The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1501 S Broadway - Soils ReportL lel' 114# R ECEIVE D OCT 11 2016 City of Santa Ana SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL A Calijornia Corporation 1 1 1 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION G&M CONVENIENCE STORE #72 1501 South Broadway Street Santa Ana, California for Travis Companies, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'joca,GeoN March 28, 2016 :I. Travis Companies, Inc. 4430 East Miraloma Avenue, Suite F Anaheim, California 92807-1840 F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL A Cal#brliia &,poration Attention:Mr. Karl Huy President Project No.:16G123-1R Subject:Geotechnical Investigation Proposed G&M Convenience Store #72 1501 South Broadway Street Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Huy: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the suwect site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1 1 - : -r; VWMAB v - 1.- ...., Â·- . tchell, GE 2364 ;l;'ll&,ef?Uirit, A pringpkJ<Fngfper #19 2 9%%Iii!2 e|| B N No. 2364 m ]V *# d>7*OTECH'/-140FCA\00 JohriM. Sk#nal,@, GE 2294 prindbÂ¢al 68&inee\ Distribution: \(2) Addressee 1 *\ .//4 JI 1 \Q 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway â€¢ Suite E v Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115 v fax: (714) 685-1118 v www.socalgeo.com A TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions 3.2 Proposed Development 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 10 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 13 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 15 6.4 Construction Considerations 19 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 21 6.6 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 23 6.7 Trash Enclosure Design Parameters 24 6.8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 25 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters 27 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 30 8.0 REFERENCES 31 APPENDICES Plate 1: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results Grading Guide Specifications Seismic Design Parameters Liquefaction Evaluation Spreadsheets > SOUJ_HERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store # 72- Santa Ana, CA Project No. 1 6G 123-1R --- 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Geotechnical Design Considerations â€¢ Our site-specific liquefaction evaluation indicates that some of the on-site soils are subject to liquefaction during the design seismic event. â€¢ The liquefaction analysis indicates a total settlement 5.03: inches at Boring No. B-1. The liquefaction-induced differential settlements are conservatively estimated to be 21/2 to 3* inches. Assuming that these settlements occur across a distance of 50* feet, an angular distortion of 0.005 inches per inch would result. â€¢ Based on the predicted magnitude of the liquefaction-induced settlements, a conventional shallow foundation system cannot be used to support the proposed structure. Instead, it is recommended that the proposed building be supported on a mat foundation. Site Preparation â€¢ The subject site is currently underlain by fill soils, extending to depths of 21/2 to 33: feet. These fill soils possess variable composition and relatively low strengths. They are considered to represent undocumented fill, and are not suitable for support of the new structure. Remedial grading is considered warranted to remove and replace the existing fill soils. â€¢ Demolition of the existing convenience store building will be required as part of the proposed development activities. It is also expected that some of the existing pavements will be demolished. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 2 inch particle size, well mixed with the on- site soils, and incorporated into new structural fills, if desired. â€¢ Existing vegetation and organic materials within any demolished landscape planters should be disposed of offsite. â€¢ Remedial grading should be performed within the proposed building area to remove the existing undocumented fill soils in their entirety. The overexcavation should extend to a depth of 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of 3 feet below proposed pad grade, whichever is greater. Within the foundation influence zone, the overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. â€¢ After the recommended overexcavation has been completed, the resulting subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any additional soils that should be overexcavated. The resulting subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches and thoroughly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. The resulting subgrade should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. â€¢ The new parking area subgrade soils are recommended to be scarified to a depth of 123= inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 1 Building Foundations â€¢ The proposed building should be supported on a mat foundation, constructed on a newly placed layer of compacted structural fill. â€¢ 1,500 lbs/ftz maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. â€¢ The mat foundation, including the reinforcing steel, should be designed by the project structural engineer. Retaining Wall and Site Wall Foundations: â€¢ Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. â€¢ 2,500 lbs/ftz maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. â€¢ Reinforcement consisting of at least four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom) in strip footings. Pavements ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 30) Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Lanes Light Truck Traffic (TI = 4.0)(TI = 5.0)(TI = 6.0) Asphalt Concrete 3 3 31/2 Aggregate Base 3 6 8 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Automobile Parking and Drive Truck Traffic Areas Areas (TI =6.0) PCC 5 51/2 Compacted Subgrade (95% minimum compaction) 12 12 1 SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 2 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 15P297, dated June 24, 2015. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. Based on the location of the subject site, this investigation also included a site-specific liquefaction evaluation.The evaluation of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R ' GEOTECHNICAL Page 3 SoC,!Geo 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Broadway Street and East Edinger Avenue in Santa Ana, California. The site address is 1501 South Broadway Street. The site is bounded to the north by East Edinger Avenue, to the west by South Broadway Street, to the east by a single family residence, and to the south by the Alta Med Medical Group building. The site is a nearly rectangular-shaped parcel, 0.26* acres in size. The site is presently developed with a gasoline service station. The station includes a small mini-mart structure, 985* ft2 in size, located in the east-central region of the site and three pump islands covered by a common canopy. The fuel pumps are located in the west-central area of the site and the underground storage tanks (USTs) are located in the northeast corner of the site. An existing 6- foot high block wall is located along the eastern property line. Landscape planters are located in the northwest corner of the site and along the southern property line. The ground surface cover throughout the remainder of the site consists of asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements. Topographic information for the subject site was obtained from the ALTA survey. The ALTA survey indicates that the site topography is relatively flat. The site topography ranges from a topographic high of 74.82 feet msI (mean sea level) in the eastern area of the site and a topographic low of 72.66 feet msI in the southwest corner of the site. 3.2 Proposed Development Based on the site plan provided by Travis Companies, Inc., the existing mini-mart will be demolished in its entirety. The existing canopy, pump islands, and USTs are to remain in place. A new convenience store, 1,175* M in size will be constructed along the eastern perimeter of the site, in the area of the existing mini-mart. The building will be constructed in a zero-lot line condition, immediately adjacent to the eastern property line. A new trash enclosure will be constructed at the southeast corner of the property. New asphaltic concrete pavements and landscaping will be constructed to the south of the proposed building. Based on the architectural plans that were provided to our office, the new convenience store will be a single story structure of wood-frame and masonry block construction, typically supported on a conventional shallow foundation system with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Detailed structural information was not available at the time of this report. Based on the type of construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 30 kips and 1 to 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. *gil1291,lpiz SOUTHERN W*/ CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 1 6G 123-1R Page 4 The proposed development is not expected to include any significant amounts of below grade construction such as basements or crawl spaces. Based on the relatively level topography, cuts and fills of less than 1 to 2Â£ feet are expected to be necessary to achieve the proposed building pad grade. 1=Â¥> SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of two (2) borings advanced to depths of 153: feet and 50* feet below presently existing site grades. Both of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416* inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4* inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions Pavements Pavements were encountered at the ground surface at both of the boring locations. The pavements consist of 9* inches of asphaltic concrete pavement underlain by 13: inch of aggregate base at Boring No. 8-1 and 93: inches of Portland cement concrete underlain by la inch of aggregate base at Boring No. B-2. Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the pavements at both boring locations extending to depths of 21h to 3* feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils consist of loose silty fine sands to fine sandy silts. These soils possess a disturbed, mottled appearance, resulting in their classification as artificial fill. ' SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA PrOJect No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 6 Alluvium Native alluvium was encountered at both of the boring locations extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 50* feet below existing site grade. The alluvium generally consists of medium stiff silty clays, clayey silts, and fine sandy clays extending to depths of 17* feet. Between 17 feet and 42* feet the alluvium consists of loose interbedded silty fine sands, fine sandy silts, and soft clayey silts. Medium stiff silty clays were encountered between depths of 42 to 47* feet and loose fine sandy silts were encountered at a depth between 47 feet and 50* feet. Groundwater Free water was encountered during the drilling of Boring No. B-1 at a depth of 25Â£ feet. Based on the water level measurements and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at depths of 25* feet below existing site grades at the time of the subsurface investigation. As part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine the historic high groundwater level for the site. The primary reference used to determine the historic groundwater depths in this area is CGS Open File Report 97-20, the Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Tustin Ouadranale which indicates that the historic high groundwater level for the site was 15 feet below the ground surface. More recent water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources website, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The monitoring well is located approximately 7,000 feet east-northeast from the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicates high groundwater levels of 25.51* feet (October 1984). Therefore, the high groundwater depth of 15 feet reported in OFR 97-20 is considered to be conservative with respect to the recent site conditions. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R Page 7GEOTECHNICAL 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remdlded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report. Maximum Dr, Density and Optimum Moisture Content Representative bulk samples have been tested for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D-1557. These tests are generally used to compare the in-situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The Modified Proctor results are plotted on Plate C-5 in Appendix C of this report. Soluble Sulfates A representative sample of the near-surface soils was submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in 1:m:F>. SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 8 soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%)Sulfate Classification B-1 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.169 Moderate Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D- 4829. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4-inch diameter, 1-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50* 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period. The results of the EI testing are as follows: Sample Identification B-1 @ 1 to 5 feet Expansion Index 0 Expansive Potential Non-Expansive B-2 @ 1 to 5 feet 70 Medium Atterberq Limits Atterberg Limits testing (ASTM D-4318) was performed on selected samples of various soil strata encountered at the site. This test is used to determine the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of the soil. The Plasticity Index is the difference between the two limits. Plasticity Index is a general indicator of the expansive potential of the soil, with higher numbers indicating higher expansive potential. Soils with a PI greater than 25 are considered to have a high plasticity, and a high expansion potential. Soils with a PI greater than 18 are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. The results of the Atterberg Limits testing are presented on the boring logs. Grain Size Analysis Limited grain size analyses have been performed on several selected samples, in accordance with ASTM D-1140.These samples were washed over a #200 sieve to determine the percentage of fine-grained material in each sample, which is defined as the material which passes the #200 sieve. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R Page 9GEOTECHNICAL 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earl:hquakes. The performance of a site specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Faultinq and Seismicitv Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. Seismic Design Parameters Beginning January 1, 2014, the 2013 CBC was adopted by all municipalities within Southern California. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using U.S. Seismic Design Maps, a web-based software application developed by the United States Geological Survey. This software application, available at the USGS web site, calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2013 CBC, utilizing a database of deterministic site accelerations at 0.01 degree intervals. The table below is a compilation of the data provided by the USGS application. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by the USGS application is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: SoCalGeo 4 SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 10 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period Ss 1.490 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period St 0.550 Site Class --- F* Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period MS 1.490 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 0.824 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SOS 1.994 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SD1 0.550 *The 2013 CBC requires that Site Class F be assigned to any profile containing soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading, such as liquefiable soils. For Site Class F, the site coefficients are to be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7-10. However, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10 indicates that for sites with structures having a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, the site coefficient factors (Fa and Fv) may be determined using the standard procedures. Ihe seismic desian Darameters tabulated above were calculated using the site coefficient factors for Site Class D. assuming that the fundamental Deriod of the structure is less than 0.5 seconds. However, the results of the liquefaction evaluation indicate that the subject site is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils. Therefore, if the proposed structure has a fundamental period greater than 0.5 seconds, a site specific seismic hazards analysis would be required and additional subsurface exploration would be necessary. Ground Motion Parameters For the purposes of the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we utilized a site acceleration that is consistent with maximum considered earthquake ground motions, as required by the 2013 CBC. The peak ground acceleration (PGAM) was determined in accordance with Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. The parameter PGAM is the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCE) PGA, multiplied by the appropriate site coefficient from Table 11.8-1 of ASCE 7-10. The web-based software application U.S. Seismic Design Maps (described in the previous section) was used to determine PGA, using ASCE 7-10 as the building code reference document. A portion of the program output is included as Plate E-2 in Appendix E of this report. As indicated on Plate E-2, the PGA for this site is 0.553g. Liquefaction The Seismic Hazards Map for the Tustin, California 7.5 Minute Ouadranqle, published by the California Geological Survey (CGS), indicates that the subject site is within a liquefaction hazard zone. Therefore, the scope of this investigation included a detailed liquefaction evaluation in order to determine the site-specific liquefaction potential. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore- water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (cIso) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Non-sensitive clayey (cohesive) soils which possess a plasticity index of ',i--/> SOUTHERN 'll*Illev CALIFORNIA 10 GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G123-1R Page 11 at least 18 (Bray and Sancio, 2006) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The liquefaction analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Special Publication 117A (CDMG, 2008), and currently accepted practice (SCEC, 1997). The liquefaction potential of the subject site was evaluated using the empirical method developed by Boulanger and Idriss (Boulanoer and Idriss, 2008). This method predicts the earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of the site based on a given design earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration at the subject site. This procedure essentially compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) [the cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] with the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at that depth from a specified design earthquake (defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated earthquake moment magnitude). CRR is determined as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (Ni)60-cs, adjusted for fines content. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as CRR/CSR. Based on Special Publication 117A, a factor of safety of at least 1.3 is required in order to demonstrate that a given soil stratum is non-liquefiable. Additionally, in accordance with Special Publication 117A, clayey soils which do not meet the criteria for liquefiable soils defined by Bray and Sancio (2006), loose soils with a plasticity index (PI) less than 12 and moisture content greater than 85% of the liquid limit, are considered to be insusceptible to liquefaction. Non-sensitive soils with a PI greater than 18 are also considered non-liquefiable. As part of the liquefaction evaluation, Boring No. B-1 was extended to a depth of 503= feet. This boring encountered free water at a depth of 223: feet during drilling. The historic high groundwater depth was obtained from CGS Open File Report 97-20, the Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Tustin Quadrangle, which indicates a historic high groundwater depth at the subject site of approximately 15* feet. Therefore, the historic high groundwater table was considered to be 15 feet for the liquefaction evaluation. The liquefaction analysis procedure is tabulated on the spreadsheet forms included in Appendix F of this report. The liquefaction analysis was performed for Boring No. B-1. The liquefaction potential of the site was analyzed utilizing a PGAM of 0.553g for a magnitude 6.65 seismic event. If liquefiable soils are identified, the potential settlements that could occur as a result of liquefaction are determined using the equation for volumetric strain due to post-cyclic reconsolidation (Yoshimine et. al, 2006). This procedure uses an empirical relationship between the induced cyclic shear strain and the corrected N-value to determine the expected volumetric strain of saturated sands subjected to earthquake shaking. This analysis is also documented on the spreadsheets included in Appendix F. Conclusions and Recommendations The results of the liquefaction analysis have identified potentially liquefiable soils at Boring No. B-1. The liquefiable materials are present in several layers between depths of 15 and 50* feet. Soils which are located above the historic high groundwater table (15 feet), or possess factors of safety in excess of 1.3, are considered non-liquefiable. Several encountered layers of silty clays are considered non-liquefiable due to their cohesive characteristics and the results of the Atterberg limits testing with respect to the criteria of Bray and Sancio (2006). Settlement analyses were conducted for each of the potentially liquefiable strata. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G1 23-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 12 Based on the settlement analysis (also tabulated on the spreadsheets in Appendix F) a total dynamic (liquefaction induced) settlement of 5.0=E inches could be expected at Boring No. B-1. The associated differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of 21/2 to 33: inches. The estimated differential settlement could be assumed to occur across a distance of 50 feet, indicating a maximum angular distortion of approximately 0.005 inches per inch. These settlements are considered to be in excess of the tolerances of a typical structure supported on shallow foundations. Therefore, this report provides recommendations for a mat foundation to support the proposed convenience store building. However, it should be noted that even with the use of a mat foundation, minor to moderate repairs, including repair of damaged drywall and stucco, etc., would likely be required after the occurrence of liquefaction-induced settlements. Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it is considered feasible to support the proposed structure on a mat foundation. Such a foundation system can be designed to resist the effects of the anticipated differential settlements, to the extent that the structure would not catastrophically fail.Designing the proposed structure to remain completely undamaged during a seismic event that could occur once every 475 years (the code-specified return period used in the liquefaction analysis) is not considered to be economically feasible. Based on this understanding, the use of a mat foundation system is considered to be the most economical means of supporting the proposed structure. In order to support the proposed structure on a mat foundation the structural engineer should verify that the structures would not catastrophically fail due to the predicted dynamic differential settlements. Any utility connections to the structures should be designed to withstand the estimated differential settlements. It should also be noted that minor to moderate repairs, including re-leveling, restoration of utility connections, repair of damaged drywall and stucco, etc., would likely be required after occurrence of the liquefaction-induced settlements. The use of a mat foundation system, as described in this report, is typical for buildings of this type, where they are underlain the extent of liquefiable soils encountered at this site. The post- liquefaction damage that could occur within the building proposed for this site will also be typical or less than similar buildings in the vicinity of this project. However, if the owner determines that this level of potential damage is not acceptable, other geotechnical and structural options are available, including the use of ground improvement. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General The subsurface conditions encountered at the site generally consist of a surficial layer of fill soils underlain by low to moderate strength native alluvium. The near surface fill soils possess variable strengths and variable composition. Based on these characteristics, and the age of the existing development, the existing fill soils are considered to represent undocumented fill, not suitable for support of the proposed structure. In addition, the upper zone of native alluvium, encountered at depths of 3 to 4 feet is currently in a loose condition and possesses unfavorable '----2 SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA 4-* CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R 1</ GEOTECHNICAL Page 13 SoCalâ‚¬;ec collapse characteristics. Finally, significant disturbance of the upper 2 to 3 feet of soils is expected to occur during demolition of the existing building and surrounding improvements. Based on these conditions, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the area of the proposed building. As discussed in a previous section of this report, potentially liquefiable soils were identified at this site. The presence of the recommended layer of newly placed compacted structural fill above these liquefiable soils will help to reduce any surface manifestations that could occur as a result of liquefaction. The foundation and floor slab design recommendations presented in the subsequent sections of this report also contain recommendations to provide additional rigidity in order to reduce the potential effects of differential settlement that could occur as a result of liquefaction. Settlement The proposed remedial grading will remove the existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of the underlying native alluvium from within the proposed building area. The native soils that will remain in place beneath the recommended depth of overexcavation possess favorable consolidation and collapse characteristics, and will not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new structure. Therefore, following completion of the recommended remedial grading, post-construction static settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Sulfates The results of the soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, indicate soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.169 percent. These concentrations are considered to be moderate with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3.Based on these concentrations, the ACI requires that all concrete which will come into contact with the on-site soils incorporate the following characteristics: â€¢ Cement Type:II (Two) â€¢ Minimum Compressive Strength (f'c) =4,000 lbs/inz â€¢ Maximum Water/Cement Ratio:0.50 It is recommended that additional sulfate testing be performed at the completion of rough grading to verify the concentrations which are present in the actual building pad subgrade soils. Expansion Laboratory testing performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils indicates that these materials are medium to non-expansive (EI = 0 to 70). Based on the presence of expansive soils at this site, special design and construction considerations are warranted. All building pad and flatwork subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned and maintained at adequate moisture content throughout the construction process. Further recommendations concerning the expansive soils are presented in subsequent sections of this report. It is recommended that additional expansion index testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the expansion potential of the as-graded building pad. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 14 Shrinkaae/Subsidence Removal and recompaction of the near surface fill and alluvial soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 8 to 13 percent. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.13: feet. This estimate may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by existing native alluvial soils. These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be dependant on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely. Grading and Foundation Plan Review No grading or foundation plans were available at the time of this report. It is therefore recommended that we be provided with copies of the preliminary plans, when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and assumptions contained within this report. 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below. Site Strippinq and Demolition Any existing improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development should be removed in their entirety. This should include all foundations, floor slabs, utilities, and any other subsurface improvements associated with the existing building. Any existing pavements that will remain in place for use with the new development should be protected from damage by construction traffic. Demolition debris should be disposed of offsite. If desired, asphalt and concrete debris may be crushed to a maximum 2-inch particle size, mixed with on- site soils, and incorporated into new structural fills. Any organic materials from demolished landscape planters should be removed and disposed of off-site, or in non-structural areas of the property. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of grading, based on the organic content and the stability of the encountered materials. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad It is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the proposed building area to remove the existing undocumented fill soils. Based on conditions encountered at the boring 1=2'SOUTHERN CALiFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G123-1R Page 15 locations, these fill soils extend to depths of 21/2 to 3* feet. These fill soils should be removed in their entirety. It is also recommended that the overexcavation extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade, and 3 feet below existing grade. Within the influence zones of the new foundations, the overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. The overexcavation should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter, and to an extent equal to the depth of new fill below the foundation bearing grade. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a building canopy or overhang) the overexcavation should also encompass these areas. The remedial grading activities within the proposed building area will require excavation near the east property line. Therefore, slot cutting techniques may be required in this area of the site, to remove the existing undocumented fill soils while providing adequate lateral support for the adjacent property. It is recommended that copies of the grading and foundation plans be provided to our office for review with regard to the need for specialized grading techniques in this area of the site. Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the building area should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling and probing to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low density native soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. Based on conditions encountered at the exploratory boring locations, some zones of moist to very moist soils will be encountered at or near the base of the recommended overexcavation. Stabilization of the exposed overexcavation subgrade soils is expected to be necessary. Scarification and air drying of these materials may be sufficient to obtain a stable subgrade. However, if highly unstable soils are identified, and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with drying, mechanical stabilization, usually consisting of coarse crushed stone or geotextile, could be necessary. In this event, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, and moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Proposed Concrete Flatwork Areas Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12+ inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. 1â€¢:F i . SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 16 Based on the presence of undocumented fill and variable strength alluvial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils. As noted previously, portions of the subject site are underlain by medium expansive soils. Support of new fiatwork on medium expansive soils carries additional risk with respect to flatwork movement and potential distress. This report provides recommendations for moisture conditioning and additional steel in the flatwork in order to minimize the potential effects of the expansive soils. However, if additional protection against cracking is desired, the client should consider the placement of a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of non-expansive soil beneath all flatwork. Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking Areas Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the existing fill soils in the new parking areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where lower strength, or unstable, soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. Subgrade preparation in the new parking areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 123: inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed parking and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within the proposed parking areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not completely mitigate the extent of existing undocumented fill soils in the parking areas. As such, settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill, as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Any existing undocumented fill soils should also be removed in their entirety. The foundation subgrade soils within the areas of any proposed non-retaining site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed foundation bearing grade. For both types of walls, the overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. t. _SOUT-HIRA G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 17 Fill Placement â€¢ Fill soils should be placed in thin (63: inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted. â€¢ On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. All fill should conform with the recommendations presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Some of the existing near-surface soils possess elevated moisture contents. Drying of these materials may be required prior to reuse as structural fill. â€¢ All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the 2013 CBC and the grading code of the City of Santa Ana. â€¢ All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. â€¢ Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place Oetting or flooding is not recommended). It is recommended that materials in excess of 3 inches in size not be used for utility trench backfill. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Santa Ana. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a lh: 1v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. l:.9/R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G 123-1R Page 18 6.4 Construction Considerations Excavation Considerations The near-surface soils at this site generally consist of sands and silts. These materials may be subject to caving within shallow excavations. Where caving occurs within shallow excavations, flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. Deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Maintaining adequate moisture content within the near-surface soils will improve excavation stability. Temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than 2h: lv. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Remedial grading for the proposed structure will require excavation immediately adjacent to the east property line. The contractor should take all necessary provisions to protect any improvements on the adjacent properties. If caving is encountered during remedial grading activities, slot cutting or shoring may be required. Typically, A-B-C slot cuts on 6 to 8-foot centers are suitable to maintain excavation stability. The geotechnical engineer should observe the conditions and determine the appropriate slot cutting procedures at the time of site grading. Moisture Sensitive Subarade Soils Some of the near-surface soils possess appreciable silt and clay content and will become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will be susceptible to erosion. Therefore, the site should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. As discussed in Section 6.3 of this report, unstable subgrade soils will likely be encountered at the base of the overexcavation within the proposed building area. The extent of unstable subgrade soils will to a large degree depend on methods used by the contractor to avoid adding additional moisture to these soils or disturbing soils which already possess high moisture contents. If grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather, an increase in subgrade instability should also be expected. If unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, it is recommended that only track mounted vehicles be used for fill placement and compaction. If the construction schedule dictates that site grading will occur during a period of wet weather, allowances should be made for costs and delays associated with drying the on-site soils or import of a less moisture sensitive fill material. Grading during wet or cool weather may also increase the depth of overexcavation in the pad areas as well as the need for and or the thickness of the crushed stone stabilization layer, discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. '-11 CALIFORNIA 1 GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G 123-1R Page 19 Expansive Soils The near-surface soils at this site are medium expansive. Therefore, care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum during site grading. All imported fill soils should have very low expansive characteristics. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils during grading, special care must be taken to maintain moisture content of these soils at 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum. This will require the contractor to frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process, unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather. Due to the presence of expansive soils at this site, provisions should be made to limit the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils immediately adjacent to the structures. These provisions should include directing surface runoff into rain gutters and area drains, reducing the extent of landscaped areas around the structure, and sloping the ground surface away from the building.Where possible, it is recommended that landscaped planters not be located immediately adjacent to the building. If landscaped planters around the buildings are necessary, it is recommended that drought tolerant plants or a drip irrigation system be utilized, to minimize the potential for deep moisture penetration around the structures. Presented below is a list of additional soil moisture control recommendations that should be considered by the owner, developer, and civil engineer: â€¢ Ponding and areas of low flow gradients in unpaved walkways, grass and planter areas should be avoided. In general, minimum drainage gradients of 2 percent should be maintained in unpaved areas. â€¢ Bare soil within five feet of proposed structures should be sloped at a minimum five percent gradient away from the structure (about three inches of fall in five feet), or the same area could be paved with a minimum surface gradient of one percent. Pavement is preferable. â€¢ Decorative gravel ground cover tends to provide a reservoir for surface water and may hide areas of ponding or poor drainage. Decorative gravel is, therefore, not recommended and should not be utilized for landscaping unless equipped with a subsurface drainage system designed by a licensed landscape architect. â€¢ Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and catch basins should be installed at appropriate locations within the area of proposed development. â€¢ Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct the free flow of surface water to the appropriate drainage devices. â€¢ Area drains should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the drain. Concrete or brick flatwork joints should be sealed with mortar or flexible mastic. â€¢ Gutter and downspout systems should be installed to capture all discharge from roof areas. Downspouts should discharge directly into a pipe or paved surface system to be conveyed offsite. â€¢ Enclosed planters adjoining, or in close proximity to proposed structures, should be sealed at the bottom and provided with subsurface collection systems and outlet pipes. â€¢ Depressed planters should be raised with soil to promote runoff (minimum drainage gradient two percent or five percent, see above), and/or equipped with area drains to eliminate ponding. â€¢ Drainage outfall locations should be selected to avoid erosion of slopes and/or properly armored to prevent erosion of graded surfaces. No drainage should be directed over or towards adjoining slopes. â€¢ All drainage devices should be maintained on a regular basis, including frequent observations during the rainy season to keep the drains free of leaves, soil and other debris. ' CALIFORNIASOUTHERN 1* GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA PrOJect No. 16G123-1R Page 20 â€¢ Landscape irrigation should conform to the recommendations of the landscape architect and should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or excessive drying of the foundation soils. This should entail regular watering during the drier portions of the year and little or no irrigation during the rainy season. Automatic sprinkler systems should, therefore, be switched to manual operation during the rainy season. Good irrigation practice typically requires frequent application of limited quantities of water that are sufficient to sustain plant growth, but do not excessively wet the soils. Ponding and/or run-off of irrigation water are indications of excessive watering. Other provisions, as determined by the landscape architect or civil engineer, may also be appropriate. Groundwater The static groundwater table at this site is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 22* feet. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact grading or foundation construction activities. 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be underlain by new structural fill soils used to replace the existing undocumented fill soils. These structural fill soils are expected to extend to depths of at least 2 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. Based on the presence of potentially liquefiable soils which could contribute 5 inches of total settlement, it is recommended that the building be supported on a specialized foundation system. The most feasible method of foundation support is considered to be a mat foundation. Mat Foundation Design Parameters The mat foundation may be designed using the following parameters: â€¢ Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 1,500 lbs/ftz. 40Â·iSOO â€¢ Modulus of subgrade reaction (kv,): 125 lbs/in3 â€¢ It is recommended that the mat foundation incorporate a perimeter turned-down edge embedded at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. â€¢ Minimum mat thickness: 10 inches. 4---* (9 <| â€¢ If moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used within the interior of the building, then the entire mat foundation should include a moisture vapor barrier below the entire area of the proposed slab. The moisture vapor barrier should meet or exceed the Class A rating as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96-95 and ASTM E 154-88. StegoÂ® Wrap Vapor Barrier, 15 mils in thickness, meets this specification. The moisture vapor barrier should be properly constructed in accordance with all applicable manufacturer 73:9:87> SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA -9 Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 21 specifications. Given that a rock free subgrade is anticipated and that a capillary break is not required, sand below the barrier is not required. The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. Additional rigidity may be necessary for structural considerations, or to resist the effects of the liquefaction-induced differential settlements discussed above. The actual design of the mat foundation, including the steel reinforcement, should be determined by the structural engineer. Spread Footing Foundation Design Parameters As discussed previously, it is recommended that that proposed building be supported on a mat foundation. Minor improvements such as retaining walls less than 3 feet in height and site walls may be supported on shallow foundations. New square and rectangular footings for these minor improvements may be designed as follows: â€¢ Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ff. â€¢ Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches. â€¢ Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom). â€¢ Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. â€¢ It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer. The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. ,> .SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G123-1R Page 22 The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post-construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively, under static conditions. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. These settlements are in addition to the liquefaction-induced settlements previously discussed in Section 6.1 of this report. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: â€¢ Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3 â€¢ Friction Coefficient: 0.30 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 3000 lbs/ff. 6.6 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new exterior slabs-on-grade for sidewalks, patios, and other concrete flatwork, should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Grading Recommendations section of this report.As noted previously, flatwork supported on the existing medium expansive soils will be subject to minor to moderate amounts of movement as the moisture content within the subgrade soils fluctuates. This movement may cause cracking or other distress within the flatwork. If additional protection against flatwork cracking is desired, consideration should be given to the placement of a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of very low expansive structural fill beneath all flatwork sections. Assuming that the flatwork is supported on the existing soils, exterior slabs on grade may be designed as follows: â€¢ Minimum slab thickness: 41/2 inches. â€¢ Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, in both directions. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G 123-1R Page 23 â€¢ The flatwork at building entry areas should be structurally connected to the perimeter foundation that is recommended to span across the door opening. This recommendation is designed to reduce the potential for differential movement at this joint. â€¢ Moisture condition the slab subgrade soils to at least 3 to 5 percent of optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 12 inches. Adequate moisture conditioning should be verified by the geotechnical engineer 24 hours prior to concrete placement. â€¢ Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. â€¢ Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Minor cracking of exterior concrete slabs on grade should be expected. â€¢ Where flatwork is immediately adjacent to landscape planters, a thickened edge should be utilized. This edge should extend to a depth of at least 12 inches and incorporate longitudinal reinforcement consisting of at least one No. 4 bar. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. 6.7 Trash Enclosure Design Parameters The site plan provided to our office indicates that the proposed development will include a trash enclosure. It is expected that the trash enclosure as well as the approach slab will be subjected to relatively heavy wheel loads, imposed by trash removal equipment. The subgrade soils in the area of the trash enclosure and the approach slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations for the parking areas, presented in Section 6.3 of this report. As such, it is expected that the trash enclosure will be underlain by structural fill soils, extending to a depth of 1 foot below proposed subgrade elevation. Based on geotechnical considerations, the following recommendations are provided for the design of the trash enclosure and the trash enclosure approach slab: â€¢ The trash enclosure may consist of a 6-inch thick concrete slab incorporating a perimeter footing or a turned down edge, extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below adjacent finished grade. If the trash enclosure will incorporate rigid walls such as masonry block or tilt-up concrete, the perimeter foundations should be designed in accordance with the recommendations previously presented in Section 6.5 of this report. â€¢ Reinforcement within the trash enclosure slab should consist of at least No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. 1 SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA PrOJect No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 24 â€¢ The trash enclosure approach slab should be constructed of Portland cement concrete, at least 6 inches in thickness. Reinforcement within the approach slab should consist of at least No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. â€¢ The trash enclosure and approach slab subgrades should be moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. The trash enclosure slab and the approach slab should be structurally connected, to reduce the potential for differential movement between the two slabs. â€¢ The actual design of the trash enclosure and the trash enclosure approach slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction Although not indicated on the site plan, some small (less than 3 to 4 feet in height) retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters assuming the use of on-site soils for retaining wall backfill. The on-site soils generally consist of silty sands and sandy silts. Based on their classification, these materials are expected to possess a friction angle of at least 28 degrees when compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. If desired, SCG could provide design parameters for an alternative select backfill material behind the retaining walls. The use of select backfill material could result in lower lateral earth pressures. In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the retaining wall upwards at an angle of approximately 60Â° from horizontal. If select backfill material behind the retaining wall is desired, SCG should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Soil Type On-site Silty Sands and Sandy Silts Internal Friction Angle (0)28Â° Unit Weight 120 lbs/fti Active Condition (level backfill)43 lbs/ft3 Equivalent Active Condition Fluid Pressure:(2h:lv backfill)76 lbs/ft3 At-Rest Condition (level backfill)64 lbs/ft3 > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 25 The walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 lbs/fti. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls. The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures In addition to the lateral earth pressures presented in the previous section, retaining walls which are more than 6 feet in height should be designed for a seismic lateral earth pressure, in accordance with the 2013 CBC. Based on the current site plan, it is not expected that any walls in excess of 6 feet in height will be required for this project. If any such walls are proposed, our office should be contacted for supplementary design recommendations. Retaining Wall Foundation Design The retaining wall foundations should be supported within newly placed compacted structural fill, extending to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material The near-surface soils encountered at the boring locations generally consist of silty fine sands and fine sandy silt:s. These materials may be used as retaining wall backfill. The deeper soils, which contain moderate to high clay content should not be used as retaining wall backfill. In addition, all backfill material placed within 3 feet of the back wall face should have a particle size no greater than 3 inches. The retaining wall backfill materials should be well graded. It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. In lieu of the 1 foot thick layer of free-draining material, a properly installed prefabricated drainage composite such as the Mira DRAIN 6000XL (or approved equivalent), which is specifically designed for use behind retaining walls, may be used. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1* GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G 123-1R Page 26 reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainaae As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: â€¢ A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center spacing. The weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel, surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location. â€¢ A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. 6.9 Pavement Desi(In Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subqrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on the existing fill and/or native soils that have been scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. These materials generally consist of silty sands and sandy silts. These materials are expected to exhibit fair to good pavement support characteristics, with estimated R-values of 30 to 40. Since R-value testing was not included in the scope of services for the current project, the subsequent pavement designs are based upon a conservatively assumed R-value of 30. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It may be desirable to perform r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA Project No. 16G 123-1R Page 27 R-value testing after the completion of rough grading to verify the R-value of the as-graded parking subgrade. Asphaltic Concrete Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, truck traffic must be excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI's) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 30) Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Lanes Light Truck Traffic (TI = 4.0)(TI = 5.0)(TI = 6.0) Asphalt Concrete 3 3 31/2 Aggregate Base 3 6 8 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within Portland cement concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Automobile Parking and Drive Truck Traffic Areas Areas (TI =6.0) PCC 5 5 V2 Compacted Subgrade (95% minimum compaction) 12 12 SoCalGeo 4 SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 28 The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. The actual joint spacing and reinforcing of the Portland cement concrete pavements should be determined by the structural engineer. > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA-/- CAMFONIA Project No. 16G 123-1R ' GEOTECHNICAL Page 29 SoC/!Geo 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The client(s)' reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement, incorporated into our proposal for this project. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples.While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. > SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' GEOTECHNICAL G&M Convenience Store # 72 - Santa Ana, CA ProJect No. 16G 123-1R Page 30 8.0 REFERENCES B\ake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthouake Sources, Vers\on 4.00, 2000. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117, 1997. National Research Council (NRC), "Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes," Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council, Washington D. C., Report No. CETS-EE-001, 1985. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential using field Performance Data," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273. Sadigh, K., Chang, C. -Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi. F., Youngs, R. R., "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data", Se\smo\oq\ca\ Research Letters, Seismological Society of America, Volume 68, Number 1, January/ February 1997, pp. 180-189. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California," Committee formed 1997. Tokimatsu K., and Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American society of Civil Engineers, Volume 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878. Tok\matsu, K. and Yosh\m\, Y., " Empirical Correlations of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT N-value and Fines Content,"Seismoloqical Research Letters, Eastern Section Seismological Society Of America, Volume 63, Number 1, p. 73. Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (Editors), "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6 1996, NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. SoCalgeo > SOUTHERN G&M Convenience Store #72 - Santa Ana, CA CALIFORNIA Project No. 16G 123-1R GEOTECHNICAL Page 31 f F F E--0 U f -z; W19â„¢51 -_1 - &MA /4 i q ilv,Â· i p*y t.0- 0 11 1'.,4 0 -- --- R ..w.â„¢si W - -t Z Ul4, g W t,nt ST Â· : .'W }.ls. 7 2 Â» ,9, 224, V -1.:Â®4 W 17 -T H ST E 17â„¢ S E 17TH ST m O- -*I-*.- Il-- 55$-*--I- -' .-.. -*. 800 , 6001000 W 17TH ST . Â§ 8 h JM r'.zip' :Il F iE '67,Â«ST 5â„¢sT i 2/16â„¢ST.1Â¥21.94.-19 I A f. D it - -- 442 ri #i. _ J MBLE-]w : I. : 2 E WI:lard is L, k OR g Â· IÂ· r.- a,6 4 *.,9 9 8 UÂ©nl 4, 51 P %; lk,E 3i ili,; - 11 ,r*4(.9,1Il ,-1_ _..pe,ii+TONZE 4.5 i' t' z i t, 4 Â·200 Â· Noo gao E V'.ASHI'lH.1.21* Â· '4 M p + 7-2 % = Z-Â«-m 1 0 L--1- - 800 G , m; *i libty *.#*4. 2. re P \I '100 E .IMST J +Gi :1 51 =i----_-_-q.-Y?ElE_-5 29@1: E' 0 F w.r 7298 f)*,5/*1 VANCE k f . i . I /1 1 L E -_.--3.93 _.d Â§, F m. 81 -A--,-1 3Â· STAFFoaogr ,/C % :uat'wy Pa' ': 2.2 .1 4% w,OTHS- 8 i t---E Z. - ' St. 8 EnlÂ£IE FRUIT ST . 17 1-42-4- 12 ' IW lonIST , ... LFEl.HIs'Â· i % .. 9 - '*i,n,.Â·Â·'A ., U& 6 :Ala: A :T 1 4/:6oes i 0! .2 w# 2 EDâ„¢ ST I Â·.*1 64; F- W CIVIC CENTER iDR Â§- 51 i.-2-.181- 0 -2.--= 1-(m.- Â·--,- i %%*f-31,4 44,.%4 79 4 ti j_.2.9.LOi ir'5â€¢lad,}Â·0-4..9-- 0 Â£ F-iÂ· 4,i .:-;Â· -31 24*36:INL]lj';1- 2;113(i _1>:.. 1, 1.0 1 e 0 viI-DIO . -. i 4 gil PARKCOUR- t.j : /6â„¢ST e _.._.i - -- w,-4 Â°lrt,Vaâ€¢m>-1 1 1.. 49 ' ./9THISTÂ· W 5THST 7T1--1 -15-.Q--E4*,ST.1, 1 2.RI r I: iz EdTHST.j.- 1e*01â‚¬rwES ' te: 9 W SANTA ANA BLVD Â· N A-:7 - Sass.,2 '0 *:i 2.Pafk *' WEN|. -2-5 1; & -li. E_38.1 _-- A. i 6+.El.-11-1- 2 , .1 Z --W9, W 1S1 ST 2 1 1500 4400: -0 L --314, _f-3 - '44'REf*'TE,%122 74/6M EWAL.tT.- -1-3 --- Â· . ..Eawl- 3WlSTST mi , Ell:SIL__----Â·-Â·--=â€¢ . 0 1 'ODO.. Ul,N Igi -426<- - - ti-â‚¬21{--- #_-----L_â€ž_fi._. i ag,. 3%19p1# _7 Ve I r .... Fund0manial I : 4 11-ity--2:-----,-r|-7 -7â‚¬ - ; ! wcHEAuÂ· Av. I"Wsl: 1g E CHESTNUT AV E CHESTNUT AV A|S.,= "" :21- C.-8 - 3-- -: 0 1 :-1 El.S 1 I 'MY.lul,EMI=/1. i:Ar MYRTLE . 63 Wi i i ; wake,ESIES,s of'ST P--+ 'Â·5 J :EEE,li#*jikrt 3?-'â€¢UE W QI Al' E : i W CANILE ST , ... i â€¢BfSHOPST I Â· 1 1' |RAYMAAE_-_-_.-__g_..f*448;T.- .____.4 4--- Â·-Â·-- - -0 *ct----2- i-w * 3 # t -Il -2.-- i]- 22 gl-NT. f-*44 f- t ;ip,9 -Â·. . 1 . 943 4.- -: -4 *i E; 3, 40.0. 0 ! 11 4, TOUNERST .-_ -_L -Rlip.=5 -fic__f__fÂ»l--%3 'r *LE-ST, E# , 1 'pl.M!?le Ftt;i I 4 2/ aki t-"12"'4' -3-431 J**I g.--2 1 1-,-f. 14 2 - p WWISTE':141044-1 1 8-lee,ST t- I WBROOKS- . ! wobseoris i ,1.6.*- - - -: --r: - - -- itI.C.BONST ' t 1 ! 'BEVERLY E- 1 Â£ Â· p<ORWâ€¢(DY X(299Â§Â·--4 0/Â¥,41Â§FEK+Pt 1;_6*92 .1- -1 -f--9- -[-2 - @ a MANDYPL. gi ' 64$*' frer 1 =i.*LF-Pl \R |Jefornspa/3--rig:!felfIL._.._a,-*,4 Es 0 1 /| ..PI."*adem, 1 (4, 2 w Mt.rADDEN AV .luii,ecAnnrw AU / 'TIVILL -; 5 1 4| E!-CLUM,L V 3 r! G; 01 Ir FADDEN AV > DE4 -laay ES ' u.ek i__556!12! ...i. 1 1 1, 0 1 ,1..11.-11%22_,2- .-14--leme -52- i i : 62* l: 5 46*g.Â§1 2 8 0 2: i EVE#,: 1 al 8, Ecsyfin 1 91 El Al M|Â«Â°1 i,ALECT Â§1 -f2f.**441.:| I Iâ€¢*Me- 1113" 4 11 I I W #MIAE M :L; 1 '1 ' Â· 11 WUEm I ' c L e.tRE AV O143__1 4 4--u-ml--5-Ek--8 i_.fr, -Te'Ly# -3?]Ii--7--oi -s 95 - â„¢ 24rmU_ 114_45&.- 1-1Mt 1 --1 1 7.4. j - %1 1Â£ El ! 1 1 1 i L --7+ AA - 1< 40 3u: 433(E-I @ ' -Et-ALâ„¢Â£__, iwit JVF_laaut La 1 E 80RD]tRD m 7 mt L?424 --21 1 1 : I IliE ali!! 1 1 1000 I U.F EDINGER AV1200: 1 0 1 1.1NbER AV :R # labo.| 5 11500 4409--4 - ,r 51 -1 A m,.,FORD,r h2----- 2y2:PATTai--- 1206 j 4400 -1500-i-5.-1. bz lIMÂ°MI â€¢sTAEO54 rÂ·M-4 li El it- .j i i tz i E PO,P-_3' Â»AST I 3 EPCONAST '5 1,- .HSUEL:â€ža-; 3 s- 1Â§7 - i--:-- - -- '1* 2 &5-EZEFâ€¢'E 1__WÂ· ,Â·.-Ir-"' 9 Â»-1-1 Ar---Â¥ 4'Rill" Eli'-fPfrlffEL;% Â·6 mi &21 :Purel- p. -1 1 1 , Evi. Eo(?90â‚¬Nâ„¢,STU EOCCIDiNTALST* 0 EJ il6;jIBERKE[EY St M 'WILAKELEYSÂ¥ s ' 5 IMEAc <' : -5!Em- ./ Â£4;G;DE@k '\3 ' _ _ESTa"FW" 1 ---L-1 -i_ i__.1-1-_ &33_28 wpL ,CARLTON PL 4 1: r ! i CARLT CAFILTONPL- % 1 -- i tz :-5 6 m '. 1 , 1GLENÂ®OD PL 1 1 E GLENA * . 4 t,wefEN---Â·li- ' I Ji: CAMDE CAMDEl. :.% . z 'I - : UJ. 3 W El R B 31 1 E ST 9511TRMFIPL I,4-_._..l.El -Tt i' f#i G.1PL --F F AOÂ¥ 99 -1 -lk/*.1:Â· I.' I'WSTO Chave: leg HS '1 i 1 5 1 ; 1 4 I NEW,MPLA ./1 ES* GEÂ¥Â¥ . PL'1''wsroamEA-414 -.,- E---I A.1044*Ell I feel" 1Â«-1. Â·lwooi,4- 21&' 1 1MNÂ·Mil'PL :-31 - L __ E ANKIÂ·,0..p,_ th Si E; -*D * th (Â® SE]DREST1 Â§1 g.led.j :355?.*4 4.4â€žES l : .8840 ; E t 3 i E 'B't72 1 - - ,<Â¢F' 1 'W WAWIJER A 01 wv;1I;&2*;1D 4 .Â£'44,.A . %#iE wAAIER Av tyi 0 :m=TFT -aill- E WAF FLORA ST - CE DeIN Pâ€ž0, ; FLORA I HST' SHSTâ€¢ Â£AÂ¥ .1./. 4 R .SANTIAG.Â¥NlOON!1 iD,v,s ESSINCH ST L. VS 4S â„¢ ST ST 1(ST .COAL LLS HSIÂ»3 W %// ST 91 li W ' SEiswoule LS.pSNOS :F NTOWNSEN LS 111â„¢ N AÂ¥ Ny #0 0,be 19 H91'99 S- 2/. IN TO'INSE W OAD ST WIND ST 4 1200 Z 1000 00 2001 3'-ST_: I 2NO ST Â·lor-10 Â· +El ST ST Z diAAELD Sl NSANTAFEST 9270+41 '0"Â¥0 1600 k#k i - ES 1 16831.N30.9 11 1 1 LOP,Id sT , 1 013 'IENDUcT --Els ;E M ' DDEN AVESSAV Z 92*0NNIE ST w'.1=t* 51 bliss IE 00..1 009' MITE-r EBE 3700 i 'f NG'GO Â· _ 5 CEN-EAST 2 6* ELTONST 16 83410 e EM,A]ODAV iâ‚¬ 000M1SV3S S STANDARD AV .*AVMÂ¥kLW 5 ONVWD S ST A.ICE ST PACIF AV I 1SBY404/ V MAGNOLI A iSW..S A. 000/390" . 6009" 0 91 est)WNEA ST 2 5! 7 2 w.....1 AV 0 -lfÂ·Â· 2 jr' A i.-- 1-, cORR.4 t- ! .WCE*M : 16 W -irrt-. 5. , E ADAMS 57 j INER AV S WRIGHT ST SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED G&M CONVENIENCE STORE #72 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA r, SOURCE- ORANGE COUNTY ,=k-SCALE: 1" = 2400' 7 THOMAS GUIDE, 2013 --icpf DRAWN- JL '.59â€žâ€ž,m" SOUTHERN CHKD: GKM i|*i' CALIFORNIASCG PROJECT T 16G123-1 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE 1 148742'45=W rÂ« -- Q. IDINGER AVENUE 0/ 0 Z 0 leDOS \ 0 U (C) 2 EXIST. DR:VEWAY APPROACH TO RE1[el\4 p Â° E)05[ HC RAMP id ll - (El MEE/ID AMP ug&-\.9 PROPOD'LANDSCAPE I , -1 CIERON SIGN To 7-----8-= Â¤ hHE) VE}IT 3!SERS 9 EWSTIN O 0 13 n 3.- ,'7 LANDSCM -,NR/WATER 7/ UNIT V /Â·I i LI On-4 - i h 0 E 372 0 DUSTIN(- ASPHALT 4 â„¢aion 0 C 4 -1 P Fe (r UNDERGROUND FUEl .Rl 3 - I - .=m.=LI 1 23 0 --,0-4--: 2 lo AVM3A hlfAM ni C \ 0 GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND 6 f E]@1[E] O CD@1[El 0 Â¤ O GJÂ®rwl Â¤ (9 11 ENSâ„¢G BULDING -APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION TO BE REMOVED / (985 4 ft) % 1C PROPOSED BUILDING / HYDRANT (E) CAIÂ·OPT STRUCTURE ANDFUEL PUWPS TO REVAN /---Â·- EXISTING BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED i,0 01 2 lag[33 0 CE]gl Â¤ f . f W Â·ME PiCOPOSED/. Â·' zA C f/ PABM >/ 11 1439.:.4, afl .Â·<ir:Â·55 J rADA PATH 0 11!1111111111 N f!111!. i & 2/2>29Â«22 9-- 3 : i , PR,F]NOUD LANDSCAPE . in# POSiQNC- BIKE RACK NOTE: BASE SITE MAP PREPARED BY TRAVIS COMPANIES INC. BORING LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED G&M CONVENIENCE STORE #72 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20' ;' DRAWN JL CHKD. GKM SCG PROJECT 16G123-1 PLATE 2 pv' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL NOC33'15'E J. DROADWAY Â© 14 (3 t,r 01 lw;:*,1 41 4---4 f f r==4316Â»F2--0 19 BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AUGER CORE SAMPLE COLLECrED FROM AUGER CUUINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL 5TRENGTH. (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICAUY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. GRAB SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) NSR 0 SPT SH VANE CAUFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, UNED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPUNG AlTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SFT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) VANE SHEAR TE5T: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICAUY USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: SAMPLE: BLOW COUNT: POCKET PEN.: GRAPHIC LOG: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: LIOUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PASSING #200 SIEVE: UNCONFINED SHEAR: Distance in feet below the ground surface. Sample Type as depicted above. Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer. Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page. Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ff. Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve. The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS CLEAN GRAVEL GRAVELS AND GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH SOILS MORE THAN 50%FINES OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER ...... f.lf' GW d'' b.6,5 bfbodeâ‚¬6-06 GP000000o-ObÂ°o-.Db )POÂ©130<: GM 000000 .Ac o.ho GC TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) 3%2 CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SILTS FINE AND GRAINED CLAYS SW SP SM SC ML illilll,lililll. MH CH WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MORE THAN 50%FINES MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES)MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO LIQUID LIMIT 'Illill'111'Illilt /./.MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS SOILS 0L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND 01 AY LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY 8=258: 3zB=tk:Zzkzsk .A-A.A.A.A.AA-A-/ 4,#...-'t-t ------ 0H ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS & 211Â£ 2.-fÂ£ 1-fÂ£ -PT 34 04 04 04 - il-1 - PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS 0$*0% SoCalGeo SQUT!iER_N BORING NO. CALIFORNIA E3-1 GEOTECHNICAL JOB NO.: 16G123 PROJECT: G&M #72 LOCATION: Santa Ana, California FIELD RESULTS DRILLING DATE: 3/9/16 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas WATER DEPTH: 22 feet CAVE DEPTH: 25 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS W 0 LLDEPTH (FE SAMPLE 103 MO18 d 133006 131HdVEID DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL 91 inches Asphaltic concrete, 1 inch Aggregate base ,Â· g . - FILL: Dark Gray Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, two M inch lenses of Light Brown fine Sand, loose-moist to very moist y D UJ GW OO 7E 0 16 Q' w LE- 0W Ze, 12g go mtZ m Z CU W 52 W* WW O 0-Ja-* 10 0 El=0@lt05' ALLUVIUM: Dark Gray fine Sandy Silt, trace calcareous nodules, loose-moist to very moist . 16 5- 9 4.5 Dark Gray Brown Silty Clay to Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, 17 slightly porous, trace to abundant calcareous nodules, trace roots, stiff to very stiff-moist to very moist 10- 6 4.5X 16 5 2.0 4111] 11"111 7 Gray Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace fine root fibers, trace Iron oxide, stiff to very stiff-moist 12 57 15-Brown Clayey fine Sand to fine Sandy Clay, medium dense to _ 9 49 medium stiff-damp Gray Brown fine Sandy Clay, Hydrocarbon odor, stiff-very moist 21 36 16 64 20 ' '10 2.5 - 95 20 Light Gray Silty fine Sand, loose-wei @ 22 feet, Water encountered during drilling 23 17 2.0 %229. Gray Brown Silly Clay, stiff-wet _ 28 78 " 9 20 90 32 89111111.. 'llilill' Gray Brown fine Sandy SIR to Silty fine Sand, trace Clay, loose-very moist to wet X8 24 52 30- - 'll//i,Gray Brown Silty Clay, little fine Sand, trace Iron oxide' '111|Ir.staining, soft-very moist to wet 5 3-0 599.27 81 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 a Tal 16G123 GPJ SOCALGEO GOT 3/22/16 9SoCalGeo S0UTHERN BORING NO. CALIFORNIA B-1 GEOTECHNICAL A (.,124'/r:ji,; 0Â·.im:I,i':i JOB NO.: 16G123 PROJECT: G&M #72 LOCATION: Santa Ana, California FIELD RESULTS DRILLING DATE: 3/9/16 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas WATER DEPTH: 22 feet CAVE DEPTH: 25 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS g*8 N e 32 0- E y --w LL 0ar J DESCRIPTION 05 LU--W Z 0 O Z a:o ovi mt zO 6 UJ R M - 0-E- 212 0 i= 30 8%MLL [22 5t 0t U)9 80 &Hy 00 05 5% W* 51 8 ma-- 0 (Continued)0 6 2520 33 0-1 EL & 20 0H 6 20 2 Gray Brown Silly Clay, little fine Sand, trace Iron oxide 93 27 40 17 staining, soft-very moist to wet 4 Hld 30 31dWVS V 9 20 93 .Â·_ Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, loose-very moist40 -- - 22 69 Gray Brown Silty Clay, trace Iron oxide staining, some fine Sand, stiff-very moist 7 2.5 24 85 '14'l'11 - 106 22 45 - - Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace to little Clay, abundant Iron oxide staining, loose-very moist 50 7 19 54 Boring Terminated at 50' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 b TBL 16G 123 GPJ SOCALGEO GOT 3/22/16 4 SoCalGeo SOUTHERN BORING NO. CALILORNIA B-2 GEOTECHNICAL A (4Â·"" iÂ·J'pÂ·i,11" JOB NO.: 16G123 PROJECT: G&M #72 LOCATION: Santa Ana, California FIELD RESULTS DRILLING DATE: 3/9/16 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Jason Hiskey WATER DEPTH: n/a CAVE DEPTH: 10 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS 9 z WDEPTH (FE 100 M018 d 13>IOOd O 32 0- 0 G Z -11]U- 2DESCRIPTION9 Wt-W ZU) 0 - wiz o Ma %5 zILUa. 0.0 4 W g H 5,- GB 0 25 &0 68 ga 5% W =0u SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL OE 50 u _, au a.* Du) 0 1.9% 81 inches Portland cement concrete, 1 inch Aggregate base FILL: Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace fine Gravel, - 102 15 El = 70 @ 1 to 5'loose-moist U 14 12 4.5+ Â£1 16 ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, some Clay, calcareous nodules, loose-moist to very moist 110 20 Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace Iron oxide staining, loose-moist 110 11 Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace roots, trace Iron oxide 105 15 staining, very stiff to hard-moist 116 13 Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace Iron oxide staining, loose-moist 113 10 15 O 4.5+ 5005 *Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay, medium stiff-clamp to moist . Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-2 TBL 16G123.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/28/16 /11 Ifti 0-4 f f 70 f Consolidation/Collapse Test Results -2 N 2 \Nater Added at 200 psf 4 - - \ 6 \ 8 \ E I I 10 Zi. 12 P= 14 *tÂ· k 490 16 18 ,.. L.,J 0. 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay Boring Number:B-2 Sample Number: --- Depth (ft)1 to 2 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 G&M #72 Santa Ana, California Project No. 16G 123 PLATE C- 1 Initial Moisture Content (%) 14 Final Moisture Content (%) 20 Initial Dry Density (pcf)102.1 Final Dry Density (pcf)115.1 Percent Collapse (%)-0.25 4=wp...w=* SOUTHERN ' CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL SoCalGeo -2 0 2 4 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results L Water Added \ at 200 psf -6 1 : . 8 10 12 14 0 1, '- . 7 18 . t:. 20 6, 4, .4,94 .,.0. *r â€ž 2 .... 4 : Â·4'6Â·,;.lt.,Â»Â»,i: .>,2:'c Â· 'Â©.9.Â· .Â·60 Â·: 2 7 ., *14'31*1,Â·. 032+ ..I.:6' 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Dark Brown Silly fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt Boring Number:B-2 Sam pie Number: --- Depth (ft)3 to 4 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 G&M #72 Santa Ana, California Project No. 16G123 PLATE C- 2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 20 Final Moisture Content (%) 20 Initial Dry Density (pcf)108.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)116.8 Percent Collapse (%)-0.61 'v--,2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL SoCalGeo Consolidation/Collapse Test Results -2 r./ 0 '.------4 .-I \ 4 Water Added \\. at 200 psf \ 31 6 0 - â‚¬,4 \ â‚¬ 6 '0 8 0 1 10 12 14 16 - Ae 18 2 42 20 ta,Ii 4 26*42:4'Â· 96Â· 2 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Brown Clayey fine Sand Boring Number:B-2 Sample Number: --- Depth (ft)5 to 6 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 G&M #72 Santa Ana, California Project No. 16G 123 PLATE C- 3 Initial Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Moisture Content (%) 18 Initial Dry Density (pcf)108.8 Final Dry Density (pcf)118.5 Percent Collapse (%)-0.31 CALIFORNIASOUTHERN - GEOTECHNICAL SoCalGeo Consolidation/Collapse Test Results -2 ,, 0.-1----0 - +4:2/, . 2 \it Water Added a at 200 psf 4 A 6 \ 0 + . Q U 5, 10 4 12 -' 14 *1... 10Â·. 16 *A .- -1 Â· Â· 6.Â· 18 . . i L . :7. 1 : .. 1 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay Boring Number:B-2 Sample Number: --- Depth (ft)7 to 8 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 G&M #72 Santa Ana, California Project No. 16G123 PLATE C- 4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 15 Final Moisture Content (%) 18 Initial Dry Density (pcf)105.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)114.8 Percent Collapse (%)-0.63 CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN GEOTECHNICAL SoCalGeo r 1 Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General â€¢ The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and applicable building codes. â€¢ The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. â€¢ The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. â€¢ The Earthwork Contrador is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site to process, moisture condition, mix and compad the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. â€¢ Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. â€¢ Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site Preparation â€¢ The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 â€¢ Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such strudures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. â€¢ Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. â€¢ Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compaded fill. â€¢ Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compaded â€¢ The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills â€¢ Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be very low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below. â€¢ All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfadion of the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ Rock fragments or rocks greater than 12 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. These materials should be placed in accordance with Plate D-8 of these Grading Guide Specifications and in accordance with the following recommendations: â€¢ Rocks 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below subgrade. Spaces should be left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil around the fragments. â€¢ Fill materials consisting of soil meeting the minimum moisture content requirement:s and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled and compacted to the specified density. â€¢ Subsequent rows of rocks should be placed such that they are not directly above a row placed in the previous lift of fill. A minimum 5-foot offset between rows is recommended. â€¢ To facilitate future trenching, oversized material should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities or other underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and the developer/owner representative. â€¢ Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. â€¢ Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. â€¢ Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effediveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. â€¢ Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earl:hwork Contrador should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. â€¢ Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as direded by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates D-2, D-4, and D-5. â€¢ CuUfill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate D-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fraduring and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. â€¢ Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. â€¢ Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 Foundations â€¢ The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the out:side edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. â€¢ Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conduded so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. â€¢ Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Sloges â€¢ The placement and compadion of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compading the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core â€¢ Slope compadion may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construdion, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compadion should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. â€¢ Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. â€¢ All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate D-5). â€¢ All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspedion and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. â€¢ The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate D- 2). Cut Slopes â€¢ All cut slopes should be inspeded by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. â€¢ Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. â€¢ All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate D-5. Grading Guide Specifications Page 5 â€¢ Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates D-6. Subdrains â€¢ Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate D-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. â€¢ Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. â€¢ Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 3/4-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. CUT LOT .COMPACTED FILL Â· --th- NATURAL GRADE UNSUITABLE- MATERIAL 5' MIN. 1 3' MIN L OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) -Lot / , / â‚¬2-0- , /5' MIN COMPACTED FILL Â·2 .. Â·':Â·-.UNSUITABLE Â·.0Â»- 2 A OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT 1 3' MIN.* DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER *SEE TEXT OF REPORT FOR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. ACTUAL DEPTH OF OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE GREATER. TRANSITION LOT DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWNÂ· JAS CHKD: GKM '111@W CALIFORNIAi SOUTHERN GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-1 V NEW COMPACTED FILL - COMPETENT MATERIAL - CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT NATURAL GRADE -7 L CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN / /-- ON GRADING PLAN - / .-REMOVE.UNSUITABLE N*f--7 4' TYP. 10'TYP./- 1 // . . 1 *92>y>YESÂ»2>2>22 CUT SLOPE ----20 - - .4 1 9' MIN./ 1 BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL L- KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE 4 DRAWN. JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-2 2->Z NATURALÂ·GROUND n COMPACTED FILL 6" MIN. - V N / CLEANOUT EXCAVATION - 41. ... 6 .t >%43*20 d 78941*729 j .4 - FIRM NATIVE SOIUBEDROCK 24 MIN. 18" MIN. 1 L 18" MIN. MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR CLASS 11 PERMEABLE MATERIAL 4" MIN. - 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN SCHEMATIC ONLY ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE) 8 NOT TO SCALE TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 100 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD GKM PLATE D-3 SoCalGeo V SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL FINISHED SLOPE FACE - NEW COMPACTED FILL -7 OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS PER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS COMPETENT MATERIAL 3 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN -ON GRADING PLAN //..t .% 7. Â· \Â·Â·U Â· PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT (1:1 MAX.)3/ PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL i.... I... 37- .i .:..i.1.--\.1. ....- TO ORIGINAL GRADE BACKCUT -VARIES n 3/ \ U.- h>/4' TYP. Â·,-' 10'TX.P..... 9\ fthU'TABLE MATERIAL .54 /1 m rw mi-w iw iwiwi 2' MINIMUM - . KEY DEPTH BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK . OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE ,/*SOUTHERN DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM VI:fIN CALIFORNIA GE0TECHN1CAL PLATE D-4 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED - BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER COMPACTED FILL 3 A FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE n \L 153% Â¥y 10' TYP. I 1 l BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE 1 WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 2' MINIMUM - KEY DEPTH . KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE 4 -.â€ž.,â€ž- SOUTHERNDRAWN: JAS CHKD: GIOA F'll#I/ CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-5 --- ...... DESIGN FINISH SLOPE n OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED - BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE 7 BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL 10' MIN-. 25:.MAX. ve b 15' MAX.1 . P'*7,77>) -DETAIL "A" 4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED L- OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. 2' CLEAR - "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 11/2"100 314"90-100 NO. 4 50 3/8"40-100 NO. 200 8 NO. 4 25-40 SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE - WITH TEE OR ELBOW 1 -FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. â€¢70000. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES -ON ALL JOINTS. DETAIL A - MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. SLOPE FILL SUBDRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE SOUTHERN DRAWN: JAS CHKD. GKM CALIFORNIA -- _GE*TgCHNICAL PLATE D-6 V MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF FREE DRAINING MATERIAL ' (LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE) OR PROPERLY INSTALLED PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE COMPOSITE ' (MiraDRAIN 6000 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT). a -FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF TWO CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES -ON ALL JOINTS. - MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON 8O1TOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. 4 4 "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 11/2"100 314"90-100 NO. 4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50 3/8"40-101 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE ..- SOUTHERNDRAWN. JAS CHKD: GKM dilm| _ _ CALIFORNI.81* GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-7 5 FEET MINIMUM OFFSETL -2 10 FEET M.INIMUM < 15 FEET MINIMUM - 3 FEET MINIMUM 15 FEET MINIMUM Typical Row of Oversize Rock Fragments Section View 02000000-- -00... 4-00004Â»-Â« Typical Row of Oversize .r Rock Fragments - 15 FEET MINIMUM Plan ViewFill Slope PLACEMENT OF OVERSIZED MATERIAL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE ,SOUTHERN DRAWN: PM CHKD: GKM 1=F CALIFORNIA PLATE D-8 GEOTECHNICAL f- a 1 4 ft- 4 . 1 0 1 4 1 9 l 1 1 1 9LL 1 L L 1 -- ---- USGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.72691Â°N, 117.8696Â°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III 84* . P . 4 1:14 Ailk - i. 3,-â€¢i Â·0.-ff-431:i.2-:7.----te;iowtow,rri T '314_i J orange ty 2-3,1%5&98Â¤Â£23Pill-,6.1 Garden.ove :j.,â‚¬49,6,-. . j .3 1- All .Mil "0 -j=--41 -San ta Ant 2*rustin.4 .1 ttÂ¥ E R, . C,Et a . M .-.,I'TE ']172*rl 29.tain Valley' sreeâ€¢KtmEN>,9. - I T . 1\ $ .il- Ii.-_ :,- =: . -9*e,1Â»-;COLZÂ·22&24&- *42-4 untiriatorBeac l ..:iliti.*- 1. 11 -2./ b.. i.k =Foon 4 lic f 2.74 USGS-Provided Output SS = 1.490 g SMS = 1.490 g St Sl = 0.550 g SM1 = 0.824 g SI For information on how the SS and Sl values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. 1 G5 - 1.50- MCER Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum 1.10- 1.00 - 1.35 0.,0- - 1.20 0.90 - 1.05 0.70 - 01 0.50 -01 0- Go 0.75 1 1 0.50 060- 045 -0.30 - 0.30 -0.20 - 0.15-0.10 - 0.00 lili Ill 1 1 1 0.00 It It I It 1 1 1 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.GO 1.80 2.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0,GO 0.20 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.00 Period, T (sec)Period, T (sec) SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PROPOSED G&M CONVENIENCE STORE #72 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SOURCE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) <http.//geohazards usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php> DRAWN: JL CHKD: GKM SCG PROJECT 16G123-1 PLATE E-1 V ,' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL ,s = 0.994 9 )1 -0.550 g Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 [4]PGA = 0.553 Equation (11.8-1):PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.553 = 0.553 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient F PGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA 5 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.4 0 PGA 2 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.553 g, FPGA = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Fiqure 22-17 Is]CRS = 1.008 From Figure 22-18 [6](Rt = 1.043 MCE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION PROPOSED G&M CONVENIENCE STORE #72 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY (USGS) 7 <http:#geohazards usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php> DRAWN: JL CHKD: GKM SCG PROJECT 16G123-1 PLATE E-2 ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEQTECHNJCAL U f f 2.2- E-Â«H 412 L --I LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION Project Name G&M Oil No. 72 Project Location Santa Ana, CA Project Number 16G 123 Engineer DWN MCEG Design Acceleration Design Magnitude Historic High Depth to Groundwater Depth to Groundwater at Time of Drilling Borehole Diameter 0.553 (g) 6.65 15 'ft) 22 (ft) 6 (in) Boring No.B-1 :C 11 if Â·.Â·- f u, f 6.2. (.;9:. 1 0; 9; f m r.< :.Â· O 1.0 r zo CIO 3- 26 e Ug -" -O 2: R a C 03* 06/ 9 g g. 6 gÂ· 8 K W : 4- f.Vai Q.2 3 30 -PO =-=R 2 0 Â¥ . â‚¬ 2- 0 2 ,. -JikÂ·...Comments -377 4= 66; AP '.':Â·.7â‚¬ .,?u.-Sdfy<4 Lo Â·Â· ..:Â£24Â·:+R LÂ·Â·K.FtÂ·Â·: D .-/. ./ -I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)(11)(12)(13) 0 15 7.5 120 1.3 1.05 1.1 1.70 0.75 0.0 0.0 900 900 900 0.98 1.03 1.04 0,06 0.07 N/A N/A Above Water Table 15 17 16 11 120 49 1.3 1.05 1.15 1.04 0.85 15.4 21.0 1920 1858 1920 0.94 1.17 1.02 0.22 0.26 0.35 0.74 Liquefiable 17 22 19.5 5 114 64 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.95 0.95 6.8 12.4 2325 2044 2325 0.92 1.08 1 0.14 0.15 0.38 N/A Non-Liq PI>18 22 24.5 23.3 7 120 17 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.89 0.95 8.8 12.7 2760 2245 2682 0.90 1.08 0.99 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.37 Liquefiable 24.5 25 24.8 7 119 78 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.88 0.95 8.7 14.3 2940 2331 2768 0.89 1.09 0.99 0.15 0,16 0.40 0.40 Liquefiable 25 27 26 7 119 89 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.86 0.95 8.6 14.2 3089 2402 2839 0.88 1.09 0.99 0.15 0,16 0.41 N/A Non-Liq PI>18 27 32 29.5 8 120 52 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.84 0.95 9.6 15.2 3508 2603 3040 0.86 1.10 0,98 0.16 0.17 0.42 0.41 Liquefiable 32 37 34.5 5 118 81 1.3 1,05 1.1 0.79 1 5,9 11.5 4103 2886 3323 0.83 1.07 0.97 0.13 0,13 0.42 N/A Non-Liq PI>18 37 39.5 38.3 9 120 93 1 3 1.05 1.11 0.78 1 10.7 16.2 4548 3097 3534 0.81 1.11 0.96 0.17 0.18 0.43 N/A Non-Liq PI>18 39.5 42 40.8 9 120 69 1.3 1.05 1.1 0.77 1 10.4 16.0 4848 3241 3678 0.79 1.11 0.95 0.16 0.17 0.42 0.41 Liquefiable 42 47 44.5 7 129 85 1.3 1,05 1.1 0,73 1 7.7 13.2 5320 3479 3916 0.77 1.08 0.95 0.14 015 0.42 N/A Non-Liq PI>18 47 50 48,5 7 125 54 2.3 1.05 1,14 0.74 1 14.3 19.9 5830 3740 4176 0.74 1.15 0,92 021 0.22 0.42 0.52 Liquefiable Energy Correction for Ngo of automatic hammer to standard N60 Borehole Diameter Correction (Skempton, 1986) Correction for split-spoon sampler with room for liners, but liners are absent, (Seed et al., 1984, 2001) Overburden Correction, Caluclated by Eq. 39 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) Rod Length Correction for Samples <10 m in depth N-value corrected for energy. borehole diameter. sampler with absent liners, rod length, and overburden N-value corrected for fines content per Eqs. 75 and 76 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) (8) Stress Reduction Coefficient calculated by Eq 22 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) (9) Magnitude Scaling Factor calculated by Eqns A8& A. 10 (Boulangerand Idriss, 2014) (10) Overburden Correction Factor calcuated by Eq. 54 (Boularger and Idriss, 2008) (11) Calcuated by Eq. 70(Boutangerand ldriss, 2008) (12) Calcuated by Eq. 72 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) (13) Calcuated by Eq. 25 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENTS Project Name G&M Oil No. 72 Project Location Santa Ana, CA Project Number 16G 123 Engineer DWN Boring No.B-1 r E 0 454 -4'0 9.4.-Â·#f,+.iz 2- 2 2 < r 6 *+7 79,3% 2 2 0 2 i 528< 2 F P mtÂ· 02s < . ..1-743 @. 2 2 @2m m (D , J 3 5 E R %E ..3 Commentsk 3 0 U 13) W g r (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 0 15 7.5 0.0 040 0.0 N/A 0.50 0.95 0.00 15.00 0.000 0.00 Above Water Table 15 17 16 15.4 5.6 21,0 0.74 0.14 0.47 0.08 2.00 0.022 0.53 Liquefiable 17 22 19.5 6.8 5.6 124 N/A 0.36 0.85 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00 Non-Liq PI>18 22 24.5 23.3 8.8 3.9 12.7 0.37 0.35 0,84 0.35 2.50 0.032 0.97 Liquefiable 24.5 25 24,8 8.7 5.6 143 0.40 0.30 0.78 0.30 0.50 0.030 0.18 Liquefiable 25 27 26 8.6 5.5 14.2 N/A 0.30 0.79 0.00 2.00 0,000 0.00 Non-Liq: PI>18 27 32 295 9.6 5.6 15.2 0.41 0.27 0.75 0.27 5-00 0.028 1.71 Liquefiable 32 37 34.5 5+9 5,5 11.5 N/A 0.40 0.88 0.00 5.00 0,000 0.00 Non-Liq: PI>18 37 39.5 38,3 10.7 5.5 16.2 N/A 0.24 0.70 0.00 2.50 0.000 0.00 Non-Liq: PI>18 39.5 42 40.8 10.4 5.6 16.0 0.41 0.25 0.71 0.25 2.50 0.027 0.82 Liquefiable 42 47 44.5 7,7 5.5 13.2 N/A 0.33 0.82 0.00 5.00 0.000 0,00 Non-Liq: PI>18 47 50 485 14.3 5.6 19.9 0.52 0.16 0.52 0.16 3.00 0.023 0.83 Liquefiable Total Deformation (in)5.04 (N1 )6c calculated previously for the individual layer Correction for fines content per Equation 76 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) Corrected (Nl)60 for fines content Factcr of Safety against Liquefaction, calculated previously for the individual layer Calcuated by Eq. 86 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) Calcuated by Eq. 89 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) Calcuated by Eqs. 90, 91, and 92 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) Voumetric Strain Induced in a Liquefiable Layer, Calcuated by Eq. 96 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2008) (Strain N/A if Factor of Safety against Liquefaction > 1.3)