Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22819 Canyon View Soil ReportSOILS SOUTHWEST, INC. SOILS, MATERIALS AND ENVIROMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 897 VIA LATA, SUITE N - COLTON, CA 92324 - (909) 370-0474 - (909) 370-0481 - FAY (909) 370-3156 Letter Report -Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Proposed Addition/Alteration to Existing Yuan's Residence Planned Retaining Wall and New Entry to Existing Basement Garage 22819 Canyon View Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Project No. 14017-F July 25, 2014 Prepared for: Crable &Associates 765 W. Altadena Drive Altadena, California 91001 Established 1984 soilssouthwest@aol.com SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC. SOILS, MATERIALS AND ENVIROMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 897 VIA LATA, SUITE N - COLTON, CA 92324_ - (909) 370-0474 - (909) 370-0481 - FAX (909) 370-3156 July 25, 2014 Project No. 14017-F Crable & Associates 765 W. Altadena Drive Altadena, California 91001 Attention: Mr. Dennis Crable, Principal Letter Report- Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Proposed Addition/Alteration to Existing Yuan's Residence Planned Retaining Wall and New Entry to Existing Basement Garage 22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Reference: Site Contpl Plan dated March, 2014 as supplied Dear Mr. Crable: Presented herewith is the letter report of Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations for the site - specific area of planned addition/alteration to the residence existing at 22819 Canyon View Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Based on the project descriptions supplied it is our understood that the subject addition/alternations will primarily include (i) a new driveway approach and entrance to the existing basement garage at the southeast, (ii) along with removal of the existing driveway at the south by lowering the current grade and construction of new retaining and infilling. No site -specific geologic report is currently available for our review. It is understood that geologic report prepared by Mr. James Evans, CEG, will be prepared during the excavations planned within the existing upslope planned to accommodate retaining structures. In absence of such geologic study, the findings and recommendations supplied should be considered as "tentative", subject to revisions, alterations or upgrading following geologic findings. Based on the geotechnical investigation completed at this time, it is our opinion that planned addition/alterations should be considered feasible, provided the recommendations described are included in design and construction, supplemented by the additional geologic recommendations when supplied. Review of the USGS public documents indicate the subject site being not situated within an AP - Special Study Zone, and considering the hillside nature the site soils are not considered non - susceptible to earthquake induced potential soil liquefaction. However, considering the nearby earthquake faults, it is our opinion that structural design should include the design requirements of the current CBC in addition to the design parameters as described herein. We believe that our geotechnical investigation and report preparations are performed in accordance to the proposal dated May 14, 2014 and as approved by the addressee. This report has been substantiated by subsurface explorations and mathematical analysis made in accordance with the generally accepted engineering principles, including those field and laboratory testing considered necessary at this time. Although no significant variations in site conditions are anticipated, in the event actual soils conditions exposed in future anticipated test excavations appear Established 1984 soi lssouthwest@aol. corn Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-F to vary considerably from those as described herein, updated and revised recommendations will be required The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are base upon surface and subsurface explorations at the test locations and to the maximum depths as described. The recommendations supplied are intended for the addressee based on the addition/alteration development plan as supplied, and should not be transferred to, or used by others without written consent of Soils Southwest. We offer no other warranty, express or implied, Introduction This report presents geotechnical recommendations for construction of new retaining wall and new driveway approach near and southeast for new entry to the existing basement garage, along with recommendations for lowering the current driveway at the south and to be replaced with new retiming structure and infilling. For geotechnical investigation, since planned excavations using a backhoe was not permitted by the addressee, the necessary minimum subsurface explorations and soils sampling required for the project were made by hand explorations to the maximum depth as described in the accompanying log of test pits TPA and TP-2. In absence of geologic study, no geologic information is included at this time. Based one verbal communications with the project geologist Mr. James Evans, it is understood that no adverse out -dipping bedding conditions are exposed within the vertical cuts currently existing and one should be anticipated during actual construction. However, in event adverse geologic conditions are detected during excavations as identified by the project geologist, supplemental geotechnical recommendations will be warranted. According it is recommended that any and all excavations planned for the project should be performed under direct geologic observations. The geotechnical supplied should be considered valid and applicable when, in minimum, the following conditions are met: i. Pre -construction meeting with the public agency, project geologist, project civil and geotechnical engineer, ii. Excavation observations by geotechnical engineer and project geologist, , iii. Continuous observations and testing during site preparation and structural fill soils placement for driveway approach and retaining wall backfills, iv. Observations, inspections and testing of retaining wall footing trench prior to steel and concrete placement, v. Plumbing trench (if any) backfill placement prior to concrete slab -on -grade placement, tiff On and off -site utility trench backfill testing and verifications, vii Imported fill soils verification prior to their use, and . IN. Consultations as required during grading, or upon your request. Project Description Based on the information supplied, it is understood that the subject project will primarily include demolition of the existing drive and access steps to the rear yard, excavations for new driveway and new entrance to the existing basement garage near the east and southeast using curved retaining wall, along with removal of the existing driveway at the south and replaced with access steps and retaining structures with infilling as shown on the plan. SSW July 25, 2014 3 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Current Site Conditions 14017-r The site includes an existing single familydwelling with subterranean garage, along with landscaped and flatwork areas. Existing development also include a drive approach to the southeast and access steps toward the upper elevation rear yard with flatworks, vertical cuts and unfinished retaining walls. Proposed Development Based on the project descriptions supplied it is our understood that the subject addition/alternations will primarily include (i) a new driveway approach and entrance to the existing basement garage at the southeast, (ii) along with removal of the existing driveway at the south by lowering the current grade and construction of new retaining and infilling. Scope of Work Geotechnical evaluations included subsurface explorations, soil sampling, necessary laboratory testing, engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. The scope of work included the following tasks: o Review of the Tentative development plan referenced, o For geotechnical evaluations, explorations of two (2) exploratory test excavations borings using hand auger, hand tools, and sampling equipment for undisturbed soils advanced to maximum depth of 4 feet below grade. During explorations, the soils encountered were continuously logged; bulk and undisturbed samples were procured. Collected samples were subsequently transferred to our laboratory for necessary testing. Descriptions of the soils encountered are provided on the Log of Test Pit in Appendix A. Approximate locations of test excavations with respect to the current site conditions are shown on attached Plate 1. o Laboratory testing conducted on the selected bulk and undisturbed samples were programmed according to the project requirements. The laboratorytesting included determinations of: Moisture -Density (ASTM D2937), Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557), Soil's Shear Strengths (ASTM D3080), Consolidation Characteristics (ASTM D2435), and Soil Expansion Index, El (ASTM D 4928). Description of the test results and test procedures used are provided in Appendix B of this report. o Based on the field investigation and laboratory testing, engineering analyses and evaluations were made on which to base our preliminary recommendations for design of retaining wall and foundations, paving, site grading, utility trench and backfill and construction monitoring, and O Preparation of this report for initial use by the project design professionals. SSW July 25, 2014 4 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-r The recommendations supplied should be considered as "tentative" and may require revisions and/or upgrading following geologic report review when prepared during construction. Subsurface Conditions Soils samplings were made using hand excavations excavated at the locations to the limited depths as described herein. Soils explored primarily consist of upper loose terrace deposits of silty fine sand and silty gravelly sand, overlying moderately dense natural deposits well cemented sandstone, limestone and shale mixture of Puente formation. Presence of layers of limestone was also detected within the vertical excavations currently exposed. Local soils free of organic and debris should be considered suitable for re -use during grading. Laboratory shear tests conducted on the upper bulk soil sample remolded to 90 percent and on undisturbed samples procured indicate moderate shear strengths under increased moisture conditions. Results of the laboratory shear tests are provided in Plate B-1 of this report. Results of the laboratory determined soils consolidation potential conducted on undisturbed samples procured are shown on 15-2 in Appendix B of this report. Compressible and Collapsible Soils Based upon exploratory test explorations and subsequent laboratory testing completed at this time, it is our opinion that the upper fill/disturbed soils encountered should be considered as compressible in nature, and should be considered susceptible to excessive total and differential settlement under structural loadings. When, however, subexcavated and replaced as engineered fills compacted to 95%, the graded fills thus placed, should be considered adequate for load bearing support with tolerable settlement. Soil Expansion Potential Results of soils expansion tests indicate the site soils being "low" in expansion potential with an Expansion Index, EI, of 52. Additional soil Expansion Index (EI) testing should be required during site preparations and grading. Excavatibility It is our opinion that excavations and grading required for the project may be accomplished using conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Some resistance may, however, be experienced considering the underlying rocks encountered as described. Groundwater No shallow depth groundwater was encountered and none such is anticipated during grading and construction. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, altered natural drainage paths, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were advanced. Consequently, the designer and contractor should be aware of this possibility while designing and constructing the planned retaining wall and their pertinent. SSW July 25, 2014 5 Crable at Associates/22819 Canyon dew Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Subsurface variations 14017-F Based on the results of subsurface explorations and on past experience, it is our opinion that variations in subsoil continuity and depths of subsoil deposits may be expected. Due to the nature and depositional characteristics of the underlying soils, care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating of the subsurface conditions existing in between and beyond the test explorations completed at this time. Soil Corrosivity Analyses Following excavation to planned grades, since soil matrixes are expected to change considerably, no soil chemical analysis is included at this time. It is recommended that following mass grading completion and immediately prior to driveway concrete placement for new approach as planned, the representative site soils procured for final grades should be laboratory tested to determine pH, sulfate, chloride and resistivity. Results of such will be provided on request. Faulting And Seismicity According to the current (2010) CBC, the site is considered located within Seismic Zone 4. As a result, it is likely that during life expectancy of the structures built, moderate to severe ground shaking may be anticipated. Use of the seismic design parameters as described in the following sections, should be considered in structural design and construction of the planned retaining structures and their pertinent. Induced or Secondary Seismic Hazards In addition to ground shaking, effects of seismic activity may include surface fault rupture, differential settlements, ground lurching, and lateral spreading. Results of site specific hazard potentials are as described as below: Surface Fault Rupture The potential for surface rupture resulting from nearby fault movement is not known for certainty, but, in our opinion such potential should be considered in design and construction considering the proximity of the nearby Elsinore Fault at about 5.74 km away. Flooding Flooding hazards include tsunamis (seismic sea waves), seiches, and failure of manmade reservoirs, tanks and aqueducts. Considering the hillside nature and in absence of nearby known bodies of water, such as stirage tank etc., it is our opinion that the potential for such hazards should be considered as remote. Land -Sliding Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after and earthquake. Potential for such hazard should be estimated by the project geologist along with its remediation, where applicable. Lateral Spreading Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of existing soils due to ground shaking. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal SSW July 25, 2014 6 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-F movement of the soil mass involved. In absence of known earthquake fault, once the location of the earthquake fault within the parcel is precisely determined, potential for land spreading should be evaluated and remedial recommendations on such will be supplied. Liquefaction Liquefaction is caused by build-up of excess hydrostatic pressure in saturated cohesion -less soils due to cyclic stress generated by ground shaking during an earthquake. The significant factors on which soil liquefaction potential depends include, among others, the soil type, soil relative density, intensity of earthquake, duration of ground -shaking, and depth of groundwater. With the historical groundwater table at a depth in excess of 50 feet, along with considering the hillside nature of the general site area with the underlying gravelly sandy soils with rocks, it is our opinion that site soil liquefaction susceptibility potential during an earthquake, should be considered as "remote". Seismically Induced Settlement and Subsidence The potential of minor differential settlement due to seismic shaking may be anticipated for the site soils explored. Seismically induced settlement analysis was performed using CivilTech Software, V5.2E LiquefyPro, liquefaction and settlement analysis software. Based on such evaluations, expected earthquake induced total settlement of saturated and dry soils is anticipated to about 1.15- inch. The results of settlement analysis are provided below with computer output as described in Appendix C of this report. DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT MEASURED IN INCHES Settlement of Saturated Soils 0.00 Settlement of Dry Soils 0.15 Total Settlement of Saturated and Dry Soils 0.15 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT 0.075 to 0.099 Seismic Design Parameters The design spectrum was developed based on the 2013 CBC. Site Coordinate, of 33.974067°N, - 117.819884°W were used to establish the seismic parameters presented below. Seismic Design Coefficients The site is situated at about 5.74 km from the Elsinore:W fault. Forfoundation and structural design, the following seismic parameters are suggested based on the current CBC: Recommended values are based upon USGS Design Maps Summary and Detailed Reports website for Mapped Acceleration Parameters, USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters, and the California Geologic Survey: Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping and supplemental seismic parameters are provided in Appendix C of this report. The following presents the seismic design parameters as based on available publications as currently published by the California Geological Survey and 2013 CBC SSW July 25, 2014 7 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Seismic Design Parameters: Table k1 14017-r CBC Chapter 16 Paragraph/Table 16138505 2010 (July 2013) ASCE 7 Standard Seismic Design Parameters Recommended Values 1613A.5.2 Site Class D 16136501 The mapped spectral accelerations at short period SS 1613.5.1 The mapped spectral accelerations at 1.0-second period S, 1613A5.3 1 Site Class B / Seismic Coefficient, SS 2.218 g 1613A5.3 2 Site Class B / Seismic Coefficient, S, 0.786 g 1613A5.3 1 Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, Fe 1.000 g 1613A5.3(2) Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, F„ 1.500 g 16A-37 Equation Spectral Response Accelerations, SMS = F. Sr, 2.218 g 16A-38 Equation Spectral Response Accelerations, SM, = F„ S, 1.178 g 16A-39 Equation Design Spectral Response Accelerations, SM = 2/3 x SMS 1.479 g 16A-40 Equation Design Spectral Response Accelerations, SDI = 2/3 x Sm. 0.786 g Seismic Source Type TABLE A.2 Based on California Geological Survey -Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 year period is described as below: - Seismic Source Type /Appendix C Nearest Maximum Fault Magnitude Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration 0.469 - 0.484 In design, vertical acceleration may be assumed to about 1/3 to 2/3 of the estimated horizontal ground accelerations described. It should be noted that lateral force requirement in design by structural engineer should be intended to resist total structural collapse during an earthquake. During life time use of the structure built, it is our opinion that some structural damage may be anticipated requiring some structural repairs. Adequate structural design and implementation of such in construction should be strictly observed. SSW July 25, 2014 8 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 General Evaluations 14017-F The professional opinions contained herein are based upon sun`ace and subsurface explorations conducted at the locations as described, along with the necessary laboratory testing and engineering evaluations as completed in accordance with the present-day Standard of Care. Although no significant variations in soil conditions are anticipated during site preparations and grading, Soils Southwest should be notified in event the subgrade soils appear considerably different from those as described herein. No geologic evaluations are made and none such is available pertaining to the existing natural including presence or absence of any out -dipping bedding plane. Consequently the, recommendations supplied may require modifications following geologic report review. It is possible that an excavation excavated in future would react in an entirely different manner. All shoring and bracing, if required, shall be in accordance with the current requirements of the State of California Division of Industrial Safety and other public agencies having jurisdiction. Based on field explorations, laboratory testing and subsequent engineering analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented for the site understudy: (i) Moderate site clearance should be expected, including, but not be limited to, concrete slabs foundations, debris, and other existing construction.. (ii) From geotechnical viewpoint, the areas of planned addition/alterations are considered grossly stable. However, in the event vertical cuts for retaining walls expose adverse bedding, the recommendations supplied may require modifications. (iii) With the presence of the near surface compressible soils existing as described, conventional grading for driveway approach etc., should be in form of subexcavations, scarifications and moisturization of the upper existing soils followed by their replacement as engineered fills compacted as described herein. In event new fill soils are required over the grades existing, such should be placed following subgrade preparations as described. No footings and/or new fills should be placed directly bearing on the compressible surface soils existing. (iv) The sub -excavation depths described in this report should be considered as "minimum". During grading localized deeper sub -excavations may be required following removal of un-encountered buried debris, irrigation pipes etc. It will be the responsibility of the grading contractor to inform soils engineer when such obstructions are exposed. (v) In order to minimize potential excessive differential settlements, it is recommended that structural footings should be established exclusively into engineered fills of local sandy soils or its equivalent or better, compacted to minimum 90% of the soils Maximum Dry Density at near Optimum Moisture conditions. Construction of footings and slabs straddling over cut/fill transition should be avoided. (vi) Structural design considerations should include peak ground acceleration from relatively active nearby earthquake faults as described herein. The effects of ground shaking, however, can be minimized by implementation of the seismic design requirements and the design procedures as outlined in the current CBC and as described earlier in this report. Provisions should be maintained during construction to divert incidental rainfall away from the planned areas of construction. (vii) It is our opinion that when adequately designed and constructed the proposed construction will not adversely affect the stability of the site or its adjacent. SSW July 25, 2014 9 Crable at Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Retaining Wall Design 14017-F The retaining structures planned maybe constructed in form of the following or as selected by the project structural engineer: i conventional construction, or ii. using soil -nailing, or iii. with tie -back, or iv. as segmented wall with reinforced earth material. In design, the wall stability should include, in minimum, the following: i. sliding, ii. overturning, and iii. foundation soil bearing capacity failure. Based on review of the available grading plan dated March 10, 2014, it is understood that retaining walls proposed will be constructed against existing uphill to accommodate new driveway approach and walkway. Maximum wall height is estimated to about 11 feet. In absence of site topography for the northern upslope a 2:1 upslope gradient with no adverse bedding conditions are assumed in our preliminary design. In event presence ofout-dipping bedding conditions are exposed during construction and identified by the project geologist, it will be the responsibility of the addressee to provide such geologic findings to provide for supplemental engineering evaluations and recommendations for updated lateral design coefficient parameters. Based on laboratory testing completed at this time and considering the assumptions as described, it is our opinion that for preliminary design under static loading conditions, the following "active" pressure coefficients in form of equivalent fluid density may be considered in retaining wall design. Slope of Retained Material (H:V) Equivalent Fluid Density, pcf Clean Sand Local Soil level 2:1 30 45 142 73 The design parameters described do not include water pressure build-up behind wall. Accordingly, use of "french -drain" and adequate water -proofing behind retaining walls should be considered. In addition the recommended seismic design parameters based on 2010 CBC as supplied should be incorporated in structural design and construction. Backfill behind retaining wall should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative to the laboratory determined soils Maximum Dry Density as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 test method. Flooding and/orjetting behind wall should not be permitted. Local sandysoils maybe used as backfill. SSW July 25, 2014 10 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91 too Resistance to Lateral Loads For Retaining Wall Design 14017-F Resistance to lateral loads can be restrained by friction acting at the base of foundation and by passive soil earth pressures. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with normal dead load forces for footing established on compacted fills or into underlying dense natural subgrades. An allowable "passive" lateral earth resistance of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be assumed for the sides of foundations poured against level of compacted fills. The maximum lateral passive earth pressure is recommended not to exceed 2500 pounds per square foot. Retaining Wall Foundations The retaining walls planned may be supported by continuous wall spread footings founded exclusively into engineered fills of local soils compacted to minimum 90%. The suggested seismic design parameters and horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) as described earlier should be incorporated in design and construction.. For design under static loading conditions, allowable soil vertical soil bearing capacity may be estimated from the following equations: Continuous Footing: gauoWab,e = 1250 + 600d +300b Isolated Square: gauowabie = 1600 + 700d + 240b, where qa„oWabie =allowable soil vertical bearing capacity, in psf. d= footing depth, min. 24-inch, b = footing width, min. 18-inch. The above soil bearing capacity may be increased for each additional footing depth and/or width in excess of the minimum recommended. Total maximum vertical bearing capacity is recommended not to exceed 3000 psf. If normal code requirements are applied, the above capacities may further be increased by an additional 1/3 for short duration of loading which includes the effect of wind and seismic forces. Actual foundation dimensions (b & d) should be determined by the project structural engineer based on the static and seismic design parameters described. From geotechnical view point, footing reinforcements consisting minimum of 244 rebar placed near the top and 2-#4 rebar near bottom of continuous footings, are recommended. Additional reinforcements, if specified by project structural engineer, should be incorporated during construction. Once excavated, footings bottoms should be verified and approved by soils engineer prior to rebar and concrete pour. No special footing bottom pre -saturation is expected otherthan that as generally required to maintain a moist subgrade soils condition. 4.8 Private Concrete Flatwork/Driveways Concrete flatworks such as walkways and driveways have potentials for cracking due to fluctuations in soil volume in relationship to moisture content changes. In orderto prevent excessive cracking or lifting, concrete paving should meet the minimum guidelines as shown in the table below. It is our opinion that when designed and adequately constructed, the following guidelines will help to "reduce" potential for irregular cracking or lifting, but will not eliminate all concrete distress. SSW July 25, 2014 11 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-F Private Private Drives Patios/Entryways City Sidewalks Sidewalk/Curb and Gutters Minimum 4 (nominal) 6 ac over 4 base 6 (full) City/Agency Thickness in. (full) Standard Pressoaking 12 inches 12 inches 12 inches City/Agency +/-2% Optimum) Standard Reinforcement _ No. 4 at 24 inches No. 3 at 24 inches City/Agency on centers on centers Standard Thickness Edge 8" x 8" 8" x 8 " City/Agency _ Standard Crack Control Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep City/Agency open tool joint to a open tool joint to a open tool joint to a Standard minimum of 1/3 of minimum of 1/3 of minimum of 1/3 of concrete concrete concrete thickness thickness thickness Maximum Joint 5 feet 10 feet or 6 feet City/Agency Spacing quartered cut Standard whichever is closer No concrete slabs, sidewalks and flatworks should be placed bearing directly on the surface soils currently existing. The prepared subgrades to receive driveways and concrete slabs on -grade should be compacted to minimum 90% when crushed aggregate base is considered underneath concrete slabs. Alternatively, without base materials, soils subgrades to receive concrete should be compacted to minimum 90% of the soils laboratory determined Maximum Dry Density as determined by the ASTM Standard D1557. Driveway slab reinforcing and construction and expansion joints etc. should be incorporated as required by the project structural engineer. Within moisture sensitive areas, concrete slabs should be underlain by 2-inch of compacted clean sand, followed by 10-mil thick Stegowrap or its equivalent. The gravelly sands used should have a Sand Equivalent, SE, of 30 or greater. Subgrades to receive concrete should be "pre -moistened" as would be expected in any such concrete placement. Use of low -slump (4"-5")concrete is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that utilitytrenches underlying concrete slabs and driveways should be thoroughly backfilled with gravelly sandy soils mechanically compacted to minimum 90% (+2 feet below final grade) and 95% (0-2 feet below final grade) immediately prior to concrete pour. Shrinkage and Subsidence It is our opinion that during grading the upper soils may be subjected to a volume change. Assuming a 90% relative compaction for structural fills and assuming an overexcavation and re -compaction depth as described earlier, such volume change due to shrinkage may be on the order of 7 to 10 percent. Further volume change may be expected due to supplemental shrinkage during preparation of subgrade soils. For estimation purpose, such may be approximated to about 2-inch when conventional construction equipments are used. SSW July 25, 2014 12 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-r Construction Consideration Supported Excavations Any and all vertical cuts exceeding 5 feet in depths into the existing upslope should be achieved using shoring to prevent caving or slope surface raveling. support side walls. Shoring should be designed by the project structural engineer. Site Preparations The site preparations within the planned addition/alterations should include complete removals of vegetation, root and other organic materials, followed by excavations of the current grades to accommodate the planned entry to the basement garage existing, or within areas requiring additional fill soils placement for new grades. Site preparations should also include stock -piling of the subexcavated soils and moisturization over Optimum, followed by its recompaction prior to the approved stockpile soil placement as engineered fills compacted to the minimum requirements as described.. Supplemental recommendations for earthwork placement will be supplied on request. Soil Caving It is our opinion that the site soils maybe susceptible to caving. Accordingly, it is our opinion that precautions should be made for temporary excavations in excess of 5 feet which should be made at a slope 2 to 1 (h:v), or flatter, and as per the construction guidelines provided by the Cal-Osha. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill within the structural pad and beyond should be placed in accordance with the following recommendations: • Trench backfill should be placed in 6 to 8h thin lifts mechanically compacted to 90 percent or better of the laboratory maximum dry densityfor the soils used. Jetting is not recommended within utility trench backfill. Within streets, upper 2 feet of the trench backfill should be compacted to 90% or better. • In order to prevent water migrating into street mains and laterals that may cause subsequent backfill failure, it is strongly recommended that the grades immediately behind curb -gutter should be properly prepared so as not to allow any long-term "ponding" from irrigation and incidental rains. Exterior trenches along a foundation or a toe of a slope and extending below a 1:1 imaginary line projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing or toe of the slope, should be compacted to 90 percent of the Maximum Dry Density for the soils used during backfill excavations should conform to the requirements of Cal-Osha Pre -Construction Meeting It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on -site pre -grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. SSW July 25, 2014 13 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Seasonal Limitations 14017-F No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conons. Where the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until moisture conditions are considered favorable by the soils engineer. Planters In order to minimize potential differential settlement to foundations, use of planters requiring heavy irrigation should be restricted from using adjacent to footings. In event such becomes unavoidable, planter boxes with sealed bottoms, should be considered. Landscape Maintenance Onlythe amount of irrigation necessaryto sustain plant life should be provided. Pad drainage should be directed towards streets and to other approved areas awayfrom foundations. Slope areas should be planted with draught resistant vegetation. Over watering landscape areas could adversely affect the proposed site development during its lifetime use. Observations and Testing During Construction Recommendations provided are based on the assumption that structural footings and slab -on -grade be established exclusively into compacted fills. Excavated footings should be inspected, verified and certified by soils engineer prior to steel and concrete placement to ensure their sufficient embedment and proper bearing as recommended. Structural backfills discussed should be placed under direct observations and testing by this facility. Excess soils generated from footing excavations should be removed and such should not be allowed on slab subgrades. Closure The findings, conclusions and recommendations supplied are prepared in accordance with the generally accepted engineering principles and practices and in general conformance to the 2013 CBC and the local Building and City ordinance. The recommendations supplied are based on the assumptions that as project geotechnical consultant Soils Southwest will be retained to monitor necessary site preparations and grading as described in this report and as deemed necessary by project geotechnical consultant. The report has been prepared for the addressee and for the site - specific residence described. The report prepared should not be transferred or be used by other parties without the written approval of Soils Southwest. If another geotechnical consultant is retained the grading and construction will be stopped until the replacement consultant agrees in writing, in form of Transfer of Responsibility to accept their responsibility within the area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. Additionally, We appreciate this opportunity to b of service on this project, If you have any questions regarding this report, please call the u Respectfully submitted Soils Southwest,,,lnc. � Moloy Gupta RCE 31708 dist/ 3-addressee (+1 SSW Q?�pF ESSIp � Exp. 12.-31-1#-I � July 25, 2014 14 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 14017-F PLOT PLAN AND TEST LOCATIONS (Not to Scale) Legend: � TP-1 Approximate Location of Test Borings Plate 1 SSW July 25, 2014 15 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Field Explorations 14017-r 7.0 APPENDIX A Field evaluations included site reconnaissance and exploratory test boring by sing alimited-access track -rolled Hollow -Stem Auger (HAS) drill -rig equipped for undisturbed soils sampling and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT). Soils encountered during explorations were logged and such were classified by visual observations in accordance with the generally accepted classification system. The field descriptions were modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Approximate test locations are shown on Plate 1. Relatively undisturbed soils were sampled using a drive sampler lined with soil sampling rings. The split barrel steel sampler was driven into the bottom of test excavations at various depths. Soil samples were retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height. The central portion of each sample was enclosed in a close -fitting waterproof container for shipment to our laboratory. Log of test explorations are presented in the following summary sheets that include the description of the soils and/or fill materials encountered. SSW July 25, 2014 16 Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 APPENDIX A LOG OF TEST EXPLORATIONS 14017-F SSW July 25, 2014 1 � Soils Southwest, Inc. Colton CAa9 324 N LOG OF TEST PIT TP=1 ® (909) 37M474 Fax (909) 370-3156 Project: Yuan Residence/ Dennis Crable Job No.: 14017-F Logged By: JPR & JF Boring Diam.. Hand Auger Date: July 7, 2014 d d — 1° ci �� 3 e N �a o LL s W am C E 0 Q oo Gl !E r w y U)4) (0) E H s L ° ad 93 LL Description and Remarks 17 93.9 77 Topsoil and Plantings Sp SAND - light gray -brown, very dense, fine to coarse, well cemented and shale -like material of Puente Formation (max dry density = 122pc @ 13 %) 5 - Abadoned test boring @ 3.0 ft. due to resistance - no groundwater 10 15 20 25 30 Groundwater: NONE Site Location Plate # Approx. Depth of Bedrock: NONE Datum: N/A 22819 Canyon View Drive Elevation: +/- 1072 Diamond Bar, California Bulk/Grab sample , California sampler Soils Southwest, Inc. 897 Via Lata, Suite N Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-0474 Fax (909) 370-3156 LOG OF TEST PIT TP=2 Project: Yuan Residence/ Dennis crable Job No.: 14017-F Logged By: JPR & JF Boring Diam.. Hand Auger Date: July 7 , 2 014 d ° Groundwater: io e d o c C amU o9 400 00 d 1Eyy >vv'i Ism w E : � . mass «a) a. aLL Description and Remarks 28 91.2 75 Grass Sp sees so SAND - light gray -brown, very dense, fine to coarse, well cemented and shale -like material of Puente Formation 5 - Abandoned test boring @ 4.0 ft. due to resistance - no groundwater 10 15 20 25 30 NONE Site Location Plate # Approx. Depth of Bedrock: NONE Datum: N/A 22819 Canyon View Drive Elevation: +/- 1073 Diamond Bar, California 11 Bulk/Grab sample , California sampler Symbol Description Strata symbols [M.646646 a m miss 'mousses Poorly graded sand some me Soil Samplers Bulk/Grab sample California sampler Notes• 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on July 7,2014 using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or when re -checked the following day. 3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan. 4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. 5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported II on the logs. Crable & Associatesizzo19 Canyon view Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 Laboratory Test Programs 14017-F 8.0 APPENDIX B Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soils for the purpose of classification and forthe determination of the physical properties and engineering characteristics. The number and selection of the types of testing for a given study are based on the geotechnical conditions of the site. A summary of the various laboratory tests performed for the project is presented below. Moisture Content and Dry Density (D2937): Data obtained from these test, performed on undisturbed samples are used to aid in the classification and correlation of the soils and to provide qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. Direct Shear (D3080): Data obtained from this test performed at increased and field moisture conditions on relatively remolded soil sample is used to evaluate soil shear strengths. Samples contained in brass sampler rings, placed directly on test apparatus are sheared at a constant strain rate of 0.002 inch per minute under saturated conditions and under varying loads appropriate to represent anticipated structural loadings. Shearing deformations are recorded to failure. Peak and/or residual shear strengths are obtained from the measured shearing load versus deflection curve. Test results, plotted on graphical form, are presented on Plate BA of this section. Consolidation (D2835): Drive -tube samples are tested at their field moisture contents and at increased moisture conditions since the soils may become saturated during life -time use of the planned structure. Data obtained from this test performed on relatively undisturbed and/or remolded samples, were used to evaluate the consolidation characteristics of foundation soils under anticipated foundation loadings. Preparation for this test involved trimming the sample, placing it in one inch high brass ring, and loading it into the test apparatus which contained porous stones to accommodate drainage during testing. Normal axial loads are applied at a load increment ratio, successive loads being generally twice the preceding. Soil samples are usually under light normal load conditions to accommodate seating of the apparatus. Samples were tested at the field moisture conditions at a predetermined normal load. Potentially moisture sensitive soil typically demonstrated significant volume change with the introduction of free water. The results of the consolidation tests are presented in graphical forms on Plate 13-2. Expansion index (ASTM Standard D4829-88) Data obtained from this test performed at optimum, or near optimum moisture conditions on relatively remolded soil sample is used to evaluate soil's expansive potential. Samples are contained in brass sampler rings, placed directly on test apparatus, applied with a standard load, and immersed in water. Samples are tested and test results are recorded over a 24-hour period. SSW July 25, 2014 18 Laboratory Test Results A. In -Situ Moisture Density Determinations (ASTM D2937) Boring # @ Sample Depth, ft. Dry Density, pcf. Moisture Content, % BA @ 2-3 B-2 @ 34 93.9 91.2 16.7 27.9 B. Maximum Dry Density -Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557) Test Boring & Sample Depth, ft. Maximum Dry Density, pcf. Optimum Moisture Content, % B-1 @ 0-2 122 13.0 C. Direct Shear (D3080): Test Boring & Sample Depth, ft. Test Condition Cohesion (PSF) Friction (Degree) B-1 @ 0-2 Remolded 409.6 41.5 B-2 @ 34 Undisturbed 1120026 30.0 D. Expansion Index, EI (ASTM D4928) Sample Location & Depth, ft. Expansion Index El Expansion Potentialf B-1 @ 0-2 52 "medium" Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results 14017-F SSW July 25, 2014 � 9 MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM STD. 1001) MOISTURE % (g) 1 3.151 10m851 140481 14.48 DRY DENSITY (pcf) 1 117.211 121.781 119231 119.23 CURVE SOIL DESCRIPTION OPT MOIST. CONTENT(%) MAX DRY DENSITY (P.C.F.) NO. SAMPLE Yuan Resi(s/Mary Mercy Center 11 122 A 22819 Canyon View Drive B-5, 0-2ft Diamond Bar SOIL DESCRIPTION: ML to CL Sands - grayish light brown, fine to med. PROJECT NO.14017=F occasional pebbles and rock 1" I PLATE: Awl SOILS SOUTHWEST INC. Consulting Foundation Engineers L7f tc TVIA61 /Iwo 1#*� I ' Ic) MEN r3 0 1=) J i1:5 I �L I 'SEEN i �l) MENEM 'a 11�I ?) (01 'IEEE, I • ' • TEST • • ® CONDITION Yuan Residence/Dennis Crable • Canyon View Drive Bar, California • SOILSDiamond SOUTHWEST, Consulting Foundation Engineers Crable & Associates/22819 Canyon View Road, Diamond Bar, California 91765 APPENDIX C Supplemental Seismic Design Parameters 14017-F SSW July 25, 2014 20 T're r, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY THE RESOURCES AGENCY YORDA LINDA QUADRANGLE + JAM ES F. DAVIS, STATE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA 9 TD MINUTE SERIES(TOPOGRAPHKI 0 ZONESinterred. e' � � ,� R¢sEAE•.CEa JSEp rOCW PIeE FAVLT OaTn ��' MAP EXPLANATION unarMss Hvt np. :Wee, a ri. 111 77.3 LA U. nnnnre...r .a,Itae we:; ure.. N (...later r .e ai•. rotennatry Active nRRe Fame tpnemer.a w hate Seth Kee e,rl�9 ornnnary nee: aard line STATE OF CALIFORNIA at wales Ipnga.yl.he.e.ppr..imal<rrlera:<d.abNea,n SPECIAL STUDIES I (area R quxnece ery p) le I nee adenoml it". --- �nry. Evidence t historic ONeeidlnarta:ea oY oeaar o� <er;neuaa•� pNn••t•e M ••rRrM•••• edlR assocl T.aO ersnr or C for Oleplacernent caused fay creep or Dossrele Creep YrORTANT rLU{{ Ie01{ CRspUe T.S, phlY•R } •I IM CWIernle ruNle R•eeurus CN• _ ¢rral IT M1neamWl Inol IiaM chKkedi. oases on your at geomorphic II Tn's Wo min,TW 1p'sT And other reauros Oeli"d to be me results of Quaternary faukug YORBA LINDA QUADRANGLE o.rsv aw ea..wvc A "id`i' a•-`'e 6`x nwr .xnn r,e:p.T-r,-,nae. a,ne: r z) Faults ono.n are W •eass for esubureaT ere Lelnaraa a Vw spevl Mores sums {reeial {wets {she peMneul•e g) TN Mmtlubon a was eaen ary faults are Ns uncin a auM taus Oau are Wed nose are oetm<aLa as seal hl.line »gments That cpxen encircled lore( OFFICIAL MAP m the wiwaiWs due Trust me Mm 6•muaxuabA as lsoes-0ro •s tna rep K•r, —� nose re u m aeons apecg I awes; rpna g own SR Qui lr a ears used is vva Segment: Effective: January I, 1980 e) FNGn�m,t., m,m,pitMt.. lr,sew a,•elb,an.eo,pegavog=:te --d Seanare proje:non of zone boundary ypW�PettaaPKC strepa°edr°'aei Craaofa•)s.Wtim z,Sttfon l6ZJaveelNim indy State Geologist SM1E G1fdWA SUM GGnIGQhANOA 4 41wN rIAL{MgfiArzrmOrei ['VMfswra[a�AVMoxU[ OreWllSHitiMi SNSMICWSAIO20NEf rHSMleuMmwxounax TublMt Qutr+%e T �rtrY .tr.et eruaGreyas..�Atfetpmeaalt�l i�•d.Wawrtt�Yb+Wiv�ne9^�a t�pY.JBiL� bwveltlteMmal.tgbotM w NNOSf MSIV y4 ~��ro•ti We� ti A Sark Mw�t���.�YYW.���.r to wlk Yoo� m Sm� Ysane `Ws Ya46 d�til wry � war"f.r.�rsn.r� w.9�mM"�ibv.44mawn�e ""f,�lAYme�n�r"Me rrrlrrwlrprtaAr..ra.r ...u...mute.'�V. •NdffAM-RI/.f[rOlE �TATeoruulroRNu SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES tab YORlA LINDA QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP Released: August 11, 3005 AAT[flOLOG15f MV El6lANAlgN zor<s a uWr<d sure, cymar srww.consemtlon.cagov/cqs/ xmya.am..wyt..nqu 4M.mhfciopd5vp. Ypea.et 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters Page 1 of 1 Earthquake Hazards Program 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters Output Selected Faults (Excel) OutputDistance in Name St Fault parallel Preferred Dip Dip Slip Rupture Rupture Length Kilometers slip rate (degrees) Dir Sense Top (km) Bottom (km) (km) � 5.74 Elsinore:W CA2.5 75 NE strike 0 46 slip � 5.74 Elsinore;W+GI CA 81 NE strike 0 83 slip � 5.74 Elsinore;W+GI+T CA 84 NE strike 0 124 slip � 5.74 Elsinore:W+GI+T+J CA 84 NE strike 0 200 slip � 5.74 Elsinore:W+GI+T+J+CM CA 84 NE strike 0 242 slip � 8.89 Chino, alt 1 CA1 50 SW strike 0 24 slip � 8.98 Chino. alt 2 CA1 65 SW strike 0 29 slip � 9.07 San Jose CA0.5 74 NW strike 0 20 slip � 9.57 Puente Hills (Coyote CA0.7 26 N thrust 2.8 17 Hills Share this page: Facebook Twitter Google Email http://geohazards.usgs.goy/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf search res.cfm?hazmap=2007 7/9/2014 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters Page 1 of 1 Earthquake Hazards Program 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters New Search Fault Name State Elsinore;W California MODEL VALUES Fault parallel slip rate 2.50 Probability of activity 1 ELLSWORTH HANKS Minimum magnitude 6.5 6.5 Maximum magnitude 7.029 6.842 FAULT GEOMETRY Dip (degrees) 75 Dip direction NE Sense of slip strike slip Rupture top (km) 0 Rupture bottom (km) 14.5 Rake (degrees) 180 Length (km) 46 Fault Model Deformation Model Char Magi Char Rate Apriori Rate Weight Moment Balanced 2.1 7.029/6.842 9.93e-04/ 1.48e-03 7.73e-04 0.5 � 16� Value is based on Ellsworth relation and 2"d value is based on Hanks and Bakun relation Share this page: Facebook Twitter G000le Email http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/disp_hf info.cfm?cfault id=126a 7/9/2014 California Geological Survey - Probablistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Page 1 of 2 California Home Department of Conservation California Geological Survey Wednesday, July 9, 2014 submit Search This Site Hazards Assessment Probablistic Seismic Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Page Ground Motion Page Earthquakes (Recent & Historic California Fault Database Loss Estimation Aauist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act Seismic Shakinn Hazard Maas of California CGS Links About Us Contact Us Jobs Site Map Help/FAQ CC#AtRYAilO User Selected Site Longitude-117.8199 Latitude 33.9741 Ground Motions for User Selected Site Ground motions (10%probability of being exceeded in 50 years) are expressed as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (g). Three values of ground motion are shown, peak ground acceleration (Pga), spectral acceleration(Sa) at short (0.2 second) and moderately long (1.0 second) periods. Ground motion values are also modified by the local site soil conditions. Each ground motion value is shown for 3 different site conditions: firm rock (conditions on the boundary between site categories B and C as defined by the building code), soft rock (site category C) and alluvium (site category D). round Motion GFirm Rock Soft Rocic Alluvium Pga 0.469 0.469 0.484 Sa 0.2 sec 1.119 1.119 1.178 Sa 1.0 sec 0.419 0.51 0.597 NEHRP Soil Corrections were used to calculate So k and Alluvium. Ground Motion values were interpolated from a grid (0.05 degree spacing of calculated values. Interpolated ground motion may not equal values calculated for a specific site, therefore these values are not intended for design or analysis. ft Roc http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp 7/9/2014 k and Alluvium. Ground Motion values were interpolated from a grid (0.05 degree spacing of calculated values. Interpolated ground motion may not equal values calculated for a specific site, therefore these values are not intended for design or analysis. ft Roc http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp 7/9/2014 Design Maps Summary Report Page 1 of 2 _,, " Design Maps Summary Report User -Specified Input Report Title Yuan Residence/ Crable, 22819 Canyon View Dr., Diamond Bar, California Wed July 9, 2014 21:03:27 UTC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.97407°N, 117.81988°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category IV (e.g. essential facilities) - ��ado ,Zm� , � - - � ���� `I II J% i C3- ��- I � _ 5Qo0milln_da - ��r �� `�� I II _: �`� - W Inu , �� _ � �__ _ D end ��I z�F ��, � I ���n4- ,r.. ! v it �-, _ er - I �—ter -_�- �' ��� L��I Mahr JI _ ��II-JL. �La M Crada��� , ' ' �� �, - mapquoat � __ - { USGS-Provided Output it � � .i._i� � -- JL_ - —If — � � —� ��� li j�I ��— E � _, a a. �_ MER �� t `�� _ _,�,� C,iurio�'s �Ydfe , � � �� r _ S SS = 2.218 g SMS = 2.218 g S°S = 1.479 g Sl = 0.786 g SM, = 1.178 g Spl = 0.786 g � MapQuest For information on how the SS and S1 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. MCER Response Spectrum 2.30 2.07 1,@; 1.61 1,Hi 1,15 0.92 0.69 0, 4i 0.�3 0,00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 O.BQ 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 Z.00 Perlad, T (sec) l.cs 1.50 1.]S 1.�0 1.05 4.D0 0.75 0.60 0.45 4.�4 0.15 0.00 0 beslgn Response Spectrum Perlad. T Isec) http://ehp2-earthquake.wr. usgs. gov/designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitu... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 1 of 6 Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.97407°N, 117.81988°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category IV (e.g. essential facilities) Section 11.4.1 —Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain Ss) and 1.3 (to obtain S,). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 �1� From Figure 22-2 �Z' Section 11.4.2 —Site Class Ss = 2.218 g S,=0.786g The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site -specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class vs Nor N�h s� A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w >_ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength s� < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1 analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 For SI: ift/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ftz = 0.0479 kN/mz http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (M_CER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Site Class Mapped MCE a Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period SS 5 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >_ 1.25 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 SS For Site Class = D and SS = 2.218 g, Fa = 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F� Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period Sl<_0.10 S,=0.20 S,=0.30 S1=0.40 Sl>_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 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S, For Site Class = D and S, = 0.786 g, F� = 1.500 http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 3 of 6 Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.000 x 2.218 = 2.218 g Equation (11.4-2): SM, = FPS, = 1.500 x 0.786 = 1.178 g Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Sos = Z/ S�,s = 2/ x 2.218 = 1.479 g Equation (11.4-4): Sp, = z/ SM, = z/ x 1.178 = 0.786 g Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12�3� T� = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum TeT,:5,=Sas�O.A+O.BTI7o) Tp5T5T�:S�=S� Ts�T�T�:S�=So�lT �'�T�:Sa=Sb,T�li' To = 0.106 T4 = 0.531 1.000 Period. T(sec) http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs. gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report I'.:- � � • Section 11.4.E — Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. n N C 0 V a u G �' a n 5,,; � 2.218 5�71 = 1.178 TQ=0.106 T�=0.531 1.000 P�riocl. T (€�c) http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 �4' Equation (11.8-1): PGA = 0.833 PGAM = FP�APGA = 1.000 x 0.833 = 0.833 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FpGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA <_ PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA >_ 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 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 = 0.833 g, FpGA � 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site -Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 �5' From Figure 22-18 �6' CRs = 0.957 CRl = 0.982 http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs. gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 7/9/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 6 of 6 Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period ReSDonse Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF Sos RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV Sos < 0.167g A A A 0.167g 5 Sos < 0.33g B B C 0.33g 5 SDs < 0.50g C C D 0.509 5 Sos D D D For Risk Category = IV and Sos = 1.479 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Cateqory Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF SDI RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV SDI < 0.067g A A A 0.067g 5 Sol < 0.133g B B C 0.133g <_ SDI < 0.20g C C D 0.20g 5 SDI D D D For Risk Category = IV and So, = 0.786 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When SI is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category =_ "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = F Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References 1. Figure 22-i http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-i.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: httpoHearthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12. pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17.pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http@Hearthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18.pdf http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs. gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal& latitude=... 7/9/2014