The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1041 S Dennis St - Soils ReportGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED ACGESSORY DWELLING UNIT 1041 SOUTH DENNIS STREET Santa Ana, California Prepared for: DONG ENGINEERING, INC. Prepared by: GEOBODEN INC. lrvine, CA 92620 December 21 ,2020 Project No. Dennis-1-01 GEOBODEN INC. ( l>"n (> t0 {> *= {, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 1041 SOUTH DENNIS STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA DONG ENGINEERING, INC. Prepared by: GEOBODEN INC. 5 Hodgenville lrvine, California 92620 December 21, 2020 J.N. Dennis-1-01 Jli-.GEOBODEN, INC.'-Bf%-;;;i" " r c o n ", rt" n t" December 2l . 2020 Attention: Dong Engineering. lnc. Project No. Dennis- I-01 Su bject:Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit l04l South Dennis Street Santa Ana, California GeoBoden, Inc. (GeoBoden) is pleased to submit herewith our geotechnical investigation report for the Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located at l04l South Dennis Street in the city of Santa Ana. California. This report presents the results ofour field investigation, laboratory testing and our engineering judgment, opinions. conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects ofthe proposed site improvements. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report. or should you require additional information. please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted. GEOBODEN, INC. /) t\ Shahrokh (Cyrus) E Radvar, Principal Engineer. G.E. 27 42 Copies: 4/Addressee l,t I OF e(f & i: Es D 5 Hodgenville I lrvine. CA 92620 | off 949-872-9565 | Fax 949-743-2935 a, a)2742 1.0 2.0 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED ACCESSORY DIIYELL ING UNIT 1011 South Dennis Streef SA'VIA AIVA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTICATION FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM.3.1 3.2 2 2 2 2 3 LABORAToRY TESTING . DISCTISSION OF FINDINGS 4.1 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. GROUND\\ ATER CONDITIONS.,, SOIL ENGTNEERTNG PROPERTIES,,.,,,,,. 5.0 STRONCGROI.'NDMOTION POTENTIAL......... 5,I CBCDESICNPARANIETTRS,.,,,.,,.,,... ,1.0 6.0 I,IQ[IEFACTIONPOTENTIAI, 7.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATtONS...................... 3 4 5 ?.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.'t 7 7 7 7.8 7.9 EARTHWORK SITE AND FOUNDATION PREPARATION.............,..,...,..,,.. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS,,., POST-GRADING CONSIDERATIONS UTILITY TRENCH BACK FI L.,.,.,,.,, SHALLOW FOIJNDATIONS .,,..,,.,...,,.,, 7l Beoing (:apacily and Selllemenl..'.2 Lateral l"otd Resislance ..'-J Footing Reinlorcement CONCRE]T SLAE ON-GRADE ,... SOLUBLE SULFATES AND SOIL CORROSIVIry......,..,.,.,,, ..5 ..6 ',6 ..7 ..'t ..7 -,9 9 .9 t0 8.0 coNSTRUCTION CONStDERATlONS.,............... 8. I TEMPORARY DEWATERING.,..,,..,...,. 8,2 CONSTRUCTION SLOPES 8.3 POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES ......... .. .............. l2 t2 l2 (.I,OSTIRE t29.0 10.0 Figure I Figure 2 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Site Vicinity Map Boring Location Map Boring Logs Laboratory Testing Liquefaction Analysis I'I(;TIRES APPENDIXES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT I04I SOUTH DENNIS STREET Santa Ana, California I.O INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical study performed by GeoBoden, Inc. (GeoBoden) for the Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit on the subject site. The general location of the project is shown on Figure l. "Site Vicinity Map". The purposes of this study were to determine the geotechnical properties of subsurface soil conditions, to evaluate their in-place characteristics, evaluate site seismicity, and to provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to design and construction of the proposed improvements. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at l04l South Dennis Street in Santa Ana, California. The site is occupied by existing residential building. A new ADU Building is proposed for construction. The new building will be of wood-frame construction. No basement is planned for the new construction. 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Our geotechnical investigation included a field exploration program and a laboratory testing programs. These programs were performed in accordance with our scope of services. The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are described below. Denn is- l -01 The scope of the authorized investigation included performing a site reconnaissance, conducting field exploration and laboratory testing programs. performing engineering analyses. and preparing this Geotechnical Investigation Report. Evaluation of environmental issues or the potential presence of hazardous materials was not within the scope of services provided. .].I FIEI,D EXPLORATION PRO(;RAM The field exploration program involved drilling of one hollow-stem auger boring to depth of 51.5 feet below existing ground surface. Soil materials encountered were visually classified and logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The approximate location ofthe boring is shown on Figure 2. Log ol subsurface conditions encountered in the boring was prepared in the field by an engineer. Soil samples consisting of relatively undisturbed brass ring samples and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) samples were collected at 5-loot depth intervals and were returned to the laboratory for testing. One bulk sample was collected at depths of I to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The SPTs were performed at selected depth in accordance with ASTM D-1586. Final boring log was prepared from the field log and is presented in Appendix A. 3,2 LABORATORY TESTING 4.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The following discussion of findings for the site is based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory [esting programs. {.I SITT, AND ST]BSURFACE CONI)ITIoNS Fill material was encountered within our exploratory boring to depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Fill materials consisted of silty sand and sand. Fill soil was found to be medium dense. Native materials were observed beneath the fill uithin our exploratory boring. These materials were observed to be of sandy clay, clay and silty sand. Clayey soils were found firm and stifC Sandy soils were found medium dense. For more detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. 2# Selected samples collected during drilling activities were tested in the laboratory to assist in evaluating controlling engineering properties of subsurface materials at the site. Physical tests performed included moisture and density determination, direct shear, No. 200 Wash. Atterberg limits. and corrosion. The results ofthe laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. Dennis- l -01 1,2 GROIINDWATERCONDITIONS Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture content should be anticipated during and tbllowing the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of soil moisture content and local groundwater levels. 4.3 SOIL EN(;INEERINC PROPERTIES Physical tests were performed on the relatively undisturbed samples to characterize the engineering properties ofthe native soils. Moisture content and dry unit weight determinations were performed on the samples to evaluate the in-situ unit weights of the different materials. Moisture content and dry unit weight results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. 5.0 STRONG GROUND MOTION POTENTIAL The project site is located in a seismically active area typical of Southem California and likely to be subjected to a strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. 5,I CBC DESIGN PARAMETERS The project site is located in a seismically active area typical of Southem Califomia and likely to be subjected to a strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. To accommodate effects of ground shaking produced by regional seismic events, seismic design can, at the discretion of the designing Structural Engineer. be performed in accordance with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC). Table below, 2019 CBC Seismic Parameters, lists (next) seismic design parameters based on the 201 9 CBC methodology, which is based on ASCE/SEI 7- I 6: Dennis- l -0'l Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory boring B-l at an approximate depth of l0 feet bgs. Based on information from the Califomia Geological Survey (Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1997). the historic high ground water level in the site vicinity is at a depth of approximately 5 feet beneath the existing ground surface. 3 Site I-atitude (decimal degrccs)33.7329 Site Longitude (decimal degrees)-t 17.92t3 Site Class De finition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, S, 0..171Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at I s Period, Sr Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period. n t.2 Long Period Site Coeflcient at I s Period. [,1.819 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, S,ys 1.583 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at ls Period. Sll 0.86 t Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period,.Sos 1.055 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at ls Period, &y 0.571 2019 CBC Seismic l)esign Parameters For liquefaction to occur. all of three key ingredients are required: liquefaction-susceptible soils, groundwater within a depth of 50 feet or less. and strong earthquake shaking. Soils susceptible to liquefaction are generally saturated loose to medium dense sands and non-plastic silt deposits below the water table. According to the State of Califomia Seismic Hazard Zones Map (COMG, 1997), the site is located within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction. A historic high groundwater 5 feet was adopted in liquefaction analysis. To evaluate the site-specific liquefaction potential. we computed the geometric mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the ground motion with a Z%o probability of being exceeded in 50 years (Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.6779) from USGS website for MCEp. We used USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregations website tool. This tool is a website developed by USGS to calculate probabilistic response spectra with different hazard levels for spectral periods of up to 5 seconds at any location with a given average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters (Vs30). Based on the available documentation on the website, the attenuation relationships used in development of the response spectra in the Westem United States are the three Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships of Boore and Atkinson (2007). Campbell and 4!F":::Dennis-l -01 Value 1.3t9 6.0 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Bozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008). The results of the probabilistic seismrc hazard analysis indicate the modal seismic event is Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.52. The SPT consists ofdriving a standard sampler, as described in the ASTM 1586 Standard Method, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. An Automatic Trip Hammer was used to drive samplers l8 inches into the soil. For the measured 76 percent hammer efficiency of an automatic hammer, the energy ratio 1.27 was used in our liquefaction evaluation. We have used the borehole diameter correction factor (CB) 1.0 in our liquefaction evaluation. For liquefaction of clayey soils, the screening criteria of Bray and Sancio (2006) were used to determine if fine-grained soils within boring B-l is susceptible to liquefaction. To determine if soils are susceptible to liquefaction. the Plasticity Index (PI) and in-situ moisture content were determined. For screening analysis purposes, all soil samples above and below the groundwater table were soaked and saturated, and then tested for moisture content. For PI greater than l2 and moisture content less than 85 percent of liquid limit. clayey soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. For sandy layers. we used methods proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) for liquefaction analysis. Based on our analysis and under the current site conditions. we estimate that the maximum total liquefaction-induced ground settlements at the site would of about L22 inches during the postulated earthquake. Differential settlements of approximately 0.81 inch or less could occur over a span of 40 feet. The computer outputs are included in Appendix C for reference. It is our opinion that potential for liquefaction at the site is low and will not adversely impact the proposed construction. 7.0 DESIGNRECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of our investigation. the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction. If changes in the design of the structure are made or variations or changed conditions are encountered during construction, GeoBoden should be contacted to evaluate their effects on these recommendations. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit are based on observations from the field investigation program and the physical test results. 7.1 EARTHWORK All earthworks. including excavation. backfill and preparation of subgrade, should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report and 5 Dennis- l -0 1 applicable portions ofthe grading code of local regulatory agencies. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing ofa qualilied geotechnical engineer. 7.2 SITE AND FOUNDATION PRFJPARATION All site preparation should be observed by experienced personnel reporting to the project Geotechnical Engineer. Our field monitoring services are an essential continuation ofour prior studies to confirm and correlate the findings and our prior recommendations with the actual subsuri'ace conditions exposed during construction, and to confirm that suitable fill soils are placed and properly compacted. The site fill material is considered undocumented and may not be suitable for suppon of the new footings. We recommend that the upper 3 feet of existing soils be removed and recompacted. If loose, disturbed, or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the bottom of excavation. removal of unsuitable soils will be required until firm soils are encountered. The compacted fill soils should be extended horizontal by about 5 feet of building footprints. Excavations below the final grade level should be properly backfilled using lean concrete or approved fill material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. The backfill and any additional fill should be placed in loose lifts less than 8 inches thick. moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content. and compacted to 90 percent. Fill materials should be tiee ofconstruction debris, roots, organic matter, rubble, contaminated soils, and any other unsuitable or deleterious material as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. The on-site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided the soil is free of any deleterious substance. All import fill material should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing to the site for use as compacted fill. Excavation activities should not disturb adjacent structures or undermine any adjacent footings. Existing utilities should be removed and adequately capped at the project boundary line. or salvaged./rerouted as desi gned. 7.3 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS Material for engineered fill should be select liee of organic material. debris. and other deleterious substances, and should not contain liagments greater than 3 inches in maximum 6-*:Dennis- l -01 dimension. On-site excavated soils that meet these requirements may be used to backfill the excavated area. All fill should be placed in 6-inch+hick maximum lifts, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions. and then compacted in place to a maximum relative compaction of 90 percent. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content lor each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTMD 1557. A representative of the project consultant should be present on-site during grading operations to verifo proper placement and compaction of all fill, as well as to verify compliance with the other geotechnical recommendations presented herein. Imported soils, if any, should consist of clean materials exhibiting a VERY LOW expansion potential (Expansion lndex less than 20). Soils to be imported should be approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to importation. 7.1 CEOTECHNICALOBSER\'ATIONS Exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill. No fill should be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. The project geotechnical consultant should be present on site during grading operations to verify proper placement and compaction of fill, as well as to verify compliance with the recommendations presented herein. 7.5 POST-GRADIN(;(]ONSIDERATIONS Positive drainage devices such as concrete flatwork. graded swales, and area drains should be provided around the new construction to collect and direct all water to a suitable discharge area. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations. 7.6 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFIL All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Trench backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than approximately 6 inches in thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture 7 Dennis- l -01 conditions. and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should probe and test the backfills to verify adequate compaction. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe or utility lines may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment. such as under building floor slabs, imported clean sand exhibiting a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand backfill materials should be watered to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then tamped into place. No specific relative compaction will be required: however. observation. probing, and if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a represenlative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify an adequate degree of compaction and that the backfill will not be subject to settlement. Where utility trenches enter the footprint of the buildings. they should be backfilled through their entire depths with on-site fill materials. sand-cement slurry. or concrete rather than with any sand or gravel shading. This "Plug" of less- or non-permeable materials will mitigate the potential for water to migrate through the backfilled trenches from outside of the buildings to the areas beneath the foundations and floor slabs. 8-ft:--Dennis- l -01 7.7 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Following the site and foundation preparation recommended above. foundation for load bearing walls and interior columns may be designed as discussed below. 7 .7.1 Bearing Capaci(v and Settlement Load bearing walls and interior columns may be supponed on continuous spread footings and isolated spread footings. respectively. and should bear entirely upon properly engineered fill or competent native soils. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of l4 inches and 24 inches. respectively. All footings should be embedded a minimum depth of 24 inches measured liom the lowest adjacent finish grade. Continuous and isolated footings placed on such materials may be designed using an allowable (net) bearing capacity of 2,000 and 2000 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. Allowable increases of 250 psf tbr each additional I foot in width and 250 psf for each additional 6 inches in depth may be utilized, if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3,000 psf. The maximum bearing value applies to combined dead and sustained live loads. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering transient live loads. including seismic and wind forces. Based on the allowable bearing value recommended above, total settlement of the shallow footings are anticipated to be less than one inch. provided foundation preparations conform to the recommendations described in this report. Differential settlement is anticipated to be approximately halfthe total settlement for similarly loaded footings spaced up to approximately 30 feet apart. 7.7.2 Lateral Load Rcsistance Dennis- l -01 Lateral load resistance for the spread footings will be developed b1- passive soil pressure against sides of footings below grade and by friction acting at the base of the concrete footings bearing on compacted fill. An allowable passive pressure of 250 psfper foot ofdepth may be used for design purposes. An allowable coefficient of friction 0.35 may be used for dead and sustained live load forces to compute the frictional resistance of the footings constructed directly on compacted fill. Safety factors of 2.0 and 1.5 have been incorporated in development of allowable passive and frictional resistance values, respectively. lJnder seismic and wind loading conditions, the passive pressure and frictional resislance may be increased by one-third. I 7 .7 .3 Footing Reinforcement Reinforcement for footings should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading conditions. Footings for lightly loaded wood-frame structures that are supported in low expansive soils should have No. 4 bars. two top and two bottom. 7,8 CONCRETE, SLAB ON.GRADE Concrete slabs will be placed on undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill as outlined in Section 7.2. Moisture content of subgrade soils should be maintained near optimum moisture content. At the time ofthe concrete pour. subgrade soils should be firm and relatively unyielding. Any disturbed soils should be excavated and then replaced and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Slabs should be designed to accommodate low expansive fill soils. The structural engineer should determine the minimum slab thickness and reinlorcing depending upon the expansive soil condition intended use. Slabs placed on low expansive soils should be at least 4 inches thick and have minimum reinforcement of No. 3 bars placed at mid- height of the slabs and spaced l8 inches on centers. in both directions. The structural engineer may require thicker slabs with more reinforcement depending on the anticipated slab loading conditions. lf moisture-sensitive floor covering is planned, a layer of open-graded gravel. at least 4 inches thick, should be placed below the concrete slab to form a capillary break. Altemately, moisture-proof membrane (such as l0-mil) may be utilized. The vapor barrier should be placed between sand layers (2 inches above and below) to protect the membrane from damage during construction. Gravel for use under a concrete floor slab should be clean. crushed rock that meets the gradation requirements presented below. Sieve Size Percentage linch I (X) % inch No. -l r0 0-t0 Dennis'l -01 90- I 00 7,9 SOLI.IBLE ST]LFATES AND SOIL CORROSIVITY Minimum resistivity test on one near surface bulk sample from the site indicated that on-site soils are slightly corrosive when in contact with ferrous materials. The preliminary chemical test results are included in Appendix B. Typical recommendations for mitigation of the corrosive potential ofthe soil in contact with building materials are the follo\\'ing: Below grade ferrous metals should be given a high quality protective coating. such as an l8 mil plastic tape. extruded polyethylene. coal tar enamel, or Portland cement mortar. Below grade ferrous metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above grade ferrous metals and other dissimilar metals, by means of dielectric fittings in utilities and exposed metal structures breaking grade. Steel and wire reinforcement within concrete in contact with the site soils should have at least two inches of concrete cover. It is also rscommended that additional sampling and analysis be conducted during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment ofsoil corrosivity. CeoBoden does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, we recommend that on-site soils be tested and analyzed near or at the completion of precise grading by a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general corrosion potential of the on-site soils and any impact on the proposed construction. Corrosion test results also indicate that the surficial soils at the site have negligible sulfate attack potential on concrete. No special sulfate-resistant cement will be necessary for concrete placed in contact with the on-site soils. 8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Based on our field exploration program. earthwork can be performed with conventional construction equipment. ll Dennis- I -0'l II.I TE,MPORARY DEWATERING Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory boring at l0 feet below the existing grade. Based on the anticipated excavation depths. it is unlikely that dewatering will be required during construction. II.2 (]ONSTRTICTION SLOPES The temporary excavation side walls may be cut vertically to a maximum height of 3 feet. Surcharge loads should be kept away from the top of'temporary excavations a horizontal distance equal to at least one-half the depth of excavation. Surface drainage should be controlled along the top of temporary excavations 1o preclude wetting of the soils and erosion of the excavation faces. 8.3 POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES Final project plans and specifications should be reviewed prior to construction to confirm that the full intent of the recommendations presented herein have been applied to design and construction. Following review of plans and specifications. observation should be performed by the geotechnical engineer during construction to document that lbundation elements are founded on/or penetrate onto the recommended soils. and that suitable backfill soils are placed upon competent materials and properly compacted at the recommended moisture content. 9.0 CLOSURE The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented herein are: (l) based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the limited data obtained from our field and laboratory programs; (2) based upon an interpolation of soil conditions between and beyond the borings; (3) are subject to confirmation of the actual conditions encountered during construction; and. (4) are based upon the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be provided during construction. If parties other than GeoBoden are engaged to provide construction geotechnical services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase ofthe project by concurring with the findings and recommendations in this report or providing altemate recommendations. r2 Dennis- l -01-ft:--.--,:-.,--- .--.- If pertinent changes are made in the project plans or conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report. please contact this office. Significant variations may necessitate a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report. tl Dennis-'l-01 IO.O REFERENCES Califomia Building Code, 2019 Volume 2 Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Ceology. 1997. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Santa Ana and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Orange County. Califomia, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03. NCEER-97-0022., T.Leslie Y oud, lzzat M. Idriss. 1997. "Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils". Technical NCEER-97-0022. NCEER Report National Research Council (NRC). 1985., "Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes". National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder. [..F., and Chung. R.M., 1985, "The lnfluence of SPT procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. "Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol. I I I. No. I I l, No. 12. P.1425-1445. Seed. H.8., and Idriss. I.M.. 1982. "Ground Motion and Liquefaction During Earthquakes." Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. 1987. "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking. "Joumal ofGeotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol. ll3. No. 8. pp.86l-878. l4 Dennis- l -01 FIGURES @ o.Lori. ToDa U 5L 7.0 Dta. (r srFl b k.i-. ethtorr Dltorr!1po tEm 70 * Vlr|lra.E ml GEOBODEN INC SITE VICINITY MAP Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit 1041 South Dennis Street Santa Ana, California Figure By S.R. Project No Dennis Map No xx Date 't2-21-20 0%|l+tt1% Da 7(lar 12 l E E E f I I u II -I Figure No. 1 It =I lu-\r.. o fr-\!.i 3 b ':i1 I I I I I I a , I E i I t.ll rl Er !r e { a i !., s z EEE I,,l \r\ i I , kc i !i â‚¬ ,,./, .I I )/ nolsJSfurs s/Nt/30 ? ) ! 2 ).. flu v: !Y .l.crsp.o I $or o I I !I I !, l! !! ii , I Jii,i t i $ I.lii i'ii I t i I I II r$t, ,rirll ! I I I Ia I irlt Ili liiI I I II t Jt 5 t .t E i a i f IJJF Eg\dV9o-gr o- lt<oozzo<trt<UJOoo =Jlz ao + oz IJJo IJJJ I I (o ,ri!r|;;l za 5E o- zEN I c! Etr e(, zl E{N .=E >)< q)iDJ.L O .n =H?EE.EEci Eo;^(,-)::8=& 9338 E EE3oX- etr (Jz1Hlzitti Ii{ siI! ilil <<ta<l llil -----Ttr.- /Iv-ll lr k a APPENDIX A BORING LOGS APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM PROPOSED ACCESSORY DYYELL ING UNIT 1041 South Denn s St/eet SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Prior to drilling, the proposed boring was located in the field by measuring from existing site features. A total of one exploratory boring (B-l) was drilled using a hollow-stem auger drill rig equipped with 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) augers. GeoBoden. Inc. performed the drilling. The boring location is shown on Figure 2. Depth-discrete soil samples were collected at selected intervals from the exploratory boring using a 2 % -inch inside diameter (1.D.) modified Califomia Split-barrel sampler fitted with l2 brass ring of 2 % inches in O.D. and I -inch in height and one brass liner (2 '/, -inch O.D. by 6 inches long) above the brass rings. The sampler was lowered to the bottom ofthe borehole and driven l8 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number ofl blows required to drive the sampler the lower l2 inches is shown on the blow count column of the boring log. After removing the sampler liom the borehole. the sampler was opened and the brass rings and liner containing the soil were removed and observed for soil classification. Brass rings containing the soil were sealed in plastic canisters to preserve the natural moisture content of the soil. Soil samples collected from exploratory boring were labeled and submitted to the laboratory for physical testing. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were also performed at altemative depths in Boring. The SPT consists ofdriving a standard sampler. as described in the ASTM 1586 Standard Method, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Ihe number of blows required to drive the SPT sampler the lower l2 inches of the sampling interval is recorded on the blow count column of the boring logs. A-l The soil classifications and descriptions on field log were performed using the tJnified Soil Classification System as described by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 2488-90, "Standard Practice l'or Description and ldentification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)." The final boring log was prepared from the field log and is presented in this Appendix. At the completion of the sampling and logging. the exploratory boring was backfilled with the drilled cuttings. A-2 q 9aj 1 B 3 9 q o I o GEOBODEN,INC.BORING NUMBER B-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 CLIENT Dono Enoineerino. lnc.PROJECT NAME Proposed Residenlral Burldinq (ADU) PROJECT NUMBER Dennrs-1-01 OATE STARTEO 12l15/20 cotttPLETEO 12115/20 GROUNO ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 8 lnches DRILLING CONTRACTOR GeoBoden. lnc' DRILLING ilETHOD LLoIIQ!, Slem Auqer GROUNO WATER LEVELS: V lr nue or omluNc 1o.oo ff LOGGED BY C.R CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING _. NOTES AFTER DRILLING _- Iira o 0 II.^ s:o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I]Jd Ltr UJE >z s ga ;o 5* LllE z L]Jt! u! oot! I zt)l9 g.o uS ar .-l= '6 PJOz>oO ATTERBERG LII\,IITS FzL!FzoQ' IIJztr Qr.:)=o< (-) FLg= o- - (Jxto 3=II SILTY SAND (SM): olive gray, moist, fne sand IFILL] SAND (SP): light yellowish brown, moist, fine lo medium sand INATIVE] v SANDY CLAY (CL): dark olive gray, moist, -30% fne sand, -7006 lines CLAY (CL): light olive browr, moisl, fine sand SANDY CLAY (CL): lighl greenish gray. moisl, fine sand CLAY (CL): light olive, wet SK-1 MC R-1 14 109 6 7 10 16 7 SS 14 ss s-4 11 49 26 23 6S X SS s-5 5 30 47 19 28 X s-6 8 67 (Continuod Next Pago) PROJECT LOCAnON 1041 S Dennis Streel, Ansheim, CA >F:) Yl<60>oz I 5 v s-2 26 92 GEOBODEN, !NC.BORING NUMBER B-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 CLIENT Oooo Enoineerino. lnc PROJECT NAME Proposed Residenlial Buildinq (ADU) PROJECT NUmBER Dennis-'1-ol PROJECT LOCAnON '1041 S Dennis Streel Anaheim CA I iL.? o 35 IIo o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ul >oaFrx :>O-l2z li6;o a1 (}a oL!t t= t. do>oz z d ood F B F^ z9 Eo uJ ;eE- i, !J62 =oo ATTEREERG L II\,4ITS Fz LllFz 38 ttlz Qr e= (-) l-J 0_ E 05 s= o- 40 CLAY (CL): light olive. wel (continued) light olive gray SlLry SAND (SM): olive gray, wet, fine sand light grcenish gray \,4 ss Al sz 13 32 46 24 22 91 45 \/ ss,\ s-a 11 50 X s-9 21 32 \,4 ss lls-ro 26 Bottom of borehole at 51.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater at 10 feet. Boring was backfilled with cuttings Bollom of borehole at 51.5 feet. o I 8 J 1 I 3 6 3 E I o APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELL ING UNIT lU1 South Dennis Streel SA'VIA A/VA, C ALIFORNI A Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to assess the engineering properties and physical characteristics of soils at the site. The following tests were performed: o moisture content and dry density . direct shear . No. 200 Wash o Atterberg limits . corrosion potential Test results are summarized on laboratory data sheets or presented in tabular form in thrs appendix. Moisture Density Tests The field moisture contents. as a percentage of the dry weight of the soils. were determined by weighing samples before and after oven drying. The dry density. in pounds per cubic foot, was also determined fir all relatively undisturbed ring samples collected. These analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2937. The results ofthese determinations are shown on the boring log in Appendix A. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples of on-site soils. A different normal stress was applied vertically to each soil sample ring which was then sheared in a horizontal direction. The resulting shear strength for the corresponding normal stress was measured at a maximum constant rate of strain of0.005 inches per minute. The direct shear results are shown graphically on a laboratory data sheet included in this appendix. B-l No, 200 Wash Sicve A quantitative determination ofthe percentage ofsoil finer than 0.075 mm was performed on selected soil samples by washing the soil through the No. 200 sieve. Test procedures were performed in accordance with ASTM Method Dl 140. The results of the tests are shown on the boring log. Atterberg Limits Liquid limit. plastic limit. and plasticity index were determined for selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The soil sample was air-dried and passed through a No. 40 sieve and moisturized. The liquid and plastic limit tests were performed on the fraction passing the No. 40 sieve. Results ofthe Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically and presented in this Appendix. Corrosion Potential Corrosion was tested on the selected soil sample in the near surface to determine the corrosivity ofthe site soil to steel and concrete. The soil samples were tested for soluble sulfate (Caltrans 417), soluble chloride (Caltrans 422), and pH and minimum resistivity (Caltrans 643). The results of corrosion tests are summarized in Table B- I . TABLE B-l (Corrosion Test Results) Boring No. Depth (fr) Chloride Content (Calif.422) ppm Sulfate Content (Calif.4l7) 7o by Weight pH (Calif.643) Resistivilv (Calif.643) Ohm *cm B-l 0-l 75 0.0 I .19 7.2.|.429 B-2 GEOBODEN,INC.ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS CLIENT Donq Enqineennq, lnc.PROJECT NAME Proposed Residential Buildinq (ADU) PROJECT NUMBER Dennis-'l-01 PROJECT LOCATION 1041 S Dennrs Skeel,Anaheim, CA L S T I C I T I N D E X 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 LIQUID LIMIT 80 100 ^t CL.ML Specimen ldentification LL PL PI Fines Classification a B-'t 20.o 26 23 69 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) I B-1 25.O 't9 28 92 LEAN CLAY(CL) B-1 35.0 24 22 LEAN CLAY(CL) o 2o g t q 3 5 z E: @ @ tr @ @ I 49 47 46 91 o o 9o 3 q E c 5 e ; 5 6 GEOBODEN,INC.DIRECT SHEAR TEST CLIENT Donq Enorneenno. lnc. PROJECT NUMBER Dennis-1-ol PROJECT NAME Proposed Resrdential Buildinq (ADU) PROJECT LOCATION 1041 S Dennis Slreel, Anaheim, CA 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 ) /' Fozi!u a E U]I 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 NORMAL PRESSURE. psf Specimen ldentiflcation Classification MC%c B-t 5.0 SAND (SP): light yellowish brown 109 6 87.3 0 o a 34 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS E ! I e 6 o I 3s LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS Proposed Residential Building Hole No.=B-l Water Depth=s ft Magnitude=6.52 Acceleration=0.6779 Sorl Descnption(fi)Shear Slress Ratio 0 Factor ol Satety Settlemenl5 0 (in.)0.5 0 a 1A 20 30 40 fs1= 1 .30 S = 1.22 in.50 cRR CSR fs1_ Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potenlial Saturaled -Unsalurat- - 60 /0 1041 S Dennis Street, Anaheim Plate C-'l 10 LIQUEFACTIOI{ AI{ATYSIS CALCUTATION DETAII-S Copyright by CivilTech Software HrlJlr. civiltech. com Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8ls aecommended foa this neport. Li.ensed to , 12/ 21/2920 8:51:14 Pll Input FiIe Nane: C:\Pas5po.t\6gl\1041 S Dennis St, Santa Ana, CA 927e4-Dong\B-1.IIq Title: Proposed Resldential Bul ldlnS Subtltle: 1941 S oennis Street, Anahein Input oata: surface Efev.= HoIe No.=B-X Depth of Ho1e.50.00 ft l{ater Table durln8 Earthquake. 5.OB ft Iater Table durln8 In-Situ Testlng. 10.OO ft ltax. Accel.e.ation=0.68 g Earthquake l,la8n1tude.6. 52 No-Liquefiable Soils: gased on Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPT o. BPT Calculation. Settlâ‚¬nent Analysis Method: Tokll|tatsu/seed Flnes Correctlon for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed Flne Correction for Settlefient: During Liquefacti.on* Settfenent Calculatj.on in: Llq. zone only Hadrer Ener8y Ratio, Borehole Dlaneter, Sanpling Method, lJser nequest factor of safety (apply to CSR) Plot one CSR curve (fsl=User) Ce = 1.27 Cb= 1 Cs= 1.2 User= 1.3 10. Average tHo lnput data betseen two Depthsi No. Re(oftnended Optlons In-situ Test Data: Depth SPT Ga na+t pcf F ine5 ao 9.OO ta.ao t4,oo 11. g0 5 .00 8.go L3.OO 17 -Og 27.OO 26.9O 125.4O 125.OO 125.OO 125.60 125. OO 125 , Og 125,OO !25.00 \25.O4 t25,OO NoLiq 7,OO NoLiq NoLiq NoLiq NoLiq Not iq NoLiq 32.OA 32.OO 10.oo 15.00 20,oo 25.O9 30.oo 35.e0 4A.OO 45.O4 50.00 Output Results: Calculation segnent, d2=4.09e ft user defined P.int Intenval, dp-5.00 ft td CSR Calculatlon: Depth ganrna sl8naft pcf atm gamma Qc+ 518na' atn a(z) a nz I CSR x fs1 =CSRfs 5.OO lo.oo ts.oo 2g,oa 25.OO 10.oo lS.OO 40.oo 62.60 t25,OO a25.OO 725.OO tz5.oo 725.OO 72S.OO 125 -OO o.295 0.591 0.886 1. 181 1,477 1.112 2.067 2,163 62.60 62,60 62,60 62.60 62,60 62,60 62.60 62.60 o ,295 o.443 0.591 a-739 o. aa7 1.035 1.183 1.331 o.99 0.98 o.97 0.95 o.94 0.93 0.89 0.85 o.ooa o. ooo a.ooo o,ooa o.oog o.ooo o.ooo 0.oo0 o.4)o ,57 o-14 0.8l o.a7 6.90 o.91 0.89 0.86 s7 64 67 69 70 68 66 o o o o o o o 30 30 30 30 30 3A lâ‚¬ 3A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o.677 o,677 o.677 o.617 o.677 0.617 o.61.? o.61? Peak G.ound Accele.atlon (PGA), a_nax = 0.689 45,OO 50,o9 725.OO 725,OO 2.658 2,953 62.60 62 ,60 1.479 1.626 o.677 o.677 4.64 0.61 0.81 6.aa 81 77 ooa ooo 1 1 o o 10 )a CSR is based on wate. table at 5.00 duning earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr slgna' Cn ft atn (N1)6â‚¬ Fines d(Nl)60 (Nl)60f cRR7.s x 5.OO 70.oo 75.OO 2A.OA 25.06 le.ao 35,OO 40.4o 45.OO so.oo o ,295 0.591 o-739 0.886 1.O)4 1.182 1.330 1.474 1.626 1.774 17.49 16.85 23.58 21.53 15.66 7.O1 14.57 76.30 13.15 24,O3 25.99 1.7 . t2 13.30 3e.83 23.79 13.41 11.69 24.95 20,74 32.91 9,OO 70.oo 14.OO 14.go 11.OO s.og a.oo 13.4O 71.4O 21.OO t.52 1.S2 t.s2 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.92 1-52 a o o o o 1 1 1 1 1 75 85 95 95 9S oo oo oo oo oo 1.70 r.1a 1.16 1, 06 e.98 o.92 a.a1 o, a2 o.7a o.15 Notlq 7.Og NoL j.q NoLiq NoLiq oLiq NoLlq NoLiq NoLiq 32,OO o-1s 0.18 0.50 o.so o.26 o.75 o.l9 o.2a o.23 o,50 50 26 72 l1 40 11 26 6l 94 8 o 9 9 8 6 1 8 7 8 CRR j.s based on water table at 10.00 durinS In-Situ Testing Factor of Safety, - Earthquake l4agnltude= 6.52:oepth sigc' cRR7,5 x KsiE .cRRv x l'lsF =cRRm+t atm CSRf, F.S.=CRRm/CSR+s 5.00 70.oo o,57 o.7 4 â‚¬.8l o.a7 o.90 0.91 s.89 0.85 0.83 o.8g 15,04 20.oo 25.OO 36,OO l5.eo 40 -oo 45.OO 50 -oo 5,OO " 0.35. . F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above erater table: F,S,=5) ^ No-liquefiabLe Soils or above lJater Table. (F.S. is limited to 5r CRR 15 11n1ted to 2, CSR is linited to 2) CPT convent to SPT fo. Settlement Analysis: Finer Correction fo. SettLenent Analysis: Depth Ic q(/N60 q(1 (tl1)60 Fines ft atn X 19 38 48 58 67 77 86 96 o6 15 a o g o o o o o 1 1 10 18 50 so 26 15 19 28 23 50 o o o a o o o a o o o-10 0.18 o.50 0.50 o.26 e.15 0.19 o.2a o.22 o.49 oo oa oo oo oo oa oo oo oo 98 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o 2 o 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 oo oo oo oo 06 ao oo 88 4l 43 43 43 4l 43 43 43 41 43 oo 26 oe oo oo oo oo oo oo 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d(N1) 60 (N1)6ee s.oo 10.oo 15,OO 25.99 11.t7 33.1e 30.83 2).79 13.41 17 .69 24 -55 20.14 32.97 NoLiq 7,OO NoLiq tloLiq Not i.q Notiq Notiq Nol-iq NoLiq 32.OO o.oo o.oo a. oo o.go o, oo o.oo o.oo o,oo o.oo o.oo 25.99 77.72 31.30 3e.83 23.79 13 .41 17.69 24,55 zo.la 32.97 20- 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 80 oa og oo oo oo ao50 (N1)6Os has been fines cor.e(ted in Liquefaction analysis, the.efo.e d(N1)60=0 Fines=Noliq eans the solls are not liquefiable. Sâ‚¬ttlenent of Saturat.d Sand<: Settlenent Analysis llethod: Tokimatsu/Seed Depth CSRsf / MSF. =CSRn F.S. Finâ‚¬s ftt 60N1 e( T sDr daz dsp 5 i,n in 49.95 45.OO 83 o.ao 0.83 aa 32.OO Notiq 32.98 20.74 97 .21 71.93 o.342 1.453 1.8E-l o.gEe 8.O42 o.72) g.og2 o.129 88o 5 oa oa 1 1 80o o o o 40.o4 35,OO ta.oo 25.OO 20.oo 15.O0 to,oo 5, AO 0.86 0.89 o.91 o-98 o,a7 0,83 o -14 o.57 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 oo ao oo ao go oo go oo 0.86 0.89 4.97 4.90 o.a7 0.83 o.7 4 o.57 5 5 5 5 0 5 oo oo oo ao oo oo 35 oo NoLiq NoLiq NoLiq NoLj.q NoLiq NoLiq 7.OO NoLiq 24.55 17 .69 13.41 23.79 30.83 33.30 17 .12 25.99 14. A7 66.34 54. 09 7t.44 91.97 98.65 65.30 81.63 1.217 1.696 2.OA5 1.265 o.641 e.2)9 1.744 1.128 o.oEo g.oEa o.oto o.oEo 0.eEo o.oEo 7.OE-2 o.oEo o.aaa o.ooo o.ooo a.o00 o.ooo o.ooo 1.O90 o.aoo o.729 o.129 o. t29 o.!29 o.729 o.129 1.219 1.219 settlefient of Seturated sands=1.219 in. qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines cornectlon in liquefaction analysi5 dsz is pe. eech seSrnent, dz=O.OS fl dsp is per each pri.t interval, dp=s.00 ft S 1s cumuLated settleoent at this depth Settlement of lJnsaturated Sands: Sett]e[ent of ljnsaturated sands.o due to Option 5, Cal.ulation sett]enent only in liquefled zone. Depth s18na' slgc' (N1)60r CSRsf Gnax gr6e/Gm 8_eff ec7,5 Cec ec dsz dspft atn atn atfi X X 1n. ln.in s-eo o-30 1.15 A.O0 0.97 Settlement o+ Unsaturated Sands o.oo o.oEo o.oooo o.oooo 8,oo 7.12ao o.ooto o.ooo o. ooa settlement of unsaturated sands-o.000 ln. d5, 1t pe. each regment, dz=O.OS +t dsp is per each print interval, dp=s.00 ft S ls cu ulated settfenent at this depth Tota] Settlement of Saturated and Unsatunated Sands=1.219 in Differentlal. Settlement=o.609 to 0.8O4 in. Unlts: Uniti qc, fs, Stress o. pressure = atm (1.0581tsf)j Unit l.Jelght = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement . in, 1at (atmosphe.e) = 1.9581 tsf(1 tsf.l ton/ft2. 2 kip/ft2)l atn (atmosphere) .101.325 kPa(1 kPa = 1 kN/n2 = 0.001 Mpa)SPT Fleld data from Standard Peoetration Test (SPT) BPT Fleld data froo Becker Penetration Test (8PT)qc Fle]d data fl.on Cone Penetratlon Test (CPT) latm (tsf)] fs Frl(tlon froo CPT tertlng [atn (tsf)] Rf Ratio of fslqc (t) gadna Total unlt welSht of soIIgadra' Effective unlt leight of 5o1IFlnes Flnes content [l]D59 l.lâ‚¬an gnain slze Dr Relativâ‚¬ Densltyslgna TotaL vertical gtress [atm]slSna' Effe(tl,ve vertlcal stress [atm]sIgC' Effectlve conflning pnessure [atn]rd AcceLe.atlon .eduction coefflcient by Seede_max. Peak Ground Acaele.atlon (PGA) in tround 5urfaceil Llnear accele.ation reductlon coeffiaient X deptha-DIn, l4lnimun accele.ation under llneaa .eduction, mZCRRV CRR after overburden gtress correction, CRRV.CRR7.5 . X51gCRR7.5 Cycll( resistance ratlo (lt=7.5)(si8 Overburden strels co.re(tion factor for CRR7,5ClRln After ma8nitude scallnS con.ection CRRm=CRRV . HSFtrtsF l,tagnitude 5cali,n8 factor fnon ll=7.5 to user input IlCSR Cyclic stress ratlo lnduced by earthquakeCSRfs CSRfs-CSR*fsl (Default fs1.1)f91 First CSR curve in graphic defined ln *9 of Adv.nced paSe+s2 2nd CSR curve 1n graphlc deflned in ,ll of Advanced page F.S. Calculated factor of safety against Ilquefactlon F.S.=CRRm/CSRSfCebs EnerSy Ratj.o, Sorehole Dia., and Sa pling liethod Co.rectLonsCr Rod Length Co.rectlons cn overburden Pressuae corae(tlon (N1)68 d ( r{1)60 (N1)60f Cq qc1 dqcl qc 1f qc 1n xa qc 1f Ic (N1)50s CSRfl csRfs llsF * EC dz dsz dp dsp Gmax 8-eff t.GelGm ec7. S Cec EC Nol-iq References: SPT a+ter corrections, (N1)60.SPT . Cr . Cn . Cebs Flnes coraectlon of SPT (Nl)60 afte. fines corre(tlons, (N1)6of=(N1)60 + d(ti1)60 Overbuaden staess correction factor CPT after overburden stress correction Fines cornectlon of CPT CPT after Flnes and overburden correction, qclf=qc1 + dqcl CPT afte. nornallzation in Robertson's nethod Fine corre(tion fa(tor in Robertson's Method CPT afte. Fines <orrectlon ln Robertson's Method SoiI type lndex In Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60 after settlenent +ines corrections After nEgnltude scafing correctlon fon Settle ent cal(ulatj.on CSRn=CSRsf cycllc stress ratlo lnduced by earthquake rith user inputed fs Scallng factor from CSR, l,l5F*=1, based on Item 2 of PaEe C. Volu etrlc st.ai.n for saturated gands Calculation legient, d2.6.950 ft Settlement In each segnent, d2 User deflned prlnt lnterval settlenent 1n each print lnterval, dp Shear ltlodul,us at low strain Saima_eff, Effective 5hear Stralnganna_effrG_efflc_nax, Stiain-nodulusiatio Volumetric Strain for magnltude.7.5 ilagnitude comectlon factor for any naSnltude Volunetric straln fo. unsaturated sand', ec.Cec t ec7.5 No- Llquefy Solls HSF+ 1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefactlon Resistan(e of soiLs. Youd, T.1,, and ldriss, I.M., ed5., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022. SP117. Southern Cal.ifornla Earthquake Center. Reconoended Procedures for Implenentation of Ol'lG Special Publlcatlon 117, Guldellnes for Ana1yzInS and liitigating [lquefaction 1n Cali+ornia. Unlverslty of Southern Ca].ifornla, l,larch 1999, 2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERIT{G AIiO SEISI,IIC SITE RESPOT{sE EVALUATION, PapeT NO, 5PL-2, PR0CEEDII'lG5: Fourth International Conference on Re(ent Advances 1n Geotechnl.aI Earthquake Engineering and Soil oynamics, San 01ego, CA, March 2001, 3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERIiIG: A Ui.IIFIEO AND CONSISTENT FRAIIEI{ORK, EaTthquAKe EnglneerlnE Reseaach center, Report No. EERC 2603-06 by R.8 Seed and etc. Ap.i1 2003. l{ote: Prlnt Inteaval you selected does not ghox conplete results. To get conplete results, you Should select 'Setment' in P.int Interval (Itefl 12, PaSe C).