HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix G: Geotech ReportAppendix G:
Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
www.haleyaldrich.com
REPORT ON
DESIGN‐LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
101 TERMINAL COURT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
by
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Walnut Creek, California
for
US Terminal Court Owner, LLC
Greenwood Village, Colorado
File No. 0204962‐000
May 2022
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. 2033 N. Main Street Suite 309 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.949.1012
www.haleyaldrich.com
3 May 2022
File No. 0204962‐000
US Terminal Court Owner, LLC
5660 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 10
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Attention: Ms. Ianthe Schaub
Subject: Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation
101 Terminal Court
South San Francisco, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is our design‐level geotechnical investigation report for the proposed redevelopment project
located at 101 Terminal Court in South San Francisco, California (Site). The approximately 8‐acre Site is
currently occupied by three structures in the north and a parking lot. These structures are single‐story
garage and booth structures. The remainder of the Site is paved with asphalt concrete.
The proposed redevelopment project will include the construction of eight (8) new 6‐story buildings
with subsurface parking garages at several buildings. Buildings A1, A2, B2, and B4 will be located within
the 101 Terminal Court parcel; buildings B1, B3, B5, and B6 will be within the 131 Terminal Court parcel.
There are two phases planned for the new development. Phase I consists of Buildings A1, A2, and
related amenities; Phase II includes the remaining six buildings and amenities. The proposed Phase I
buildings (A1 and A2) will have a two story at‐grade parking garage. On the other hand, Phase II
buildings (B1 through B6) will have a total of 6‐story parking garages, including two levels of
underground parking garage. We assume the project will also include underground utilities, asphalt and
concrete pavements, stormwater management facilities, and landscaping. The project design drawings
have not been prepared.
Based on our analysis of the subsurface soil conditions, we conclude that the proposed project is
geotechnically feasible. We find that the primary geotechnical issues that should be addressed during
the design and construction of the planned project include the potential for seismic shaking at the Site, a
high groundwater table and the presence of soft compressible soil at the near surface. We conclude that
the proposed buildings are most economical when supported on deep foundations bearing on the dense
to very dense Colma Formation soils. Our recommendations regarding the deep foundations, site
grading, fill compaction, and other geotechnical aspects of this project are presented in this geotechnical
investigation report.
US Terminal Court Owner, LLC
3 May 2022
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions,
please call.
Sincerely yours,
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Liang Chow, PE (MN)
Project Manager
Catherine H. Ellis, PE, GE (CA)
Senior Associate, Geotechnical Engineer
Enclosures
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Deliverables\Geotechnical_Info\Reports\101 Terminal Ct\2022‐0503_HAI_101 Terminal Ct_Geotech_F.rev.docx
Table of Contents
Page
i
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Appendices iv
1. Introduction 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
2. Site Conditions and Proposed Construction 3
2.1 SITE HISTORY 3
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3
3. Geology 5
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5
3.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY 5
4. Subsurface Explorations 7
4.1 BORINGS 7
4.2 CONE PENETRATION TESTS 8
4.3 FIELD EXPLORATION BY OTHERS 8
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING 8
5. Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions 10
5.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 10
5.2 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY CONDITIONS 10
5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10
6. Discussion and Conclusions 12
6.1 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 12
6.1.1 Site Seismicity 12
6.1.2 Soil Liquefaction 13
6.1.1 Lateral Spreading 15
6.1.1 Sand Boils 15
6.1.2 Cyclic Densification 15
6.1.3 Fault Rupture 15
6.1.1 Tsunami 16
6.2 EXPANSION POTENTIAL 16
6.3 WEAK SOIL DEPOSIT AND FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT 16
6.4 TEMPORARY SHORING OPTIONS 17
Table of Contents
Page
ii
6.5 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING AND WATER LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS 17
7. Recommendations 18
7.1 EARTHWORKS 18
7.1.1 Site Preparation and Grading 18
7.1.2 Subgrade Preparation 18
7.1.3 Material for Fill 19
7.1.4 Re‐Use of On‐site Material 19
7.1.5 Imported, Non‐expansive Fill 20
7.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction 20
7.1.7 Weak or Wet Subgrade Mitigation 21
7.1.8 Underground Utilities 21
7.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 22
7.2.1 Tubex Piles 23
7.2.2 Auger‐Cast Piles 24
7.2.3 Lateral Resistance 25
7.2.4 Pile Foundation Quality Control Testing 26
7.3 SLABS‐ON‐GRADE 27
7.3.1 Floor Slabs 27
7.3.2 Exterior Flatwork 28
7.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE 28
7.5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN 28
7.6 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN 29
7.7 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SHORING 30
7.7.1 General Considerations 30
7.7.2 Lateral Earth Pressures 30
7.7.3 Shoring Installation 32
7.7.4 Design and Construction of Tiebacks 32
7.8 RETAINING WALLS 37
7.9 CORROSION POTENTIAL 38
7.10 STORMWATER INFILTRATION 39
8. Supplemental Geotechnical Services 40
9. Limitations 41
References 42
iii
List of Tables
Table No. Title
I Active Faults within 50 km of the Site (embedded, p. 5)
II WGCEP (2015) Estimates of 30‐Year Probability of a Magnitude 6.7 or Greater
Earthquake (embedded, p. 6)
III Seismic Design Parameters (embedded, p. 13)
IV Liquefaction Screening Values (embedded, p. 14)
V Values Used in Liquefaction Evaluation (embedded, p. 14)
VI Estimated Liquefaction Settlement (embedded, p. 14)
VII General Engineered Fill Grading Requirements (embedded, p. 19)
VIII Class 2 Aggregate Base Grading Requirements (embedded, p. 19)
IX Imported Fill Requirements (embedded, p. 20)
X Summary of Compaction Recommendations (embedded, p. 20)
XI Deep Foundation Alternative Comparison (embedded, p. 22)
XII Lateral Capacity Input Parameters for General Soil Profile (embedded, p. 26)
XIII Gradation Requirements for Capillary Moisture Break (embedded, p. 27)
XIV Flexible Pavement Design (R‐Value = 18) (embedded, p. 29)
XV Rigid Pavement Design (embedded, p. 29)
XVI Tieback Verification Test Incremental Load and Hold Time (embedded, p. 34)
XVII Tieback Proof Test Schedule (embedded, p. 35)
XVIII Recommended Soil Parameters for Retaining Wall (embedded, p. 37)
XIX Corrosivity Analysis Results (embedded, p. 38)
iv
List of Figures
Figure No. Title
1 Project Locus
2 Site Plan
3 Cross Section A‐A’
4 Cross Section B‐B’
5 16/22” Tubex Piles Axial Resistance Charts
6 18” Auger Cast Piles Axial Resistance Charts
7 Temporary Lateral Earth Pressures for Excavation
List of Appendices
Appendix Title
A Boring Logs
B Cone Penetration Test Results
C Previous Hand‐Auger Boring Logs and Cone Penetration Test Results
D Laboratory Testing Results
1
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of Haley & Aldrich, Inc.’s (Haley & Aldrich) design‐level geotechnical
investigation of the proposed project located at 101 Terminal Court in South San Francisco, California.
The approximately 8‐acre project site is bound by the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. Route 101) on the east
side, Terminal Court on the north side, San Bruno Canal on the south, and a commercial lot (131
Terminal Court) on the west side (Site), as shown on Figure 1. The proposed redevelopment spans
across north‐south of the Site and the adjacent 131 Terminal Court. This report describes the subsurface
explorations performed at the Site, provides our interpretation of the subsurface data, and includes
geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development.
The project team includes Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP as the Architect. Structural and civil
engineers had not been determined at the time this report was prepared.
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This geotechnical investigation was performed to obtain geotechnical information on subsurface
conditions at the Site and develop geotechnical design recommendations for the subject project. The
scope of the investigation as outlined in our proposal dated 7 January 2022 and authorized on
2 February 2022 included the following:
Preparing a site‐specific health and safety plan;
Visiting the Site to mark out the geotechnical investigation locations and coordinate utilities
clearance;
Notifying DigAlert at least 48 hours in advance of fieldwork;
A geotechnical field investigation consisting of:
– five (5) soil borings drilled to depths between 80 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs);
– one (1) test hole to be used for Vibrating Wire Piezometer installation to a depth of
about 20 feet;
– three (3) cone penetration tests (CPTs) advanced to depths between 80 and 100 feet
bgs or practical refusal, and
– one (1) seismic CPT advanced to 100 feet bgs with shear wave velocity measurements
on Site and one on the adjacent 131 Terminal Court property.
Reviewing readily available geotechnical and geologic reports pertaining to the Site, specifically
the previous report prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc. (Rockridge, 2021);
Engineering analyses based on the results of the proposed field and laboratory testing
investigation performed by Haley & Aldrich, also based on a review of the previous field and
laboratory testing investigation presented in the Rockridge (2021) report;
Preparing a geotechnical report presenting our conclusions and recommendations for the
proposed development regarding:
– Soil and groundwater conditions at the Site;
2
– Expansion potential of the on‐site soils based on geotechnical laboratory tests and
proper mitigation methods (if required);
– Site seismicity and seismic hazards including potential from seismic events;
– Analyses of the infiltration rate based on the proposed infiltration tests;
– Foundation design criteria for the proposed buildings, including foundation type(s),
design capacities for various foundation systems capable of supporting the planned
structure, and Site improvements;
– Amount of settlement anticipated, given the presence of the new and existing fill
materials, proposed building foundations and slab‐on‐grades, and new Site
improvements;
– Uplift evaluation of the substructures and recommendations (if any);
– Design criteria for vertical and lateral support of the structures (if required);
– Design lateral earth pressures and drainage requirements for ramp retaining walls;
– Temporary shoring design parameters and an evaluation of the open cut stability for the
utility trench constructions;
– Recommendations for slabs‐on‐grade, including floor slabs and exterior concrete
flatwork;
– Recommendations regarding the proposed earthwork, including excavation, backfill,
subgrade preparation, utility trench, non‐expansive import fill (if required), slab‐on‐
grade subgrade, retaining wall backfill, import fill material;
– Flexible asphalt‐concrete and rigid Portland cement concrete pavement designs;
– Corrosion potential of the on‐Site soils; and
– Construction considerations (as appropriate).
3
2. Site Conditions and Proposed Construction
The Site lies west of U.S. Route 101 and is located about a mile northwest of the San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) as shown in Figure 1. The Site coordinates are approximately 37. 643154
degrees north and 122. 407188 degrees west. The Site is relatively flat with site grades ranging between
approximately Elevation (El.) 8.3 and 11.5 feet North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). In general, the
site grade is lowest in the north, and gradually increases toward the south.
There are three existing structures occupying the north of the Site. These structures are single‐story
garage and booth structures. The remainder of the Site is an asphalt paved surface parking lot similar to
the Park ‘N Fly on the opposite side of Terminal Court. Nearby site features include commercial
buildings, industrial facilities, and a surface parking lot. On the opposite side of U.S. Route 101, there are
hotels, gas station, and other commercial buildings. The San Bruno Canal cuts in from the bay shore
(east) to San Mateo Avenue (west) at the southern edge of the Site.
2.1 SITE HISTORY
Historical aerial photographs indicate that the Site was a marshland dating to the 1940s. The Site was
filled in the 1950s. The existing buildings and the adjacent site (131 Terminal Court) have occupied the
Site since the late 1970s or earlier. The parking lot and the existing structure at the Site was most likely
paved and built at around that time.
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Based on the conceptual plans prepared by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP, we understand that US
Terminal Court Owner, LLC is planning on redeveloping the subject property as part of the larger
redevelopment plan for this area of South San Francisco, including construction of multiple 6‐story
buildings with subsurface parking garages at several buildings. A total of eight new buildings are
proposed: Buildings A1, A2, B2, and B4 will be located within the 101 Terminal Court parcel; buildings
B1, B3, B5, and B6 will be within the 131 Terminal Court parcel. There are two phases planned for the
new development. Phase I consists of Buildings A1, A2, and related amenities; Phase II includes the
remaining six buildings and amenities.
The proposed redevelopment project will include the construction of eight (8) new 6‐story buildings
with subsurface parking garages at several buildings and a new parking structure. Buildings A1, A2, B2,
and B4 are located within the 101 Terminal Court parcel; buildings B1, B3, B5, and B6 are within the 131
Terminal Court parcel. There are two phases planned for the new development. Phase I consists of
Buildings A1, A2, and related amenities; Phase II includes the remaining six buildings and amenities. The
proposed Phase I buildings (A1 and A2) will be six stories in above grade height with one level of below
grade parking. The six Phase II buildings (B1 through B6) are planned to have six stories of above grade
height and two levels of below grade parking. There will also be a parking structure with five stories
high with roof top parking and two levels of below grad parking. We assume the project will also include
underground utilities, asphalt and concrete pavements, stormwater management facilities, and
landscaping. The project is still in a conceptual planning phase.
We have assumed that structural loads for the buildings will be on the order of 750 kips to 1,650 kips of
dead plus live loads for exterior and interior of the structures. General cuts and fills are anticipated to be
4
on the order of 3 feet or less, with below grade garage level excavation of 12 to 25 feet. Ramps for the
parking structure from the lowest levels up to the next level are assumed to be on the order of 10 feet
or less.
If the project differs significantly from that described, we should be contacted to review the applicability
of our recommendations.
5
3. Geology
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Site is located on the San Francisco Peninsula at the western Shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in
the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Coast Ranges Province is defined by northwest‐trending
mountain ridges and valleys that run approximately parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The bedrock
within the province generally consists of Tertiary marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks. The
upper bedrock is at least 100 feet bgs at the north end of the Site and dips sharply to at least 250 feet
bgs at the southern edge of the Site. The Site and surrounding area are inland of the former Bay margin
shoreline and east of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, except for San Bruno Mountain, which is located
north of the Site. Based on mapping by Bonilla (1998), the Site is predominately underlain by Quaternary
surficial deposits of Artificial fill over tidal flat. The “Qaf/tf “unit described as Artificial fill over tidal flat
consists of clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man‐made debris placed over tidal flats.
Historical stream channels that cross through the Site are mapped as the “Qaf” unit and described as
Artificial fill consisting of clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man‐made debris. The
southwestern edge of the Site is near the mapped contact with the Colma formation. The “Qc” unit
described as the Colma Formation consists of mostly sandy clay, and silty sand; yellowish orange to gray.
3.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The major active faults closest to the Site are the San Andreas, and San Gregorio, and Hayward‐Rodgers
Creek faults. For each of the active faults within 50 kilometers (km) of the Site, the distance and
direction from the Site and estimated maximum Moment magnitude,1 Mw, are presented in Table I.
TABLE I
Active Faults within 50 km of the Site
Fault Name
USGS
Fault
No.1
Distance
(km)1
Direction
from Site1
Mean
Characteristic Moment
Magnitude
Mean Slip
Rate1
(mm/yr)
Fault
Length1
(km)
San Andreas 1 4 West 7.95 9.0 410
San Gregorio Connected 60 13 West 7.50 >5.0 176
Hayward‐Rodgers Creek 55 26 East 7.33 9 150
Monte Vista‐Shannon 56 27 Southeast 6.50 0.2‐1.0 45
Calaveras 54 40 East 7.03 >5.0 123
Mount Diablo Thrust 353 42 Northeast 6.70 1.0‐5.0 25
Green Valley Connected 37 47 Northeast 6.80 1.0‐5.0 56
Notes:
1) Source: USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.
Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault, as summarized
below:
1836: An earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli
(MM) scale occurred east of Monterey Bay, reportedly on the San Andreas Fault (Toppozada and
1 Moment magnitude is an energy‐based scale used to provide a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting
event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.
6
Borchardt, 1998). The estimated Moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is about 6.25. This
earthquake was previously thought to have occurred on the northern portion of the Hayward
Fault.
1838: An earthquake occurred on the San Andreas Fault with an estimated intensity of about
VIII‐IX (MM), corresponding to an Mw of about 7.5.
1906: The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most significant damage in the history
of the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage. This earthquake created a surface
rupture approximately 470 km in length along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San
Juan Bautista. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), an Mw of about 7.9, and was felt 560 km
away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles.
1989: The most recent major earthquake to affect the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake
of 17 October 1989. It occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains with an Mw of 6.9 and was
approximately 33 km from the Site.
Several earthquakes have also been recorded on the Hayward and Calaveras Faults since the late 1800s,
as summarized below:
1861: An earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw of about 6.5) was reported on the
Calaveras Fault.
1868: An earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on
the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated
Mw for the earthquake is 7.0.
1984: The most recent significant earthquake on the Calaveras Fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill
earthquake (Mw = 6.2).
The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) at the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), in coordination with the California Geological Survey (CGS) and Southern California Earthquake
Center, predicted a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San
Francisco Bay Area in 30 years (i.e., before the year 2044). More specific estimates of the probabilities
for different faults in the Bay Area are presented in Table II.
TABLE II
WGCEP (2015) Estimates of 30‐Year Probability
of a Magnitude 6.7 or Greater Earthquake
Fault Name Probability (%)
Hayward‐Rodgers Creek 14.0
San Andreas 6.4
San Gregorio Connected 2.5
Mount Diablo Thrust 2.5
7
4. Subsurface Explorations
This report is based on the findings of a recent geotechnical investigation. Rockridge (2021) prepared a
Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated 12 January 2021 that was also made available to Haley & Aldrich.
The current field exploration program was performed by Haley & Aldrich between 14 and 18 March
2022. The approximate locations and designations of the subsurface explorations performed for these
two programs are shown on Figure 2 – Site Plan.
Haley & Aldrich explored the subsurface conditions at the Site by:
Advancing four (4) CPTs (designated CPT‐2 through CPT‐4);
Performing two (2) seismic shear wave velocity tests at SCPT‐1 and SCPT‐2; and
Drilling and sampling five (5) soil borings (designated HA‐1 through HA‐5).
A summary of the various exploration programs is presented below.
4.1 BORINGS
Between 14 and 18 March 2022, Haley & Aldrich explored the subsurface conditions at the Site by
drilling exploratory borings HA‐1 through HA‐5 to depths ranging from about 101.5 to 126.5 feet bgs,
using a truck‐mounted drill rig. Prior to performing our field investigation, we notified Underground
Service Alert (USA) and retained a private utility locator to check that the boring locations were clear of
existing utilities.
The borings were drilled by Pitcher Drilling of Palo Alto, California under the direction of our field
engineer, who logged each hole and collected samples for soil classification and laboratory testing
purposes. Soil samples were obtained at discrete locations during drilling using a Modified California
sampler (MCS), a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, and Shelby tubes. The depth where each
sample was collected is shown on the boring logs. The MCS has a 3.0‐inch outside diameter and a
2.43‐inch inside diameter and is lined with three, 6‐inch‐long brass or stainless steel tubes. Shelby tube
samples were collected by pushing the 3‐inch diameter tubes into fine‐grained soil under pressure. The
unlined SPT sampler has a 2.0‐inch outside diameter and a 1.38‐inch inside diameter. MCS and SPT soil
samples were collected by driving each respective sampler to a depth of 18 inches or to penetration
refusal, whichever was encountered first, using a 140‐pound, above‐ground automatic hammer falling
approximately 30 inches. Uncorrected blow counts were recorded for each 6‐inch‐long interval of
sampler penetration and are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. After the samplers were
withdrawn from the test borings, the samples were removed, examined for logging purposes, labeled,
and sealed to retain the natural moisture content for laboratory testing. Prior to sealing the samples,
strength characteristics of the cohesive soil samples recovered were evaluated using a hand‐held pocket
penetrometer. The results of these tests are shown adjacent to the samples on the boring logs in
Appendix A.
Upon completion of the drilling work, each boring was filled to the surface with a cement grout in
accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division permit requirements.
Soil cuttings generated during the subsurface investigation were collected in 55‐gallon drums with lids
and were submitted to an environmental laboratory to analyze for off‐site disposal purposes.
8
4.2 CONE PENETRATION TESTS
On 14 and 15 March 2022, Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were performed by Gregg Drilling & Testing,
Inc. (Gregg Drilling) of Martinez, California. The investigation included a total of three CPTs (designated
as CPT‐2 through CPT‐4) and one seismic CPTs (designated as SCPT‐1) advanced to depths between 83
and 100 feet. SCPT‐2 was advanced in the 131 Terminal Court parcel. The CPTs consisted of hydraulically
pushing a 1.75‐inch diameter, cone‐tipped probe into the soil using a rig with a push capacity of 20 tons.
The cone tip measures tip resistance and the friction sleeve behind the cone tip measures frictional
resistance. Electrical strain gauges within the cone continuously measured soil parameters during the
entire depth the cone was advanced. Soil data, including tip resistance and frictional resistance, were
recorded and then processed to provide information for use in our geotechnical engineering analyses.
One pore pressure dissipation test was performed at a depth of around 20 feet at each CPT to measure
hydrostatic water pressures and to infer the approximate depth to groundwater. Upon completion, the
CPT hole was backfilled with cement grout in accordance with San Mateo County Environmental Health
Services Division permit requirements.
To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are
decoupled from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The
distance from the source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the
horizontal offset distance between the source and the cone. Seismic shear wave tests were performed
at every 5‐foot interval to a depth of 100 feet at both SCPT‐1 and SCPT‐2.
The stratigraphic interpretation of the CPT data was performed based on relationships between cone
bearing and sleeve friction versus penetration depth. The friction ratio, which is sleeve friction divided
by cone bearing, is a calculated parameter used to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soil
(clays) have high friction ratios, low cone bearing and generate large excess pore water pressures.
Cohesionless soil (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate small excess pore
water pressures. The interpretation of soil properties from the cone data has been carried out using
recent correlations developed by Robertson and Cabal (2010). The CPT logs and shear wave velocity
tests generated for the exploration program by Gregg, showing tip resistance and friction ratio by depth
and interpreted soil classifications and strengths, are presented in Appendix B.
4.3 FIELD EXPLORATION BY OTHERS
Rockridge (2021) completed field investigations in December 2020. Their investigations included:
two (2) hand‐auger borings (designated hand‐auger as “HA”: HA‐1 and HA‐3) were augered to a
maximum depth of 5 feet bgs; and
four (4) CPTs (designated as CPT‐1 through CPT‐4) to a maximum depth of 94 feet bgs.
The hand‐auger borings were augered adjacent to the CPT locations. Rockridge reported that hand‐
auger borings HA‐2 and HA‐4 met refusal just below pavement; therefore, they only included HA‐1 and
HA‐3 in the report. Previous hand‐auger borings and CPTs are presented in Appendix C.
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples from the exploratory test borings were re‐examined at our office to review their Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) classification and selected samples were submitted to Cooper Testing
9
Labs, Inc. (Cooper) in Palo Alto, California for geotechnical laboratory testing. Samples were tested to
measure moisture content, dry density, Atterberg limits, Resistance (R)‐Value, triaxial unconsolidated
undrained strength, and consolidation properties. Geotechnical laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix D.
Two samples of near‐surface soil were also submitted to CERCO Analytical, Inc. of Concord, California
and tested for corrosion properties, including pH, resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. The
results of the testing are included in Appendix D.
10
5. Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions
5.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our review of the existing geotechnical report and information gathered during our
geotechnical investigation, we estimate that approximately 7½ to 8½ feet of undocumented fill blankets
the Site below the asphalt concrete pavement. Where encountered, the fill generally consists of clayey
gravel, silty sand, lean clay, and clayey sand with or without gravel. In the Rockridge (2021) report, hand‐
auger refusal on gravelly fill is noted. The locations of our geotechnical investigation locations, along
with previous investigation locations from others are shown in Figure 2.
The subsurface condition is generally consistent and comparable to existing subsurface investigation
data. An overview of subsurface conditions is presented as cross sections in Figures 3 and 4. Below the
fill, in our borings and CPTs we encountered the Young Bay Mud (marsh deposit) to depths ranging from
17 to 41 feet bgs. The Young Bay Mud is mostly soft to medium stiff consistency and known to be highly
compressible. Across the Site, the thickness of the Young Bay Mud is generally about 20 feet. However,
boring HA‐4, which we drilled, and CPT‐1 from Rockridge (2021) indicate that the soft clay layer starts to
dip toward north of the Site. Our boring HA‐4 at the north encountered the bottom of Young Bay Mud at
41 feet bgs. Underlying the Young Bay Mud is the Colma formation (alluvial deposit) consisting of
interbedded medium dense to very dense sand, clayey sand, and silty sand and stiff to hard clayey sand
and clay to depths between 65 and 70 feet bgs. Below the Colma formation is the Old Bay deposit,
which is characterized by stiff to hard fat clay, to depths ranging from 77 to 85 feet bgs. This Old Bay
deposit is underlain by interbedded dense to very dense sand and silty sand and very stiff to hard sandy
clay and clay to the maximum exploration depth of 126½ feet bgs. None of the borings that we drilled
encountered competent mélange bedrock (Franciscan Complex) at the termination depths. However,
our CPT‐3 and all previous CPTs from Rockridge (2021) encountered high tip resistance and refusal at
depths ranging from 83 and 94 feet bgs, at the bottommost interbedded layer.
5.2 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY CONDITIONS
Shear wave velocity profile of subsurface alluvial soils at the Site was recorded by means of seismic CPT
shear wave testing at SCPT‐1. The test results indicate that the average shear wave velocities of the soils
within the upper 100 feet of the Site are approximately 208 meters per second (m/s) (684 feet per
second [ft/s]). Similar results were encountered in SCPT‐2 for the adjacent parcel at 131 Terminal Court.
5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Rockridge (2021) reported groundwater at depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet bgs in their CPTs during their
exploration in December 2020. During our subsurface explorations in mid‐March 2022, we encountered
groundwater at depths between 5 and 8 feet bgs in our CPTs and 7 to 7½ feet within our borings. Note
that groundwater may fluctuate over time.
Historical groundwater at the project site was mapped by CGS (2021) at a depth of approximately 2 feet
bgs. Rockridge (2021) cited a groundwater monitoring report prepared by Conestoga‐Rovers &
Associates in May 2010, for a former Olympian station located at the north of 131 Terminal Court, which
indicated historical high groundwater depths of 0.4 to 3 feet between 2000 and 2010. Based on our
findings, we recommend that a design groundwater depth of 1 foot bgs be used.
11
12
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Based on our review of subsurface information for the Site, we conclude the primary geotechnical issues
affecting the design and construction of the planned industrial development include the following:
site seismicity and potential seismic hazards including liquefaction;
soft, compressible soils near the existing ground surface;
undocumented fill;
high groundwater elevations; and
selection of an appropriate foundation system(s).
Our discussion of these and other geotechnical issues are presented in the remainder of this report.
6.1 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
During a major earthquake, seismic shaking has the potential to occur at the Site, as is typical
throughout the Bay Area, and as experienced during the 1989 Loma Prieta event. Shaking during an
earthquake can result in ground failure, such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading,
and cyclic densification. Haley & Aldrich’s assessment of these potential seismic hazards is presented in
the following sections.
6.1.1 Site Seismicity
A seismic hazard analysis was performed using the USGS Unified Hazard Tool
(https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/) website. Our deaggregation analysis utilized the
USGS Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014 (v.4.2) edition. For our analyses, we evaluated the Site as Site
Class D, based on an average shear wave velocity over the top 100 feet (30 meters) of the site (Vs30) of
about 684 ft/s; this value was calculated based on the average shear wave velocity measured at SCPT‐1
and SCPT‐2 during our field investigation on 14 March 2022.
Based on the seismicity of faults that may impact the Site and the results of the deaggregation analysis,
a design earthquake with an Mw of 7.86 was selected for the seismic hazard evaluation. The peak
horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) for the Site, which is based on the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) with a return interval of 2,475 years, or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in
50 years, is 1.07g. The risk‐based site‐modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) for the Site is 0.97g;
this value was computed based on procedures outlined in ASCE 7‐16 (ASCE, 2017). Recommended code‐
based seismic parameters for design of the proposed structures in conformance with the 2019 California
Building Code (California Building Standards Commission, 2019) and ASCE 7‐16 are presented in Table III.
13
TABLE III
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Parameter Design Value
Site Class (ASCE 7‐16 Table 1613.5.2) D
Risk Category II
MCER1 Ground Motion (Period = 0.2 seconds), Ss 2.056 g
MCER Ground Motion (Period = 1.0 seconds), S1 0.851 g
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.881 g
Site Amplification Factor at 0.2 seconds, Fa 1.0
Site Amplification Factor at 1.0 seconds, Fv ‐‐
Site Amplification Factor for PGA, FPGA 1.1
Site‐Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.97 g
Site‐Modified Spectral Acceleration Value at 0.2 seconds, SMS 2.056 g
Site‐Modified Spectral Acceleration Value at 1.0 seconds, SM1 ‐‐
Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 seconds, SDS 1.371 g
Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 seconds, SD1 ‐‐
Notes:
1) MCER = Risk‐targeted maximum considered earthquake
2) g = acceleration of gravity
3) Values of Fv, SM1, and SD1 are undefined for this site class without performance of a site‐specific ground motion hazard analysis.
4) Design values presented above are based on a site located at latitude / longitude = 37.643154 / ‐122.407188.
6.1.2 Soil Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the process in which saturated, cohesionless soil experiences a temporary loss of
strength due to the buildup of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading resulting from
earthquake ground motions. The type of soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean,
saturated, uniformly graded sand and silt that have low clay content. Flow failure, lateral spreading,
differential settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures, and sand boils are evidence of
liquefaction.
According to an evaluation by CGS (2021) for seismically induced hazards, the project site is mapped
within a Seismic Hazard Zone that may have the potential for liquefaction.
We performed screening for liquefiable soils using the Boulanger and Idriss (2014) criteria, which state
that fine‐grained soils with a plasticity index of 7 or greater are not susceptible to liquefaction. Haley &
Aldrich performed three Atterberg Limits tests on samples obtained within borings HA‐3 and HA‐5.
Plasticity indexes from each of these samples indicate that the selected clayey soils (CL or CH) are not
susceptible to liquefaction.
14
TABLE IV
Liquefaction Screening Values
Exploration
No.
Sample Depth
(ft)
Plasticity
Index (PI)
Liquid
Limit (LL)
USCS Soil
Type
HA‐3 14 10 30 CL
HA‐3 45 12 27 SC
HA‐5 9.5 52 89 CH
HA‐5 77 40 65 CH
Notes:
We evaluated liquefaction potential at the Site by performing analyses in accordance with the
methodology presented in publications prepared by Idriss and Boulanger (2008 and 2014). Our
liquefaction analyses were performed using data from our explorations, which extended to depths of
approximately 83 to 100 feet bgs.
The parameters used in the liquefaction evaluation are shown in Table V.
TABLE V
Values Used in Liquefaction Evaluation
Liquefaction Evaluation Parameter Value
Depth to Groundwater, during current explorations (feet bgs) 5 ‐ 8
Depth to Groundwater, during Design Earthquake (feet bgs) 1.0
Design Peak Ground Acceleration 0.97g
Predominant Earthquake Moment Magnitude, Mw 7.86
Factor of Safety for Liquefaction Triggering 1.3
Based on our analyses, we conclude that the potential for on‐site liquefaction to occur within the upper
50 feet bgs is generally high, due to the presence of saturated silty soils encountered in most subsurface
exploration locations. The potentially liquefiable soils include sand, silty sand, and sandy silt which were
identified between approximately 16 and 80 feet bgs. The thickness of the layers is variable across the
Site. Total free‐field (volumetric) settlement from a design seismic event is estimated to be between
about ½ to inches within the upper 50 feet with differential settlements typically about ½ to 2½ inches
over about 50 feet in the CPTs. Although the results of the analysis are reported for the borings, the
sampling intervals can over predict the settlement. As such, we are disregarding these estimates.
TABLE VI
Estimated Liquefaction Settlement
Exploration
No.
Exploration
Depth (feet)
Estimated
Settlement in
Upper 50 feet (in.)
Estimated Settlement
for Full Depth (in.)
CPT‐2 100 3.8 5.7
CPT‐3 83 3.3 4.5
CPT‐4 98 1.3 2.2
SCPT‐1 100 2.8 5.7
SCPT‐21 99 4.8 7.7
HA‐12 102 4.1 4.3
HA‐22 102 0.4 3.1
HA‐32 118 5.0 5.0
15
HA‐42 127 7.9 12.4
HA‐52 114 6.5 6.5
Note:
1) This SCPT was performed at the adjacent property, 131 Terminal Court.
2) Due to sampling intervals, these settlements are not considered representative.
6.1.1 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a potential hazard commonly associated with liquefaction where extensive ground
cracking and settlement occurs as a response to lateral migration of subsurface liquefiable material.
These phenomena typically occur adjacent to free faces such as slopes and creek channels.
The free face for San Bruno Canal is located at the southern edge of the project site. We do not have
surveyed geometry of the canal, and therefore estimated the geometry based on Google Earth. We
completed a preliminary lateral spreading analysis based on Zhang et al. (2004). Assuming a site setback
distance of 55 feet and free face height of 6 feet, we estimate the lateral spreading at the southern edge
of the site to be approximately 30 to 130 inches. During the design level phase of the project, more
detailed topography should be collected and a detailed analysis presented.
6.1.1 Sand Boils
We evaluated the soil profile at CPT‐2 through CPT‐4, and SCPT‐1 for the potential for liquefaction‐
related surface manifestations to occur following the procedure presented by Ishihara (1985). Our
analyses indicate that the thickness of the non‐liquefiable mantle at selected locations may not be
sufficient to prevent surface manifestations from occurring during and shortly after the design seismic
event. These manifestations could include sand boils, a phenomenon where liquefied soil is displaced
and ejected up to the ground surface. If sand boils were to appear, an unpredictable level of additional
liquefaction‐induced settlement could result, causing significant distress to overlying structures and
improvements.
6.1.2 Cyclic Densification
Seismically induced compaction or densification of non‐saturated granular soil (such as sand above the
groundwater table) due to earthquake vibrations can result in settlement of the ground surface. Based
on the results of our subsurface exploration program, and due to the estimated high‐water table during
a seismic event, we conclude that the potential for cyclic densification at the Site is low.
6.1.3 Fault Rupture
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The Site
is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and
no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site (California Department of Conservation,
2021). Based on this information, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and secondary ground failure
is low.
16
6.1.1 Tsunami
The Site is subject to mapping in the California Tsunami Hazard Area of San Mateo County. Based on
maps published by the State of California (2021), the Site is located outside of the area predicted to be
affected by tsunamis. Therefore, we judge that the potential for a seismically induced wave to impact
the Site to be nil.
6.2 EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Visual classification of soil samples collected during our exploration indicate that the near‐surface fine‐
grained soils have very low to low expansion potential. Expansive soil is characterized by their ability to
undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in
soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, perched groundwater, drought or
other factors. Changes in soil moisture may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures,
concrete slabs supported on‐grade or pavements supported on these materials. Due to the low
expansive nature of the surficial soil (fill) mitigation measures are not required. Although not
anticipated, if slabs are supported on Bay Mud (marsh deposits), we should review these conclusions
and recommendations.
6.3 WEAK SOIL DEPOSIT AND FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
Our subsurface investigation indicates that approximately 7½ to 8½ feet of fill is present below the
asphalt concrete and the fill is primarily underlain by the Young Bay Mud (marsh deposit) to depths
ranging from 17 to 41 feet. The existing fill are variable with respect to the quality of materials and
compaction level. The field data including resistance N‐values suggest there are areas of fill which
suggest at least some of the fill materials were likely placed without compaction and that it is
inconsistent in density.
The underlying Young Bay Mud (marsh deposit) appears to be the limiting soil with respect to strength
and compressibility. Based on the anticipated column loads for the proposed structures and significant
depths of fill encountered during our explorations, spread footing foundations do not appear to be an
economical approach for support of the proposed structures. The consolidation test results indicate the
soft Young Bay Mud is highly compressible and slightly over consolidated (see Appendix D). Based on
this information, we estimate up to 5½ inches of settlement will occur under the new fill and building
pad at the Site with maximum grade raise of 3 feet and conventional shallow spread footing foundation
using a maximum allowable dead plus live bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We
also estimate that approximately 50 percent of the total settlement will occur within about 7 months
after the loads are applied. At the HA‐4 location (north of the Site), where the Young Bay Mud is
thickest, it will take a longer time to consolidate. This magnitude of settlement under static loading
conditions will exceed general requirements for building performance.
At this Site, there are substantially denser coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) below the Young Bay
Mud are judged suitable for support of the proposed structures. Because of this, it may be more
economical to support the proposed structures on deep foundations bearing at the alluvial layer. Our
recommendations for deep foundations, including Tubex and auger‐cast piles, are given in the next
sections.
17
Due to the potential settlement, we recommend that the interior floors be design as structural slabs and
not rely on the subgrade for support.
6.4 TEMPORARY SHORING OPTIONS
Construction of the below‐grade levels will require excavation depths 12 to 25 feet bgs depending on
the number of below grade levels of parking. These excavation depths include an excavation of
approximately 1 foot below the base of the slab to accommodate a gravel layer, mud slab, and
waterproofing material. As such, a support of excavation system is required to facilitate below‐grade
construction and to mitigate the flow of groundwater entering the excavation. The most appropriate
shoring system(s) should take into account the requirements for protecting adjacent properties and
improvements, as well as cost. We qualitatively evaluated the following systems:
Conventional soldier pile and lagging;
Concrete diaphragm wall or soil‐cement column walls.
Conventional soldier pile and lagging walls are difficult to install with soft compressive clays and allow
water into the excavation. Mixed‐in‐place soil‐cement column walls provide a relatively rigid shoring
system that is capable of significantly limiting lateral deformations and ground subsidence adjacent to
the shoring system. This system is considered to be a low‐permeability shoring system and would
provide superior resistance to lateral groundwater infiltration into the excavation. These walls will
require internal and/or external lateral supports around the excavation perimeter to resist lateral
pressures.
6.5 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING AND WATER LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS
Groundwater is expected to be encountered as shallow as approximately 1 foot bgs. Construction of
utilities and other improvements that extend below groundwater levels will require dewatering and
shoring programs capable of adapting to varied soil and groundwater conditions. We anticipate that
water will have a low flow rate, although zones of sandy soils may present moderate to rapid water
flow.
Due to the presence of generally fine‐grained soils, though with some granular zones, the use of
pumping from sumps within excavations is expected to be feasible for trench dewatering. However, the
larger (e.g., underground parking) excavations may require the use of well point dewatering, unless
watertight shoring embedded into the clay layer is used. Pumping from sumps may be effective in
removing water from the bases of trenches but will not prevent or reduce the greater risk of trench wall
caving and sloughing caused by seepage.
We anticipate that the base of excavations will be soft and/or unstable if groundwater is present or
within a few feet of the base of the trenches. If that is the case, we recommend placing stabilization
material at the base of excavations. The use of a geotextile separation fabric may be necessary below
stabilization material to help prevent the stabilization material from pushing into the unstable base
materials.
18
7. Recommendations
7.1 EARTHWORKS
7.1.1 Site Preparation and Grading
The proposed building and parking lot areas should be cleared of existing pavements, trees, abandoned
utilities and other obstructions. The proposed building and parking lot areas should be stripped of soil
containing over 3 percent organic matter (if present). We anticipate the excavation for this project can
be made using conventional earth‐moving equipment.
All active or inactive utilities within the construction area should be protected, relocated, or abandoned.
Any pipelines to be abandoned within the proposed buildings should either be removed or be filled with
sand‐cement slurry. Pipelines 2 inches in diameter or less may be left in place beneath the building.
Pipelines between 2 and 6 inches in diameter may be left in place within the limits of the building
provided they are filled with sand‐cement slurry. We recommend that abandoned in place lines be
grouted in 100‐foot‐linear sections to confirm that grout has fully filled the abandoned pipe. Pipelines
larger than 6 inches in diameter within the planned addition should be removed. At locations where
exiting utility lines will remain in place, foundations should be extended below a plane projected 45
degrees upwards from any point in the excavation. Existing utilities within the parking lot areas should
be addressed as above where appearing at depths of less than 4 feet below the proposed ground
surface elevation. Where existing utilities within proposed parking lot areas are deeper than 4 feet
below the proposed ground surface, the utilities may either be removed, as described above, or
abandoned in place.
7.1.2 Subgrade Preparation
The Site should be rough graded to accommodate the proposed grading plan. Recommendations for
mitigation of existing fill are presented for each building type below. In proposed building areas,
subgrade preparation should extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the proposed building slabs and
any adjoining flatwork. In exterior concrete slab and pavement areas, subgrade preparation should
extend at least 2 feet beyond the limits of these improvements.
We estimate that approximately 7½ to 8½ feet of undocumented fill is present below the asphalt
concrete pavement. At the building area, loose or disturbed soil or undocumented fill soils should be
over‐excavated to a minimum of 1 foot below existing grade or finished pad elevation, whichever is
deeper. The exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned
and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in the section entitled “Fill Placement
and Compaction.”
In non‐foundation areas that will receive new fills, building loads, and site improvements, such as
pavements, sidewalks, and other exterior slabs, the exposed soil subgrade should be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Engineer. If fill is exposed, it should be over‐excavated to a minimum of 1 foot below
existing grade or finished pad elevation, whichever is deeper. The exposed subgrade should be scarified
to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations given in the section entitled “Fill Placement and Compaction.” If undisturbed,
19
competent native soil, consideration may be given by the Geotechnical Engineer to reduce the over‐
excavation.
Prepared soil subgrades should be non‐yielding when proof‐rolled by a fully loaded water truck or
equipment of similar weight. Moisture conditioning of subgrade soil should consist of adding water if
the soil is too dry and allowing the soil to dry if the soil is too wet. After the subgrades are properly
prepared, the areas may be raised to design grades by placement of engineered fill.
7.1.3 Material for Fill
Except for organic laden soil, the on‐Site soil is suitable for use as general engineered fill if it is free of
deleterious matter and satisfies the criteria in Table VII. Soil for use in engineered fill should be
inorganic, and free of deleterious materials and hazardous substances. For this project, inorganic soil is
soil with an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight or without visible organic matter deemed
excessive by Haley & Aldrich.
TABLE VII
General Engineered Fill Grading Requirements
Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
3 inch 100
1½ inch 85‐100
7.1.4 Re‐Use of On‐site Material
Any existing asphalt or aggregate base that is removed during demolition may be suitable to be
pulverized and mixed with the underlying base for use as engineered fill if it has an organic content of
less than 3 percent by dry weight and meets the following requirements presented under the “Material
for Fill” section of this report.
The processed asphalt concrete/base material may be used as Class 2 Aggregate base if it meets the
following requirements from Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications:
TABLE VIII
Class 2 Aggregate Base Grading Requirements
Sieve Size Percentage Passing
1 inch 100 min.
¾ inch 90‐100
No. 4 35‐60
No. 30 10‐30
No. 200 2‐9
Note Quality Requirements:
Sand Equivalent: 25 min R‐value: 78 min
Site recycled material may be processed and reused as engineered fill, non‐expansive fill, or aggregate
base if it meets the requirements presented in this report for the specific materials.
20
7.1.5 Imported, Non‐expansive Fill
All imported fill soils should be nearly free of free organic or other deleterious debris, essentially non‐
plastic, and less than 3 inch minus in maximum dimension. Specific requirements for import fill are
provided below.
TABLE IX
Imported Fill Requirements
Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
3 inch 100
1½ inch 85‐100
#200 Screen 8‐40
Atterberg Limits Percent
Plasticity Index 12 or less
Liquid Limit Less than 30
Fill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to placement and delivery
to the Site. At least 5 working days prior to importing to the Site, a representative sample of the
proposed import fill should be delivered to our laboratory for evaluation.
7.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each not exceeding 8 inches in
uncompacted thickness. Compaction of fill should be performed by mechanical means only. Due to
equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be necessary to achieve the recommended degree of
compaction. Fill should be placed in accordance with Table X, Summary of Compaction
Recommendations.
TABLE X
Summary of Compaction Recommendations
Area Compaction Recommendations (See Notes 1 through 4)
Subgrade Preparation and
Placement of General Engineered
Fill,5 Including Imported Non‐
expansive Fill
Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade and entire fill to a minimum of
90 percent compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content.
Where interior flatwork is exposed to vehicular traffic, compact aggregate
base to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near optimum moisture
content.
Trenches6 Compact trench backfill to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at near
to slightly over optimum moisture. Where trenches will be under the
pavement section, flatwork, or other improvements, the upper 12 inches,
measured from finished grade of the trench backfill should be compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent compaction.
21
Area Compaction Recommendations (See Notes 1 through 4)
Exterior Flatwork Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade to a minimum of 90 percent
compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content. Compact
aggregate base to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at or above
optimum moisture content. Where exterior flatwork is exposed to
vehicular traffic, compact aggregate base to a minimum of 95 percent
compaction at near optimum moisture content.
Paved Areas Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent
compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content. Compact
aggregate baserock to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near
optimum moisture content.
Notes:
1) Depths are below finished subgrade elevation.
2) All compaction requirements refer to relative compaction as a percentage of the laboratory standard described by ASTM D‐1557 (latest
version). All lifts to be compacted shall be a maximum of 8 inches loose thickness.
3) All compacted surfaces, such as fills, subgrades, and backfills need to be firm and stable, and should be unyielding under compaction
equipment.
4) Where fills, such as backfill placement after removal of existing underground utility lines, are greater than 7 feet in depth, the portion of
the fill deeper than 7 feet should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent compaction.
5) Includes building pads.
6) In landscaping areas, this percent compaction in trenches may be reduced to 85 percent. Water jetting or flooding to obtain compaction of
backfill should not be permitted.
7.1.7 Weak or Wet Subgrade Mitigation
Rockridge (2021) reported groundwater level at depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet bgs in their CPTs during
their exploration in December 2020. During our subsurface explorations in mid‐March 2022, we
encountered groundwater at depths between 5 and 8 feet bgs in our CPTs and 7 to 7½ feet within our
borings. Groundwater may fluctuate over time. Excavations for foundations, utilities, and other
improvements may encounter weak or wet soil conditions depending on the depths and elevations of
these features. If weak or wet soil subgrade is encountered during grading and adequate compaction
cannot be achieved, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately to assess the condition of
the weak or wet subgrade and provide site‐specific recommendations for stabilizing and/or repairing the
exposed subgrade. Potential subgrade repair options include:
Over‐excavating and removing the weak or wet soil and replacing it with select non‐expansive
fill underlain by geotextile tensile fabric (Mirafi 500X or equivalent).
Stabilizing the exposed subgrade by thoroughly blending a lime or cement admixture into the
weak or wet soil at a concentration of approximately 5 percent of dry weight of soil being
treated, and subsequently compacting the treated subgrade to at least 90 percent relative
compaction.
7.1.8 Underground Utilities
Excavations for utility trenches can be made with a backhoe. All trenches should conform to the current
Cal/OSHA requirements. Backfill for utility trenches and other excavations is also considered fill, and it
should be compacted according to the recommendations presented in the section “Fill Placement and
Compaction.” Jetting of trench backfill should not be permitted. Special care should be taken when
backfilling utility trenches in pavement areas. Poor compaction may cause excessive settlements,
resulting in damage to the pavement section.
22
Underground utilities should be located above a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward
from the bottom of the new footings to avoid undermining the footings during the excavation of the
utility trench.
Pipes or conduits should be supported on bedding material with a thickness equal to D/4 (with D equal
to the outside diameter of the pipe) or 4 inches of sand or fine non‐angular gravel below the pipe,
whichever is greater. After the pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if required) and approved, they
should be covered to a minimum depth of 6 inches with sand or fine non‐angular gravel, which should
be mechanically tamped.
Soil excavated from utility trenches may require moisture‐conditioning (drying) prior to reusing the
material as compacted on‐site general fill. Groundwater was encountered at depths between 5 and
8 feet bgs in our CPTs and 7 to 7½ feet within our borings during our exploration; therefore, any
excavations extending below groundwater will require dewatering. Dewatering should lower the
groundwater level to a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. If the soil exposed in the
bottom of the excavation is soft or wet, it will be necessary to over‐excavate the soil and replace it with
crushed rock to create a working platform. The depth of over‐excavation should be determined in the
field at the time of construction; but for planning purposes, a depth of 12 inches may be assumed.
7.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS
As discussed in the “Subsurface Conditions” section, the marsh deposit is underlain by an alluvium layer
and Colma Formation soil consisting of interbedded medium dense to very dense sand, clayey sand, and
silty sand and stiff to hard clayey sand and clay to depths between 65 and 70 feet bgs. Based on this, we
recommend that deep foundation be extended to a depth of at least 50 to 60 feet bgs. Therefore, we
recommend the proposed buildings be supported on deep foundations borne within the dense soil
layer. In this report, we considered Tubex and auger‐cast piles, or equivalent, for this project.We
recommend a minimum diameter of 16 inches for Tubex piles and 18 inches for auger‐cast piles.
Tubex piles offer several advantages over conventional driven piles such as greater vertical and lateral
load capacity, limited vibration, limited noise, low overhead clearance requirements and small size and
mobility of the construction equipment. Auger‐cast piles also offer similar advantages. A brief
comparison of several other deep foundation types is tabulated in Table XI below.
TABLE XI
Deep Foundation Alternative Comparison
Factor
Tubex/
Fundex Auger‐Cast
Pre‐Stressed
Concrete Torque Down Driven Steel Beam
Noise Low Low High Low High
Vibration Low Low High Low High
Indicator Piles Not mandatory,
steel shell cut or
spliced as needed
Not mandatory, cut
or splice
reinforcement cage
as needed
Recommended Not mandatory,
steel shell cut or
spliced as needed
Not mandatory, cut
or splice beam as
needed
Load Testing Required unless
advanced to
bedrock or if loads
are light to
moderate
Required unless
advanced to
bedrock or if loads
are light to
moderate
Required unless
advanced to
bedrock or if loads
are light to
moderate
Required unless
advanced to
bedrock or if loads
are light to
moderate
Required unless
advanced to
bedrock or if loads
are light to
moderate
23
Steel and
Concrete QC
Field welds, post
installation exterior
grout cannot be
seen, concrete in
shell requires field
inspection/testing
of concrete
placement
Concrete (grout)
requires field
inspection/testing
of concrete
placement
Requires production
yard
inspection/testing
of concrete
placement
Field welds, no
exterior grout,
concrete in shell
requires field
inspection/testing
of concrete
placement
Field welds (if
needed for splicing)
Installation
Monitoring
Based on torque,
crowd readings,
advancement rates,
and grout return
Based on torque,
advancement rates,
and grout return
Based on refusal
based driving
criteria
Based on torque,
crowd readings, and
advancement rates
Based on refusal
based driving
criteria
Vertical
Capacity High capacity minus
down drag if any Low capacity minus
down drag if any High capacity minus
down drag if any High capacity minus
down drag if any High capacity minus
down drag, if any.
Lateral
Capacity
Depends on size Depends on size Depends on size Depends on size Depends on size
Disadvantages High cost.
Some cuttings
generated in post
grout stream.
Considerable
displacement of
spoils.
More than average
dependence on
quality of
workmanship.
Some displacement
of spoils from
predrilling.
Difficult to field
adjust length.
High cost. Susceptible to
corrosion.
Advantages Less noise and
vibration
Easily adapts to
varying depths to
bedrock in the field
without substantial
cutoff
Steel casing
provides
reinforcement on
the outside of pile,
minimizing
reinforcing steel
Less noise and
vibration
Can be less
expensive than
propriety methods
Corrosion resistance Less noise and
vibration
Easily adapts to
varying depths to
bedrock in the field
without substantial
cutoff
Steel casing
provides
reinforcement on
the outside of pile,
minimizing
reinforcing steel
Easy to splice
Small displacement
spoils
Able to penetrate
through light
obstacles
Can be less
expensive than
propriety methods
7.2.1 Tubex Piles
Tubex piles are a proprietary deep foundation system developed in the Netherlands and imported to the
United States. A Tubex pile consists of a steel pipe pile that is screwed into the ground with a conical
shaped drill tip 6 inches larger in diameter than the pipe shaft. Individual sections of pipe pile are
welded together as the pile is extended into the ground. Cement grout is pumped out through small
ports at the drill tip creating a cement ground shield around the circumference of the steel pipe pile. The
auger action and high‐pressure grout causes soil to displace away from the pile as it is installed. The final
diameter of the pile matches the diameter of the drill tip. The hollow pile is backfilled with 4,000 pounds
per square inch (psi) concrete upon reaching the desired tip elevation. The Tubex piles will derive
frictional resistance or adhesion between the cement grout shield and the adjacent soils.
The structural capacity of the Tubex pile is dependent on craftsmanship, strength of materials,
reinforcement design, applied loads at the pile top, pile top connection details, and drag loads
24
associated with negative skin friction due to liquefaction. The structural engineer should check the
structural performance of the Tubex pile, particularly the moments and shear loads developed under
lateral loading. In addition, consideration should be given to performing a pile load test program at the
Site to confirm the axial capacity of the piles.
Tubex piles offer several advantages over conventional driven piles such as greater vertical and lateral
load capacity, limited vibration, limited noise, low overhead clearance requirements and small size and
mobility of the construction equipment.
7.2.1.1 Tubex Pile Axial Capacity
We recommend that 16/22‐inch diameter, 3/8‐inch thick, Tubex pipe piles, or equivalent, be used on
the project. The steel pipe diameter is 16 inches and the grout shield diameter is 22 inches.
Vertical pile capacity was evaluated based on the computer program APILE v2019 (Ensoft, Inc.). Our
analysis of pile capacity includes static (long‐term) loading conditions and seismic loading conditions,
where capacity in the upper approximately 30 feet of soil is ignored due to the potential for liquefaction.
For post‐seismic (static conditions after an earthquake), a downdrag load due to liquefaction‐induced
settlement should be accounted for in the pile analysis. However, the downdrag load does not need to
be coupled with seismic forces, as the settlement typically occurs after earthquake shaking stops.
The ultimate axial capacity of a 16/22 Tubex pile installed from the existing ground surface for the
general soil profile is presented on Figure 5. The weight of the foundation is not included in the ultimate
resistance shown in these figures. The piles should extend to at least 50 to 60 feet into the dense to very
dense coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) to develop support from friction in the fill and native soils
as well as the end bearing in that layer.
Axial capacity is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procedures for design of Tubex pile.
For skin resistance calculations, this method uses the Nordlund method for granular soils and the
Tomlinson method for cohesive soils. The program also uses the Thurman variation of the Meyerhof
recommendations for calculation of tip resistance. For the cohesive soils, we estimated undrained shear
strength based on correlations with the tip resistance and laboratory tests. Skin resistance in the upper
5 feet of soil is neglected in our analyses to account for potential disturbance and seasonal moisture
changes.
For allowable static axial capacity in Tubex pile design, we recommend a factor of safety of 2.5 ultimate
axial resistance. For allowable uplift capacity, a factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate
uplift capacity. No reduction in axial capacity due to group action is required for piles spaced at least 3
diameters on center‐to‐center. We also estimated an unfactored dragload downdrag load of 250 kips
due to consolidation of the Young Bay Mud. This down drag load for static condition and 40 kips for
seismic condition. These downdrag loads should be considered as a structural load but do not need to
be considered in the geotechnical capacity of the pile.
7.2.2 Auger‐Cast Piles
The proposed structures can also be supported on auger‐cast‐in‐place (ACIP) or auger‐cast piles. ACIP
piles are installed by drilling a continuous flight, hollow‐stem auger into ground to a specific depth in
one continuous process. At the same time the auger is withdrawn from the hole, sand/cement grout is
25
placed by pumping the concrete or grout mix through the hollow center of the auger pipe to the base of
the auger, eliminating the need for temporary casing or slurry. Reinforcement can be placed into the
hole filled with fluid concrete or ground immediately after withdrawal of the auger.
ACIP piles have become more commonly used within the Bay Area in recent years and have the
advantage of being able to be installed in low overhead areas where needed and have much lower
ground vibration and noise characteristics when compared to driven piles. One disadvantage is that the
piles are a non‐displacement pile that generates soil cuttings and grout as waste material that is off
hauled from the site.
7.2.2.1 ACIP Pile Axial Capacity
We recommend that a minimum of 18‐inch diameter ACIP piles be used on the project. The estimated
axial capacities are presented in the attached Figure 6. The piles should extend to at least 50 to 60 feet
into the dense to very dense coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) to develop support from friction in
the fill and native soils as well as the end bearing in that layer.
Axial capacity for ACIP piles was evaluated using the computer program SHAFT v2017 (Ensoft, Inc.)
based on the FHWA procedures for drilled shafts. This method uses Alpha‐ and Beta‐values to estimate
for skin resistances in cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. The end bearing resistance is
estimated based on soil strength and SPT‐N value at 60% efficiency near the tip of the pile for these
soils. Skin resistance in the upper 5 feet of soil is neglected in our analyses to account for potential
disturbance and seasonal moisture changes.
For allowable static axial capacity in ACIP pile design, we recommend a factor of safety of 2.5 be applied
to the ultimate axial capacity. For allowable uplift capacity, a factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to
the ultimate uplift capacity. No reduction in axial capacity due to group action is required for piles
spaced at least 3 diameters on center‐to‐center. We also estimated an unfactored downdrag load of 140
kips due to consolidation of the Young Bay Mud for static condition and 30 kips for seismic condition.
This downdrag load should be considered as a structural load but not need to be considered in the
geotechnical capacity of the pile. Pile foundations should be designed to resist the appropriate load
combinations for downward and upward vertical loading, neglecting the potential vertical support
provided by pile caps or grade beams.
7.2.3 Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads, which may be imposed on the piles by wind or earthquake forces, can be resisted by
horizontal bearing support of soil adjacent to the piles. The lateral capacity of a pile depends on its
length, stiffness in the direction of loading, proximity to other piles, and degree of fixity at the head, as
well as on the engineering properties of the soils.
Structural details and loading conditions are not available to us yet. Our recommended parameters for
general soil profile at the Site for the design of lateral capacity are presented in Table XII, which includes
parameters that can be used in the LPILE program (Ensoft, Inc.). The contribution of the fill found within
the upper 7½ to 8½ feet of the soil profile should be neglected in the design. The values presented in the
table assume groundwater at the ground surface. The depths of each soil layer should be adjusted
accordingly based on the CPT and boring logs, or cross sections presented in Figures 3 and 4. If the piles
26
will be constructed in groups, a P‐multiplier maybe required to account for group effects, depending on
the pile layout geometry. Please contact us for further information if this information is required.
TABLE XII
Lateral Capacity Input Parameters for the General Soil Profile
Layer P‐y Model
Depth
(feet)
Effective Unit
Weight (pcf)
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
k
(pci)
Undrained
Cohesion
(psf) E50
Fill Sand (Reese) 0 ‐ 7½ 52.6 31 60 n/a n/a
Marsh Deposit Soft Clay
(Matlock)
7½ ‐ 22 47.6 n/a n/a 500 0.007
Alluvium3 Sand (Reese)1 22 ‐ 30 62.6 36 60 n/a n/a
Colma
Formation
Sand (Reese) 30 ‐ 65 62.6 40 125 n/a n/a
Old Bay Deposit Stiff Clay with Free
Water (Reese)
65 ‐ 85 47.6 n/a 1000 3000 0.005
Alluvium Sand (Reese) 85 ‐ 126½ 62.6 40 125 n/a n/a
Notes:
1) pcf = pounds per cubic foot
2) pci = pounds per cubic inch
3) For seismic condition, use “Liquefied Sand Hybrid Model” with an SPT Blow Count of 28 for this layer.
7.2.4 Pile Foundation Quality Control Testing
High strain dynamic testing should be performed, in general accordance with ASTM D4945, on the test
pile for the static axial compressive load test, on sacrificial indicator piles for each proposed pile
diameter, target tip elevation, and installation method, and on two other sacrificial indicator piles. The
indicator pile program should include the test piles and the reaction piles, as needed. The proposed
locations for the indicator piles should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Testing should be
completed before the start of the production piles. Production pile testing should include static axial
tensile load testing on 2 percent of production piles and high strain dynamic testing on 5 percent of
production piles. Production piles should be tested to 200 percent of the design load for compressive
loading or 200 percent of the design load for uplift or tensile loading.
An optional pile load testing program may be implemented to refine the design of the pile foundations
and to evaluate the effectiveness of installation techniques and the potential contribution of tip
resistance to axial resistance. The pile load testing should include tests, performed by the foundation
contractor, to evaluate both axial tension and compression resistances on pre‐production indicator piles
and on production piles. One static axial tension load test should be performed, in general accordance
with ASTM D3689, for each proposed pile diameter, target tip elevation, and installation method on
sacrificial indicator piles. One static axial compressive load test should be performed, in general
accordance with ASTM D1143, on a sacrificial indicator pile.
Additional quality control testing of test and production piles using gamma‐gamma logging (Caltrans
Test 233) for evaluation of grout homogeneity, should also be considered. The project specifications and
quantity of these tests should be developed in consultation with the project structural engineer,
geotechnical engineer, general and pile installation contractors.
27
7.3 SLABS‐ON‐GRADE
Concrete slabs are anticipated to consist of floor slabs, loading docks, and exterior walkways. The floor
slabs can be supported on grade. The exposed subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned and
recompacted as discussed in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section of this report.
7.3.1 Floor Slabs
The interior concrete floor slab thickness and reinforcement should be provided by the project
structural engineer. As a minimum, the floor slab should be directly underlain by at least a 6‐inch‐thick
layer of Class 2 aggregate base or a 6‐inch‐thick water vapor retarder system, as described below. The
soil subgrade beneath the interior floor slab system should be prepared and compacted, as described in
the section “Fill Placement and Compaction.” The subgrade should not be allowed to dry during
construction. If the previously compacted soil subgrade is disturbed during foundation and/or utility
excavation, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture‐conditioned, and rerolled to provide a firm,
unyielding surface prior to placement of the capillary break material or casting the concrete floor.
If moisture transmission through the slab is acceptable or if the slab is subject to vehicle loading such as
at the parking structure, the slab‐on‐grade floor may be placed over a 6‐inch‐thick layer of Caltrans Class
2 Aggregate Base that has been compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
In other locations, to reduce water moisture transmission through the floor slab, we recommend
installing a capillary moisture break and a minimum 15‐mil‐thick Class C water vapor retarder beneath
the floor. Typically, finished spaces with slab‐on‐grade floors, such as offices, will utilize capillary
moisture breaks and vapor retarders to reduce the potential for water vapor transmission through the
floor, which can adversely impact flooring materials and carpeting.
A capillary moisture break consists of at least 4 inches of clean, free‐draining gravel or crushed rock,
overlain by a vapor retarder, and capped with 2 inches of clean sand. The vapor retarder should be
placed in general accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1643. These requirements include
overlapping seams by 6 inches, taping seams, and sealing penetrations in the vapor retarder. The
particle size of the gravel/crushed rock and sand should meet the gradation requirements presented in
Table XIII.
TABLE XIII
Gradation Requirements for Capillary Moisture Break
Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
Gravel or Crushed Rock
1 inch 90‐100
3/4 inch 30‐100
1/2 inch 5‐25
3/8 inch 0‐6
Sand
No. 4 100
No. 200 0‐5
Concrete mixes with high water/cement (w/c) ratios will result in excess water in the concrete, which
increases the cure time and may result in excessive vapor transmission through the slab. Therefore,
28
concrete for the floor slab should have a low w/c ratio of less than 0.50. If approved by the project
structural engineer, the sand can be eliminated beneath the slabs‐on‐grade and the concrete can be
placed directly over the vapor retarder, provided the w/c ratio of the concrete does not exceed 0.45 and
water is not added in the field. If necessary, workability should be increased by adding plasticizers. In
addition, the slab should be properly cured.
Before the floor covering is placed, the contractor should check that the concrete surface and the
moisture emission levels (if emission testing is required) meet the manufacturer’s requirements.
7.3.2 Exterior Flatwork
Exterior flatwork may be supported on grade. We recommend that, as a minimum, exterior concrete
slabs and pedestrian walkways be designed using 4 inches of concrete. Typically, construction joints are
spaced at horizontal distances no greater than 30 times the concrete slab thickness. If there is a conflict
between the civil and geotechnical design recommendations for contraction joint spacing, Haley &
Aldrich defers to the civil engineer’s recommendations. Where concrete flatwork is to be exposed to
vehicle traffic, we recommend that the flatwork be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of Class 2
aggregate baserock. Recommendations for subgrade preparation and aggregate base compaction for
concrete slabs and walkways are the same as those we have described in the “Fill Placement and
Compaction” section.
7.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Site grading should provide surface drainage away from the proposed structures and concrete
slabs‐on‐grade to reduce the percolation of water into the underlying soil. Surface water should not be
allowed to collect adjacent to structures and along edges of concrete slabs or pavements. Grades should
be sloped away from the structures as required in the California Building Code (current edition). Surface
water should be directed away from exposed soil slopes. Rainwater on the roof of buildings should be
conveyed through gutters, downspouts and closed pipes which discharge directly into the site
stormwater collection system or pavement. If discharging onto the pavement, safety of pedestrian
traffic should be considered.
7.5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
The State of California Resistance (R)‐value method for flexible pavement design was used to develop
recommendations for pavement sections. The thickness of pavement depends on the R‐value of the
subgrade soil and the volume of traffic anticipated.
Based on the encountered soil type and R‐value test results, we recommend using a design soil subgrade
R‐value of 18 and relying on the subgrade preparation method discussed in the “Earthworks” section of
this report.
We assume that flexible pavement throughout the Site will be designed using traffic indexes (TI) ranging
from 4.5 to 9.0. Design sections for flexible pavement sections bearing directly over compacted native
soil (R‐value = 18), are presented in Table XIV.
29
TABLE XIV
Flexible Pavement Design (R‐Value = 18)
Traffic
Index
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Total
(inches)
4.5 2.5 7.0 9.5
5.0 2.5 8.5 11.0
6.0 3.0 10.5 13.5
7.0 4.0 12.0 16.0
8.0 4.5 14.5 19.0
9.0 5.5 16.0 21.5
We recommend that the subgrade soil, over which the pavement sections are to be placed, be moisture
conditioned and compacted according to the recommendations in the “Fill Placement and Compaction”
section of this report. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet laterally beyond the
back of curb or edge of pavement. Paved areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to
carry all surface water to appropriate collection points. Surface water ponding should not be allowed
anywhere on the Site during or after construction. We recommend that the pavement section be
isolated from non‐developed areas and areas of intrusion of irrigation water from landscaped areas.
Concrete curbs should extend a minimum of 2 inches below the baserock and into the subgrade to
provide a barrier against drying of the subgrade soil, and a reduction of migration of landscape water
into the pavement section.
7.6 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN
Rigid pavement design was performed in conformance with the AASHTO 1993 design method, including
vehicle loads calibrated to a standard equivalent single axle load of 18,000 pounds and a maximum
tandem axle load of 32,000 pounds. The thickness of rigid pavement depends on the R‐value of the
subgrade soil and the volume of traffic anticipated. For this site, as stated in the “Flexible Pavement
Design” section, we assume a design R‐value of 18 for the existing subgrade. We assume that rigid
pavements throughout the Site will be designed using TI up to 10.0. Based on these design parameters,
we recommend using the pavement designs presented on Table XV.
TABLE XV
Rigid Pavement Design
Traffic
Index
Portland Cement
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2 Aggregate
Base1
(inches)
Total
(inches)
≤7.0 6.0 6.0 12.0
7.0 – 9.0 8.5 6.0 14.5
9.0 – 10.0 10.0 6.0 16.0
Notes:
1) Class 2 Aggregate Base to be placed over the subgrade prepared per “Fill Placement and
Compaction.”
30
The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be at least 600 psi at 28 days and the unconfined
compressive strength of the concrete should be at least 3,500 psi at 28 days. Contraction joints should
be constructed at a 12.5‐foot spacing for the 6‐inch‐thick concrete pavement and 15‐foot spacing for the
7‐inch‐thick concrete pavement. Where the outer edge of a concrete pavement meets asphalt
pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in
10. For better long‐term performance, consideration should be given to reinforcing the slab with a
minimum of No. 3 bars at 18‐inch spacing in both directions. If there is a conflict between the civil and
geotechnical design recommendations for contraction joint spacing or slab reinforcement, we defer to
the civil engineer’s recommendations. Recommendations for subgrade preparation and aggregate base
compaction for concrete pavements are provided in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section of this
report.
7.7 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SHORING
Temporary shoring walls will be required to support the vertical sides of the deep excavation. The
shoring system should be designed to provide temporary lateral support for the excavation while
ensuring safety and stability of the buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure adjacent to the
excavation. If temporary shoring will act as a groundwater cut‐off, embedment depth may be deeper
than what is needed for the support of excavation. Final toe depths should be further reviewed and
selected by the design‐build shoring contractor.
We assume that a cement‐mix column cut‐off wall is the preferred method of shoring for this project
due to constraints from the adjacent public streets but is still conceptual at this time. However, we have
included recommendations for a cement‐mix column cut‐off wall with both tiebacks and with internal
bracing for completeness. The cut‐off wall will include steel members (presumably I‐ or W‐section
beams) to resist lateral earth pressures.
The following sections provide geotechnical engineering criteria for the design of the shoring system
described above, including lateral soil and water pressures and end bearing for the cut‐off wall shoring.
Recommendations for the shoring system rely on assumptions that are specific to the particular shoring
system as it is applied to this project; Haley & Aldrich should be consulted if alternative shoring systems
are proposed.
7.7.1 General Considerations
We recommend that the shoring be designed by a professional structural engineer registered in the
State of California. We also recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the proposed
shoring design before construction.
This report is not intended to provide specific criteria for the contractor’s construction means and
methods. It should be the responsibility of the shoring contractor to verify actual ground conditions at
the site and determine the construction means, methods, and procedures needed to install an
appropriate shoring system.
7.7.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
The design of the temporary shoring and dewatering system will require supplemental lateral support in
order to limit wall movements and protect adjacent improvements. Supplemental lateral support may
31
be provided through an exterior system of tie‐back soil anchors and/or internal bracing consisting of
corner braces, cross‐lot braces, or rakers. These supplemental lateral support systems can transfer
vertical compression and tension loads to the proposed shoring system. The embedment of the shoring
wall must be sufficient to provide lateral stability for the shoring system, as well as vertical stability.
Vertical loads can be resisted by skin friction along the embedded portions of the wall (below the base
of the excavation) and by end bearing.
The typical design parameters for the shoring system designed to resist active and at‐rest earth pressure
conditions are presented on Figure 7.
It should be noted that some deformation is expected in all shoring systems during construction. The
magnitude of movement is controlled by many factors, including the type of system used and the
contractor's skill in installing the shoring system. For a typical shoring system designed for active earth
pressure conditions, we judge lateral movements will be within ordinarily accepted limits of up to about
0.002 to 0.004 times the height of the shoring system, which corresponds to about ½ to 1 inch for the
proposed excavation. However, if the shoring system needs to be designed to greatly limit lateral
movements, then the shoring system should be designed for at‐rest earth pressures. Survey points
should be established on the shoring, adjacent streets and sidewalks, and neighboring buildings to
monitor the movement of these features during and immediately after construction.
Settlement‐sensitive structures within the zone of deformation should be underpinned, or the shoring
system supporting the structure should be designed considering surcharge loading from the existing
building foundations. Settlement‐sensitive utilities located adjacent to the proposed shoring walls
should be identified and acceptable settlement criteria confirmed with the utility owner. If settlement‐
sensitive utilities are present, Haley & Aldrich should be consulted to evaluate the impact of the shoring
system.
We make the following recommendations regarding lateral earth pressures for the shoring system:
Compute the lateral earth pressures, hydrostatic water pressures, and uniform
construction/traffic surcharges for a system with multiple rows of tieback or interior bracing
support using apparent earth pressures given on Figure 7. The lateral pressures presented on
Figure 7 are based on a level backslope behind the walls.
The shoring must be designed to carry the bending and shear stresses caused by the restrained soil,
groundwater, tiebacks, and external or internal supports, if applicable, such as the vertical load resulting
from down‐angle tieback anchors. The stresses can be calculated from the apparent earth pressure
diagrams provided on Figure 7 with additional surcharge pressures as described previously. Shoring
elements must be embedded deeply enough to resist these loads, provide a kickout resistance for the
portion of the wall below the lowest support, and provide groundwater cut‐off to prevent base heave.
We recommend that the following criteria be used to establish shoring elevations:
Vertical shoring elements may be designed with allowable end bearing of 7 ksf if extended
through Bay Mud.
Vertical shoring elements may be designed with allowable axial skin friction of 0.35 ksf below
the base of excavation if below the Bya Mud. Neglect skin friction above the base of the
excavation and in Bay Mud.
32
Steel soldier pile sections should be embedded at least 10 feet below the base of excavation.
This embedment should consider an excavation depth that accounts for overexcavation
required for foundations, elevator pits, and installation of the dewatering system.
The shoring wall and steel piles should be designed for bending moments and shear imposed by
tieback loads and recommended earth pressures.
For design against kickout, compute the lateral resistance on the basis of the passive pressure
presented on Figure 7.
The shoring wall should have sufficient bond strength such that the loads from the steel soldier
piles can be transferred to the wall below the base of the excavation.
7.7.3 Shoring Installation
The above recommendations are based on proper installation of the shoring sections, as discussed
below.
Changes in the soil conditions relative to what we have assumed for our recommendations may cause
the shoring system to perform poorly. Softer end bearing conditions combined with the vertical
component of the inclined tieback load may result in settlements that would cause partial destressing of
the tiebacks and excessive lateral movement of the shoring system. We recommend a Haley & Aldrich
representative observe trenching and cut‐off wall installation, to determine if unexpected subsurface
conditions are encountered, so that construction methods can be adjusted accordingly, if necessary.
We make the following recommendations regarding shoring wall installation:
The contractor should be prepared to tremie concrete from the bottom of the shoring cut‐off
wall excavation to displace groundwater or drilling slurry used to maintain an open excavation.
Concrete, slurry, or soil‐cement samples should be collected and tested throughout installation
to test for uniformity of mixing and required compressive strength.
The contractor should be required to submit a plan describing how leaks in the system, such as
discontinuities in the wall and tieback penetrations will be prevented, or otherwise mitigated
and repaired.
7.7.4 Design and Construction of Tiebacks
Tieback anchors may be used for external lateral support of the shoring wall and embedded steel
beams. We make the following recommendations concerning tieback anchor design:
Locate anchor portions of the tiebacks outside of the “no load” zone shown on Figure 7.
Use the allowable anchor pullout resistances presented on Figure 7. These anchor design values
include a factor of safety of at least 1.5 for temporary anchors. This factor of safety provides for
a reasonable additional load capacity should an unforeseen increase in unit soil load develop
because of irregularities that can occur during installation of the anchor. It is the shoring
contractor’s responsibility to achieve the required tieback loads using the necessary anchor size
and their means and methods.
Locate anchors no closer to each other than three anchor diameters.
33
Pump structural concrete into the anchor zone either using the auger as it is withdrawn, or from
a grout hose placed at the bottom of the anchor.
Install a bond breaker such as plastic sheathing or a PVC pipe around the tie rods within the “no
load” zone.
Grout and backfill drilled tieback installations immediately after drilling. Leave no holes open
overnight. This will help prevent possible collapse of the holes, loss of ground, and surface
subsidence.
The shoring designer should particularly note the presence of existing facilities adjacent to the
project site, including buried utilities and foundations, as these may affect the location and the
length of the anchor holes.
We recommend that selection of the materials and the installation technique be left to the shoring
contractor. The shoring contractor shall be made contractually responsible for the design of the tieback
anchors, as tieback capacity is largely a function of the means and methods of installation. The selected
tieback anchor installation method must be subject to field verification with verification testing and
proof testing.
The tieback anchor testing program should include verification testing of tiebacks at selected locations,
and proof testing of all production tiebacks. We recommend testing tiebacks in general accordance with
the recommendations in the publication “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors” by
the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI, 2014) and the recommendations in the following sections.
7.7.4.1 Tieback Anchor Verification Tests
We recommend a minimum of two verification tests for each installation method and soil type before
installation of production anchors to validate the design pullout value. Haley & Aldrich should select the
testing locations with input from the shoring subcontractor. Haley & Aldrich or the shoring designer
may require additional verification tests when creep susceptibility is suspected, or when varying ground
conditions are encountered.
Tiebacks for verification tests should be installed using the same methods, personnel, material, and
equipment as are used for the production tiebacks. Deviations may require additional verification
testing as determined by the engineer.
Verification tests load the tieback to 200 percent of the design load (DL) and include a 60‐minute creep
test at 150 percent of the DL. The tieback design loads should be clearly shown on the shoring
plans/drawings. The tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel’s ultimate tensile strength.
Verification test tiebacks should be incrementally loaded and unloaded using the schedule in Table XVI,
and as recommended below.
The alignment load (AL) should be the minimum required to align the testing assembly and
should be less than 5 percent of the DL. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment
load has stabilized.
The verification test will measure anchor stress and displacement incrementally to values of unit
skin friction (adhesion) to 200 percent of the design adhesion.
34
The soldier piles, vertical elements, and/or anchor tendon may require extra reinforcement to
permit stressing to 2.0DL as required for the performance test.
Perform tests without backfill in front of the bonded anchor zone, if the hole will remain open,
to avoid any contributory resistance by the backfill. If the hole will not remain open during
testing, provide a bond breaker on the no‐load zone specified on the plans.
Load the anchor in increments of 0.25DL and unload to the AL before incrementally loading to
the next load increment (e.g., AL, 0.25DL, AL; 0.25DL, 0.50DL, AL; 0.25DL, 0.50DL, 0.75DL, AL;
etc.). Ensure that deflection readings stabilize for intermediate load increments (e.g., 0.25 DL
and 0.50 DL) before increasing the load to the next increment (e.g., 0.75 DL).
Load levels during hold intervals should be held constant to within 50 pounds per square inch
(psi), and deflection measurements shall be made to a minimum accuracy of 0.01 inch.
Obtain and record deflection measurements for loading at intervals of 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10
minutes for 10‐minute hold interval.
The creep test at 1.5DL should be performed by and recording deflections at 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20,
30, 50, and 60 minutes.
TABLE XVI
Tieback Verification Test Incremental Load and Hold Time
Load Level Hold Time
AL Until stable
0.25DL 10 min
0.5DL 10 min
0.75DL 10 min
1.0DL 10 min
1.25DL 10 min
1.5DL 60 min
1.75DL 10 min
2.0DL 10 min
The acceptance criteria for a verification test are as follows:
Exhibits a linear or near‐linear relationship between unit stress and movement over the percent
stress range during loading from AL to 2.0DL.
Holds the maximum test unit stress at 1.5DL without noticeable creep. Noticeable creep is
defined as a rate of movement of more than 0.04 inch between the 1‐ and 10‐minute readings,
or more than 0.08 inches between the 6‐ and 60‐minute readings. If the reading does not
stabilize to 0.08 inch or less per log cycle of time, the test shall be considered as failing the creep
criteria.
Satisfies the apparent free tendon length criteria. Apparent free length criteria are as follows:
– Minimum apparent free length, based on the measured elastic and residual movement,
should be greater than 80 percent of the designed free length plus the jack length; and
35
– Maximum apparent free length, based on the measured elastic and residual movement,
should be less than 100 percent of the designed free length plus 50 percent of the bond
length plus the jack length.
The anchor does not pull out under repeated loading or at 2.0DL.
7.7.4.2 Proof Tests
Proof tests load all the production tiebacks to 1.33DL and include a 10‐minute hold time at 1.33DL. The
purpose of a proof test is to quickly and economically determine the acceptability of each anchor for
adequate performance after lock‐off at DL. The tieback DLs should be on the shoring drawings. The
tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel’s ultimate tensile strength. Proof tests should be
incrementally loaded and unloaded using the schedule in Table XVII – Tieback Proof Test Schedule.
TABLE XVII
Tieback Proof Test Schedule
Load Level Hold Time
AL Until stable
0.25DL 1 min
0.5DL 1 min
0.75DL 1 min
1.0DL 1 min
1.33DL 10 min
The AL should be the minimum load required to align the testing assembly and should be less than
5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the AL has stabilized.
The load should be held constant to within 50 psi and deflections recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and
10 minutes. If the tieback deflection between 1 and 10 minutes at 1.33DL exceeds 0.04 inches, the load
should be held for an additional 50 minutes and deflections recorded at 20, 30, 50, and 60 minutes.
The acceptance criteria for a proof test are:
The creep rate at 1.33DL is less than 0.04 inches between 1 and 10 minutes or less than
0.08 inches between 6 and 60 minutes and the creep rate is linear or decreasing during the
creep test;
Satisfies the apparent free tendon length criteria as described above for verification test; and
The anchor does not show pull out failure or tendency to failure during loading.
7.7.4.3 Shoring Monitoring
A shoring monitoring program provides early warning if the shoring does not perform as expected (e.g.,
excessive movement or impacts to surrounding nearby structures and utilities). The monitoring
program should include a preconstruction survey of existing conditions, periodic surveys during
construction, and a post‐construction survey.
36
The contractor and the shoring subcontractor should be familiar with the existing site conditions
including surrounding nearby structures and utilities. They should be allowed to review the inspection
data gathered by the owner and may also choose to complete a survey on their own. The contract
should clearly define the responsibilities of the owner, contractor, and shoring contractor in making
inspections, reviewing data, and repairing possible damage.
Preconstruction Survey: A preconstruction survey documents the condition of existing streets, utilities,
and buildings. The survey should include video and/or photographic documentation. The size and
location of existing cracks in streets and buildings should receive special attention and may be
monitored with a crack gauge.
Construction Survey: We recommend including adjacent building surveys and optical surveys in the
shoring monitoring program during construction. All monitoring data should be submitted to Haley &
Aldrich for review. The data will be included in our weekly field transmittals to the project team and the
City during construction. Details of our expectations for shoring monitoring are included below.
Adjacent Building Surveys: We recommend surveying adjacent buildings before, during, and after
construction. The pre‐construction survey will establish the baseline of existing conditions (e.g.,
identifying the size and locations of any cracks). The surveys should consist of a videotape and/or
photographs of the interior and exterior of adjacent buildings and detailed mapping of all cracks. Any
existing cracks could be monitored with a crack gauge.
Optical Surveying: We recommend optical surveys of horizontal and vertical movements of (1) the
surface of the adjacent streets, (2) buildings on and adjacent to the site, and (3) the shoring system
itself. The contractor, in coordination with the geotechnical engineer, should establish two reference
lines adjacent to the excavation at horizontal distances back from the excavation face of about 1/3 H
and H, where H is the final excavation height. Typically, these lines will be established near the curb line
and across the street from the excavation face. The points on the adjacent buildings can be set either at
the base, or on the roof, or both. Shoring system monitoring should include measuring vertical and
horizontal movement at the top of every other soldier pile at the minimum. Shoring monitoring should
also include geotechnical instrumentation (i.e., inclinometers) on each shoring wall.
The measuring system for the shoring monitoring should have an accuracy of at least 0.01 foot. All
reference points on the ground surface should be installed and read before excavation begins. The
frequency of readings will depend on the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. At a
minimum, readings on the external points should be taken twice a week through construction until
below‐grade structural elements such as floors, decks, and columns are completed, or as specified by
the structural engineer or shoring designer. Readings on the top of soldier piles and the face of existing
buildings on or adjacent to the property should be taken at least twice a week during this time. We
recommend that the owner hire an independent surveyor to record the data at least once per week, and
that surveyor or contractor take the other reading. All monitoring data should be submitted to Haley &
Aldrich for review.
Inclinometers: Inclinometers are typically used to monitor lateral earth movement below the ground
surface where concerns about deflect need to be considered such as for abutters or public
infrastructure. This device consists of a hollow casing placed in a borehole that is typically placed behind
the shoring wall or on the backside of a soldier pile at selected locations around the excavation.
Inclinometers are monitored regularly during construction. An instrument is lowered down the casing
37
to measure casing deflections at discrete elevations for the entire profile of the casing. Inclinometer
casings should extend below the base of the excavation so that the bottom is fixed in soil that will not
deform due to the shoring system, typically at least about 15 feet below the lowest point of excavation.
Based on the soils, setting, and depth expected for this project, we expect that four inclinometers will be
needed.
7.8 RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls are anticipated for the parking structure ramp between the lowest floor level up to the
next level. Basement retaining walls will also be needed for the one to two levels of below grade
parking. Retaining walls should be designed to resist both static lateral earth pressures, lateral
pressures caused by seismic loading, and additional surcharge pressures associated with vehicular traffic
(if appropriate). Our recommended soil parameters for the design of retaining walls are provided in
Table XVII. Hydrostatic pressure of 62.4 psf was applied to at‐rest and active conditions below ground
surface below the groundwater table.
TABLE XVIII
Recommended Soil Parameters for Retaining Wall
Depth below
Surface (feet) Soil Description
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)
At‐Rest K0 Active Ka Passive Kp
7½ ‐ 8½ Fill (GM, GC, SM, SC) 60 40 360
8½ ‐ 41 Marsh Deposit (CL, CH) 65 45 270
41 ‐ 50 Alluvium (SP‐SM, SC, SM) 55 35 440
Below the Groundwater Table
7½ ‐ 8½ Fill (GM, GC, SM, SC) 90 80 235
8½ ‐ 41 Marsh Deposit (CL, CH) 95 85 190
41 ‐ 50 Alluvium (SP‐SM, SC, SM) 90 80 275
1) pcf = pounds per cubic foot
We recommend that the retaining walls be designed for the more critical of either:
An at‐rest equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution), plus a traffic surcharge as a uniform
(rectangular distribution) lateral pressure of 100 psf applied to the entire vertical face of the
retaining wall, where vehicular parking, streets and/or driveways are located within a horizontal
distance of H, where H is the height of the adjacent retaining wall in feet; or
An active equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution), plus a uniform seismic increment
(rectangular distribution) of 15 times the height of the wall in psf, where the height is in feet.
The permanent retaining walls within the buildings should be supported on deep foundations and
designed to resist lateral loads, as described in the “Deep Foundations” section of this report. The
location of axillary walls will need to be reviewed for appropriate foundation consideration.
The above lateral design pressures are based on fully drained walls. Even though the retaining walls will
be above the groundwater table, water can still accumulate behind the walls from other sources, such
as rainfall, irrigation, and broken water lines. Prefabricated drainage material (such as Miradrain® or an
38
approved alternate) may be used behind below‐grade and retaining walls. Prefabricated drainage
material should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
As an alternative to prefabricated drainage material, a drain rock layer may be used. The drain rock layer
should 1 to 2 feet thick and extend to within 1 foot of the ground surface. Four‐inch diameter
perforated plastic pipe should be installed (with the perforations facing down) along the base of the
walls on a 4‐inch‐thick bed of drain rock. The pipe should be sloped to drain by gravity to a sump or
other drainage facility. Weep holes may also be used if water seepage is permissible in the structure.
The weep holes should be a minimum of 3 inches in diameter located at no more than 10 feet apart, and
a screen placed at the back of the holes if drain rock is used.
Drain rock should conform to Caltrans Class 2 permeable material. Alternatively, locally available, clean,
½‐ to ¾‐inch maximum size crushed rock or gravel could be used, provided it is encapsulated in a non‐
woven geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi® 140N or an approved alternative.
Although not likely, even with the back‐drain system, localized wet spots may occur in the walls. If this is
undesirable, then the wall should be waterproofed.
7.9 CORROSION POTENTIAL
Haley & Aldrich performed corrosivity testing on two samples collected in the upper 5 feet within
borings HA‐1, ‐2, ‐3 and ‐5. Based on resistivity measurements and previous data, we conclude the soils
are considered “moderately corrosive to corrosive” to buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron,
galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron. Where these materials are used on‐site, they should
be properly protected against corrosion. All buried metallic pressure piping, such as ductile iron
firewater pipelines, should be protected against corrosion. The tested samples indicate that on‐site soils
do not pose a hazard to reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar‐coated steel. A summary of
corrosivity analysis results is provided in Table XIX.
TABLE XIX
Corrosivity Analysis Results
Sample No. pH
Min. Resistivity
(ohms‐cm)
Chloride
(mg/kg)
Sulfate
(mg/kg)
HA‐1 and HA‐2 7.4 1,100 82 29
HA‐3 and HA‐5 7.6 2,800 N.D. 23
Notes:
1) mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
39
7.10 STORMWATER INFILTRATION
Due to the anticipated high groundwater table, boring infiltration testing was not performed. Based on
our interpretation of the subsurface conditions, the site will not naturally infiltrate given the high
groundwater table.
If stormwater infiltration features are proposed at this site, we recommend that supplemental in situ
infiltration testing be performed at the exact locations of these features after site grading has been
completed to confirm that grading activities have not affected the long‐term infiltration rate of the
underlying soils. Supplemental testing may include additional boring infiltration tests, double ring
infiltrometer testing, or reduced‐scale pit tests.
40
8. Supplemental Geotechnical Services
The final project plans and specifications should be reviewed by Haley & Aldrich prior to construction to
check that they are in general conformance with the intent of our recommendations. During
construction, we should observe and document the installation of foundations, observe the condition
and test the compaction of any fill placed at the Site, and perform supplemental percolation testing at
bioretention basins. These observations will allow us to check that the contractor’s work conforms to
the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications and ensure that the foundation system and
paved areas are constructed in accordance with our design recommendations.
41
9. Limitations
This report has been prepared for specific application to the proposed construction as understood at
this time. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid, unless the
changes are reviewed by Haley & Aldrich and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in
writing.
The geotechnical analyses and recommendations are based, in part, upon the data obtained from the
referenced subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between explorations may not
become evident until construction. If variations appear at that time, it may be necessary to re‐evaluate
the recommendations of this report.
This report is prepared for the exclusive use of US Terminal Court Owner, LLC, and their subconsultants
in pursuit of the proposed development in South San Francisco, California. There are no intended
beneficiaries other than US Terminal Court Owner, LLC and their subconsultants. Haley & Aldrich shall
owe no duty whatsoever to any other person or entity on account of the Agreement or the report. Use
of this report by any person or entity other than US Terminal Court Owner, LLC, and their subconsultants
for any purpose whatsoever is expressly forbidden unless such other person or entity obtains written
authorization from US Terminal Court Owner, LLC and Haley & Aldrich. Use of this report by such other
person or entity without the written authorization of US Terminal Court Owner, LLC and Haley & Aldrich
shall be at such other person’s or entity’s sole risk and shall be without legal exposure or liability to
Haley & Aldrich.
42
References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993. Design of
Pavement Structures. 1993.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for
buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7‐16.
3. ASTM International (ASTM), 2007. "ASTM D1143 Standard Test Method for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Compressive Load."
4. ASTM, 2007. "ASTM D3689 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Tensile
Load."
5. ASTM, 2008. "ASTM D4945 Standard Test Method for High‐Strain Dynamic Testing of Deep
Foundations."
6. ASTM, 2011. “ASTM E1643 Standard Practice for Selection, Design, Installation, and Inspection of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs,”
Reapproved 2017.
7. ASTM, 2012. ASTM D 1557 ‐ Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft‐lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN‐m/m3)).
8. Bonilla, M.G., 1998. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle
and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. Open‐File
Report 98‐354, 1998.
9. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures.
Report No. UCD/CGM‐14/01.
10. California Building Standards Commission, 2019. California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Volume 2.
11. California Department of Conservation, 2021. Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation. Website:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/>, accessed 4 April 2022.
12. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2021. Seismic Hazard Report for the San Francisco South 7.5‐
Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 133, 2021.
13. Caltrans, 2000. "Caltrans Test 223 ‐ Method of Test for Surface Moisture in Concrete Aggregates by
the Displacement Method (Field Method)"; Published by the Department of Transportation.
14. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquake. EERI Publication,
Monograph MNO‐12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland.
15. Ishihara, K. ,1985. “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes,” Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco. Vol 1, p
321‐376.
43
16. Robertson, P.K., Cabal, K.I., 2010. Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering,
4th Edition, July.
17. Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc., 2021, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed‐Use
Development, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California,” Project No. 20‐1954, dated 12
January 2021.
18. State of California, 2021. Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County. Produced by the California
Geological Survey and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 23 March 2021.
19. Toppozada, T. R., and Borchardt, G., 1998. Re‐evaluation of the 1836 ‘‘Hayward fault’’ and the 1838
San Andreas earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88, 140 – 159.
20. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2021. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United
States. Website <https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake‐hazards/faults>, accessed 4 April
2022.
21. USGS, 2021. Unified Hazard Tool. Website <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/>,
accessed 4 April 2022.
22. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2015. Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast (Version 3). <http://www.wgcep.org/UCERF3>
23. Zhang G., et. al., 2004. “Estimating Liquefaction‐Induced Lateral Displacements using the Standard
Penetration Test or Cone Penetration Test,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 2004.
FIGURES
SITE
122°24'0"W122°25'0"W122°26'0"W
37°39'0"N
37°38'0"N
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\GIS\Maps\2022_04\204962_000_0001_PROJECT_LOCUS_101_TERMINAL_COURT.mxd ― USER: hwachholz ― LAST SAVED: 3/25/2022 6:34:44 PMMAP SOURCE: ESRISITE COORDINATES: 37°38'38"N, 122°24'28"W
101 TERMINAL COURTSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT LOCUS
FIGURE 1APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 IN = 2000 FTAPRIL 2022
CA
!?¤!?¤!?¤!?¤!?¤@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
!?
!?
!?
!?
BAYSHORE FREEWAY (HWY 101)SAN BRUNO CANALSAN MATEO AVENUE
A
A'
B
B'
SCPT-2
SCPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
HA-1
HA-2
HA-3
HA-4
HA-5
CPT-1/HA-1
CPT-2/HA-2
CPT-3/HA-3
CPT-4/HA-4
NOTES
1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. ASSESSOR PARCEL DATA SOURCE: SAN MATEO COUNTY GIS
3. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, 29 SEPTEMBER 2021
101 TERMINAL COURTSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2SCALE: AS SHOWNAPRIL 2022
LEGEND
@A SOIL BORING
!?¤CONE PENETRATION TEST
!?CONE PENETRATION TEST AND HAND-AUGER BORINGS,ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. (2020)
CROSS SECTION
SITE BOUNDARY
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\GIS\Maps\2022_04\204962_000_0002_SITE_PLAN_101_TERMINAL_COURT.mxd ― USER: hwachholz ― LAST SAVED: 4/18/2022 10:32:58 PM0 150 300
SCALE IN FEET
EL. IN FEET (NAVD88)EL. IN FEET (NAVD88)FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
ALLUVIUM
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
ALLUVIUM
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
ALLUVIUM
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
CPT-2
5.6'
EL. 10.5
HA-1
1.7'
EL. 10.9
HA-2
5.1'
EL. 10.6
HA-4
46.1'
EL. 8.3
CPT-3(R)/HA-3(R)
4.4'
EL. 10.6
\\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\CAD\FIGURES\0204962_0004_CROSS_SECTIONS_STRATA_V2.DWGOSLIVNYAK00034/18/2022 12:04 PMSheet:Printed:Saved by:FIGURE 3
101 TERMINAL COURT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
CROSS SECTION A-A'
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APRIL 2022
0
0
HORIZ.
VERT.
SCALE IN FEET
0
0
HORIZ.
VERT.
60 120 180 240
12 24 36 48
LEGEND
FILL
MARSH DEPOSIT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF LEAN CLAY)
ALLUVIUM (VERY LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND)
COLMA FORMATION (INTERBEDDED MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE
CLAYEY SAND AND SILTY SAND, AND MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY)
OLD BAY DEPOSIT (STIFF TO HARD FAT CLAY)
ALLUVIUM (DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND AND SILTY SAND, AND
VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY)
STRATA CONTACT LINE
EL. IN FEET (NAVD88)EL. IN FEET (NAVD88)FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
ALLUVIUM
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
ALLUVIUM
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
FILL
MARSH
DEPOSIT
ALLUVIUM
COLMA
FORMATION
OLD BAY
DEPOSITS
CPT-3
-36.8'
EL. 10.9
CPT-4
-12.7'
EL. 10.9
HA-4
-12.2'
EL. 8.3
HA-5
-27.1'
EL. 10.9
CPT-1(R)/HA-1(R)
-6.1'
EL. 9.9
CPT-4(R)/HA-4(R)
-10.2'
EL. 10.9
\\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\CAD\FIGURES\0204962_0004_CROSS_SECTIONS_STRATA_V2.DWGOSLIVNYAK00044/18/2022 12:04 PMSheet:Printed:Saved by:FIGURE 4
101 TERMINAL COURT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
CROSS SECTION B-B'
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APRIL 2022
0
0
HORIZ.
VERT.
SCALE IN FEET
0
0
HORIZ.
VERT.
60 120 180 240
12 24 36 48
LEGEND
FILL
MARSH DEPOSIT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF LEAN CLAY)
ALLUVIUM (VERY LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND)
COLMA FORMATION (INTERBEDDED MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE
CLAYEY SAND AND SILTY SAND, AND MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY)
OLD BAY DEPOSIT (STIFF TO HARD FAT CLAY)
ALLUVIUM (DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND AND SILTY SAND, AND
VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY)
STRATA CONTACT LINE
101 TERMINAL CT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
16/22" TUBEX PILES
AXIAL RESISTANCE CHARTS
18 April 2022 FIGURE 5
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Project_Data\Calculations\Pile Analysis\[101 Terminal Ct-template Tubex_0418.xlsx]Template 6
Notes:
1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in
compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be
considered as additional resistance in uplift.
2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to the ultimate compressive
resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, a factor of safety of 3.0 should be
applied to the side resistance shown above.
3) An unfactored downdrag of 275 kips was calculated and should be considered as a
structural load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the
geotechnical capacity of the pile.
Notes:
1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to
the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in
these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance
in uplift.
2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the
ultimate resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, the
factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown
above.
3) An unfactored seismic-induced downdrag of 40 kips was
calculated and should be considered as a structural seismic load.
This load does not need to be considered when calculating the
geotechnical capacity of the pile.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Depth (ft)Axial Capacity (kips)
ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES -
STATIC CONDITION
Uplift
Compression
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Depth (ft)Axial Capacity (kips)
ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES -
SEISMIC CONDITION
Uplift
Compression
101 TERMINAL CT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
18" AUGER CAST PILES
AXIAL RESISTANCE CHARTS
18 April 2022 FIGURE 6
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Project_Data\Calculations\Pile Analysis\[101 Terminal Ct-template ACIP_0418.xlsx]Template 6
Notes:
1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in
compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be
considered as additional resistance in uplift.
2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to the ultimate compressive
resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, a factor of safety of 3.0 should be
applied to the side resistance shown above.
3) An unfactored downdrag of 140 kips was calculated and should be considered as a
structural load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the
geotechnical capacity of the pile.
Notes:
1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to
the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in
these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance
in uplift.
2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the
ultimate resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, the
factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown
above.
3) An unfactored seismic-induced downdrag of 30 kips was
calculated and should be considered as a structural seismic load.
This load does not need to be considered when calculating the
geotechnical capacity of the pile.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Depth (ft)Axial Capacity (kips)
ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES -
STATIC CONDITION
Uplift
Compression
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Depth (ft)Axial Capacity (kips)
ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES -
SEISMIC CONDITION
Uplift
Compression
GROUND SURFACE
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION = VARIES
1 FT
10 FT
PRESSURE DUE TO
VEHICLE SURCHARGE
ALONG STREETS (HEAVY
EQUIPMENT SHOULD
COME NO CLOSER THAN 5
FEET TO FACE OF
EXCAVATION)
A
psf
H = 12 TO 25 FT
62.4 pcf
1
DIFFERENTIAL
WATER PRESSURE
PASSIVE
PRESSURE
190 pcf
1
GROUNDWATER
TABLE
(SEE NOTE 5)
D
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
0.25H
60°
BOND LENGTH
(15-FT MIN.)
STRESSING LENGTH
(10-FT MIN. FOR BARS,
15-FT MIN. FOR STRANDS)
BOND BETWEEN ANCHOR
AND SOIL IS CONSIDERED
EFFECTIVE ONLY TO THE
RIGHT OF DASHED LINE
GROUND SURFACE
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION = VARIES
H
TIEBACK
H1
NO LOAD ZONEA + 22D
0.25H
A
100 psf
(D-2)/2
1
40 pcf ACTIVE
60 pcf AT REST
2'990 pcf
NOTES
1. THESE SHORING PRESSURES ARE APPLICABLE TO SECANT PILE, CSM, SLURRY WALL, AND SOIL-CEMENT MIXED WALLS WITHIN AN EXCAVATION HEIGHT OF UP TO 30 FEET.
2. PASSIVE PRESSURE DEPENDS ON DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER WITHIN EXCAVATION.
3. PASSIVE PRESSURE VALUES INCLUDE A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5.
4. ASSUMES SHORING WILL BE BRACED OR TIED BACK.
5. TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR A BLOWOUT, THE HYDRAULIC HEAD SHOULD BE LOWERED AT LEAST 3 FEET BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATION (OR DEEPER IF REQUIRED FOR
LATERAL STABILITY).
6. ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
7. IGNORE THE UPPER 2 FEET OF PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
8. USE AN TIEBACK ADHESION OF 1000 PSF. THIS VALUE INCLUDES A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5.\\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0203652\CAD\FIGURES\0203652_000_FIG 3_FIG 5_TEMP EARTH PRESS EXCV.DWGKVARIFIG 53/17/2022 9:37 AM Sheet:Printed:FIGURE 7
TEMPORARY LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURES FOR EXCAVATION
SCALE: NTS
APRIL 2022
CONDITION A (psf) BELOW
WATER TABLE
ACTIVE 22H
AT-REST 31H
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS
SOIL
SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL TERMINOLOGY:
- 0 to 1/16 in. thick (cohesive)
- 0 to 1/16 in. thick (granular)
- 1/16 to 1/2 in. thick
- 1/2 to 12 in. thick
- > 12 in. thick
- Small, erratic deposit less than 12 in. size
- Lenticular deposit larger than a pocket
- One or less per 12 in. of thickness
- More than one per 12 in. of thickness
- Alternating soil layers of differing composition
- Alternating thin seams of silt and clay
- Variation of color
Laminae
Parting
Seam
Layer
Stratum
Pocket
Lens
Occasional
Frequent
Interbedded
Varved
Mottled
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION
Deposit type - GLACIAL TILL, ALLUVIUM, FILL.....
U.S. Standard Series Seive Clear Square Sieve Openings
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TYPICAL NAMES
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures
Well graded sands, gravelly sands
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands
Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures
Organic clays and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Peat and other highly organic soils
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silty clays, lean clays
Inorganic silty, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts
Group
Symbol
Graphic
SymbolMAJOR DIVISIONS
Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts
The natural soils are identified by criteria of Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), with appropriate group
symbol in parenthesis for each soil description.
Fill materials may not be classified by USCS criteria.
GENERAL NOTES
1.Logs of subsurface explorations depict soil, rock and groundwater conditions only at
the locations specified on the dates indicated. Subsurface conditions may vary at
other locations and at other times.
2.Water levels noted on the logs were measured at the times and under the
conditions indicated. During test borings, these water levels could have been
affected by the introduction of water into the borehole, extraction of tools on other
procedures and thus may not reflect actual groundwater level at the test boring
location. Groundwater level fluctuations may also occur as a result of variations in
precipitation, temperature, season, tides, adjacent construction activities and
pumping of water supply wells and construction dewatering systems.
Fine
Sand
MediumCoarse
Gravel
FineCoarseCobblesBoulders
20043"12"40103/4"
Silts and Clays
0.074 mm4.75 mm76 mm305 mm 0.43 mm2.00 mm19 mm
Gravels
More than half
of coarse
fraction is larger
than number 4
sieve
Gravels with
little or no fines
Gravels with
over 12% fines
Sands with little
or no fines
Sands with over
12% fines
Sands
More than half
of coarse
fraction is
smaller than
number 4 sieve
Coarse grained
soils:
more than half
is larger
than number
200 sieve
Fined-grained
soils:
more than half
smaller than
number 200
sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit 50% or less
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit greater than 50%
Highly organic soils
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
Soil description on logs of subsurface explorations are based on
Standard Penetration Test results, visual-manual examination of exposed
soil and soil samples, and the results of laboratory tests on selected
samples. The criteria, descriptive terms and definitions are as follows:
Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) - Number of blows required
to drive a standard 2 in. O.D. split spoon or a modified California
sampler 1 ft., with a 140 lb. weight falling freely through 30 in.
Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Standard
Penetration
Test
(Blows per ft.)
Consistency of
Cohesive Soils
Penetration
Resistance
(Blows per ft.)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
0-4
5-10
11-30
31-50
> 50
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
0-2
3-4
5-8
9-15
16-30
> 30
COLOR:Color descriptions based on the Munsell Soil Color Chart
Modified
California
(Blows per ft.)
0-4
5-12
13-35
36-60
> 60
J:\GRAPHICS\TEMP\MCELENEY-T\FIELD SERVICES\SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG KEY\HA-SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION KEY2018-0828 SOILS ONLY.DWGMCELENEY, TERRI8.5X11 P8/28/2018 6:26 PMLayout:Printed:
86
19
18
18
777
000
000
10.5
0.410.0
0.9
5.9
5.0
3.47.5
-14.1
ASPHALT ROADWAY, 5 in. AC
CRUSHED STONE, 6 in. AB
Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM)
Corrosivity test (See Appendix D)
-FILL-
Loose to medium dense brown and red-brown clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC), mps 1.25
in., moist to wet
-FILL-
Note: Installed casing to 8 ft.
Very soft gray lean CLAY (CL), organic odor, wet, low to medium plasticity, lenses of
sand, occasional seashell fragments
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=0.50 tsf
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=1.25 tsfMCSSTMCS
MCSGM
GC
CL HA1-5.5 HA1-TW1-10.0 HA1-15.5 HA1-20.0Start
File No.
R. Mandzulashvili
See Plan
Roller Bit
Push to 8 ft
6:58 N/A
4
15 March 2022
Dilatancy : R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness : L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size (mps) is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Time (hr.)Date
Hammer Fall (in.)
of Hole
Depth (ft) to:
Hammer Weight (lb)Casing:
HA-1
Samples
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
1
Datum
H&A Rep.
Hammer Type
03/15/22
Boring No.
Bottom
0204962-000
Elapsed
Summary
Field Tests:
Drill Mud:
Driller
Location
Rock Cored (ft)
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
Rig Make & Model:
8.0 101.5
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sheet No.
Bottom Overburden (ft)
Finish
Boring Diameter (in.)
Water
Bit Type:
Boring No.
Plasticity : N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dry Strength : N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Elevation
Sampler Type Legend
of
15 March 2022
M.Sevilla
Bentonite
0.0
6.0
of Casing
30
HA-1
NAD 1983
Winch Automatic Hammer
MiniRAE 3000 10.6 eV
17SPT - Standard Penetration Test
140
Automatic Hammer
Truck
101.5
5.0
10.9 ft
ST - Shelby TubeGB - Grab Sample
MCS - Modified California Sampler (2.43-in ID)
Client
Contractor
Project Steelwave - The Terminal, 101 Terminal CT
Steelwave
Pitcher Drilling
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)10
5
0
-5
-10
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
49
27
18
15
18
18
18
15
14
563
142030
141115
11109
1925
27
14
15
20
14
13
15
25.0
-19.1
30.0
-24.1
35.0
-37.4
48.3
-40.6
51.5
Loose gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), organic odor, occasional partially
decomposed vegetation, fine grained
TV=0.50 tsf
Dense olive-gray clayey SAND (SC), organic odor, wet
Medium dense to dense brown silty SAND (SM), wet, medium to fine grained
Medium dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), wet, fine grained
Medium dense gray silty sand (SM), wet, medium to fine grainedSPTMCSSPTSPTMCSSPT
SPTSP-SM
SC
SM
SP-SM
SM HA1-25.0 HA1-30.0 HA1-35.0 HA1-40.0 HA1-45.0 HA1-50.0 HA1-55.0HA-1
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-1
2
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18
18
18
13
2117
032
91540
37
37
37
-52.163.0
-56.1
67.0
-57.8
68.7
-62.173.0
-63.1
74.0
-65.6
76.5
Stiff gray lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Note: 200 psi to 600 psi sand at tip, not enough recover in TW tube
Dense to dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), homogeneous, no odor, wet,
medium to fine grained
Very stiff gray fat CLAY (CH), no odor, moist, high plasticity
PP=2.0 tsf
Dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), homogeneous, wet
Medium stiff gray fat CLAY (CH), no odor, moist, high plasticity
PP=2.00 tsf
Medium dense to very dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), wet, fine
grainedSTSPTSPT
SPTSPTCL
SP-SM
CH
SP-SM
CH
SP-SM HA1-TW2-65.0 HA1-67.5 HA1-75.0 HA1-85.0 HA1-95.0HA-1
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-1
3
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)65
70
75
80
85
90
95
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
241920
-89.1
100.0
-90.6
101.5
Very stiff to hard sandy CLAY (CL), no odor, wet, fine grained, low to medium plasticity
Note: Traces of wood fibers at 100 ft.
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 101.5 FTSPTCL HA1-100HA-1
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-1
4
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
104
16
11
18
100
668
000
0
00
91112
9.4
1.2
8.1
2.5
6.4
4.2
3.17.5
-6.9
17.5
-8.9
19.5
CRUSHED STONE, 14 in. AB
Medium dense brown silty SAND (SM), no odor, moist
Corrosivity test (See Appendix D)
-FILL-
Dark brown and gray-brown clayey SAND with gravel (SC), moist to wet
R-value=18 (See Appendix D)
Medium dense clayey SAND with gravel (SC), intermixed, no odor, moist to dry, cobbles
at 7 ft
-FILL-
Very soft olive-gray and dark brown lean CLAY (CL), medium plasticity, traces of organic
fibers, particularly decomposed roots, vegetation
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=2.00 tsf
Note: TW pressure 7.5 ft 50 psi, 8.5 ft 75 psi, 9.5 ft 100 psi
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=0.50 tsf
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=1.00 tsf
Very soft olive-gray gravelly lean CLAY with sand (CL), organic odor, wet, medium to fine
grained, 55% fines
Olive-gray lean CLAY (CL), no odor, clay bluish gray cuttings 17.5 to 19.5 ft
Medium dense to dense brown silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 15% finesSPTSTMCSMCS
SPTSM
SC
SC
CL
CL
CL
SM HA2-0.5 HA2-7.5 HA2-10.25 HA2-15.5 HA2-20Start
File No.
R. Mandzulashvili
See Plan
Cutting Head
Push to 8 ft
8:52 7.5
4
14 March 2022
Dilatancy : R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness : L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size (mps) is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Time (hr.)Date
Hammer Fall (in.)
of Hole
Depth (ft) to:
Hammer Weight (lb)Casing:
HA-2
Samples
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
1
Datum
H&A Rep.
Hammer Type
03/14/22
Boring No.
Bottom
0204962-000
Elapsed
Summary
Field Tests:
Drill Mud:
Driller
Location
Rock Cored (ft)
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
Rig Make & Model:
8.0 101.5
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sheet No.
Bottom Overburden (ft)
Finish
Boring Diameter (in.)
Water
Bit Type:
Boring No.
Plasticity : N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dry Strength : N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Elevation
Sampler Type Legend
of
14 March 2022
M.Sevilla
Bentonite
0.0
5.5
of Casing
30
HA-2
NAD 1983
Winch Automatic Hammer
MiniRAE 3000 10.6 eV
16SPT - Standard Penetration Test
140
Automatic Hammer
Truck
101.5
5.0
10.6 ft
ST - Shelby TubeGB - Grab Sample
MCS - Modified California Sampler (2.43-in ID)
Client
Contractor
Project Steelwave - The Terminal, 101 Terminal CT
Steelwave
Pitcher Drilling
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)10
5
0
-5
-10
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
22
22
13
18
18
19
18
14
18
141217
71110
152120
172012
914
17
8
12
14
6
1120
-29.440.0
-30.9
41.5
-39.4
50.0
-41.9
52.5
-50.9
61.5
Medium dense brown silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, medium to fine grained
Dense olive-brown clayey SAND (SC), wet
Dense gray silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 35% fines
Very stiff gray lean CLAY (CL), no odor, moist, medium to high plasticity
PP=2.50 tsf
TV=5.50 tsf
Medium dense gray silty SAND (SM), fine grained, alternating layers of clay and silty
sand, low plasticity
Stiff gray fat CLAY (CH), no odor, moist, high plasticitySPTSPTSPTSPTSPTSPTMCSSM
SC
SM
CL
SM
CH HA2-25 HA2-30 HA2-35 HA2-35 HA2-45 HA2-50 HA2-60HA-2
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-2
2
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
55
18
18
157
84
10
-80.4
91.0-81.0
91.6
PP=2.75 tsf
TV=4.50 tsf
TXUU Su=2313 psf @ 4690 psf
PP=1.50 tsf
TV=4.00 tsf
Stiff gray sandy CLAY (CL), no odor, moist, fine grained sand, medium to high plasticity,
55% fines
Dense silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 15% fines
Note: Drill rods chattering at 97 ft.
69
STMCSSPTCL
SM HA2-TW2-70 HA2-80 HA2-90HA-2
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-2
3
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)65
70
75
80
85
90
95
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18 152525 -90.9
101.5
Note: Traces of wood fibers at 100 ft.
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 101.5 FTSPT HA2-100HA-2
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-2
4
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
21
24
15 555
336
9.8
0.5
9.3
1.0
5.3
5.0
3.3
7.0
-4.7
15.0
-10.7
21.0
ASPHALT ROADWAY, 6 in. AC
CRUSHED STONE, 6 in. AB
Dark brown and gray-brown silty GRAVEL with sand (GM), occasional brick pieces
Corrosivity test (See Appendix D)
-FILL-
Loose gray clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC), slight organic odor, moist
-FILL-
Stiff gray lean CLAY (CL)
PP=2.50 tsf
TV=3.00 tsf
Stiff brown sandy lean CLAY (CL), no odor, wet, medium plasticity
LL=30, PI=10
TXUU Su=2750 psf @ 1260 psf
Consolidation test (See Appendix D)
Loose to dense brown poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), no odor, wet, fine grained,
10% fines
107
101MCSST
SPTGM
GC
CL
CL
SP-SM HA3-5.0 HA3-TW1-14 HA3-20Start
File No.
R. Mandzulashvili
See Plan
Cutting Head
Push
7:08 N/A
4
17 March 2022
Dilatancy : R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness : L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size (mps) is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Time (hr.)Date
Hammer Fall (in.)
of Hole
Depth (ft) to:
Hammer Weight (lb)Casing:
HA-3
Samples
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
1
Datum
H&A Rep.
Hammer Type
03/17/22
Boring No.
Bottom
0204962-000
Elapsed
Summary
Field Tests:
Drill Mud:
Driller
Location
Rock Cored (ft)
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
Rig Make & Model:
8.0 118.0
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sheet No.
Bottom Overburden (ft)
Finish
Boring Diameter (in.)
Water
Bit Type:
Boring No.
Plasticity : N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dry Strength : N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Elevation
Sampler Type Legend
of
17 March 2022
M.Sevilla
Bentonite
0.0
5.0
of Casing
30
HA-3
NAD 1983
Winch Automatic Hammer
MiniRAE 3000 10.6 eV
14SPT - Standard Penetration Test
140
Automatic Hammer
Truck
118
5.0
10.3 ft
ST - Shelby TubeGB - Grab Sample
MCS - Modified California Sampler (2.43-in ID)
Client
Contractor
Project Steelwave - The Terminal, 101 Terminal CT
Steelwave
Pitcher Drilling
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)10
5
0
-5
-10
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18
39
37
18
18
18
18
18
18
172017
6107
152222
101215
56
8
16
17
6
-17.2
27.5
-22.2
32.5
-28.2
38.5
Medium dense to dense brown poorly-graded SAND (SP), no odor, wet, medium to fine
grained, <10% fines
Dense brown clayey SAND (SC), no odor, wet, medium to fine grained
Medium dense gray clayey SAND (SC), moist, fine grained sand, ~45% fines
LL=27, PI=12SPTSPTSPTSPT
SPTSPTSTSP
SC
SC HA3-25 HA3-30 HA3-35 HA3-40 HA3-45 HA3-50 HA3-TW2-60HA-3
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-3
2
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
59
18
18
18
245
182521
710
25
-59.7
70.0
-66.7
77.0
-80.7
91.0
Stiff gray fat CLAY (CH), no odor, moist, high plasticity
PP=2.50 tsf
Dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), no odor, wet, fine grained sand, 10%
fines
Hard gray sandy CLAY (CL), no odor, wet, fine grained sandSPTSPTSPTCH
SP-SM
CH HA3-70 HA3-80 HA3-90HA-3
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-3
3
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)65
70
75
80
85
90
95
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18 232028
-89.7
100.0
-104.7
115.0
-107.7118.0
Dense gray silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, fine grained
Note: Very soft to soft, completely to highly weathered, gray, green, red, coarse grained to
fine grained, weathered bedrock cuttings, cemented sands, pebbles, quartz.
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 118.0 FTSPTSM HA3-100HA-3
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-3
4
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
101
18
18
18
468
000
000
7.8
0.5
7.3
1.0
0.87.5
ASPHALT ROADWAY, 6.0 in. AC
CRUSHED STONE, 5 to 6 in. AB
Loose dark brown and gray silty SAND (SM), homogeneous
Very soft gray lean CLAY (CL), occasional organics, fragments, partially decomposed
vegetation
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=0.50 tsf
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=0.50 tsf
PP=0.25 tsfMCSSTMCS
SPTSM
CL HA4-5.0 HA-TW1-12.5 HA4-15 HA4-20Start
File No.
R. Mandzulashvili
See PlanPush
7:00 N/A
4
18 March 2022
Dilatancy : R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness : L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size (mps) is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Time (hr.)Date
Hammer Fall (in.)
of Hole
Depth (ft) to:
Hammer Weight (lb)Casing:
HA-4
Samples
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
1
Datum
H&A Rep.
Hammer Type
03/18/22
Boring No.
Bottom
0204962-000
Elapsed
Summary
Field Tests:
Drill Mud:
Driller
Location
Rock Cored (ft)
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
Rig Make & Model:
8.0 126.5
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sheet No.
Bottom Overburden (ft)
Finish
Boring Diameter (in.)
Water
Bit Type:
Boring No.
Plasticity : N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dry Strength : N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Elevation
Sampler Type Legend
of
18 March 2022
M.Sevilla
Bentonite
0.0
6.0
of Casing
30
HA-4
NAD 1983
Winch Automatic Hammer
MiniRAE 3000 10.6 eV
14SPT - Standard Penetration Test
140
Automatic Hammer
Truck
126.5
5.0
8.3 ft
ST - Shelby TubeGB - Grab Sample
MCS - Modified California Sampler (2.43-in ID)
Client
Contractor
Project Steelwave - The Terminal, 101 Terminal CT
Steelwave
Pitcher Drilling
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)5
0
-5
-10
-15
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
95
62
18
19
16
16
18
15
000
000
002
1214
16
2
15
24
16
37
30
-32.7
41.0
-36.745.0
-37.0
45.3
-39.2
47.5
-42.7
51.0
-45.0
53.3
-52.7
61.0
PP=0.25 tsf
PP=0-.50 tsf
TV=2.25 tsf
Consolidation test (See Appendix D)
PP=0.50 tsf
Very loose dark brown to black silty SAND (SM), slight organic odor, wet, medium to fine
grained
Very soft gray sandy CLAY (CL), occasional organics, fragments, partially decomposed
vegetation, traces of roots
Medium dense gray to black poorly-graded SAND (SP), no odor, wet, medium grained,
~5% fines
Medium dense gray to black silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, medium to fine grained
Dense to very dense gray to black poorly-graded SAND (SP)
Very dense dark greenish gray well-graded SAND (SW), no odor, wet, coarse to fine
grained
Dense dark olive-gray clayey SAND (SC), no odor, wet, fine grained sand, 40% fines
46SPTSPTST
SPTSPTSPTSPTSM
CL
SP
SM
SP
SW
SC HA4-25 HA4-30 HA-TW2-35 HA-40 HA-45 HA-50 HA-55HA-4
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-4
2
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
24
16
18
18
18
121210
21031
385050/3"
23
32
32
-57.7
66.0
-68.0
76.3
-76.7
85.0
-86.7
95.0
PP=2.00 tsf
Hard to stiff gray fat CLAY (CH), wet, traces of organics
Dense gray clayey SAND (SC), traces of organics
Very dense grayish brown well-graded SAND (SW), no odor, wet, fine to coarse grained
Very dense brown and light brown clayey SAND (SC), wet, fine to medium grainedSPTSPTMCS
SPTCH
SC
SW
SC HA-65 HA-75 HA-85 HA-95HA-4
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-4
3
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
-90
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)65
70
75
80
85
90
95
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18 7715
222220
-91.7
100.0
-106.7
115.0
-118.2126.5
Hard gray sandy CLAY (SC), minor iron oxide staining
Very dense gray to brown silty SAND (SM), wet, fine to medium grained, partially
cemented, minor iron oxide staining
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 126.5 FTSPTSPTSC
SM HA-105 HA-125HA-4
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-4
4
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
91
96
18
467
9310
142430
10.6
0.3
10.4
0.5
3.9
7.0
1.4
9.5
-4.6
15.5
-5.6
16.5
-9.1
20.0
ASPHALT ROADWAY, 4 in. AC
CRUSHED STONE, 2 in. AB
Medium dense clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC), moist
Corrosivity test (See Appendix D)
-FILL-
Very soft gray lean CLAY (CL), organic odor
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=2.00 tsf
Very soft gray fat CLAY (CH)
PP=0.25 tsf
TV=2.00 tsf
LL=89, PI=52
TXUU Su=319 psf @ 950 psf
Consolidation test (See Appendix D)
Loose poorly-graded SAND (SP), no odor, wet, medium grained
Very soft gray lean CLAY (CL), organic odor
Medium dense to dense brown SAND with silt (SP-SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 10-
15% fines
46
46SPTMCSSTST
MCSMCSGC
CL
CH
SP
CL
SP-SM HA5-Bulk-0.5 HA5-5.5 HA5-TW1-7 HA5-TW2-9.5 HA5-15 HA5-20Start
File No.
R. Mandzulashvili
See Plan
8:19 7.0
4
17 March 2022
Dilatancy : R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness : L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size (mps) is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Time (hr.)Date
Hammer Fall (in.)
of Hole
Depth (ft) to:
Hammer Weight (lb)Casing:
HA-5
Samples
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
1
Datum
H&A Rep.
Hammer Type
03/16/22
Boring No.
Bottom
0204962-000
Elapsed
Summary
Field Tests:
Drill Mud:
Driller
Location
Rock Cored (ft)
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
Rig Make & Model:
8.0 114
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sheet No.
Bottom Overburden (ft)
Finish
Boring Diameter (in.)
Water
Bit Type:
Boring No.
Plasticity : N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dry Strength : N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Elevation
Sampler Type Legend
of
17 March 2022
M.Sevilla
Bentonite
0.0
5.5
of Casing
30
HA-5
NAD 1983
Winch Automatic Hammer
MiniRAE 3000 10.6 eV
17SPT - Standard Penetration Test
140
Automatic Hammer
Truck
114
5.0
10.9 ft
ST - Shelby TubeGB - Grab Sample
MCS - Modified California Sampler (2.43-in ID)
Client
Contractor
Project Steelwave - The Terminal, 101 Terminal CT
Steelwave
Pitcher Drilling
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)10
5
0
-5
-10
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
29
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
161619
151719
1289
212221
1120
27
27
27
14
16
2024
-21.6
32.5
-37.1
48.0
-49.1
60.0
Medium dense to dense brown silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, medium to fine grained
Dense to very dense olive-gray SAND with silt (SP-SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 5-10%
fines
Dense gray silty SAND (SM), no odor, wet, fine grained, 15-20% finesSPTSPTSPTSPTSPTSPT
SPTSM
SP-SM
SM HA5-25 HA5-30 HA5-35 HA5-40 HA5-45 HA5-50 HA5-60HA-5
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-5
2
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
42
18
18
71215
1822
27
-57.1
68.0
-71.1
82.0
Very stiff gray fat CLAY (CH)
PP=3.00 tsf
TV=3.00 tsf
PP=4.00 tsf
TV=4.50 tsf
LL=65, PI=40
TXUU Su=1740 psf @ 5000 psf
Dense gray poorly-graded SAND (SP) with interbedded layers of sandy lean CLAY (CL),
no odor, wet, fine grained
80MCSST
SPTCH
SP HA5-70 HA5-TW3-77 HA5-90HA-5
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-5
3
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)65
70
75
80
85
90
95
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
18 222545
-89.1
100.0
-95.1106.0
-102.6
113.5
-103.1
114.0
Dense to very dense gray poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), no odor, wet, fine
grained, ~10% fines
Gray sandy lean CLAY (CL)
Note: Very soft to soft, highly weathered, gray, green, red, coarse grained to fine grained,
weathered bedrock cuttings, cemented sands, pebbles, quartz.
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 114.0 FTSPTSP-SM
CL HA5-100HA-5
4
File No.
Boring No.NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
ofSheet No.
HA-5
4
0204962-000
Moisture(%)Fines(%)Elevation (ft)-90
-95
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
-125
H&A BORING MDH 2016 SAMPLE R2 204962_HA-CALIFORNIA.GLB \\HALEYALDRICH.COM\SHARE\CF\PROJECTS\0204962\GINT\204962-000_GEO_BORINGS.GPJ 19 Apr 22Depth (ft)100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING REPORT
Recovery (in.)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(GROUP NAME, density/consistency, color, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)Dry Density(pcf)Sample TypeUSCS SymbolSample No.
APPENDIX B
Cone Penetration Test Results
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com
March 16, 2022
Haley & Aldrich
Attn: Rati
Subject: CPT Site Investigation
101 & 103 Terminal Ct South San Francisco, California
GREGG Project Number: P7222007 & P7222008
Dear Rati:
The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation
for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed:
1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU)
2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD)
3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU)
4 Membrane Interface Probe (MIP)
5 Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT)
6 Groundwater Sampling (GWS)
7 Soil Sampling (SS)
8 Vapor Sampling (VS)
A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of
these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this
report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-903-6873.
Sincerely,
Gregg Drilling, LLC.
CPT Reports Team
Gregg Drilling, LLC.
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com
Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary
-Table 1-
CPT Sounding
Identification
Date Termination
Depth (feet)
Depth of Groundwater
Samples (feet)
Depth of Soil
Samples (feet)
Depth of Pore Pressure
Dissipation Tests (feet)
SCPT-1 3/14/2022 100.07 - - 23.62
CPT-2 3/15/2022 100.07 - - 24.93
CPT-3 3/15/2022 83.01 - - 21.33
CPT-4 3/15/2022 97.6 - - 23.29
SCPT-2 3/14/2022 99.41 - - 18.54
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com
Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997 Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org
Revised 10/21/2021 i
Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)
Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests
(CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system,
Figure CPT.
The cone takes measurements of tip resistance (qc),
sleeve resistance (fs), and penetration pore water
pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or
5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly
continuous profile. CPT data reduction and basic
interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on-
site decision making. The above mentioned
parameters are stored electronically for further
analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are
performed in accordance with revised ASTM standards
(D 5778-12).
The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located
directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location. A new
saturated filter element is used on each sounding to
measure both penetration pore pressures as well as
measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT). Prior
to each test, the filter element is fully saturated with
oil under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy.
When the sounding is completed, the test hole is
backfilled according to client specifications. If grouting
is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a
hollow tremie pipe with a “knock out” plug to the
termination depth of the CPT hole. Grout is then
pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled
from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to
the site is therefore minimized.
Figure CPT
Revised 10/21/2021 ii
Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications
Dimensions
Cone base area 15 cm2
Sleeve surface area 225 cm2
Cone net area ratio 0.85
Specifications
Cone load cell
Full scale range 180 kN (20 tons)
Overload capacity 150%
Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf)
Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf)
Sleeve load cell
Full scale range 31 kN (3.5 tons)
Overload capacity 150%
Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf)
Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf)
Pore pressure transducer
Full scale range 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi)
Overload capacity 150%
Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi)
Note: The repeatability during field use will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion,
maintenance and zero load stability.
Revised 10/21/2021 i
Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the
report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by
Robertson (1990). Typical plots display SBT based on the non-normalized charts of Robertson et al
(1986). For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of
Robertson (1990) which can be displayed as SBTn, upon request. The report also includes
spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and
various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive
review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson
(Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for
geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling LLC does not warranty the
correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the software
and does not assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user should be
fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. Some
interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress.
An estimate of the in-situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT
results, but should be verified by the user.
A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths
referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface.
Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2. In these
situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be
used to infer the correct soil behavior type.
Figure SBT (After Robertson et al., 1986) – Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots
ZONE SBT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sensitive, fine grained
Organic materials
Clay
Silty clay to clay
Clayey silt to silty clay
Sandy silt to clayey silt
Silty sand to sandy silt
Sand to silty sand
Sand
Gravely sand to sand
Very stiff fine grained*
Sand to clayey sand*
*over consolidated or cemented
Revised 10/21/2021 i
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation
Gregg uses a proprietary CPT interpretation and plotting software. The software takes the CPT data and
performs basic interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters
using current published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson
and Powell (1997). The interpretation is presented in tabular format using MS Excel. The interpretations
are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg does not
warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the
software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The user
should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.
The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation. Many of the empirical
correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending
on soil type, geologic origin and other factors. The software uses ‘default’ values that have been
selected to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameters.
Input:
1 Units for display (Imperial or metric) (atm. pressure, pa = 0.96 tsf or 0.1 MPa)
2 Depth interval to average results (ft or m). Data are collected at either 0.02 or 0.05m and
can be averaged every 1, 3 or 5 intervals.
3 Elevation of ground surface (ft or m)
4 Depth to water table, zw (ft or m) – input required
5 Net area ratio for cone, a (default to 0.85)
6 Relative Density constant, CDr (default to 350)
7 Young’s modulus number for sands, α (default to 5)
8 Small strain shear modulus number
a. for sands, SG (default to 180 for SBTn 5, 6, 7)
b. for clays, CG (default to 50 for SBTn 1, 2, 3 & 4)
9 Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt (default to 15)
10 Over Consolidation ratio number, kocr (default to 0.3)
11 Unit weight of water, (default to γw = 62.4 lb/ft3 or 9.81 kN/m3)
Column
1 Depth, z, (m) – CPT data is collected in meters
2 Depth (ft)
3 Cone resistance, qc (tsf or MPa)
4 Sleeve resistance, fs (tsf or MPa)
5 Penetration pore pressure, u (psi or MPa), measured behind the cone (i.e. u2)
6 Other – any additional data
7 Total cone resistance, qt (tsf or MPa) qt = qc + u (1-a)
Revised 10/21/2021 ii
8 Friction Ratio, Rf (%) Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%
9 Soil Behavior Type (non-normalized), SBT see note
10 Unit weight, γ (pcf or kN/m3) based on SBT, see note
11 Total overburden stress, σv (tsf) σvo = σ z
12 In-situ pore pressure, uo (tsf) uo = γ w (z - zw)
13 Effective overburden stress, σ'vo (tsf ) σ'vo = σvo - uo
14 Normalized cone resistance, Qt1 Qt1= (qt - σvo) / σ'vo
15 Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%) Fr = fs / (qt - σvo) x 100%
16 Normalized Pore Pressure ratio, Bq Bq = u – uo / (qt - σvo)
17 Soil Behavior Type (normalized), SBTn see note
18 SBTn Index, Ic see note
19 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic) see note
20 Estimated permeability, kSBT (cm/sec or ft/sec) see note
21 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft see note
22 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft see note
23 Estimated Relative Density, Dr, (%) see note
24 Estimated Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) see note
25 Estimated Young’s modulus, Es (tsf) see note
26 Estimated small strain Shear modulus, Go (tsf) see note
27 Estimated Undrained shear strength, su (tsf) see note
28 Estimated Undrained strength ratio su/σv’
29 Estimated Over Consolidation ratio, OCR see note
Notes:
1 Soil Behavior Type (non-normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)
2 Unit weight, γ either constant at 119 pcf or based on Non-normalized SBT (Lunne et al.,
1997 and table below)
3 Soil Behavior Type (Normalized), SBTn Lunne et al. (1997)
4 SBTn Index, Ic Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5
5 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic)
Qtn = ((qt - σvo)/pa) (pa/(σvo)n and recalculate Ic, then iterate:
When Ic < 1.64, n = 0.5 (clean sand)
When Ic > 3.30, n = 1.0 (clays)
When 1.64 < Ic < 3.30, n = (Ic – 1.64)0.3 + 0.5
Iterate until the change in n, ∆n < 0.01
Revised 10/21/2021 iii
6 Estimated permeability, kSBT based on Normalized SBTn (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)
7 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft Lunne et al. (1997)
60
a
N
)/p(qt = 8.5
4.6
I1c
8 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft (N1)60 = N60 CN,
where CN = (pa/σvo)0.5
9 Relative Density, Dr, (%) Dr2 = Qtn / CDr
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
10 Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) tan φ ' =
29.0'
qlog68.2
1
vo
c
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show’N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
11 Young’s modulus, Es Es = α qt
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
12 Small strain shear modulus, Go
a. Go = SG (qt σ'vo pa)1/3 For SBTn 5, 6, 7
b. Go = CG qt For SBTn 1, 2, 3& 4
Show ‘N/A’ in zones 8 & 9
13 Undrained shear strength, su su = (qt - σvo) / Nkt
Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8
14 Over Consolidation ratio, OCR OCR = kocr Qt1
Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8
The following updated and simplified SBT descriptions have been used in the software:
SBT Zones SBTn Zones
1 sensitive fine grained 1 sensitive fine grained
2 organic soil 2 organic soil
3 clay 3 clay
4 clay & silty clay 4 clay & silty clay
5 clay & silty clay
6 sandy silt & clayey silt
Revised 10/21/2021 iv
7 silty sand & sandy silt 5 silty sand & sandy silt
8 sand & silty sand 6 sand & silty sand
9 sand
10 sand 7 sand
11 very dense/stiff soil* 8 very dense/stiff soil*
12 very dense/stiff soil* 9 very dense/stiff soil*
*heavily overconsolidated and/or cemented
Track when soils fall with zones of same description and print that description (i.e. if soils fall
only within SBT zones 4 & 5, print ‘clays & silty clays’)
Revised 10/21/2021 v
Estimated Permeability (see Lunne et al., 1997)
SBTn Permeability (ft/sec) (m/sec)
1 3x 10-8 1x 10-8
2 3x 10-7 1x 10-7
3 1x 10-9 3x 10-10
4 3x 10-8 1x 10-8
5 3x 10-6 1x 10-6
6 3x 10-4 1x 10-4
7 3x 10-2 1x 10-2
8 3x 10-6 1x 10-6
9 1x 10-8 3x 10-9
Estimated Unit Weight (see Lunne et al., 1997)
SBT Approximate Unit Weight (lb/ft3) (kN/m3)
1 111.4 17.5
2 79.6 12.5
3 111.4 17.5
4 114.6 18.0
5 114.6 18.0
6 114.6 18.0
7 117.8 18.5
8 120.9 19.0
9 124.1 19.5
10 127.3 20.0
11 130.5 20.5
12 120.9 19.0
Revised 10/21/2021 i
Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT)
Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals can be used to measure
equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT). If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water
pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is
conducted when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The
variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and
recorded.
Pore pressure dissipation data can be
interpreted to provide estimates of:
Equilibrium piezometric pressure
Phreatic Surface
In situ horizontal coefficient of
consolidation (ch)
In situ horizontal coefficient of
permeability (kh)
In order to correctly interpret the
equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or the
phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be
monitored until it reaches equilibrium,
Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred
to as t100, the point at which 100% of the
excess pore pressure has dissipated.
A complete reference on pore pressure
dissipation tests is presented by Robertson
et al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997.
A summary of the pore pressure dissipation
tests completed for this project is included in
Table 1.
Figure PPDT
Revised 10/21/2021 i
Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT)
Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) can be conducted at various intervals during the Cone
Penetration Test. Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A
small interval for seismic testing, such as 1-1.5m (3-5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile
with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3-6m (10-20ft) allows for a more average shear wave
velocity to be calculated. Gregg Drilling’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft)
behind the tip.
To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled
from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the
source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance
between the source and the cone. To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be
performed at two different
depths. The arrival times
between the two wave traces
are compared to obtain the
difference in time (∆t). The
difference in depth is
calculated (∆d) and velocity
can be determined using the
simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t
Multiple wave traces can be
recorded at the same depth
to improve quality of the
data.
A complete reference on
seismic cone penetration
tests is presented by
Robertson et al. 1986 and
Lunne et al. 1997.
A summary the shear wave
velocities, arrival times and
wave traces are provided
with the report.
Figure SCPT
(S)
1
2
t 1
2
1 2
12
12
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-1
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio SPT N60
HAND AUGER
N60 (blows/ft)
100806040200Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 1
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-1
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
4003002001000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 2
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-1
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Shear Wave velocity
HAND AUGER
Vs (ft/s)
2000150010005000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Custom Data
Shear Wave velocity Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 11:08:19 AM 1
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-2
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio SPT N60
HAND AUGER
N60 (blows/ft)
100806040200Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty claySand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 3
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-2
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
4003002001000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty claySand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 4
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 83.01 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-3
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio SPT N60
HAND AUGER
N60 (blows/ft)
100806040200Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
ClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 5
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 83.01 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-3
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
4003002001000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
ClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 6
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 97.60 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-4
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio SPT N60
HAND AUGER
N60 (blows/ft)
100806040200Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty claySand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 7
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 97.60 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: CPT-4
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
4003002001000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty claySand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 8
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-2
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio SPT N60
HAND AUGER
N60 (blows/ft)
100806040200Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClaySand & silty sand
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:48:42 AM 1
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-2
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u
HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
4003002001000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClaySand & silty sand
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:48:42 AM 2
CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH
GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CPT: SCPT-2
SITE:
FIELD REP: RATI
Cone ID: GDC-89
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
Cone resistance qt
HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
6004002000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction
HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
14121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio
HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
1086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Friction ratio Shear Wave velocity
HAND AUGER
Vs (ft/s)
2000150010005000Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Custom Data
Shear Wave velocity Soil Behaviour Type
HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420Depth (ft)110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClaySand & silty sand
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 11:09:03 AM 1
Geophone Offset:0.66 Feet
Source Offset:1.67 Feet 03/14/22
Test Depth
(Feet)
Geophone
Depth (Feet)
Waveform
Ray Path
(Feet)
Incremental
Distance
(Feet)
Characteristic
Arrival Time
(ms)
Incremental
Time Interval
(ms)
Interval
Velocity
(Ft/Sec)
Interval
Depth
(Feet)
5.09 4.43 4.73 4.73 7.5500
10.01 9.35 9.49 4.76 12.4000 4.8500 982.4 6.89
15.42 14.76 14.85 5.36 31.3500 18.9500 282.8 12.05
20.01 19.35 19.42 4.57 44.9500 13.6000 336.1 17.06
25.10 24.44 24.50 5.07 52.2000 7.2500 699.4 21.90
30.02 29.36 29.41 4.91 58.4000 6.2000 792.2 26.90
35.10 34.44 34.49 5.08 65.4000 7.0000 725.5 31.90
40.03 39.37 39.40 4.92 70.8500 5.4500 902.1 36.91
45.11 44.45 44.48 5.08 76.3500 5.5000 923.9 41.91
50.03 49.37 49.40 4.92 81.8500 5.5000 894.2 46.91
55.12 54.46 54.48 5.08 89.0500 7.2000 705.9 51.92
60.04 59.38 59.40 4.92 95.0500 6.0000 819.9 56.92
65.12 64.46 64.49 5.08 101.4000 6.3500 800.5 61.92
70.05 69.39 69.41 4.92 107.6500 6.2500 787.2 66.93
75.13 74.47 74.49 5.08 114.0000 6.3500 800.6 71.93
80.05 79.39 79.41 4.92 120.6000 6.6000 745.5 76.93
85.14 84.48 84.49 5.08 125.6000 5.0000 1016.8 81.93
90.06 89.40 89.41 4.92 130.3000 4.7000 1046.9 86.94
95.14 94.48 94.50 5.08 136.0500 5.7500 884.3 91.94
100.07 99.41 99.42 4.92 140.8000 4.7500 1035.9 96.94
SCPT-1
Shear Wave Velocity Calculations
101 Terminal Ct
SCPT-1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0
Depth (Feet)Time (ms)
Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-1
Geophone Offset:0.66 Feet
Source Offset:1.67 Feet 03/14/22
Test Depth
(Feet)
Geophone
Depth (Feet)
Waveform
Ray Path
(Feet)
Incremental
Distance
(Feet)
Characteristic
Arrival Time
(ms)
Incremental
Time Interval
(ms)
Interval
Velocity
(Ft/Sec)
Interval
Depth
(Feet)
5.09 4.43 4.73 4.73 7.5500
10.01 9.35 9.49 4.76 22.0000 14.4500 329.7 6.89
15.09 14.43 14.53 5.03 41.2000 19.2000 262.2 11.89
20.01 19.35 19.42 4.90 54.1500 12.9500 378.1 16.89
25.10 24.44 24.50 5.07 60.9000 6.7500 751.2 21.90
30.02 29.36 29.41 4.91 69.1500 8.2500 595.4 26.90
35.10 34.44 34.49 5.08 75.6000 6.4500 787.3 31.90
40.03 39.37 39.40 4.92 81.6000 6.0000 819.4 36.91
45.11 44.45 44.48 5.08 88.5500 6.9500 731.1 41.91
50.03 49.37 49.40 4.92 93.0500 4.5000 1092.9 46.91
55.12 54.46 54.48 5.08 98.3000 5.2500 968.1 51.92
60.04 59.38 59.40 4.92 104.2500 5.9500 826.7 56.92
65.12 64.46 64.49 5.08 110.5000 6.2500 813.3 61.92
70.05 69.39 69.41 4.92 116.5000 6.0000 820.0 66.93
75.13 74.47 74.49 5.08 122.7000 6.2000 820.0 71.93
80.05 79.39 79.41 4.92 127.9500 5.2500 937.2 76.93
85.14 84.48 84.49 5.08 132.4500 4.5000 1129.8 81.93
90.06 89.40 89.41 4.92 137.9000 5.4500 902.8 86.94
95.14 94.48 94.50 5.08 142.1500 4.2500 1196.3 91.94
99.41 98.75 98.76 4.26 146.4000 4.2500 1003.4 96.62
SCPT-2
Shear Wave Velocity Calculations
131 Terminal Ct
SCPT-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0
Depth (Feet)Time (ms)
Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-2
Sounding:
Depth (ft):
Site:
Engineer:
GREGG DRILLING & TESTING
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test
SCPT-1
23.62
101 Terminal Ct
Rati
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200PSI
Time (seconds)
Sounding:
Depth (ft):
Site:
Engineer:
GREGG DRILLING & TESTING
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test
CPT-2
24.93
101 Terminal Ct
Rati
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300PSI
Time (seconds)
Sounding:
Depth (ft):
Site:
Engineer:
GREGG DRILLING & TESTING
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test
CPT-3
21.33
101 Terminal Ct
Rati
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400PSITime (seconds)
Sounding:
Depth (ft):
Site:
Engineer:
GREGG DRILLING & TESTING
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test
CPT-4
23.29
101 Terminal Ct
Rati
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200PSI
Time (seconds)
Sounding:
Depth (ft):
Site:
Engineer:
GREGG DRILLING & TESTING
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test
SCPT-2
18.54
131 Terminal Ct
Rati
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600PSI
Time (seconds)
APPENDIX C
Previous Hand-Auger Boring Logs and
Cone Penetration Test Results
CLASSIFICATION CHART
Major Divisions Symbols Typical Names
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PTHighly Organic Soils
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Inorganic silts and clayey silts of low plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts of high plasticity
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic silts and clays of high plasticity
Peat and other highly organic soils
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Range of Grain Sizes
Grain Size
in Millimeters
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Above 12"
12" to 3"
Classification
Boulders
Cobbles
Above 305
305 to 76.2
Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.075
GRAIN SIZE CHART
SAMPLER TYPECoarse-Grained Soils(more than half of soil > no. 200sieve size)Fine -Grained Soils(more than half of soil< no. 200 sieve size)Gravels
(More than half of
coarse fraction >
no. 4 sieve size)
Sands
(More than half of
coarse fraction <
no. 4 sieve size)
Silts and Clays
LL = < 50
Silts and Clays
LL = > 50
Gravel
coarse
fine
3" to No. 4
3" to 3/4"
3/4" to No. 4
No. 4 to No. 200
No. 4 to No. 10
No. 10 to No. 40
No. 40 to No. 200
76.2 to 4.76
76.2 to 19.1
19.1 to 4.76
4.76 to 0.075
4.76 to 2.00
2.00 to 0.420
0.420 to 0.075
Sand
coarse
medium
fine
C Core barrel
CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside
diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter
D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside
diameter, thin-walled tube
O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter,
thin-walled Shelby tube
PT Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube
MC Modified California sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter
SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter
ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure
SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS/SYMBOLS
Sample taken with California or Modified California split-barrel
sampler. Darkened area indicates soil recovered
Classification sample taken with Standard Penetration Test sampler
Undisturbed sample taken with thin-walled tube
Disturbed sample
Sampling attempted with no recovery
Core sample
Analytical laboratory sample
Sample taken with Direct Push sampler
Sonic
Unstabilized groundwater level
Stabilized groundwater level
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL Project No.Figure A-7Date01/05/21 20-1954
101 TERMINAL COURT
South San Francisco, CaliforniaDRAFT
SamplerTypeSampleBlows/ 6"SPTN-Value1LITHOLOGYDEPTH(feet)Dry DensityLbs/Cu FtType ofStrengthTestShear StrengthLbs/Sq FtFines%ConfiningPressureLbs/Sq FtNaturalMoistureContent, %See Site Plan, Figure 2
12/10/2019
Hand-Auger
Logged by:
Hammer type: N/A
Grab
Date finished: 12/10/2019
Hammer weight/drop: N/A
Sampler:
Boring location:
Date started:
Drilling method:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLES
PROJECT:
PAGE 1 OF 1
Log of Boring HA-1
A. Bourret
101 TERMINAL COURT
South San Francisco, California
GRAB
Figure:Project No.:
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
Boring terminated at a depth of 5 feet below ground surface.Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.Groundwater not encountered during hand-augering.
A-520-1954
SP
5 inches asphalt concrete
GRAB
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)
dark gray, moist, strong hydrocarbon odor
SANDY CLAY (CL)olive-brown, moist, trace gravel
CL
GRAB
CLAYEY SAND (CL)olive-brown, moistCL FILLDRAFT
SamplerTypeSampleBlows/ 6"SPTN-Value1LITHOLOGYDEPTH(feet)Dry DensityLbs/Cu FtType ofStrengthTestShear StrengthLbs/Sq FtFines%ConfiningPressureLbs/Sq FtNaturalMoistureContent, %See Site Plan, Figure 2
12/10/2019
Hand-Auger
Logged by:
Hammer type: N/A
Grab
Date finished: 12/10/2019
Hammer weight/drop: N/A
Sampler:
Boring location:
Date started:
Drilling method:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLES
PROJECT:
PAGE 1 OF 1
Log of Boring HA-3
A. Bourret
101 TERMINAL COURT
South San Francisco, California
GRAB
Figure:Project No.:
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
Boring terminated at a depth of 4.5 feet below ground surface.Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.Groundwater not encountered during hand-augering.
A-620-1954
SM
GRAB
SC
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)dark gray, wet
5 inches asphalt concrete
SILTY SAND (SM)olive-gray, moist
FILLDRAFT
A-1CPT-1Total depth: 93.8 ft, Date: December 10, 2020Depth to Groundwater: estimated at 7 feet with a Pore Pressure Dissipation Test at 39.9 feet.Cone Operator: Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc.Project No.FigureDateSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained01/05/2120-1954101 TERMINAL COURTSouth San Francisco, CaliforniaCONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTSROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICALDRAFT
CPT-2A-2Total depth: 85.1 ft, Date: December 10, 2020Depth to Groundwater: estimated at 10.4 feet with a Pore Pressure Dissipation Test at 52.5 feet.Cone Operator: Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc.Project No.FigureDateSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained01/05/2120-1954101 TERMINAL COURTSouth San Francisco, CaliforniaCONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTSROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICALDRAFT
CPT-3A-3Total depth: 89.4 ft, Date: December 10, 2020Depth to Groundwater: estimated at 12.6 feet with a Pore Pressure Dissipation Test at 52.8 feet.Cone Operator: Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc.Project No.FigureDateSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained01/05/2120-1954101 TERMINAL COURTSouth San Francisco, CaliforniaCONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTSROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICALDRAFT
CPT-4A-4Total depth: 87.4 ft, Date: December 10, 2020Groundwater 8 feet (tape drop)Cone Operator: Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc.Project No.FigureDateSBT legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained01/05/2120-1954101 TERMINAL COURTSouth San Francisco, CaliforniaCONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTSROCKRIDGEGEOTECHNICALDRAFT
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Testing Results
CTL Job No: Project No.0204962 By:RU
Client: Date:03/30/22
Project Name:Remarks:
Boring:HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 HA-4 HA-4
Sample:20 10.25 CAL-3 CAL-2 CAL-4
Depth, ft:20 10.25 40 15 76.0
Visual
Description:
Actual Gs
Assumed Gs
Moisture, %86.2 104.2 17.7 101.4 24.0
Wet Unit wt, pcf
Dry Unit wt, pcf
Dry Bulk Dens.ρb, (g/cc)
Saturation, %
Total Porosity, %
Volumetric Water Cont,Өw,%
Volumetric Air Cont., Өa,%
Void Ratio
Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Haley & Aldrich
715-046
101 & 131 Terminal Ct
Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation,
porosities, and void ratio should be considered approximate.
Dark Gray
CLAY
Dark Gary
CLAY w/
organics
Bluish
Gray
Clayey
SAND
Gray CLAY Gray
Sandy
CLAY
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0Density, pcfMoisture Content, %
Moisture-Density
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5
Series 6
Series 7
Series 8
Zero Air-voids Curves, Specific Gravity
2.6 2.7
2.8
The Zero Air-Voids curves
represent the dry density at
100% saturation for each value
of specific gravity
Moisture-Density-Porosity Report
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM D7263b)
Olive Brown Sandy Lean CLAY 30 20 10
Olive Gray Lean Clayey SAND 27 15 12
Greenish Gray Fat CLAY (Bay Mud)89 37 52
Dark Gray Fat CLAY 65 25 40
715-046 Haley & Aldrich
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Figure
Source of Sample: HA-3 Depth: 14'Sample Number: HA3-TW1
Source of Sample: HA-3 Depth: 45'Sample Number: HA3-45
Source of Sample: HA-5 Depth: 9.5'Sample Number: HA5-TW9.5
Source of Sample: HA-5 Depth: 77'Sample Number: HA5-TW77PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT0102030405060 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL or O
L
CH or O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
WATER CONTENT15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
NUMBER OF BLOWS5678910 20 25 30 40
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT (ASTM D4318)
101 & 131 Terminal Ct - 0204962
Job No.: Project No.: Run By:MD
Client: Date: Checked By:DC
Project:
Boring: HA-1 HA-1 HA-2 HA-2 HA-3 HA-3 HA-3 HA-4
Sample: HA1-30 HA1-40 HA2-30 HA2-40 HA3-30 HA3-45 HA3-90 HA4-45
Depth, ft.: 30 40 30 40 30 45 90 45
Soil Type:
Wt of Dish & Dry Soil, gm 533.2 353.2 352.8 437.5 350.0 300.3 319.0 212.7
Weight of Dish, gm 172.3 172.0 173.9 175.3 176.3 173.6 173.0 175.3
Weight of Dry Soil, gm 361.0 181.2 178.9 262.3 173.7 126.8 145.9 37.4
Wt. Ret. on #4 Sieve, gm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wt. Ret. on #200 Sieve, gm 183.4 132.5 140.1 204.3 105.2 79.8 59.5 14.2
% Gravel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
% Sand 50.8 73.1 78.3 77.9 60.6 63.0 40.8 37.9
% Silt & Clay 49.2 26.9 21.7 22.1 39.4 37.0 59.2 62.1
Bluish Gray
Sandy
CLAY
Dark Gray
Sandy
CLAY
Bluish Gray
Clayey
SAND
Light Brown
Silty SAND
Brown Silty
SAND
Olive Brown
Clayey
SAND
Olive Brown
Clayey
SAND
Olive Gray
Lean
Clayey
SAND
0204962
4/8/2022
101 & 131 Terminal Ct
715-046a
Haley & Aldrich
Remarks: As an added benefit to our clients, the gravel fraction may be included in this report. Whether or not
it is included is dependent upon both the technician's time available and if there is a significant enough amount
of gravel. The gravel is always included in the percent retained on the #200 sieve but may not be weighed
separately to determine the percentage, especially if there is only a trace amount, (5% or less).
#200 Sieve Wash Analysis
ASTM D 1140
Job No.: Project No.: Run By:MD
Client: Date: Checked By:DC
Project:
Boring: HA-5
Sample: HA5-35
Depth, ft.: 35
Soil Type:
Wt of Dish & Dry Soil, gm 370.7
Weight of Dish, gm 174.6
Weight of Dry Soil, gm 196.1
Wt. Ret. on #4 Sieve, gm 0.0
Wt. Ret. on #200 Sieve, gm 139.7
% Gravel 0.0
% Sand 71.3
% Silt & Clay 28.7
0204962
4/8/2022
101 & 131 Terminal Ct
715-046b
Haley & Aldrich
Olive
Yellowish
Brown Silty
SAND
Remarks: As an added benefit to our clients, the gravel fraction may be included in this report. Whether or not
it is included is dependent upon both the technician's time available and if there is a significant enough amount
of gravel. The gravel is always included in the percent retained on the #200 sieve but may not be weighed
separately to determine the percentage, especially if there is only a trace amount, (5% or less).
#200 Sieve Wash Analysis
ASTM D 1140
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.
937 Commercial Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1 2 3 4
Moisture %55.3 21.3 91.5 42.4
Dry Den,pcf 68.6 106.5 48.1 79.5
Void Ratio 1.548 0.642 2.632 1.199
Saturation %100.0 92.8 97.3 99.0
Height in 5.96 5.97 5.99 5.97
Diameter in 2.88 2.85 2.85 2.87
Cell psi 32.6 8.8 6.6 34.7
Strain %15.00 11.07 4.83 4.25
Deviator, ksf 4.626 5.500 0.638 3.480
Rate %/min 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
in/min 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
Job No.:
Client:
Project:
Boring:HA-2-TW2-70 HA-3-TW-1-14 HA-5 HA-5
Sample:HA5-TW-9.5 HA5-TW-77
Depth ft:70-72.5 14-16.5(Tip-4.5")9.5(Tip-4")77
Sample #
1
2
3
4
Greenish Gray Fat CLAY (Bay Mud)
Dark Gray Fat CLAY
Note: Strengths are picked at the peak deviator stress or 15% strain
which ever occurs first per ASTM D2850.
Remarks:
Sample Data
Visual Soil Description
Gray CLAY w/ Sand
Olive Brown Sandy Lean CLAY
715-046
Haley & Aldrich, Inc
0204962-000-003-01
0.0
3.0
6.0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0Shear Stress, ksfTotal Normal Stress, ksf
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0Deviator Stress, ksfStrain, %
Stress-Strain Curves
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test
ASTM D2850
HA2-TW2-70 HA3-TW1-14
HA-2 HA-3
Job No.: Boring: Run By:MD
Client: Sample:Reduced:PJ
Project: Depth, ft.: Checked:PJ/DC
Soil Type: Date:4/8/2022
Assumed Gs 2.75 Initial Final
23.9 20.9
100.5 108.9
0.709 0.576
92.8 100.0
Void Ratio:
% Saturation:
Dry Density, pcf:
Moisture %:
HA-3TW1-14
14-16.5(Tip-3")0204962
Haley & Aldrich
715-046
Olive Brown Sandy Lean CLAY
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
10 100 1000 10000 100000Strain, % Effective Stress, psf
Strain-Log-P Curve
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
Remarks:
Job No.: Boring: Run By:MD
Client: Sample:Reduced:PJ
Project: Depth, ft.: Checked:PJ/DC
Soil Type: Date:4/6/2022
Assumed Gs 2.6 Initial Final
94.7 74.6
46.2 55.2
2.510 1.941
98.1 100.0
Void Ratio:
% Saturation:
Dry Density, pcf:
Moisture %:
HA-4-TW2-35
35-37.5(Tip-3")0204962
Haley & Aldrich
715-046
Greenish Gray CLAY (Bay Mud)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
10 100 1000 10000 100000Strain, % Effective Stress, psf
Strain-Log-P Curve
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
Remarks:
Job No.: Boring: Run By:MD
Client: Sample:Reduced:PJ
Project: Depth, ft.: Checked:PJ/DC
Soil Type: Date:4/6/2022
Assumed Gs 2.6 Initial Final
96.4 67.9
45.9 58.7
2.537 1.767
98.8 100.0
Void Ratio:
% Saturation:
Dry Density, pcf:
Moisture %:
HA-5-TW2-9.5
9.5-12(Tip-3")0204962
Haley & Aldrich
715-046
Greenish Gray Fat CLAY (Bay Mud)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
10 100 1000 10000 100000Strain, % Effective Stress, psf
Strain-Log-P Curve
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
Remarks:
Boring: HA-2 Reduced By:RU
Sample: R6+R7 Checked By:PJ
Depth: 0-5 Date:3/31/2022
A B C D E
50 110 200
87 207 482
1093 2601 6057
2.60 2.47 2.49
0 0 0
140 130 100
3.41 3.77 3.26
9 13 32
10 13 32
15.8 14.0 12.1
133.4 138.4 141.7
115.2 121.5 126.4
Specimen Designation
Corrected R-Value
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Exudation Load (lbf)
Height After Compaction (in)
Stabilometer @ 2000
Turns Displacement
R-value
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
Compactor Foot Pressure (psi)
R-Value
CTM 301
CTL Job No.:
Client:
Project Number:
715-046
Haley & Aldrich
0204962
18
0
Soil Description:
Remarks:
Project Name: 101+131 Terminal Ct
Brown Clayey SAND R-Value
Expansion
Pressure
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Exudation Pressure vs R-Value
Exudation Pressure vs. Expansion
Pressure