position the reinforcement bars in the center of the slab.
Slab Subgrade
The upper 18 inches of the on-site soils and subgrade soil should be moisture
conditioned to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with the latest
version of ASTM D1557.
A 4-inch-thick section of compacted ¾-inch crushed rock shall be provided directly
below the slab.
Place moisture vapor retarder per the Moisture Vapor Transmission section of
this report.
Sand above the moisture retarder/barrier (i.e., directly below the slab) is not
a geotechnical issue. This should be provided by the structural engineer of
record based on the type of slab, potential for curling, etc.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 17 GMU Project 17-176-00
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – SUBTERRANEAN LEVELS
General
The criteria contained in the following section may be used for the design and construction of the
proposed apartment building subterranean foundation. We have developed recommendations for
two types of foundation system, which includes, 1). A conventional spread/continuous footings
system or 2). Mat foundation system. The two types of foundation systems were developed based
on the following:
As discussed previously, based on the provided conceptual plans, it is our understanding
that three (3) four-story apartment buildings will be supported on two-levels of
subterranean parking structure.
The bottom proposed subterranean parking structures will be situated at a depth of
approximately 25 to 30 feet below the existing grade.
Based on our field exploration, we have encountered a moist to very moist clay layer at
depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing grade.
Our shallow spread/continuous footings foundation system recommendations incorporate
a 3 feet corrective grading below bottom of footings.
o We have assumed that the maximum column load (dead plus live) is 500 kips,
which yielded a total settlement of 1 inch.
o If the maximum column load is greater than 500 kips and if there is a need for an
increase in bearing capacity while limiting the associated settlement, we
recommend that the proposed below-grade structures be supported by either a mat
foundation system or shallow conventional spread/continuous foundation system
with ground improvement such as Geopiers or equivalent systems. A ground
improvement such as Geopiers or equivalent may be beneficial to eliminate the
overexcavation below the foundations and reduce the shoring height. General
Geopier recommendations are presented below.
General Foundation Design Parameters – Conventional Spread/Continuous Footings
Shallow spread/continuous footings foundation system recommendations provided in this section
are based on corrective grading performed below the bottom of footings as discussed previously
in the Corrective Grading section. The design parameters are presented below may be used for
foundation structural design.
o Bearing Material: Engineered Fill
o Removal and Re-compaction Depth: 3 feet below bottom of footings
o Minimum Footing Size:
Width: 24 inches
Depth: 24 inches embedment below lowest adjacent soil grade (depth)
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 18 GMU Project 17-176-00
o Allowable Bearing Capacity: 3,500 psf for the minimum footing size given above.
May be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of footing depth and
by 150 psf for each additional foot of footing width to a maximum of 4,500
psf
Above value may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind or
seismic
o Settlement:
Static Settlement:
Total: 1.0 inch
Differential: 0.5 inches over a span of 40 feet
o Lateral Foundation Resistance:
Allowable passive resistance: 200 psf/ft (disregard upper 6 inches, max
2,000 psf)
Allowable friction coefficient: 0.30
Above values may be combined without reduction and may be increased by
1/3 for temporary loads such as wind or seismic
Slab-on-Grade Subsection and Slab Design
Minimum Thickness: The minimum slab thickness shall be 6 inches.
Minimum Slab Reinforcement: Minimum slab reinforcement shall not be less than No.
4 bars placed at 18 inches on center. Welded wire mesh is not recommended. Care should
be taken to position the reinforcement bars in the center of the slab.
Slab Subgrade
The upper 18 inches of the on-site soils and subgrade soil should be moisture
conditioned to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with the latest
version of ASTM D1557.
A 4-inch-thick section of compacted ¾-inch crushed rock shall be provided directly
below the slab.
A moisture vapor retarder for below-grade parking garage should be placed per
the recommendations provided in the Moisture Vapor Transmission section of
this report.
Sand above the moisture retarder/barrier (i.e., directly below the slab) is not a
geotechnical issue. This should be provided by the structural engineer
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 19 GMU Project 17-176-00
General Foundation Design Parameters – Mat Foundation
The following recommendations are based on corrective grading performed below the mat as
discussed previously in the Corrective Grading section. The design parameters presented below
may be used for foundation structural design.
o Bearing Material: Engineered Fill
o Removal and Re-compaction Depth: 3 feet below bottom of footings
o Minimum Mat Foundation:
Based on our correspondence with the project architect, it is our
understanding that the structural engineer has estimated that the proposed
mat will impose a pressure of 1,000 psf.
Minimum thickness: 24 inches
o Allowable Bearing Capacity:
Based on the assumptions made above, the mat foundation pressure of 1,000
psf can be also be taken as the allowable bearing capacity. However, for
localized loading conditions, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of
3,500 psf may be used.
Above value may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind or
seismic
o Settlement:
For the purpose of preparing this preliminary settlement estimate, we have
assumed a uniform bearing pressure of 1,000 psf under the mat slab.
Static Settlement:
Total: 1.0 inch
Differential: 0.5 inches over a span of 40 feet
o Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k):
100 pci (static0
The mat slab should be designed by the project structural engineer.
Geopiers or Equivalent Gravel Piers
Based on the site conditions, it is our opinion that Geopiers or equivalent supported shallow
spread/continuous foundation systems may be used for support of the proposed apartment
buildings. The allowable bearing capacity provided by the Geopier system is typically up to 6,000
psf, which result in smaller size of shallow foundations based on our assumed structural loads. We
recommend that once a generalized foundation plan is developed, we review the applicability of
Geopier-supported foundations at this site. If suitable based on the structural loading conditions,
Geopier-supported foundations could be a cost-effective solution for structure support, which
should be designed by the specialty contractor.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 20 GMU Project 17-176-00
BASEMENT WALLS
General
Basement retaining walls are anticipated for the two-level subterranean parking structure below
the proposed apartment buildings.
Foundation Recommendations
It is anticipated that foundations for the basement walls will be integrated into the overall
foundation design. Consequently, basement wall foundation may be sized based on
recommendations from “Foundation Design Parameters”.
Lateral Earth Pressure
The following equivalent fluid pressures in pounds per cubic foot are presented with their
applicable conditions:
Restrained Wall: 60 pcf for level backfill
Unrestrained Wall: 40 pcf for level backfill
The values presented above assume that the supported grade is level and that surcharge loads are
not applied. In addition, these pressures are calculated assuming that a drainage system will be
installed behind the basement walls and that external hydrostatic pressure will not develop behind
the walls. Where adequate drainage is not provided behind the walls, further evaluation should be
conducted by a geotechnical engineer and the lateral earth pressure values will need to be adjusted
accordingly.
The unrestrained values are applicable only when the walls are designed and constructed as
cantilevered walls allowing sufficient wall movement to mobilize “active” pressure
conditions. This wall movement should not be less than .01 H (H = height of wall) for the
unrestrained values to be applicable.
Dynamic Lateral Load
Given the general seismicity and the fact that the basement walls are greater than 6 feet, it is
recommended that the walls also be designed for a seismic lateral load or increment. The total
dynamic lateral load may be represented by an equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 18 pcf. The
dynamic lateral load may be considered to be a triangle with the maximum pressure at the bottom.
Drainage
For basement walls that do not receive backfill and are not designed to withstand hydrostatic
pressure, a drainage system behind the walls consisting of Miradrain 6000 or equivalent should be
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 21 GMU Project 17-176-00
installed. The drainage system should be connected to a collector, consist of a continuous
foundation drain around the entire perimeter of the parking structure below-grade retaining
wall. The drain should be placed well below the lower level floor slab-on-grade
The collector system should drain to sump pits. The sump pits should contain a sump pump that
automatically pumps the water to the appropriate site drainage system. Given the size of the
parking structure, it is likely that several sump pits may be necessary. The drainage system should
be designed by the project Civil Engineer.
Waterproofing
The back side of the retaining walls should be waterproofed prior to placing subdrains or backfill.
Waterproofing is outside our geotechnical purview and should be designed by a waterproofing
consultant.
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
Laboratory tests indicate that the onsite soils classified as having a “moderate” sulfate exposure
and “S1” sulfate exposure category per ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.1.1. On this, for structural features
to be in direct contact with the site soils at depth, restrictions on the type of Portland cement, water
to cement ratio, and the concrete compressive strength are provided below per ACI 318-14, Table
19.3.2.1.
Type II/V cement with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.50, and a minimum
compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
Wet curing of the concrete per ACI Publication 308 is also recommended.
The aforementioned recommendations in regards to concrete are made from a soils perspective
only. Final concrete mix design is beyond our purview. All applicable codes, ordinances,
regulations, and guidelines should be followed in regard to the designing a durable concrete with
respect to the potential for sulfate exposure from the on-site soils and/or changes in the
environment.
FERROUS METAL CORROSION PROTECTION
The results of the laboratory chemical tests performed on a sample of soil collected within the site
indicate that the on-site soils are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Consequently, metal
structures which will be in direct contact with the soil (i.e., underground metal conduits, pipelines,
metal sign posts, etc.) and/or in close proximity to the soil (wrought iron fencing, etc.) may be
subject to corrosion. The use of special coatings or cathodic protection around buried metal
structures has been shown to be beneficial in reducing corrosion potential. Additional provisions
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 22 GMU Project 17-176-00
will be required to address high chloride contents of the soil per the 2016 CBC to protect the
concrete reinforcement. The laboratory testing program performed for this project does not
address the potential for corrosion to copper piping. In this regard, a corrosion engineer should be
consulted to perform more detailed testing and develop appropriate mitigation measures (if
necessary).
The above discussion is provided for general guidance in regards to the corrosiveness of the on-site
soils to typical metal structures used for construction. Detailed corrosion testing and
recommendations for protecting buried ferrous metal and/or copper elements are beyond our
purview. If detailed testing is required, a corrosion engineer should be consulted to perform the
testing and develop appropriate mitigation measures.
MOISTURE VAPOR TRANSMISSION
Moisture Vapor Retarder
A vapor retarder, such as a 15-mil-thick moisture vapor retarder that meets the requirements of
ASTM E1745 Class C (Stego Wrap or equivalent) should be placed directly over the prepared
soil subgrade to provide protection against vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs that
are anticipated to receive carpet, tile or other moisture sensitive coverings. The use of moisture
vapor retarder should be determined by the project architect. At minimum, the vapor retarder
should be installed as follows:
Per the manufacture’s specifications as well as with the applicable recognized
installation procedures such as ASTM E1643;
Joints between the sheets and the openings for utility piping should be lapped and
taped. If the barrier is not continuously placed across footings/ribs, the barrier
should at minimum be lapped into the side of the footing/rib trenches down to the
bottom of the trench; and,
Punctures in the vapor retarder should be repaired prior to concrete placement.
It should be noted that the moisture retarder is intended only to reduce moisture vapor
transmissions from the soil beneath the concrete and is consistent with the current standard of the
industry in the building construction in Southern California. It is not intended to provide a
“waterproof” or “vapor proof” barrier or reduce vapor transmission from sources above the
retarder (i.e., concrete). The evaluation of water vapor from any source and its effect on any
aspect of the proposed building space above the slab (i.e., floor covering applicability, mold
growth, etc.) is beyond our purview and the scope of this report.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 23 GMU Project 17-176-00
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage should be carefully controlled during and after grading to prevent ponding and
uncontrolled runoff adjacent to the structures. Particular care will be required during grading to
maintain slopes, swales, and other erosion control measures needed to direct runoff toward
permanent surface drainage facilities. Positive drainage of at least 2% away from the perimeters
of the structures and site pavements should be incorporated into the design. In addition, it is
recommended that nuisance water be directed away from the perimeter of the structures by the use
of area drains in adjacent landscape and flatwork areas and roof drains tied into the site storm drain
system.
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS
General
New utility line pipeline trenches should be backfilled with select bedding materials beneath and
around the pipes (pipe zone) and compacted soil above the pipe bedding. Recommendations for
the types of the materials to be used and the proper placement of these materials are provided in
the following sections.
Pipe Zone (Bedding and Shading)
The pipe bedding and shading materials should extend from at least 6 inches below the pipes to at
least 12 inches above the crown of the pipes. Pipe bedding and shading should consist of either
clean sand with a sand equivalent (SE) of at least 30, or crushed rock. If crushed rock is used, it
should consist of ¾-inch crushed rock that conforms to Table 200-1.2.1 (A) of the
2015 “Greenbook.” Pipe bedding and shading should also meet the minimum requirements of the
City of Orange. If the requirements of the County or City are more stringent, they should take
precedence over the geotechnical recommendations. Sufficient laboratory testing should be
performed to verify the bedding and shading meets the minimum requirements of the Greenbook
and City of Orange grading codes.
Based on our subsurface exploration and knowledge of the onsite materials, the soils that will be
excavated from the pipeline trenches will not meet the recommendations for pipe bedding and
shading materials; therefore, imported materials will be required for pipe bedding and shading.
Granular pipe bedding and shading material should be properly placed in thicknesses not
exceeding 3 feet, and then sufficiently flooded or jetted in place. Crushed rock, if used, should be
wrapped with filter fabric (Mirafi 160N, or equivalent; Mirafi 140N filter fabric is suitable if
available) to prevent the migration of fines into the rock.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 24 GMU Project 17-176-00
Trench Backfill
All existing soil material within the limits of the site are considered suitable for use as trench
backfill above the pipe bedding and shading zone if care is taken to remove all significant organic
and other decomposable debris, moisture condition the soil materials as necessary, and separate
and selectively place and/or stockpile any inert materials larger than 6 inches in maximum
diameter.
Imported soils are not anticipated for backfill since the on-site soils are suitable. However, if
imported soils are used, the soils should consist of clean, granular materials with physical and
chemical characteristics similar to or better than those described herein for on-site soils. Any
imported soils to be used as backfill should be evaluated and approved by GMU prior to placement.
Soils to be used as trench backfill should be moistened, dried, or blended as necessary to achieve
a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture content (i.e., if the optimum moisture content is 14%,
the compacted fill’s moisture content shall be at least 16%), placed in lifts which, prior to
compaction, shall not exceed the thickness specified in section 306-12.3 of the 2015 “Greenbook”
for various types of equipment, and mechanically compacted/densified to at least 90% relative
compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Jetting is not permitted in this trench
zone.
No rock or broken concrete greater than 6 inches in maximum diameter should be utilized in the
trench backfills.
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the R-value test results, as well as testing completed in the vicinity, an R-value of 50 was
used for the design. Table 4 below provides recommended minimum thicknesses for asphalt
concrete (AC) and aggregate base sections for two traffic indices.
Table 4: Recommended Minimum AC and Base Section Thicknesses
Location
R-Value
Traffic
Index
Asphalt
Concrete (in.)
Aggregate
Base* (in.)
Driveways
Parking Stalls
50
50
5.5
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
* assumed R-Value = 78
Asphalt concrete pavement construction should be in accordance with the following
recommendations:
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 25 GMU Project 17-176-00
The planned pavement structural sections should consist of aggregate base materials (AB)
and asphalt concrete materials (AC) of a type meeting the minimum Caltrans and City of
Orange requirements.
The subgrade soils should be prepared in accordance with the Site Corrective Grading
section of this report.
The AB and AC should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.
CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
It is anticipated that Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement will be constructed as part of the
drive way approaches. Table 5 below provides minimum PCC pavement section constructed over
properly prepared subgrade and AB section.
Table 5: Recommended Minimum PCC and Base Section Thicknesses
Location
R-Value
Traffic
Index
PCC (in.)
Aggregate
Base* (in.)
Driveways
50
6.0
6.0
4.0
* assumed R-Value = 78
Concrete pavement construction should be in accordance with the following recommendations:
The pavement structural sections should consist of aggregate base materials (AB) and
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC).
The subgrade soils should be prepared in accordance with the Site Corrective Grading
section of this report.
The AB should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.
SITE INFILTRATION
Based on our preliminary percolation test result as discussed previously in this report and as
presented in Appendix D, all four test locations showed adequate infiltration rates within the upper
5 to 10 feet of the site soils to design for an infiltration BMP. Additional field infiltration testing
should be performed at the actual planned BMP location for confirmation once the BMP type,
location and depth are selected. At minimum, the proposed infiltration BMP must comply with the
setback requirements shown on Table 6 below.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 26 GMU Project 17-176-00
Table 6: BMP Setback Requirements
Property lines and public right of way A minimum of 5 feet setback.
Any foundation
A minimum of 15 feet setback or within 1:1 plane
drawn up from the bottom of foundation,
whichever is greater.
Water wells used for drinking water A minimum of 100 feet setback.
CONCRETE FLATWORK DESIGN
We recommend that the subgrade for the subject concrete flatwork be moisture conditioned to 2%
over optimum to a depth of 18 inches below finish grade and compacted to 90% relative
compaction. A 2-inch-thick section of Class 2 aggregate base (AB) or crushed miscellaneous base
(CMB) should then be placed on the compacted subgrade soils, brought to 2% above optimum
moisture condition, and compacted to 95% relative compaction prior to placement of walkway and
patio flatwork reinforcing steel and concrete. For flatwork concrete underlain by aggregate base,
Type II/V cement with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50 and minimum compressive strength
of 3,250 psi may be used. Table 7 below summarizes our flatwork recommendations:
Table 7: Concrete Flatwork Recommendations
Description
Subgrade
Preparation
(1)
Aggregate
Base
(Class 2 or
CMB) (2)
Minimum
Concrete
Thickness
Reinforcement(3)
Control
Joint
Spacing (4)
(Maximum)
Concrete(5)
Concrete
Paving
(Patio, and
flatwork/stair
adjacent)
2% over
optimum to
18 inches at
90% relative
compaction
2-inch-
thick
section at
95%
relative
compaction
5 inches No. 3 bars @
18”o.c.b.w. and
dowel into
building and curb
using 9-inch
Speed Dowels @
18"o.c
10-foot x
10-foot
using 9-inch
speed
dowels with
No. 3 bars
@ 18" o.c.
Type II/V
3,250 psi
min.
(1) The moisture content and compaction of the subgrade must be verified by the geotechnical
consultant prior to base placement.
(2) For pedestrian usages only, S.E. 30 sand may be used instead of Aggregate Base.
(3) Reinforcement to be placed in the middle of the recommended concrete section.
(4) Control Joints: Suggested spacing of Pedestrian areas at 10’.
(5) Final concrete mix design to be supplied by others.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 27 GMU Project 17-176-00
PLAN REVIEW / GEOTECHNICAL TESTING DURING GRADING / FUTURE
REPORT
Plan Review
GMU should review the final construction plans to confirm that they are consistent with our
recommendations provided in this report.
Geotechnical Testing
Geotechnical observation and testing should be performed by GMU during the following stages
of precise grading and construction:
During site clearing and grubbing.
During removal of any buried irrigation lines or other subsurface structures.
During all phases of grading including over-excavation, temporary excavations,
removals, scarification, ground preparation, moisture conditioning, proof-rolling, and
placement and compaction of all fill materials.
During the installation of temporary shoring.
During grading for the proposed townhomes.
During grading for the proposed apartment buildings.
During pavement and flatwork section placement and compaction.
Foundation slab construction.
When any unusual conditions are encountered.
Future Report
If required, a report summarizing our construction observation/testing services will be prepared at
project completion.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 28 GMU Project 17-176-00
LIMITATIONS
All parties reviewing or utilizing this report should recognize that the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations presented represent the results of our professional geological and geotechnical
engineering efforts and judgements. Due to the inexact nature of the state of the art of these
professions and the possible occurrence of undetected variables in subsurface conditions, we
cannot guarantee that the conditions actually encountered during grading and foundation
installation will be identical to those observed and sampled during our study or that there are no
unknown subsurface conditions which could have an adverse effect on the use of the property. We
have exercised a degree of care comparable to the standard of practice presently maintained by
other professionals in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology, and believe
that our findings present a reasonably representative description of geotechnical conditions and
their probable influence on the grading and use of the property.
Because our conclusions and recommendations are based on a limited amount of current and
previous geotechnical exploration and analysis, all parties should recognize the need for possible
revisions to our conclusions and recommendations during grading of the project. Additionally,
our conclusions and recommendations are based on the assumption that our firm will act as the
geotechnical engineer of record during grading of the project to observe the actual conditions
exposed, to verify our design concepts and the grading contractor's general compliance with the
project geotechnical specifications, and to provide revised conclusions and recommendations
should subsurface conditions differ significantly from those used as the basis for our conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report.
Detailed corrosion testing and recommendations for protecting buried ferrous metal and/or copper
elements are beyond our purview.
This report has not been prepared for use by other parties or projects other than those named or
described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other
purposes.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 30 GMU Project 17-176-00
REFERENCES
SITE-SPECIFIC REFERENCES
Van Tilburg, Banvard & Soderbergh, 2017, “The Terrace Apartmenst for Domino Realty,” dated
February 2, 2017.
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials,
2016, 2016 California Building Code.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for
Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117A, 98 pp.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2001, Seismic Hazard
Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County,
California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003, 47 pp. plus 3 plates.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 1998, State of California
Seismic Hazard Zones, Anaheim Quadrangle, Official Map, dated November 6, scale 1:24,000.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning,
State of California – County of Orange, Anaheim-Newport Beach Quadrangle, dated June
1.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2006, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana
30’x60’ Quadrangle, Southern California.
Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design: Principles and Practices: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1999, “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4,
Ground Anchor and Anchored Systems,” Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-015, June 1999.
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, by Public Works Standards, Inc., 2015,
The Greenbook 2015 Edition.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, 2014 Interactive De-aggregations Program; web site address:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.
PROJECT SITE
200 City Blvd. West
Orange, CA
9%*#2/#0#8'
Date:
Project No.:
Plate
Location Map
17-176-00
November 22, 2017
1
.#/2510#8'5.'9+556%+6;$.8&
'#56
6*'%+6;&4
5176*
%+6;$.8&9'56
)'16'%*0+%#..')'0&
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
HOLLOW STEM DRILL HOLE
DH-11DH-10
DH-5DH-4
DH-7
DH-9
DH-8
DH-3
DH-2
DH-1
DH-6
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-7
CPT-4
CPT-3 CPT-5
CPT-6
Date:
Project No.:17-176-00
NOVEMBER 22, 2017
DH-7
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
CPT
Plate No.:2
DRILL HOLE AND
PERCOLATION LOCATIONS
MAP
APPENDIX A
Geotechnical Exploration Procedures, Drill
Hole Logs, and Cone Penetration Testing
Data by GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 A-1 GMU Project 17-176-00
APPENDIX A
GMU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROCEDURES, DRILL HOLE LOGS, AND
CONE PENETRATION TESTING DATA
Our exploration at the subject site consisted of eleven (11) drilled holes to a maximum depth of
71.5 feet below the existing grade and seven (7) Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) soundings to a
maximum depth of 75 feet below the existing grade. Our drilled holes were logged by a Staff
Engineer, and drive, bulk, and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples of the excavated soils
were collected. Blow counts recorded during sampling from the California Modified Sampler
(Cal Mod) and SPT are shown on the drill hole logs. The logs of each drill hole are contained in
this Appendix A, and the Legend to Logs is presented as Plates A-1 and A-2. The CPT data are
presented in Appendix A-1. The approximate locations of the drill holes and CPT’s are shown on
Plate 2 – Geotechnical Map.
“Undisturbed” Cal Mod samples were taken using a 3.0-inch, thin walled, outside-diameter drive
sampler which contains a 2.416-inch-diameter brass sample sleeve that is 6 inches in length. SPT
samples were obtained using a 2.0-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler without liners. Bulk
samples of the soil materials were also collected from the upper 5 feet of the site soils.
The geologic and engineering field descriptions and classifications that appear on these logs are
prepared according to Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation standards. Major soil
classifications are prepared according to the Unified Soil Classification System as modified by
ASTM Standard No. 2487. Since the descriptions and classifications that appear on the Log of
Drill Hole are intended to be that which most accurately describe a given interval of a drill hole
(frequently an interval of several feet), discrepancies do occur in the Unified Soil Classification
System nomenclature between that interval and a particular sample in that interval. For example,
an 8-foot-thick interval in a log may be identified as silty sand (SM) while one sample taken
within the interval may have individually been identified as sandy silt (ML). This discrepancy is
frequently allowed to remain to emphasize the occurrence of local textural variations in the
interval.
1%3%5%
10%15%
20%
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
Undisturbed Sample
(California Sample)
Bulk Sample
Unsuccessful
Sampling Attempt
SPT Sample
10: 10 Blows for 12-Inches Penetration
6/4: 6 Blows Per 4-Inches Penetration
P: Push
(13): Uncorrected Blow Counts ("N" Values)
for 12-Inches Penetration- Standard
Penetration Test (SPT)
Undisturbed Sample
(Shelby Tube)
LEGEND TO LOGS
ASTM Designation: D 2487
(Based on Unified Soil Classification System)
P8-11/16/2012
Plate
A-1
DS = Direct Shear
HY = Hydrometer Test
TC = Triaxial Compression Test
UC = Unconfined Compression
CN = Consolidation Test
(T) = Time Rate
EX = Expansion Test
CP = Compaction Test
PS = Particle Size Distribution
EI = Expansion Index
SE = Sand Equivalent Test
AL = Atterberg Limits
FC = Chemical Tests
RV= Resistance Value
SG = Specific Gravity
SU = Sulfates
CH = Chlorides
MR = Minimum Resistivity
pH
(N) = Natural Undisturbed Sample
(R) = Remolded Sample
ADDITIONAL TESTS
CS = Collapse Test/Swell-Settlement
Well Graded Gravels and Gravel-Sand Mixtures,
Little or No Fines.
Poorly Graded Gravels and Gravel-Sand Mixtures
Little or No Fines.
Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures.
Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures.
Well Graded Sands and Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines.
Poorly Graded Sands and Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines.
Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures.
Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures.
Inorganic Silts, Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour, Silty or
Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts With Slight Plasticity.
Inorganic Clays of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Clays.
Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays of Low Plasticity
Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or Diatomaceous Fine Sandy
or Silty Soils, Elastic Silts.
Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays.
Organic Clays of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts.
Peat and Other Highly Organic Soils.
Clean
Gravels
Gravels
With
Fines
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
Clean
Sands
Sands
With
Fines
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
50% or More Passe
The No.200 Sieve
Based on The Material
Passing The 3-Inch
(75mm) Sieve.
Reference:
ASTM Standard D2487
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
More Than 50% Retained
On No.200 Sieve
Based on The Material
Passing The 3-Inch
(75mm) Sieve.
Reference:
ASTM Standard D2487
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SANDS
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Passes
No.4 Sieve
GRAVELS
50% or More of
Coarse Fraction
Retained on
No.4 Sieve
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit 50%
or Greater
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit Less
Than 50%
MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
SymbolGroup LetterThe descriptive terminology of the logs is modified from current ASTM Standards to suit the purposes of this study
GEOLOGIC NOMENCLATURE
B = Bedding C = Contact J = Joint
S = ShearF = Fracture Flt = Fault
= Groundwater
RS = Rupture Surface = Seepage
LEGEND TO LOGS
P8-11/16/2012
Plate
A-2
MOISTURE CONTENT
Dry- Very little or no moisture
Damp- Some moisture but less than optimum
Moist- Near optimum
Very Moist- Above optimum
Wet/Saturated- Contains free moisture
SOIL DENSITY/CONSISTENCY
Consistency Field Test SPT
(#blows/foot)
Mod
(#blows/foot)
Very Soft Easily penetrated by thumb, exudes between fingers
Soft Easily penetrated one inch by thumb, molded by fingers
Firm Penetrated over 1/2 inch by thumb with moderate effort
Stiff Penetrated about 1/2 inch by thumb with great effort
Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail
Hard Indented with difficulty by thumbnail
FINE GRAINED
Density Field Test SPT
(#blows/foot)
Mod
(#blows/foot)
Very Loose Easily penetrated with 0.5" rod pushed by hand
Loose Easily penetrated with 0.5" rod pushed by hand
Medium Dense Easily penetrated 1' with 0.5" rod driven by 5lb hammer
Dense Dificult to penetrat 1' with 0.5" rod driven by 5lb hammer
Very Dense Penetrated few inches with 0.5" rod driven by 5lb hammer
COARSE GRAINED
<2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
<3
3-6
6-12
12-25
25-50
>50
<4
4-10
10-30
31-50
>50
<5
5-12
12-35
35-60
>60
BEDROCK HARDNESS
Density Field Test SPT
(#blows/foot)
Soft Can be crushed by hand, soil like and structureless
Moderately Hard Can be grooved with fingernails, crumbles with hammer
Hard Can't break by hand, can be grooved with knife
Very Hard Scratches with knife, chips with hammer blows
1-30
30-50
50-100
>100
Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size
>12" >12" Larger than a basketball
3-12" 3-12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized
Coarse 3/4-3" 3/4-3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized
Fine #4-3/4" 0.19-0.75" Pea-sized to thumb-sized
Coarse #10-#4 0.079-0.19" Rock-salt-sized to pea-sized
Medium #40-#10 0.017-0.079" Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized
Fine #200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized
Fines passing #200 <0.0029" Flour-sized and smaller
Description
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
GRAIN SIZE
MODIFIERS
Trace
Few
Some
Numerous
Abundant
1%
1-5%
5-12%
12-20%
>20%
3
1
95
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
3
4
6
6
6
7
8
9
13
Asphalt Concrete (approximate 3.5
inches), Paving fabric @ 1" Below AC
Surface
SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, loose,
fine- to- medium coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); white,
light brown to light gray-brown, dry, loose,
fine- to- coarse-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, dry,
medium dense, fine-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light tan
brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
fine- to- coarse-grained sand
9/29/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 132.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet71.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 1
Sheet 1 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 1
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
1
24 97
3
7
9
11
17
23
3
5
4
4
6
9
5
7
11
medium dense, no recovery
dense
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML);
gray-brown, very moist, firm, fine-grained
sand
becomes gray and dry
SILTY CLAY (CL); gray-brown, moist, stiff
SILTY SAND (SM); brown, dry to slightly
moist, medium dense, fine-grained sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"110
105
100
95
90
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 1
Sheet 2 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
25
30
35
40
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 1
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
17
11
4
98
109
103
8
13
19
2
5
10
4
8
15
10
15
19
16
16
33
SANDY SILT (ML); light gray-brown, very
moist, very stiff
SANDY CLAY (CL); brown, very moist,
stiff to very stiff
firm to stiff
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light gray-brown, dry to damp,
dense, fine- to- coarse-grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); brown, very moist,
stiff, fine-grained sand.ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"85
80
75
70
65
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 1
Sheet 3 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
50
55
60
65
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 1
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
3
5
6
Total Depth = 71.5 feet
Groundwater not encountered ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"60
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 1
Sheet 4 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 1
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
4
3
103
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
10
15
18
2
4
6
4
9
11
Asphalt Concrete (approximately 4
inches)
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray-brown,
damp, loose to medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light brown, slightly moist, fine-
to- medium coarse-grained sand, loose to
medium dense
medium dense
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 131.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet26.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 2
Sheet 1 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 2
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
11 103
6
9
12
8
8
13
zone of CLAYEY SILT (ML); light grayish
brown, very moist, very stiff
SILTY SAND (SM); light grayish brown,
very moist, medium dense, fine-grained
sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"110
105
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 2
Sheet 2 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
25
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 2
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
0
6
126
98
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
11
19
21
3
5
6
4
8
11
SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist to very
moist, medium dense, medium
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
gray-brown, dry, dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light brown, moist, medium
dense, fine- to- coarse-grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 133.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet51.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 3
Sheet 1 of 3Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 3
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
2
19 104
4
5
4
8
12
8
4
6
9
2
4
6
5
7
8
becomes loose
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
gray-brown, moist, medium dense, fine-
to- coarse-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, moist,
medium dense, fine-grained sand
SANDY CLAY (CL); brown, very moist,
firm, fine-grained sand
becomes stiff ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"110
105
100
95
90
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 3
Sheet 2 of 3Project Number: 17-176-00
25
30
35
40
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 3
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
12 985
9
15
3
3
5
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray-brown,
damp to moist, medium dense,
fine-grained sand
SAND SILT (ML); brown, moist, firm,
fine-grained sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"85
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 3
Sheet 3 of 3Project Number: 17-176-00
50
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 3
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
17
21
92
103
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
2
4
5
1
3
3
3
4
10
Asphalt Concrete (approximately 4
inches)
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, damp,
loose, fine to medium grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); light brown, moist to
very moist, firm, fine grained sand
SIILTY SAND (SM); light brown, damp,
loose, fine to medium grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); light brown, moist to
very moist, firm, fine grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM); brown to light brown,
very moist, loose to medium dense, fine
to medium grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); light brown, very
moist, stiff
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light gray-brown, dry, medium
dense, fine- to- coarse-grained sand, with
trace fine gravel
9/29/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 131.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet71.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 4
Sheet 1 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 4
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
2
16 113
6
11
15
9
18
27
3
5
4
4
8
14
5
7
13
becomes dense
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, damp,
loose, fine-grained sand, trace clay
SANDY CLAY (CL); light grayish brown,
very moist, stiff, fine-grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); light gray and white,
damp to moist, very stiff, fine grained
sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"110
105
100
95
90
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 4
Sheet 2 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
25
30
35
40
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 4
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
5
23
21
93
101
89
8
14
17
9
9
10
4
7
10
6
7
8
9
13
15
SILTY SAND (SM); light grayish brown,
damp, medium dense, fine grained sand
becomes brown
SANDY SILT (ML); light brown, very
moist, stiff, some free water noticed in
sampler, possible pearched water above
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
brown, light gray, and gray, very moist,
medium dense, fine grained sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"85
80
75
70
65
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 4
Sheet 3 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
50
55
60
65
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 4
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
3
4
6
SANDY SILT (ML); brown, very moist to
saturated, stiff ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"60
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 4
Sheet 4 of 4Project Number: 17-176-00
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 4
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
3
3
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
1
2
2
3
5
7
5
7
9
3
5
9
Asphalt Concrete (approximately 4
inches)
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray-brown,
moist, very loose, medium grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light brown to gray brown,
moist, very loose to medium dense
becomes medium dense
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
zones of CLAYEY SILT (ML) ~ 1" thick
within sampler
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 130.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet26.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 5
Sheet 1 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 5
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
13 9910
8
6
7
12
16
SANDY SILT (ML); grayish brown, very
moist to saturated, stiff, fine grained sand,
tip of sampler has some free water,
possible pearched water from above
POORLY GRADED SAAND (SP); white,
light brown, and gray, damp to moist,
medium dense, fine to coarse grained
sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"105
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 5
Sheet 2 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
25
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 5
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
11
1
93
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
2
4
5
3
3
3
4
8
9
4
5
7
Asphalt Concrete (approximately 4
inches)
SILTY SAND (SM); gray-brown, damp,
loose, medium grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light gray-brown, moist, firm,
fine-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
gray-brown, dry, medium dense, fine to
coarse grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 130.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet26.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"125
120
115
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 6
Sheet 1 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 6
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
212
14
15
2
3
5
SANDY SILT (ML); grayish brown, very
moist, firm, fine-grained sand ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"105
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 6
Sheet 2 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
25
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 6
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
3
1
103
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
4
7
10
3
5
7
4
7
10
5
10
13
Asphalt Concrete (approximately 5
inches)
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray-brown,
damp, medium dense, fine- to- medium
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT
(SP-SM); light brown, moist, medium
dense, fine- to- coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light
gray-brown, damp, medium dense, fine-
to- coarse-grained sand
9/29/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 124.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet26.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"120
115
110
105
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 7
Sheet 1 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
15
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 7
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
2 10513
19
35
5
11
15
becomes dense
SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, medium
dense ADDITIONALTESTSDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfELEVATION, feetSAMPLEENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
ORIENTATION
DATA
GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH, feetTEST DATASAMPLE DATA
MOISTURECONTENT, %DRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsNUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"100
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 7
Sheet 2 of 2Project Number: 17-176-00
25
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 7
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
SILTY SAND (SM); gray, moist to very
moist, loose, fine- to- medium
coarse-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray-brown,
moist, medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Hand Augur 128.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet5.0 feet
6"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"125
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 8
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: 17-176-00
5
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 8
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
9 94
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
6
8
12
1
3
4
SILTY SAND (SM); gray brown, moist to
very moist, loose, fine to medium grained
sand
SILTY SAND (SM); light gray brown,
moist, loose to medium dense, fine to
coarse grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML); brown, moist to very
moist, firm, fine-grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 128.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet11.0 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"125
120
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH- 9
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH- 9
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
3 96
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
5
8
11
3
4
6
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, moist,
loose, medium grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light gray
brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 131.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet10.5 feet
8"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
125
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH-10
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: 17-176-00
5
10
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH-10
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf)
ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qyf)
SILTY SAND (SM); light brown, moist,
loose, medium grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); light gray
brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to-
coarse-grained sand
9/28/2017
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
MOISTURECONTENT, %GEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Marl M12 131.0
MTFLogged
By
Checked
By
Drill Hole
Backfill
SAMPLEDRIVINGWEIGHT, lbsDRY UNITWEIGHT, pcfTotal Depth
of Drill HoleHollow Stem Auger
Approx. Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
California Modified, SPT, & Bulk
ELEVATION, feetDEPTH, feet5.0 feet
6"
Date(s)
Drilled
Driving Method
and Drop
Gregg Drilling
Remarks
SAMPLE DATA
ADDITIONALTESTSORIENTATION
DATA
GRAPHIC LOGTEST DATA
Sampling
Method(s)
Drilling
Contractor
Not Encountered [0.0]
Auto Hammer
Native
NS
Drilling
Method
Diameter(s)
of Hole, inches
Groundwater Depth
[Elevation], feet
Drill Rig
Type
NUMBEROF BLOWS / 6"130
Project Location: 200 City Boulevard West
Drill Hole DH-11
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: 17-176-00
5
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion Log of Drill Hole DH-11
DH_REV3 17-176-00.GPJ GMULAB.GPJ 11/20/17
APPENDIX A-1
Cone Penetration Testing Data by GMU
Geotechnical, Inc.
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 61.68 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-01Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)200Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM1Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 61.68 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-01Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)60585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayOrganic soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM2Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 66.28 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-02Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)4002000Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM3Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 66.28 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-02Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)66646260585654525048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClayClayClay & silty clayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM4Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 75.13 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-03Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)4002000Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM5Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 75.13 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-03Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayOrganic soilOrganic soilClayClay & silty claySBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:17 AM6Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 75.13 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-04Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM7Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 75.13 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-04Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)75706560555045403530252015105Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayOrganic soilClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM8Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-05Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM9Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-05Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM10Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.20 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-06Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)2000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM11Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.20 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-06Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayOrganic soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:18 AM12Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.53 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-07Location:Cone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Cone resistance qtPore pressure uPressure (psi)0-10Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Friction ratioSBT IndexIc SBT4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBT IndexSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:19 AM13Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionGMU GEOTECHNICAL23241 Arroyo VistaRancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688www.gmugeo.comTotal depth: 50.53 ft, Date: 10/26/2017Surface Elevation: 0.00 ftOrange, CACoords: X:0.00, Y:0.00Cone Type: UknownCone Operator: UknownCPT: CPT-07Location:Norm. cone resistanceQtn4003002001000Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. cone resistanceNorm. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. pore pressure ratioNorm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. friction ratioSBTn IndexIc4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn IndexNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedCPeT-IT v.2.0.1.66 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 11/7/2017, 11:12:19 AM14Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Settlement\Terrace Apts C-PeTiT.cpt
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Procedures
and Test Results by GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 B-1 GMU Project 17-096-00
APPENDIX B
GMU GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
MOISTURE AND DENSITY
Field moisture content and in-place density were determined for selected 6-inch sample sleeve of
undisturbed soil material obtained from the drill holes. The field moisture content was
determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216 by obtaining one-half the
moisture sample from each end of the 6-inch sleeve. The in-place dry density of the sample was
determined by using the wet weight of the entire sample.
At the same time the field moisture content and in-place density were determined, the soil
material at each end of the sleeve was classified according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. The results of the field moisture content and in-place density determinations are
presented on the right-hand column of the Log of Drill Hole and are summarized on Table B-1.
The results of the visual classifications were used for general reference.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
As part of the engineering classification of the materials underlying the site, some samples were
tested to determine the distribution of particle sizes. The distribution was determined in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422 using U.S. Standard Sieve Openings 3", 1.5", 3/4,
3/8, and U.S. Standard Sieve Nos. 4, 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 200. In addition, on some samples
a standard hydrometer test was performed to determine the distribution of particle sizes passing
the No. 200 sieve (i.e., silt and clay-size particles). The results of the tests are contained in this
Appendix B. Key distribution categories (% gravel; % sand, etc.) are contained on Table B-1.
ATTERBERG LIMITS
As part of the engineering classification of the soil material, some samples of the on-site soil
material were tested to determine relative plasticity. This relative plasticity is based on the
Atterberg limits determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4318. The results
of these tests are contained in this Appendix B and also Table B-1.
CHEMICAL TESTS
The corrosion potential of typical on-site materials under long-term contact with both metal and
concrete was determined by chemical and electrical resistance tests. The soluble sulfate test for
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 B-2 GMU Project 17-176-00
potential concrete corrosion was performed in general accordance with California Test Method
417, the minimum resistivity test for potential metal corrosion was performed in general
accordance with California Test Method 643, and the concentration of soluble chlorides was
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 422. The results of these tests are
contained in Table B-1.
COMPACTION TESTS
A bulk sample representative of the on-site materials was tested to determine the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content of the soil. These compactive characteristics were
determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The results of this test are
contained in this Appendix B and also Table B-1.
CONSOLIDATION TESTS
The one-dimensional consolidation properties of “undisturbed” samples were evaluated in
general accordance with the provisions of ASTM Test Method D 2435. Sample diameter was
2.416 inches and sample height was 1.00 inch. Water was added during the test at various
normal loads to evaluate the potential for hydro-collapse and to produce saturation during the
remainder of the testing. Consolidation readings were taken regularly during each load
increment until the change in sample height was less than approximately 0.0001 inch over a
two-hour period. The graphic presentation of consolidation data is a representation of volume
change in change in axial load. The results of these tests are contained in this Appendix B.
DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS
Direct shear tests were performed on typical on-site materials. The general philosophy and
procedure of the tests were in accord with ASTM Test Method D 3080 - “Direct Shear Tests for
Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions”.
The tests are single shear tests and are performed using a sample diameter of 2.416 inches and a
height of 1.00 inch. The normal load is applied by a vertical dead load system. A constant rate
of strain is applied to the upper one-half of the sample until failure occurs. Shear stress is
monitored by a strain gauge-type precision load cell and deflection is measured with a digital
dial indicator. This data is transferred electronically to data acquisition software which plots
shear strength vs. deflection. The shear strength plots are then interpreted to determine either
peak or ultimate shear strengths. Residual strengths were obtained through multiple shear box
reversals. A strain rate compatible with the grain size distribution of the soils was utilized. The
interpreted results of these tests are shown in this Appendix B.
Mr. Sidh Solanki, DOMINO REALTY MANAGEMENT CO.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addition to Terrace Apartments, 200 City Boulevard West, Orange,
California
November 22, 2017 B-3 GMU Project 17-176-00
R-VALUE TESTS
A bulk sample representative of the underlying on-site materials was tested to measure the
response of a compacted sample to a vertically applied pressure under specific conditions . The
R-value of a material is determined when the material is in a state of saturation such that water
will be exuded from the compacted test specimen when a 16.8 kN load (2.07 MPa) is applied.
The results from these test procedures are reported in Table B-1.
DH- 1 5 127.0 QyfSP2.9 95 10DH- 1 15 117.0 QyfSP0.8DH- 1 25 107.0 QyfSP1.2DH- 1 30 102.0 QyfCL-ML0 43571128217DH- 1 35 97.0 QyfCL24.1 97 91DH- 1 45 87.0 QyfML16.6 98 64DH- 1 50 82.0 QyfCL39 23 16DH- 1 55 77.0 QyfCL11.1 109 57DH- 1 65 67.0 QyfSP-SM3.8 103 17DH- 2 0 131.0 QyfSM74DH- 2 5 126.0 QyfSP4.1 103 18DH- 2 15 116.0 QyfSP-SM2.6DH- 2 25 106.0 QyfSM11.1 103 49DH- 3 5 128.0 QyfSM0.0 126 0DH- 3 15 118.0 QyfSP-SM6.2 98 24DH- 3 25 108.0 QyfSP2.0DH- 3 30 103.0 QyfSM7.5 1252 720 6015DH- 3 35 98.0 QyfCL18.9 104 84 0 31 69 25 35 20 15DH- 3 45 88.0 QyfSM12.0 98 47DH- 4 5 126.0 QyfML16.6 92 56DH- 4 15 116.0 QyfSM20.6 103 89DH- 4 25 106.0 QyfSP-SM2.1DH- 4 35 96.0 QyfCL15.7 113 90DH- 4 45 86.0 QyfSM5.1 93 17DH- 4 55 76.0 QyfML23.0 101 96SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATATABLE B-1Project No. 17-176-00Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionUSCSGroupSymbolPIPLSample InformationBoringNumberIn SituWaterContent,%In SituDry UnitWeight,pcf<2µ,%Elevation,feetGeologicUnitLLMaximumDry UnitWeight,pcfSand,%pHR-ValueChemical Test ResultsExpansionIndexMin.Resistivity(ohm/cm)Chloride(ppm)Sulfate(ppm)Atterberg LimitsIn SituSatur-ation,%Depth,feetCompaction<#200,%Gravel,%Sieve/HydrometerOptimumWaterContent,%GMU_TABLE_SOIL_LAB_DATA 17-176-00.GPJ FNC AB GWGN01.GDT 11/20/17
DH- 4 60 71.0 QyfML21.1 89 65DH- 5 0 130.0 QafSM9 31 648 1871DH- 5 2.5 127.5 QyfSP-SM2.9 0 88 11 2DH- 5 10 120.0 QyfSP3.5DH- 5 20 110.0 QyfML13.0 99 52DH- 6 0 130.0 QafSM124.0 11.0DH- 6 2.5 127.5 QyfSP-SM10.9 93 37DH- 6 10 120.0 QyfSP1.4DH- 6 20 110.0 QyfSP2.4DH- 7 0 124.0 QafSM125.0 7.5 6.6 16 2064 13830DH- 7 2.5 121.5 QyfSP-SM3.2 103 14DH- 7 10 114.0 QyfSP1.3DH- 7 20 104.0 QyfSP1.9 105 9DH- 9 5 123.0 QyfSM9.1 94 32DH-10 5 126.0 QyfSP3.2 96 12SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATATABLE B-1Project No. 17-176-00Project: Terrace Apartments ExpansionUSCSGroupSymbolPIPLSample InformationBoringNumberIn SituWaterContent,%In SituDry UnitWeight,pcf<2µ,%Elevation,feetGeologicUnitLLMaximumDry UnitWeight,pcfSand,%pHR-ValueChemical Test ResultsExpansionIndexMin.Resistivity(ohm/cm)Chloride(ppm)Sulfate(ppm)Atterberg LimitsIn SituSatur-ation,%Depth,feetCompaction<#200,%Gravel,%Sieve/HydrometerOptimumWaterContent,%GMU_TABLE_SOIL_LAB_DATA 17-176-00.GPJ FNC AB GWGN01.GDT 11/20/17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 102030405060708090100110
CL or OL
PLASTICITY INDEX, PIATTERBERG LIMITS
MH or OH
CH or OH
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
ML or OL
"A" LINE
CL-ML
PI
Test
Symbol
DH- 1
DH- 1
DH- 3
Classification
30.0
50.0
35.0
Boring
Number
21
23
20
PL
7
16
15
LL
19
Water
Content (%)
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
SANDY CLAY (CL)
SANDY CLAY (CL)
28
39
35
Depth
(feet)
Geologic
Unit
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00GMU_ATTERBERG_LIMITS_12 PTS 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110
7
15
GRAVEL
OPENING
SILT CLAY
DH- 1
DH- 3
DH- 5
COARSE
3" 1.5"
COARSE MEDIUM FINE
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT28
35
#10
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
SAND
#20 #40
FINE
30.0
35.0
2.5
#4 #60 #1003/8"
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
SANDY CLAY (CL)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
3/4"#200
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
0
5
6
1
Symbol LLBoring
Number PIDepth
(feet)
Geologic
Unit Classification
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00GMU_GRAIN_SIZE 17-176-00.GPJ 11/20/17
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
0 1020304050
Depth
(feet)
0.0
0.0
Geologic
Unit
Qaf
Qaf
COMPACTION TEST DATA
Boring
Number
DH- 6
DH- 7
Symbol
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
SG=2.60
SG=2.70
ClassificationDRY DENSITY (pcf)Optimum
Moisture
Content, %
Maximum
Dry Density,
pcf
11
7.5
SILT SAND (SM)
SILTY SAND (SM)
124
125
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00GMU_COMPACTION_4_SETS 17-176-00.GPJ 11/20/17
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
SAMPLE AND TEST DESCRIPTION
SHEAR TEST DATA
Sample Location:
STRENGTH TYPE
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)SHEAR STRESS (psf)COHESION (psf)
Notes:
Strain Rate (in/min):
DH- 3 @ 15.0 ft Geologic Unit: Classification:POORLY GRADED SAND WILT SILT (SP-S
0.005
Sample saturated prior and during shearing
Qyf
Sample Preparation:Undisturbed
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00
45Peak Strength 36.0
GMU_DIRECT_SHEAR 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17Ultimate Strength 40 30.0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
SAMPLE AND TEST DESCRIPTION
SHEAR TEST DATA
Sample Location:
STRENGTH TYPE
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)SHEAR STRESS (psf)COHESION (psf)
Notes:
Strain Rate (in/min):
DH- 3 @ 35.0 ft Geologic Unit: Classification:SANDY CLAY (CL)
0.005
Sample saturated prior and during shearing
Qyf
Sample Preparation:Undisturbed
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00
245Peak Strength 26.0
GMU_DIRECT_SHEAR 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17Ultimate Strength 210 25.0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
SAMPLE AND TEST DESCRIPTION
SHEAR TEST DATA
Sample Location:
STRENGTH TYPE
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)SHEAR STRESS (psf)COHESION (psf)
Notes:
Strain Rate (in/min):
DH- 4 @ 35.0 ft Geologic Unit: Classification:SANDY CLAY (CL)
0.005
Sample saturated prior and during shearing
Qyf
Sample Preparation:Undisturbed
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00
525Peak Strength 27.0
GMU_DIRECT_SHEAR 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17Ultimate Strength 515 24.0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
SAMPLE AND TEST DESCRIPTION
SHEAR TEST DATA
Sample Location:
STRENGTH TYPE
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)SHEAR STRESS (psf)COHESION (psf)
Notes:
Strain Rate (in/min):
DH- 6 @ 2.5 ft Geologic Unit: Classification:POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-S
0.005
Sample saturated prior and during shearing
Qyf
Sample Preparation:Undisturbed
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00
110Peak Strength 30.0
GMU_DIRECT_SHEAR 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17Ultimate Strength 110 30.0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
SAMPLE AND TEST DESCRIPTION
SHEAR TEST DATA
Sample Location:
STRENGTH TYPE
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)SHEAR STRESS (psf)COHESION (psf)
Notes:
Strain Rate (in/min):
DH- 7 @ 2.5 ft Geologic Unit: Classification:POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-S
0.005
Sample saturated prior and during shearing
Qyf
Sample Preparation:Undisturbed
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00
75Peak Strength 31.0
GMU_DIRECT_SHEAR 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17Ultimate Strength 75 31.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8100 1,000 10,000
W = water added
% Hydro-
Collapse
-0.11 SILTY CLAY (CL)DH- 1
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
Boring
Number
Depth
(feet)
35.0
Geologic
Unit
Qyf
Symbol
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATASTRAIN (%)STRESS (psf)
W
Classification
In Situ or
Remolded
Sample
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00GMU_CONSOL 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0100 1,000 10,000
W = water added
% Hydro-
Collapse
-0.08 SANDY CLAY (CL)DH- 4
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
Boring
Number
Depth
(feet)
35.0
Geologic
Unit
Qyf
Symbol
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATASTRAIN (%)STRESS (psf)
W
Classification
In Situ or
Remolded
Sample
Project: Terrace Apartments Expansion
Project No. 17-176-00GMU_CONSOL 17-176-00.GPJ GM&U.GDT 11/20/17
APPENDIX C
Liquefaction Analysis
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
Overall Parametric Assessment Method
Settlements vs PGA
CPTu Name
CPT-01 CPT-02 CPT-03 CPT-04 CPT-05 CPT-06 CPT-07Settlements (in)0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Robertson (NCEER 2001)
Robertson (2009)
Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Moss et al. (2006)
Boulanger & Idriss (2014)
:: CPT main liquefaction parameters details ::
GWT in situ
(ft)
CPT Name Earthquake
Mag.
Earthquake
Accel.
GWT earthq.
(ft)
CPT-01 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-02 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-03 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-04 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-05 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-06 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CPT-07 6.60 0.53 90.00 50.00
CLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:30:43 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
1
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-01
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
1
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-01Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM2Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-01Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM3Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-01CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM4Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-02
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
5
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-02Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClaySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM6Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-02Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayOrganic soilClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClayClayClay & silty clayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM7Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-02CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:57 AM8Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-03
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:58 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
9
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-03Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:58 AM10Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-03Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClayClayClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty clayClayClayClayClayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:58 AM11Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-03CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:58 AM12Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-04
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:59 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
13
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-04Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:59 AM14Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-04Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayOrganic soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayOrganic soilSilty sand & sandy siltCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:59 AM15Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-04CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:27:59 AM16Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-05
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:00 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
17
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-05Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-2-4-6-8Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClayClayClayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:00 AM18Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-05Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClaySand & silty sandClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:00 AM19Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-05CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:00 AM20Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-06
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:01 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
21
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-06Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-5-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:01 AM22Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-06Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayOrganic soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:01 AM23Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-06CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:01 AM24Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
LIQ UEFACTION 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
6.60
0.53
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Terrace Apartments Expansion Location : Orange, CA
GMU GEOTECHNICAL
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-07
90.00 ft
50.00 ft
1
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
4003002001000Depth (ft)75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Friction Ratio
Mw =71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:02 AM
Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clq
25
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-07Cone resistanceqt (tsf)4003002001000Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plotsFriction RatioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction RatioPore pressureu (psi)0-10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressureInsituSBT PlotIc(SBT)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBT PlotSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson et al. 1986)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:02 AM26Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/ASBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-07Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceCPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)181614121086420Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:02 AM27Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A
This software is licensed to: GMU Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-07CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.Liquefaction analysis overall plotsFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)74727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.1.6.11 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/17/2017, 8:28:02 AM28Project file: U:\2017\17-176-00 Terraces Apartments Geotechnical Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\CLIQ_TERRACE APTS.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.600.5390.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:50.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk
APPENDIX D
Percolation Test Result
Riverside/Orange County - Percolation Rate Conversion
Porchet Method, aka Inverse Borehole Method
Terraces Apartments - Orange, CA
17-176-00
DH-8
4 inches
62.4 inches
(min)(min)(ft)(ft)(in)(in)(in)(in)(in/hour)
1 8:45:00 AM 8:55:00 AM 10.0 10.0 2.62 3.51 30.96 20.28 10.68 25.62 4.64
2 8:56:00 AM 9:06:00 AM 10.0 20.0 2.62 3.45 30.96 21.00 9.96 25.98 4.27
3 9:07:00 AM 9:17:00 AM 10.0 30.0 2.62 3.45 30.96 21.00 9.96 25.98 4.27
4 9:18:00 AM 9:28:00 AM 10.0 40.0 2.62 3.47 30.96 20.76 10.20 25.86 4.39
5 9:29:00 AM 9:39:00 AM 10.0 50.0 2.62 3.51 30.96 20.28 10.68 25.62 4.64
6 9:40:00 AM 9:50:00 AM 10.0 60.0 2.62 3.46 30.96 20.86 10.10 25.91 4.34
4.34
Final
Height of
Water (Hf)
∆H Havg
Infiltration
Rate (It)
Average Infiltration Rate (in/hour)
End Time ∆t Total Time
Initial
Depth of
Water (D0)
Final
Depth of
Water (Df)
Initial
Hight of
Water (H0)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Test Hole Number:
Test Hole Radius:
Total Depth :
Trial Start Time
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Infiltration Rate (in/hour)Time (min)
DH-8 Infiltration Rate vs. Time
20.20
20.30
20.40
20.50
20.60
20.70
20.80
20.90
21.00
21.10
21.20
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Water level drop (in)Time (min)
DH-8
Water Level Drop vs. Time
Riverside/Orange County - Percolation Rate Conversion
Porchet Method, aka Inverse Borehole Method
Terraces Apartments - Orange, CA
17-176-00
DH-9
4 inches
132.0 inches
(min)(min)(ft)(ft)(in)(in)(in)(in)(in/hour)
1 9:01:00 AM 9:11:00 AM 10.0 10.0 7.43 9.00 42.84 24.00 18.84 33.42 6.38
2 9:12:00 AM 9:22:00 AM 10.0 20.0 7.43 9.00 42.84 24.00 18.84 33.42 6.38
3 9:23:00 AM 9:33:00 AM 10.0 30.0 7.43 8.43 42.84 30.84 12.00 36.84 3.71
4 9:34:00 AM 9:44:00 AM 10.0 40.0 7.43 8.35 42.84 31.80 11.04 37.32 3.37
5 9:45:00 AM 9:55:00 AM 10.0 50.0 7.43 8.35 42.84 31.80 11.04 37.32 3.37
6 9:56:00 AM 10:06:00 AM 10.0 60.0 7.43 8.47 42.84 30.42 12.42 36.63 3.86
3.86
s
Test Hole Radius:
Average Infiltration Rate (in/hour)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Test Hole Number:
Total Depth :
Trial Start Time
Final
Height of
Water (Hf)
∆H Infiltration
Rate (It)End Time ∆t Total Time
Initial
Depth of
Water (D0)
Final
Depth of
Water (Df)
Initial
Hight of
Water (H0)
Havg
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Infiltration Rate (in/hour)Time (min)
DH-9 Infiltration Rate vs. Time
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Water level drop (in)Time (min)
DH-9 Water Level Drop vs. Time
Riverside/Orange County - Percolation Rate Conversion
Porchet Method, aka Inverse Borehole Method
Terraces Apartments - Orange, CA
17-176-00
DH-10
4 inches
128.4 inches
(min)(min)(ft)(ft)(in)(in)(in)(in)(in/hour)
1 11:00:00 AM 11:10:00 AM 10.0 10.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
2 11:11:00 AM 11:21:00 AM 10.0 20.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
3 11:22:00 AM 11:32:00 AM 10.0 30.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
4 11:33:00 AM 11:43:00 AM 10.0 40.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
5 11:44:00 AM 11:54:00 AM 10.0 50.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
6 11:55:00 AM 12:05:00 PM 10.0 60.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
20.01
Initial
Hight of
Water (H0)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Test Hole Number:
Test Hole Radius:
Total Depth :
Trial Start Time
Final
Height of
Water (Hf)
∆H Havg
Infiltration
Rate (It)
Average Infiltration Rate (in/hour)
End Time ∆t Total Time
Initial
Depth of
Water (D0)
Final
Depth of
Water (Df)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Infiltration Rate (in/hour)Time (min)
DH-10 Infiltration Rate vs. Time
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Water level drop (in)Time (min)
DH-10 Water Level Drop vs. Time
Riverside/Orange County - Percolation Rate Conversion
Porchet Method, aka Inverse Borehole Method
Terraces Apartments - Orange, CA
17-176-00
DH-10
4 inches
128.4 inches
(min)(min)(ft)(ft)(in)(in)(in)(in)(in/hour)
1 11:00:00 AM 11:10:00 AM 10.0 10.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
2 11:11:00 AM 11:21:00 AM 10.0 20.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
3 11:22:00 AM 11:32:00 AM 10.0 30.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
4 11:33:00 AM 11:43:00 AM 10.0 40.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
5 11:44:00 AM 11:54:00 AM 10.0 50.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
6 11:55:00 AM 12:05:00 PM 10.0 60.0 9.03 10.70 20.04 0.00 20.04 10.02 20.01
20.01
Initial
Hight of
Water (H0)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Test Hole Number:
Test Hole Radius:
Total Depth :
Trial Start Time
Final
Height of
Water (Hf)
∆H Havg
Infiltration
Rate (It)
Average Infiltration Rate (in/hour)
End Time ∆t Total Time
Initial
Depth of
Water (D0)
Final
Depth of
Water (Df)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Infiltration Rate (in/hour)Time (min)
DH-10 Infiltration Rate vs. Time
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Water level drop (in)Time (min)
DH-10 Water Level Drop vs. Time
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
E-2: Preliminary Addendum Geotechnical Foundation Recommendations
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK