Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix D - Geotechnical Report
Copyright © 2018 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. HANOVER - COLMA CREEK 100 PRODUCE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO Ms. Kristen Gates Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership 5847 San Felipe, Suite 3600 Houston, TX 77057 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated October 23, 2018 PROJECT NO. 15429.000.000 GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 866-9000 Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Project No. 15429.000.000 October 23, 2018 Ms. Kristen Gates Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership 5847 San Felipe, Suite 3600 Houston, TX 77057 Subject: Hanover – Colma Creek 100 Produce Avenue South San Francsico, California PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Dear Ms. Gates: With your authorization, we prepared a preliminary geotechnical report for the Colma Creek property located in South San Francisco, California. This report presents the results of our geotechnical observations, as well as our preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the project. Additionally, we also provide preliminary site grading, treatment of potential geologic hazards, and foundation recommendations for use during land planning. Based upon our initial assessment, the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical concerns for the site development include presence of non-engineered fills, compressibility of soft clay, liquefaction, and seismic ground motions. This report provides our preliminary conclusions and recommendations for planning. A design-level exploration should be conducted prior to site development once more detailed land plans and structural loads have been prepared. We are pleased to have been of service on this project and are prepared to consult further with you and your design team as the project progresses. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Spencer Waganaar, EIT Josef J. Tootle, GE Todd Bradford, PE sw/tb/jjt/dt Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report i of i October 23, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 1 1.4 SITE HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ................................................................................... 2 2.1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................ 2 2.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 3 2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 4 2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 4 2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 4 2.6 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................... 5 3.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 5 3.1 NON-ENGINEERED FILL ................................................................................................... 5 3.2 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL ...................................................................................................... 6 3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................... 6 3.3.1 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................... 6 3.3.2 Ground Shaking ..................................................................................................... 6 3.3.3 Ground Lurching .................................................................................................... 6 3.3.4 Soil Liquefaction ..................................................................................................... 7 3.3.5 Lateral Spreading ................................................................................................... 7 3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL ........................................................................................ 7 3.5 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS (NOA) ................................................................ 8 3.6 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................... 8 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 8 4.1 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 8 4.1.1 Deep Foundations .................................................................................................. 8 4.2 GENERAL SITE CLEARING/DEMOLITION ....................................................................... 9 4.3 NON-ENGINEERED FILL ................................................................................................. 10 4.4 SELECTION OF MATERIALS .......................................................................................... 10 4.5 FILL COMPACTION.......................................................................................................... 10 4.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................... 11 5.0 FUTURE STUDIES ............................................................................................ 11 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 11 SELECTED REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A – Cone Penetration Test Data APPENDIX B – Liquefaction Analysis Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 1 October 23, 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical report is to provide an assessment of the potential geotechnical constraints associated with the use of the site for the proposed residential apartment development. The scope of our services included reviewing published geologic maps, performing a preliminary subsurface exploration, and preparing this report identifying potential geotechnical hazards. This preliminary report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their consultants for planning purposes only. Design-level exploration and laboratory testing should be performed to provide mitigation measures for potential geotechnical and geologic hazards, and to facilitate preparation of construction drawings. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The property is located on the south side of South Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1), and lies directly north of the Colma Creek, which is channelized by an approximately 7- to 10-foot tall concrete retaining wall. Furthermore, the site is bounded by a commercial rail line to the west, and Highway 101 to the east. The site is located approximately 1 mile from the San Francisco Bay. The property is a compilation of two parcels, which are bisected by San Mateo Avenue. The addresses, APNs and acreage associated with the properties are listed in Table 1.2-1 below: TABLE 1.2-1: APNs Associated with the Property ADDRESS ACREAGE APN 124 South Airport Boulevard 2.4 015113180 100 Produce Avenue 1.6 015113380 The approximately 4-acre property is located in a predominantly commercial area of South San Francisco. Six commercial buildings currently occupy the property with asphalt pavement parking surrounding the buildings. These buildings appear to be currently occupied by numerous business in some capacity. 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT Based on preliminary concept plans prepared by TCA Architects, dated July 26, 2018, the proposed project is a residential complex consisting of two 7-story buildings. Each building will be located on one of the parcels, with no connection between the two buildings. Additionally, each building comprises two stories of above ground parking, followed by five stories of residential apartments. Furthermore, each building will have central courtyard area, with residences surrounding the communal courtyards. We anticipate the structures will be podium-style construction with the first two floors consisting of concrete and the remaining five floors consisting of wood framing. Therefore, we anticipated building loads to be moderate to heavy and similar to other buildings of this size. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 2 October 23, 2018 We have not received conceptual grading plans at this time; however, we anticipate minor cuts and fill to prepare the site for the development. 1.4 SITE HISTORY We reviewed historic aerial photographs and topographic maps to determine if discernable changes in topography or surface modifications pertaining to the property have been recorded. Our historic aerial photographs review included assessing readily available historic aerials from HistoricAerials.com, Google Earth, and the historic aerial database managed by the University of California, Santa Barbara. The photographs we reviewed span from 1930 to 2017. Based on these aerial photographs, the subject property appears to have been a historic tidal marsh typified by bay deposits and marsh vegetation throughout the 1930s. Starting in the early 1940s, fill placement began throughout the surrounding region and at the project site. The fill raised grades above natural tidal waters and allowed further construction eastward into the bay. Regional infrastructure in the form of roads, railways, and buildings were constructed throughout the late 1940s and through the mid-1960s. Based on aerial photographs, it appears the present day commercial office buildings were constructed on the site in the mid to late 1950s. Aside from the noted construction above, aerial photographs over this 88-year period indicate the site remained relatively unchanged after these office buildings were constructed. A review of the 115-year span (1897 to 2012) of published topographic maps support the observations made during the aerial photograph review. Topographic maps in the late 1930s and early 1940s (Figure 4) illustrate the site was situated within the former tidal marsh. Topographic maps from the late 1940s indicate fill was placed throughout the region and site area as illustrated by higher elevations in these areas compared to previous topographic maps (Figure 5). Based on topographic maps before and after fill placement, it appears site elevations were increased by approximately 5 to 15 feet. Finally, topographic maps confirm buildings and crossroads appearing onsite in the early to mid-1950s. Since initial vertical development of the site, topographic maps support the aerial photographic evidence indicating the site has remained relatively unchanged. 2.0 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 2.1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 2.1.1 Geology The site is situated in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges have experienced a complex geological history characterized by Late Tertiary folding and faulting that has resulted in a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. Bedrock in the Coast Ranges consists of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks that range in age from Jurassic to Pleistocene. The present physiography and geology of the Coast Ranges are the result of deformation and deposition along the tectonic boundary between the North American plate and the Pacific plate. Plate boundary fault movements are largely concentrated along the well-known fault zones, which in the area include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults, as well as other lesser-order faults. According to the published geologic map covering the site by Bonilla (1998), the site is underlain by fill over tidal flats (Qaf/tf). These fill deposits consist of lightly consolidated clay and silt as well as loose sand and rock fragments, organics, and man-made debris which have been placed over Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 3 October 23, 2018 tidal flats to raise elevations. The tidal flat deposits tend to consist of organic material, clay, clayey silt, silt and sandy silt. Although the whole site seems to reside on fill underlain by tidal marsh, it is also situated near the periphery of the historic marshland and is located downslope of an outcrop of Franciscan Formation sandstone and shale (KJs), which is characterized by interbedded sandstone and shale units that can be hard when intact and soft when weathered or sheared. Therefore, signatures of weathered sandstone and shale or slope wash deposits may be encountered at depth. The regional geologic map is included on Figure 3. Bedrock units within the Franciscan Formation can be associated with deposits of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Sites with soil and bedrock units that potentially contain NOA require construction related oversite from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2.1.2 Seismicity The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (Figure 7) for active faults, and no known faults cross the site. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Hart, 1997). The nearest known active fault surface trace is the San Andreas Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.2 miles east of the site. Other active faults near the site are summarized in Table 2.1.2-1 and include the North San Andreas and San Gregorio Connected faults. Because of the presence of nearby active faults, the Bay Area Region is considered seismically active. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large (greater than Moment Magnitude 7) earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Figure 5 shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the Greater Bay Area Region. TABLE 2.1.2-1: Active Faults Capable of Producing Significant Ground Shaking at the Site Latitude: 37.64911 Longitude: -122.40779 FAULT NAME DISTANCE FROM SITE (miles) DIRECTION FROM SITE MAXIMUM MOMENT MAGNITUDE (Hanks) North San Andreas 2.3 West 8.1 San Gregorio Connected 7.9 West 7.5 Hayward-Rodgers Creek 15.7 East 7.3 Monte Vista-Shannon 17.0 Southeast 6.5 Calaveras 24.7 East 7.0 The California Geologic Survey has not prepared a Seismic Hazard Zone map that encompasses site area. However, due to the presence of artificial fill and the era in which it was placed, the site should be considered susceptible to liquefaction and subsequent ground surface settlements. Additionally, given the depositional environment, native sand encountered onsite could also be prone to liquefaction. The site topography suggests a low susceptibility to seismically induced landslides. 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION We performed our field exploration on October 8, 2018. We retained the services of a subcontractor with a cone penetration test (CPT) truck to advance seven CPTs to depths of up to 65 feet below ground surface (bgs). The CPT truck has a 30-ton compression-type cone with a Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 4 October 23, 2018 15-square-centimeter (cm2) base area, an apex angle of 60 degrees, and a friction sleeve with a surface area of 225 cm2. The cone, connected with a series of rods, is pushed into the ground at a constant rate. Cone readings are taken at approximately 5-cm intervals with a penetration rate of 2 cm per second in accordance with ASTM D-5778. Measurements include the tip resistance to penetration of the cone (Qc), the resistance of the surface sleeve (Fs), and pore pressure (U) (Robertson and Campanella, 1988). Additionally, pore pressure dissipation tests were performed in 1-CPT1, 1-CPT2, 1-CPT4, 1-CPT5 and 1-CPT7 to measure the approximate subsurface phreatic surface. Figure 2 shows the approximate CPT locations and CPT logs are presented in Appendix A. The locations of our explorations are approximate and are identified by pacing and visual estimates and are shown on Figure 2. These locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS The property is currently occupied by six 2-story commercial buildings, four of which are located on the western property (APN 015113180) with the remaining two office buildings located on the eastern property (APN 015113380). It appears that these office buildings are currently occupied. Additionally, the area surrounding these office buildings is primarily composed of concrete sidewalks, landscaping and asphalt pavement. While onsite, we observed isolated cracking in the asphalt pavement surrounding the structures. We did not observe distress, cracking or excessive movement in the retaining wall lining Colma Creek directly south of the property. 2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, our CPTs encountered sand and silty sand in the upper 5 to 10 feet bgs, which is underlained by soft clay, which is likely, the former tidal marsh. The thickness of clay ranges from 3 feet in 1-CPT2 to 36 feet in 1-CPT6. In general, the clay thickness increases from west to east and from north to south across the site with the thickest clay deposits encountered at 1-CPT6 and 1-CPT7. The clayey deposits are underlain by interbedded layers of sand and silty sand, along with medium stiff to hard silty clay and clayey silt, which extended throughout the remainder of each CPT location. The following CPTs met refusal during our exploration: 1-CPT1 (57 feet bgs), 1-CPT2 (28 feet bgs), 1-CPT5 (62 feet bgs), and 1-CPT6 (48 feet bgs). The remaining locations, 1-CPT3, 1-CPT4 and 1-CPT7, did not meet refusal and were terminated at 47 feet, 52 feet, and 52 feet bgs respectively. Consult the Site Plan (Figure 2) and CPT logs (Appendix A) for location and specific subsurface conditions at each location. The logs graphically depict the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of the exploration. 2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We did not measure groundwater directly from the CPTs; however, we did perform pore pressure dissipation testing at 1-CPT1, 1-CPT2, 1-CPT4, 1-CPT5, and 1-CPT7 to approximate groundwater levels. Interpretations of these tests indicate a groundwater level of approximately 6 to 15 feet bgs. Table 2.5-1 summarizes our interpretations of the pore pressure dissipation tests. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 5 October 23, 2018 TABLE 2.5-1: Pore Pressure Dissipation Test Interpretations SOURCE APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (feet) 1-CPT1 9 1-CPT2 15 1-CPT4 8 1-CPT5 6 1-CPT7 9 Shallow groundwater associated with the proposed project can: 1. Cause moisture damage to sensitive floor coverings. 2. Transmit moisture and vapor through foundations causing excessive mold/mildew build-up, fogging of windows, and damage to computers and other sensitive equipment. 3. Require dewatering to facilitate underground utility construction 2.6 LABORATORY TESTING We did not collect samples in the field during the exploration. Soil sampling and testing, including plasticity index, strength evaluations, moisture content, unit weight, grain size distribution, consolidation tests, and corrosivity should be incorporated into a future design-level geotechnical exploration. 3.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the preliminary conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into planning. The primary geotechnical concerns for the site development include presence of non-engineered fill, compressibility of soft clay, liquefaction, and seismic ground motions. We summarize our preliminary conclusions and recommendations in the following sections of this report. A design-level geotechnical exploration should be performed to provide recommendations for development. 3.1 NON-ENGINEERED FILL Non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. As previously mentioned, we anticipate a portion of the upper soil is likely non-engineered fill placed on top historic tidal marshes to raise grades. The non-engineered fill is primarily characterized as silt, silty sand and sand. To mitigate the effects of the non-engineered near-surface materials, we recommend removal and recompaction of a portion of the non-engineered fill. Section 4.3 provides recommendations for depth of removal and recompaction along with fill subgrade preparation. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 6 October 23, 2018 3.2 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL Soil can undergo long-term settlement when new loads are introduced by structures or equipment onto saturated clayey deposits. As previously described, clay deposits extend throughout the subsurface soil across the site ranging from approximately 3 feet to 36 feet. The low tip resistance throughout the clayey material is indicative of young bay deposits, colloquially known as Young Bay Mud, which is very low strength and highly prone to consolidation settlement when subject to new loads such as foundations or raising site grades. Characterization of these soft soil layers as they relate to proposed grading and foundations should be evaluated in a future design-level geotechnical report. 3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. Common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground lurching, liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, tsunamis or seiches. Based on the seismic hazard maps, topographic maps and lithological data, the risk of landslides, tsunami and seiches in low to negligible at the site. The following sections present a discussion of the applicable secondary hazards to the site. 3.3.1 Ground Rupture The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone and no known faults cross the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property. 3.3.2 Ground Shaking An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996). 3.3.3 Ground Lurching Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form. The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium or fill Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 7 October 23, 2018 and bedrock. Preliminary explorations and regional geologic maps indicate that the transition between young deposits and bedrock may be steeply dipping, therefore ground lurching may a potential hazard at the site. Further analysis during design-level exploration should be considered to address this potential hazard. 3.3.4 Soil Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. The soil considered most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sand along with loose low-plasticity silt and silty sands located below the groundwater table. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause excess hydrostatic pressures to develop and liq uefaction of susceptible soil to occur. As previously mentioned, the site history and depositional environment suggest the site is susceptible to liquefaction. To assess liquefaction potential, we performed liquefaction analyses utilizing data obtained from the seven CPTs advanced as part of our field exploration. A peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.73g, and a Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 8.1; these values are based on the 2016 California Building Code and the commonly accepted potential earthquake magnitude of the closest faults. We performed our analyses using the computer software CLiq Version 1.7 developed by GeoLogismiki, using methods developed by Robertson (2009). Our analysis identified sand susceptible to liquefaction at various depths throughout the exploration locations. Additionally, based on our experience in the area. The soft clay likely has low susceptibility to cyclic softening, which is dependent on the clay’s plasticity and water content. Our preliminary analysis indicates approximately 1 to 4 inches of liquefaction settlement across the site. In some of these locations, based on Ishihara (1985), the non-liquefiable layer above the liquefiable material is adequate to mitigate against surface expressions, thus reducing the overall predicted settlement potential. Further evaluation through soil borings and laboratory testing, during a design-level report, is necessary to determine the magnitude of potential liquefaction settlement at the site. 3.3.5 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a strength failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction) that causes the overlying soil mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Generally, effects of lateral spreading are most significant at the free face or the cr est of a slope and diminishes with distance from the slope. As previously described, the site sits directly north of the Colma Creek, which is channelized by an approximately 10-foot tall concrete retaining wall. Proposed site plans indicate the closest distance the new structure will be from the back of the retaining wall is approximately 30 feet at the southeast corner. Further investigation including reviewing as built plans for the wall (if available) and additional analysis to evaluate site stability against lateral spreading should be incorporated into a future design-level geotechnical report. 3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL We did not perform sampling and testing for corrosion potential as part of this preliminary study. Representative samples of the soil should be collected during the design-level geotechnical exploration, to determine the potential for corrosion on buried metal and the potential for sulfate attack on foundation concrete. Based on these future test results, the corrosion potential can be Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 8 October 23, 2018 described and the recommended concrete design parameters can be developed in accordance with the guidelines presented in the California Building Code. If subsurface transformers are proposed for the development, we recommend that the subsurface samples be obtained and tested in accordance with recommendations set forth by Pacific Gas and Electric. 3.5 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS (NOA) As previously discussed, the project site is located down slope and underlain by Franciscan Formation bedrock. Based on the bedrock formation’s association with NOA, an evaluation of the potential presence of NOA should be evaluated further during the design-level geotechnical exploration. An appropriate Asbestos and Dust Monitoring Plan will likely need to be prepared in advance of earth disturbing activities on the site. 3.6 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS We characterized the site as Site Class F in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) due to the potentially liquefiable material in the subsurface. Future site-specific seismic hazard analyses we be required for design purposes. However, based on provisions in the 2016 CBC, if the building has a primary period of less than ½ second, the site may be classified as a Site Class E. Your structural engineer should perform this evaluation to determine a course of action during the design phase. 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are for initial land planning and preliminary estimating purposes. Final recommendations regarding site grading and foundation construction will be provided after future site-specific, design-level geotechnical exploration has been undertaken. 4.1 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS At the time of this report, we have been provided preliminary development plans, but no structural loads for the proposed building. We assume building loads will be similar to other structures of its type. The major considerations in foundation design at this site are bearing capacity, settlement due to compressible clay, and settlement due to potentially liquefiable material. These effects can be addressed or reduced by choosing a proper foundation system, which minimizes settlement and maintains sufficient bearing to support the proposed structure. Although shallow footings or mat foundation may attain sufficient bearing from the near surface soil, the anticipated building load will likely create intolerable long-term settlement. For prelim designs, we recommend that the proposed development be supported on a deep foundation system that derives support in the stiffer/denser material below the Young Bay Mud. 4.1.1 Deep Foundations The choice of foundation system will depend on contractor availability, cost, construction constraints, and sensitivity to noise/vibration, to name a few factors. Below is a list of commonly used deep foundation types that may be considered. We include general comments about advantages and disadvantages that may be considered in selecting a foundation system for this site. There are numerous proprietary foundation types that fall into the general categories below, Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 9 October 23, 2018 so additional research may reveal additional systems that may be appropriate for the conceptual project. TABLE 4.1.1-1: Deep Foundation Types PILE TYPE BENEFITS DISADVANTAGES Driven Piles: Installed by driving a prefabricated steel or concrete pile Superior quality control during installation Pile Driving Analysis provides estimate of pile capacity No spoils unless pre-drilling is required Commonly used foundation system Concrete piles provide superior corrosion protection Steel piles can be easily cutoff and extended, if needed Capable of high ultimate capacities Relatively high noise and vibration May be difficult to advance through dense gravel stratum without pre- drilling Fixed length concrete piles can require cutoffs where variable end bearing occurs Steel piles may require corrosion protection Drilled Displacement Concrete Filled Pipe Pile: Installed by drilling a close-ended pipe pile into the ground using high torque and filling with concrete upon completion. Little to no spoils (close-ended) Low noise and vibration Relatively easy to splice Capable of high ultimate capacities Can have difficulty penetrating through dense or cemented layers without predrilling Less common than driven piles Indirect verification of final installation through advancement rate and pressure gage Load testing to verify capacities Continuous Flight Auger Piles (Auger Cast Piles) Installed by drilling a hole using a continuous flight auger and then injecting grout from the bottom up while withdrawing augers and soil. A reinforcement cage is then wet set Can penetrate through variable dense gravel and sand layer No splicing required Low noise and vibration Hole is cased for full installation Creates spoils Grout take can be highly variable (120 to 200% of the theoretical hole volume) Dependent on strict quality workmanship; no direct observation of grout placement Lower ultimate capacities As described previously, subsurface conditions vary across the site, specifically the depth to stiffer/denser material below the compressible and liquefiable soils, therefore pile lengths will vary across the site. Further analysis is necessary within a design-level report to determine specific pile type, anticipated pile lengths, and design capacities. 4.2 GENERAL SITE CLEARING/DEMOLITION After demolition of the existing office buildings, paving, and associated improvements, the site should be cleared of all obstructions, including existing foundations, and debris. Any existing underground utilities within the proposed development area should be identified and removed entirely including pipes and their backfill. Depressions resulting from the removal of underground obstructions extending below the proposed finish grades should be cleared and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in Fill Compaction section. Areas containing surface vegetation or organic laden topsoil within the areas to be improved should be stripped to an appropriate depth to remove these materials. The amount of actual stripping and tree root removal should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer at Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 10 October 23, 2018 the time of construction. Subject to approval by the Landscape Architect, strippings and organically contaminated soils can be used in landscape areas. Otherwise, such soils should be removed from the project site. Any topsoil that will be retained for future use in landscape areas should be stockpiled in areas where it will not interfere with grading operations. Stripping and demolition below design grades should be cleaned to a firm undisturbed soil surface determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. This surface should then be cleaned, scarified, moisture conditioned, and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in the Fill Compaction section. No loose or uncontrolled backfilling of depressions resulting from demolition and stripping should be permitted. 4.3 NON-ENGINEERED FILL As described previously, we identified the presence of non-engineered fill onsite with the thicker sections of fill closer to the adjacent creek. Such soil can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. Due to the presence of the shallow groundwater and very soft clay directly below, complete removal of artificial fill is infeasible. Preliminarily, we recommend removal and replacement of the upper 4 feet of artificial fill or to competent material, whichever is larger, to create uniform conditions for construction of improvements adjacent the structures. The bottom of the removed area should be scarified and moisture conditioned before placing new engineered fill. Fill placement specifications may be found in Section 4.5. Final depths of removal should be established during the design-level report. 4.4 SELECTION OF MATERIALS With the exception of construction debris (wood, brick, asphalt, concrete, metal, etc.), trees, high organic content soil (soil which contains more than 3 percent organic content by weight), and environmentally impacted soils (if any), we anticipate the site soil is suitable for use as engineered fill. Other material and debris, including trees with their root balls, should be removed from the project site. 4.5 FILL COMPACTION For land planning and cost estimating purposes, the following compaction control requirements should be anticipated for general fill areas and utility trench backfill: Test Procedures: ASTM D-1557. Required Moisture Content: Not less than 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content. Minimum Relative Compaction: Not less than 90 percent for low-expansive fill. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material. In the event that imported fill material is characterized and following the design level geotechnical report, the recommendations may change with respect to the soil type. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 11 October 23, 2018 4.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE The project Civil Engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped away from buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical to reduce the potentially damaging effects of expansive soil. The latest California Building Code Section 1804.3 specifies minimum slopes of 5 percent away from foundations. As a minimum, we recommend the following: 1. Discharge roof downspouts into closed conduits and direct away from foundations to appropriate drainage devices. 2. Consider the use of surface drainage collection system to reduce ponding of water at the ground surface near the foundation, pavements or exterior flatwork. 5.0 FUTURE STUDIES As previously discussed, a site-specific design-level geotechnical exploration should be performed as part of the design process. The exploration would include additional explorations and laboratory soil testing to provide additional data for preparation of specific recommendations regarding the following items: Grading, existing fill removal, and fill compaction Consolidation settlement Liquefaction settlement Ground lurching Lateral spreading Site Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis (if required) Foundation design Retaining walls Site drainage and landscaping irrigation Pavement recommendations The exploration will also allow for more detailed evaluations of the geotechnical issues discussed in this report and afford the opportunity to provide specific recommendations regarding techniques and procedures to be implemented during construction to mitigate potential geotechnical/geological hazards. 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report presents preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the subject Hanover – Colma Creek project located in South San Francisco, California. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Page | 12 October 23, 2018 We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area; no warranty is expressed or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation. We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site. Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, stockpiled material, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify ENGEO immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary. Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, notify the proper regulatory officials immediately. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO’s documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO’s scope of services does not include onsite construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership Hanover – Colma Creek 15429.000.000 Preliminary Geotechnical Report October 23, 2018 SELECTED REFERENCES Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., 2006, “Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165-1177. Bonilla, M.G., 1998, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California, USGS, Open File Map 98-354. California Building Standards Commission, 2016 California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2. Sacramento, California. California Geologic Survey, 2008, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Adopted March 13. Hart E. W., 1997 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42. California Department of Conservation. Idriss and Boulanger, 2008, Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, EERI. International Code Council, 2013 California Building Code. Ishihara, K. 1985. “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake,” Proc., 11th ICSMFE, Vol. 1, 321-376. Robertson, P.K., 2009, Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a unified approach, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2009, vol. 46, pp. 1337-1355. SEAOC, 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Tentative Commentary. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York. TCA Architects, Yield Study SSF Business Park South San Francisco, CA; July 26, 2018. FIGURES FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map FIGURE 2: Site Plan FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map (Bonilla) FIGURE 4: Topographic Map (1939) FIGURE 5: Topographic Map (1956) FIGURE 6: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map FIGURE 7: Seismic Hazard Map APPENDIX A CONE PENETRATION DATA The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 09:38 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-01 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 17.250 m / 56.59 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP01.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167136m E: 552093m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Very Stiff Fine Grained Very Stiff Fine Grained Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 08:32 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-02 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 8.500 m / 27.89 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167193m E: 552106m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 10:31 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-03 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 14.425 m / 47.33 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP03.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167153m E: 552150m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 13:37 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-04 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.775 m / 51.75 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP04.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167096m E: 552129m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Undefined Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 12:23 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-05 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 18.750 m / 61.52 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP05.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167072m E: 552203m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Very Stiff Fine Grained Clays Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Clays Clays Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Sands Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 11:39 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-06 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 14.675 m / 48.15 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP06.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166998m E: 552225m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Clays Sensitive, Fine Grained Clays Clays Sensitive, Fine Grained Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Organic Soils Silt Mixtures Undefined Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 75 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 1 2 3 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 10:57 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-07 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.800 m / 51.84 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP07.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167052m E: 552156m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Undefined Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 09:38 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-01 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 17.250 m / 56.59 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP01.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167136m E: 552093m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Very Stiff Fine Grained Very Stiff Fine Grained Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 08:32 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-02 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 8.500 m / 27.89 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167193m E: 552106m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 10:31 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-03 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 14.425 m / 47.33 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP03.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167153m E: 552150m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Very Stiff Fine Grained Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 13:37 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-04 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.775 m / 51.75 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP04.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167096m E: 552129m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Undefined Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 12:23 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-05 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 18.750 m / 61.52 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP05.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167072m E: 552203m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Undefined Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Very Stiff Fine Grained Very Stiff Fine Grained Clays Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Clays Clays Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Clays Sands Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 11:39 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-06 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 14.675 m / 48.15 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP06.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166998m E: 552225m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Clays Sensitive, Fine Grained Clays Clays Sensitive, Fine Grained Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Organic Soils Silt Mixtures Undefined Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 250 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7070 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 5 10 fs (tsf) 0 5 10 Rf (%) 0 250 5000 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn ENGEO Job No: 18-56169 Date: 2018-10-08 10:57 Site: Hanover SSF Sounding: 1-CPT-07 Cone: 447:T1500F15U500 Max Depth: 15.800 m / 51.84 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 18-56169_CP07.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: UTM 10N N: 4167052m E: 552156m Sheet No: 1 of 1 Undefined Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Undefined Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item:Assumed UeqUeq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out APPENDIX B LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT1 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:08 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 1 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT1 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:08 AM 2 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT1 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:08 AM 3 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT2 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:09 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 4 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT2 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:09 AM 5 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT2 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:09 AM 6 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT3 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:10 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 7 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT3 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:10 AM 8 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT3 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:10 AM 9 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT4 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:12 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 10 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT4 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:12 AM 11 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT4 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:12 AM 12 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT5 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:13 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 13 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT5 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:13 AM 14 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT5 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:13 AM 15 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT6 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:15 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 16 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT6 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:15 AM 17 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT6 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:15 AM 18 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Hanover SSF Business Park Location : GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 http://www.geologismiki.gr CPT file : 1-CPT7 6.00 ft 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Summary of liquefaction potential CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:17 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq 19 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT7 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:17 AM 20 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained Input parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT7 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CLiq v.2.2.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/23/2018, 11:23:17 AM 21 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15429\15429000000\PGEX\Analysis\CLiq.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 8.10 0.73 6.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 6.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A N/A Yes Yes Sands only No N/A Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk