Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Report 9980 Indiana Avenue ● Suite 14 ● Riverside ● California ● 92503 ● Phone (951) 688-5400 ● Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, contact: info@geomatlabs.com e-mail geomatlabs@sbcglobal.net GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology August 31, 2013 Project No. 11081-01 TO: Mira Loma Recovery, LLC 6430 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 460 Los Angeles, California 90028 ATTENTION: Mr. Jim Ahmad SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report, Tract Map 33584, A.P.N. 944-060-006, Proposed 57 Single Family Homes, Northeast Corner of Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California In accordance with your authorization we have prepared this geotechnical report for the subject proposed single family homes. No subsurface work was conducted to prepare this report. Geotechnical data from previous subsurface work conducted by this firm on January 15, 2012 and earlier work by Inland Foundation Engineering was utilized. Inland Foundation Engineering completed their work for 64 single family residential lots. Our latest work was completed for multi- family residential development. Both our previous reports and Inland Foundation Engineering report was reviewed for the purpose of developing this geotechnical document for the proposed 57 single family homes. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 Fred Schilling, CEG Principal Engineer Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: [3 ] Addressee Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 2 ATTACHED FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Regional Physiographic Setting, Topographic Map, 1/100000 Figure 3 Local Topographic Map, USGS Scale, 1/24000 Figure 4 Large Scale Topographic Map, ~6000 Scale Figure 5 Site Aerial Figure 6 Tectonic Setting Figure 7 Geologic Map Figure 8 A. P. Zones Map Figure 9 Faults of Southern California (Fault Setting) Plate 1 Exploratory Boring Location Map Plate 2 Cross section A-A’ Plate 3 Surficial Slope Stability Plate 4 Static Settlement Plate 5 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 6 Surcharge Induced on Retaining Walls Appendix A References Appendix B Exploratory Boring Logs Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Appendix D Slope Stability Evaluation Appendix E Slope Maintenance Guidelines Appendix F Liquefaction Analysis Appendix G Earthwork and Grading Specifications Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Description The Legal Assessor's Parcel No. for the site is 944-060-006. The site rests in the easterly portion of Section 1, Township 8 South, Range 3 West, S.B.B.&M. The subject site rests northeast of the intersection of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Drive in the City of Temecula, California. The site is located in a mixed usage area of Temecula, California. The site consists of approximately 7.28 acres and is bounded on the east by a flood control channel and existing school, west and north by Mira Loma Drive, and south by Rancho Vista Road. See Figure 1, Site Location Map. At the present time, the site is vacant except for remnants of old foundations, pavement, and fences. We understand that the site was used as a charter school. The topography may be described as variable and sloping. Based on our site visit the northwesterly portion of the site was occupied by the school facilities. The southeasterly portion of the site appears to have not been improved, except for drainage control. An active flood control channel bounds the easterly portion of the property. The channel is incised into native ground. The downstream of the channel, at the intersection with Mira Loma Drive is improved with concrete wing walls and galvanized metal grill. Vegetation along the channel is moderately dense to dense. Proposed Improvements Based on the provided Tentative Tract Map 33584 (not dated), Plate 1, the site is proposed for 57 single family homes, a small park, and detention basin. Retaining walls are proposed along the drainage path on the east side of the property, and along a portion of the proposed cut slope on the west side of the property, and along the grade break between lots in the central loop road. The proposed residential homes are assumed to be two story wood frame structures supported on shallow foundation and concrete slab-on-grade. We have not been provided with specific foundation loads. We anticipate however, that loads are light. Review of Tentative Proposed Grading GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc, was provided with an electronic copy of Tentative Tract Map 33584. Based on a review of proposed plan the following grading is proposed. Proposed Slopes The slope along Rancho Vista will be graded in cut and fill designed at 2H:1V. The slope height at the east end of Rancho Vista is about 20 feet and the west end about 41 feet. The slope is provided with a bench where the slope exceeds 30 feet in height. The slope along Mira Loma Road will also be graded in cut grading designed at 2H:1V. The slope height at north end is about 21 feet and at the south end about 41 feet. The slope is provided with a bench where the slope exceeds 30 feet in height. A fill slope is proposed along the drainage path on the east side of the property. The slope height varies from 4 feet to a maximum of 12 feet. This slope spans the area between the lots and the retaining wall along the drainage path. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 4 Stability of Slopes Cut Slope: The maximum proposed height of this 2H:1V cut slope is approximately 41 feet high with a 6 feet bench at approximately 30 feet up from the toe of slope. A Geologic Cross Section, Plate 2 presented in our earlier report dated December 30, 2011 and attached herein, was drawn through the 41 feet high cut slope for stability evaluation. The majority of the cut slope is expected to expose massive Pauba Formation. The stability evaluation is presented in Appendix D of this report. The evaluation shows the minimum factors of safety of the analysis are as follows: GLOBAL STABILITY SAFETY FACTORS Failure Type Static Pseudostatic Global Rotational 1.87 1.34 Fill Slope: Large portion of the slope along Rancho Vista Road will be developed in fill grading. The maximum height of the slope is on the order of 23.5 feet at Lot 16. The slope tapers down in height eastward. The evaluation presented in Appendix D shows the minimum factors of safety of the analysis are as follows: GLOBAL STABILITY SAFETY FACTORS Failure Type Static Pseudostatic Global Rotational 1.97 1.44 The cut and fill portions are expected to perform satisfactorily when constructed at a maximum gradient of 2H:1V and in accordance with standard grading recommendations. Surficial Slope Stability Surficial stability of a 26.6° slope has been calculated. The result of calculation shows a factor of safety of 2.1 >1.5, see Plate 3. Lots Proposed for Cut Grading Lot Tentative Proposed Cut Grading Minimum Maximum 9 7’ 13’ 10 5’ 17’ 11 2’ 21’ 12 1’ 6’ 13 0’ 1’ 16 0’ 4’ 38 0’ 2’ 39 0’ 1’ 40 0’ 1’ 41 0’ 1’ 42 0’ 1’ 43 0’ 1’ 44 0’ 1’ Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 5 Lots Proposed for Fill Grading Lot Tentative Proposed Fill Grading Minimum Maximum 18 2’ 5’ 19 2’ 8’ 20 6’ 10’ 21 7’ 12’ 22 7’ 7’ 23 4’ 6’ 24 3’ 6’ 25 3’ 5’ 26 5’ 7’ 27 7’ 11’ 28 1’ 8’ 29 1’ 1’ 30 1’ 5’ 31 1’ 5’ 35 1’ 10’ 36 1’ 10’ 37 1’ 8’ 52 1’ 4’ 53 1’ 3’ 54 1’ 5’ 55 1’ 4’ 56 1’ 4’ 57 1’ 4’ Lots Proposed for Transition Cut to Fill Grading Lot Tentative Proposed Transition Cut to Fill Grading Cut Fill 1 17 3 2 17 3 3 17’ 3’ 4 13’ 3’ 5 12’ 3’ 6 2’ 3’ 8 11’ 4’ 9 13’ 4’ 14 5’ 2’ 15 4’ 1’ 17 3’ 3’ 32 1’ 8’ 33 1’ 8’ 34 1’ 9’ 45 1’ 1’ 46 2’ 1’ 47 2’ 1’ 48 1’ 2’ 49 4’ 2’ 50 4’ 1’ 51 4’ 4’ Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 6 Retaining Walls Retaining wall is proposed for the rear yards of Lots 1 through 7. This wall is on the order of six feet in height. The wall will support the cut slope designed at 2H:1V. Retaining wall is proposed for the rear yard of Lots 38 through 48. This wall is on the order of four feet in height. The wall will support the grade separation between the opposite lots. Retaining wall east of Lots 20 and 28. This wall is on the order of 5 feet in height. It supports the fill slope for these lots. The slope is assumed to be designed at 2H:1V. Retaining wall for Lots 32 to 37. This wall is on the order of 5 feet in height. It supports the fill slope for these lots. The slope is assumed to be designed at 2H:1V. Detention Basin This basin is located between Lots 34 and 35. The tentative proposed bottom elevation of the basin 4 to 5 feet below surrounding lots and street level. Based on the provided plan most of the basin bottom will be developed in cut grading. The east basin embankment will be developed in fill inclined at an assumed design of 2H:1V. This fill embankment is retained by a retaining wall. Setback between the wall and basin bottom should be in accordance with Riverside County Low Impact Development management Practices Manual. Park Site The small park site will be mostly graded in sliver cut, less than a foot in depth. West end of the park will be graded in ten feet of cut.. Private Streets Streets A, B, and C are 44 feet wide private roads. The terminus of Streets B and C will be provided with fill on the order of ten feet in the vicinity of Lots 20 and 28. Fill on the order of seven feet is proposed near Lot 11. The remaining of roadways will be developed in sliver cut and fill grading. We understand that these roads will pavers paved. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 7 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS Subsurface Exploration On March 7, 2005 Inland Foundation Engineering drilled seven boreholes at the site to a maximum depth of 101 feet below ground surface. The subsurface exploration was reported by Inland Foundation Engineering on April 19, 2005. On January 15, 2012 this office drilled five additional boreholes utilizing a truck mounted rotary auger rig to a maximum depth of 50 feet. Refer to Plate 1 for approximate locations of the boreholes. The geotechnical logs of the twelve boreholes are presented in Appendix B of this report. Representative undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel penetration sampler with successive 30-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The number of blows required to achieve each six inches of penetration were recorded on the boring logs and used for estimating the relative consistencies of the subsoils. Two different samplers were used. The first sampler used was a Standard Penetration Sampler for which published correlations relating the number of hammer blows to the strength of the soil are available. The second sampler type was larger in diameter, carrying brass sample rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. Undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. They were then transported to the laboratory for observations and testing. Representative bulk samples were obtained and returned to the laboratory for further testing and observations. The results of this laboratory testing are discussed and presented in Appendix C. Subsurface Earth Material The results of the subsurface investigation indicate that the site may be characterized as being underlain by both alluvial soils and materials of the Pauba Formation. In addition, manmade fills were encountered in the lower portions of the property. Manmade fill was encountered in our Boring B-2. The fill material extended to depth of approximately 5 feet. Based the standard blow count the Relative density of the fill is approximately 90 percent. These soils are similar to those encountered elsewhere on the site and probably originated from the site during previous grading operations. Young alluvial channel deposits are present on the easterly side of the site, associated with the existing drainage on the lower portion of the property. The remainder of the site is underlain by sandstone member of the Pleistocene Pauba Formation. Refer to the attached Geologic Map, Figure 7. In general, the site’s materials appear to be consistent with those of the Pauba formation, consisting of alternating layers of sand, silty sand, lean clay, and sandy silty clay. The soils are moderately to very dense and firm to hard, consolidated, and indurated. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 8 No loose or soft soils were encountered to the maximum depth explored. Drilling was difficult. Accordingly, it is our judgment that the proposed buildings will be founded into competent soils and Pauba Formation. Slightly compressible soil in the upper ten feet was encountered in borehole B-03 by Inland Foundation Engineering (referenced report dated April 19, 2005). This area is proposed for 6 to 20 feet of cut grading. Considering this removal and site preparation overexcavation requirement, no compressible soils will remain in the vicinity of borehole B-03 (Inland Foundation Engineering). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples. The tests consisted primarily of moisture, density, sieve analysis, Atterberg Limits, expansion index, and direct shear. The soil classifications are in conformance with the Unified Soil Classifications System (USCS), as outlined in the Classification and Symbols Chart (Appendix B). A summary of our laboratory testing and ASTM designation is presented in Appendix C. Expansion Potential Expansion Index (EI) test was performed on representative soil sample obtained from our exploration. Based on the laboratory test results, the soils in the upper 15 feet have a very low expansion potential (EI value of 0), as defined in Table 18-I-B of the 2001 CBC. Laboratory expansion index testing by Inland Foundation Engineering show a soil sample having an Expansion Index of 13; very low expansion potential. Additional expansion index testing should be performed subsequent to completion of rough grading. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at the site in Boring B-3 at a depth of approximately 29 feet. Groundwater was encountered at 25 feet below ground surface during the subsurface work of Inland Foundation Engineering. Groundwater is not expected to impact site grading during dry season. In winter months the drainage east of the site may have a water flow. Retaining wall construction along the drainage may be impacted by water seepage in wet season. Dewatering may be required to facilitate retaining wall construction. Groundwater data compiled by the Western Municipal Water District/San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District indicate two recently monitored wells in the vicinity of the site. State Well No. 8S3W01001, located approximately one-quarter mile west of the site was monitored on April 25, 2004. At that time, the depth to groundwater was 303.36 feet. State Well No. 8S3W01 P02, located approximately one-half mile west of the site was also monitored in April 2004. The depth to groundwater was 301.96 feet. It is important to note that neither of these wells reflects conditions associated with the alluvial drainage on the easterly portion of the site. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 9 Slope Construction/Maintenance Fill slopes should be provided at the toe with a three feet deep keyway embedded into firm materials. The keyway should be at least one equipment width (+15 feet) inclined at rate of two percent inward. All keyways should be observed prior to starting fill slope construction. All slopes should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density; to the outer slope face. We recommend overfilling, compaction by backrolling and then trimming to grade for fill slope construction. It is recommended that all slopes be planted subsequent to construction. As a minimum, Slope Maintenance Guidelines for Homeowners presented in Appendix E of this report should be followed for this purpose. Graded fill and cut slope, in our opinion, should be provided with a toe drain to prevent nuisance water from daylighting on the slope face or at the toe. Generally, a “burrito-style” drain consisting of perforated plastic pipe encased in free draining aggregate and surrounded by appropriate geotextile filter fabric would be sufficient for this condition. Typical toe drain details are presented in Appendix G of this report. Specific design details for subdrain should be developed during actual needs conditions encountered during grading. Liquefaction Analysis The eastern side of the site, along the drainage, is located within State of California Seismic Hazard Zones for Liquefaction, as shown on the seismic hazard zone map for Murrieta Quadrangle. West of the drainage the alluvial soil is dense to very dense, consolidated and indurated. Further westerly of the drainage, site soils is mapped as Pauba formation which is considered a non- liquefaction area. For the area with potential for liquefaction (the drainage and its banks), a quantitative liquefaction analysis was conducted assuming groundwater is to rise to ground surface. Our Boreholes B-3 and B-5 were essentially used for the analysis. Soil liquefaction is a process by which loose, saturated, granular deposits loose a significant portion of their strength due to pore water pressure buildup resulting from cyclic loading, such as that caused by an earthquake. Soil liquefaction can lead to foundation bearing failures and excessive settlements. Liquefaction susceptibility reflects the relative resistance of soils to loss of strength when subjected to ground shaking. Primarily, physical properties and conditions of soils such as sediment grain-size distribution, compaction, cementation, saturation, and depth govern the degree of resistance. Soils that lack resistance (susceptible soils) are typically saturated, loose poorly graded sand sediments. Soils resistant to liquefaction include all soil types that are drier or sufficiently dense. Cohesive soils are generally not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Fine Grained Soil Profile Evaluation The consistency of fine grained earth material encountered in the upper 30 feet is firm to very firm. The consistency of fine grained material below 30 feet is hard. The following criteria by Finn (1991,1993) and Perlea et al (1999) is used as a guide to evaluate the onsite fine grained soil for liquefaction potential. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 10 Borehole Depth (ft) Consistency Class. LL In-Place % Moisture B-3 15 to 25’ Firm to Very Firm CL 32 24 < 0.87LL B-3 35-50’ Hard CL 47 22 < 0.87LL B-5 15-20’ Very Firm CLML 29 15 < 0.87LL B-5 25-30’ Very Firm CL 32 25 < 0.87LL Fine grained soils are generally not considered susceptible to liquefaction and based on the above is not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Summary of Quantitative Liquefaction Evaluation Liquefaction susceptibility using Standard Penetration Test data and laboratory grain size test results presented in the referenced report being updated were analyzed using LiquefyPro software. Liquefaction analysis performed for this evaluation included: [1] evaluation of soil consistency and compactness influencing liquefaction, [2] correction of penetration resistance data to convert measured SPT N-values to standard N60-values, [3] calculating the earthquake induced stress ratio (CSR), [4] calculating cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), [5] assume that water table rise to the surface, and [6] evaluation of liquefaction potential by calculating a factor of safety against liquefaction (FS), by dividing CRR by CRS. The software output is presented in Appendix F. The generated computer calculation in Appendix F shows that onsite soils can resist liquefaction except for one foot zone between 26 to 27 feet below ground surface in the area of B-3 and three foot zone between 22 to 25 feet below ground surface in the area of B-5. Seismically Induced Settlement Earthquake-induced settlement was estimated using procedures presented by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990) for dry/moist soils (above the water table) and saturated sands. Settlements analyses were performed for the same location analyzed for liquefaction potential to estimate the maximum possible cyclic settlement to be expected at the project site. LIQUEFY PRO software was used to calculate cyclic settlements and presents them on a cumulative settlement in Appendix F, including settlements above and below historic high ground water depths. Volumetric strains for soils above the water table were estimated using blow count data and cyclic shear strain (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987). Cyclic settlement was obtained by multiplying the thickness of the soil layer by the calculated volumetric strain. Cyclic settlements for saturated sands were estimated using blow count data corrected for fines content (i.e. blow counts for equivalent clean sand were used) and other factors used for liquefaction analyses (Stark and Olson, 1995). The referenced procedure applies only to saturated clean sands. Volumetric strain for saturated sands was estimated using the calculated earthquake- induced cyclic shear stress and corrected blow count (Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990). The cyclic settlement was obtained by multiplying the thickness of the liquefied soil layer by the volumetric strain. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 11 The results of computerized cyclic settlement analyses are presented in Appendix F. In this case, estimated total seismic settlement is expected to be less than 0.5 inch. Considering procedural conservatism and the above results, a maximum differential cyclic settlement of 2/3 of the seismic settlement is estimated (SCEC/DMG SP117, 1999). The above estimated cyclic settlements were computed for saturated and saturated sand. Although, not anticipated, intermediate thin soil layers, not tested, may be subject to liquefaction. This condition are expected to be mitigated by upper non-liquefiable layers (per Ishihara, 1985, procedures), and the settlements at the corresponding depths, although are expected to be insignificant, they should not propagate to the surface owing to the bridging effects from the non- liquefiable layers. Liquefaction Observations/Summary 1. Some potential for liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlements are expected at this site. Although a maximum total seismic settlement of 0.4 inch is expected to be the possible highest, the foundations should be selected and detailed to resist liquefaction effects and prevent large-scale damage to these structures. 3. An estimated seismic differential settlement of 2/3 of total settlement may be anticipated. 4. Even based on the results from the rigorous reconciliation analyses, and per Ishihara’s procedures (1985), no potential for surface manifestation (e.g. sand boils or significant ground fissures) as an effect from movement of layer(s) below the historic high groundwater is expected at this site. This is considering that significant liquefiable layers only start at a depth of 22 feet below ground surface and a thick non-liquefiable layer is present above it. 5. Based on SCEC (1999) guidelines, a potential for loss of bearing capacity due to liquefaction is not expected at the site since there is not an upper potentially liquefiable layer at a depth shallower than the estimated depth where the induced vertical stress in the soil is less than 10% of the bearing pressure imposed by the foundation systems. Furthermore, proper reinforced foundation systems are designed to dissipate structural loads. Also, no loss of bearing capacity is expected for grade beams or lightly loaded slabs-on-grade. 6. In significant conformance with Youd, Hanson, and Bartlett (ASCE Geotechnical Jr. April 1995, and Lecture by Youd on July 7, 1999), no lateral spreading due to liquefaction is expected at this site due to the following reasons:  Alluvial subsurface soils are essentially horizontally layered.  According to the SPT blow count the formation is very dense, therefore, it is not expected to shear to cause significant lateral spreading.  No thick clean sand layer is shown in the alluvial soil profile. If clean sand is to exist elsewhere, in areas not explored, it is expected to be scattered or have minimal occurrence throughout the site, and cannot reasonably be connected to form a hypothetical “continuous” line of significant length that could reasonably be expected to “exit” on a slope or free face, or move significantly below the minimal (1%, per plan) slope of the site. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 12  In the liquefaction spreadsheets (a part of the LiquefyPro software results) it can be observed that at the analyzed locations, no saturated liquefiable sandy soils with values of N1(60) <15 exist at the site. 7. Although it is extremely difficult to predict the overall behavior of any site during seismic shaking, it is our opinion that proper design of foundation can substantially improve the structure’s resistance to deformation. This is most commonly accomplished by providing proper reinforced foundation design. If the owner wishes a higher degree of confidence, then the structures should be designed for higher probable events. Please note that foundation design is under the purview of the structural engineer. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the CBC and the latest applicable building codes and structural considerations may govern. Geology The subject parcel is 7 ¼ acres in size, situated chiefly on the southwest flank of a drainage that runs northwestward through the area. The property slopes generally to the northeast from a high of approximately 1145 feet above sea level in the southwest corner of the property to a low along the northeast side of, roughly 1090 feet above sea level, a total relief of 55 feet. The overall slope across the building area is approximately 8H:1V. The site location is depicted on Figures 1 through 5. Regional Geology The subject property is located in the Peninsular Ranges Province of California, see Tectonic Setting, Figure 6. The Peninsular Ranges Province is noted for its pronounced, active, northwest-southeast oriented fault systems. The closest of these major faults are elements of the Elsinore Fault System. See Figures 6, 7, and 9. The closest of these elements is approximately ¼ mile to the west (east border of the A.P. Zone). See Figures 6 through 8. The Elsinore Fault is an Mw7.0 system in this region. The CGS Ground Motion Page indicates a PGA of 0.559g is expectable. The formational units of the site area are members of the Pleistocene, Pauba Formation. See Figure 7. Structurally, the overall area is faulted and slightly flexured. Site Geology The following report was reviewed: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for A.P.N. 944–060– 006 by Inland Foundation Engineering Inc. in April 19, 2005, Project Number P283–003. Inland’s site investigation included review of existing literature and subsurface exploration. Knowledge of the geology of the area is little change since the time of that study. Elements of the geology of the site are re-reviewed below. The site is situated on northeast sloping hillside above a northwest flowing drainage. Slopes are regular and moderately low. Total height of slope is approximately 45 feet. The overall slope is approximately 8H:1V with steeper slopes prevailing along the western border of the parcel. Sandstone of the Pleistocene, Pauba formation underlies the slope area; Holocene alluvium underlies the Eastern part of the parcel along the existing drainage. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 13 No faults have been discovered or reported within the area of the parcel. No fault zones are reported in the tract by the Riverside County review for the item tract. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards reviewed by Inland include seismicity, settlement, liquefaction, landslides, rock fall, slope stability, seiches, tsunamis, and surface rupture. Geologic conditions reported by Inland in 2005 have not change significantly. Active faults Surface rupture - no active fault zones are mapped on the property. However, an A. P. Zone for a segment of the Elsinore system is mapped nearly adjacent to the west border of the property. See Figure 8. Also, strong faulting is mapped approximately 1500’ northwest of and in line with the property. Although this faulting is not known to be active, the tectonic sensitivity of the location indicates that all excavations on the property should be examined by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. A distinct potential for a high level of ground shaking during earthquakes is also possible here - above ½ the strength of gravity (0.559g). Weak zones in the sub terrain, formed by the cross cutting of ancient faults, is also a distinct possibility here. Tsunamis, Seiches Standing bodies of water are not known where the location could be affective in this way as a hazard to lots of this parcel. Slope Stability Deep seated instabilities are not anticipated, because of the character of the Pauba Formation, Most commonly, the underlying sub terrain is comprised of massive, coherent sandstone (Pauba Formation). Therefore, slope stability should not be a problem, as a rule. Nevertheless, local raveling may become apparent if slopes are not planted and maintained. Site Class Formal structural plans have not been prepared, the exact height, design loads of the multi-family buildings, and the construction material, stiffness, and strength of structure are unknown at this time. Therefore we are assuming that the proposed three stories high buildings are expected to be 25 feet high or less, of conventional light frame construction, and their structure fundamental period of vibration is less than 0.5 seconds (this based on T=Ct(hn)0.75, where Ct=0.02 and h=25). Accordingly site specific evaluation to determine spectral acceleration for liquefiable soils is not required and therefore the structure need not be designed as if it is Seismic Site Class “F:” (exempt under ASCE 7 Section 20.3.1). The structural engineer should verify the structure fundamental period using applicable methods from the CBC. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 14 It is our opinion that structures should be designed in accordance with the current seismic building code as determined by the structural engineer. Considering the Spectral Response Acceleration at short period SDS > 0.50g (CBC Table 1613.5.6(1), and the Spectral Response Acceleration at one second period SD1 >0.20g (CBC Table 1613.5.6(2), the subject site is located in an estimated Site Class “D” as outlined in CBC Table 1613.5.2. Present building codes and construction practices, and the recommendations presented in this report are intended to minimize structural damage to buildings and loss of life as a result of a moderate or a major earthquake. They are not intended to totally prevent damage to structures, graded slopes and natural hillsides due to moderate or major earthquakes. While it may be possible to design structures and graded slopes to withstand strong ground motion, the construction costs associated with such designs are usually prohibitive, and the design restrictions may be severely limiting. Earthquake insurance is often the only economically feasible form of protection for your property against major earthquake damage. Damage to sidewalks, steps, decks, patios and similar exterior improvements can be expected as these are not normally controlled by the building code. Seismic Design Parameters The CBC seismic design parameters are presented in the following table. Parameter Design Value Site Class D 0.2 second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss 1.845 1.0 second Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 0.674 Site Coefficient, FA 1.0 Site Coefficient, FV 1.5 Maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations for short periods, SMS 1.845 Maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations for 1-second periods, SM1 1.011 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDS 1.230 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods, SD1 0.674 Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 15 CONCLUSIONS Based upon our geotechnical findings, we conclude that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. We have found no significant geologic or soil-related constraints during the course of this investigation that cannot be mitigated by proper design and construction practices. Specific conclusions are summarized below:  The site is expected to experience strong ground shaking during the design life of the structures. The potential for liquefaction occurrence is anticipated to be deeper than 22 feet below ground surface in younger alluvial soils. Seismically-induced settlement in young alluvium is expected to be on the order of 0.4 inch. No seismic settlement is expected in Pauba Formation.  Very moist soil is expected to be encountered. Grading along the drainage, during wet season, may encounter shallow groundwater. Contingencies will need to be provided if construction takes place during periods of wet weather. Small, light weight grading equipment mounted on tracks may be applicable where shallow groundwater is anticipated. This conditions may require special construction practices, such as excavating wet soil with an excavator, mixing wet soil with drier soil or air drying, stabilizing with geo-fabric, pumping soil removal, and bottoms dewatering.  Subdrain system is not anticipated at this time. The need for subdrain will be determined during rough grading. Toe drain for slopes should be considered during planning and construction. We have no way of predicting future groundwater levels or perched water due to grading or increase in surface water infiltration from rainfall or from landscape irrigation. Subdrains, horizontal drains, toe drains, French drains, heel drains or other devices may be recommended in future for graded areas that exhibit nuisance water seepage.  Complete removal and recompaction of the undocumented artificial fill and partial removal and recompaction of the upper alluvial soil will be necessary.  Cut slopes exposing massive, dense Pauba formation and fill slopes constructed of onsite soil are expected to perform satisfactorily when constructed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical recommendations. The slopes along the drainage bank will require rip-rap or equivalent method protection from flooding and erosion.  Based on laboratory test results presented in referenced reports, the near-surface, onsite soil is expected to exhibit very low expansion potential. This should be verified subsequent to completion of rough grading.  Concrete in contact with the onsite soil is expected to have negligible exposure to water- soluble sulfates in the soil. The onsite soil is considered to be mildly corrosive to ferrous metal. Soils with sever potential to corrosion may be encountered, according to the laboratory test results presented in the referenced soil report. Additional laboratory testing should be conducted subsequent to completion of rough grading.  Overall, the geologic setting of the property appears satisfactory for the use intended, provided engineering recommendations are followed. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 16 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based upon our review of provided documents and associated subsurface work. These recommendations are preliminary and should be reviewed and amended, as necessary, during rough grading. Earthwork All earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix G of this report), unless specifically revised or amended below or by future review of project plans. Clearing and Grubbing All building, slab and pavement areas and all surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of existing loose soil, vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials. We recommend a minimum overexcavation of at least 36 inches to provide assurance of exposing potentially unsuitable materials. If unsuitable conditions are exposed, they should be traced out and removed. All abandoned underground utility lines should be traced out and completely removed from the site. Each end of the abandoned utility line should be securely capped at the entrance and exit to the site to prevent any water from entering the site. Concrete irrigation lines may be capped at their entrance and exit to the site, crushed in place and distributed throughout the fill as directed by the Soil Engineer. Soils which are loosened due to the removal of trees should be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soil Engineer. A search should be made in the vicinity of the existing structures for possible septic tank and/or seepage pits. These should be excavated and removed from the site or processed under the direction of the Soil Engineer. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill The recommend depth of removal is on the order of eight to ten feet within the proposed fill areas that are underlain by alluvium. All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be subjected to compaction testing prior to processing. Testing should indicate a Relative Compaction of at least 85 percent within the unprocessed native soils. If roots or other deleterious materials are encountered or if the Relative Compaction fails to meet the acceptance criterion, additional overexcavation will be required until satisfactory conditions are encountered. Upon approval, surfaces to receive fill shall be scarified, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. Preparation of Building Areas All building areas should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of one times the footing width beneath the footing base elevation. This zone of recompaction should extend a minimum of five feet outside the building lines, and a minimum of 36 inches below the existing or final ground surface, whichever is deeper. The surface of the overexcavation should then be reviewed for compliance with the criteria in the above paragraph under this section. Upon observation, the surface shall be scarified, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 17 An observation should then be made by the Soil Engineer or his representative, in order to verify the depth of the overexcavation and the Relative Compaction obtained. The excavated material may then be replaced as controlled compacted fill. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation, scarification and recompaction of the surface, and replacement of the excavated material as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab areas shall be to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. Compaction within the proposed pavement areas shall be to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. Placement of Compacted Fill Fill materials consisting of on-site soils or approved imported granular soils, shall be spread in shallow lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. Observations of the material encountered during the investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means of rubber-wheeled or sheepsfoot compactors. If grading is performed during a dry period, pre-watering of the soil may provide a means of obtaining a more uniform moisture content through the soils which were encountered. This should be investigated by the grading contractor prior to the commencement of site grading. Field/Laboratory Testing During grading tests and observations shall be performed by the Soil Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. Laboratory testing will also be conducted to verify that the soils will not subject concrete to sulfate attack and are not corrosive. Laboratory testing of any proposed import will be necessary prior to placement on the site. Laboratory testing of on-site soils may be done on either a selective or random basis as site conditions indicate. Shrinkage and Subsidence Volumetric shrinkage of the material which is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. Near the surface, the anticipate shrinkage values of 15 to 20 percent with 15 percent being estimated on the basis of average values and 20 percent being based upon average values with the addition of one degree of uncertainty. It is estimated that this may be applicable for the upper two feet. Below that depth, these values will be much smaller, ranging from 5 to 10 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces which are scarified and compacted will be on the order of 0.05 to 0.1 feet per foot of recompaction. The effects of the recompaction of the soil "in-place" may extend up to two feet beneath the surface which is compacted. Therefore, subsidence due to such recompaction may be up to 0.2 feet in alluvial areas. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used and the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading. Subsidence in Pauba Formation may be considered negligible. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 18 These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses which will occur due to the stripping of the organic material from the site and the removal of trees, utility or irrigation lines, and other subsurface obstructions. Wet Soil Very moist soil was encountered at the site. If wet soil is encountered during grading, special handling of the soil may be required, such as mixing with drier soil or spreading and drying. Special measures may also be required to stabilize wet, pumping removal bottoms for support of compacted fill, such as placement of imported crushed rock and/or ground reinforcement with geotextile. Dewatering should not be precluded. Slopes Based on the current plan and our recommendations, we anticipate that the planned fill and/or cut slopes constructed at an inclination of 2H:1V or flatter will be grossly and surficially stable. Any fill to be placed on sloping ground steeper than 5% should be keyed and benched into competent material. Benching detail is shown in Appendix G of this report. Fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix G, following typical key excavation and benching. In order to achieve adequate compaction at the slope face, we recommend that fill slopes be overfilled and then cut back to compacted material. After cutting back, the final slope should be rolled with compaction equipment where determined necessary by the geotechnical engineer. The success of natural, cut and fill slopes will be dependent upon proper design, construction and maintenance. Grading should be designed in such a manner that all surface water is directed away from the slope face and into satisfactory drainage devices. The finished slopes should be assumed to be highly susceptible to erosion and should be planted as soon as possible after construction. The moisture content of the soil exposed on the slopes should be maintained at a relatively constant level to avoid the problems related to cyclic shrinkage and swelling. Slopes must also be protected against rodent activity and other means of deterioration. As a minimum, Slope Maintenance Guidelines presented in Appendix E should be followed for this purpose. Tentative Foundation Recommendations Spread Footings Residential structures founded into compacted fill or in competent Pauba Formation may be supported on conventional spread footings. Footings should be established a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest adjacent final grade and measure at least 18 inches in width. An allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for spread footings with the above minimum dimensions. The allowable bearing pressure is a net value. Therefore, the weight of the foundation and the backfill over the footing may be neglected when computing dead loads. The bearing pressure applies to dead plus live loads and includes a calculated factor of safety of at least 3. The allowable bearing pressure value may be increased by one-third for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 19 Reinforcement should be determined by qualified structural engineer, however minimum reinforcement of 2 No. 5 bar at top and 2 at bottom is recommended These recommendations should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The structural engineer should determine the actual footing sizes and reinforcement to resist vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces under static and seismic conditions. Reinforcement and size recommendations presented in this report are considered the minimum necessary for the soil conditions present at foundation level and are not intended to supersede the design of the project structural engineer or criteria of the governing agencies for the project. Foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the latest applicable building codes and structural considerations may govern. Foundation design is under purview of structural engineer. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soil Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into satisfactory soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. If concrete is to be placed on dry absorptive soil in hot and dry weather, the soil should be dampened but not to a point that there is freestanding water prior to placement. The formwork and reinforcement should also be dampened. Settlement Total static settlements of individual, lightly loaded spread footings will vary depending on the width of the footing and the actual load supported. Total static settlements of footings, designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be on the order of 0.2 inch, refer to Plate 4. Seismic settlements were calculated by LiquefyPro software and are presented in Appendix F. The total seismically-induced settlement is the sum of settlement of the dry and saturated soil in all explored layers. Calculation of the anticipated seismic settlement is between 0.35 to 0.39 inch. Differential settlement may be taken as 1/2 to 3/4 of the total settlement. The project should be designed for the following anticipated static and seismic settlements: Total Settlement 1.0 inch Differential Settlement 1/2 to 2/3 inch Please note that foundation design is under the purview of the structural engineer. Foundation should be reviewed/designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the latest applicable building codes and structural considerations may govern. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations, grade-beams, and slabs-on-grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be applied to dead load forces. This value does not include a factor-of-safety. A passive resistance of 203 pcf of equivalent fluid weight may be included for resistance to lateral load. This value does not include a factor-of-safety. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 20 When passive resistance is used in conjunction with friction, the coefficient of friction should be reduced by one-third in determining the total lateral resistance. At a minimum, a factor-of- safety of 1.5 should be included when resisting sliding or overturning. Passive earth pressure should be ignored within the upper one foot except where confined as beneath a floor slab. Footing Set Back As recommended in earlier paragraph, keyway for toe of slope construction is 3 feet in depth and at least 15 feet wide. Half of this keyway width is seven feet on each side of slope toe. We recommend that minimum building footing set back from the toe of slope to be at least seven feet. If this setback cannot be achieved, deeper keyway (2 additional feet of keyway depth for each foot encroachment into setback. Maximum encroachment is four feet) should be considered. Slabs-on-Grade Concrete slabs should be supported by compacted structural fill as recommended earlier in this report and in the case of shallow groundwater a layer of crushed rock should be considered. It is recommended that perimeter slabs (walks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of footing stems (free floating) so foundation adjustment will be less likely to cause cracking. Slabs at or near existing grades should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of sand. Areas where floor wetness would be undesirable should be underlain with a plastic vapor barrier to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soils to the slab. The membrane should be centered in the sand. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing concrete. Flooring manufacturers may have specific requirements related to emission rates from concrete that should be achieved prior to the placement of flooring. Some flooring applications may require more effective barriers than the typical 10 mil used in residential construction. Therefore, the selection of the vapor barrier should be based upon the type of flooring material and is not considered to be a Geotechnical Engineering design parameter. Slabs constructed at or near the groundwater should be designed to resist the uplift of the groundwater. Minimum slab reinforcement should be No. 4 bars placed 16 inches on center in each direction. Reinforcing should be located at mid-slab. The drying time of the concrete slabs may be reduced using a lower water-cement ratio such as 0.5 or 0.45. The use of fly ash may enhance workability of the mix and reduce the alkali content. Soils underlying slabs that should be premoistened to 3% above optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Premoistening of slab areas should be observed and tested by project geotechnical engineer for compliance with these recommendations prior to placing of sand, reinforcing steel, or concrete. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 21 Notes for Slab-on-Grade Construction The vapor retarder recommended in the preceding paragraphs is a common method of reducing the migration of moisture through the slab. It will not prevent all moisture migration through the slab nor will it prohibit the formation of mold or other moisture related problems. For moisture sensitive floor coverings, an expert in that field should be consulted to properly design a moisture barrier suitable for the specific application. If concrete is to be placed on a dry absorptive subgrade in hot and dry weather, the subgrade should be dampened but not to a point that there is freestanding water prior to placement. The formwork and reinforcement should also be dampened. Shrinkage of concrete should be anticipated. This will result in cracks in all concrete slabs-on- grade. Shrinkage cracks may be directed to saw-cut "control joints" spaced on the basis of slab thickness and reinforcement. A level subgrade is also an important element in achieving some "control" in the locations of shrinkage cracks. Control joints should be cut immediately following the finishing process and prior to the placement of the curing cover or membrane. Control joints that are cut on the day following the concrete placement are generally ineffective. The placement of reinforcing steel will help in reducing crack width and propagation as well-as providing for an increase in the control joint spacing. The addition of water to the mix to enhance placement and workability frequently results in an excessive water- cement ratio that weakens the concrete, increases drying times and results more cracking due to concrete shrinkage during the initial cure. Based on laboratory testing, expansive soils is not present at the site. If expansive soils are found in building pads, special expansive design criteria should be considered during preliminary planning for the design of foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade. As a minimum, concrete slabs-on-grade should be 6 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars at 12 inches, on center, each way. The slabs should also be provided with six inches of compacted sand or crushed rock. It should be noted, that the data given are minima, and that other more stringent structural considerations, such as large construction or service loads, or hydrostatic pressure may govern. Actual reinforcement and slab thickness should be determined by the Structural Engineer, but should not be less than values given herein. Retaining Wall Design We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with granular soil exhibiting a minimum sand equivalent of 30 and be constructed with a pipe/gravel/filter backdrain in accordance with the recommendations provided on Plate 5. The following parameters may be used for retaining wall design: Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/ft) Active 40 (level backfill) 53 (2H:1V backfill) At Rest 58 (level backfill) 85 (2H:1V backfill) Passive 203 with maximum value of 2000 psf Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 22 Where a 2:1 slope descends from the front of the wall, we recommend that the wall be designed using a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 136 pcf. The upper 12 inches of soil at the toe of the wall should not be considered for passive resistance. We also recommend that retaining walls constructed at or near the top of slopes, or mid-slope walls be constructed with a minimum depth of embedment such that there is a minimum of 5 feet measured horizontally between the bottom outside edge of the footing and the face of the slope. The above values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. Cantilever walls that are designed to yield at least 0.002H, where H is equal to the wall height, may be designed using the active condition. The active pressure may be used to design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall that is free to tilt slightly. For a restrained wall, such as a basement wall, curved walls without joints, or walls restrained at corners, the at-rest pressure should be used. If tilting of wall segments is acceptable and construction joints are provided at all angle points and frequently along curved wall segments (preferably not exceeding 15 feet), the active pressure may be used. Passive pressure is used to compute soil resistance to lateral structural movement. In addition, for sliding resistance, a frictional resistance coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The lateral passive resistance should be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil providing passive resistance, embedded against the foundation elements, will remain intact with time. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharge due to improvements, such as an adjacent structure, should be considered in the design of the retaining wall. Loads applied within a 1:1 projection from the surcharging structure on the stem of the wall should be considered as lateral and vertical surcharge. For lateral surcharge conditions, we recommend utilizing a horizontal load equal to 50 percent of the vertical load, as a minimum. This horizontal load should be applied below the 1:1 projection plane. To minimize the surcharge load from an adjacent structure on the retaining wall and to minimize settlement of the adjacent structure, deepened building footings may be considered. Other lateral pressures due to surcharge loading may be estimated using the guidelines in attached Plate 6. The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of the soil over the wall footing. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum embedment of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for retaining wall footing design, based on the minimum footing width and depth. This bearing value may be increased by 250 psf per foot increase in width or depth to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 23 Retaining Wall along Creek Bed Retaining wall footings along the creek should be established below the scour and erosion zone. Hydrology study is not part of this study and the design 100-year high water level is not known. The estimated scour/erosion depth is five feet. Retaining walls along the creek may be designed as gravity walls. Retaining wall foundation should be protected with concreted rep rap designed by the civil engineer. The rip rap may be extended to cover the creek bed. The channel wall may be designed to retain the fill for the adjacent lots. Preliminary Pavement Design Based on the design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and using an assumed R-value of 40 for the onsite soil and a design R-value of 78 for aggregate base course, preliminary flexible pavement sections may consist of the following for the Traffic Indices indicated. Final pavement design should be based on laboratory testing performed near the completion of grading and the Traffic Index determined by the project civil engineer. Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inch) Aggregate Base (inch) 4.5 3 6 If the streets are to be paved prior to the construction of the buildings, we recommend that the full depth of the pavement section be placed in order to support heavy construction traffic. All pavement construction should be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Field inspection and periodic testing, as needed during placement of the base course materials, should be undertaken to ensure that the requirements of the standard specifications are fulfilled. Prior to placement of aggregate base, the subgrade soil should be processed to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture- conditioned, as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Trench Wall Stability Significant caving did not occur within the exploratory borings. However, caving should be expected in sandy soils. Exposure of sandy soils along the east side of the property is anticipated. All excavations should be configured in accordance with the requirements of CaIOSHA. Onsite soils are tentatively classified as Type B. The classification of the soil and the shoring and/or slope configuration should be the responsibility of the contractor on the basis of the trench depth and the soil encountered. The contractor should have a "competent person" on-site for the purpose of assuring safety within and about all construction excavations. Trench Backfill Utility trenches can be backfilled with onsite soil, provided it is free of debris, organic and oversized material. Prior to backfilling the trench, pipes should be bedded in granular material with a sand equivalent of 30 or greater to a depth of at least 12 inches over the pipe. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 24 The pipe bedding should be densified in-place by wetting. The native backfill should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, as necessary, and mechanically compacted using a minimum standard of 90 percent relative compaction. Surface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of all structures (including slopes and retaining walls) and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying natural and engineered fill soils, and prevent errosion. In addition, finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down (at least 2%) and away to facilitate surface drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations via nonerosive devices. Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils. All planters and terraces should be provided with drainage devices. A concrete lined brow ditch should be constructed along the top of proposed cut/fill slopes. Internal slope drainage should be directed to approve drainage collection devices, per the civil engineer recommendations. Over the slope drainage should be prevented. Location of drainage device should be in accordance with the design civil engineers drainage and erosion control recommendations. Ponded water, leaking irrigation systems, over watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation should be avoided. Surface and subsurface runoff from adjacent properties should be controlled. Area drainage collection should be directed toward the existing street through approved drainage devices. All drainage devices should be properly maintained. All proposed cut and fill slopes should be protected with suitable erosion control measures such as jute matting, hydroseeding, etc. As a minimum, the slope maintenance guidelines in Appendix E should be utilized. Soil Corrosion Potential To evaluate the corrosion potential of the surficial soils we have reviewed the analytical test results presented in the referenced report by Inland Foundation Engineering. The test results of these tests are summarized below. Sulfate (%) Chloride pH Saturated Resistivity 0.001 to 0.007 <500 ppm 7.2 to 7.3 1,500 to 11,400 ohm-cm Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability and pH, as well as sulfate concentration. In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor. Based on the findings of studies presented in ASTM STP 1013 titled “Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion” (February, 1989), the approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as shown in Table below. Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) Classification of Soil Corrosiveness 0 to 900 Very Severe Corrosion 900 to 2,300 Severely Corrosive 2,300 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive 10,000 to >100,000 Very Mildly Corrosive Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 25 Sulfate ion concentrations, and pH appear to play secondary roles in affecting corrosion potential. Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. Potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel in concrete. California Building Code (CBC) provides requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions as summarized below. Water Soluble Sulfate (ppm) Sulfate Exposure 0 1000 Negligible 1000-2000 Moderate 2000-20000 Severe Over 20000 Very Severe Acidity is an important factor of soil corrosivity. The lower the pH (the more acidic the environment), the higher the soil corrosivity with respect to buried metallic structures. As soil pH increases above 7 (the neutral value), the soil is increasingly more alkaline and less corrosive to buried steel structures due to protective surface films which form on steel in high pH environments. A pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally considered relatively passive from a corrosion standpoint. Based on the test results and the resistivity correlations, it appears that the corrosion potential to buried metallic improvements may be characterized as severe. From the CBC guidelines, sulfate exposure to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) may be considered negligible to moderate for the sampled materials. We Should Be Retained For The Following Stages Of Construction Grading and Foundation Plan Review The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited exploratory boreholes. We MUST review final foundation and grading plans to revise our conclusions and recommendations, as necessary. Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations should also be reviewed and verified during grading, and revised accordingly if exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. Based on our review of plans, additional subsurface work should not be precluded. Additional Observation and/or Testing a. During demolition, site clearance, and removal of tree roots and any underground obstructions. b. During all overexcavations and fill placement. c. Following footing excavations and prior to placement of footing materials. d. During wetting of slab subgrade and prior to placement of slab materials. e. During all trench backfills, subgrade and base compaction prior to paving. f. When any unusual conditions are encountered. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 26 Report of Field Density Testing During Grading A report of field density tests should be prepared subsequent to the completion of grading. The report should include a summary of work performed, laboratory test results, and the results and locations of field density tests performed during grading. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 27 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION Geotechnical Risk The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as planned. The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute GeoMat Testing Laboratories professional estimate of those measures that are necessary for the proposed structure to perform according to the proposed design based on the information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and GeoMat Testing Laboratories experience in working with these conditions. Limitation of Investigation This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the subject site. The use by others, or for the purposes other than intended, is at the user’s sole risk. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar locations within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The field and laboratory test data are believed representative of the project site; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during grading may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and adjusted as required or alternate design recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractor carry out such recommendations in the field. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based on our understanding of the project and on subsurface conditions observed during our site work, and are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In additions, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In additions, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Topo USA® 6.0 Site Data use subject to license. © 2006 DeLorme. Topo USA® 6.0. www.delorme.com TN MN (12.2°E) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 ftm Scale 1 : 12,800 1" = 1,066.7 ftData Zoom 14-0 SITE AERIAL SITE TECTONIC SETTING Rancho Vista & Mira Loma, Temecula X SITE GEOLOGIC MAP Rancho Vista & Mira Loma, Temecula (944-060-006)SITE Qyaa - Young alluvial channel deposits (Holocene and latest Pleistocene) Qvoa Qpfs - Pauba Formation (Pleistocene) - Brown, well indurated sandstone containing sparse conglomerate beds - Very old alluvial channel deposits (middle to early Pleistocene) Scale ~900’N W ill a r d F a u l t El s i n o r e F a u l t W il d o m a r F a u l t Source: USGS OFR 03-189; USGS OFR 2006-1217 SITE AP ZONE Map, Murrieta Quad. FAULTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Source: USGS. Website. SITE EASEMENT NOTES Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California December 30, 2011 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. SURFICIAL STABILITY CALCULATION Saturation Zone (h) = 4’ Soil Total Unit Weight (Yt) = 120 pcf Soil Buoyant Weight = 62.4 pcf Slope Angle (ß)= 26.6º Soil Cohesion (C) = 288 psf Soil Friction Angle (Ø) = 34º FS = 2.1 FS>1.5 is desired H = zone of saturation, usually taken as 4’, unless in arid regions or where GWT is very deep, in that case H = 2’ is sufficient. Plate 3 Project Name:Project No.11081-01 Refference: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual 7.01, September 1986 Definitions ΔH (ft)Immediate Settlement of Footing q (tsf)Footing Unit Load in tsf B (ft)Footing Width D (ft)Depth of Footing Below Grade Kv (t/ft3)Modulus of Vertical Subgrade Reaction (from NAVAC 7.1-219) Note Modulus of Esticity Increasing Linearly with Depth Shallow Footings D ≤ B For B ≤ 20 feet:ΔH = 4 q B2/Kv (B+1)2 Interpolate for Intermediate Values of B For B ≥ 40 feet:ΔH = 2 q B2/Kv (B+1)2 Deep Footings D ≥ 5B For B ≤ 20 feet:ΔH = 2 q B2/Kv (B+1)2 Calculations: Enter yellow Fields q 1 tsf B 1.5 Kv 100 From NAVAC 7.1, Fig 6, P 219 Shallow Footings D ≤ B:ΔH = 4 q B2/Kv (B+1)ΔH = 2 q B2/Kv (B+1) ΔH (ft)0.014 ΔH (ft)0.007 ΔH (in)0.2 ΔH (in)0.1 For B ≤ 20 feet For B ≥ 40 feet Notes: For isolated footings multiply the settlement computed for width "B" by 2. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R., "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", Page 489; suggested that for footings on sand, differential settlement is unlikely to exceed 75% of the total settlement. For clays, differential settlement may in some cases approach the total settlement. Plate 2 Instantaneous Settlement of Continous Footings on Granular Soils Tentative Tract 33584 Appendix A Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A REFERENCES Inland Foundation Engineering, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California A.P.N. 944–060–006.” Report Dated April 19, 2005, Project Number P283–003. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report Update, Tentative Tract Map 33584, A.P.N. 944-060-006, Proposed Residential Development, Northeast Corner of Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.” Report Dated December 30, 2011, Project No. 11081-01. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. “Additional Subsurface Soil Investigation, Review of Rough Grading Plan, Foundation Recommendations and Liquefaction Analysis, Tentative Tract Map 33584, A.P.N. 944-060-006, Proposed Residential Development, Northeast Corner of Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.” Report dated February 11, 2012 Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.01, Soil Mechanics, September 1986. Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.02, Foundation and Earth Structures, September 1986. Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design, Bearing Capacity of Soils, EM 1110-1-1905. CivilTech, LiquefyPro Software. Principals of Foundation Design, Braja Das. Robert Day, Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook. Robert Day, Geotechnical Foundation Handbook. Manual on Scour at Bridges and other Hydraulic Structures. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California December 30, 2011 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A BIBLIOGRAPHY USGS, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5 Min Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties. CGS, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 115, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Murrieta 7.5 Min Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, 2007. Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Special Publication, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact, 1973. Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Special Publication 4, Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, 1992. Bell, F. G. (Ed.), 1994, Engineering in Rock Masses: Oxford, London, Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd (member Reed Elsevier group), 580p. CDMG/CGS, Digital images of official maps of Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, southern region, CDMG/CGS, Fault Investigation reports for development sites within Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in southern California, 1974-2000, CDMG/CGS, Fault Evaluation reports prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act Region 2 – Southern California, CDMG., Geologic Data Map No. 6, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 1994. CDMG. Note 36, Geomorphic Provinces and Some Principal Faults of California, 1986. CDMG. Bulletin No. 146. CDMG/USGS, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’x 60’ Quadrangle. GSA., Geology of North America, V. G-3, the Cordilleran Orogen: Conterminous U.S., 1992. GSA., Memoir 178, the San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution, 1993. USGS, OFR 03-189 (Geol. Map Murrieta Quad. Riverside County), USGS, OFR 2006-1217, Geologic Map and associated figures of the Santa Ana and San Bernardino 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles. USGS. Map MF-1964, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity. USGS. Open File Report 85-365, Distribution and Geologic Relations of Fault Systems in the Vicinity of the Central Transverse Ranges, southern California, 1985. USGS. Professional Paper 1515, The San Andreas Fault System, Calif., 1990. USGS. Open File Report 96-706/DMG Open-File Report 96-08, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, 1996. Websites: CDMG/CGS, USGS, and Riverside County GIS Appendix B GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-1__ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No 11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__ GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig: CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _TK___ SAMPLED BY: _TK___ 1 SM SILTY SAND: 2 Medium Brown, fine to coarse grained, moist 3 4 5 CR 6 7 8 9 10 12 SS 5 Me d i u m De n s e % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 14 6 6 11 12 13 14 Me d i u m De n s e 15 14 SS 4 SWSM WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT: some gravel %Passing No. 200 Sieve=5 6 8 16 17 TOTAL DEPTH= 15’ NO GROUNDWATER 18 BOREHOLE BACKFILLED 19 20 SS 21 22 23 24 25 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-2__ ___ Date:__ January 14, 2012 Project No 11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__ GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig: CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _TK___ SAMPLED BY: _TK___ 1 Fill SM SILTY SAND: 2 Medium Brown, fine to coarse grained, moist 3 4 Ve r y De n s e 5 57 CR 20 32 56 6 7 8 9 10 18 SS 9 Me d i u m De n s e Light brown, silty fine sand 8 10 11 12 13 14 Me d i u m De n s e 15 23 SS 7 11 12 16 17 18 19 De n s e 20 30 SS 9 15 15 21 TOTAL DEPTH= 20’ NO GROUNDWATER 22 BOREHOLE BACKFILLED 23 24 25 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-3__ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No 11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__ GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig: CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _TK___ SAMPLED BY: _TK___ 1 ML SANDY SILT: 2 Medium brown, moist 3 4 Ve r y Fi r m 5 21 CR 10 124 8 Light brown 15 18 6 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 52 7 8 9 10 22 SS 6 Me d i u m De n s e 4 SWSM SAND WITH SILT 11 11 11 Tan brown, uniformly grained 12 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 6 13 14 15 16 SS 7 Ve r y Fi r m 15 CL LEAN CLAY 7 9 16 Medium brown, uniformly fine grained 17 18 19 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 68 Ve r y Fir m 20 13 SS 4 24 LL=32 PL=23 PI=9 5 8 21 22 23 24 Me d i u m De n s e 25 15 SS 6 8 SWSM SAND WITH SILT 6 9 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-3_ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No -11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _HMN___ SAMPLED BY: _HMN___ 26 SWSM SAND WITH SILT 27 Red brown, coarse sand with gravel 28 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 8 29 Me d i u m De n s e 30 24 SS 7 7 SM SILTY SAND 11 13 31 Gray, fine coarse grained 32 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 14 33 34 35 32 11 Ha r d 22 CL LEAN CLAY 14 18 36 Olive brown 37 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 62 38 LL=47 PL=27 PI=19 39 Ha r d 40 35 20 7 13 41 22 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 62 42 43 44 Ha r d 45 110 20 16 23 58/4” 46 47 48 49 Ha r d 50 74 11 20 % Passing No. 220 Sieve = 58 63 TOTAL DEPTH=50 FEET, GROUNDWATER AT 29’, HOLE BACKFILLED GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-4__ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No 11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__ GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig: CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _TK___ SAMPLED BY: _TK___ 1 SM SILTY SAND: 2 Brown, fine to coarse grained, moist 3 4 Ve r y De n s e 5 60 CR 27 43 49 6 7 8 9 10 18 SS 4 Me d i u m De n s e Dark brown, fine to coarse grained with gravel 7 11 11 12 13 14 Me d i u m De n s e 15 15 SS 4 6 9 16 TOTAL DEPTH= 15’ NO GROUNDWATER 17 BOREHOLE BACKFILLED 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-5__ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No 11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__ GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig: CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _TK___ SAMPLED BY: _TK___ 1 SM SILTY SAND: 2 Red brown, moist, sandy 3 4 De n s e 5 30 CR 12 118 13 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 15 20 26 6 7 8 9 10 14 SS 4 Me d i u m De n s e 7 Dark brown 7 7 11 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 19 12 13 14 15 16 SS 3 Ve r y Fi r m 15 CL-ML SANDY SILTY CLAY 7 9 16 Olive brown, cohesive, sandy 17 LL=29 PL=22 PI=7 18 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 63 19 Me d i u m De n s e 20 14 SS 6 16 SM SILTY SAND 6 8 21 Tan brown silty fine sand 22 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 30 23 24 Ve r y Fi r m 25 15 SS 5 CL LEAN CLAY 6 9 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS Drill Hole No.__B-5_ ___ Date:__ January 15, 2012 Project No -11081-01 __ Drilling Company:__GeoMat ___________ Type of Rig CME 45 Hole Diameter:__6"_ Drive Weight:_Auto 140 lbs._ Drop:_30"_ Elevation:___Existing Surface DE P T H SP T SA M P L E TE S T BL O W S PE R 6 I N C H DR Y DE N S I T Y MO I S T U R E (% ) US C S CL A S S . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: _HMN___ SAMPLED BY: _HMN___ 26 19 CL LEAN CLAY 27 LL=32 PL=22 PI=10 28 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 51 29 Me d i u m De n s e 30 20 SS 8 5 SWSM WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT 10 10 31 Tan brown, fine to medium grained 32 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 6 33 34 35 26 9 Me d i u m De n s e 9 12 14 36 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 8 37 38 39 Ve r y D e n s e 40 110 8 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 6 26 49 41 61 Becoming gravelly 42 43 44 Ve r y D e n s e 45 70 18 19 SM SILTY SAND: 32 38 46 Olive brown, silty fine sand 47 % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 33 48 49 Ve r y De n s e 50 82 14 30 52 TOTAL DEPTH=50 FEET, NO GROUNDWATER HOLE BACKFILLED Appendix C LABORATORY TESTING INTRODUCTION The contents of this appendix shall be integrated with the geotechnical engineering study of which it is a part. The data contained in this appendix shall not be used in whole or in part as a sole source for information or recommendations regarding the subject site. Not all of the tests included in the following list have been performed on this project. LABORATORY ANALYSIS Laboratory tests were performed on selected driven ring or SPT and bulk soil samples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standards for Soil Testing. The results of the laboratory analyses are summarized in this Appendix. Laboratory Moisture and Density Determinations Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on selected driven ring samples collected by California Ring Split Spoon Sampler (ASTM D1587) to evaluate the natural water content and dry density of the various soils encountered in accordance with ASTM D2216 and part of D2937. The results are presented on the respective drill-hole logs. Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Laboratory sieve analysis and hydrometer were performed on selected bulk, driven ring, or split spoon samples collected to evaluate the grain size distribution of the various soils encountered in accordance with ASTM D422. The graphical results are presented in this Appendix. Atterberg Limits Tests Atterberg limits tests were performed on selected samples. Liquid and plastic limits were determined in accordance with standard test method ASTM D4318. The test results are shown on Plasticity Chart in this Appendix and may be also be listed on the respective drill-hole logs. Direct Shear Tests. Direct shear tests were performed on a selected driven ring sample to evaluate the shear strength of the earth materials. The tests were performed in accordance with standard test method ASTM D-3080. Summary plots of the direct shear data are presented in this Appendix. Residual shear strength was obtained by re-shearing the samples. Compaction Tests Compaction tests were performed on selected samples of the onsite soils to assess their compaction characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557 and the results are presented in this Appendix. R-Value Tests R-value tests were performed on selected samples of surficial earth material. The test was performed in accordance with standard test method ASTM D2844 or CT-301 and test results is in this Appendix. Expansion Index Tests Expansion Index tests were performed on selected samples of the near-surface soils to estimate the expansion characteristics. The test was performed in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 29-2, Expansion Index Test Method. The results are presented in this Appendix. Soil Chemistry Tests/Corrosion Tests soil chemistry tests were performed on select samples to evaluate resistivity, pH, sulfate, and chloride. The results of the testing and opinion on corrosivity to pipe and concrete materials are summarized in the text. The laboratory output is presented in this Appendix. Odometer Consolidation-Swell Test This can be used to determine consolidation (ASTM D2435) and swelling (ASTM D4546) parameters. Consolidation tests were performed on samples, within the brass ring, to predict the soils behavior under a specific load. Porous stones are placed in contact with top and bottom of the samples to permit to allow the addition or release of water. Loads are applied in several increments and the results are recorded at selected time intervals. Samples are tested at field and increased moisture content. The results are plotted on the Consolidation Test Curve and the load at which the water is added is noted on the drawing. Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.0405 0.0836 0.1397 0.4097 0.7382 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@10’ 7 0.7 18.2 1.6 16.5 60.1 1.8 19 SM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.0445 0.0606 0.0767 0.1192 0.1544 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@20’ 16 0.9 3.5 0 30 69.9 0.1 30 SM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.0445 0.0606 0.0767 0.1192 0.1544 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@ 30’ 5 9.9 3 0.3 5.6 90.3 3.7 6 SWSM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.0910 0.2052 0.3205 0.5991 0.7949 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@ 35’ 9 8.7 1.4 2.1 6.6 86.9 4.4 8 SWSM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.1247 0.2407 0.4164 1.1394 1.6073 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@ 40’ 8 12.9 1 0.9 4.8 81.5 12.7 6 SWSM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D10 D20 D30 D50 D60 0.0343 0.0518 0.0694 0.1176 0.1594 SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD MOISTURE Cu Cc % Clay % Silt % Sand % Coarse PERCENT PASSING No 200 USCS B-5@ 45’ 19 4.6 0.9 0.4 32.6 66.7 0.4 33 SM ASTM 422-63 (2002) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 Particle size (mm) Unimodal Fit Laboratory USCS % Clay USCS % Silt USCS % Sand Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) USCS B-3 @ 20’ 32 23 9 CL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) USCS B-3 @ 35’ 46 27 19 CL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) USCS B-5 @ 15’ 29 22 7 MLCL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) USCS B-5 @ 25’ 32 22 10 CL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid limit Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sample % Field Moisture % Sat. Moisture In Place Density (pcf) Friction Angle Cohesion (psf) USCS B3 @ 5’ 8 12 124 Ultimate Residual Ultimate Residual Sandy Silt 35° 28° 309 240 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 50 100 150 200 250 Net normal stress (kPa) 1 2 3 Mohr-Coulomb Envelope 1 2 3 Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sample % Field Moisture % Sat. Moisture In Place Density (pcf) Friction Angle Cohesion (psf) USCS B5 @ 5’ 13 16 118 Ultimate Residual Ultimate Residual Silty Sand 29° 31° 284 186 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 100 150 200 250 Net normal stress (kPa) 1 2 3 Mohr-Coulomb Envelope 1 2 3 Tentative Tract Map 33584 Project No. 11081-01 City of Temecula, California August 31, 2013 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS No. 200 Wash Moisture Content (%) % Passing No. 200 Sieve B-3@ 5’ 8 52 B-3@ 10’ 4 6 B-3@ 20’ 24 68 B-3@ 25’ 8 8 B-3@ 30’ 7 14 B-3@ 35’ 22 62 B-3@ 40’ 20 62 B-3@ 50’ 20 58 B-5@ 15 15 63 B-5@ 25 19 51 Sample Compacted Moisture Final Moisture Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-3 7 17 9 Very Low Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 2112052 2112052 221206 16120NoLq 13120NoLq 151208 2412014 32120NoLq 35120NoLq 110120NoLq 7412058 Sandy Silt Sand with Silt Lean Clay Sand with Silt Silty Sand Lean Clay Lean Clay Liq u e f y P r o C i v i l T e c h S o f t w ar e U S A w w w . c i v i l t e c h . c o m GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Tentative Tract 33584 11081-01 Hole No.=B-3 Water Depth=0 ftMagnitude=6.75 Acceleration=0.55g Raw Unit FinesSPT Weight %(ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 02 Soil DescriptionFactor of Safety051Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 0.39 in. 0 (in.)1 fs1=1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET 2/12/2012 11:00:19 AM Title: Tentative Tract 33584 Subtitle: 11081-01 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-3 Depth of Hole=50.0 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 0.0 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 29.0 ft Max. Acceleration=0.55 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.8 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.60 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 0.0 21.0 120.0 52.0 5.0 21.0 120.0 52.0 10.0 22.0 120.0 6.0 15.0 16.0 120.0 NoLiq 20.0 13.0 120.0 NoLiq 25.0 15.0 120.0 8.0 30.0 24.0 120.0 14.0 35.0 32.0 120.0 NoLiq 40.0 35.0 120.0 NoLiq 45.0 110.0 120.0 NoLiq 50.0 74.0 120.0 58.0 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.39 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.39 in. Differential Settlement=0.193 to 0.255 in. Depth CRRv CSRm F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all ft in. in. in. _______________________________________________________ 0.00 2.00 0.36 5.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 1.00 2.00 0.74 3.52 0.39 0.00 0.39 2.00 2.00 0.74 3.53 0.39 0.00 0.39 3.00 2.00 0.74 3.54 0.39 0.00 0.39 4.00 2.00 0.74 3.55 0.39 0.00 0.39 5.00 2.00 0.74 3.56 0.39 0.00 0.39 6.00 2.00 0.73 3.57 0.39 0.00 0.39 7.00 2.00 0.73 3.57 0.39 0.00 0.39 8.00 2.00 0.73 3.58 0.39 0.00 0.39 9.00 2.00 0.73 3.59 0.39 0.00 0.39 10.00 2.00 0.73 3.60 0.39 0.00 0.39 11.00 2.00 0.73 3.61 0.39 0.00 0.39 12.00 2.00 0.72 3.62 0.39 0.00 0.39 13.00 2.00 0.72 3.63 0.39 0.00 0.39 14.00 2.00 0.72 3.63 0.39 0.00 0.39 15.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 16.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 17.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 18.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 19.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 20.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 21.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 22.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 23.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 24.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 25.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 26.00 0.32 0.70 0.59* 0.19 0.00 0.19 27.00 0.39 0.70 0.73* 0.04 0.00 0.04 28.00 1.98 0.70 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 1.97 0.69 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 1.97 0.69 3.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 1.96 0.69 3.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 1.95 0.68 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 1.95 0.67 3.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 1.94 0.67 3.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 1.94 0.66 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 2.00 0.66 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 2.00 0.65 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 2.00 0.64 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 2.00 0.64 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 2.00 0.63 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 2.00 0.63 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 2.00 0.62 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 2.00 0.61 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 2.00 0.61 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 2.00 0.60 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 2.00 0.60 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 2.00 0.59 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 2.00 0.58 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 2.00 0.58 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units:Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit Weight = pcf, Settlement = in. _______________________________________________________________________ CRRv Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRm Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRv/CSRm S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET 2/12/2012 11:00:42 AM Title: Tentative Tract 33584 Subtitle: 11081-01 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-3 Depth of Hole=50.0 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 0.0 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 29.0 ft Max. Acceleration=0.55 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.8 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.60 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 0.0 21.0 120.0 52.0 5.0 21.0 120.0 52.0 10.0 22.0 120.0 6.0 15.0 16.0 120.0 NoLiq 20.0 13.0 120.0 NoLiq 25.0 15.0 120.0 8.0 30.0 24.0 120.0 14.0 35.0 32.0 120.0 NoLiq 40.0 35.0 120.0 NoLiq 45.0 110.0 120.0 NoLiq 50.0 74.0 120.0 58.0 ____________________________________ Output Results: Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft User defined Print Interval, dp=1.00 ft CSR Calculation: Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd CSR fs1 CSRfs ft pcf tsf pcf tsf *fs1 ________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 57.6 0.000 57.6 0.000 1.00 0.36 1.0 0.36 1.00 120.0 0.060 57.6 0.029 1.00 0.74 1.0 0.74 2.00 120.0 0.120 57.6 0.058 1.00 0.74 1.0 0.74 3.00 120.0 0.180 57.6 0.086 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 4.00 120.0 0.240 57.6 0.115 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 5.00 120.0 0.300 57.6 0.144 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 6.00 120.0 0.360 57.6 0.173 0.99 0.73 1.0 0.73 7.00 120.0 0.420 57.6 0.202 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 8.00 120.0 0.480 57.6 0.230 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 9.00 120.0 0.540 57.6 0.259 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 10.00 120.0 0.600 57.6 0.288 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 11.00 120.0 0.660 57.6 0.317 0.97 0.73 1.0 0.73 12.00 120.0 0.720 57.6 0.346 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 13.00 120.0 0.780 57.6 0.374 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 14.00 120.0 0.840 57.6 0.403 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 15.00 120.0 0.900 57.6 0.432 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 16.00 120.0 0.960 57.6 0.461 0.96 0.72 1.0 0.72 17.00 120.0 1.020 57.6 0.490 0.96 0.72 1.0 0.72 18.00 120.0 1.080 57.6 0.518 0.96 0.71 1.0 0.71 19.00 120.0 1.140 57.6 0.547 0.96 0.71 1.0 0.71 20.00 120.0 1.200 57.6 0.576 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 21.00 120.0 1.260 57.6 0.605 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 22.00 120.0 1.320 57.6 0.634 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 23.00 120.0 1.380 57.6 0.662 0.95 0.70 1.0 0.70 24.00 120.0 1.440 57.6 0.691 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 25.00 120.0 1.500 57.6 0.720 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 26.00 120.0 1.560 57.6 0.749 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 27.00 120.0 1.620 57.6 0.778 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 28.00 120.0 1.680 57.6 0.806 0.93 0.70 1.0 0.70 29.00 120.0 1.740 57.6 0.835 0.93 0.69 1.0 0.69 30.00 120.0 1.800 57.6 0.864 0.93 0.69 1.0 0.69 31.00 120.0 1.860 57.6 0.893 0.92 0.69 1.0 0.69 32.00 120.0 1.920 57.6 0.922 0.91 0.68 1.0 0.68 33.00 120.0 1.980 57.6 0.950 0.91 0.67 1.0 0.67 34.00 120.0 2.040 57.6 0.979 0.90 0.67 1.0 0.67 35.00 120.0 2.100 57.6 1.008 0.89 0.66 1.0 0.66 36.00 120.0 2.160 57.6 1.037 0.88 0.66 1.0 0.66 37.00 120.0 2.220 57.6 1.066 0.87 0.65 1.0 0.65 38.00 120.0 2.280 57.6 1.094 0.86 0.64 1.0 0.64 39.00 120.0 2.340 57.6 1.123 0.86 0.64 1.0 0.64 40.00 120.0 2.400 57.6 1.152 0.85 0.63 1.0 0.63 41.00 120.0 2.460 57.6 1.181 0.84 0.63 1.0 0.63 42.00 120.0 2.520 57.6 1.210 0.83 0.62 1.0 0.62 43.00 120.0 2.580 57.6 1.238 0.82 0.61 1.0 0.61 44.00 120.0 2.640 57.6 1.267 0.82 0.61 1.0 0.61 45.00 120.0 2.700 57.6 1.296 0.81 0.60 1.0 0.60 46.00 120.0 2.760 57.6 1.325 0.80 0.60 1.0 0.60 47.00 120.0 2.820 57.6 1.354 0.79 0.59 1.0 0.59 48.00 120.0 2.880 57.6 1.382 0.78 0.58 1.0 0.58 49.00 120.0 2.940 57.6 1.411 0.78 0.58 1.0 0.58 50.00 120.0 3.000 57.6 1.440 0.77 0.57 1.0 0.57 ________________________________________________________________________ CSR is based on water table at 0.0 during earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft tsf % _____________________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.000 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 1.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.060 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 2.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.120 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 3.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.180 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 4.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.240 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 5.00 21.00 2.02 0.75 0.300 1.70 53.98 52.00 7.20 61.18 2.00 6.00 21.20 2.02 0.75 0.360 1.67 53.42 42.80 7.20 60.62 2.00 7.00 21.40 2.02 0.75 0.420 1.54 49.93 33.60 6.86 56.79 2.00 8.00 21.60 2.02 0.75 0.480 1.44 47.14 24.40 4.66 51.80 2.00 9.00 21.80 2.02 0.85 0.540 1.36 50.84 15.20 2.45 53.28 2.00 10.00 22.00 2.02 0.85 0.600 1.29 48.67 6.00 0.24 48.91 2.00 11.00 20.80 2.02 0.85 0.660 1.23 43.87 6.00 0.24 44.11 2.00 12.00 19.60 2.02 0.85 0.720 1.18 39.58 6.00 0.24 39.82 2.00 13.00 18.40 2.02 0.85 0.780 1.13 35.70 6.00 0.24 35.94 2.00 14.00 17.20 2.02 0.85 0.840 1.09 32.16 6.00 0.24 32.40 2.00 15.00 16.00 2.02 0.95 0.900 1.05 32.30 NoLiq 7.20 39.50 2.00 16.00 15.40 2.02 0.95 0.960 1.02 30.10 NoLiq 7.20 37.30 2.00 17.00 14.80 2.02 0.95 1.020 0.99 28.07 NoLiq 7.20 35.27 2.00 18.00 14.20 2.02 0.95 1.080 0.96 26.17 NoLiq 7.20 33.37 2.00 19.00 13.60 2.02 0.95 1.140 0.94 24.39 NoLiq 7.20 31.59 2.00 20.00 13.00 2.02 0.95 1.200 0.91 22.73 NoLiq 7.20 29.93 0.44 21.00 13.40 2.02 0.95 1.260 0.89 22.86 NoLiq 7.20 30.06 0.48 22.00 13.80 2.02 0.95 1.320 0.87 23.00 NoLiq 7.20 30.20 2.00 23.00 14.20 2.02 0.95 1.380 0.85 23.15 NoLiq 7.20 30.35 2.00 24.00 14.60 2.02 0.95 1.440 0.83 23.30 NoLiq 7.20 30.50 2.00 25.00 15.00 2.02 0.95 1.500 0.82 23.46 NoLiq 7.20 30.66 2.00 26.00 16.80 2.02 0.95 1.560 0.80 25.76 9.20 1.01 26.77 0.31 27.00 18.60 2.02 0.95 1.620 0.79 27.99 10.40 1.30 29.28 0.39 28.00 20.40 2.02 1.00 1.680 0.77 31.73 11.60 1.58 33.31 2.00 29.00 22.20 2.02 1.00 1.740 0.76 33.93 12.80 1.87 35.80 2.00 30.00 24.00 2.02 1.00 1.770 0.75 36.36 14.00 2.16 38.52 2.00 31.00 25.60 2.02 1.00 1.799 0.75 38.48 14.00 2.16 40.64 2.00 32.00 27.20 2.02 1.00 1.828 0.74 40.56 14.00 2.16 42.72 2.00 33.00 28.80 2.02 1.00 1.857 0.73 42.61 14.00 2.16 44.77 2.00 34.00 30.40 2.02 1.00 1.886 0.73 44.63 14.00 2.16 46.79 2.00 35.00 32.00 2.02 1.00 1.914 0.72 46.63 14.00 2.16 48.79 2.00 36.00 32.60 2.02 1.00 1.943 0.72 47.15 NoLiq 7.20 54.35 2.00 37.00 33.20 2.02 1.00 1.972 0.71 47.66 NoLiq 7.20 54.86 2.00 38.00 33.80 2.02 1.00 2.001 0.71 48.17 NoLiq 7.20 55.37 2.00 39.00 34.40 2.02 1.00 2.030 0.70 48.68 NoLiq 7.20 55.88 2.00 40.00 35.00 2.02 1.00 2.058 0.70 49.18 NoLiq 7.20 56.38 2.00 41.00 49.99 2.02 1.00 2.087 0.69 69.76 NoLiq 7.20 76.96 2.00 42.00 64.99 2.02 1.00 2.116 0.69 90.08 NoLiq 7.20 97.28 2.00 43.00 79.99 2.02 1.00 2.145 0.68 110.12 NoLiq 7.20 117.32 2.00 44.00 94.99 2.02 1.00 2.174 0.68 129.90 NoLiq 7.20 137.10 2.00 45.00 109.99 2.02 1.00 2.202 0.67 149.42 NoLiq 7.20 156.62 2.00 46.00 102.80 2.02 1.00 2.231 0.67 138.75 NoLiq 7.20 145.95 2.00 47.00 95.60 2.02 1.00 2.260 0.67 128.21 NoLiq 7.20 135.41 2.00 48.00 88.40 2.02 1.00 2.289 0.66 117.80 NoLiq 7.20 125.00 2.00 49.00 81.20 2.02 1.00 2.318 0.66 107.53 NoLiq 7.20 114.73 2.00 50.00 74.00 2.02 1.00 2.346 0.65 97.40 NoLiq 7.20 104.60 2.00 _____________________________________________________________________________________ CRR is based on water table at 29.0 during In-Situ Testing Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 6.8: Depth sigC' CRR7.5 Ksigma CRRv CSRfs MSF CSRm F.S. ft tsf tsf tsf tsf tsf CRRv/CSRm ________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.36 1.31 0.27 5.00 1.00 0.04 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.57 3.52 2.00 0.08 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.57 3.53 3.00 0.12 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.54 4.00 0.16 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.55 5.00 0.20 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.56 6.00 0.23 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.57 7.00 0.27 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.57 8.00 0.31 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.58 9.00 0.35 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.59 10.00 0.39 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.60 11.00 0.43 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.55 3.61 12.00 0.47 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.62 13.00 0.51 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.63 14.00 0.55 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.63 15.00 0.59 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 16.00 0.62 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 17.00 0.66 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 18.00 0.70 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 19.00 0.74 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 20.00 0.78 0.44 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 21.00 0.82 0.48 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 22.00 0.86 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 23.00 0.90 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 24.00 0.94 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 25.00 0.98 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 26.00 1.01 0.31 1.00 0.32 0.70 1.31 0.53 0.59 * 27.00 1.05 0.39 1.00 0.39 0.70 1.31 0.53 0.73 * 28.00 1.09 2.00 0.99 1.98 0.70 1.31 0.53 3.73 29.00 1.13 2.00 0.99 1.97 0.69 1.31 0.53 3.72 30.00 1.15 2.00 0.98 1.97 0.69 1.31 0.53 3.71 31.00 1.17 2.00 0.98 1.96 0.69 1.31 0.52 3.74 32.00 1.19 2.00 0.98 1.95 0.68 1.31 0.52 3.76 33.00 1.21 2.00 0.97 1.95 0.67 1.31 0.52 3.78 34.00 1.23 2.00 0.97 1.94 0.67 1.31 0.51 3.81 35.00 1.24 2.00 0.97 1.94 0.66 1.31 0.51 3.83 36.00 1.26 2.00 0.97 2.00 0.66 1.31 0.50 5.00 ^ 37.00 1.28 2.00 0.96 2.00 0.65 1.31 0.50 5.00 ^ 38.00 1.30 2.00 0.96 2.00 0.64 1.31 0.49 5.00 ^ 39.00 1.32 2.00 0.96 2.00 0.64 1.31 0.49 5.00 ^ 40.00 1.34 2.00 0.96 2.00 0.63 1.31 0.48 5.00 ^ 41.00 1.36 2.00 0.95 2.00 0.63 1.31 0.48 5.00 ^ 42.00 1.38 2.00 0.95 2.00 0.62 1.31 0.47 5.00 ^ 43.00 1.39 2.00 0.95 2.00 0.61 1.31 0.47 5.00 ^ 44.00 1.41 2.00 0.94 2.00 0.61 1.31 0.46 5.00 ^ 45.00 1.43 2.00 0.94 2.00 0.60 1.31 0.46 5.00 ^ 46.00 1.45 2.00 0.94 2.00 0.60 1.31 0.45 5.00 ^ 47.00 1.47 2.00 0.94 2.00 0.59 1.31 0.45 5.00 ^ 48.00 1.49 2.00 0.93 2.00 0.58 1.31 0.45 5.00 ^ 49.00 1.51 2.00 0.93 2.00 0.58 1.31 0.44 5.00 ^ 50.00 1.53 2.00 0.93 2.00 0.57 1.31 0.44 5.00 ^ ________________________________________________________________________ * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5) ^ No-liquefiable Soils. (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis: Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis: Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s ft tsf % ________________________________________________________________ 0.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 1.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 2.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 3.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 4.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 5.00 - - - 61.18 52.0 0.00 61.18 6.00 - - - 60.62 42.8 0.00 60.62 7.00 - - - 56.79 33.6 0.00 56.79 8.00 - - - 51.80 24.4 0.00 51.80 9.00 - - - 53.28 15.2 0.00 53.28 10.00 - - - 48.91 6.0 0.00 48.91 11.00 - - - 44.11 6.0 0.00 44.11 12.00 - - - 39.82 6.0 0.00 39.82 13.00 - - - 35.94 6.0 0.00 35.94 14.00 - - - 32.40 6.0 0.00 32.40 15.00 - - - 39.50 NoLiq 0.00 39.50 16.00 - - - 37.30 NoLiq 0.00 37.30 17.00 - - - 35.27 NoLiq 0.00 35.27 18.00 - - - 33.37 NoLiq 0.00 33.37 19.00 - - - 31.59 NoLiq 0.00 31.59 20.00 - - - 29.93 NoLiq 0.00 29.93 21.00 - - - 30.06 NoLiq 0.00 30.06 22.00 - - - 30.20 NoLiq 0.00 30.20 23.00 - - - 30.35 NoLiq 0.00 30.35 24.00 - - - 30.50 NoLiq 0.00 30.50 25.00 - - - 30.66 NoLiq 0.00 30.66 26.00 - - - 26.77 9.2 0.00 26.77 27.00 - - - 29.28 10.4 0.00 29.28 28.00 - - - 33.31 11.6 0.00 33.31 29.00 - - - 35.80 12.8 0.00 35.80 30.00 - - - 38.52 14.0 0.00 38.52 31.00 - - - 40.64 14.0 0.00 40.64 32.00 - - - 42.72 14.0 0.00 42.72 33.00 - - - 44.77 14.0 0.00 44.77 34.00 - - - 46.79 14.0 0.00 46.79 35.00 - - - 48.79 14.0 0.00 48.79 36.00 - - - 54.35 NoLiq 0.00 54.35 37.00 - - - 54.86 NoLiq 0.00 54.86 38.00 - - - 55.37 NoLiq 0.00 55.37 39.00 - - - 55.88 NoLiq 0.00 55.88 40.00 - - - 56.38 NoLiq 0.00 56.38 41.00 - - - 76.96 NoLiq 0.00 76.96 42.00 - - - 97.28 NoLiq 0.00 97.28 43.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 44.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 45.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 46.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 47.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 48.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 49.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 50.00 - - - 100.00 NoLiq 0.00 100.00 ________________________________________________________________ (N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0. Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable. Settlement of Saturated Sands: Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Depth CSRm F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsp S ft % % % in. in. in. ________________________________________________________________________________ 49.95 0.44 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 49.00 0.44 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 48.00 0.45 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 47.00 0.45 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 46.00 0.45 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 45.00 0.46 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 44.00 0.46 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 43.00 0.47 5.00 NoLiq 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 42.00 0.47 5.00 NoLiq 97.28 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 41.00 0.48 5.00 NoLiq 76.96 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 40.00 0.48 5.00 NoLiq 56.38 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 39.00 0.49 5.00 NoLiq 55.88 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 38.00 0.49 5.00 NoLiq 55.37 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 37.00 0.50 5.00 NoLiq 54.86 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 36.00 0.50 5.00 NoLiq 54.35 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 35.00 0.51 3.83 14.0 48.79 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 34.00 0.51 3.81 14.0 46.79 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 33.00 0.52 3.78 14.0 44.77 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 32.00 0.52 3.76 14.0 42.72 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 31.00 0.52 3.74 14.0 40.64 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 30.00 0.53 3.71 14.0 38.52 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 29.00 0.53 3.72 12.8 35.80 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 28.00 0.53 3.73 11.6 33.31 98.08 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 27.00 0.53 0.73 10.4 29.28 88.46 0.975 5.9E-3 0.035 0.035 26.00 0.53 0.59 9.2 26.77 83.18 1.500 9.0E-3 0.152 0.187 25.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 30.66 91.56 0.000 0.0E0 0.191 0.378 24.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 30.50 91.20 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 23.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 30.35 90.85 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 22.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 30.20 90.52 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 21.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 30.06 90.20 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 20.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 29.93 89.89 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 19.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 31.59 93.78 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 18.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 33.37 98.22 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 17.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 35.27 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 16.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 37.30 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 15.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 39.50 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.378 14.00 0.55 3.63 6.0 32.40 95.75 0.000 0.0E0 0.008 0.387 13.00 0.55 3.63 6.0 35.94 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 12.00 0.55 3.62 6.0 39.82 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 11.00 0.55 3.61 6.0 44.11 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 10.00 0.56 3.60 6.0 48.91 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 9.00 0.56 3.59 15.2 53.28 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 8.00 0.56 3.58 24.4 51.80 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 7.00 0.56 3.57 33.6 56.79 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 6.00 0.56 3.57 42.8 60.62 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 5.00 0.56 3.56 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 4.00 0.56 3.55 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 3.00 0.56 3.54 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 2.00 0.57 3.53 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 1.00 0.57 3.52 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 0.00 0.27 5.00 52.0 61.18 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.387 ________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.387 in. qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft dsp is per each print interval, dp=1.00 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Settlement of Unsaturated Sands: Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRfs Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsp S ft tsf tsf tsf % % in. in. in. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.36 0.0 0.0E0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00E0 0.000 0.000 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.000 in. dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft dsp is per each print interval, dp=1.00 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.387 in. Differential Settlement=0.193 to 0.255 in. Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit Weight = pcf, Settlement = in. ___________________________________________________________________________________ SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT) qc Field data from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) fs Friction from CPT testing gamma Total unit weight of soil gamma' Effective unit weight of soil Fines Fines content [%] D50 Mean grain size Dr Relative Density sigma Total vertical stress [tsf] sigma' Effective vertical stress [tsf] sigC' Effective confining pressure [tsf] rd Stress reduction coefficient CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5) Ksigma Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5 CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 * Ksigma F.S. Calculated factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRv/CSRm User User request factor of safety, which may apply to CSR fs1 First CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page fs2 2nd CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake CSRfs CSRfs=CSR*fs1, fs1=1 or User, defined in #9 of Advanced page MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CSR CSRm After magnitude scaling correction CSRm=CSRfs/MSF Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sampling Method Corrections Cr Rod Length Corrections Cn Overburden Pressure Correction (N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT (N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60 Cq Overburden stress correction factor qc1 CPT after Overburden stress correction dqc1 Fines correction of CPT qc1f CPT after Fines and Overburden correction, qc1f=qc1 + dqc1 qc1n CPT after normalization in Robertson's method Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method qc1f CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60s (N1)60 after settlement fines corrections ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands dz Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft dsz Settlement in each segment, dz dp User defined print interval dsp Settlement in each print interval, dp Gmax Shear Modulus at low strain g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, Strain-modulus ratio ec7.5 Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5 Cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude ec Volumetric strain for unsaturated sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5 NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils References: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022. SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. March 1999. 2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper No. SPL-2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 2001. 3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003. 3012015 3012015 1412019 16120NoLq 1412030 15120NoLq 201206 261208 1101206 7012033 8212033 Silty Sand Sandy Silty Clay Silty Sand Lean Clay Sand with Silt Silty Sand Liq u e f y P r o C i v i l T e c h S o f t w ar e U S A w w w . c i v i l t e c h . c o m GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Tentative Tract 33584 11081-01 Hole No.=B-5 Water Depth=0 ftMagnitude=6.75 Acceleration=0.55g Raw Unit FinesSPT Weight %(ft)0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Shear Stress Ratio CRR CSR fs1 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 02 Soil DescriptionFactor of Safety051Settlement Saturated Unsaturat. S = 0.35 in. 0 (in.)1 fs1=1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET 2/13/2012 12:59:05 PM Title: Tentative Tract 33584 Subtitle: 11081-01 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-5 Depth of Hole=50.0 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 0.0 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 51.0 ft Max. Acceleration=0.55 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.8 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.60 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 0.0 30.0 120.0 15.0 5.0 30.0 120.0 15.0 10.0 14.0 120.0 19.0 15.0 16.0 120.0 NoLiq 20.0 14.0 120.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 120.0 NoLiq 30.0 20.0 120.0 6.0 35.0 26.0 120.0 8.0 40.0 110.0 120.0 6.0 45.0 70.0 120.0 33.0 50.0 82.0 120.0 33.0 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.35 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.35 in. Differential Settlement=0.173 to 0.228 in. Depth CRRv CSRm F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all ft in. in. in. _______________________________________________________ 0.00 2.00 0.36 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.74 3.52 0.35 0.00 0.35 2.00 2.00 0.74 3.53 0.35 0.00 0.35 3.00 2.00 0.74 3.54 0.35 0.00 0.35 4.00 2.00 0.74 3.55 0.35 0.00 0.35 5.00 2.00 0.74 3.56 0.35 0.00 0.35 6.00 2.00 0.73 3.57 0.35 0.00 0.35 7.00 2.00 0.73 3.57 0.35 0.00 0.35 8.00 2.00 0.73 3.58 0.35 0.00 0.35 9.00 2.00 0.73 3.59 0.35 0.00 0.35 10.00 2.00 0.73 3.60 0.35 0.00 0.35 11.00 2.00 0.73 3.61 0.35 0.00 0.35 12.00 2.00 0.72 3.62 0.35 0.00 0.35 13.00 2.00 0.72 3.63 0.35 0.00 0.35 14.00 2.00 0.72 3.63 0.35 0.00 0.35 15.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 16.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 17.00 2.00 0.72 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 18.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 19.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 20.00 2.00 0.71 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 21.00 2.00 0.71 3.70 0.35 0.00 0.35 22.00 0.46 0.71 0.85* 0.30 0.00 0.30 23.00 0.43 0.70 0.79* 0.21 0.00 0.21 24.00 0.41 0.70 0.76* 0.11 0.00 0.11 25.00 0.40 0.70 0.74* 0.01 0.00 0.01 26.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 2.00 0.70 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 2.00 0.69 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 2.00 0.69 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 1.95 0.69 3.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 1.94 0.68 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 1.92 0.67 3.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 1.91 0.67 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 1.90 0.66 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 1.89 0.66 3.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 1.88 0.65 3.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 1.87 0.64 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 1.86 0.64 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 1.85 0.63 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 1.84 0.63 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 1.83 0.62 3.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 1.82 0.61 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 1.81 0.61 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 1.80 0.60 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 1.79 0.60 3.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 1.78 0.59 3.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 1.77 0.58 3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 1.76 0.58 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 1.75 0.57 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 _______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit Weight = pcf, Settlement = in. _______________________________________________________________________ CRRv Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRm Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRv/CSRm S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET 2/13/2012 1:00:06 PM Title: Tentative Tract 33584 Subtitle: 11081-01 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-5 Depth of Hole=50.0 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 0.0 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 51.0 ft Max. Acceleration=0.55 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.8 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.60 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 0.0 30.0 120.0 15.0 5.0 30.0 120.0 15.0 10.0 14.0 120.0 19.0 15.0 16.0 120.0 NoLiq 20.0 14.0 120.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 120.0 NoLiq 30.0 20.0 120.0 6.0 35.0 26.0 120.0 8.0 40.0 110.0 120.0 6.0 45.0 70.0 120.0 33.0 50.0 82.0 120.0 33.0 ____________________________________ Output Results: Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft User defined Print Interval, dp=1.00 ft CSR Calculation: Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd CSR fs1 CSRfs ft pcf tsf pcf tsf *fs1 ________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 57.6 0.000 57.6 0.000 1.00 0.36 1.0 0.36 1.00 120.0 0.060 57.6 0.029 1.00 0.74 1.0 0.74 2.00 120.0 0.120 57.6 0.058 1.00 0.74 1.0 0.74 3.00 120.0 0.180 57.6 0.086 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 4.00 120.0 0.240 57.6 0.115 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 5.00 120.0 0.300 57.6 0.144 0.99 0.74 1.0 0.74 6.00 120.0 0.360 57.6 0.173 0.99 0.73 1.0 0.73 7.00 120.0 0.420 57.6 0.202 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 8.00 120.0 0.480 57.6 0.230 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 9.00 120.0 0.540 57.6 0.259 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 10.00 120.0 0.600 57.6 0.288 0.98 0.73 1.0 0.73 11.00 120.0 0.660 57.6 0.317 0.97 0.73 1.0 0.73 12.00 120.0 0.720 57.6 0.346 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 13.00 120.0 0.780 57.6 0.374 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 14.00 120.0 0.840 57.6 0.403 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 15.00 120.0 0.900 57.6 0.432 0.97 0.72 1.0 0.72 16.00 120.0 0.960 57.6 0.461 0.96 0.72 1.0 0.72 17.00 120.0 1.020 57.6 0.490 0.96 0.72 1.0 0.72 18.00 120.0 1.080 57.6 0.518 0.96 0.71 1.0 0.71 19.00 120.0 1.140 57.6 0.547 0.96 0.71 1.0 0.71 20.00 120.0 1.200 57.6 0.576 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 21.00 120.0 1.260 57.6 0.605 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 22.00 120.0 1.320 57.6 0.634 0.95 0.71 1.0 0.71 23.00 120.0 1.380 57.6 0.662 0.95 0.70 1.0 0.70 24.00 120.0 1.440 57.6 0.691 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 25.00 120.0 1.500 57.6 0.720 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 26.00 120.0 1.560 57.6 0.749 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 27.00 120.0 1.620 57.6 0.778 0.94 0.70 1.0 0.70 28.00 120.0 1.680 57.6 0.806 0.93 0.70 1.0 0.70 29.00 120.0 1.740 57.6 0.835 0.93 0.69 1.0 0.69 30.00 120.0 1.800 57.6 0.864 0.93 0.69 1.0 0.69 31.00 120.0 1.860 57.6 0.893 0.92 0.69 1.0 0.69 32.00 120.0 1.920 57.6 0.922 0.91 0.68 1.0 0.68 33.00 120.0 1.980 57.6 0.950 0.91 0.67 1.0 0.67 34.00 120.0 2.040 57.6 0.979 0.90 0.67 1.0 0.67 35.00 120.0 2.100 57.6 1.008 0.89 0.66 1.0 0.66 36.00 120.0 2.160 57.6 1.037 0.88 0.66 1.0 0.66 37.00 120.0 2.220 57.6 1.066 0.87 0.65 1.0 0.65 38.00 120.0 2.280 57.6 1.094 0.86 0.64 1.0 0.64 39.00 120.0 2.340 57.6 1.123 0.86 0.64 1.0 0.64 40.00 120.0 2.400 57.6 1.152 0.85 0.63 1.0 0.63 41.00 120.0 2.460 57.6 1.181 0.84 0.63 1.0 0.63 42.00 120.0 2.520 57.6 1.210 0.83 0.62 1.0 0.62 43.00 120.0 2.580 57.6 1.238 0.82 0.61 1.0 0.61 44.00 120.0 2.640 57.6 1.267 0.82 0.61 1.0 0.61 45.00 120.0 2.700 57.6 1.296 0.81 0.60 1.0 0.60 46.00 120.0 2.760 57.6 1.325 0.80 0.60 1.0 0.60 47.00 120.0 2.820 57.6 1.354 0.79 0.59 1.0 0.59 48.00 120.0 2.880 57.6 1.382 0.78 0.58 1.0 0.58 49.00 120.0 2.940 57.6 1.411 0.78 0.58 1.0 0.58 50.00 120.0 3.000 57.6 1.440 0.77 0.57 1.0 0.57 ________________________________________________________________________ CSR is based on water table at 0.0 during earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft tsf % _____________________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.000 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 1.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.060 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 2.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.120 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 3.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.180 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 4.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.240 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 5.00 30.00 2.02 0.75 0.300 1.70 77.11 15.00 2.40 79.51 2.00 6.00 26.80 2.02 0.75 0.360 1.67 67.54 15.80 2.59 70.13 2.00 7.00 23.60 2.02 0.75 0.420 1.54 55.06 16.60 2.78 57.84 2.00 8.00 20.40 2.02 0.75 0.480 1.44 44.52 17.40 2.98 47.50 2.00 9.00 17.20 2.02 0.85 0.540 1.36 40.11 18.20 3.17 43.28 2.00 10.00 14.00 2.02 0.85 0.600 1.29 30.97 19.00 3.36 34.33 2.00 11.00 14.40 2.02 0.85 0.660 1.23 30.37 19.00 3.36 33.73 2.00 12.00 14.80 2.02 0.85 0.720 1.18 29.89 19.00 3.36 33.25 2.00 13.00 15.20 2.02 0.85 0.780 1.13 29.49 19.00 3.36 32.85 2.00 14.00 15.60 2.02 0.85 0.840 1.09 29.17 19.00 3.36 32.53 2.00 15.00 16.00 2.02 0.95 0.900 1.05 32.30 NoLiq 7.20 39.50 2.00 16.00 15.60 2.02 0.95 0.960 1.02 30.49 NoLiq 7.20 37.69 2.00 17.00 15.20 2.02 0.95 1.020 0.99 28.82 NoLiq 7.20 36.02 2.00 18.00 14.80 2.02 0.95 1.080 0.96 27.27 NoLiq 7.20 34.47 2.00 19.00 14.40 2.02 0.95 1.140 0.94 25.83 NoLiq 7.20 33.03 2.00 20.00 14.00 2.02 0.95 1.200 0.91 24.48 NoLiq 7.20 31.68 2.00 21.00 14.20 2.02 0.95 1.260 0.89 24.23 30.00 6.00 30.23 2.00 22.00 14.40 2.02 0.95 1.320 0.87 24.00 30.00 6.00 30.00 0.46 23.00 14.60 2.02 0.95 1.380 0.85 23.80 30.00 6.00 29.80 0.43 24.00 14.80 2.02 0.95 1.440 0.83 23.62 30.00 6.00 29.62 0.41 25.00 15.00 2.02 0.95 1.500 0.82 23.46 30.00 6.00 29.46 0.40 26.00 16.00 2.02 0.95 1.560 0.80 24.53 NoLiq 7.20 31.73 2.00 27.00 17.00 2.02 0.95 1.620 0.79 25.58 NoLiq 7.20 32.78 2.00 28.00 18.00 2.02 1.00 1.680 0.77 28.00 NoLiq 7.20 35.20 2.00 29.00 19.00 2.02 1.00 1.740 0.76 29.04 NoLiq 7.20 36.24 2.00 30.00 20.00 2.02 1.00 1.800 0.75 30.05 NoLiq 7.20 37.25 2.00 31.00 21.20 2.02 1.00 1.860 0.73 31.34 6.40 0.34 31.67 2.00 32.00 22.40 2.02 1.00 1.920 0.72 32.59 6.80 0.43 33.02 2.00 33.00 23.60 2.02 1.00 1.980 0.71 33.81 7.20 0.53 34.34 2.00 34.00 24.80 2.02 1.00 2.040 0.70 35.00 7.60 0.62 35.63 2.00 35.00 26.00 2.02 1.00 2.100 0.69 36.17 8.00 0.72 36.89 2.00 36.00 42.80 2.02 1.00 2.160 0.68 58.70 7.60 0.62 59.33 2.00 37.00 59.60 2.02 1.00 2.220 0.67 80.64 7.20 0.53 81.16 2.00 38.00 76.40 2.02 1.00 2.280 0.66 102.00 6.80 0.43 102.43 2.00 39.00 93.19 2.02 1.00 2.340 0.65 122.82 6.40 0.34 123.16 2.00 40.00 109.99 2.02 1.00 2.400 0.65 143.14 6.00 0.24 143.38 2.00 41.00 102.00 2.02 1.00 2.460 0.64 131.11 11.40 1.54 132.64 2.00 42.00 94.00 2.02 1.00 2.520 0.63 119.38 16.80 2.83 122.21 2.00 43.00 86.00 2.02 1.00 2.580 0.62 107.94 22.20 4.13 112.07 2.00 44.00 78.00 2.02 1.00 2.640 0.62 96.78 27.60 5.42 102.21 2.00 45.00 70.00 2.02 1.00 2.700 0.61 85.89 33.00 6.72 92.61 2.00 46.00 72.40 2.02 1.00 2.760 0.60 87.86 33.00 6.72 94.58 2.00 47.00 74.80 2.02 1.00 2.820 0.60 89.80 33.00 6.72 96.52 2.00 48.00 77.20 2.02 1.00 2.880 0.59 91.71 33.00 6.72 98.43 2.00 49.00 79.60 2.02 1.00 2.940 0.58 93.59 33.00 6.72 100.31 2.00 50.00 82.00 2.02 1.00 3.000 0.58 95.44 33.00 6.72 102.16 2.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________ CRR is based on water table at 51.0 during In-Situ Testing Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 6.8: Depth sigC' CRR7.5 Ksigma CRRv CSRfs MSF CSRm F.S. ft tsf tsf tsf tsf tsf CRRv/CSRm ________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.36 1.31 0.27 5.00 1.00 0.04 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.57 3.52 2.00 0.08 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.57 3.53 3.00 0.12 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.54 4.00 0.16 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.55 5.00 0.20 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.74 1.31 0.56 3.56 6.00 0.23 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.57 7.00 0.27 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.57 8.00 0.31 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.58 9.00 0.35 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.59 10.00 0.39 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.56 3.60 11.00 0.43 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.73 1.31 0.55 3.61 12.00 0.47 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.62 13.00 0.51 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.63 14.00 0.55 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 3.63 15.00 0.59 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 16.00 0.62 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 17.00 0.66 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.72 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 18.00 0.70 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.55 5.00 ^ 19.00 0.74 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 20.00 0.78 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 5.00 ^ 21.00 0.82 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.71 1.31 0.54 3.70 22.00 0.86 0.46 1.00 0.46 0.71 1.31 0.54 0.85 * 23.00 0.90 0.43 1.00 0.43 0.70 1.31 0.54 0.79 * 24.00 0.94 0.41 1.00 0.41 0.70 1.31 0.54 0.76 * 25.00 0.98 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.70 1.31 0.54 0.74 * 26.00 1.01 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.53 5.00 ^ 27.00 1.05 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.53 5.00 ^ 28.00 1.09 2.00 0.99 2.00 0.70 1.31 0.53 5.00 ^ 29.00 1.13 2.00 0.99 2.00 0.69 1.31 0.53 5.00 ^ 30.00 1.17 2.00 0.98 2.00 0.69 1.31 0.53 5.00 ^ 31.00 1.21 2.00 0.97 1.95 0.69 1.31 0.52 3.71 32.00 1.25 2.00 0.97 1.94 0.68 1.31 0.52 3.73 33.00 1.29 2.00 0.96 1.92 0.67 1.31 0.52 3.74 34.00 1.33 2.00 0.96 1.91 0.67 1.31 0.51 3.75 35.00 1.37 2.00 0.95 1.90 0.66 1.31 0.51 3.76 36.00 1.40 2.00 0.95 1.89 0.66 1.31 0.50 3.77 37.00 1.44 2.00 0.94 1.88 0.65 1.31 0.50 3.79 38.00 1.48 2.00 0.94 1.87 0.64 1.31 0.49 3.80 39.00 1.52 2.00 0.93 1.86 0.64 1.31 0.49 3.82 40.00 1.56 2.00 0.92 1.85 0.63 1.31 0.48 3.83 41.00 1.60 2.00 0.92 1.84 0.63 1.31 0.48 3.85 42.00 1.64 2.00 0.91 1.83 0.62 1.31 0.47 3.86 43.00 1.68 2.00 0.91 1.82 0.61 1.31 0.47 3.88 44.00 1.72 2.00 0.91 1.81 0.61 1.31 0.46 3.90 45.00 1.76 2.00 0.90 1.80 0.60 1.31 0.46 3.92 46.00 1.79 2.00 0.90 1.79 0.60 1.31 0.45 3.94 47.00 1.83 2.00 0.89 1.78 0.59 1.31 0.45 3.96 48.00 1.87 2.00 0.89 1.77 0.58 1.31 0.45 3.98 49.00 1.91 2.00 0.88 1.76 0.58 1.31 0.44 4.00 50.00 1.95 2.00 0.88 1.75 0.57 1.31 0.44 4.02 ________________________________________________________________________ * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5) ^ No-liquefiable Soils. (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis: Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis: Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s ft tsf % ________________________________________________________________ 0.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 1.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 2.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 3.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 4.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 5.00 - - - 79.51 15.0 0.00 79.51 6.00 - - - 70.13 15.8 0.00 70.13 7.00 - - - 57.84 16.6 0.00 57.84 8.00 - - - 47.50 17.4 0.00 47.50 9.00 - - - 43.28 18.2 0.00 43.28 10.00 - - - 34.33 19.0 0.00 34.33 11.00 - - - 33.73 19.0 0.00 33.73 12.00 - - - 33.25 19.0 0.00 33.25 13.00 - - - 32.85 19.0 0.00 32.85 14.00 - - - 32.53 19.0 0.00 32.53 15.00 - - - 39.50 NoLiq 0.00 39.50 16.00 - - - 37.69 NoLiq 0.00 37.69 17.00 - - - 36.02 NoLiq 0.00 36.02 18.00 - - - 34.47 NoLiq 0.00 34.47 19.00 - - - 33.03 NoLiq 0.00 33.03 20.00 - - - 31.68 NoLiq 0.00 31.68 21.00 - - - 30.23 30.0 0.00 30.23 22.00 - - - 30.00 30.0 0.00 30.00 23.00 - - - 29.80 30.0 0.00 29.80 24.00 - - - 29.62 30.0 0.00 29.62 25.00 - - - 29.46 30.0 0.00 29.46 26.00 - - - 31.73 NoLiq 0.00 31.73 27.00 - - - 32.78 NoLiq 0.00 32.78 28.00 - - - 35.20 NoLiq 0.00 35.20 29.00 - - - 36.24 NoLiq 0.00 36.24 30.00 - - - 37.25 NoLiq 0.00 37.25 31.00 - - - 31.67 6.4 0.00 31.67 32.00 - - - 33.02 6.8 0.00 33.02 33.00 - - - 34.34 7.2 0.00 34.34 34.00 - - - 35.63 7.6 0.00 35.63 35.00 - - - 36.89 8.0 0.00 36.89 36.00 - - - 59.33 7.6 0.00 59.33 37.00 - - - 81.16 7.2 0.00 81.16 38.00 - - - 100.00 6.8 0.00 100.00 39.00 - - - 100.00 6.4 0.00 100.00 40.00 - - - 100.00 6.0 0.00 100.00 41.00 - - - 100.00 11.4 0.00 100.00 42.00 - - - 100.00 16.8 0.00 100.00 43.00 - - - 100.00 22.2 0.00 100.00 44.00 - - - 100.00 27.6 0.00 100.00 45.00 - - - 92.61 33.0 0.00 92.61 46.00 - - - 94.58 33.0 0.00 94.58 47.00 - - - 96.52 33.0 0.00 96.52 48.00 - - - 98.43 33.0 0.00 98.43 49.00 - - - 100.00 33.0 0.00 100.00 50.00 - - - 100.00 33.0 0.00 100.00 ________________________________________________________________ (N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0. Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable. Settlement of Saturated Sands: Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Depth CSRm F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsp S ft % % % in. in. in. ________________________________________________________________________________ 49.95 0.44 4.02 33.0 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 49.00 0.44 4.00 33.0 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 48.00 0.45 3.98 33.0 98.43 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 47.00 0.45 3.96 33.0 96.52 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 46.00 0.45 3.94 33.0 94.58 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 45.00 0.46 3.92 33.0 92.61 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 44.00 0.46 3.90 27.6 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 43.00 0.47 3.88 22.2 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 42.00 0.47 3.86 16.8 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 41.00 0.48 3.85 11.4 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 40.00 0.48 3.83 6.0 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 39.00 0.49 3.82 6.4 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 38.00 0.49 3.80 6.8 100.00 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 37.00 0.50 3.79 7.2 81.16 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 36.00 0.50 3.77 7.6 59.33 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 35.00 0.51 3.76 8.0 36.89 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 34.00 0.51 3.75 7.6 35.63 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 33.00 0.52 3.74 7.2 34.34 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 32.00 0.52 3.73 6.8 33.02 97.33 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 31.00 0.52 3.71 6.4 31.67 93.97 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 30.00 0.53 5.00 NoLiq 37.25 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 29.00 0.53 5.00 NoLiq 36.24 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 28.00 0.53 5.00 NoLiq 35.20 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 27.00 0.53 5.00 NoLiq 32.78 96.71 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 26.00 0.53 5.00 NoLiq 31.73 94.11 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000 25.00 0.54 0.74 30.0 29.46 88.84 0.926 5.6E-3 0.006 0.006 24.00 0.54 0.76 30.0 29.62 89.21 0.872 5.2E-3 0.108 0.113 23.00 0.54 0.79 30.0 29.80 89.61 0.797 4.8E-3 0.100 0.214 22.00 0.54 0.85 30.0 30.00 90.07 0.694 4.2E-3 0.090 0.303 21.00 0.54 3.70 30.0 30.23 90.57 0.000 0.0E0 0.042 0.345 20.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 31.68 93.97 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 19.00 0.54 5.00 NoLiq 33.03 97.35 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 18.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 34.47 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 17.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 36.02 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 16.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 37.69 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 15.00 0.55 5.00 NoLiq 39.50 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 14.00 0.55 3.63 19.0 32.53 96.07 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 13.00 0.55 3.63 19.0 32.85 96.89 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 12.00 0.55 3.62 19.0 33.25 97.91 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 11.00 0.55 3.61 19.0 33.73 99.18 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 10.00 0.56 3.60 19.0 34.33 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 9.00 0.56 3.59 18.2 43.28 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 8.00 0.56 3.58 17.4 47.50 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 7.00 0.56 3.57 16.6 57.84 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 6.00 0.56 3.57 15.8 70.13 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 5.00 0.56 3.56 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 4.00 0.56 3.55 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 3.00 0.56 3.54 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 2.00 0.57 3.53 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 1.00 0.57 3.52 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 0.00 0.27 5.00 15.0 79.51 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.345 ________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.345 in. qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft dsp is per each print interval, dp=1.00 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Settlement of Unsaturated Sands: Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRfs Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsp S ft tsf tsf tsf % % in. in. in. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.00 0.36 0.0 0.0E0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00E0 0.000 0.000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.000 in. dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft dsp is per each print interval, dp=1.00 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.345 in. Differential Settlement=0.173 to 0.228 in. Units: Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit Weight = pcf, Settlement = in. ___________________________________________________________________________________ SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT) qc Field data from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) fs Friction from CPT testing gamma Total unit weight of soil gamma' Effective unit weight of soil Fines Fines content [%] D50 Mean grain size Dr Relative Density sigma Total vertical stress [tsf] sigma' Effective vertical stress [tsf] sigC' Effective confining pressure [tsf] rd Stress reduction coefficient CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5) Ksigma Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5 CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 * Ksigma F.S. Calculated factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRv/CSRm User User request factor of safety, which may apply to CSR fs1 First CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page fs2 2nd CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake CSRfs CSRfs=CSR*fs1, fs1=1 or User, defined in #9 of Advanced page MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CSR CSRm After magnitude scaling correction CSRm=CSRfs/MSF Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sampling Method Corrections Cr Rod Length Corrections Cn Overburden Pressure Correction (N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT (N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60 Cq Overburden stress correction factor qc1 CPT after Overburden stress correction dqc1 Fines correction of CPT qc1f CPT after Fines and Overburden correction, qc1f=qc1 + dqc1 qc1n CPT after normalization in Robertson's method Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method qc1f CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60s (N1)60 after settlement fines corrections ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands dz Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft dsz Settlement in each segment, dz dp User defined print interval dsp Settlement in each print interval, dp Gmax Shear Modulus at low strain g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, Strain-modulus ratio ec7.5 Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5 Cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude ec Volumetric strain for unsaturated sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5 NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils References: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022. SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. March 1999. 2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper No. SPL-2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 2001. 3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003. Appendix G GALENA Version5.02 Project: StaticAnalysis 42feetHighSlope File:C:\DataFiles\UsersMyDocuments\Administrator\GALENA\11081.42feethighslope.gmf GeoMatTestingLaboratories,Inc. Edited:Processed:23Dec2011 23Dec2011 Analysis: Results 1 MultipleStabilityAnalysis Method: Surface: BishopSimplified Circular Critical(minimum) FactorofSafety:1.87 OnsiteSoil 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 200 42feetHighSlope,2H:1V Cohesion=100psf TrafficLoad Phi=34degree Bench Galena5.02AnalysisResultsLicensee:GeoMatTestingLaboratories,Inc.————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Project:42feetHighSlopeFile:C:\DataFiles\UsersMyDocuments\Administrator\GALENA\11081.42feethighslope.gmfProcessed:23Dec201117:28:11———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— DATA:Analysis1-StaticAnalysis MaterialProperties(1material)-------------------Material:1(Mohr-CoulombIsotropic)-OnsiteSoilCohesionPhiUnitWeightRu100.0034.0120.000.00 MaterialProfiles(1profile)-----------------Profile:1(2points)Materialbeneath:1-OnsiteSoil0.0050.00200.0050.00 SlopeSurface(6points)-------------0.000.0050.000.00110.0030.00116.0030.00140.0042.00160.0042.00 FailureSurface---------------Initialcircularsurfaceforcriticalsearchdefinedby:XL,XR,RIntersects:XL:47.67YL:0.00XR:144.44YR:42.00Centre:XC:51.18YC:124.39Radius:R:124.44 DistributedLoads(1load)-----------------LoadX-LeftPressureX-RightPressure1140.00200.0160.00200.0 VariableRestraints-------------------Parameterdescriptor:XLXRRRangeofvariation:58.0080.0020.00Trialpositionswithinrange:101010 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– RESULTS:Analysis1-StaticAnalysis BishopSimplifiedMethodofAnalysis-CircularFailureSurface---------------------------------------------------------------CriticalFailureCircleSearchusingMultipleCircleGenerationTechniques FactorofSafetyforinitialfailurecircleapproximation:1.93 Therewere:425successfulanalysesfromatotalof1001trialcircles576analysesterminatedduetounacceptablegeometry Critical(minimum)FactorofSafety:1.87—————————————————————————————————————————— CircleandResultsSummary(Lowest99FactorofSafetycircles)-------------------------- CircleX-CentreY-CentreX-LeftY-LeftX-RightY-RightRadiusFoS151.18124.3947.670.00144.4442.00124.441.874252.16122.1447.670.00144.4442.00122.221.876353.15119.8747.670.00144.4442.00120.001.879446.30141.8454.112.06144.4442.00140.001.881547.26139.6654.112.06144.4442.00137.781.881648.22137.4854.112.06144.4442.00135.561.881749.19135.3054.112.06144.4442.00133.331.881850.16133.1154.112.06144.4442.00131.111.882951.13130.9154.112.06144.4442.00128.891.8831052.11128.7154.112.06144.4442.00126.671.8841153.08126.5054.112.06144.4442.00124.441.8851246.26135.4641.220.00144.4442.00135.561.8851347.18133.2041.220.00144.4442.00133.331.8861448.10130.9341.220.00144.4442.00131.111.8871554.06124.2854.112.06144.4442.00122.221.8871649.03128.6541.220.00144.4442.00128.891.8881755.05122.0554.112.06144.4442.00120.001.8891849.96126.3641.220.00144.4442.00126.671.8891950.90124.0741.220.00144.4442.00124.441.8912051.83121.7641.220.00144.4442.00122.221.8932152.78119.4441.220.00144.4442.00120.001.8962244.16139.6934.780.00144.4442.00140.001.9072345.03137.4034.780.00144.4442.00137.781.9072445.91135.1034.780.00144.4442.00135.561.9082546.80132.7934.780.00144.4442.00133.331.9092647.68130.4734.780.00144.4442.00131.111.9102748.58128.1534.780.00144.4442.00128.891.9112853.24139.8947.670.00153.3342.00140.001.9122949.47125.8134.780.00144.4442.00126.671.9133054.14137.6347.670.00153.3342.00137.781.9143150.37123.4634.780.00144.4442.00124.441.9163255.05135.3547.670.00153.3342.00135.561.9163351.27121.1034.780.00144.4442.00122.221.9193455.95133.0847.670.00153.3342.00133.331.9193555.14131.8360.565.28144.4442.00126.671.9213648.06121.9054.112.06135.5639.78120.001.9213756.10129.6460.565.28144.4442.00124.441.9213854.19134.0160.565.28144.4442.00128.891.9213953.23136.1860.565.28144.4442.00131.111.9224057.06127.4560.565.28144.4442.00122.221.9224152.28138.3560.565.28144.4442.00133.331.9224247.05124.0754.112.06135.5639.78122.221.9224358.02125.2560.565.28144.4442.00120.001.9224456.86130.7947.670.00153.3342.00131.111.9224552.18118.7334.780.00144.4442.00120.001.9224651.34140.5260.565.28144.4442.00135.561.9234746.05126.2454.112.06135.5639.78124.441.9234850.39142.6860.565.28144.4442.00137.781.9244952.88139.5141.220.00153.3342.00140.001.9245046.22119.9041.220.00135.5639.78120.001.9255149.45144.8460.565.28144.4442.00140.001.9255245.05128.4054.112.06135.5639.78126.671.9255355.40142.0554.112.06153.3342.00140.001.9255457.77128.4947.670.00153.3342.00128.891.9265544.05130.5554.112.06135.5639.78128.891.9265653.74137.2141.220.00153.3342.00137.781.9275756.30139.8254.112.06153.3342.00137.781.9275843.06132.7054.112.06135.5639.78131.111.9285944.18129.8538.000.00140.0042.00130.001.928 6054.61134.8941.220.00153.3342.00135.561.9296157.21137.5854.112.06153.3342.00135.561.9296258.69126.1947.670.00153.3342.00126.671.9306342.07134.8454.112.06135.5639.78133.331.9306458.11135.3354.112.06153.3342.00133.331.9326541.08136.9854.112.06135.5639.78135.561.9326655.48132.5741.220.00153.3342.00133.331.9326738.58121.0554.112.06117.7830.89120.001.9346859.61123.8747.670.00153.3342.00124.441.9346940.09139.1254.112.06135.5639.78137.781.9347059.02133.0754.112.06153.3342.00131.111.9357156.36130.2341.220.00153.3342.00131.111.9357239.10141.2554.112.06135.5639.78140.001.9377343.21121.5654.112.06126.6735.33120.001.9377437.63123.1654.112.06117.7830.89122.221.9377559.93130.8154.112.06153.3342.00128.891.9387643.65139.1628.330.00144.4442.00140.001.9397760.54121.5447.670.00153.3342.00122.221.9397857.23127.8941.220.00153.3342.00128.891.9397942.23123.7054.112.06126.6735.33122.221.9408044.49136.8328.330.00144.4442.00137.781.9408160.84128.5454.112.06153.3342.00126.671.9418236.67125.2754.112.06117.7830.89124.441.9418345.34134.4828.330.00144.4442.00135.561.9418441.25125.8354.112.06126.6735.33124.441.9428546.19132.1328.330.00144.4442.00133.331.9438658.12125.5441.220.00153.3342.00126.671.9438752.29138.9034.780.00153.3342.00140.001.9448861.47119.2047.670.00153.3342.00120.001.9448961.76126.2654.112.06153.3342.00124.441.9449035.72127.3854.112.06117.7830.89126.671.9459140.27127.9654.112.06126.6735.33126.671.9459247.04129.7728.330.00144.4442.00131.111.9459353.12136.5534.780.00153.3342.00137.781.9469439.30130.0954.112.06126.6735.33128.891.9489559.00123.1741.220.00153.3342.00124.441.9489647.90127.3928.330.00144.4442.00128.891.9489762.68123.9854.112.06153.3342.00122.221.9489834.76129.4854.112.06117.7830.89128.891.9499953.96134.1934.780.00153.3342.00135.561.949 CriticalFailureCircle-----------------------Intersects:XL:47.67YL:0.00XR:144.44YR:42.00Centre:XC:51.18YC:124.39Radius:R:124.44Generatedfailuresurface:(20points)47.670.0053.40-0.0359.130.2064.840.7070.521.4676.162.4881.753.7687.285.3092.727.0998.089.13103.3411.41108.4913.93113.5216.69118.4119.67123.1722.88127.7726.30132.2029.94136.4733.77140.5537.79144.4442.00 SliceGeometryandProperties(41slices)-----------------------------SliceX-S-------------------Base---------------------PoreWaterNormalTestX-LeftAreaAngleWidthLengthMatlCohesionPhiWeightForceStressFactor147.670.01-0.32.332.331100.0034.01.710.001.011.00250.000.75-0.31.701.701100.0034.090.100.0053.381.00351.702.21-0.31.701.701100.0034.0265.320.00156.641.00453.406.842.32.862.871100.0034.0820.640.00280.200.99556.2610.612.32.862.871100.0034.01272.650.00435.730.99 659.1314.145.02.862.871100.0034.01696.300.00571.390.97761.9817.505.02.862.871100.0034.02100.380.00708.580.97864.8420.577.62.842.871100.0034.02468.100.00821.910.96967.6823.527.62.842.871100.0034.02822.890.00941.040.961070.5226.0910.32.822.871100.0034.03130.940.001032.950.951173.3428.6310.32.822.871100.0034.03435.530.001134.330.951276.1630.6812.92.792.871100.0034.03681.020.001205.690.951378.9632.7912.92.792.871100.0034.03934.900.001289.630.951481.7534.3015.52.762.871100.0034.04116.310.001341.280.941584.5236.0015.52.762.871100.0034.04319.450.001408.140.941687.2836.9718.22.722.871100.0034.04436.080.001440.900.941790.0038.2418.22.722.871100.0034.04588.830.001491.050.941892.7238.6820.82.682.871100.0034.04641.230.001505.730.941995.4039.5420.82.682.871100.0034.04744.380.001539.590.942098.0839.4523.52.632.871100.0034.04734.310.001537.020.9421100.7139.9123.52.632.871100.0034.04789.090.001555.040.9422103.3439.3326.12.572.871100.0034.04719.050.001536.080.9523105.9239.3926.12.572.871100.0034.04727.100.001538.730.9524108.4923.0428.71.511.721100.0034.02765.060.001506.720.9525110.0025.9728.71.762.011100.0034.03116.290.001454.710.9526111.7624.2728.71.762.011100.0034.02912.560.001358.010.9527113.5231.1531.42.482.911100.0034.03738.040.001208.730.9628116.0028.1631.42.412.831100.0034.03379.110.001121.230.9629118.4126.9134.02.382.871100.0034.03229.240.001064.420.9730120.7925.9234.02.382.871100.0034.03110.660.001024.270.9731123.1723.9636.72.302.871100.0034.02875.730.00954.950.9832125.4722.6736.72.302.871100.0034.02720.700.00901.780.9833127.7720.4639.32.222.871100.0034.02455.750.00821.341.0034129.9818.9039.32.222.871100.0034.02267.670.00755.851.0035132.2016.5141.92.132.871100.0034.01980.650.00665.621.0236134.3314.6941.92.132.871100.0034.01763.210.00588.561.0237136.4710.6744.61.772.481100.0034.01279.800.00495.921.0438138.239.1544.61.772.481100.0034.01098.000.00419.961.0439140.002.4744.60.550.771100.0034.0295.860.00505.591.0440140.556.1447.21.952.871100.0034.0737.380.00375.131.0641142.502.0547.21.952.871100.0034.0245.790.00193.361.06-------------------------X-SArea:929.23PathLength:108.93X-SWeight:111507.82 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— GALENA Version5.02 Project: StaticAnalysis 42feetHighSlope File:C:\DataFiles\UsersMyDocuments\Administrator\GALENA\11081.42feethighslopeSeismic.gmf GeoMatTestingLaboratories,Inc. Edited:Processed:23Dec2011 23Dec2011 Analysis: Results 1 MultipleStabilityAnalysis Method: Surface: BishopSimplified Circular Critical(minimum) FactorofSafety:1.34 OnsiteSoil 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 200 0.150 42feetHighSlope,2H:1V Cohesion=100psf TrafficLoad Phi=34degree Bench