HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix 4.06-1, Design-Level Geotechnical InvestigationAppendix 4.6-1:
Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
TYPE OF SERVICES Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
PROJECT NAME Southline Development
LOCATION 30, 50, and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 160 South
Linden Avenue, 240 Dollar Avenue, 325 South
Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, California
CLIENT Lane Partners, LLC
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
DATE July 28, 2020
Type of Services Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name Southline Development
Location 30, 50, and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 160 South Linden Avenue, 240 Dollar Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Client Lane Partners, LLC
Client Address 644 Menlo Avenue, 2nd Floor
Menlo Park, California
Project Number 129-3-6
Date July 28, 2020
Prepared by Nicholas S. Devlin, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
Geotechnical Project Manager
Scott E. Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E.
Senior Principal Engineer
Quality Assurance Reviewer
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Scope of Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
1.3 Exploration Programs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 1.3.1 Previous Exploration Programs ................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Design Level Exploration Program ............................................................................ 3
1.4 Laboratory Testing Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.5 Environmental Services ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
SECTION 2: REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................... 4
2.1 Geological Setting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.2 Regional Seismicity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances .................................................................................. 6
SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Site Background -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 3.1.1 30 Tanforan Avenue .................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue........................................................................................ 6 3.1.3 160 South Linden Avenue .......................................................................................... 6 3.1.4 240 Dollar Avenue ....................................................................................................... 7 3.1.5 325 South Maple Avenue ............................................................................................ 7
3.2 Surface Description --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 3.2.1 30 Tanforan Avenue .................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 50 and 54 Tanforan ..................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 160 South Linden Avenue .......................................................................................... 8 3.2.4 240 Dollar Avenue ....................................................................................................... 8 3.2.5 325 South Maple Avenue ............................................................................................ 8
3.3 Subsurface Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 3.3.1 30 Tanforan Avenue .................................................................................................... 9 3.3.2 50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue.......................................................................................10 3.3.2 160 South Linden Avenue .........................................................................................10 3.3.3 240 Dollar Avenue ......................................................................................................11 3.3.5 325 South Maple Avenue ...........................................................................................11 3.3.6 Plasticity/Expansion Potential ..................................................................................11
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page ii
3.3.7 In-Situ Moisture Contents .........................................................................................12
3.4 Groundwater ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Table 2: Depth to Groundwater ............................................................................................13 Table 3: Depth to Groundwater ............................................................................................13 Table 3 (cont.): Depth to Groundwater .................................................................................14
3.5 Corrosion Screening ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 Table 4A: Summary of Corrosion Test Results ..................................................................15 3.5.1 Preliminary Soil Corrosion Screening ......................................................................15 Table 4B: ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.1.1 Exposure Categories and Classes ...........................15 Table 4C: ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.2.1 Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class ......16
SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..........................................................................................16
4.1 Fault Rupture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
4.2 Estimated Ground Shaking --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
4.3 Liquefaction Potential----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
4.4 Lateral Spreading ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
4.5 Seismic Settlement/Unsaturated Sand Shaking ------------------------------------------------ 18
4.6 Tsunami/Seiche ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
4.7 Flooding ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
SECTION 5: PRELIMINARY STATIC SETTLEMENT ..........................................................19
5.1 Assumed Structural Loads ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
5.2 Preliminary Static Settlement Estimates ---------------------------------------------------------- 19 5.2.1 2-Story Steel-Frame Over 1 Level Below Grade (B2 over PS-A) .............................19 5.2.2 2-Story Steel-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade (B2 over PS-A) ...........................20 5.2.3 6-Story Steel-Frame Over 1 Level Below Grade (B1 and B7 over PS-A) ................20 5.2.4 6-Story Steel-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade (B1 and B7 over PS-A) ..............20 5.2.5 8-Level Concrete-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade – PS-C .................................20 5.2.6 Settlement Estimate for Groundwater Drawdown from Dewatering ......................20
SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................21
6.1 Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 6.1.1 Shallow Groundwater (below-grade excavations and utilities) ..............................21 6.1.2 Potential for Static Settlement (structures) ..............................................................22 Table 5: Preliminary Static Settlement Estimates ...............................................................22 6.1.3 Wet, Unstable Excavation Subgrade Soil (basement level excavations) ...............23
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page iii
6.1.4 Presence of Cohesionless Soil at Basement Level (basement level excavations) 23 6.1.5 Hydrostatic Uplift and Waterproofing for Structures Below the Water Table ........23 6.1.6 Shoring Considerations for Below-Grade Building Levels Excavation .................24 6.1.7 Presence of Undocumented Fill (at-grade improvements) .....................................25 6.1.8 Presence of Expansive Soils (at-grade improvements) ..........................................25 6.1.9 Differential Movement At On-grade to On-Structure Transitions ...........................25 6.1.10 Soil Corrosion Potential ........................................................................................26
6.2 Plans and Specifications Review -------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
6.3 Construction Observation and Testing------------------------------------------------------------ 26
SECTION 7: EARTHWORK ........................................................................................................26
7.1 Site Demolition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 7.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements ...................................27 7.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities ............................................................................27
7.2 Site Clearing and Preparation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 7.2.1 Site Stripping .............................................................................................................27 7.2.2 Tree and Shrub Removal ...........................................................................................28
7.3 Removal of Existing Fills ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 28
7.4 Temporary Cut and Fill Slopes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
7.5 Below-Grade Excavations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 7.5.1 Temporary Shoring ....................................................................................................29 Table 6: Suggested Temporary Shoring Design Parameters .............................................30 7.5.2 Construction Dewatering ..........................................................................................31
7.6 Subgrade Preparation----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
7.7 Subgrade Stabilization Measures (Street Level) ----------------------------------------------- 34 7.7.1 Scarification and Drying ............................................................................................34 7.7.2 Removal and Replacement .......................................................................................34 7.7.3 Chemical Treatment ...................................................................................................34 7.7.4 Below-Grade Excavation Stabilization .....................................................................34
7.8 Material for Fill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 7.8.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils .............................................................................................35 7.8.2 Re-Use of On-Site Site Improvements ......................................................................35 7.8.3 Potential Import Sources ...........................................................................................35 7.8.4 Non-Expansive Fill Using Lime Treatment ...............................................................36
7.9 Compaction Requirements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 Table 7: Compaction Requirements .....................................................................................37
7.9.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning ........................................................................37
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page iv
7.10 Trench Backfill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
7.11 Site Drainage----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
7.12 Low-Impact Development (LID) Improvements ------------------------------------------------- 38 7.12.1 Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations ..................................................39
7.13 Landscape Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
SECTION 8: 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ...............................................................41
8.1 Site Location and Provided Data for 2019 CBC Seismic Design -------------------------- 42
8.2 Site Classification – Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 -------------------------------------------------- 42 8.2.1 Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................42
8.3 Site Response Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
SECTION 9: FOUNDATIONS .....................................................................................................44
9.1 Summary of Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
9.2 Shallow Foundations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 44 9.2.1 Spread Footings (at-grade one story structures) ....................................................44 9.2.2 Footing Settlement ....................................................................................................44 Table 10: Assumed Structural Loading ...............................................................................45 9.2.3 Lateral Loading ..........................................................................................................45 9.2.4 Spread Footing Construction Considerations .........................................................45 9.2.5 Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundations (below-grade basement structures) .........45 9.2.6 Preliminary Mat Foundation Settlement ...................................................................46 Table 11: Preliminary Static Settlement Estimates .............................................................46 9.2.7 Preliminary Mat Modulus of Soil Subgrade Reaction ..............................................46 9.2.8 Lateral Loading ..........................................................................................................47 9.2.9 Hydrostatic Uplift and Waterproofing .......................................................................47 9.2.10 Mat Foundation Construction Considerations .....................................................47
SECTION 10: MICRO-PILES ......................................................................................................48
10.1 Summary of Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
10.2 Micro-piles for Tension and Compression Loads ---------------------------------------------- 48
10.3 Micro-Pile Construction Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------- 50
SECTION 11: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS .....................................50
11.1 Interior Slabs-on-Grade (At-Grade Structures) ------------------------------------------------- 50
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page v
11.2 Parking Structure Slab-On-Grade (At-Grade) --------------------------------------------------- 51
11.3 Interior and Mat Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations -------------------------------- 51
11.4 Exterior Flatwork ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 11.4.1 Pedestrian Concrete Flatwork ...............................................................................52
SECTION 12: VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................52
12.1 Asphalt Concrete ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Table 12: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations, Untreated Subgrade .............53 Table 13: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Alternatives – Treated Subgrade .........................53
12.2 Portland Cement Concrete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54 Table 14: PCC Pavement Recommendations, Design R-value = 5 .....................................54
12.3 Pavement Cutoff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54
SECTION 13: RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................................55
13.1 Static Lateral Earth Pressures ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 Table 15: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures ..............................................................55
13.2 Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures -------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
13.3 Wall Drainage ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
13.4 Backfill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
13.5 Foundations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 57
SECTION 14: LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................57
SECTION 15: REFERENCES .....................................................................................................58 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN FIGURE 3: REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIGURE 3A: VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURES 4A AND 4B: CROSS SECTIONS A-A’ AND B-B’ APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM APPENDIX C: SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS AND NON-LINEAR EFFECTIVE STRESS LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS APPENDIX D: GROUNDWATER CONTROL ASSESSMENT
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 1
Type of Services Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name Southline Development
Location 30, 50, and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 160 South Linden Avenue, 240 Dollar Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, California
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This design-level geotechnical report was prepared for the sole use of Lane Partners, LLC for the Southline Development in South San Francisco, California. Cornerstone previously
prepared preliminary geotechnical reports for the project dated March 13, 2018, November 8, 2019, and April 9, 2020. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. For our use, we were provided with the following documents:
An untitled topographic survey prepared by BKF Engineers, dated July 10, 2020.
Preliminary cut/fill plans titled “Southline Redevelopment, Preliminary Cut-Fill Analysis, 2.2 Parking Ratio, South San Francisco, Alameda County, California”, prepared by BKF Engineers, dated June 16, 2020.
Tentative map titled “Vesting Tentative Map” prepared by BKF Engineers, dated May 18, 2020.
Conceptual project plans titled “Southline Specific Plan, Appendix A: Conceptual Specific Plan Build Out”, and “Southline Phase 1 Precise Plan Package”, prepared by DES Architects + Engineers, dated May 18, 2020.
Grade separation plans titled “Southline, Southline Ave Plan and Profile, Grade Separation Exhibit, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California“, and “Southline, South Linden Ave Plan and Profile, Grade Separation Exhibit, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California“, prepared by BKF Engineers, dated May 14, 2020. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the referenced plans, the overall Southline Development project will consist of a commercial development located on six parcels including 30, 50, and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 240 Dollar Avenue, 160 South Linden Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue. The overall
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 2
development will include 11 multi-story, at-grade and below-grade office buildings (Buildings B1 and B3 through B8 and Buildings B1A, B4A, and B5A), a four-story amenities/retail building (Building B2) over one to two levels of below-grade parking (PS-A), and two, eight-level parking structures with two levels of below-grade parking (PS-B and PS-C) on an approximately 26.5-acre site. Buildings B4, B4A, B5, and B5A will be at-grade while the other buildings will be over 1 to 2 levels of below-grade parking. Phase 1 of the project will include Buildings B1, B2 (Amenities), and B7 over one (1.75 parking ratio) to two (2.2 parking ratio) levels of below-grade
parking (PS-A), an eight-level parking structure with two levels below-grade (PS-C), and a new roadway (Southline Avenue). We understand that Building B2 and Buildings B1 and B7 will be four and six stories above-grade, respectively, and will be supported on one or two levels of
below-grade parking (PS-A). We anticipate the proposed structures will be of steel- and/or concrete-frame construction. Appurtenant utilities, paved parking and landscape, and common areas, and other improvements necessary for site development are also planned.
We assumed dead plus live loads of 125 pounds per square foot per floor for Phase 1 Buildings B1 and B7 and B2, and 150 psf per floor/level for PS-C. Additionally, grading is anticipated to
include minor cuts/fills for utilities and at-grade improvements (e.g. Southline Avenue and adjacent flatwork) and significant excavations for construction of the below-grade parking levels (PS-A and PS-C). Based on the above referenced plans (BKF, 2020), cuts of up to 19½ and 30¼ feet below the existing grades for one and two levels of below-grade parking, respectively, for PS-A are anticipated. Cuts of up to 25¾ feet below the existing grades for two levels of below-grade parking for PS-C are also anticipated. These depths of cut assume 1 foot below the finish floor elevations. Per DES, the project structural engineer, the mat slabs for the proposed structures are preliminarily estimated to be 4 to 5 feet thick. A 4-foot assumed mat
thickness has been assumed in our depth of cuts for the below-grade basements. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services was presented in our proposal dated June 9, 2020 and consisted of field and laboratory programs to evaluate physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils, engineering analysis to prepare recommendations for site work and grading, building foundations, flatwork, temporary shoring and dewatering, retaining walls, and pavements, and preparation of this report. Brief descriptions of our exploration and laboratory programs are presented below. 1.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAMS As discussed, we previously prepared preliminary geotechnical reports for the project that included field explorations consisting of exploratory borings (EB) and Cone Penetration Testing (CPT). We also performed additional borings, CPTs, and installed groundwater monitoring wells for our design-level geotechnical investigation as discussed below.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 3
1.3.1 Previous Exploration Programs 1.3.1.1 30 Tanforan Avenue Our field explorations consisted of two borings drilled on February 13, 2018, with truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and four CPTs advanced on February 12, 2018. The borings were drilled to depths of 25 to 44½ feet; the CPTs were advanced to depths of 30¾ to
93¾ feet. Our deep boring and two of our CPTs reached practical refusal at 44½ feet, and 30¾ and 93¾ feet, respectively. Seismic shear wave velocity measurements were collected from CPT-3 and CPT-4. Our Exploratory Borings EB-1 and EB-2 were advanced adjacent to CPT-1
and CPT-3 for direct evaluation of physical samples to correlated soil behavior. 1.3.1.2 50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 160 South Linden Avenue, and 240 Dollar Avenue
Our field explorations consisted of six borings drilled on July 29 and 31, 2019 with truck- and track-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and six CPTs advanced on July 26, and
August 9 and 12, 2019. The borings were drilled to depths of 24½ to 45 feet; the CPTs were advanced to depths of 50⅓ to 73⅓ feet. CPT-7 reached practical refusal at 73⅓ feet below the existing grade. Seismic shear wave velocity measurements were collected from CPT-7. Our Exploratory Borings EB-3, EB-4, EB-6, EB-7 and EB-8 were advanced adjacent to CPT-5, CPT-6, CPT-8, CPT-9, and CPT-10, respectively, for direct evaluation of physical samples to correlated soil behavior. 1.3.1.3 325 South Maple Avenue
Our field explorations consisted of two borings drilled on February 24, 2020 with track-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and four CPTs advanced on February 20, 2020. The
borings were drilled to depths of 25 to 45 feet; the CPTs were advanced to depths of 50½ to 63½ feet. One of our CPTs reached practical refusal at 63½ feet below the existing grades feet. Our Exploratory Borings EB-9 and EB-10 were advanced adjacent to CPT-12 and CPT-11, respectively, for direct evaluation of physical samples to correlated soil behavior. The borings and CPTs were backfilled with cement grout in accordance with local requirements; exploration permits were obtained as required by local jurisdictions. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings, CPTs, groundwater monitoring wells are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Details regarding our field program are included in Appendix A including logs of our borings, CPTs, and monitoring wells. 1.3.2 Design Level Exploration Program Our design-level field explorations consisted of four borings drilled on June 26, 29, and 30, 2020
with truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and eight Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) advanced on June 22 and 23, 2020 and July 8, 2020. The borings were drilled to depths of 49½ to 99 feet; the CPTs were advanced to depths of 70 to 96¾ feet. Seismic shear
wave velocity measurements were collected from CPT-11A, CPT-12A, SCPT-17, and SCPT-18. Borings EB-11, EB-13, and EB-14 were advanced adjacent to CPT-18, CPT-17 and CPT-19,
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 4
respectively, for direct evaluation of physical samples to correlated soil behavior. In addition to our borings and CPTs, we installed three groundwater observation (monitoring) wells (MW) on July 1, 2020 to depths of 33 to 38 feet below the existing grades. These additional explorations and groundwater monitoring wells were performed at the 30 and 54 Tanforan Avenue, 160 South Linden Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue parcels. 1.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
In addition to visual classification of samples, the laboratory program focused on obtaining data for foundation design and seismic ground deformation estimates. Testing included moisture
contents, dry densities, grain size analyses, washed sieve analyses, hydrometers, Plasticity Index tests, an unconfined compressive strength test, a one-dimensional consolidation test, and preliminary soil corrosion screening. Details regarding our laboratory program are included in
Appendix B. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
We understand that environmental services for the project are being provided by ATC Group Services, LLC (ATC). We also understand that environmental concerns are potentially present at the site; therefore, ATC should review our geotechnical recommendations for compatibility with the environmental concerns. We have been provided with depth to groundwater measurements from ATC, these are summarized in our report. SECTION 2: REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
2.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING The San Francisco Peninsula is a relatively narrow band of rock at the north end of the Santa Cruz Mountains separating the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco Bay. This represents one mountain range in a series of northwesterly-aligned mountains forming the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that stretches from the Oregon border nearly to Point Conception. In the San Francisco Bay area, most of the Coast Ranges have developed on a basement of tectonically mixed Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age (70 to 200 million years old) rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Locally, these basement rocks are capped by younger sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Most of the Coast Ranges are covered by still younger surficial deposits that reflect geologic conditions of the last million years or so.
Movement on the many splays of the San Andreas fault system has produced the dominant northwest-oriented structural and topographic trend seen throughout the Coast Ranges today.
This trend reflects the boundary between two of the Earth's major tectonic plates: the North American plate to the east and the Pacific plate to the west. The San Andreas fault system is about 40 miles wide in the Bay area and extends from the San Gregorio fault near the coastline
to the Coast Ranges-Central Valley blind thrust at the western edge of the Great Central Valley as shown on the Regional Fault Map, Figure 3. The San Andreas fault is the dominant structure in this system, nearly spanning the length of California, and capable of producing the highest magnitude earthquakes. Many other subparallel or branch faults within the San Andreas system
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 5
are equally active and nearly as capable of generating large earthquakes. Right-lateral movement dominates on these faults but an increasingly large amount of thrust faulting resulting from compression across the system is now being identified also. The surficial deposits within the San Francisco South Quadrangle (a portion of which is presented on our Vicinity Geologic Map, Figure 3) are unconsolidated late Pleistocene and Holocene deposits which are broken out as Dune sand (Qd), marine terrace deposits (Qt),
Slope Debris and ravine fill (Qsr), the Colma Formation (Qc) and undifferentiated sedimentary deposits (“Qu”). The Plio-Pleistocene Merced Formation underlies these surficial deposits in many areas. These units were deposited on the earlier, irregular topographic surface of
Franciscan Complex rocks (Bonilla, 1964) or Pleistocene deposits, depending on location. Artificial fill (af) is present locally within the general area. In the immediate area of the site, The Colma Formation is mapped as underlying the area of the site. The Colma Formation is a Late
Pleistocene sedimentary that is characterized as: friable, well sorted medium sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay and gravel. Based on a review of the geologic relationships presented on the published ma of Bonilla (1998), it can be inferred that the Colma Formation is
most probably underlain by the Plio-Pleistocene Merced Formation in the area. The Merced Formation is underlain by Cretaceous Franciscan Complex Sedimentary rock. Bedrock surface contours published on a map by Bonilla (1964) suggests the depth to Franciscan bedrock in the area of the site may be in the range of about 420 feet below the ground surface in the northeast portion of the site to about 540 feet in the southwest portion of the site. However, these estimates can vary considerably in the area of the site as the bedrock surface can be highly irregular in the subsurface.
The tectonic regime in the San Francisco Bay region is primarily translational, expressed by mostly right-lateral strike-slip movement along the faults of the San Andreas Fault system, including the nearby Calaveras and Hayward Faults. A small component of compression is active in the region, resulting in continued folding and faulting of the geologic units. 2.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The San Francisco Bay area region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey have recently updated earlier estimates from their 2014 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (Version 3) publication. The estimated probability of one or more magnitude 6.7 earthquakes (the size of the destructive 1994 Northridge earthquake) expected to occur
somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area has been revised (increased) to 72 percent for the period 2014 to 2043 (Aagaard et al., 2016). The faults in the region with the highest estimated probability of generating damaging earthquakes between 2014 and 2043 are the Hayward (33%), Rodgers Creek (33%), Calaveras (26%), and San Andreas Faults (22%). In this 30-year period, the probability of an earth- quake of magnitude 6.7 or larger occurring is 22 percent
along the San Andreas Fault and 33 percent for the Hayward or Rodgers Creek Faults. The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly. The table below presents the State-considered active faults within 25 kilometers of the site.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 6
Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances
Fault Name
Distance
(miles) (kilometers)
Northern San Andreas 2.1 3.4
San Gregorio 7.1 11.4
Hayward 16.5 26.6
A regional fault map is presented as Figure 3, illustrating the relative distances of the site to significant fault zones. SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SITE BACKGROUND 3.1.1 30 Tanforan Avenue Based on aerial images provided by the website Historic Aerials (NETROnline, 2018), in an image dated 1946, the north and south portions of the site were occupied by various development and buildings, a large commercial building is visible in the eastern portion of the site, and Tanforan Avenue and South Maple Avenue are visible. Additional buildings and
development are visible in the southern portion of the site, and a paved parking area is visible in the western portion of the site in an image dated 1956. A large commercial building in the central portion of the site and surrounding storage yard areas are visible in an image dated
1968. Significant changes to the site were not observed in images dated 1980 through 2012; however, based on aerial images provided by Google Earth (2017), the buildings in the northwestern and eastern portions of the site were demolished after November 2016. Significant changes to the site were not observed in images dated after 2016. 3.1.2 50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue Based on aerial images provided by the website Historic Aerials (NETROnline, 2019), the 50 Tanforan Avenue property was undeveloped, and the 54 Tanforan Avenue property was occupied by a commercial building and a parking area in images dated 1946 and 1956. The 50 Tanforan Avenue property was occupied by a commercial building and paved parking area in an image dated 1968. The northern portion of the 54 Tanforan Avenue property consists of paved parking in an image dated 1980. Significant changes to the properties were not observed in images dated after 1980.
3.1.3 160 South Linden Avenue
Based on aerial images provided by the website Historic Aerials (NETROnline, 2019), the property is occupied by a commercial development consisting of buildings and parking and yard areas in images dated 1946 to 1993. The improvements in the western portion of the property were demolished in an image dated 2002 and occupied by a storage yard in images dated up to
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 7
2010. A commercial building and paved parking and yard areas were observed in an image dated 2012. Significant changes to the property were not observed in images dated after 2012. 3.1.4 240 Dollar Avenue Based on aerial images provided by the website Historic Aerials (NETROnline, 2019), the property was occupied by commercial buildings and associated improvements in images dated
1946 and 1956. A building addition in the western portion of the property was observed in an image dated 1968. Additional paved parking and yard areas were observed in an image dated 1987. Significant changes to the property were not observed in images dated after 1987.
3.1.5 325 South Maple Avenue
Based on aerial images provided by the website Historic Aerials (NETROnline, 2020), the site was occupied by a commercial building and parking area, and South Maple Avenue and railroad tracks are visible in images dated 1946 and 1956. An addition to the commercial building along
with additional buildings and parking are visible in an image dated 1968. Significant changes to the site were not observed in images dated 1980, 1982, and 1987; however, additional paved parking in the northern portion of the site was observed in an image dated 1993. Two commercial buildings were observed in the northern portion of the site in an image dated 2002. Significant changes to the site were not observed in images dated after 2002. 3.2 SURFACE DESCRIPTION
The topography of the overall site is relatively flat with a generally gentle downward slope to the east. Based on a topographic plan prepared by BKF Engineers, (BKF, 2020), the existing ground surface at the site ranges from Elevation 17 feet North American Vertical Datum 1988
(NAVD 88) in the eastern portion of the site to Elevation 33¼ feet NAVD 88 in the western portion of the site. 3.2.1 30 Tanforan Avenue The site is currently occupied by three commercial buildings with surrounding yard areas paved with asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The site is relatively level with a gentle (1% or less) downward slope to the east and is similar to the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. The site is bounded by Tanforan Avenue to the south, South Maple Avenue to the west, and commercial developments to the north and east. Surface pavements generally consisted of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of aggregate base and 6 to 7 inches of Portland cement concrete placed on subgrade. Based on our observations, the existing pavements are in poor condition with significant linear and
alligator cracking.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 8
3.2.2 50 and 54 Tanforan The properties are currently occupied by two commercial buildings with surrounding yard and parking areas paved with asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The properties are relatively level with a gentle (1% or less) downward slope to the east and is similar to the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. The properties are bounded by Tanforan Avenue to the south and commercial developments to the north, west, and east.
Surface pavements generally consisted of 2 to 5 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 to 8 inches of aggregate base. Based on our observations, the existing pavements are in poor to fair
condition with significant linear and alligator cracking and trench patching. 3.2.3 160 South Linden Avenue
The property is currently occupied by two commercial buildings with surrounding yard and parking areas paved with asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The property is
relatively level with a gentle (1% or less) downward slope to the east and is similar to the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. The site is bounded by South Linden Avenue to the east and commercial developments to the north, west, and south. Surface pavements generally consisted of 7 to 13 inches of Portland cement concrete (PCC) over 3 to 8 inches of aggregate base; however, an additional 8 inches of PCC was encountered below the 8 inches of aggregate base. Based on our observations, the existing PCC pavement is in fair condition and the asphalt pavement is in poor to fair condition with significant linear and
alligator cracking and trench patching. 3.2.4 240 Dollar Avenue
The sites are currently occupied by two commercial buildings with surrounding yard and parking areas paved with asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The site is relatively level with a gentle (1% or less) downward slope to the east and is similar to the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. The site is bounded by Tanforan Avenue to the south and commercial developments to the north, west, and east. Surface pavements generally consisted of 4 to 6 inches of asphalt concrete over 3 to 4 inches of aggregate base. Based on our observations, the existing pavements are in poor condition with significant linear and alligator cracking and trench patching. 3.2.5 325 South Maple Avenue The site is currently occupied by three commercial buildings with surrounding yard areas and
driveways paved with asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The site is relatively level with a gentle (1% or less) downward slope to the northeast and is above the elevation of the adjacent roadway to the north and below the elevations of the adjacent properties to the
south and roadway to the west. Topographic plans were not available for the site; however, based on elevations provided on Google Earth (2020), the site varies from Elevation 8 feet in
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 9
the northern portion of the site to Elevation 19 feet (WGS 84) in the southern portion of the site. The site is bounded by South Maple Avenue to the north and west and commercial developments to the south and east. Surface pavements generally consisted of 5 to 5½ inches of asphalt concrete over 5 to 10 inches of aggregate base placed on subgrade. Based on our observations, the existing pavements are in poor condition with significant linear and alligator cracking.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Below the surface pavements, our explorations generally encountered undocumented fill underlain by the Colma Formation (Qc). The Colma Formation is described as “Unconsolidated fine-to medium-grained sand: in places includes clay beds 6 inches to 5 feet thick; commonly
light brown to orange.” The Colma Formation is described by the California Geological Survey (2006) as consisting of “interbedded dense sand, silty sand, clayey sand, and stiff clay, and is Pleistocene in age and originated in shallow marine, estuarine, and alluvial environments.
Detailed discussions of the subsurface conditions encountered within our explorations are provided in the following sections. Additionally, the subsurface conditions discussed below are presented on Cross Sections A-A’ and B-B’, Figures 4A and 4B. 3.3.1 30 Tanforan Avenue Undocumented fill was encountered in Boring EB-1 and consisted of stiff lean clay with sand to a depth of 2 feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation (Qc) encountered in Boring
EB-1 consisted of medium stiff sandy silty clay, very stiff silty clay, stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay, and very stiff clay with sand to a depth of 44½ feet below the existing grade. Medium dense silty sand was encountered at depths of 15 to 18 feet and 22 to 28 feet, and poorly grade
sand with silt and gravel was encountered at depths of 28 to 32 feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-2 consisted of soft sandy silty clay, very stiff lean clay with sand, stiff sandy lean clay, and stiff silt with sand. Dense silty sand was encountered at depths of 10 to 25 feet below the existing grade. Boring EB-11 encountered undocumented fill to a depth of 2½ feet and consisted of medium dense, clayey sand underlain by the Colma Formation which consisted of very stiff, lean clay and lean clay with sand, very stiff to hard, sandy lean clay, medium dense, clayey sand, and very dense, clayey sand with gravel. Several prominent layers of dense to very dense, silty sand, very stiff, sandy silt, and very dense, poorly graded sand with silt were also encountered to a depth of 99 feet below the existing grade. CPT-1 through CPT-4 and CPT-18 indicated similar soil including sand, stiff to very stiff, silt and clay to a depth of 93¾ feet. Dense sand was consistently encountered at our CPT locations at depths of about 25 to 32 feet which resulted in practical refusals of CPT-1 CPT-18 at depths of
30¾ and 95¾ feet below the existing grade, respectively.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 10
3.3.2 50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue The undocumented fill encountered within EB-3 consisted of sandy lean clay to a depth of 2 feet underlain by silty sand with gravel and asphalt pieces to a depth of 22 feet below the existing grade. The undocumented fill was underlain by the Colma Formation consisting of stiff, sandy lean clay to a depth of 24½ feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-7 consisted of soft to very stiff, sandy silty clay, stiff, lean clay with sand to a depth of
13 feet and at depths of 30 to 35 feet, and very stiff, and sandy silt at depths of 13 to 17½ feet below the existing grade. Additionally, medium dense, silty sand was encountered at depths of 17½ to 30 feet below the existing grade. Boring EB-14 encountered undocumented fill
consisting of medium to very dense, clayey sand with gravel to a depth of 3 feet below the existing grade. The undocumented fill was underlain by the Colma Formation consisting of very stiff to hard, lean clay with sand and stiff to very stiff, sandy lean clay; however, several
prominent layers of medium to very dense, clayey sand, very stiff, sandy silt, very dense, silty sand, and very dense, poorly graded sand with silt were encountered.
Our Cone Penetration Tests CPT-5, CPT-9, and CPT-19 indicated similar soil including stiff to very stiff, clay, silty sand and sandy silt, sand and silty sand, and clay and silty clay to a depth of 75⅓ feet below the existing grades. Dense sand was encountered at our CPT locations at depths of about 22 to 33 feet and 45 to 50 feet below the existing grades. 3.3.2 160 South Linden Avenue Undocumented fill was encountered in Boring EB-4 and consisted of stiff, sandy lean clay to a
depth of 5 feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-4 consisted of very stiff, sandy lean clay and stiff, lean clay to a depth of 17½ feet below the existing ground surface. Medium dense to dense, silty sand was also encountered at depths of
10 to 14 feet and 17½ to 25 feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-5 consisted of sandy lean clay at depths of 1 to 11 feet and 13 to 23 feet and silty sand at depths of 11 to 12 feet and 23 to 27 feet below the existing grade. Boring EB-12 encountered undocumented fill consisting of medium dense, clayey sand with gravel to a depth of 2½ feet below the existing grade. The undocumented fill was underlain by the Colma Formation consisting of very stiff to hard, lean clay with sand and stiff to very stiff, sandy lean clay; however, several prominent layers of medium to very dense, clayey sand, very stiff, sandy silt, very dense, silty sand, and very dense, poorly graded sand with silt were encountered. Boring EB-13 encountered the Colma Formation consisting of very stiff to hard, sandy lean clay, stiff to very stiff, lean clay with sand; however, several prominent layers of medium dense to very dense, silty sand, very dense, clayey sand, very stiff, sandy silt, and very dense, poorly graded sand were encountered to a depth of 99 feet below the existing grade. Our CPT-6, CPT-7, CPT-16, CPT-17, and CPT-20 indicated similar soil including stiff to very
stiff, clay, clay and silty clay, silty sand and sandy silt, and sand and silty sand to a depth of 73⅓ feet, the maximum depth explored. Dense sand was encountered at our CPT locations at depths of about 30, 35, and 40 feet and 55 to 62 feet which resulted in practical refusal of CPT-
7 and CPT-17 at depths of 73⅓ and 88½ feet below the existing grades, respectively.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 11
3.3.3 240 Dollar Avenue Borings EB-6 and EB-8 encountered the Colma Formation that consisted of very stiff to hard, sandy lean clay, stiff to very stiff, and lean clay with sand to a depth of 45 feet below the existing grades. Dense, clayey sand was encountered at depths of 1 to 3 feet, and 9¾ to 12 feet, dense, silty sand at depths of 17 to 29½ feet, and very dense, clayey sand with gravel at depths of 33½ to 42 feet were also encountered within our borings.
Our CPT-8 and CPT-10 indicated similar soil including stiff to very stiff, clay, clay and silty clay, silty sand and sandy silt, and sand and silty sand to a depth of 50⅓ feet below the existing
grades. Dense sand was encountered at our CPT locations at depths of about 27 to 28 feet below the existing grades. 3.3.5 325 South Maple Avenue Undocumented fill was encountered in our Borings EB-9 and EB-10 to a depth of 2 feet below
the existing grades and consisted of medium dense, clayey sand with gravel and stiff, sandy lean clay to a depth of 2 feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-9 below the undocumented fill consisted of stiff to very stiff, lean clay with sand, very stiff, sandy lean clay, and very stiff, lean clay to a depth of 45 feet, the terminal depth of the boring. Medium dense silty sand was encountered at depths of 2 to 3½ feet, medium dense, clayey sand at depths of 3½ to 8 feet, and loose to medium dense, silty sand at depths of 18 to 22 feet below existing grades. Stiff, sandy silt was also encountered at depths of 10 to 18 feet and 38 to 40½ feet below the existing grade. The Colma Formation encountered in Boring EB-
10 consisted of very stiff, high plasticity clay at depths of 2 to 5 feet, medium dense, clayey sand at depths of 5 to 10½ and 13 to 15½ feet, and stiff, sandy silt at depths of 10½ to 12 feet and 15½ to 25 feet, the terminal depth of the boring. soft sandy silty clay, very stiff lean clay with
sand, stiff sandy lean clay, and stiff silt with sand. Dense silty sand was encountered at depths of 10 to 25 feet below the existing grade. CPT-11 through CPT-15 indicated similar soil including dense to very dense, sand, and stiff to very stiff, silt and clay to a depth of 74½ feet. Practical refusal was encountered at depths of 63½ and 70 feet within CPT-11 and CPT-12A, respectively. 3.3.6 Plasticity/Expansion Potential We performed nine Plasticity Index (PI) tests on representative samples. Test results were used to evaluate expansion potential of surficial soils and the plasticity of the fines in potentially liquefiable layers. 3.3.6.1 30 Tanforan Avenue
We performed one Plasticity Index (PI) test on a representative sample. The surficial PI test resulted in a PI of 26, indicating moderate expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 12
3.3.6.2 54 Tanforan Avenue and 160 South Linden We performed four Plasticity Index (PI) tests on representative samples. Two of the PI tests resulted in “non-plastic”. The two surficial PI tests resulted in PIs of 23 to 34, indicating high expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles. 3.3.6.3 325 South Maple Avenue
We performed four Plasticity Index (PI) test on representative samples. Two of the PI tests resulted in “non-plastic” and a PI test on a sample of the surficial soil resulted in a PI of 34,
indicating high expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles. 3.3.7 In-Situ Moisture Contents
Laboratory testing indicated the in-situ moisture contents within the upper 10 feet and 10 to 30¼ feet range from 0 to 10 percent and from 5 to 10 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum
moisture, respectively. The in-situ moisture contents of the soil 5 feet below the bottoms of the excavations for the below-grade basement levels are well above the estimated laboratory optimums. Additionally, the bottom of the excavations may also likely be below the existing groundwater table. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to many factors including seasonal fluctuation, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors. 3.4 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered within our borings and pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests were performed at some of our CPT locations. All measurements were taken at the time of drilling and may not represent the stabilized levels that can be higher than the initial levels
encountered. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to many factors including seasonal fluctuation, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors. Additionally, we installed three groundwater observation wells (MW-1 through MW-3) at the site in order to measure more equalized groundwater levels for the dewatering assessment discussed in and attached to this report.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 13
Table 2: Depth to Groundwater
Boring/CPT/Well Number Date
Drilled
Depth to Groundwater (feet)
Groundwater Elevation*
(feet)
Depth of Boring/CPT
EB-1 2/13/2018 27.0 5.8 44.4
EB-2 2/13/2018 21.0 9.0 25.0
EB-3 7/31/2019 13.0 16.0 24.5
EB-4 7/29/2019 13.0 6.0 25.0
EB-5 7/31/2019 10.0 12.0 27.0
EB-6 7/29/2019 18.0 -1.0 45.0
EB-7 7/31/2019 11.0 14.0 35.0
EB-8 7/31/2019 13.0 9.0 25.0
EB-9 2/24/2020 22.0 -3.0 45.0
EB-10 2/24/2020 18.0 10.0 25.0
EB-11 6/30/2020 10.0 22.0 98.9
EB-12 6/26/2020 8.0 18.0 50.0
EB-13 6/29/2020 8.0 10.5 99.0
EB-14 6/26/2020 10.0 18.0 49.5
MW-1 7/1/2020 13.1** 19.9 33.0
MW-2 7/1/2020 10.9** 17.1 38.0
MW-3 7/1/2020 10.7** 15.3 38.0
*North American Vertical Datum 1988 (BKF, 2020) **Groundwater levels as of July 16, 2020. Table 3: Depth to Groundwater
Boring/CPT/Well Number Date
Drilled
Depth to Groundwater (feet)
Groundwater Elevation*
(feet)
Depth of Boring/CPT
CPT-2 2/12/2018 16.0** 14.0 30.7
CPT-3 2/12/2018 16.3** 13.7 64.3
CPT-5 8/12/2019 8.4** 20.6 50.3
CPT-6 8/12/2019 8.6** 10.4 50.3
CPT-7 7/26/2019 10.8** 15.2 73.3
CPT-8 7/26/2019 6.1** 10.9 50.3
*North American Vertical Datum 1988 (BKF, 2020) **Groundwater levels for CPTs are based on pore pressure dissipation tests. Table 3 is continued on the next page.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 14
Table 3 (cont.): Depth to Groundwater
Boring/CPT/Well Number Date
Drilled
Depth to Groundwater (feet)
Groundwater Elevation*
(feet)
Depth of Boring/CPT
CPT-9 7/26/2019 9.6** 15.4 50.3
CPT-10 7/26/2019 9.7** 12.3 50.3
CPT-11 2/20/2020 36.1** -8.1 63.5
CPT-15 6/23/2020 30.9** -7.4 74.5
CPT-16 6/23/2020 36.6** -12.1 75.5
CPT-17 6/22/2020 22.4** -3.9 88.6
CPT-18 6/23/2020 34.0** -2.0 95.8
CPT-19 6/22/2020 38.1** -10.1 75.5
CPT-20 6/22/2020 38.7** -13.7 75.5
*North American Vertical Datum 1988 (BKF, 2020) **Groundwater levels for CPTs are based on pore pressure dissipation tests. The depth to groundwater at our CPT locations is inferred from pore pressure dissipation (PPD)
tests; therefore, the depths to groundwater at the CPT locations may not be representative of the actual groundwater level measured within our borings and monitoring wells.
Historic high groundwater levels are not currently mapped for the site; however, recent groundwater data for monitoring wells located within 500 feet of the site provided on the GeoTracker website (GeoTracker, 2020), indicated groundwater levels of 5 to 16½ feet below the existing grades. Additionally, depths to groundwater provided by ATC indicated groundwater levels of 8 to 13 feet below the existing grades. To account for any future fluctuations in the water table, we recommend a high groundwater level of 8 feet be used for design. Based on well data, this value appears to include about 1 to 2 feet of “freeboard”. Additional wells should be installed for evaluation of water pressures in soil layers discussed in the Groundwater Control Assessment (GCA) included in Appendix D of this report. 3.5 CORROSION SCREENING
We tested four samples collected at depths of 4 to 27 feet for resistivity, pH, soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table 4A.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 15
Table 4A: Summary of Corrosion Test Results
Boring Depth (feet) Soil pH1 Resistivity2 (ohm-cm)
Chloride3 (mg/kg)
Sulfate4,5 (mg/kg)
EB-12 4.0 7.1 1,164 18 76
EB-13 4.0 7.3 1,257 18 77
EB-13 27.0 7.9 1,802 28 126
EB-14 23.5 8.0 3,681 26 126
Notes: 1ASTM G51 2ASTM G57 - 100% saturation 3ASTM D3427/Cal 422 Modified 4ASTM D3427/Cal 417 Modified 51 mg/kg = 0.0001 % by dry weight Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including moisture content, resistivity, permeability, and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. Typically, soil resistivity, which is a measurement of how easily electrical current flows through a medium (soil and/or
water), is the most influential factor. In addition to soil resistivity, chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and pH also contribute in affecting corrosion potential. 3.5.1 Preliminary Soil Corrosion Screening Based on the laboratory test results summarized in Table 4A and published correlations
between resistivity and corrosion potential, the soils may be considered moderately to severely corrosive to buried metallic improvements (Chaker and Palmer, 1989). In accordance with the 2019 CBC Section 1904A.1, alternative cementitious materials for different exposure categories and classes shall be determined in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.1.1, Table R19.3.1, and Table 19.3.2.1. Based on the laboratory sulfate test results, a cement type restriction is not required, although, in our opinion, it is generally a good idea to include some sulfate resistance and to maintain a relatively low water-cement ratio. We have summarized applicable exposure categories and classes from ACI 318-19, Table 19.3.1.1 below in Table 4B. Table 4B: ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.1.1 Exposure Categories and Classes
Freezing and Thawing (F) Sulfate (S, soil) In Contact with Water (W)
Corrosion Protection of Reinforcement (C)
F0¹ S0² W0³ C1⁴
1 (F0) “Concrete not exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles” (ACI 318-19) 2 (S0) “Water soluble sulfate in soil, percent by mass” is less than 0.10 (ACI 318-19) 3 (W0) “Concrete dry in service. Concrete in contact with water and low permeability is not required” (ACI 318-19) 4 (C1) “Concrete exposed to moisture but not to an external source of chlorides” (ACI 318-19) In addition, ACI 318-19, Table 19.3.2.1 provides requirements for concrete by exposure class. Table 4C below indicates different requirements that we recommend be followed for the concrete design.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 16
Table 4C: ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.2.1 Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class
Exposure Class Maximum water:cement ratio
Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Maximum Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content (% wt)
F0 N/A 2,500 N/A
S0 (soil) N/A 2,500 N/A
W0 N/A 2,500 N/A
C1 N/A 2,500 0.30 (0.06)¹
1 Maximum water-soluble chloride ion content for non-pre-stressed concrete, (value for pre-stressed concrete). We recommend the structural engineer and a corrosion engineer be retained to confirm the information provided and for additional recommendations, as required.
SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 FAULT RUPTURE As discussed above several significant faults are located within 25 kilometers of the site.
However, the site is not located within a State-designated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown in Figure 3, no known surface expression of fault traces is thought to cross the site; therefore, fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site.
4.2 ESTIMATED GROUND SHAKING Moderate to severe (design-level) earthquakes can cause strong ground shaking, which is the case for most sites within the Bay Area. A peak ground acceleration (PGAM) was estimated following the Site Specific Response analysis procedure presented in Chapter 21, Section 21.1 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement No.1. 4.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL The site is not currently mapped by the State of California but is within zones mapped as having a very low liquefaction potential by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, 2020). However, our field and laboratory programs addressed this issue by testing and sampling potentially liquefiable layers to depths of at least 50 feet, performing visual
classification on sampled materials, evaluating CPT data, and performing various laboratory tests to further classify soil properties.
During strong seismic shaking, cyclically induced stresses can cause increased pore pressures within the soil matrix that can result in liquefaction triggering, soil softening due to shear stress loss, potentially significant ground deformation due to settlement within sandy liquefiable layers as pore pressures dissipate, and/or flow failures in sloping ground or where open faces are present (lateral spreading) (NCEER 1998). Limited field and laboratory data are available
regarding ground deformation due to settlement; however, in clean sand layers settlement on the order of 2 to 4 percent of the liquefied layer thickness can occur. Soils most susceptible to
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 17
liquefaction are loose, non-cohesive soils that are saturated and are bedded with poor drainage, such as sand and silt layers bedded with a cohesive cap. Our previous preliminary reports dated March 13, 2018, November 8, 2019, and April 9, 2020 were in accordance with widespread geotechnical practice which was based on the use of simplified methods for evaluating liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading which had been taught by academics for the previous 35 years. While it was generally known that these
simplified methods of analysis are very approximate, it was also thought that they were usually conservative and very little has changed in the methodology in the past 20 or so years. This methodology is still in wide-spread use in practice today. There was surprisingly little discussion
in the literature about the degree of conservatism of these simplified methods of analysis although Semple (2013), Pyke (2015), Boulanger et al. (2016), and Pyke and North (2019) provide good summaries of the issues and references to earlier work.
As discussed in our previous preliminary reports, the results of our simplified analyses indicated that liquefaction could occur in near surface sandy layers and the consequences of liquefaction
would be very minor to several inches of settlement depending on the location of the exploration for which the evaluations were performed. Based on the results of the simplified analyses, we concluded that these simplified methods of analysis may be too approximate on projects where a significant amount of liquefaction potential and settlement is predicted using the accepted simplified methods and that it is necessary to conduct nonlinear effective stress site response analyses in order to both understand the case histories of liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading in order to make forward predictions of performance at sites such as this project with sufficient accuracy. Recent geotechnical literature Ntritsos et al. (2018), Crawford et al. (2019),
Cubrinovski (2019), Hutabarat and Bray (2019), Kramer (2019), Pyke (2019) and Olson et al. (2020) provides detailed discussions on the use of more robust nonlinear effective stress site response analysis.
The nonlinear effective stress analyses were conducted by our technical partner Dr. Robert Pyke, G.E. using his program TESS2, which has been used on recent projects with initially large predicted liquefaction settlement and ground improvement costs including River Islands and Thornton Middle School. A detailed discussion of our liquefaction assessment for the project site is presented in Dr. Pyke’s letter report which is attached to this report as Appendix C. While the site geologic history and absence of historical observation of liquefaction indicate there is qualitative low to very low potential for liquefaction, we performed the nonlinear effective stress analyses to quantitively evaluate to liquefaction potential and settlement consistent with current engineering practice to perform quantitative liquefaction analyses. We note that multiple TESS2 runs were preformed using 5 earthquake time histories as input motions in the soil models. The results of our analyses indicated the potential for liquefaction is very low and that if liquefaction were to occur, the consequences of liquefaction for the planned at-grade and one- and two-level below-grade structures is that excess pore pressure development in the soils would be minimal
and that seismic settlements would be negligible, consistent with the historical records for this class of soil deposits.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 18
4.4 LATERAL SPREADING Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. As failure tends to propagate as block failures, it is difficult to analyze and estimate where the first tension crack will form. As discussed above, the potential for excess
pore pressure development in the site soil is minimal and the potential for liquefaction is negligible. Additionally, there are no open faces within a distance considered susceptible to lateral spreading; therefore, in our opinion, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the site is
nil. 4.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT/UNSATURATED SAND SHAKING
Loose unsaturated sandy soils can settle during strong seismic shaking. As the soils encountered at the site above the water table were predominantly stiff to very stiff clays and
medium dense to dense sands, in our opinion, the potential for significant differential seismic settlement affecting the proposed improvements is very low to nil. 4.6 TSUNAMI/SEICHE The terms tsunami or seiche are described as ocean waves or similar waves usually created by undersea fault movement or by a coastal or submerged landslide. Tsunamis may be generated at great distance from shore (far field events) or nearby (near field events). Waves are formed,
as the displaced water moves to regain equilibrium, and radiates across the open water, similar to ripples from a rock being thrown into a pond. When the waveform reaches the coastline, it quickly raises the water level, with water velocities as high as 15 to 20 knots. The water mass,
as well as vessels, vehicles, or other objects in its path create tremendous forces as they impact coastal structures. Tsunamis have affected the coastline along the Pacific Northwest during historic times. The Fort Point tide gauge in San Francisco recorded approximately 21 tsunamis between 1854 and 1964. The 1964 Alaska earthquake generated a recorded wave height of 7.4 feet and drowned eleven people in Crescent City, California. For the case of a far-field event, the Bay area would have hours of warning; for a near field event, there may be only a few minutes of warning, if any. A tsunami or seiche originating in the Pacific Ocean would lose much of its energy passing through San Francisco Bay. Based on the study of tsunami inundation potential for the San Francisco Bay Area (CGS, 2009 and Ritter and Dupre, 1972), areas most likely to be inundated are marshlands, tidal flats, and former bay margin lands that are now artificially filled, but are
still at or below sea level, and are generally within 1½ miles of the shoreline. The eastern edge of the site is approximately 1 mile inland from the San Francisco Bay shoreline and is approximately 17 to 33¼ feet (NAVD 88) above mean sea level (BKF, 2020). Therefore, the
potential for inundation due to tsunami or seiche is considered low.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 19
4.7 FLOODING Based on our internet search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map public database, the site is located within Zone X, described as “Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.” (FEMA, 2019). We recommend the project civil engineer be retained to confirm this information and verify the base flood elevation, if appropriate.
SECTION 5: PRELIMINARY STATIC SETTLEMENT As discussed, the project will be constructed in phases. We understand that Phase 1 of the project will include three buildings (Buildings B1, B2, and B7) that will be supported on one to two levels of below-grade parking (PS-A) and that an 8-level parking structure (PS-C) over two
levels of below-grade parking is also planned. Buildings B1 and B7 will be 6 stories each and Building B2 (Amenities) will be 4 stories. We assume that Buildings B1, B2, and B7 will be of steel-frame construction and that PS-A and PS-C will be of concrete-frame construction. Settlement analyses for the Phase 1 structures were performed to estimate future long-term settlement due to our assumed areal foundation loads. Our settlement estimates discussed below are preliminary and based on assumed structural loads and our experience with similar
types of structures; therefore, once the actual loads are available, we should be retained to reevaluate the settlement estimates provided below. Additionally, we will provide settlement estimates for the structures planned for future phase(s) once the loads are known.
5.1 ASSUMED STRUCTURAL LOADS Structural loads were not available at the time of this report; therefore, we performed our settlement analysis with the following assumed loads which are based on our experience with similar type structures. We understand the structures will be supported on mat foundations. For mat foundations, we assumed loads (dead + live) of 125 and 150 pounds per square foot (psf) per floor for steel- and concrete-frame structures, respectively. This translates to the
following dead plus live loads of 825 psf for Buildings B1 and B7, 325 psf for Building B2, and 1,575 psf for PS-C. As these loads were assumed, supplemental settlement analysis based on loads provided by the Project Structural Engineer can be performed once available. 5.2 PRELIMINARY STATIC SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES
Our preliminary settlement analysis evaluated the total and differential static settlement due to the addition of the assumed foundation loads discussed above for steel- and a concrete-frame 2-story amenities and 6-story office buildings over 1 and 2 levels below grade (Buildings B1, B2,
and B7 over PS-A) and PS-C. 5.2.1 2-Story Steel-Frame Over 1 Level Below Grade (B2 over PS-A) Based on the above assumed structural loading of 325 psf for a 2-story steel-frame amenities building plus 1 level of below-grade parking at 150 psf, we preliminarily estimate the total static
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 20
settlement will be about ½ inch, with about ¼ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements or from the center to the edge of a mat foundation. 5.2.2 2-Story Steel-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade (B2 over PS-A) Based on the above assumed structural loading of 325 psf for a 2-story steel-frame amenities building plus 2 levels of below-grade parking at 300 psf, we preliminarily estimate the total static
settlement will be about ½ inch, with less than ½ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements or from the center to the edge of a mat foundation. 5.2.3 6-Story Steel-Frame Over 1 Level Below Grade (B1 and B7 over PS-A) Based on the above assumed structural loading of 825 psf for a 6-story steel-frame office
building plus 1 level of below-grade parking at 150 psf, we preliminarily estimate the total static settlement will be about ½ inch, with less than ½ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements or from the center to the edge of a mat foundation.
5.2.4 6-Story Steel-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade (B1 and B7 over PS-A) Based on the above assumed structural loading of 825 psf for a 6-story steel-frame office building plus 2 levels of below-grade parking at 300 psf, we preliminarily estimate the total static settlement will be about ¾ inch, less than ½ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements or from the center to the edge of a mat foundation. 5.2.5 8-Level Concrete-Frame Over 2 Levels Below Grade – PS-C Based on the above assumed structural loading of 1,575 psf for an 8-level concrete-frame
parking structure with 2 levels below grade, we preliminarily estimate the total static settlement will be about 1 inch, with about ½ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements or from the center to the edge of a mat foundation. As these loads and the building sizes were assumed, supplemental settlement analysis based on loads provided by the Project Structural Engineer should be performed once available. 5.2.6 Settlement Estimate for Groundwater Drawdown from Dewatering As discussed, excavations of up to 35 feet below the existing grades are anticipated for the two levels of below-grade parking planned for the project. Therefore, a Groundwater Control Assessment was performed by Middour Consulting which includes estimates for groundwater drawdown and discharge for the temporary dewatering that will be needed during construction of the below-grade structures at the site. Assuming the groundwater drawdown will be from the
design high groundwater level of 8 feet below the existing grades down to 5 feet below the bottom of the excavations, we estimate settlement of the ground surface as a result of groundwater drawdown will be 1½ to 2 inches for the deeper (e.g. 35 feet) excavations.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 21
SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS 6.1 SUMMARY From a geotechnical viewpoint, the project is feasible provided the concerns listed below are
addressed in the project design. Descriptions of each concern with brief outlines of our recommendations follow the listed concerns.
Shallow groundwater, excavation, and construction below groundwater (below-grade excavations and utilities)
Potential for static settlement (structures)
Wet, unstable excavation subgrade soil (below-grade parking level excavations)
Presence of cohesionless soil at basement level (parking level excavations)
Hydrostatic uplift and waterproofing for structures below the water table
Shoring considerations for below-grade structure excavations
Presence of undocumented fill (at-grade improvements)
Presence of expansive soils (at-grade improvements)
Differential movement at on-grade to on-structure transitions
Soil corrosion potential
6.1.1 Shallow Groundwater (below-grade excavations and utilities)
Groundwater was measured within our borings and monitoring wells at depths ranging from approximately 8 to 27 feet below the existing ground surface. A design groundwater depth of 8 feet was used for our geotechnical analyses is recommended for this project. Based on the
anticipated depths of the proposed building excavations and our experience with similar sites in the vicinity, shallow groundwater could significantly impact grading and underground construction. These impacts typically consist of potentially wet and unstable subgrade, difficulty achieving compaction, and difficult underground utility installation. Dewatering of the building excavation and deeper utility trenches will likely be needed. Detailed recommendations
addressing this concern are presented in the “Earthwork” section of this report. A discussion of temporary dewatering considerations is included in the Groundwater Control Assessment in Appendix D of this report. It is noted that based on the existing data to date, additional groundwater monitoring wells are recommended to evaluate the water pressures in deeper soil layers beneath the basements for the further evaluation of depressurization of the layers as part of the construction dewatering program..
As discussed, Buildings B1, B2, and B7 and PS-C include 1 to 2 levels of below-grade parking that are anticipated to require excavations of up to 30¼ feet below the existing grades. As
previously discussed in the “Groundwater” section, historic high groundwater is not mapped for the site; however, a design groundwater level of 8 feet is recommended for design. To mitigate potential impacts to the structure due to groundwater rise or surface water infiltration, we recommend the below-grade parking level walls be designed for earth pressures that include hydrostatic pressure and be waterproofed.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 22
Based on the elevations of the bottom of the building excavations and the estimated historic high groundwater and to mitigate potential impacts to the structures due to groundwater, an uplift pressure of up to roughly 750 pounds per square foot (psf) for one level below-grade and 1,100 psf to 1,400 psf for two levels below-grade would need to be considered. The actual uplift pressure should be confirmed by the structural engineer once the foundation elevation has been finalized. Based on the depth of groundwater and the depth of the garage levels, we recommend the mat and garage level walls be waterproofed. Detailed recommendations to
resist hydrostatic forces are provided in the “Foundations” section of this report. 6.1.2 Potential for Static Settlement (structures)
6.1.2.1 Preliminary Static Settlement
As discussed, Buildings B1, B2, and B7 will be 2 to 6 stories and assumed to be of steel-frame construction over 1 to 2 levels of below-grade parking. The below grade levels are assumed to be of concrete-frame construction. Based on the assumed structural loads discussed above,
our preliminary settlement analyses indicate total static settlement that is typically tolerable by shallow foundations. For mat foundations, bearing at 16 feet (1 level) and up to 35¼ feet (2 levels) below the existing grades, we preliminarily estimate the following total and differential static settlement presented in Table 5 below. Table 5: Preliminary Static Settlement Estimates
Proposed Structure Total Settlement (in) Differential Settlement (in)*
4-Story Steel-Frame over 1 Level Below Grade ½ ¼
4-Story Steel-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade ½ <½
6-Story Steel-Frame over 1 Level Below Grade ½ <½
6-Story Steel-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade ¾ <½
8-Level Concrete-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade 1 ½
*Settlement between the center and the edges of the mat slab. Foundations should be designed to tolerate the anticipated total and differential settlement.
Based on the assumed foundation loads, it should be feasible to support the proposed buildings on mat foundations. Detailed foundation recommendations are presented in the “Foundations” section of this report. 6.1.2.2 Settlement Estimate for Groundwater Drawdown from Dewatering
As discussed, excavations of up to 35 feet below the existing grades are anticipated for the two levels of below-grade parking planned for the project. Therefore, a Groundwater Control Assessment was performed by Middour Consulting which includes estimates for groundwater drawdown and discharge for the temporary dewatering that will be needed during construction of the below-grade structures at the site. Assuming the groundwater drawdown will be from the design high groundwater level of 8 feet below the existing grades down to 5 feet below the
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 23
bottom of the excavations, we estimate settlement of the ground surface as a result of groundwater drawdown will be 1½ to 2 inches for the deeper (e.g. 35 feet) excavations. 6.1.3 Wet, Unstable Excavation Subgrade Soil (basement level excavations) The proposed building excavations may extend into saturated clay and sand with varying strength. Depending on the high moisture content of this material, it may become unstable
under the weight of track-mounted or rubber-tired construction equipment. To provide a firm base for construction of the foundation, it may be necessary to remove and an additional approximately 12 to 18 inches of native soil below the foundation level and replace it with a
bridging layer, such as crushed rock. Otherwise, a layer of lean cement-sand slurry layer (“rat slab”) may be considered or a combination of the two. Temporary dewatering to a depth of at least 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundation excavation is recommended during
construction. 6.1.4 Presence of Cohesionless Soil at Basement Level (basement level excavations)
As discussed, cohesionless (sandy) soil with variable amounts of fines were encountered within portions of the upper 30¼ feet of the soil profile that may be susceptible to localized sloughing or caving. Contractors should plan on forming footings where sand with low fines contents are encountered, as well as preparation of slab-on-grade subgrade just prior to concrete placement. Other similar construction issues as relates to temporary shoring, utility excavations, and granular material at the base of the basement excavation. These considerations are discussed further within the “Earthwork” and “Foundations” sections of this report.
6.1.5 Hydrostatic Uplift and Waterproofing for Structures Below the Water Table
Shallow groundwater was measured within our borings and monitoring wells at depths ranging from approximately 8 to 27 feet below the existing ground surface and high groundwater in the area is estimated to be on the order of 8 feet. Our experience with similar sites in the vicinity indicates that shallow groundwater could significantly impact grading and underground construction. Per DES and our experience with similar projects, we understand that constructing two levels of below-grade parking beneath Buildings B1, B2, and B7 will need to be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressure (i.e. uplift). In our experience, supporting the below-grade structures on a mat foundation designed to resist uplift hydrostatic pressures, static and seismic settlement appears to be feasible for the subsurface conditions encountered at the site provided the estimated settlement can be tolerated from a structural viewpoint. Drilled and post-grouted micro-piles are a feasible option to resist uplift. Further discussion of these issues is presented in the “Foundations” section of this report. Dewatering and shoring of the basement excavations will be required at the site during
construction and should be anticipated. Carefully planned and implemented temporary dewatering should be anticipated for the construction of this project. Typically, permanent dewatering of the below-grade basement is not desired due to potential construction
complications such as settlement of adjacent structures and long-term maintenance and costs of the site. See Appendix D for further discussion of this issue.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 24
As the planned basement excavations will likely extend below the current groundwater level, we anticipate the need for stabilization of the excavation bottom where construction activities are planned. Further details are provided in the “Earthwork” section of this report. Based on the site conditions encountered during our investigation and discussions with the design team, supporting the cuts with shoring consisting of soil mixed columns with tiebacks. Braced excavations or potentially other methods such as cut-off walls with H-beams or auger
assisted installed sheet piles are feasible alternatives. Because of the groundwater table depth, shoring combined with temporary dewatering may be needed to control the water inflow for some shoring systems. And some shoring methods such as the use of wooden lagging will be
problematic for installation because of the water seepage and potential flowing sands and may not be feasible below the water table. We note that drilling tiebacks and micro-piles below the groundwater will need to include special considerations to limit caving sand and groundwater
inflow into drill holes and the basement excavation. Where excavations will extend more than about 10 feet, restrained shoring will most likely be required to limit detrimental lateral deflections and settlement behind the shoring. In addition to soil earth and water pressures, the
shoring system will need to support adjacent loads such as construction vehicles and incidental loading, existing structure foundation loads, and street loading. Underpinning of adjacent structures may be needed depending on the proximity of the excavation to the property line. We recommend the contractor implement a monitoring program to monitor the effects of the construction on nearby improvements, including the monitoring of cracking and vertical movement of adjacent structures, nearby streets, sidewalks, parking and other improvements. In critical areas, we recommend that inclinometers or other instrumentation be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. A discussion of the general shoring
issues is provided in the “Earthwork” section of this report. 6.1.6 Shoring Considerations for Below-Grade Building Levels Excavation
Excavations up to 30¼ feet deep are anticipated for two below-grade parking levels. The primary considerations in selecting a suitable shoring system typically include 1) control of vertical and lateral ground surface or wall movements, 2) constructability, 3) dewatering and 4) cost. There are several possible methods of providing lateral support for the excavation, including a soldier pile and lagging retaining system, soldier pile tremie concrete (SPTC) walls or mixed-in-place soil/cement walls. All systems for two levels of excavation would require tiebacks or internal bracing for lateral support. A soldier pile and lagging retaining system is more flexible and pervious than either an SPTC or mixed-in-place soil/cement wall and would require continuous dewatering around the perimeter of the excavation. The latter two types of walls would be relatively rigid and could significantly limit lateral deflections and ground movement related to the shoring. In addition, SPTC or mixed-in-place soil/cement walls are relatively impervious and would likely reduce the
volume of water pumped to dewater the building excavation. We understand that shoring for excavations greater than 30 feet will consist of SPTC or mixed-in-place soil/cement walls. The disadvantages of these systems are cost and space requirements, as they may require
approximately 2 to 3 feet around the perimeter of the excavation. A combination of these systems could be used depending on the performance desired along the various excavation
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 25
faces. Where movements due to shoring deflection and settlement due to dewatering could be detrimental to existing improvements and nearby structures, the stiffer shoring systems could be used. The shoring system selected should be designed by a shoring designer or structural engineer experienced in the specific type of construction. Additional design and construction considerations for the shoring system include the following items:
1. Soldier pile and lagging wall below the groundwater may experience difficulties with seepage, localized flowing sand and possible increased wall movement.
2. A well planned and implemented temporary dewatering system will be needed if soldier beam and lagging shoring is implemented.
3. Internal bracing may be required in areas where tie-back encroachment is not feasible or allowed by adjacent property owners.
Guidelines for design of temporary shoring and dewatering are provided in the “Earthwork” section of this report and Appendix D. 6.1.7 Presence of Undocumented Fill (at-grade improvements) As discussed, localized undocumented fill was encountered to depth of 2 to 5 feet below the existing grade in some of our borings; however, undocumented fill was encountered to a depth
of 22 feet in our Boring EB-3 indicating that deeper localized fills may also be present. Based on the anticipated depth and lateral extent of the building basement excavations, the undocumented fill will likely be removed during excavation; however, undocumented fill should
be anticipated at the perimeter of the site. We recommend mitigation of undocumented fill by removal and replacement as engineered fill. Detailed grading recommendations addressing this concern are presented in the “Earthwork” section of this report. 6.1.8 Presence of Expansive Soils (at-grade improvements) Moderately expansive surficial soils generally blanket the site. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. To reduce the potential for damage to the planned structures, slabs-on-grade should have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill; footings should extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. In addition, it is important to limit moisture changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from buildings as well as limiting landscaping watering. Detailed grading and foundation recommendations addressing this concern are presented in the following sections.
6.1.9 Differential Movement At On-grade to On-Structure Transitions
Some of the plaza area and other improvements will transition from on-grade support to overlying the basements. Where the depth of soil cover overlying the basement roof in the
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 26
plaza area is thin or where basement walls extend to within inches of finished grade, these transition areas typically experience increased differential movement due to a variety of causes, including difficulty in achieving compaction of retaining wall backfill closest to the wall. We recommend consideration be given to where engineered fill is placed behind retaining walls extending to near finished grade, and that subslabs be included beneath flatwork or pavers that can cantilever at least 3 feet beyond the wall. If surface improvements are included that are highly sensitive to differential movement, additional measures may be necessary. We also
recommend that retaining wall backfill be compacted to 95 percent where surface improvements are planned (see “Retaining Wall” section). 6.1.10 Soil Corrosion Potential Our testing indicates sulfate exposure at the site is low and therefore no cement-type
restrictions to buried concrete. The corrosion potential for buried metallic structures, such as metal pipes, is considered moderately to severely corrosive. Based on the results of the preliminary soil corrosion screening, special requirements for corrosion control will likely be
required to protect metal pipes and fittings. We recommend a corrosion engineer be engaged to provide recommendations for corrosion protection of metal pipes, if used on this project. 6.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW We recommend that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the project structural, civil, and landscape plans and specifications, allowing sufficient time to provide the design team with any comments prior to issuing the plans for construction.
6.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
As site conditions may vary significantly between the small-diameter borings and CPTs performed during this investigation, we also recommend that a Cornerstone representative be present to provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and foundation construction. This will allow us to form an opinion and prepare a letter at the end of construction regarding contractor compliance with project plans and specifications, and with the recommendations in our report. We will also be allowed to evaluate any conditions differing from those encountered during our investigation and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. For these reasons, the recommendations in this report are contingent of Cornerstone providing observation and testing during construction. Contractors should provide at least a 48-hour notice when scheduling our field personnel. SECTION 7: EARTHWORK
7.1 SITE DEMOLITION
All existing improvements not to be reused for the current development, including all foundations, flatwork, pavements, utilities, and other improvements should be demolished and removed from the site. Recommendations in this section apply to the removal of these
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 27
improvements prior to the start of mass grading or the construction of new improvements for the project. Cornerstone should be notified prior to the start of demolition and should be present on at least a part-time basis during all backfill and mass grading as a result of demolition. Occasionally, other types of buried structures (wells, cisterns, debris pits, etc.) can be found on sites with prior development. If encountered, Cornerstone should be contacted to address these types of
structures on a case-by-case basis.
7.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements
All slabs, foundations, and pavements should be completely removed from within planned building areas. A discussion of recycling existing improvements is provided later in this report. Special care should be taken during the demolition and removal of existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities and pavements to minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Excessive
disturbance of the subgrade, which includes either native or previously placed engineered fill, resulting from demolition activities can have serious detrimental effects on planned foundation and paving elements.
Existing foundations are typically mat-slabs, shallow footings, or piers/piles. If slab or shallow footings are encountered, they should be completely removed. If piles or drilled piers are encountered, they should be removed during excavation of the basement levels.
7.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities
All utilities should be completely removed from within planned building areas. We anticipate all
utilities will be removed from the building areas during excavation of the below-grade levels. If any portion of the buildings are at-grade, the utilities should be completely removed from within building areas. Utilities extending beyond the building area at the street level grade may be abandoned as recommended by the project Civil Engineer and or City of South San Francisco requirements. 7.2 SITE CLEARING AND PREPARATION
7.2.1 Site Stripping A majority of the site will be excavated for the below-grade basement levels and we anticipate
that any surface vegetation and subsurface improvements will be removed during the course of the basement levels excavation work. Demolition of existing improvements is discussed in the prior paragraphs. A detailed discussion of removal of existing fills is provided later in this report. In the development areas of the site that are left at street level grade, surface vegetation and topsoil should be stripped to a sufficient depth to remove all material greater than 3 percent organic content by weight. Based on our site observations, surficial stripping should extend about 2 to 3 inches below existing grade in vegetated areas.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 28
7.2.2 Tree and Shrub Removal Trees and shrubs designated for removal should have the root balls and any roots greater than ½-inch diameter removed completely. Mature trees are estimated to have root balls extending to depths of 2 to 4 feet, depending on the tree size. Significant root zones are anticipated to extend to the diameter of the tree canopy. Depressions resulting from root ball removal should be cleaned of loose material and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations in the
“Compaction” section of this report. 7.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING FILLS
As discussed, fill was encountered at the site within our explorations at depths of 2 to 5 feet; however, up to 22 feet of fill was encountered in one of our borings indicating that deeper
localized fills may likely be present at the site. Based on the proposed structures, existing fills will likely be removed during excavation for the below-grade levels. All fills should be completely removed from within building areas and to a lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond
the at-grade (street level) building footprint or to a lateral distance equal to the perimeter of the basement levels. Provided the fills meet the “Material for Fill” requirements below, the fills may be reused when backfilling the excavations. Based on review of the samples collected from our borings, it appears that the fill may be reused. If materials are encountered that do not meet the requirements, such as debris, wood, trash, those materials should be screened out of the remaining material and be removed from the site. Backfill of excavations should be placed in lifts and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.
Fills extending into planned pavement and flatwork areas may be left in place provided they are determined to be a low risk for future differential settlement and that the upper 12 to 18 inches of fill below pavement subgrade is re-worked and compacted as discussed in the “Compaction”
section below. 7.4 TEMPORARY CUT AND FILL SLOPES The contractor is responsible for maintaining all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. Temporary shoring, bracing, and cuts/fills should be performed in accordance with the strictest government safety standards. On a preliminary basis, the upper 30½ feet at the site may be classified as OSHA Soil Type C materials. However, a Cornerstone representative should be retained to confirm the preliminary site classification. Recommended soil parameters for temporary shoring are provided in the “Temporary Shoring” section of this report. Excavations extending more than 5 feet below building subgrade and excavations in pavement and flatwork areas shall be sloped, stepped, or shored in accordance with the OSHA soil
classification.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 29
7.5 BELOW-GRADE EXCAVATIONS Below-grade excavations may be constructed with temporary slopes in accordance with the “Temporary Cut and Fill Slopes” section above if space allows. Alternatively, temporary shoring may support the planned cuts up to 35¼ feet. We have provided geotechnical parameters for shoring design in the section below. The choice of shoring method should be left to the contractor’s judgment based on experience, economic considerations and adjacent
improvements such as utilities, pavements, and foundation loads. Temporary shoring should support adjacent improvements without distress and should be the contractor’s responsibility. A pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site
improvements should be included in the contractor’s scope. We should be provided the opportunity to review the geotechnical parameters of the shoring design prior to implementation; the project structural engineer should be consulted regarding support of adjacent structures.
7.5.1 Temporary Shoring
Based on the site conditions encountered during our investigation, the cuts of less than 30 feet deep may be supported by soldier beams and tiebacks, sheet piles, or soil mixed walls with internal bracing or tiebacks, or potentially other methods. Cuts greater than 30 feet deep should be shored with less pervious (water tight) walls consisting of SPTC or mixed-in-place soil/cement. Where shoring will extend more than about 10 feet, restrained shoring will most likely be required to limit detrimental lateral deflections and settlement behind the shoring. In addition to soil earth pressures, the shoring system will need to support adjacent loads such as construction vehicles and incidental loading, existing structure foundation loads, and street
loading. We recommend that heavy construction loads (cranes, etc.) and material stockpiles be kept at least 15 feet behind the shoring. Where this loading cannot be set back, the shoring will need to be designed to support the loading. The shoring designer should provide for timely and
uniform mobilization of soil pressures that will not result in excessive lateral deflections. Minimum suggested geotechnical parameters for shoring design are provided in the table below. Our recommended shoring design parameters are based on encountered primarily stiff, clay and silt, and dense, clayey and silty sand below a depth of approximately 35 feet and a design groundwater depth of 8 feet below current grades.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 30
Table 6: Suggested Temporary Shoring Design Parameters
Design Parameter Design Value
Minimum Lateral Wall Surcharge (upper 5 feet) 120 psf
Cantilever Wall – Triangular Earth Pressure 45 pcf(2)
Restrained Wall – Trapezoidal Earth Pressure Refer to FHWA Circular No. 4 Section 5.2.4(1)(3)
Passive Pressure – Starting at below the bottom of the adjacent excavation(2)(3). This includes a factor of safety of 2.0.
3,500 psf maximum uniform pressure
(1) H equals the height of the excavation; passive pressures are assumed to act over 2 times the soldier pile diameter. (2) The cantilever and restrained pressures are for drained designs with dewatering. If undrained shoring is designed, an additional 40 pcf should be added for hydrostatic pressures below the water table. (3) Bottom of adjacent excavation is bottom of mass excavation or bottom of mat foundation excavation, whichever is deeper directly adjacent to the shoring element. The restrained earth estimated for the “soft to medium” clay case shown on Figure 24(a) of the
FHWA Circular No. 4 – Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems. If shotcrete lagging is used for the shoring facing, the permanent retaining wall drainage materials, as discussed in the “Wall Drainage” section of this report, will need to be installed
during temporary shoring construction. At a minimum, 2-foot-wide vertical panels should be placed between soil nails or tiebacks that are spaced at 6-foot centers. For 8-foot centers, 4-foot-wide vertical panels should be provided. A horizontal strip drain connecting the vertical
panels should be provided, or pass-through connections should be included for each vertical panel.
We performed our borings with hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and as such were not able to evaluate the potential for caving soils, which can create difficult conditions during soldier beam, tie-back, or micro-pile installation; caving soils can also be problematic during excavation and lagging placement. The contractor is responsible for evaluating excavation difficulties prior to construction. Where relatively clean sands (especially encountered below ground water) or difficult drilling or cobble conditions were encountered during our exploration, pilot holes performed by the contractor may be desired to further evaluate these conditions prior to the finalization of the shoring budget. In addition to anticipated deflection of the shoring system, other factors such as voids created by soil sloughing, and erosion of granular layers due to perched water conditions can create
adverse ground subsidence and deflections. The contractor should attempt to cut the excavation as close to neat lines as possible; where voids are created they should be backfilled as soon as possible with sand, gravel, or grout.
As previously mentioned, we recommend that a monitoring program be developed and implemented to evaluate the effects of the shoring on adjacent improvements. All sensitive improvements should be located and monitored for horizontal and vertical deflections and
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 31
distress cracking based on a pre-construction survey. For multi-level excavations, the installation of inclinometers at critical areas may be desired for more detailed deflection monitoring. The monitoring frequency should be established and agree to by the project team prior to start of shoring construction. The above recommendations are for the use of the design team; the contractor in conjunction with input from the shoring designer should perform additional subsurface exploration they
deem necessary to design the chosen shoring system. A California-licensed civil or structural engineer must design and be in responsible charge of the temporary shoring design. The contractor is responsible for means and methods of construction, as well as site safety.
7.5.2 Construction Dewatering
Groundwater levels are expected to be about 5 to 22¼ feet above the planned 1- and 2-level basement excavation bottoms; therefore, temporary dewatering will be necessary during construction. Design, selection of the equipment and dewatering method, and construction of
temporary dewatering should be the responsibility of the contractor. Modifications to the dewatering system are often required in layered alluvial soils and should be anticipated by the contractor. The dewatering plan, including planned dewatering well filter pack materials, should be forwarded to our office for review prior to implementation. The dewatering design should maintain groundwater at least 5 feet below the bottom of the mass excavation, and at least 2 feet below localized excavations such as deepened footings, elevator shafts, and utilities. If the dewatering system was to shut down for an extended period
of time, destabilization and/or heave of the excavation bottom requiring over-excavation and stabilization, flooding and softening, and/or shoring failures could occur; therefore, we recommend that a backup power source be considered. Dewatering from within the
excavations may also be needed to mitigate nuisance water that may enter the excavation by lateral seepage. Temporary draw down of the groundwater table can cause the subsidence outside the excavation area, causing settlement of adjacent improvements. As draw-down of existing groundwater of 17 to 35¼ feet are planned for 1- and 2-level basements, respectively, we evaluated the potential deflection of adjacent improvements. We estimate there could be up to 2 inches of settlement for the deeper (i.e. 35 feet) excavations. If this settlement is deemed excessive, we recommend alternative shoring methods such as tied back slurry walls or soil mixed curtain walls be considered with a revised dewatering plan. Depending on the groundwater quality and previous environmental impacts to the site and surrounding area, settlement and storage tanks, particulate filtration, and environmental testing may be required prior to discharge, either into storm or sanitary, or trucked to an off-site facility.
7.6 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Subgrade preparation for this project will occur in the soils at two general levels: 1) the basement levels (i.e. 17 to 35¼ feet below existing site grade) and 2) the street level including
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 32
any driveway ramps that are built to excess the basement above the bottom of the basement levels. Our recommendations are presented below for each of these general levels. 7.6.1 Subgrade Preparation for Below-Grade Levels The following recommendations are made based on these means and methods assumptions: Shoring will be installed, and excavation will proceed downward within 2 to 3 feet from the
design basement subgrade (i.e. bottom of rat slab) then drilling contractor will install tie downs above the final basement subgrade. Effective dewatering would be implemented, however some incidental (i.e. “nuisance”) water should be expected and mitigation for such is discussed
below. The final cut will be made with a mini-excavator or similar equipment to subgrade by trimming “neat” with a smooth edge bucket working from above the subgrade level. It is assumed that equipment will not work at the subgrade level because there is a risk that the
subgrade would be disturbed requiring additional compaction, over-excavation, etc. As the cut is being made, our staff would be present to observe and confirm the exposed soil
conditions. In general, one of two or a combination of both soil conditions will be exposed: 1) undisturbed, stable subgrade or 2) wet and pumping, unstable subgrade. Our general recommendations for each condition are presented below. Our staff should observe the conditions and provide supplemental recommendations as needed during construction. For an undisturbed stable subgrade, trimming neat is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint. We recommend that rat slab be placed soon after the subgrade is made. If there is a small amount of loose materials, statically proof-rolling with a small smooth drum roller could be
performed to tighten up the subgrade before placing the rat slab. The goal of the subgrade preparation at the basement level is to have a firm and unyielding surface to place the rat slab upon. No compaction testing would be performed, instead, our staff would observe the subgrade conditions to confirm that the subgrade preparation goals have been achieved prior to placement of the rat slab. We note that “nuisance” water can cause the subgrade to soften if not addressed, mitigation recommendations are presented below.
If wet, pumping/rutting, unstable subgrade is encountered, over-excavating an additional 12 inches (maybe up to 18 inches, if instability is severe), placement of geotextile fabric (Mirafi 600x or approved equal) and ¾ inch crushed rock that is consolidated with a small vibratory roller or turtle is recommended to provide a stable surface to place the rat slab. Consolidation of the crushed rock is an observation task. No compaction testing would be performed; instead,
our staff would observe the subgrade conditions to confirm that the subgrade preparation goals have been achieved prior to placement of the rat slab. Based on our project discussions, mitigation of unstable subgrade would be performed under an “Allowance” from the owner, we recommend that unit pricing be secured from the general contractor and appropriate subcontractor for such work. As an alternative to over-excavation and replacement with crushed rock, depending on the soil conditions, mixing/blending bulk cement into the upper 8 to 12 inches of the soil with an excavator and compacting the mix could be considered. On a preliminary basis, this would involve excavating the soil and mixing 2 to 4 percent cement into the soil with an excavator then
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 33
placing the soil and compacting it with a smooth drum roller. Once the cement hydrates, our experience is that the soil cement mixture achieves the goal of the subgrade preparation and provides a firm and unyielding surface to place the rat slab upon. No compaction testing would be performed, instead, our staff would observe the subgrade conditions to confirm that the subgrade preparation goals have been achieved prior to placement of the rat slab. We would recommend that the compacted soil/cement mixture be allowed to “cure” for at least 24 to 48 hours prior to placement of the rat slab to confirm that the mixture has hardened. Mixing an 8-
to 12-inch thick layer of the soil at the basement subgrade would only be considered if the wet, pumping/rutting layer is shallow and the soils beneath it are not pumping. Based on our project discussions, mitigation of unstable subgrade using cement to stabilize the conditions would be
performed under an “Allowance” from the owner. We recommend that unit pricing be secured from the general contractor and appropriate subcontractor for such work. For the purposes of unit pricing, a unit weight of 125 pcf which translates to 2½ pounds (i.e. 2 percent) to 5 (i.e. 4
percent) pounds of bulk cement per square foot of surface area for a 12-inch depth of mixing. During construction, based on the soil conditions observed, we may provide supplemental recommendations for adjustment of the cement percentages or addition of lime to the mixture to
mitigate the exposed soil conditions. Another issue to consider in the subgrade preparation and water proofing preparation for the basement level is the likely presence of incidental or “nuisance” water that finds its way into the excavation even with effective dewatering. Additionally, the drilling of micro-pile tie downs may cause additional groundwater seepage into the excavation, appropriate drilling techniques should be implemented to minimize groundwater seepage from micro-piles and tiebacks. To mitigate this condition, we recommend excavating a shallow perimeter trench (12 to 18 inches
deep) and ditching the water to the edge of the gravel pack of the dewatering wells. The trench should be lined with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equal and backfilled with ¾ inch washed crushed rock that is consolidated with a “whacker” or approved equal. Excavating
“finger” trenches into the site may be needed to intercept water that is ponding away from the perimeter. Based on our project experience, mitigation of “nuisance” water conditions would be performed under an “Allowance” from the owner. We recommend that unit pricing be secured from the general contractor and appropriate subcontractor for such work. Consolidation of the crushed rock is an observation task; no compaction testing would be performed. Due to the sandy soils likely to be encountered at the basement subgrade elevation, we recommend that subgrade compaction and proof rolling be performed within 24 to 48 hours of the rat slab placement unless the site conditions at the time of construction appear favorable to waiting longer periods of time to place the rat slab. 7.6.2 Subgrade Preparation for the Street Level After site clearing and demolition is complete, and prior to backfilling any excavations resulting
from fill removal or demolition, the at-grade subgrade and subgrade within areas to receive additional site fills, slabs-on-grade and/or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 34
7.7 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION MEASURES (STREET LEVEL) Soil subgrade and fill materials, especially soils with high fines contents such as clays and silty soils, can become unstable due to high moisture content, whether from high in-situ moisture contents or from winter rains. As the moisture content increases over the laboratory optimum, it becomes more likely the materials will be subject to softening and yielding (pumping) from construction loading or become unworkable during placement and compaction.
As discussed in the “Subsurface” section in this report, the in-situ moisture contents are about 0 to 10 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum in the upper 10 feet of the soil profile, and
about 5 to 10 percent above in below 10 feet. The contractor should anticipate drying the soils prior to reusing them as fill. In addition, repetitive rubber-tire loading will likely de-stabilize the soils.
There are several methods to address potential unstable soil conditions and facilitate fill placement and trench backfill. Some of the methods to address potential unstable soil at the
basement levels were discussed in Section 7.6.1 above. Some of the methods are briefly discussed below. Implementation of the appropriate stabilization measures should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the project construction goals and the particular site conditions. 7.7.1 Scarification and Drying The subgrade may be scarified to a depth of 6 to 12 inches and allowed to dry to near optimum
conditions, if sufficient dry weather is anticipated to allow sufficient drying. More than one round of scarification may be needed to break up the soil clods. 7.7.2 Removal and Replacement As an alternative to scarification, the contractor may choose to over-excavate the unstable soils and replace them with dry on-site or import materials. A Cornerstone representative should be present to provide recommendations regarding the appropriate depth of over-excavation, whether a geosynthethic (stabilization fabric or geogrid) is recommended, and what materials are recommended for backfill. 7.7.3 Chemical Treatment Where the unstable area exceeds about 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and/or site winterization is desired, chemical treatment with quicklime (CaO), kiln-dust, or cement may be more cost-effective than removal and replacement. Recommended chemical treatment depths will typically range from 12 to 18 inches depending on the magnitude of the instability.
7.7.4 Below-Grade Excavation Stabilization
Subgrade stabilization measures for the below-grade basement excavation are provided in Section 7.6.1 above.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 35
7.8 MATERIAL FOR FILL 7.8.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils On-site soils with an organic content less than 3 percent by weight may be reused as general fill. General fill should not have lumps, clods or cobble pieces larger than 6 inches in diameter; 85 percent of the fill should be smaller than 2½ inches in diameter. Minor amounts of oversize
material (smaller than 12 inches in diameter) may be allowed provided the oversized pieces are not allowed to nest together and the compaction method will allow for loosely placed lifts not exceeding 12 inches.
7.8.2 Re-Use of On-Site Site Improvements
We anticipate that significant quantities of asphalt concrete (AC) grindings, aggregate base (AB), and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) will be generated during site demolition. If the AC grindings are mixed with the underlying AB to meet Class 2 AB specifications, they may be
reused within the new pavement and flatwork structural sections, including within below-grade parking garage slab-on-grade areas (provided crushed rock is not required due to the proximity to groundwater). AC/AB grindings may not be reused within the occupied building areas. Laboratory testing will be required to confirm the grindings meet project specifications. Due to the existing alligator cracking of the AC pavements, it is likely that the grinding operation will leave significant oversize chunks and won’t meet the Class 2 AB gradation requirements but may meet Caltrans subbase requirements. Depending on the quantities of oversized material, the grindings may still be used within the structural section; however, the pavement design will
need to be modified to account for the difference, typically resulting in the addition of about 1 inch to the structural section.
If the site area allows for on-site pulverization of PCC and provided the PCC is pulverized to meet the “Material for Fill” requirements of this report, it may be used as select fill within the building areas, excluding the capillary break layer; as typically pulverized PCC comes close to or meets Class 2 AB specifications, the recycled PCC may likely be used within the pavement structural sections. PCC grindings also make good winter construction access roads, similar to a cement-treated base (CTB) section. 7.8.3 Potential Import Sources Imported and non-expansive material should be inorganic with a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less, and not contain recycled asphalt concrete where it will be used within the building areas. To prevent significant caving during trenching or foundation construction, imported material should have sufficient fines. Samples of potential import sources should be delivered to our office at least 10 days prior to the desired import start date. Information regarding the import
source should be provided, such as any site geotechnical reports. If the material will be derived from an excavation rather than a stockpile, potholes will likely be required to collect samples from throughout the depth of the planned cut that will be imported. At a minimum, laboratory
testing will include PI tests. Material data sheets for select fill materials (Class 2 aggregate base, ¾-inch crushed rock, quarry fines, etc.) listing current laboratory testing data (not older
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 36
than 6 months from the import date) may be provided for our review without providing a sample. If current data is not available, specification testing will need to be completed prior to approval. Environmental and soil corrosion characterization should also be considered by the project team prior to acceptance. Suitable environmental laboratory data to the planned import quantity should be provided to the project environmental consultant; additional laboratory testing may be required based on the project environmental consultant’s review. The potential import source
should also not be more corrosive than the on-site soils, based on pH, saturated resistivity, and soluble sulfate and chloride testing. 7.8.4 Non-Expansive Fill Using Lime Treatment As discussed above, non-expansive fill should have a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less. Due to
the high clay content and PI of the on-site soil materials, it is not likely that sufficient quantities of non-expansive fill would be generated from cut materials. As an alternative to importing non-expansive fill, chemical treatment can be considered to create non-expansive fill. It has been
our experience that for high PI clayey soil materials will likely need to be mixed with at least 5 percent quicklime (CaO) or approved equivalent to adequately reduce the PI of the on-site soils to 15 or less. If this option is considered, additional laboratory tests should be performed during initial site grading to further evaluate the optimum percentage of quicklime required. 7.9 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS All fills, and subgrade areas where fill, slabs-on-grade, and pavements are planned, should be
placed in loose lifts 8 inches thick or less and compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557 (latest version) requirements as shown in the table below. In general, clayey soils should be compacted with sheepsfoot equipment and sandy/gravelly soils with vibratory equipment; open-
graded materials such as crushed rock should be placed in lifts no thicker than 18 inches consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. Each lift of fill and all subgrade should be firm and unyielding under construction equipment loading in addition to meeting the compaction requirements to be approved. The contractor (with input from a Cornerstone representative) should evaluate the in-situ moisture conditions, as the use of vibratory equipment on soils with high moistures can cause unstable conditions. General recommendations for soil stabilization are provided in the “Subgrade Stabilization Measures” section of this report. Where the soil’s PI is 20 or greater, the expansive soil criteria should be used.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 37
Table 7: Compaction Requirements
Description
Material Description
Minimum Relative1 Compaction (percent)
Moisture2 Content
(percent)
General Fill On-Site Expansive Soils 87 – 92 >3
(within upper 5 feet) Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
General Fill On-Site Expansive Soils 93 >3
(below a depth of 5 feet) Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Basement Wall Backfill Without Surface Improvements 90 >1
Basement Wall Backfill With Surface Improvements 93 to 954 >1
Trench Backfill On-Site Expansive Soils 87 – 92 >3
Trench Backfill Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
Trench Backfill (upper 6 inches of
subgrade)
On-Site Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Crushed Rock Fill ¾-inch Clean Crushed Rock Consolidate In-Place NA
Non-Expansive Fill Imported Non-Expansive Fill 90 Optimum
Flatwork Subgrade On-Site Expansive Soils 87 - 92 >3
Flatwork Subgrade Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
Flatwork Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 90 Optimum
Pavement Subgrade On-Site Expansive Soils 87 - 92 >3
Pavement Subgrade Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Pavement Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 95 Optimum
Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete 91 – 97 (Caltrans) NA
1 – Relative compaction based on maximum density determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 2 – Moisture content based on optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 3 – Class 2 aggregate base shall conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, except that the relative compaction should be determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 4 – Using light-weight compaction or walls should be braced 7.9.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change when dried then wetted. The contractor
should keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, re-moisture conditioning may require several days of re-wetting (flooding is not recommended), or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction. 7.10 TRENCH BACKFILL Utility lines constructed within public right-of-way should be trenched, bedded and shaded, and backfilled in accordance with the local or governing jurisdictional requirements. Utility lines in
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 38
private improvement areas should be constructed in accordance with the following requirements unless superseded by other governing requirements. All utility lines should be bedded and shaded to at least 6 inches over the top of the lines with crushed rock (⅜-inch-diameter or greater) or well-graded sand and gravel materials conforming to the pipe manufacturer’s requirements. Open-graded shading materials should be consolidated in place with vibratory equipment and well-graded materials should be compacted
to at least 90 percent relative compaction with vibratory equipment prior to placing subsequent backfill materials.
General backfill over shading materials may consist of on-site native materials provided they meet the requirements in the “Material for Fill” section, and are moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements in the “Compaction” section.
Where utility lines will cross perpendicular to strip footings, the footing should be deepened to encase the utility line, providing sleeves or flexible cushions to protect the pipes from anticipated
foundation settlement, or the utility lines should be backfilled to the bottom of footing with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete. Where utility lines will parallel footings and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, either the footing will need to be deepened so that the pipe is above the foundation plane of influence or the utility trench will need to be backfilled with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete within the influence zone. Sand-cement slurry used within foundation influence zones should have a minimum compressive strength of 75 psi.
On expansive soils sites it is desirable to reduce the potential for water migration into building and pavement areas through the granular shading materials. We recommend that a plug of low-permeability clay soil, sand-cement slurry, or lean concrete be placed within trenches just
outside where the trenches pass into building and pavement areas. 7.11 SITE DRAINAGE Ponding should not be allowed adjacent to building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements. Hardscape surfaces should slope at least 2 percent towards suitable discharge facilities; landscape areas should slope at least 3 percent towards suitable discharge facilities. Roof runoff should be directed away from building areas in closed conduits, to approved infiltration facilities, or on to hardscaped surfaces that drain to suitable facilities. Retention, detention or infiltration facilities should be spaced at least 10 feet from buildings, and preferably at least 5 feet from slabs-on-grade or pavements. However, if retention, detention or infiltration facilities are located within these zones, we recommend that these treatment facilities meet the requirements in the Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations section of this report. 7.12 LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) IMPROVEMENTS The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requires regulated projects to treat 100 percent of the
amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d from a regulated project’s drainage area with low impact development (LID) treatment measures onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 39
LID treatment measures are defined as rainwater harvesting and use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. A biotreatment system may only be used if it is infeasible to implement harvesting and use, infiltration, or evapotranspiration at a project site. Technical infeasibility of infiltration may result from site conditions that restrict the operability of infiltration measures and devices. Various factors affecting the feasibility of infiltration treatment may create an environmental risk, structural stability risk, or physically restrict infiltration. The
presence of any of these limiting factors may render infiltration technically infeasible for a proposed project. To aid in determining if infiltration may be feasible at the site, we provide the following site information regarding factors that may aid in determining the feasibility of
infiltration facilities at the site.
The near-surface soils at the site are clayey and categorized as Hydrologic Soil Group D
and is expected to have infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour. In our opinion, these clayey soils will significantly limit the infiltration of stormwater.
Locally, seasonal high groundwater is not mapped in the area, but was encountered as high as 8 feet below grade in our borings, and therefore is expected to be within 10 feet below the base of the infiltration measure.
The site is known to have pollutants with the potential for mobilization as a result of infiltration.
In our opinion, infiltration locations within 10 feet of the buildings would create a
geotechnical hazard. 7.12.1 Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations If storm water treatment improvements, such as shallow bio-retention swales, basins or pervious pavements, are required as part of the site improvements to satisfy Storm Water
Quality (C.3) requirements, we recommend the following items be considered for design and construction. 7.12.1.1 General Bioswale Design Guidelines
If possible, avoid placing bioswales or basins within 10 feet of the building perimeter or
within 5 feet of exterior flatwork or pavements. If bioswales must be constructed within these setbacks, the side(s) and bottom of the trench excavation should be lined with 10-mil visqueen to reduce water infiltration into the surrounding expansive clay.
Bioswales constructed within 3 feet of proposed buildings may be within the foundation zone of influence for perimeter wall loads. Therefore, where bioswales will parallel foundations and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the foundation, the foundation will need to be deepened so that the bottom edge of the bioswale filter material is above the foundation plane of influence.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 40
The bottom of bioswale or detention areas should include a perforated drain placed at a low point, such as a shallow trench or sloped bottom, to reduce water infiltration into the surrounding soils near structural improvements, and to address the low infiltration capacity of the on-site clay soils. 7.12.1.2 Bioswale Infiltration Material
Gradation specifications for bioswale filter material, if required, should be specified on the grading and improvement plans.
Compaction requirements for bioswale filter material in non-landscaped areas or in pervious pavement areas, if any, should be indicated on the plans and specifications to satisfy the anticipated use of the infiltration area.
If required, infiltration (percolation) testing should be performed on representative samples of potential bioswale materials prior to construction to check for general
conformance with the specified infiltration rates.
It should be noted that multiple laboratory tests may be required to evaluate the properties of the bioswale materials, including percolation, landscape suitability and possibly environmental analytical testing depending on the source of the material. We recommend that the landscape architect provide input on the required landscape suitability tests if bioswales are to be planted.
If bioswales are to be vegetated, the landscape architect should select planting materials that do not reduce or inhibit the water infiltration rate, such as covering the bioswale with grass sod containing a clayey soil base.
If required by governing agencies, field infiltration testing should be specified on the grading and improvement plans. The appropriate infiltration test method, duration and
frequency of testing should be specified in accordance with local requirements.
Due to the relatively loose consistency and/or high organic content of many bioswale filter materials, long-term settlement of the bioswale medium should be anticipated. To reduce initial volume loss, bioswale filter material should be wetted in 12-inch lifts during placement to pre-consolidate the material. Mechanical compaction should not be
allowed, unless specified on the grading and improvement plans, since this could significantly decrease the infiltration rate of the bioswale materials.
It should be noted that the volume of bioswale filter material may decrease over time depending on the organic content of the material. Additional filter material may need to be added to bioswales after the initial exposure to winter rains and periodically over the life of the bioswale areas, as needed.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 41
7.12.1.3 Bioswale Construction Adjacent to Pavements If bio-infiltration swales or basins are considered adjacent to proposed parking lots or exterior flatwork, we recommend that mitigative measures be considered in the design and construction of these facilities to reduce potential impacts to flatwork or pavements. Exterior flatwork, concrete curbs, and pavements located directly adjacent to bio-swales may be susceptible to settlement or lateral movement, depending on the configuration of the bioswale and the setback
between the improvements and edge of the swale. To reduce the potential for distress to these improvements due to vertical or lateral movement, the following options should be considered by the project civil engineer:
Improvements should be setback from the vertical edge of a bioswale such that there is at least 2 feet of horizontal distance between the edge of improvements and the top
edge of the bioswale excavation for every 1 foot of vertical bioswale depth, or
Concrete curbs for pavements, or lateral restraint for exterior flatwork, located directly
adjacent to a vertical bioswale cut should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures in accordance with the recommendations in the “Retaining Walls” section of this report, or concrete curbs or edge restraint should be adequately keyed into the native soil or engineered to reduce the potential for rotation or lateral movement of the curbs. 7.13 LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS Since the near-surface soils are moderately to highly expansive, we recommend greatly
reducing the amount of surface water infiltrating these soils for at-grade foundations and exterior slabs-on-grade. This can typically be achieved by:
Using drip irrigation
Avoiding open planting within 3 feet of the building perimeter or near the top of existing
slopes
Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawns or planter areas by using irrigation timers
Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially near foundations. We recommend that the landscape architect consider these items when developing landscaping plans. SECTION 8: 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
We developed site-specific seismic design parameters in accordance with Chapter 16, Chapter 18 and Appendix J of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and Chapters 11, 12, 20, and 21 and Supplement No. 1 of ASCE 7-16.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 42
8.1 SITE LOCATION AND PROVIDED DATA FOR 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN The project is located at latitude 37.641445° and longitude -122.415255°, which is based on Google Earth (WGS84) coordinates at the approximate center of the site at 54 Tanforan Avenue in South San Francisco, California. We have assumed that a Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.00 has been assigned to the structure in accordance with Table 1.5-2 of ASCE 7-16 for structures classified as Risk Category II. The building period has not been provided by the
project structural engineer. 8.2 SITE CLASSIFICATION – CHAPTER 20 OF ASCE 7-16
Code-based site classification and ground motion attenuation relationships are based on the time-weighted average shear wave velocity of the top approximately 100 feet (30 meters) of the
soil profile (VS30). As discussed in Section 3 of our 2019 report, our explorations generally encountered medium
dense to very dense sands with varying amounts of clay and silt and medium stiff to hard clay deposits to a depth of 100 feet, the maximum depth explored. Shear wave velocity (VS) measurements were performed while advancing CPTs 7, 17, 18, 11A, and 12A, resulting in a time-averaged shear wave velocity for the top 30 meters (VS30) of approximately 290 meters per second. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16, we recommend the site be classified as Soil Classification D, which is described as a “stiff soil” profile. Because we used site specific data from our explorations and laboratory testing, the site class should be considered as “determined” for the purposes of estimating the seismic design parameters from the code
outlined below. Site Response Analysis considered a VS30 of 290 m/s (951 ft/s). 8.2.1 Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters Code-based spectral acceleration parameters were determined based on mapped acceleration response parameters adjusted for the specific site conditions. Mapped Risk-Adjusted Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral acceleration parameters (SS and S1) were determined using the ATC Hazards by Location website (https://hazards.atcouncil.org). The mapped acceleration parameters were adjusted for local site conditions based on the average soil conditions for the upper 100 feet (30 meters) of the soil profile. Code-based MCER spectral response acceleration parameters adjusted for site effects (SMS and SM1) and design
spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) are presented in Table 1. In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, structures on Site Class D sites with mapped 1-second period spectral acceleration (S1) values greater than or equal to 0.2 require a Site Response Analysis be performed in accordance with Section 21.1 of ASCE 7-16. Design seismic parameters determined by performing a Site Response Analysis per Section 21.1
of ASCE 7-16 are presented in Table 8. Recommended values in Table 8 should not be used for design. Values summarized in Table 8 are only used to determine Seismic Design Category and comparison with minimum code requirements for further use in our Site Response Analysis (SRA).
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 43
Table 8: 2019 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients
Classification/Coefficient Design Value
Site Class D
Site Latitude 37.641445°
Site Longitude -122.415255°
Risk Category II
Short Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration – SS 2.138g
1-second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration – S1 0.888g
Short-Period Site Coefficient – Fa 1.0
Long-Period Site Coefficient – Fv *null
Short Period MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects – SMS 2.138g
1-second Period MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects – SM1 *null
Short Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration – SDS 1.425g
1-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – SD1 *null
Long-Period Transition – TL 12 seconds
Site Coefficient – FPGA 1.1
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration – PGAM 1.008g
*null – per section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 8.3 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS Following Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, our technical partner, Robert Pyke, PhD., GE performed a SRA in accordance with Chapter 21, Section 21.1. The details of the SRA are
presented in Appendix C. The recommended MCE Spectrum is shown graphically on Figure 13 and tabulated in Table 2 of Appendix C.
The recommended seismic design parameters are summarized in Table 9. When using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure, ASCE 7-16 Section 21.4 allows using the
spectral acceleration at any period (T) in lieu of SD1/T in Eq. 12.8-3 and SD1TL/T2 in Eq. 12.8-4. The site-specific spectral acceleration at any period may be calculated by interpolation of the spectral ordinates in Table 2, Appendix C. We note that the recommended MCE spectrum apply to structures founded at the ground surface. They will likely be conservative for the design of the embedded mat/pile supported structures and analysis for individual buildings may allow for a reduction to as low as 70 percent of the standard code spectrum in accordance with Section 19.2.3(4) of ASCE 7-16if additional analyses are performed.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 44
Table 9: Site-Specific Design Acceleration Parameters
Parameter Value
SDS 1.22g
SD1 1.22g
SMS 1.829
SM1 1.82g
SECTION 9: FOUNDATIONS 9.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed, the at-grade structures (i.e. Buildings B1, B2, and B7) will be supported on one to two levels of below-grade parking (PS-A) and PS-C (8 levels at-grade) will also include two
levels of below-grade parking. Therefore, in our opinion, the proposed parking structures (PS-A and PS-C) may be supported on shallow foundations consisting of mat slab foundations provided the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section and the sections below are followed.
9.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 9.2.1 Spread Footings (at-grade one story structures) Spread footings should bear on natural, undisturbed soil or engineered fill, and extend at least __ inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Lowest adjacent grade is defined as the deeper of the following: 1) bottom of the adjacent interior slab-on-grade, or 2) finished exterior grade, excluding landscaping topsoil. The deeper footing embedment is due to the presence of highly expansive soils and is intended to embed the footing below the zone of significant seasonal moisture fluctuation, reducing the potential for differential movement.
Footings constructed to the above dimensions and in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report are capable of supporting maximum allowable bearing
pressures of 2,000 psf for dead loads, 3,000 psf for combined dead plus live loads, and 4,000 psf for all loads including wind and seismic. These pressures are based on factors of safety of 3.0, 2.0, and 1.5 applied to the ultimate bearing pressure for dead, dead plus live, and all loads,
respectively. These pressures are net values; the weight of the footing may be neglected for the portion of the footing extending below grade (typically, the full footing depth). Top and bottom mats of reinforcing steel should be included in continuous footings to help span irregularities and differential settlement. 9.2.2 Footing Settlement Structural loads were not provided to us at the time this report was prepared; therefore, we assumed the typical loading in the following table.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 45
Table 10: Assumed Structural Loading
Foundation Area Range of Assumed Loads
Interior Isolated Column Footing 50 to 75 kips
Exterior Isolated Column Footing 50 to 75 kips
Perimeter Strip Footing 4 to 6 kips per lineal foot
Based on the above loading and the allowable bearing pressures presented above, we estimate the total static footing settlement will be on the order of ¾ inch, with about ½ inch of post-construction differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements, assumed to be on the order of 30 feet. As our footing loads were assumed, we recommend we be retained to review the final footing layout and loading and verify the settlement estimates above. 9.2.3 Lateral Loading
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of footing and the supporting subgrade, and also by passive pressures generated against footing sidewalls. An ultimate
frictional resistance of 0.45 applied to the footing dead load, and an ultimate passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 450 pcf may be used in design. The structural engineer should apply an appropriate factor of safety (such as 1.5) to the ultimate values above.
Where footings are adjacent to landscape areas without hardscape, the upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected when determining passive pressure capacity. 9.2.4 Spread Footing Construction Considerations
Where utility lines will cross perpendicular to strip footings, the footing should be deepened to encase the utility line, providing sleeves or flexible cushions to protect the pipes from anticipated foundation settlement, or the utility lines should be backfilled to the bottom of footing with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete. Where utility lines will parallel footings and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, either the footing will need to be deepened so that the pipe is above the foundation
plane of influence or the utility trench will need to be backfilled with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete within the influence zone. Sand-cement slurry used within foundation influence zones should have a minimum compressive strength of 75 psi.
Footing excavations should be filled as soon as possible or be kept moist until concrete placement by regular sprinkling to prevent desiccation. A Cornerstone representative should observe all footing excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. If there is a significant schedule delay between our initial observation and concrete placement, we may need to re-observe the excavations. 9.2.5 Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundations (below-grade basement structures)
Reinforced concrete mat foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 46
The mat foundations for the structures may be designed for a maximum average allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads; at column or wall loading the maximum localized bearing pressure should not exceed 2,500 psf. When evaluating wind and seismic conditions, allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third. These pressures are net vales; the weight of the mat may be neglected for the portion of the mat extending below grade. Top and bottom mats of reinforcing steel should be included as required to help span irregularities and differential settlement (as determined by the structural
engineer). If the assumed weight (average areal bearing pressures) is higher than previously provided, or there are other aspects of design not accounted for in this report, please notify us so that we may revise our recommendations. As described below, once final contact pressures
are available for review, please forward a copy for our final analysis. 9.2.6 Preliminary Mat Foundation Settlement
The preliminary static settlement estimates presented below are based on assumed loads of 125 psf per floor for steel structures (i.e. Buildings B1, B2, and B7) and 150 psf per floor for
concrete structures (i.e. PS-A and PS-C). As our structural loads are assumed, we recommend we be retained to review the final foundation plan and loading and to verify the settlement estimates above. Table 11: Preliminary Static Settlement Estimates
Proposed Structure Total Settlement (in) Differential Settlement (in)*
4-Story Steel-Frame over 1 Level Below Grade ½ ¼
4-Story Steel-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade ½ <½
6-Story Steel-Frame over 1 Level Below Grade ½ <½
6-Story Steel-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade ¾ <½
8-Level Concrete-Frame over 2 Levels Below Grade 1 ½
*Settlement between the center and the edges of the mat slab. If foundations designed in accordance with the above recommendations are not capable of resisting such differential movement, settlement mitigation or an alternative foundation type may
be required. Settlement mitigation could possibly include ground improvement to reduce settlement beneath the structures’ footprint or the use of a deep foundation system. As mentioned, we recommend we be retained to review the final loading and further evaluate settlement estimates above. 9.2.7 Preliminary Mat Modulus of Soil Subgrade Reaction
The modulus of soil subgrade reaction is a model element that represents the response to a specific loading condition, including the magnitude, rate, and shape of loading, given the subsurface conditions at that location. Design experts recommend using a variable modulus of soil subgrade reaction to provide a more accurate soil response and prediction of shears and
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 47
moments in the mats. This will require at least one iteration between our soil model and the structural SAFE (or similar) analysis for the mat. Based on the provided contact pressures above, we calculated preliminary modulus of soil subgrade reactions for the mat foundation. For preliminary SAFE runs (or equivalent analysis), we recommend an initial modulus of soil subgrade reaction of 10 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the mat foundation. This soil modulus can be increased to 20 pci within 5 feet of the mat edges.
As discussed above, the modulus of soil subgrade reaction is intended for use in the first iteration of the structural SAFE analysis for the mat design. Once the initial structural analysis is complete, please forward a color plot of contact pressures for the mat (to scale) so that we can
provide a revised plan with updated contours of equal modulus of soil subgrade reaction values. 9.2.8 Lateral Loading
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of mat foundation and the supporting subgrade, and also by passive pressures generated against deepened mat edges.
An ultimate frictional resistance of 0.45 applied to the mat dead load, and an ultimate passive pressure based on a uniform pressure of 4,500 psf may be used in design. The structural engineer should apply an appropriate factor of safety (such as 2.0) to the ultimate values above. The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected when determining passive pressure capacity. 9.2.9 Hydrostatic Uplift and Waterproofing Where portions of the structures extend below the design ground water level, including bottoms
of slabs-on-grade and mat foundations, they should be designed to resist potential hydrostatic uplift pressures. Retaining walls extending below design ground water should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressure for the full wall height. Where portions of the walls
extend above the design ground water level, a drainage system may be added as discussed in the “Retaining Wall” section. In addition, the portions of the structures extending below design ground water should be waterproofed to limit moisture infiltration, including mat foundation/thickened slab areas, all construction joints, and any retaining walls. We recommend that a waterproof specialist design the waterproofing system. 9.2.10 Mat Foundation Construction Considerations Prior to placement of any vapor retarder or waterproofing and mat construction, the subgrade should be proof-rolled and visually observed by a Cornerstone representative to confirm stable subgrade conditions. As the planned basement excavation will extend below the current groundwater level, we recommend that the contractor plan for stabilization of the excavation
bottom to provide a working platform upon which to construct the foundation. As discussed in the subgrade preparation and stabilization sections of this report, this may include excavating an additional 12 to 18 inches below subgrade, placing a layer of stabilization fabric (Mirifi 500x
or approved equivalent) at the bottom, and backfilling with clean, crushed rock. The crushed rock should be consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. Rubber tired and heavy track
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 48
equipment should not be allowed to operate on the exposed subgrade; the crushed rock should be stockpiled and pushed out over the stabilization fabric. Because of the water table, we anticipate that chemically treating the bottom with lime treatment may not be feasible due to the concern of additional water inflow during the time frame needed for the mixing, curing and compaction. The pad moisture should also be checked at least 24 hours prior to vapor barrier or mat reinforcement placement to confirm that the soil has a moisture content of at least 1 percent over optimum in the upper 12 inches.
SECTION 10: MICRO-PILES 10.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, micro-piles may be used to resist the design hydrostatic uplift forces beneath
interior columns and the building perimeter provided the recommendations in the “Earthwork” and “Foundation” sections and the sections below are followed. Seismic design criteria in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code are presented in Section 8 and Appendix C. 10.2 MICRO-PILES FOR TENSION AND COMPRESSION LOADS
We understand micro-piles will be implemented to resist the hydrostatic uplift forces. The depth, spacing, and number of micro-piles depends on the strength of the soil, the geometry of the building foundation, and the required capacity. The design of the micro-piles should be
performed in accordance with CBC Section 1810.3.10 including 1810.3.10.4, Seismic Requirements and PTI Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors (PTI, 2004). For design and project budgeting purposes, the following criteria can be used for micro-pile design.
Reinforcement should have Class I corrosion protection; steel casing should have at least 1/16 inch of corrosion allowance.
Minimum Borehole Diameter = 8 inches, Minimum Spacing = 40 inches. We should be
contacted to provide a reduction factor for piles spaced less than 40 inches apart.
Minimum Unbonded Length of Pile = 10 feet.
Minimum Factor of Safety for Tension and Compression = 2.0
Recommended Ground Anchor Ultimate Capacities:
Anchor Length Below Mat Foundation
(feet)*
Ultimate Uplift Capacity
(kips)
8-inch Diameter
35 200
50 300
*Includes an unbonded length of 10 feet.
During initial installation, the micro-piles may be gravity-grouted (i.e. no minimum grout pressure requirement) and minimum post-grout pressure of 250 psi should be used. At
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 49
least two post-grout tubes should be installed with each micro-pile. Micro-piles should be grouted as soon as possible after drilling.
Performance test(s) should be at a minimum of 2.0 times the design loads. Proof test(s)
should be performed at a minimum of 1.33 times the design loads. The first two load tests should be performance tests and performance tests should be ran on 2 percent of the remaining production piles run on pre-production piles. The balance of the production piles should be proof tested. No creep testing is recommended because the micro-piles will not have a lock-off load greater than 15 kips. If lock-off loads are higher than 15 kips, we should be contacted to provide criteria for creep testing.
In the performance test, the load applied to the anchor and its movement shall be
measured during several cycles of incremental loading and unloading. The load increments are: AL, 0.25 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, 1.00 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, 1.00 DL, 1.25 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, 1.00 DL, 1.25 DL, 1.33 DL, AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, 1.00 DL, 1.25 DL, 1.33 DL, 2.0 DL, AL. Note: DL is the design load and AL is the Alignment Load. The alignment load shall be about five percent of the design load (0.05 DL), or as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. The load shall be held at each increment for a minimum of 1 minute and the final load for a minimum of 10 minutes. The maximum test load shall be held for 10 minutes, with readings taken at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 minutes. If the difference between the 1- and 10-minute reading is less than 0.04 inch, the test shall be discontinued. If the difference is more than 0.04 inch, the load shall be extended to 60 minutes, and the movement shall be recorded at 15, 20, 25, 30, 45 and 60 minutes. At the completion of a successful performance test, the anchor loading shall be reduced to 10 kips and transferred to the permanent stressing
anchorage. Actual lock-off loads may be varied by the Geotechnical Engineer to account for mechanical losses or project conditions.
In the proof test, the load applied to the anchor and its movement shall be measured during one cycle of incremental loading. The load increments are: AL, 0.25 DL, 0.50 DL, 0.75 DL, 1.00 DL, 1.20 DL, 1.33 DL, AL. Note: DL is the design load of 125 kips and AL is the Alignment load. The alignment load shall be about five percent of the design load (0.05 DL), or as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. The load shall be held at each
increment for a minimum of 1 minute and the final load for a minimum of 10 minutes. The maximum test load shall be held for 10 minutes, with readings taken at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 minutes. If the difference between the 1- and 10-minute reading is less than
0.04 inch, the test shall be discontinued. If the difference is more than 0.04 inch, the load shall be extended to 60 minutes, and the movement shall be recorded at 15, 20, 25, 30, 45 and 60 minutes. At the completion of a successful proof test, the anchor loading
shall be reduced to 10 kips and transferred to the permanent stressing anchorage. Actual lock-off loads may be varied by the Geotechnical Engineer to account for mechanical losses or project conditions.
Lock-off load or seating load of at least 10 kips, or as recommended by the structural
engineer.
Micro-piles may be drilled with soil/rock augers, rotary wash, or air percussive type drill bits or a combination of these methods. Due to the soil conditions, the contractor is responsible for selecting appropriate drilling equipment capable of drilling the anchors for
this project including managing water inflow into the drill hole and excavation.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 50
Contractor is further advised that drilling and installing micro-piles in limited access conditions may be required for this project.
The Geotechnical Engineer’s representative should observe drilling and grouting of the
micro-piles and actively participate in the testing of the micro-piles in accordance with project requirements.
Performance and Proof Tests should be performed in general accordance with the PTI (2004) recommendations.
10.3 MICRO-PILE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
The excavation of all drilled shafts should be observed by a Cornerstone representative to confirm the soil profile and that the micro-piles are constructed in accordance with our recommendations and project requirements. The drilled micro-piles should be straight, and relatively free of loose material before grout and reinforcing steel is placed. Contractor is responsible for selecting drilling methods that control groundwater. If ground water cannot be removed from the excavations prior to grout placement, casing or drilling slurry may be required to stabilize the shaft and the grout should be placed using a tremie pipe, keeping the tremie pipe below the surface of the grout to avoid entrapment of water or drilling slurry in the grout. Due to the loose nature of the cleaner sand layers (fines content between 4 and 10 percent) documented in the previous borings, the use of casing, drilling slurry, or other methods to
stabilize the hole of each drilled shaft may be required. SECTION 11: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS
11.1 INTERIOR SLABS-ON-GRADE (AT-GRADE STRUCTURES) As the Plasticity Index (PI) of the surficial soils ranges up to 26, the proposed slabs-on-grade should be supported on at least 12 inches of non-expansive fill (NEF) to reduce the potential for slab damage due to soil heave. The NEF layer should be constructed over subgrade prepared
in accordance with the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section of this report. If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned, the recommendations in the “Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations” section below may be incorporated in the project design if desired. If
significant time elapses between initial subgrade preparation and slab-on-grade NEF construction, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to confirm subgrade stability, and if the soil has been allowed to dry out, the subgrade should be re-moisture conditioned to at least 3
percent over the optimum moisture content. The structural engineer should determine the appropriate slab reinforcement for the loading requirements and considering the expansion potential of the underlying soils. For unreinforced concrete slabs, ACI 302.1R recommends limiting control joint spacing to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness in each direction, or a maximum of 18 feet.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 51
11.2 PARKING STRUCTURE SLAB-ON-GRADE (AT-GRADE) Garage slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and if constructed with minimal reinforcement intended for shrinkage control only, should have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi. If the slab will have heavier reinforcing because the slab will also serve as a structural diaphragm, the compressive strength may be reduced to 2,500 psi at the structural engineer’s discretion. The garage slab should also be supported on at least 12 inches of non-
expansive fill (NEF) consisting of one of the following placed and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section of this report:
Class 2 aggregate base,
¾-inch clean, crushed rock
recycled AC/AB grindings
lime-treated soil, consisting of at least 4 percent quicklime by dry weight
If there will be areas within the garage that are moisture sensitive, such as equipment and elevator rooms, the recommendations in the “Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations”
section below may be incorporated in the project design if desired. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness.
11.3 INTERIOR AND MAT SLABS MOISTURE PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS The following general guidelines for concrete slab-on-grade construction where floor coverings are planned are presented for the consideration by the developer, design team, and contractor. These guidelines are based on information obtained from a variety of sources, including the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and are intended to reduce the potential for moisture-related problems causing floor covering failures, and may be supplemented as necessary based on project-specific requirements. The application of these guidelines or not will not affect the geotechnical aspects of the slab-on-grade performance.
Place a minimum 10-mil vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745, Class C requirements or better directly below the concrete slab; the vapor retarder should extend to the slab edges and be sealed at all seams and penetrations in accordance with
manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM E 1643 requirements. A 4-inch-thick capillary break, consisting of crushed rock should be placed below the vapor retarder and consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. The mineral aggregate shall be of
such size that the percentage composition by dry weight as determined by laboratory sieves will conform to the following gradation:
Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
1” 100 ¾” 90 – 100 No. 4 0 - 10
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 52
The capillary break rock may be considered as the upper 4 inches of the non-expansive fill previously recommended.
The concrete water:cement ratio should be 0.45 or less. Mid-range plasticizers may be used to increase concrete workability and facilitate pumping and placement.
Water should not be added after initial batching unless the slump is less than specified
and/or the resulting water:cement ratio will not exceed 0.45.
Where floor coverings are planned, all concrete surfaces should be properly cured.
Water vapor emission levels and concrete pH should be determined in accordance with ASTM F1869-98 and F710-98 requirements and evaluated against the floor covering
manufacturer’s requirements prior to installation. 11.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
11.4.1 Pedestrian Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork subject to pedestrian and/or occasional light pick up loading should be at least 4 inches thick and supported on at least 6 inches non-expansive fill (NEF) subgrade prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. As an alternative, flatwork may be underlain by 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base overlying subgrade prepared in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report. Flatwork that will be subject
to heavier or frequent vehicular loading should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the “Vehicular Pavements” section below. To help reduce the potential for uncontrolled shrinkage cracking, adequate expansion and control joints should be included.
Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness. Flatwork should be isolated from adjacent foundations or retaining walls except where limited sections of structural slabs are included to help span irregularities in retaining wall backfill at the transitions between at-grade and on-structure flatwork. SECTION 12: VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS 12.1 ASPHALT CONCRETE
The following asphalt concrete pavement recommendations tabulated below are based on the Procedure 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, estimated traffic indices for various
pavement-loading conditions, and on a design R-value of 5 for untreated subgrade. The design R-value was chosen based on our experience with similar subgrade materials and engineering judgment considering the variable surface conditions.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 53
Table 12: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations, Untreated Subgrade
Design Traffic Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Class 2 Aggregate Base* (inches)
Total Pavement Section Thickness (inches)
4.0 2.5 7.5 10.0
4.5 2.5 9.5 12.0
5.0 3.0 10.0 13.0
5.5 3.0 12.0 15.0
6.0 3.5 12.5 16.0
6.5 4.0 14.0 18.0
*Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base; minimum R-value of 78
Because surface soil may be improved using chemical treatment with Quicklime or Quicklime Plus, we estimated an improved subgrade R-value of 50 for pavement design. This improved R-value is based on treating the upper 12 inches of finished subgrade. The pavement sections
presented in Table 12 are based on an improved subgrade R-value of 50. Table 13: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Alternatives – Treated Subgrade
Design Traffic Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Class 2 Aggregate Base1 (inches)
Total Pavement Section Thickness (inches)
4.0 2.5 4.0 6.5
4.5 2.5 4.0 6.5
5.0 3.0 4.0 7.0
5.5 3.0 4.5 7.5
6.0 3.5 4.5 8.0
6.5 4.0 5.0 9.0
Note: 1 – Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base; minimum R-value of 78. Frequently, the full asphalt concrete section is not constructed prior to construction traffic loading. This can result in significant loss of asphalt concrete layer life, rutting, or other pavement failures. To improve the pavement life and reduce the potential for pavement distress through construction, we recommend the full design asphalt concrete section be constructed prior to construction traffic loading. Alternatively, a higher traffic index may be chosen for the areas where construction traffic will use the pavements.
Asphalt concrete pavements constructed on expansive subgrade where the adjacent areas will not be irrigated for several months after the pavements are constructed may experience
longitudinal cracking parallel to the pavement edge. These cracks typically form within a few feet of the pavement edge and are due to seasonal wetting and drying of the adjacent soil. The
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 54
cracking may also occur during construction where the adjacent grade is allowed to significantly dry during the summer, pulling moisture out of the pavement subgrade. Any cracks that form should be sealed with bituminous sealant prior to the start of winter rains. One alternative to reduce the potential for this type of cracking is to install a moisture barrier at least 24 inches deep behind the pavement curb. 12.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
The exterior Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement recommendations tabulated below are based on methods presented in the Portland Cement Association (PCA) design manual (PCA,
1984). Recommendations for garage slabs-on-grade were provided in the “Concrete Slabs and Pedestrian Pavements” section above. We have provided a few pavement alternatives as an anticipated Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) was not provided. An allowable ADTT should
be chosen that is greater than what is expected for the development. Table 14: PCC Pavement Recommendations, Design R-value = 5
Allowable ADTT
Minimum PCC Thickness
(inches)
13 5.5
130 6.0
The PCC thicknesses above are based on a concrete compressive strength of at least 3,500 psi, supporting the PCC on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted as recommended in the “Earthwork” section, and laterally restraining the PCC with curbs or concrete shoulders. Adequate expansion and control joints should be included. Consideration
should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness. Due to the expansive surficial soils present, we recommend that the construction and expansion joints be dowelled.
12.2.1 Stress Pads for Trash Enclosures
Pads where trash containers will be stored, and where garbage trucks will park while emptying trash containers, should be constructed on Portland Cement Concrete. We recommend that the trash enclosure pads and stress (landing) pads where garbage trucks will store, pick up, and empty trash be increased to a minimum PCC thickness of 7 inches. The compressive strength, underlayment, and construction details should be consistent with the above recommendations for PCC pavements. 12.3 PAVEMENT CUTOFF Surface water penetration into the pavement section can significantly reduce the pavement life, due to the native expansive clays. While quantifying the life reduction is difficult, a normal 20-
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 55
year pavement design could be reduced to less than 10 years; therefore, increased long-term maintenance may be required. It would be beneficial to include a pavement cut-off, such as deepened curbs, redwood-headers, or “Deep-Root Moisture Barriers” that are keyed at least 4 inches into the pavement subgrade. This will help limit the additional long-term maintenance. SECTION 13: RETAINING WALLS 13.1 STATIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES The structural design of any site retaining wall should include resistance to lateral earth pressures that develop from the soil behind the wall, any undrained water pressure, and
surcharge loads acting behind the wall. Provided a drainage system is constructed behind the wall to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures as discussed in the section below, we recommend that the walls with level backfill be designed for the following pressures: Table 15: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures
Wall Condition Lateral Earth Pressure* Additional Surcharge Loads
Unrestrained – Cantilever Wall 45 pcf ⅓ of vertical loads at top of wall
Restrained – Braced Wall 45 pcf + 8H** psf ½ of vertical loads at top of wall
* Lateral earth pressures are based on an equivalent fluid pressure for level backfill conditions ** H is the distance in feet between the bottom of footing and top of retained soil Basement walls should be designed as restrained walls. If adequate drainage cannot be provided behind the wall, an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf should be added to the values above for both restrained and unrestrained walls for the portion of the wall that will not have drainage. Damp proofing or waterproofing of the walls may be considered where moisture penetration and/or efflorescence are not desired. 13.2 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) states that lateral pressures from earthquakes should be considered in the design of basements and retaining walls. We developed seismic earth pressures for the proposed basement using interim recommendations generally based on refinement of the Mononobe-Okabe method (Lew et al., SEAOC 2010). Because the walls are greater than 12 feet in height, and peak ground accelerations are greater than 0.40g, we
checked the result of the seismic increment when added to the recommended active earth pressure against the recommended fixed wall earth pressures. Basement walls are not free to deflect and should therefore be designed for static conditions as a restrained wall, which is also
a CBC requirement. Based on current recommendations for seismic earth pressures, it appears that active earth pressures plus a seismic increment exceed the restrained (i.e. at-rest), static wall earth pressures. Therefore, we recommend checking the walls for the seismic condition in
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 56
accordance with the interim recommendations of the above referenced paper and the 2019 CBC. The CBC prescribes basic load combinations for structures, components and foundations with the intention that their design strength equals or exceeds the effects of the factored loads. With respect to the load from lateral earth pressure and groundwater pressure, the CBC prescribes the basic combinations shown in CBC equations 16-2 and 16-7 below.
1.2(D + F) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R) [Eq. 16-2]
In Eq. 16-2: H - should represent the total static lateral earth pressure, which for the basement wall will be restrained (use 45 pcf + 8H psf) 0.9(D + F) + 1.0E + 1.6H [Eq. 16-7]
In Eq. 16-7: H - should represent the static “active” earth pressure component under seismic loading conditions (use 45 pcf)
E - should represent the seismic increment component in Eq. 16-7, a triangular load with
a resultant force of 7.3H2, which should be applied one third of the height up from the base of the wall (and which can also be expressed as an equivalent fluid pressure equal
to 14.6 pcf).
The interim recommendations in the SEAOC paper more appropriately split out "active" earth pressure (and not the restrained ["at-rest"] pressure) from our report and provide the total seismic increment so that different load factors can be applied in accordance with different risk
levels. 13.3 WALL DRAINAGE Miradrain, AmerDrain or other equivalent drainage matting should be used for wall drainage where below-grade walls are temporarily shored and the shoring will be flush with the back of the permanent walls. The drainage panel should be connected at the base of the wall by a horizontal drainage strip and closed or through-wall system such as the TotalDrain system from AmerDrain. Sections of horizontal drainage strips should be connected with either the manufacturer’s
connector pieces or by pulling back the filter fabric, overlapping the panel dimples, and replacing the filter fabric over the connection. At corners, a corner guard, corner connection insert, or a section of crushed rock covered with filter fabric must be used to maintain the drainage path. In addition, where drainage panels will connect from a horizontal application for plaza areas to vertical basement wall drainage panels, the drainage path must be maintained. We are not aware of manufactured corner protection suitable for this situation; therefore, we
recommend that a section of crushed rock be placed at the transitions. The crushed rock should be at least 3 inches thick, extend at least 12 inches horizontally over the top of the basement roof and 12 inches down from the top of the basement wall, and have a layer of filter fabric covering the crushed rock.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 57
Drainage panels should terminate 18 to 24 inches from final exterior grade unless capped by hardscape. The drainage panel filter fabric should be extended over the top of and behind the panel to protect it from intrusion of the adjacent soil. If the shoring system will be offset behind the back of permanent wall, the drainage systems discussed in the “At-Grade Site Walls” section may also be used. 13.4 BACKFILL
Where surface improvements will be located over the retaining wall backfill, backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction using light
compaction equipment. Where no surface improvements are planned, backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced.
As discussed previously, consideration should be given to the transitions from on-grade to on-structure. Providing subslabs or other methods for reducing differential movement of flatwork or
pavements across this transition should be included in the project design. 13.5 FOUNDATIONS Retaining walls may be supported on a continuous spread footing designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the “Foundations” section of this report. SECTION 14: LIMITATIONS
This report, an instrument of professional service, has been prepared for the sole use of Lane Partners, LLC specifically to support the design of the Southline Development project in South San Francisco, California. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report have been formulated in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in Northern California at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred. Recommendations in this report are based upon the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration. If variations or unsuitable conditions are encountered during construction, Cornerstone must be contacted to provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.
Lane Partners, LLC may have provided Cornerstone with plans, reports and other documents prepared by others. Lane Partners, LLC understands that Cornerstone reviewed and relied on
the information presented in these documents and cannot be responsible for their accuracy. Cornerstone prepared this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner
or his representatives to see that the recommendations contained in this report are presented to other members of the design team and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and that appropriate actions are taken to implement the geotechnical recommendations during construction.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 58
Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present time for the development as currently planned. Changes in the condition of the property or adjacent properties may occur with the passage of time, whether by natural processes or the acts of other persons. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur through legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond Cornerstone’s control. This report should be reviewed by Cornerstone after a period of three (3) years has
elapsed from the date of this report. In addition, if the current project design is changed, then Cornerstone must review the proposed changes and provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.
An electronic transmission of this report may also have been issued. While Cornerstone has taken precautions to produce a complete and secure electronic transmission, please check the
electronic transmission against the hard copy version for conformity. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Cornerstone will be
retained to provide observation and testing services during construction to confirm that conditions are similar to that assumed for design, and to form an opinion as to whether the work has been performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. If we are not retained for these services, Cornerstone cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Cornerstone’s report by others. Furthermore, Cornerstone will cease to be the Geotechnical-Engineer-of-Record if we are not retained for these services.
SECTION 15: REFERENCES
Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S., 2016, Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014–2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020. Association of Bay Area Governments, Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Maps, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html, accessed October 11, 2014. Blake, M.C., Jr., Graymer, R.W. and Jones, D.L., 2000, Digital geologic map and map database of parts of Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sonoma
counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Report and Map MF-2337, 1:75,000.
Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle and part of the Hunter's Point Quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-311, 2 sheets, scale 1:24,000.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 59
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: A Digital Database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98- 354, scale 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the City and County of San Francisco, SHZR 043.
California Geological Survey Staff, 2001, Official Seismic Hazard Zone Map, City and County of San Francisco: California Geological Survey, Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones, scale
1:24,000. Gibbs, J.F., Fumal, T.E., Borcherdt, R.D., and Roth, E.F., 1977, In-Situ Measurements of
Seismic Velocities in the San Francisco Bay Region, Part III, USGS Open-File Report 77-850. Helley, E.J. and Graymer, R.W., 1997, Quaternary geology of Alameda County, and parts of
Contra Costa, Santa Clara San Mateo, San Francisco, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties, California: A digital database: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-97. Knudsen, K.L., Noller, J.S., Sowers, J.M. and Lettis, W.R., 1997, Map showing Quaternary geology and liquefaction susceptibility, San Francisco, California, 1:100,000 Sheet: Final Technical Report: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, U.S. Geological Survey, FY95 Award Number 1434-94-G-2499, p.1-20
Knudsen, K.L., Sowers, J.M., Witter, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., and Helley, E.J., 2000, Preliminary maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay Region, California: a digital database, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 00-444.
Knudsen, K.L., Noller, J.S., Sowers, J.M., and Lettis, W.R., 1997, Quaternary geology and liquefaction susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1:100,000 quadrangle: a digital database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-97-715, scale 1:100,000. Marlow, M. et al, High-resolution seismic-reflection profiles and interpretation pitfalls created by acoustic anomalies from Holocene muds beneath south SF Bay, USGS OFR 94-639, 1994, p. 16. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA), PMEL Tsunami Forecast Series: Vol. 3, A Tsunami Forecast Model for San Francisco, California: NOAA OAR Special Report San Mateo County, 2008, Hazards Mitigation Maps: on-line site at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home/0,5557771_5558929_436489912,00.html. State of California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, City and County of San Francisco; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated June 15, 2009, mapped at 1:24,000 scale.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 60
Toppozada, T, et al., 2000, Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M≥ 5 California Earthquakes, 1800 – 1999: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 49, scale 1:4,118,000. Townley, S.D. and M.W. Allen, 1939, Descriptive Catalog of Earthquakes of the Pacific Coast of the United States, 1769 to 1928: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1247-1255.
USGS, 2007, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.1.0, revision date February 10, 2011 - A Computer Program for determining mapped ground motion parameters for use with IBC 2006 available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php.
Uslu, B., D. Arcas, V.V. Titov, and A.J. Venturato (2010): A Tsunami Forecast Model for San Francisco, California. NOAA OAR Special Report, PMEL Tsunami Forecast Series: Vol. 3, 88
pp. Wair, B.R., DeJong, J.T., and Shantz, T., 2012, Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave
Velocity Profiles, Peer Report No. 2012/08/ Wills, C.J., Petersen, M. Bryant, W.A., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G.J., Tan, S., Taylor, G., and Treiman, 2000, A Site-Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Shear-Wave Velocity, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 90, pp.S187-S208. Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L, Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., Randolph, C.E., Brooks, S.K., and Gans, K.D., 2006, Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction
Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/)
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2015, The Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF), U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2013-1165 (CGS Special Report 228). KMZ files available at:
www.scec.org/ucerf/images/ucerf3_timedep_30yr_probs.kmz Yates, E.B., Hamlin, S.N., and McCann, L.H., 1990, Geohydrology, water quality, and water budgets of Golden Gate Park and the Lake Merced area in the western part of San Francisco, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4080, scale 1:48,000.
Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic Ground Failures in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes, United States Geologic Survey Professional Paper 993.
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 61
AERIAL PHOTOS REVIEWED AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MENLO PARK, CA: Geomorphic features on the following aerial photographs were interpreted at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park as part of this investigation:
Date Flight Frames Scale Type
August, 1938 Harrison Ryker 5852 - 49, 50 1:20,000 vertical black & white
October 11, 1943 DDB-2B 192, 193 1:20,000 vertical black & white
July 7, 1946 GS-CP-2 82, 83 1:23,600 vertical black & white
May 27, 1956 DDB-1R 25 1:20,000 vertical black & white
April 16, 1968 GS-VBZJ 10, 11 1:30,000 vertical black & white
April 22, 1973 3567-2 175 1:12,000 vertical black & white
N
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure 1
RRN
Vicinity Map
129-3-6Southline Development
50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue,
240 Dollar Avenue, 160 South Linden
Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA July 2020
SITE S Linden AveTanfora
n
A
v
eS Maple Ave
PHASE 1
PHASE 1
PHASE 1
FUTURE
PHASES
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
T
r
a
c
k
s
Doll
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
eunevA nedniLS outh
Tanforan AvenueSouth Maple AvenueSouth
Map
le
Avenue
Approximate
Site Boundary
Base by Google Earth, dated 03/26/2018
Overlay by DES Architects, Conceptual Specific Plan Build Site Plan - 3, dated 05/18/2020
Project NumberFigure NumberDateDrawn ByFigure 2129-3-6RRNSite PlanSouthline Development50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue,240 Dollar Avenue, 160 South LindenAvenue, and 325 South Maple AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAJuly 20200 150 300
APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)NB'
B
A
A'
EB-1
EB-2
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
CPT-5
EB-3
CPT-6
EB-4
CPT-10
EB-8
CPT-8
EB-6
CPT-9
EB-7
CPT-7
EB-5
CPT-14
CPT-13
CPT-12
CPT-12A
CPT-11
CPT-11A
EB-9
EB-10
CPT-15
CPT-16
CPT-17
CPT-18
CPT-19
CPT-20
EB-11
EB-14
EB-12
EB-13
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
Approximate location of exploratory boring (EB)
(Cornerstone, March 2020)
Approximate location of cone penetration test (CPT)
(Cornerstone, March 2020)
Approximate location of exploratory boring (EB)
(Cornerstone, April 2019)
Approximate location of cone penetration test (CPT)
(Cornerstone, April 2019)
Approximate location of exploratory boring (EB)
(Cornerstone, February 2018)
Approximate location of cone penetration test (CPT)
(Cornerstone, February 2018)
Legend
Approximate location of exploratory boring (EB)
(Cornerstone, June 2020)
Approximate location of cone penetration test (CPT)
(Cornerstone, June 2020)
Approximate location of monitoring well (MW)
(Cornerstone, June 2020)
Approximate location of cross sectionAA'
Base by California Geological Survey - 2010 Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings and Bryant, 2010)
Displacement during historic time (e.g. San Andreas fault 1906).
Includes areas of known fault creep.
Displacement during Holocene
time.
Fault offsets seafloor sediments
or strata of Holocene age.
Faults showing evidence of
displacement during late
Quaternary time.
Fault cuts strata of Late
Pleistocene age.
Undivided Quaternary faults -
most faults in this category show
evidence of displacement during
the last 1,600,000 years;
possible exceptions are faults
which displace rocks of
undifferentiated Pilo-Pleistocene
age.
Fault cuts strata of Quaternary
age.
Faults without recognized
Quaternary displacement or
showing evidence of no
displacement during Quaternary
time. Not necessarily inactive.
Fault cuts strata of Pliocene or
older age.
0 5 10
APPROXIMATE SCALE (MILES)
N Project NumberFigure NumberDateDrawn ByFigure 3RRNRegional Fault Map129-3-6Southline Development50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue,240 Dollar Avenue, 160 South LindenAvenue, and 325 South Maple AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAJuly 2020SITE
Base: USGS, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of
the Hunter’s Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California, by M.G. Bonilla, 1998
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure 3A
RRN
Vicinity Geologic Map 129-3-6
July 2020
Southline Development
50 and 54 Tanforan Avenue,
240 Dollar Avenue, 160 South Linden
Avenue, and 325 South Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
N
0 4000
APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
2000
Contact- dashed where approximate,
dotted where concealed
ExplanationGeologic Units
Artificial fill over tidal flat (Holocene)
Alluvium (Holocene)
Slope debris and ravine fill (Pleistocene)
Colma Formation (Pleistocene)
Sandstone and shale, Franciscan Complex
(Cretaceous and Jurassic)
Qc
Qal
Qaf/tf
Qsr
KJs
SITE
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 1
APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using truck- and track-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and 20-ton truck-mounted Cone Penetration Test equipment. Two 6.5-inch and twelve 8-inch-diameter exploratory borings were drilled on February 13, 2018, July 29 and 31, 2019, February 24, 2020 and July 26, 29 and 30, 2020 to depths of 25 to 99 feet. Twenty CPT soundings were also
performed in accordance with ASTM D 5778-95 (revised, 2002) on February 12, 2018, July 18 and 26, 2019, August 12, 2019, June 22 and 23, 2020, and July 8, 2020, to depths ranging from 50 to 100 feet. The approximate locations of exploratory borings and CPTs are shown on the
Site Plan, Figure 2. The soils encountered were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). Boring and CPT logs, as well as a key to the classification of the soil, are included as
part of this appendix. Boring and CPT locations were approximated using existing site boundaries and other site features as references. Boring and CPT elevations were based on interpolation of plan contours. The locations and elevations of the borings and CPTs should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. The standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was
recorded for each 6 inches of penetration (ASTM D1586). 2.5-inch I.D. samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler driven into the soil with the 140-pound hammer previously described. Relatively undisturbed samples were also obtained with 2.875-inch I.D. Shelby Tube
sampler which were hydraulically pushed. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches. The various samplers are denoted at the appropriate depth on the boring logs.
The CPT involved advancing an instrumented cone-tipped probe into the ground while simultaneously recording the resistance at the cone tip (qc) and along the friction sleeve (fs) at
approximately 5-centimeter intervals. Based on the tip resistance and tip to sleeve ratio (Rf), the CPT classified the soil behavior type and estimated engineering properties of the soil, such as equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count, internal friction angle within sand layers, and undrained shear strength in silts and clays. A pressure transducer behind the tip of the CPT cone measured pore water pressure (u2). Graphical logs of the CPT data is included as part of this appendix. Field tests included an evaluation of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil samples using a pocket penetrometer device. The results of these tests are presented on the individual boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.
Attached boring and CPT logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the locations indicated and on the date, designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 2
locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring and CPT locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. In addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual.
Poorly-Graded Gravelly Sand
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND
POORLY-GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
FAT CLAY
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
*
NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D.
(1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE
(ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).
*
Modified California (2.5" I.D.)
Well-Graded Gravel
with Clay
-
-
-
-
-
Boulders and Cobble
Artificial/Undocumented Fill
Asphalt
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
Well-Graded Gravel
with Silt -
CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH FINES
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR
>12% FINES
*UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN KIPS/SQ. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY
TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, POCKET
PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION.
Well Graded Gravelly Sand
ADDITIONAL TESTS
Gravelly Silt
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSCOARSE-GRAINED SOILS>50% RETAINED ONNO. 200 SIEVEFINE-GRAINED SOILS>50% PASSESNO. 200 SIEVE"A "L IN E
PEAT
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT<50
SILTS AND CLAYS
Clayey Sand
LIQUID LIMIT>50
Silt
Sand
OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
CH
CL OH & MH
-
-
CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES
SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES
INORGANIC
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
SWELL TEST
CYCLIC TRIAXIAL
TORVANE SHEAR
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
PLASTICITY CHART
CL-ML
SANDS
No Recovery
PLASTICITY INDEX
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.5
0.5-1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
(RECORDED AS BLOWS / FOOT)
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
SILT & CLAY
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
SAND & GRAVEL
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
PT
WATER LEVEL
BLOWS/FOOT*CONSISTENCYBLOWS/FOOT*RELATIVE DENSITY
Topsoil
PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
Sandy Silt
Poorly-Graded Sand
with Clay
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487-10)
Figure Number
A-1
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE
PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
PI PLOTS >"A" LINE
PI PLOTS <"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3
ORGANIC
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
GRAVELS
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CHEMICALANALYSIS (CORROSIVITY)
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL
CONSOLIDATION
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DIRECT SHEAR
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF)
R-VALUE
SIEVE ANALYSIS: % PASSING
#200 SIEVE
MATERIAL
TYPES CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES
GROUP
SYMBOL
CA
CD
CN
CU
DS
PP
(3.0)
RV
SA
Shelby Tube
LEGEND TO SOIL
DESCRIPTIONS
UU UNCONSOLIDATED
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH
IN KSF)
SW
TC
TV
UC
(1.5)
PI
SAMPLER TYPES
SPT
STRENGTH** (KSF)
Rock Core Grab Sample
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
32.6
31.9
30.8
28.3
22.8
17.8
14.8
10.8
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3B
MC-4B
MC-5B
MC-6B
MC-7B
SPT-8B
MC-9B
SPT
SPT-11
3 inches asphalt concrete over 8 inchesaggregate base
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Fill]stiff, moist, gray and dark brown mottled, fine
to medium sand, moderate plasticity
Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML) [Qc]
medium stiff, wet, dark brown, fine sand, lowplasticity
Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray and brown mottled,some fine sand, moderate plasticity
some fine subangular to subrounded gravel
becomes stiff
Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]medium dense, moist, brown, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray and brown mottled, fine
sand, some silt, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
16
19
20
17
18
21
25
22
23
24
22
9
20
30
23
25
32
26
46
59
38
111
107
104
111
108
102
100
104
32
NOTES 30 Tanforan
LOGGED BY RPM
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-53, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 2/13/18 DATE COMPLETED 2/13/18 BORING DEPTH 44.4 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 32.8 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 15 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 27 ft.
LATITUDE 37.640319°LONGITUDE -122.416702°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page6.8
32.8ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Life Science Project
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-1
PROJECT LOCATION 30 Tanforan Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-1
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:16 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-1 LIFE SCIENCE TANFORAN.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
4.8
0.8
-11.6
MC-12B
SPT-13
MC-14B
MC-15B
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel(SP-SM) [Qc]
very dense, wet, gray and brown, fine to
coarse sand, fine ubangular to subroundedgravel
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
becomes hard
Bottom of Boring at 44.4 feet.
11
19
20
25
506"
50
60
505"
124
108
94
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
6.8ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Life Science Project
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-1
PROJECT LOCATION 30 Tanforan Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-1
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:16 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-1 LIFE SCIENCE TANFORAN.GPJ>4.5
>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
29.4
27.5
21.5
20.0
16.5
5.0
MC-1B
MC-2A
MC-3B
MC-4B
MC-5B
MC-6B
MC
SPT-8
MC-9B
SPT
MC-11B
7 inches Portland cement concrete
Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML) [Qc]soft, wet, dark brown, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, brown with gray mottles, fine
sand, moderate plasticity
Liquid Limit = 41, Plastic Limit = 15
becomes hard
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, brown, fine to medium sand,
moderate plasticity
Silt with Sand (ML) [Qc]
stiff, moist, brown, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, brown withgray mottles, fine
sand
becomes very dense
Bottom of Boring at 25.0 feet.
19
19
20
20
23
30
21
22
22
26
12
34
56
27
17
56
34
44
56
73
506"
93
110
107
105
102
95
103
103
30
NOTES 30 Tanforan
LOGGED BY RPM
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-53, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 2/13/18 DATE COMPLETED 2/13/18 BORING DEPTH 25 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 30.0 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 16 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 21 ft.
LATITUDE 37.640206°LONGITUDE -122.415619°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
30.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Life Science Project
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-1
PROJECT LOCATION 30 Tanforan Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-2
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:16 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-1 LIFE SCIENCE TANFORAN.GPJ>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
28.6
27.9
27.0
17.0
11.0
7.0
4.5
GB
GB
SPT-3
5 inches asphalt concrete over 8 inchesaggregate base
Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL) [Fill]dark gray
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) [Fill]
moist, black, strong hydrocarbon odor, some
AC fragments
Silty Sand (SM) [Fill]wet, black, strong hydrocarbon odor
Silty Sand (SM) [Fill]wet, dark gray to gray
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 24.5 feet.
2313
NOTES 54 Tanforan
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD MPP LAD Track Rig, 6½ inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/31/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/31/19 BORING DEPTH 24.5 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 29 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 22 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 13 ft.
LATITUDE 37.642295°LONGITUDE -122.415977°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
29.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-3
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
17.9
17.3
16.7
14.0
11.5
9.0
5.0
1.5
-6.0
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC-3B
MC-4B
SPT
MC-6B
MC-7B
13 inches Portland cement concrete over 7inches aggregate base over 8 inches
Portland cement concrete
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Fill]stiff, moist, gray and brown mottled, fine
sand, some coarse subangular to
subrounded gravel, low plasticityLiquid Limit = 22, Plastic Limit = 13
Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, some
fine sand, moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
to coarse sand, some fine subangular gravel,
low to moderate plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
dense, moist, gray and brown mottled, finesand
Bottom of Boring at 25.0 feet.
20
24
19
24
23
21
922
22
55
44
37
61
67
108
102
109
98
99
102
NOTES 160 South Linden
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-53, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/29/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/29/19 BORING DEPTH 25 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 19 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 5 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 13 ft.
LATITUDE 37.643291°LONGITUDE -122.415089°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
19.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-4
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
21.421.2
11.0
9.0
-1.0
-5.0
7 inches Portland cement concrete over 3inches aggregate base
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
Bottom of Boring at 27.0 feet.
NOTES No samples taken, classification based on cutttings observed.
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD MPP LAD Track Rig, 6½ inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/31/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/31/19 BORING DEPTH 27 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 22 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 25 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 10 ft.
LATITUDE 37.642053°LONGITUDE -122.414853°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
22.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-5
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
16.5
16.2
14.0
7.3
5.0
0.0
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3B
MC-4C
SPT
MC-6B
MC-7B
SPT
MC-9B
6 inches asphalt concrete over 3 inchesaggregate base
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]dense, moist, brown, fine to medium sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, gray, fine to medium sand, low
plasticity
becomes very stiff
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine to medium sand,
low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
dense, moist, gray brown, fine sand
becomes very dense
17
16
21
25
26
23
20
69
87
45
31
36
54
42
41
506"
109
112
107
98
96
98
105
NOTES 240 Dollar
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-53, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/29/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/29/19 BORING DEPTH 45 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 17 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 15 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 18 ft.
LATITUDE 37.642078°LONGITUDE -122.413750°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-10.0
17.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-6
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJ>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-12.5
-16.5
-25.0
-28.0
MC-10B
MC-11
SPT-12
SPT-13
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray brown, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]
stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low to moderateplasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Qc]
very dense, moist, gray, fine to coarse sand,
fine to coarse subangular gravel
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 45.0 feet.
20
18
13
25
59
506"
54
34
105
116
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
-10.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-6
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
24.8
24.3
22.0
20.0
17.0
12.0
7.5
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3B
MC-4B
MC-5B
SPT
MC-7B
SPT
SPT-9
2 inches asphalt concrete over 6 inchesaggregate base
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]soft, moist, dark gray with brown mottles, fine
sand, some organics, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray and brown mottled, fine
sand, low to moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
to medium sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]
stiff, moist, gray and brown mottled, fine
sand, low to moderate plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, some thininterbedded sandy clay layers, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
becomes dense
22
21
17
21
26
22
24
4
11
24
12
18
9
27
16
32
97
103
110
104
96
99
NOTES 50 Tanforan
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD MPP LAD Track Rig, 6½ inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/31/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/31/19 BORING DEPTH 35 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 25 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 13 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 11 ft.
LATITUDE 37.640295°LONGITUDE -122.414856°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-2.0
25.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-7
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-5.0
-10.0
SPT-10
SPT-11
MC-12B
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine to medium sand,
low to moderate plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 35.0 feet.
25
20
23
22
11
102
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
-2.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-7
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
21.7
21.4
12.3
10.0
5.0
-3.0
4 inches asphalt concrete over 4 inchesaggregate base
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
Bottom of Boring at 25.0 feet.
NOTES No samples taken, classification based on cutttings observed.
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-53, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/29/19 DATE COMPLETED 7/29/19 BORING DEPTH 25 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 22 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 18.5 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 13 ft.
LATITUDE 37.641538°LONGITUDE -122.413681°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
22.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Campus at Tanforan, Dollar and S. Linden
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-2
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-8
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:23 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-2 LIFE SCIENCE PROJECT.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
18.6
18.1
17.0
15.5
11.0
9.0
1.0
-3.0
MC-1C
MC-2C
MC-3B
SPT
MC-5B
SPT-6
SPT-7
SPT-8
SPT-9
SPT-10
SPT-11
5.5 inches asphalt concrete over 5 inchesaggregate base
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Fill]medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to
medium sand, fine to coarse subangular
gravel
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]medium dense, moist, brown and graymottled, fine sand
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]loose to medium dense, moist, brown and
gray mottled, fine sand, trace fine
subrounded gravel
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
32% Sand, 56% Silt, 12% Clay
NP = Non plastic
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]loose, wet, gray, fine sand
71% Sand, 23% Silt, 6% Clay
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
14
23
23
31
23
21
21
21
18
22
NP
27
15
14
12
10
7
13
19
15
8
12
113
98
104
90
45
68
29
NOTES 325 South Maple
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD MPP LAD Track Rig, 6½ inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 2/24/20 DATE COMPLETED 2/24/20 BORING DEPTH 45 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 19 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 15 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 22 ft.
LATITUDE 37.643142°LONGITUDE -122.416778°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-7.0
19.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Parcel 6
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-3
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-9
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:30 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-3 TANFORAN PARCEL 6.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-10.0
-13.5
-19.0
-21.5
-26.0
MC-12B
SPT-13
MC-14B
MC-15B
MC-16B
SPT-17
SPT-18
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Liquid Limit = 30, Plastic Limit = 17
27% Sand, 52% Silt, 21% Clay
Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, some fine sand,
moderate plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
NP = Non plastic
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
becomes medium stiff
Bottom of Boring at 45.0 feet.
16
23
27
20
25
20
17
13
NP
23
14
16
18
39
24
10
120
100
107
100
73
53
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
-7.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Parcel 6
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-3
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-9
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:30 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-3 TANFORAN PARCEL 6.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
27.6
26.8
26.0
23.0
17.5
15.0
12.5
3.0
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3B
MC-4C
SPT-5
SPT-6
SPT-7
MC-8C
MC-9
5 inches asphalt concrete over 10 inchescrushed rock
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Fill]
stiff, moist, dark brown with brown mottles,
fine to medium sand, low plasticity
Fat Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, highplasticity
Liquid Limit = 50, Plastic Limit = 16
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]
medium dense to loose, moist, brown andgray mottled, fine to medium sand, some finesubangular to subrounded gravel
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
32% Sand, 42% Silt, 11% Clay
Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM) [Qc]medium dense, moist, brown and gray
mottled, fine sand, some fine subrounded
gravel
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 25.0 feet.
19
16
12
19
26
20
26
25
26
3414
16
22
19
9
16
26
16
24
111
110
109
106
101
29
53
70
NOTES 325 South Maple
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD MPP LAD Track Rig, 6½ inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 2/24/20 DATE COMPLETED 2/24/20 BORING DEPTH 25 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 28 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 15 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 18 ft.
LATITUDE 37.642290°LONGITUDE -122.417385°
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
28.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Tanforan Parcel 6
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-3
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-10
PAGE 1 OF 1
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:30 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-3 TANFORAN PARCEL 6.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
31.3
29.5
27.0
24.0
23.0
20.0
18.0
13.5
MC
MC-2C
MC
SPT-4
MC-5C
SPT
MC-7C
SPT
MC-9B
SPT-10
MC-11B
SPT
8 inches Portland cement concrete
Clayey Sand (SC) [Fill]
medium dense, moist, gray with brown
mottles, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray with reddish brown
mottles, fine sand, moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, light gray with gray mottles, fine
sand, some cemented fragments, low
plasticity
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff to stiff, moist, gray to dark gray, fine
sand, moderate
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, wet, gray brown, fine to medium sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
57% Sand, 35%Silt, 8% Clay
becomes very dense79% Sand, 16%Silt, 5% Clay
15
19
23
19
27
24
18
44
506"
506"
52
33
30
65
14
504"
32
505"
60
118
106
108
97
114
43
21
NOTES 30 Tanforan
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 6/30/20 DATE COMPLETED 6/30/20 BORING DEPTH 98.9 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 32 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 11 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 10 ft.
LATITUDE 37.641771 LONGITUDE -122.416030
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page6.0
32.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-11
PAGE 1 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJ>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
6.0
-1.0
-3.0
-6.0
-10.0
-12.5
-19.0
MC-13B
SPT
MC-14C
MC-15B
MC-16B
MC-17B
ST
SPT-19
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc] [Qc]dense, moist, bluish gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, gray, fine sand, some fine
gravel, low plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, bluish gray, fine sand, low
plasticity
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to coarse
sand
94% Sand, 3%Silt, 3% Clay
23
23
17
16
27
23
50
49
506"
58
506"
62
60
105
119
119
98
6
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-24.0
6.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-11
PAGE 2 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJ>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-31.5
-36.0
-40.0
-45.0
-47.5
SPT-20
MC-21B
MC
SPT-23
SPT-24B
SPT-25
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to coarse
sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low to
moderate plasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray with reddish brown,
fine sand, fine subangular to subrounded
gravel
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, brown with gray mottles,
fine sand
28
17
16
18
21
504"
506"
506"
505"
503"
503"
108
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-54.0
-24.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-11
PAGE 3 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)60
65
70
75
80
85
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-58.0
-66.9
SPT-26
SPT-27
SPT-28
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, brown with gray mottles,
fine sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to coarse
sand, some fine subangular to subrounded
gravel
Bottom of Boring at 98.9 feet.
17
13
16
506"
506"
505"
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
-54.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-11
PAGE 4 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)90
95
100
105
110
115
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
25.7
24.924.6
23.3
20.0
18.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
MC-1C
MC-2B
MC-3B
MC-4B
SPT-5B
SPT-6C
MC-7B
SPT
SPT-9
MC-10C
SPT
4 inches asphalt concrete over 9 incheasaggregate base and 4 inches Portland
cement concrete
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Fill]
medium dense, moist, brown and gray, fine
sand, fine to coarse subangular gravel,thin layer of crushed rock at 2.5'.
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
becomes stiff
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
becomes medium dense to dense, wet
20
19
13
22
20
26
27
20
23
28
14
506"
55
20
30
52
54
71
53
49
118
86
131
94
99
101
104
NOTES 160 South Linden
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 6/26/20 DATE COMPLETED 6/26/20 BORING DEPTH 50 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 26 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 6 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 8 ft.
LATITUDE 37.641888 LONGITUDE -122.415431
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page0.0
26.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-12
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-1.0
-5.0
-8.0
-12.0
-15.0
-19.5
-24.0
SPT-12
MC-13B
SPT
SPT-15
SPT-16
MC-17C
SPT-18
MC
ST-20
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray, fine to medium sand
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray with light gray mottles,
fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine to medium sand,
some fine gravel
NP = Non-plastic75% Sand, 14%Silt, 11% Clay
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 50.0 feet.
17
26
19
23
19
12
23
NP
66
506"
506"
42
49
506"
506"
48
99
109
103
25
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
0.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-12
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
17.9
15.5
13.5
7.0
1.5
-0.5
-3.5
MC-1
MC-2C
MC-3C
MC-4C
MC-5B
SPT
MC-7B
SPT
MC-9B
SPT-10
MC-11
SPT
7 inches Portland cement concrete
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]loose, moist, brown with gray mottles, finesand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff , moist, gray to dark gray, fine sand,
moderate
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense to medium dense, moist, gray, fine
sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
49% Sand, 41%Silt, 10% Clay
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense to dense, moist, gray, fine sand
17
18
19
21
24
28
25
25
23
19
38
60
40
63
21
50
56
34
28
506"
33
111
109
108
105
99
95
99
51
NOTES 160 South Linden
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 6/29/20 DATE COMPLETED 6/29/20 BORING DEPTH 99 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 18.5 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 8 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 8 ft.
LATITUDE 37.642615 LONGITUDE -122.414355
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-7.5
18.5ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-13
PAGE 1 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-7.5
-9.0
-14.5
-16.5
-21.0
-24.5
-28.0
-29.5
-33.5
-35.5
MC-13C
SPT
MC-15B
SPT-16
MC-17
MC-18B
SPT-19B
MC-20B
SPT-21B
SPT-22
ST
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, some fine
gravel, low plasticity
becomes hard
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand, finesubangular to subrounded gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)[Qc]
very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to medium
sand, some fine subangular to subroundedgravel95% Sand, 2%Silt, 3% Clay
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
19
17
11
9
23
22
21
24
36
44
506"
506"
504"
68
506"
506"
504"
505"
106
119
136
103
105
5
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-37.5
-7.5ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-13
PAGE 2 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-45.5
-48.5
-59.5
MC-24B
SPT-25B
SPT-26
SPT-27
MC-28B
SPT-29
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]stiff to very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, some
fine subangular to subrounded gravel,
moderate plasticity
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to medium
sand
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, brown, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
sand, moderate plasticity
29
18
16
21
18
19
506"
58
505"
505"
506"
76
99
112
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page-67.5
-37.5ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-13
PAGE 3 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)60
65
70
75
80
85
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-67.5
-80.5
SPT-30
SPT-31
SPT-32
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray brown, fine to medium
sand
Bottom of Boring at 99.0 feet.
17
16
15
506"
506"
506"
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
-67.5ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-13
PAGE 4 OF 4
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)90
95
100
105
110
115
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
27.7
27.1
25.0
23.0
21.0
17.5
16.0
10.0
MC-1
MC-2B
MC-3C
MC-4B
SPT
MC-6B
SPT
MC-8B
SPT-9
MC-10C
MC-11B
SPT
4 inches asphalt concrete over 6 inchesaggregate base
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Fill]very dense, moist, brown and gray, fine sand,
fine to coarse subangular gravel
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine to medium
sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, light gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Liquid Limit = 38, Plastic Limit = 15
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]
hard to very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, lowplasticity
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine to coarse sand,
some fine subangular to subrounded gravel
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
NP = Non-plastic48% Sand, 49%Silt, 3% Clay
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
5
5
18
15
21
25
21
22
20
23
NP
506"
54
506"
506"
29
43
30
62
33
506"
506"
59
111
115
118
107
98
102
104
52
NOTES 54 Tanforan
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 6/26/20 DATE COMPLETED 6/26/20 BORING DEPTH 49.5 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 28 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 14 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 10 ft.
LATITUDE 37.641088 LONGITUDE -122.415248
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
Continued Next Page2.0
28.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-14
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJ>4.5
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
-5.5
-7.0
-15.0
-19.0
-21.4
MC-13B
SPT-14
SPT-15
ST
MC-17B
MC-18B
MC-19B
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 49.5 feet.
23
19
17
23
18
22
506"
78
66
71
506"
505"
102
104
111
106
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIONSYMBOL
2.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Development
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-14
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,ksf
SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55
TORVANE
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HAND PENETROMETER
DESCRIPTION NATURALMOISTURE CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEX, %N-Value (uncorrected)blows per footDRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFPERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVECORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 08:33 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL
5½ inches Portland cement concrete
Clayey Sand (SC) [Fill]estimated depth from nearby boring
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, light gray with gray mottles, fine
sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense to medium dense, wet, gray brown,
fine to medium sand
MC
MC
SPT
SPT
506"
65
28
60
32.5
30.5
28.0
22.0
Vault Box with locking cap
2 inch diameter sch. 40 PVC
casing to 13 feet
Grout from surface to 9 feet
Bentonite from 9 to 11 feet
8 inch diameter borehole
#3 Sand from 11 to 33 feet
.020" slotted screen from 13to 33 feet
NOTES Classification based on nearby boring: EB-11
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/1/20 DATE COMPLETED 7/1/20 BORING DEPTH 33 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 33 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 15 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 10 ft.
LATITUDE 37.640873°LONGITUDE -122.416907°
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOLContinued Next Page7.0
33.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 1 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-1
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense to medium dense, wet, gray brown,
fine to medium sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 33.0 feet.
GB
4.0
0.0
8 inch diameter borehole
.020" slotted screen from 13
to 33 feet
#3 Sand from 11 to 33 feet
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOL7.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 2 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-1
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
4 inches asphalt concrete over 9 incheasaggregate base and 4 inches Portland
cement concrete
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Fill]
estimated depth from nearby boring
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderateplasticity
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
becomes stiff
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
becomes medium dense to dense, wet
27.7
26.926.6
25.3
22.0
20.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
Vault Box with locking cap
2 inch diameter sch. 40 PVC
casing to 18 feet
Grout from surface to 14feet
8 inch diameter borehole
Bentonite from 14 to 16 feet
#3 Sand from 16 to 38 feet
.020" slotted screen from 18
to 38 feet
NOTES Classification based on nearby boring: EB-12
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/1/20 DATE COMPLETED 7/1/20 BORING DEPTH 38 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 28 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING 6 ft.
AT END OF DRILLING 9 ft.
LATITUDE 37.641888°LONGITUDE -122.415421°
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOLContinued Next Page2.0
28.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 1 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-2
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) [Qc]very dense, wet, gray, fine to medium sand
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 38.0 feet.
1.0
-3.0
-6.0
-10.0
.020" slotted screen from 18to 38 feet
#3 Sand from 16 to 38 feet
8 inch diameter borehole
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOL2.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 2 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-2
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
4 inches asphalt concrete over 6 inchesaggregate base
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) [Fill]estimated depth from nearby boring
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]medium dense, moist, gray, fine to medium
sand
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]hard, moist, light gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Qc]hard to very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low
plasticity
Clayey Sand (SC) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine to coarse sand,
some fine subangular to subrounded gravel
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]
very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
25.7
25.1
23.0
21.0
19.0
15.5
14.0
8.0
Vault Box with locking cap
2 inch diameter sch. 40 PVC
casing to 18 feet
Grout from surface to 14feet
8 inch diameter borehole
Bentonite from 14 to 16 feet
#3 Sand from 16 to 38 feet
.020" slotted screen from 18
to 38 feet
NOTES Classification based on nearby boring: EB-14
LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 7/1/20 DATE COMPLETED 7/1/20 BORING DEPTH 38 ft.GROUND ELEVATION 26 FT +/-
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
LATITUDE 37.641087°LONGITUDE -122.415248°
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)0
5
10
15
20
25 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOLContinued Next Page0.0
26.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 1 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-3
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]very dense, moist, gray, fine sand
Sandy Silt (ML) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, low plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL) [Qc]very stiff, moist, gray, fine sand, moderate
plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 38.0 feet.
-7.5
-9.0
-12.0
.020" slotted screen from 18to 38 feet
#3 Sand from 16 to 38 feet
8 inch diameter borehole
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used asa stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of theexploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with time. The description presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.
DESCRIPTION SAMPLESTYPE AND NUMBERDEPTH (ft)30
35
40
45
50
55 NATURALMOISTURE CONTENT, %DRY UNIT WEIGHTPCFN-Value (uncorrected)blows per footSYMBOL0.0ELEVATION (ft)PROJECT NAME Southline Develoopment
PROJECT NUMBER 129-3-6
PROJECT LOCATION South San Francisco, CA
PAGE 2 OF 2
PERCENT PASSINGNo. 200 SIEVEWell Details
Monitoring Well MW-3
CORNERSTONE GI WELL - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/23/20 12:19 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE WELL DETAILS.GPJ
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.
0 200 400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100100
qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 250 5000
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
Cornerstone Earth Group
Job No: 18-56010
Date: 2018-02-12 07:49
Site: Life Science Building
Sounding: CPT-01
Cone: 483:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 9.350 m / 30.68 ft
Depth Inc: 0.050 m / 0.164 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 18-56010_SP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166069m E: 551466m
Sheet No: 1 of 1
UndefinedSand Mixtures
Undefined
Sand MixturesSilt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sand MixturesSilt MixturesSilt MixturesSand MixturesSand Mixtures
Sand MixturesSand MixturesSand Mixtures
Sands
SandsUndefinedRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusal
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Hydrostatic LineDissipation, Ueq not achievedDissipation, Ueq achieved
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.
0 200 400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100100
qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 250 5000
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
Cornerstone Earth Group
Job No: 18-56010
Date: 2018-02-12 12:06
Site: Life Science Building
Sounding: CPT-02
Cone: 483:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 19.600 m / 64.30 ft
Depth Inc: 0.050 m / 0.164 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 18-56010_SP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166053m E: 551556m
Sheet No: 1 of 1
UndefinedSand MixturesSilt MixturesSilt MixturesSand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
ClaysStiff Sand to Clayey SandStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey SandVery Stiff Fine Grained
Very Stiff Fine GrainedStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Silt Mixtures
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Sand MixturesSilt Mixtures
Silt MixturesStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
SandsSand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
ClaysSand MixturesSilt Mixtures
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Clays
ClaysStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey SandSand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
ClaysVery Stiff Fine Grained
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Hydrostatic LineDissipation, Ueq not achievedDissipation, Ueq achieved
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.
0 200 400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100100
qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 250 5000
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
Cornerstone Earth Group
Job No: 18-56010
Date: 2018-02-12 10:39
Site: Life Science Building
Sounding: CPT-03
Cone: 483:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 28.600 m / 93.83 ft
Depth Inc: 0.050 m / 0.164 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 18-56010_SP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166152m E: 551523m
Sheet No: 1 of 1
UndefinedSilt MixturesSilt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Very Stiff Fine Grained
ClaysSand MixturesClaysVery Stiff Fine Grained
ClaysClays
Sand Mixtures
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Sand MixturesClaysSilt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sands
Sand MixturesSand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures
ClaysClaysClaysSilt MixturesSilt MixturesClays
Clays
Clays
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Sands
Sands
SandsSilt Mixtures
ClaysSilt Mixtures
Clays
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Clays
ClaysSilt Mixtures
Sand MixturesStiff Sand to Clayey SandSand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Clays
Sand Mixtures
Sand MixturesClays
Very Stiff Fine GrainedSand MixturesSilt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
UndefinedRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusal
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Hydrostatic LineDissipation, Ueq not achievedDissipation, Ueq achieved
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.
0 200 400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100100
qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 250 5000
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
Cornerstone Earth Group
Job No: 18-56010
Date: 2018-02-12 09:20
Site: Life Science Building
Sounding: CPT-04
Cone: 483:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 20.750 m / 68.08 ft
Depth Inc: 0.050 m / 0.164 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 18-56010_SP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10N N: 4166237m E: 551474m
Sheet No: 1 of 1
Undefined
Silt MixturesSilt Mixtures
ClaysSilt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
ClaysStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Sand MixturesSandsSilt MixturesSilt MixturesStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey SandStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Sands
Sand MixturesSand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Clays
Silt MixturesVery Stiff Fine Grained
SandsStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Silt MixturesSilt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
ClaysSilt Mixtures
Stiff Sand to Clayey SandSand Mixtures
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
ClaysSilt Mixtures
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Hydrostatic LineDissipation, Ueq not achievedDissipation, Ueq achieved
Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 8/12/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT5SITE:FIELD REP: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:33 AM1Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 8/12/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT5SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:33 AM2Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 8/12/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT6SITE:FIELD REP: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:34 AM3Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 8/12/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT6SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:34 AM4Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 73.33 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT7SITE:FIELD REP: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:34 AM5Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 73.33 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT7SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:34 AM6Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 73.33 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT7SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uShear Wave velocityHAND AUGERVs (ft/s)2,0001,5001,0005000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Custom DataShear Wave velocitySoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:35 AM7Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT8SITE:FIELD REP: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:35 AM8Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT8SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:35 AM9Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT10SITE:FIELD REP: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:36 AM10Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, INC.www.greggdrilling.comTotal depth: 50.36 ft, Date: 7/26/2019TANFORAN CAMPUS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCPT: CPT10SITE:Field Rep: NICK DEVLINSBTn 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 grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4003002001000Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)80757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.19 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 8/13/2019, 11:14:36 AM11Project file: C:\Users\Frank Stolfi\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\MA-2019\194011MA PART 2\REPORT\194011MA PART 2.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 63.48 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-11SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60N60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:39 PM1Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 63.48 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-11SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:39 PM2Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.69 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-12SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60N60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:39 PM3Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.69 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-12SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeOrganic soilSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:39 PM4Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.52 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-13SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60N60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:40 PM5Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.52 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-13SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:40 PM6Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.52 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-14SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60N60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:40 PM7Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 50.52 ft, Date: 2/20/2020LIFE SCIENCE PARCEL 6, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-14SITE:FIELD REP: BRYAN CERVANTESSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtTip resistance (tsf)6005004003002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)7068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 2:13:40 PM8Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209041MA\REPORT\209041MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 74.48 ft, Date: 6/23/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-15SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:27 AM1Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 74.48 ft, Date: 6/23/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-15SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:27 AM2Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-16SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:27 AM3Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-16SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:27 AM4Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-19SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM5Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-19SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM6Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-20SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM7Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: CPT-20SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM8Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 88.58 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: SCPT-17SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM9Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 88.58 ft, Date: 6/22/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: SCPT-17SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:28 AM10Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 95.80 ft, Date: 6/23/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: SCPT-18SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:29 AM11Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
CLIENT: CORNERSTONE EARTHGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 95.80 ft, Date: 6/23/2020SOUTHLAND AVE., S. SAN FRANCISCO, CACPT: SCPT-18SITE:FIELD REP: DIANA LINSBTn 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 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)6004002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)151050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)3002001000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soilCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 6/24/2020, 11:58:29 AM12Project file: C:\CPT-2020\209123MA\REPORT\209123MA.cpt
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 1
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
The laboratory testing program was performed to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the soils retrieved from the site to aid in verifying soil classification. Moisture Content: The natural water content was determined (ASTM D2216) on 99 samples of the materials recovered from the borings. These water contents are recorded on the boring
logs at the appropriate sample depths. Dry Densities: In place dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on 155
samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Grain Size Analyses: The particle size distribution (ASTM D422) was determined on 17 samples of the subsurface soils to aid in the classification of these soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Washed Sieve Analyses: The percent soil fraction passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140) was determined on 17 samples of the subsurface soils to aid in the classification of these soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Plasticity Index: Five Plasticity Index determinations (ASTM D4318) were performed on samples of the subsurface soils to measure the range of water contents over which this material exhibits plasticity. The Plasticity Index was used to classify the soil in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soil expansion potential. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Unconfined Compression: The unconfined compressive strength was determined on one relatively undisturbed sample by unconfined compression testing (ASTM D2166). The results of this test are included as part of this appendix.
Consolidation: One consolidation test (ASTM D2435) was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the subsurface clayey soils to assist in evaluating the compressibility property of this soil. Results of the consolidation test are presented graphically in this appendix. Corrosion: One soluble sulfate determination (ASTM D4327), one resistivity test (ASTM G57), one chloride determination (ASTM D4327), and one pH determination (ASTM G51) were performed on samples of the subsurface soil. Results of these tests are attached in this appendix.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
11.0
11.0
20.0
30.0
CuPI Cc
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTcoarse fine coarse medium
6
D30
11.0
11.0
20.0
30.0
16 20 30 40 501.5
47.0
31.9
70.8
27.5
0.085
0.06
0.205
0.052
0.297
0.297
4.75
0.594
0.035
0.021
0.081
0.011
0.002
0.014
200
D100 D60
6 810 14
Specimen Identification
Specimen Identification
Classification
D10
413/4 1/23/8 3
%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
EB-10
EB-9
EB-9
EB-9
100 14032
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
4
EB-10
EB-9
EB-9
EB-9
LL PL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.88
2.33
60
fine
HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sllty Sand (SM)
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)131730
42 / 11
56 / 12
23 / 6
52 / 21
53.0
15.1
Project: Tanforan Parcel 6
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Number: 129-3-3US_GRAIN_SIZE - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/17/20 12:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-3 TANFORAN PARCEL 6.GPJ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
18.5
22.0
53.5
CuPI Cc
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTcoarse fine coarse medium
6
D30
18.5
22.0
53.5
16 20 30 40 501.5
57.0
79.0
94.0
0.105
0.157
1.37
0.594
0.594
4.75
0.044
0.089
0.767
0.003
0.021
0.297
200
D100 D60
6 810 14
Specimen Identification
Specimen Identification
Classification
D10
413/4 1/23/8 3
%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
EB-11
EB-11
EB-11
100 14032
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
4
EB-11
EB-11
EB-11
LL PL
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.74
2.35
1.44
60
fine
HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)
35 / 8
16 / 5
3 / 3
32.4
7.4
4.6
Project: Southline Development
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Number: 129-3-6US_GRAIN_SIZE - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/17/20 13:26 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
43.5
19.5
35.0
15.0
CuPI Cc
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTcoarse fine coarse medium
6
D30
43.5
19.5
35.0
15.0
16 20 30 40 501.5
64.8
48.9
64.5
48.5
0.362
0.087
3.159
0.086
19.05
0.594
19.05
0.594
0.088
0.041
0.941
0.046
0.002
0.002
0.146
0.012
200
D100 D60
6 810 14
Specimen Identification
Specimen Identification
Classification
D10
413/4 1/23/8 3
%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
EB-12
EB-13
EB-13
EB-14
100 14032
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
4
EB-12
EB-13
EB-13
EB-14
LL PL
9.8
0.0
30.1
0.0
13.44
10.18
1.92
2.04
60
fine
HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
Silty Sand (SM)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)
Sandy Silt (ML)
14 / 11
41 / 10
2 / 3
49 / 3
226.2
45.4
21.7
7.1
Project: Southline Development
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Number: 129-3-6US_GRAIN_SIZE - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 7/17/20 13:28 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-3-6 SOUTHLINE.GPJ
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure B1
FLL
Plasticity Index Testing Summary
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 100908070605040302010
CL ML-OL MLor
OH MHor
CH
CL
Plasticity Index (%)Liquid Limit (%)
Group Name ( - D2487)USCS ASTM
Boring No.SymbolDepth
(ft)
Natural
Water
Content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plastic
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
Passing
No. 200
(%)“A”
li
n
e
Plasticity Index ( D4318) Testing SummaryASTM
EB-9 13.5
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)34EB-10 50 16192.0 —
July 2020
Southline Development
South San Francisco, CA
129-3-6
Sandy Silt (ML)21 —
Samples prepared in accordance with ASTM D421
determined non-plastic
EB-9 39.5 Sandy Silt (ML)25 53determined non-plastic
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)26EB-2 41 15193.5 —
Sandy Lean Clay ( L) [Fill]C9EB-4 22 13204.0 ---
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)13EB-9 30 172330.0 73
EB-12 43.5 Silty Sand (SM)12 25determined non-plastic
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)23EB-14 38 15185.5 —
EB-14 15.0 Sandy Silt (ML)21 52determined non-plastic
1 2 3 4
2467
17.1
1233
6.5
1.0
0.05
23.2
103.6
97.2
0.656
2.402
5.00
2.1
2.75
Boring Sample Depth, ft.
1 EB-14 17B 39.5
2
3
4
Job No.:Undisturbed
Client:
Project:
Date:7/10/2020 By:MD/RU
Assumed Specific Gravity
Sample Location
Soil Description
Cornerstone Earth Group
Gray Sandy CLAY
129-3-6
Type of Sample
Note: Remarks can be typed directly on report page.
640-1412
Specimen Height, inches
Height to Diameter Ratio
Strain Rate, % per minute
Sample No.:
Unconfined Compressive Strength, psf
Undrained Shear Strength, psf
Failure Strain, %
Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi
Strain Rate, inches/minute
Moisture Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Specimen Diameter, inches
0
1000
2000
3000
0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00Compressive Stress, psfStrain, %
Unconfined Compressive Strength
ASTM D2166
Sample1
Sample2
Sample3
Sample4
Remarks:
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
FLL
Strain-Log Curve - EB-12 @ 49.0’
Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Boring:_______ Sample:______ Depth:_______
Description:____________________________
EB-12 20 49.0’
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Figure B2Southline Development
South San Francisco, CA
129-3-6
July 2020
Moisture pH Temp.Chloride Sulfate
Content at Testing Dry Wt.Dry Wt.
%C°As Received Saturated mg/kg mg/kg
ASTM D2216 ASTM G51 G57 ASTM G57 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327
EB-12 2A 4.0 19.0 7.1 24.1 -1,164 18 76
EB-13 2C 4.0 18.0 7.3 24.3 0 1,257 18 77
EB-13 13C 27.0 19.0 7.9 25.2 0 1,802 28 126
EB-14 11B 23.5 20.0 8.0 26.1 0 3,681 26 126
Corrositivity Tests Summary
Gray Silty Sand (SM) [Qc]
129-3-6
Southline Tanforan
South San Francisco, CA
Gray Clayey Sand (SC)
[Qc]
Brown Lean Clay
with Sand (CL) [Qc]
Gray Sandy Lean Clay
(CL) [Qc]
Sample I.D.Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
Soil Visual Description
BoringSample No.Depth, ft.Job Number
Job Name
Location
Corrected to 15.5 C°
Date Tested
Tested By
7/10/2020
F Leblo
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page 1
APPENDIX C: SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS AND NON-LINEAR EFFECTIVE STRESS LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Robert Pyke, Consulting Engineer
1310 Alma Avenue, No. 201, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone 925.323.7338 E-mail bobpyke@attglobal.net
July 20, 2020
Nick S. Devlin, P.E.
Cornerstone Earth Group
1259 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, California 94085
Re: Southline
South San Francisco, California
Earthquake Ground Motions, Liquefaction and Settlement
Dear Nick,
At your request I have conducted site response analyses in accordance with the provisions
of ASCE 7-16 and developed an MCE design response spectrum for this project. By code,
the DBE design response spectra is simply two-thirds of the MCE spectrum. I have also
updated previous evaluations of the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction and
settlement using more complete and realistic analysis procedures.
The site is located in South San Francisco with representative co-ordinates being latitude
37.6412 and longitude -122.4151. The site lies in an area of active seismicity in between
the San Andreas fault, which is approximately 3.4 km to the west, and the
Hayward/Calaveras fault system to the east.
The location of various borings and CPT soundings and the subsurface conditions at the
site are described in more detail in your companion geotechnical report and your
previous geotechnical reports which were written as the overall site was assembled.
This report covers earthquake ground motions, liquefaction, and settlement for the
entire site, not just the parcel that has been explored most recently. Because of its
particular significance to site response analyses and the evaluation of earthquake-
induced liquefaction and settlement, I note that your geologist has advised “the depth to
Franciscan varies from about 420 in the northeast part to about 540 in the southwest
part. Colma Formation underlies the surface improvements across the site.”
Measured shear wave velocities are available from five SCPT soundings as shown in
Figure 1.
Page 2 of 20
Figure 1 – Shear Wave Velocity Profiles
As is typical of alluvial deposits of this kind, the soils, while generally fairly stiff are quite
variable both vertically and horizontally, particularly at depths greater than 50 feet, so
that the SCPT probe reached refusal at different depths in different soundings. However,
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0 500 1000 1500 2000Depth (ft)Vs (ft/sec)
Shear Wave Velocities
CPT-7
CPT-17
CPT-18
CPT-11A
CPT-12A
Page 3 of 20
your borings at the site indicate that the alluvium consists predominantly of silty and
clayey sands, sandy silts, and sandy lean clays or lean clays with sand, rather than
predominantly clean sand or gravel layers or lenses. In fact, any cleaner sands appear to
be discontinuous and thus are lenses rather than layers.
The average weighted average shear wave velocity over the top 30 meters, or 100 feet,
Vs30, for the site as a whole clearly falls within Site Class D according to ASCE 7-16 and the
2019 CBC. Therefor a site- specific seismic hazard analysis and / or a site-specific site
response analysis is required to determine the longer period ground motions for use in
design. On the basis of previous experience which has shown that site-specific hazard
analyses for Site Class D sites in the Bay Area tend to be conservative – because of the
variability of such sites the standard deviation based on data recorded in similar tectonic
regions worldwide is quite large, the hazard analysis results, whether governed by
probabilistic or deterministic criteria, tend to be conservative – I have elected to conduct
site response analyses which take into account the particular soil conditions at this site,
rather than using averaged results over the entire site class.
Earthquake Input Motions
In order to conduct site response analyses, I have developed a target response spectrum
and matching acceleration histories in the Franciscan Formation which is categorized as
Site Class B in ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 CBC. Figure 2 shows risk-adjusted, maximum
direction response spectra for this location and Site Class B determined using both
probabilistic and deterministic approaches. The probabilistic spectrum was obtained
using the USGS web site
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ (detailed results are
provided in Appendix A) and the deterministic spectrum was obtained using the
predominant source and magnitude, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake on the San Andreas
fault at a distance of 3.4 km, obtained from the de-aggregation of seismic hazard on that
web site and equal weighting of four of the five ground motion prediction equations
(GMPEs) (excluding that of Idriss) using the NGAWest2 spreadsheet which is
downloadable from
https://peer.berkeley.edu/peer-nga-west2-research-program-
releases-excel-file-five-horizontal-ground-motion-prediction. The
risk adjustment factors were obtained from the SEA/OSHPD web site
https://seismicmaps.org/ and the adjustment to “maximum direction” spectra
was made using the factors suggested by Shahi and Baker (2014). As expected, the
deterministic spectrum falls below the probabilistic spectrum and therefore governs.
Page 4 of 20
Figure 2 – ASCE 7-16 Site Class B Response Spectra
The target spectrum for matching acceleration histories shown subsequently in Figure 3 is
slightly different from the deterministic spectrum shown in Figure 2 because the analysis is
carried out with real values rather than artificial “maximum rotated” values. The target
spectrum is based on the mean values obtained from PEER spreadsheet, adjusted by the
risk factors and then increased by 10 percent consistent with Section 16.2.3.3 of ASCE 7-16.
In order to select appropriate seed records for matching time histories to this spectrum, I
utilized the table provided by Huang et al. (2008) that lists the moment magnitude,
distance and Vs30 for record pairs obtained within 15m of the fault rupture so that they
include some “near-fields effects”. ASCE 7-16 requires the use of a minimum of five input
motions for site response analyses, and, while it is not clear whether this means five single
components or five pairs of components, for good measure I used both horizontal
components of each of the five records listed in Table 1.
I then modified the recorded motions so that they matched the Site Class B MCE spectrum
for this location using the frequency domain program TINKER). The matches obtained to
the target spectrum are shown in Figure 3. Plots of the individual time histories before and
after matching have been saved and can be provided on request.
Page 5 of 20
Table 1 – Selected Earthquake Records
Earthquake Record Name Station Name Year Mw R (km) Vs30 (m/s)
Imperial Valley IV02 El Centro 9 1940 6.95 6.09 213.4
Imperial Valley IVEC4 El Centro 4 1979 6.53 7.05 208.9
Landers JOS Joshua Tree 1992 7.28 11.03 379.3
Kobe NIS Nishi-Akashi 1995 6.90 7.08 609.0
Kocaeli YAR Yarimca 1999 7.51 4.83 297.0
Figure 3 – Fit to ASCE 7-16 Site Class B Response Spectrum
Page 6 of 20
Nonlinear Effective Stress Analyses
The first formal analyses of the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction were
developed at the University of California, Berkeley, in the late nineteen sixties. These
analyses involved conducting “equivalent linear” site response analyses, extracting the
histories of shear stresses in relevant layers, and comparing those shear stress histories
with laboratory data obtained, usually, from cyclic triaxial tests. In spite of containing a
number of simplifications and hence approximations, at that time very few engineers
could conduct such analyses and so simplified methods of analysis, which worked
backwards from the estimated peak ground surface acceleration, were developed, first
for just the occurrence of liquefaction, and subsequently for seismic settlement and
lateral spreading.
However, in recent years there has been growing recognition that simplified methods for
evaluating the potential for liquefaction and hence settlement and lateral spreading due to
earthquakes can be excessively conservative. This is particularly true of methods based on
CPT penetration resistance which tend to add additional conservatism. The reasons for
this excessive conservatism have not been well or widely understood, and until very
recently there has been no practical alternative to using these simplified methods.
However, now Pyke (2015), Boulanger et al. (2016), Pyke (2019a), Pyke and North (2019)
and Crawford et al. (2019), my note on estimating seismic settlements,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/limitations-simplified-methods-estimating-seismic-
settlements-pyke/, and my presentation on estimating lateral spreading displacements,
Pyke (2019b),have spelled out the reasons that simplified analyses of liquefaction,
settlement and lateral spreading are generally quite conservative.
These publications provide several examples including a case history involving Lum
Elementary School in Alameda CA, in which excessive conservatism led to particularly
adverse social impacts. Pyke (2019 (a)) and Pyke and North (2019) also describe an
improved method for evaluating liquefaction and settlement which uses bi-directional,
nonlinear effective stress site response analyses as embodied in the computer program
TESS2. The estimates of settlement made by TESS2 are based on data from Pyke (1973)
but site-specific data can be substituted if it is available or acquired. Pyke (2019 (b)), also
describes how TESS2 can be used to make improved estimates of lateral spreading. These
improved analyses are consistent with an emerging consensus, see for example
Cubrinovsky (2019) and Kramer (2019), that nonlinear effective stress site response
analyses are necessary to understand case histories of liquefaction, let alone to make
forward predictions. They also provide the most accurate method for conducting site-
specific seismic hazard and/or site response analyses such as are generally required for
Site Classes D, E and F under ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 CBC.
Page 7 of 20
Evaluation of the Potential for Liquefaction
Any evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, and hence seismic settlement and lateral
spreading, should start not with analysis of any kind but by asking the question: “is
there any record of liquefaction of similar soils in a similar tectonic environment? See
Pyke (1995, 2003, 2015) and Semple (2013). For the Southline site the short answer is
“no”, but in order to make an appropriate judgement regarding the amount of excess
pore pressure development, if any, that is included in the TESS2 analyses, the following
factors were considered.
Clay content. As noted above, your borings indicate that the alluvium consists
predominantly of silty and clayey sands, sandy silts, and sandy lean clays or lean clays
with sand, rather than predominantly clean sand or gravel layers or lenses. In fact, any
cleaner sands appear to be discontinuous and thus are lenses rather than layers. Lenses of
sand are less susceptible to liquefaction than continuous layers as explained by Pyke
(1995)
SPT blowcounts. The recorded SPT blowcounts in any cleaner sand lenses are in any
case generally quite high, sometimes exceeding 50 blows per 6 inches penetration. The
silty sands / sandy silts with low blowcounts have been found to contain more than 10%
clay sizes, which accounts for their greater compressibility and lower penetration
resistance.
Interpreted relative densities. An example of the apparent relative densities interpreted
from CPT tip resistance is shown for just one SCPT in Figure 4, but this is typical of the
results for the other CPTs and SCPTS. The correlation used by the CPT vendor is based
on calibration chamber tests performed in Italy on freshly deposited, clean sands
(Jamoilkowski et al., 2003). The soil behavior type index, Ic, is a rough indicator of the
presence of silty and/or clayey fines and increases with the fines content. Standard
correlations of other properties with CPT tip resistance are only valid without correction
for the fines content for values of Ic of less than about 1.64 (Robertson and Wride, 1998).
The cleaner sands in this profile appear to have relative densities in the order of 80-100
percent and the lower interpreted relative density values for other soils appears to be an
indication of greater fines content rather than less compact soil.
Page 8 of 20
Figure 4 – Interpreted Relative Densities
Age of soils. As noted above “Colma Formation underlies the surface improvements
across the site.” The Colma was deposited during the last interglacial stage
approximately 100,000 years ago when sea level in the Bay Area was above 20 feet
higher than at present. Therefor the natural soils at the site have been subjected to
many previous earthquakes and, in the absence of complete liquefaction which remolds
the soil, ageing and cyclic pre-straining of sands reduces their potential potential for
liquefaction. A number of references on this subject are included in the reference list at
the end of this text.
Measured shear wave velocities. Multiple publications starting with Andrus and Stokoe
(2000) indicate that the occurrence of liquefaction in sands with a shear wave velocity of
greater than about 700 ft/sec is unlikely. The implied cyclic stress ratio causing
liquefaction in soils with shear wave velocities in the order of 700-800 ft/sec is
certainly greater than 0.4 and is more likely in the order of 0.6 to 0.8, and is even
greater for higher shear wave velocities.
TESS2 Analyses and Results
I have conducted site response analyses using the new nonlinear site response analysis
program TESS2. TESS2 employs the same explicit finite difference solution of the one-
dimension wave propagation problem and the same HDCP soil model as were used in the
earlier program TESS (Pyke, 1979, 1993, 2004). TESS has been verified and validated in a
number of studies including Kwok et al. (2007) and Stewart et al. (2008).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Relative Density (%)Ic
CPT-17
Page 9 of 20
In conventional “equivalent linear” analyses of site response it is necessary to specify the
shear wave velocity, or the shear modulus at small strains, Gmax, for each layer along with
a “modulus reduction curve”, and a modulus reduction curve of this kind can also be used
as the “backbone” curve for constructing simple nonlinear models of shear stress – shear
strain behavior. Pyke et al. (1993) constructed a consistent family of shear modulus
reduction curves in terms of the reference strain, which is equal to τmax, the asymptotic
value of the shear stress at large strains, divided by Gmax, the shear modulus at small
strains. The value of τmax may be much greater than the conventional shear strength
under monotonic loading as a result of both cyclic and rate of loading effects. For a plain
hyperbola the reference strain is equal to the shear strain at which G/ Gmax equals 0.5.
Typical modulus reduction curves in terms of reference strain are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 – Modulus Reduction Curves as a Function of Reference Strain
The modulus reduction curve for a reference strain of 0.1 percent closely matched the
upper bound of the modulus reduction curves for sands given by Seed and Idriss (1971)
which is widely accepted as a good representation of the modulus reduction curve for
relatively young, clean sands. Clayey soils exhibit less nonlinearity than sands and have
modulus reduction curves with larger reference strains. For instance, young Bay Mud, a
silty clay, has a reference strain of about 0.3 percent.
For clean sands there is also a depth effect, as shown in the modulus reduction curves
developed by Pyke et al. (1993) for use on nuclear power sites in Eastern North America
Page 10 of 20
which are shown in Figure 6. However, this depth effect, which results from τmax
increasing faster with depth than Gmax , is offset by ageing and cementation and a minimal
increase in the reference strain might be expected in cemented materials. Freshly made
laboratory samples of cemented materials in fact show much greater nonlinearity and
smaller reference strains (see for instance Yang and Salvati (2010)). But since the deeper
soils at this site have been repeatedly subject to strong earthquake ground motions, any
increased nonlinearity will likely be small. Thus, the soils at this site might be expected to
have reference strains between 0.1 and 0.3 percent, showing only a moderate increase
with depth.
Figure 6 – Modulus Reduction Curves as a Function of Depth
The new program, TESS2, runs two horizontal components of motion simultaneously
and, if appropriate, adds the excess pore pressures generated by each component in
accordance with the recommendation of Seed et al. (1978). Seismic settlements are
computed as described by Pyke (2019a), using data from Pyke (1973) factored as
necessary for the particular site conditions.
I have a number of runs with TESS2 using all five two-component input motions for
variations of a 500 feet deep profile in order to test the sensitivity of the computed ground
surface motions to the assumed soil properties. Groundwater has assumed to be at 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. The details of the assumed input parameters and the
results are shown for six of these runs in the printed outputs from TESS2 that are
Page 11 of 20
included in Appendix B and the plots of surface response spectra that are shown in
Figures 7-12. The mapped spectra acceleration parameters and the corresponding MCE
spectral acceleration parameters for Site Class D at this location were obtained from the
SEA/OSHPD web site https://seismicmaps.org/, as shown in Appendix A, and
Supplement No.1 to ASCE 7-16, and a spectrum anchored by 80 percent of the code
values, the minimum allowed for structures founded at the ground surface, is also
shown on these figures. The printed results in Appendix B include summaries of results
for runs SCPT12b and SCPT17b, the conservative “best estimate” runs for periods of less
than 1 second, full results for run SCPT12b showing all five pairs of input motions, and
full results for the other five runs showing just the IVO2 motions, which produced the
maximum excess pore pressures.
Two of the six runs closely follow the measured shear wave velocities from SCPT-12A and
SCPT-17 to the depths where the cone met refusal (70 feet and 90 feet). These profiles
were then extended to 500 feet using data measured some distance south on the Stanford
campus which is believed to represent an upper bound on the stiffness of the deeper soils
at the Southline site. The results for these profiles are impacted by occasional softer of
stiffer layers, or more likely lenses, but the effect of these lenses will diminish when
averaged with the adjacent soil columns, which must tend to move together in an
earthquake. Runs SCPT12b and SCPT17b have shallow velocity profiles which have been
smoothed in order to represent average conditions across the site. In one case this
increased the peak shorter period response and in the other case it reduced it because of
subtle variations in the computed excess pore pressures. Runs SCPT12d and SCPT17d use
the same smoothed shallow velocity profiles but have softer deep profiles. It may be seen
that this reduces the peak response at shorter periods but moves the bump in the
response spectra at around a period of 1 second, which corresponds to the equivalent
natural period of the soils at the site, to about a period of 1.5 seconds. The percentage
increase in the spectral acceleration at 1.5 seconds is quite large, but the values still fall
below the minimum code spectrum.
Additional runs were also made to explore the effect of varying the assumptions regarding
excess pore pressure development, but these had only a minor impact on the computed
ground surface motions. In the unrealistic case of allowing 100 percent excess pore
pressure to develop in one layer, the computed ground surface settlements were limited to
one inch, but the best estimate is that excess pore pressure development will be minimal
and that seismic settlements will be negligible, consistent with the historic record for this
class of deposit.
Page 12 of 20
Figure 7 – Computed Ground Surface Spectra for SCPT-12
Figure 8 – SCPT-12 with Smoothed Vs Profile
Page 13 of 20
Figure 9 – SCPT-12 with Softer Deep Vs Profile
Figure 10 – Computed Ground Surface Spectra for SCPT-17
Page 14 of 20
Figure 11 – SCPT-17 with Smoothed Vs Profile
Figure 12 – SCPT-17 with Softer Deep Vs Profile
Page 15 of 20
Figure 13 – Recommended MCE Spectrum
Table 2 – Recommended MCE Spectrum
PERIOD Sa
(seconds) (g)
0.01 0.68
0.02 0.73 0.03 0.78
0.05 0.89
0.07 0.99
0.1 1.15
0.15 1.41
0.2 1.82
1.04 1.82
1.2 1.48
1.5 1.19
2.0 0.89
3.0 0.59 4.0 0.45
5.0 0.36
7.0 0.25
10.0 0.18
Page 16 of 20
Keeping in mind that the softer deep profiles generate larger spectral accelerations at
periods greater than 1 second, I judge that runs SCPT12b and SCPT17b provide the best
estimates, erring on the side of conservatism, for periods of less than about 1 second.
The medians of the computed ground surfaces response spectra for these runs are
shown in Figure 13. Because the code minimum spectrum is defined in “maximum
direction” space, the computed median values have been multiplied by the Shahi and
Baker (2014) factors to convert them to “maximum direction” values that can be
compared to the code minimum values. In accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 21.4, the
value SMS should be taken as 90 percent of the peak spectral acceleration, which results
in a value of 1.82g. SDS by code is two-thirds of that value or 1.22g. At longer periods
the computed spectral accelerations for both the softer and stiffer deep profiles are less
than the code minimum for Site Class D so that the recommended MCE spectrum must
follow the black line in Figure 13. Because the flat top of that spectrum extends out to
1.04 seconds. SM1 and SD1 are also equal to 1.82g and 1.22g.
I note that this recommended spectrum and design parameters apply to structures
founded at the surface. They will likely be conservative for the design of embedded
and/or pile-supported structures and analyses for individual buildings may allow a
reduction to as low as 70 percent of the standard code spectrum in accordance with
Section 19.2.3 (4) of ASCE 7-16. However, even erring on the conservative side, the
recommended MCE spectrum is lower than the deterministic mean plus one motion
from the San Andreas fault using GMPEs based on world-wide data which would
otherwise govern design.
I would be happy to address any questions that you or the structural engineer might have.
Sincerely,
Robert Pyke Ph.D, G.E.
Page 17 of 20
References:
Andrus, R.D., Hayati, H. and Mohanan, N.P., “Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for
Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol 135, No 6, pp 735-744, 2009
Andrus, D.R. and Stokoe, K.H., “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-Wave
Velocity,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126,
No. 11, November, pp 1015-1025, 2000.
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., and Juang, C.H., “Guide for Shear-Wave Based Liquefaction
Potential Evaluation”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2004
Arango, I., Lewis, M.R. and Kramer, C., “Updated Liquefaction Potential Analysis
Eliminates Foundation Retrofitting at Two Critical Structures”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol 20, pp 17-25, 2000
Bwambale, B., and Andrus, R.D., “State of the art in the assessment of aging effects on
soil liquefaction”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 125, 2019
Boulanger, R.W., et al., “Evaluating Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading in Interbeddded
Sand, Silt and Clay Deposits Using the Cone Penetrometer”, Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization 5, Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney,
Australia, 2016
Crawford, C., Tootle, J., Pyke, R. and Reimer, M., “Comparison of simplified and more
refined analyses of seismic settlements”, Proc. 7th International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, June 2019
Cubrinovski, M., Keynote Lecture 09, “Key aspects in the engineering assessment of soil
liquefaction”, Proc. 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Rome, June 2019
Dobry, R., and T. Abdoun, “An Investigation Into Why Liquefaction Charts Work: A
Necessary Step Toward Integrating The States Of Art And Practice”, 5th International
Conference on Earthquake geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 2011.
Hayati, H. and Andrus R.D., “Updated Liquefaction Resistance Correction Factors for
Aged Sands, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol
135, No 11, pp 16831692, 2009
Page 18 of 20
Hayati, H., Andrus R.D., Gassman, S.L., Hasek, M., Camp, W.M., and Talwani, P.,
“Characterizing the Liquefaction Resistance of Aged Soils”, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress, ASCE GSP 181, 2008
Huang, Yin-Nang, Andrew S. Whittaker, and Nicolas Luco, “Maximum Spectral
Demands in the Near-Fault Region”, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, February
2008
Idriss, I.M. & Boulanger R.W., “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, MNO-12,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2008.
Idriss, I.M., Dobry, R., and Singh, R.D., “Nonlinear Behavior of Soft Clays”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.104, No.11, December 1978
Jamoilkowski, M., et al., “Evaluation of Relatove Density and Shear Stength of Sands from
CPT and DMT”, ASCE Special Geotechnical Publication 119, pp. 201-238, 2003
Kramer, S., Keynote Lecture 08, “The use of numerical analysis in the interpretation of
liquefaction case histories”, Proc. 7th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, June 2019
Kwok, A.O., J.P. Stewart, Y.M.A. Hashash, N. Matasovic, R. Pyke, Z. Wang, and Z. Yang,
“Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of
nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures,” J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg.,
ASCE, 133 (11), 2007
Leon, E., Gassman, S.L., and Talwani, P., “Accounting for Soil Aging when Assessing
Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 132, No.3, pp 363-377, 2006
Lewis, M.R., et al., “Site Characterization Philosophy and Liquefaction Evaluation of
Aged Sands”, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress,
ASCE GSP 181, 2008
Mitchell, J.K., “Practical Problems from Surprising Soil Behavior - the Twentieth
Terzaghi Lecture”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 255–
289, 1986
Pyke, R., "Settlement and Liquefaction of Sands Under Multi-Directional Loading,"
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1973
Page 19 of 20
Pyke, R., "Non-linear Soil Models for Irregular Cyclic Loadings," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 105, No. GT6, June 1979
Pyke, R., et al., “Modeling of Dynamic Soil Properties”, Appendix 7.A, Guidelines for
Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, Report No. TR-102293, Electric Power
Research Institute, November 1993
Pyke, R., "Practical Aspects of the Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential", Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara (ed.), Balkema, 1995
Pyke, R., Discussion of “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report From the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of liquefaction
Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 129, No.3, pp 283-284, 2003
Pyke, R., “Evolution of Soil Models Since the 1970s.”, Opinion Paper, International
Workshop on Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and their Impact on Modeling
Dynamic Soil Response, Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and PEER
Lifelines Program PEER Headquarters, UC Berkeley, March 18-19, 2004.
Pyke, R., “Evaluating the Potential for Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction in Practice”, 6th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, New
Zealand, November 2015
Pyke, R., “Improved analyses of earthquake-induced liquefaction and settlement”, Proc
7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, June
2019 (a)
Pyke, R., and North, J., “Shortcomings of simplified analyses of earthquake-induced
liquefaction and settlement”, Proc. 7th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, June 2019
Pyke, R., “Improved Analysis of Potential Lateral Spreading Displacements in
Earthquakes”, Presented at the 2nd Ishihara Colloquium, San Diego State University,
August 22-23, 2019 (b) - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/improved-analysis-potential-
lateral-spread-earthquakes-robert-pyke/
Pyke, R., “Limitations of Vs30 for characterizing sites for ground motion studies and
guidance on the conduct of nonlinear site response analyses”, 2020
Page 20 of 20
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/limitations-vs30-characterizing-sites-ground-motion-
studies-pyke-1c/
Robertson, P.K., and Wride,C.E., “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 442-459, 1998
Schmertmann, J.H., "The Mechanical Ageing of Soils – the Twenty Fifth Terzaghi
Lecture", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9, 1991
Seed, H. Bolton, “Some Aspects of Sand Liquefaction Under Cyclic loading”,
Proceedings of BOSS ’76, Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 1, pp. 374-391, 1976
Seed, H. Bolton, “Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground
During Earthquakes,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol. 105, No. GT2, pp. 201-255, 1979.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., “Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response
Analyses”, Report No. EERC 70-10, December 1970
Seed, H. Bolton, Martin, P.P., Lysmer, J., "Pore Pressure Changes During Soil
Liquefaction", ASCE, Vol.102, No.GT4, April 1976
Seed, H. Bolton, Pyke, R., and Martin, G.R., "Effect of Multi-directional Shaking on Pore
Pressure Development in Sands," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, volume 104, No. GT1, January 1978.
Semple, R., “Problems with Liquefaction Criteria and Their Application in Australia”,
Australian Geomechanics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp 15-48, September 2013
Shahi, S.K. and Baker, J.W., “NGA-West 2 Models for Ground Motion Directionality”,
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 30, No. 3, August 2014
Stewart, J.P., Kwok, A.O., Hashash, Y.M.A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang,
Z., ”Benchmarking of nonlinear geotechnical ground response analysis procedures,”
Report PEER 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 2008
Yang, L., and Salvati, L.A., “Modeling the Dynamic Properties of Cemented Sand for Site
Response Analysis”, Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 362, Toronto, 2010
Appendix A
Output from SEA/OSHPD and USGS Hazard Tools
Appendix B
Example Outputs
Nonlinear Site Response Analyses
The following pages show:
1. Summaries of the results for two runs of TESS2, SCPT12b and SCPT17b, showing the ground
surface peak ground motion parameters, the maximum excess pore pressure ration
anywhere in the profile, and the total or ground surface seismic settlements, for all five pairs
of input motions.
2. The printed output from TESS2 for six runs showing the assumed input parameters and
some of the results. The printed results are shown for all five pairs of input motions for
SCPT12b, and the results is shown for just the IV02 input motions (which happens to
produce the largest excess pore pressures) for SCPT12, SCPT12d, SCPT17, SCPT17b and
SCPT17d.
Definitions of key column headings are as follows:
In the INPUT data:
SIGV - vertical effective stress
VS - shear wave velocity
GMAX - shear modulus at low strains
TAUMAX - asymptote of stress-strain curve under rapid, cyclic loading
GAMREF – reference strain - ratio of TAUMAX to shear modulus at low strains
In the OUTPUT:
TAUMAX – is now the peak shear stress during the loading
GAMMAX – is the peak cyclic shear strain
DELTA, DETAG and DETAU – are degradation indices generally used for clayey soils. Unity indicates
no degradation.
UMAX – maximum excess pore pressure ratio at any time. Unity indicates initial liquefaction.
UFINAL – excess pore pressure ratio at the end of the specified input motion
*****************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT GROUND SURFACE – SCPT12b
*****************************************************
INPUT FILE INPUT MOTION INPUT AMAX SLOPE COMP KDIS AMAX VMAX DMAXR DFINALR RUMAX SETTLEMENT
scpt12b IV02180.txt 0.70 0.00 1 0 0.65 2.54 0.35 -0.05 0.24 0.01
scpt12b iv02270.txt 0.63 0.00 2 0 0.51 2.70 0.40 0.08 0.24 0.01
scpt12b IVEC4140.txt 0.71 0.00 1 0 0.60 2.55 0.56 0.06 0.16 0.01
scpt12b IVEC4230.txt 0.66 0.00 2 0 0.60 2.92 0.50 -0.08 0.16 0.01
scpt12b JOS000.txt 0.58 0.00 1 0 0.50 2.70 0.32 0.17 0.25 0.01
scpt12b JOS090.txt 0.61 0.00 2 0 0.54 2.56 0.48 -0.02 0.25 0.01
scpt12b NIS000.txt 0.67 0.00 1 0 0.53 2.40 0.35 0.15 0.16 0.01
scpt12b NIS090.txt 0.62 0.00 2 0 0.62 2.41 0.30 -0.01 0.16 0.01
scpt12b YAR060.txt 0.71 0.00 1 0 0.54 2.24 0.31 0.00 0.22 0.01
scpt12b YAR330.txt 0.71 0.00 2 0 0.59 2.50 0.45 0.24 0.22 0.01
RUMAX IS MAX RU IN ANY LAYER; SETTLEMENT IS SETTLEMENT OF GROUND SURFACE IN FEET
DFINALR IS GROUND SURFACE FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN GSFRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER THAN ZERO
*****************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT GROUND SURFACE – SCPT17b
*****************************************************
INPUT FILE INPUT MOTION INPUT AMAX SLOPE COMP KDIS AMAX VMAX DMAXR DFINALR RUMAX SETTLEMENT
scpt17b IV02180.txt 0.70 0.00 1 0 0.50 2.69 0.41 -0.04 0.46 0.01
scpt17b iv02270.txt 0.63 0.00 2 0 0.55 2.86 0.45 0.16 0.46 0.01
scpt17b IVEC4140.txt 0.71 0.00 1 0 0.58 2.82 0.60 0.05 0.32 0.01
scpt17b IVEC4230.txt 0.66 0.00 2 0 0.58 3.03 0.56 -0.06 0.32 0.01
scpt17b JOS000.txt 0.58 0.00 1 0 0.54 2.86 0.35 0.14 0.43 0.01
scpt17b JOS090.txt 0.61 0.00 2 0 0.54 2.73 0.52 -0.06 0.43 0.01
scpt17b NIS000.txt 0.67 0.00 1 0 0.56 2.63 0.37 0.12 0.33 0.01
scpt17b NIS090.txt 0.62 0.00 2 0 0.65 2.60 0.40 0.07 0.33 0.01
scpt17b YAR060.txt 0.71 0.00 1 0 0.58 2.26 0.32 0.01 0.38 0.01
scpt17b YAR330.txt 0.71 0.00 2 0 0.56 2.66 0.50 0.30 0.38 0.01
RUMAX IS MAX RU IN ANY LAYER; SETTLEMENT IS SETTLEMENT OF GROUND SURFACE IN FEET
DFINALR IS GROUND SURFACE FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN GSFRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER THAN ZERO
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: scpt12
****************************************
Southline SCPT-12A
****************************************
Base case
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
3 3 0.700 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
4 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
3 80 0.50
4 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 700.00 1673.91 3.348 0.200 0.350
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 700.00 1673.91 3.013 0.180 0.350
3 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.22 671.00 1538.09 2.307 0.150 0.335
4 4 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.46 843.00 2427.68 2.913 0.120 0.421
5 1 5.00 0.110 1.69 555.00 1052.26 2.631 0.250 0.277
6 1 5.00 0.110 1.93 873.00 2603.55 5.207 0.200 0.436
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.15 703.00 1534.81 3.070 0.200 0.352
8 1 5.00 0.100 2.33 993.00 3062.26 6.125 0.200 0.496
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.67 1275.00 5553.38 9.996 0.180 0.319
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.14 1190.00 4837.61 7.256 0.150 0.297
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.62 1150.00 4517.86 6.777 0.150 0.287
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.09 1400.00 6695.65 10.043 0.150 0.350
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.57 1200.00 4919.25 8.855 0.180 0.300
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.05 1500.00 7686.33 11.530 0.150 0.375
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.81 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.86 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.91 1400.00 7000.00 17.500 0.250 0.175
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.97 1450.00 7508.93 18.772 0.250 0.181
19 1 20.00 0.115 10.02 1500.00 8035.71 20.089 0.250 0.187
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.07 1560.00 8691.43 21.729 0.250 0.195
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.12 1620.00 9372.86 23.432 0.250 0.203
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.17 1670.00 9960.36 24.901 0.250 0.209
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.23 1720.00 10565.71 26.414 0.250 0.215
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.28 1760.00 11062.86 27.657 0.250 0.220
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.33 1820.00 11830.00 29.575 0.250 0.227
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.38 1870.00 12488.93 31.222 0.250 0.234
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.43 1900.00 12892.86 32.232 0.250 0.237
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.49 1950.00 13580.36 33.951 0.250 0.244
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.54 1990.00 14143.21 35.358 0.250 0.249
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.59 2030.00 14717.50 36.794 0.250 0.254
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.64 2060.00 15155.71 37.889 0.250 0.257
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.69 2100.00 15750.00 39.375 0.250 0.262
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.75 2130.00 16203.21 40.508 0.250 0.266
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.80 2160.00 16662.86 41.657 0.250 0.270
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.557 2.671 0.380 6.114 0.007 0.153 0.010 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.521 2.663 0.379 6.114 0.007 0.424 0.031 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.673 2.644 0.379 6.114 0.007 0.731 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.322 0.322 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.553 2.604 0.378 6.119 0.006 0.925 0.060 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.297 0.297 0.005 17.50
5 20.00 0.510 2.572 0.378 6.119 0.006 1.157 0.219 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.467 2.459 0.382 6.126 0.011 1.343 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.499 2.413 0.381 6.129 0.011 1.512 0.223 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.504 2.328 0.385 6.134 0.021 1.689 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.472 2.294 0.385 6.134 0.025 1.971 0.045 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.486 2.245 0.386 6.139 0.028 2.352 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.520 2.178 0.387 6.141 0.034 2.682 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.461 2.106 0.389 6.146 0.046 2.935 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.551 2.062 0.390 6.149 0.053 3.182 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.426 1.990 0.388 6.151 0.064 3.382 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.404 1.950 0.390 6.156 0.073 3.664 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.408 1.893 0.376 6.156 0.075 4.211 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.454 1.816 0.363 6.159 0.086 4.758 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.441 1.731 0.344 6.159 0.086 5.244 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.503 1.657 0.319 6.164 0.078 6.030 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.436 1.707 0.291 6.161 0.072 6.636 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.401 1.728 0.265 6.161 0.061 7.156 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.370 1.740 0.241 6.164 0.058 7.608 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.418 1.744 0.211 6.159 0.052 7.959 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.430 1.742 0.188 6.156 0.046 8.138 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.424 1.737 0.168 6.154 0.046 8.228 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.426 1.728 0.144 6.154 0.038 8.373 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.431 1.707 0.120 6.146 0.027 8.626 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.429 1.679 0.097 5.441 0.018 8.912 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.434 1.650 0.084 5.436 0.015 9.280 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.426 1.628 0.071 5.429 0.007 9.224 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.429 1.607 0.058 5.426 0.008 9.485 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.464 1.576 0.043 5.421 0.001 9.720 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.483 1.549 0.030 5.419 0.002 9.862 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.544 1.506 0.015 5.416 -0.000 9.899 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.475 1.468 0.807 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.530 2.743 0.381 11.911 0.068 0.146 0.009 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.527 2.737 0.380 11.911 0.068 0.421 0.029 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.524 2.722 0.379 11.911 0.068 0.687 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.322 0.322 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.504 2.682 0.375 11.911 0.069 0.932 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.297 0.297 0.005 17.50
5 20.00 0.515 2.672 0.371 11.911 0.070 1.171 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.583 2.524 0.358 11.906 0.071 1.421 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.505 2.474 0.353 11.906 0.069 1.557 0.276 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.572 2.327 0.348 11.903 0.073 1.793 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.496 2.272 0.345 11.903 0.073 1.991 0.051 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.457 2.215 0.341 11.903 0.072 2.424 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.541 2.155 0.334 11.903 0.065 2.811 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.499 2.119 0.327 11.903 0.060 3.140 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.544 2.109 0.322 11.901 0.058 3.457 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.477 2.118 0.315 11.901 0.053 3.798 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.363 2.129 0.312 11.898 0.054 4.296 0.101 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.356 2.166 0.294 11.896 0.053 4.888 0.120 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.375 2.200 0.275 11.888 0.051 5.352 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.412 2.210 0.252 11.878 0.050 5.721 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.367 2.212 0.239 25.580 0.055 5.952 0.116 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.390 2.217 0.231 25.675 0.057 6.016 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.436 2.192 0.228 25.680 0.067 6.289 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.447 2.168 0.213 25.682 0.061 6.555 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.400 2.130 0.199 25.682 0.055 6.777 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.511 2.090 0.185 25.682 0.053 7.088 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.526 2.047 0.174 25.682 0.053 7.396 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.531 2.007 0.159 25.685 0.049 7.767 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.529 1.967 0.141 25.682 0.044 8.258 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.530 1.931 0.124 25.682 0.037 8.485 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.472 1.886 0.110 25.680 0.035 8.518 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.530 1.840 0.095 25.677 0.034 8.795 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.462 1.783 0.073 25.675 0.026 9.048 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.532 1.723 0.052 25.675 0.015 9.680 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.557 1.667 0.031 25.672 0.007 9.934 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.466 1.616 0.016 25.682 0.004 9.982 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.425 1.595 1.287 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: scpt12b
****************************************
Southline SCPT-12A
****************************************
Less variable Vs profile
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
3 3 0.700 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
4 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
3 80 0.50
4 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 700.00 1673.91 3.348 0.200 0.350
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 700.00 1673.91 3.013 0.180 0.350
3 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.22 671.00 1538.09 2.307 0.150 0.335
4 4 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.46 843.00 2427.68 2.913 0.120 0.421
5 1 5.00 0.110 1.69 855.00 2497.29 6.243 0.250 0.427
6 1 5.00 0.110 1.93 873.00 2603.55 5.207 0.200 0.436
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.15 703.00 1534.81 3.070 0.200 0.352
8 1 5.00 0.100 2.33 993.00 3062.26 6.125 0.200 0.496
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.67 1075.00 3947.79 7.106 0.180 0.269
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.14 1190.00 4837.61 7.256 0.150 0.297
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.62 1150.00 4517.86 6.777 0.150 0.287
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.09 1200.00 4919.25 7.379 0.150 0.300
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.57 1200.00 4919.25 8.855 0.180 0.300
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.05 1300.00 5773.29 8.660 0.150 0.325
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.81 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.86 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.91 1400.00 7000.00 17.500 0.250 0.175
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.97 1450.00 7508.93 18.772 0.250 0.181
19 1 20.00 0.115 10.02 1500.00 8035.71 20.089 0.250 0.187
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.07 1560.00 8691.43 21.729 0.250 0.195
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.12 1620.00 9372.86 23.432 0.250 0.203
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.17 1670.00 9960.36 24.901 0.250 0.209
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.23 1720.00 10565.71 26.414 0.250 0.215
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.28 1760.00 11062.86 27.657 0.250 0.220
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.33 1820.00 11830.00 29.575 0.250 0.227
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.38 1870.00 12488.93 31.222 0.250 0.234
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.43 1900.00 12892.86 32.232 0.250 0.237
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.49 1950.00 13580.36 33.951 0.250 0.244
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.54 1990.00 14143.21 35.358 0.250 0.249
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.59 2030.00 14717.50 36.794 0.250 0.254
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.64 2060.00 15155.71 37.889 0.250 0.257
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.69 2100.00 15750.00 39.375 0.250 0.262
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.75 2130.00 16203.21 40.508 0.250 0.266
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.80 2160.00 16662.86 41.657 0.250 0.270
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.650 2.536 0.353 5.476 -0.049 0.179 0.011 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.483 2.529 0.353 5.479 -0.049 0.399 0.027 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.511 2.507 0.352 5.479 -0.049 0.643 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.242 0.242 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.525 2.474 0.350 6.121 -0.049 0.885 0.052 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.235 0.235 0.004 17.50
5 20.00 0.516 2.448 0.350 6.124 -0.049 1.110 0.055 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.543 2.417 0.349 6.124 -0.048 1.327 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.550 2.378 0.349 6.126 -0.046 1.523 0.227 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.471 2.283 0.353 6.134 -0.040 1.681 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.496 2.243 0.353 6.134 -0.037 1.959 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.418 2.182 0.354 6.136 -0.030 2.328 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.427 2.129 0.357 6.139 -0.020 2.644 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.411 2.070 0.361 6.144 -0.004 2.905 0.107 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.451 2.013 0.360 6.146 0.008 3.113 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.519 1.951 0.359 6.151 0.020 3.296 0.101 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.404 1.901 0.351 6.154 0.027 3.578 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.409 1.836 0.338 6.159 0.030 4.226 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.449 1.753 0.328 6.161 0.038 4.779 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.438 1.672 0.315 6.161 0.045 5.162 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.392 1.653 0.294 6.164 0.047 5.932 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.382 1.702 0.272 6.161 0.042 6.503 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.400 1.735 0.246 6.161 0.039 7.092 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.404 1.751 0.225 6.159 0.038 7.557 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.435 1.761 0.202 6.159 0.036 7.824 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.407 1.764 0.178 6.156 0.033 7.960 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.404 1.761 0.158 6.151 0.026 8.157 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.404 1.748 0.136 6.146 0.021 8.291 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.400 1.723 0.110 6.141 0.011 8.472 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.388 1.686 0.098 5.441 0.004 8.699 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.410 1.647 0.082 5.434 0.002 9.027 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.443 1.616 0.067 5.429 0.007 9.237 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.459 1.589 0.053 4.501 0.006 9.469 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.413 1.561 0.040 5.421 0.004 9.679 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.437 1.532 0.028 5.414 0.004 9.815 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.532 1.502 0.016 4.396 0.002 10.040 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.475 1.462 0.807 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.509 2.699 0.398 11.916 0.085 0.140 0.009 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.494 2.693 0.398 11.916 0.085 0.403 0.029 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.533 2.672 0.397 11.916 0.085 0.660 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.242 0.242 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.521 2.635 0.393 11.916 0.088 0.898 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.235 0.235 0.004 17.50
5 20.00 0.564 2.607 0.391 11.913 0.089 1.142 0.059 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.599 2.580 0.387 11.913 0.089 1.363 0.086 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.566 2.536 0.383 11.913 0.087 1.566 0.284 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.581 2.406 0.368 11.908 0.081 1.725 0.097 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.457 2.353 0.362 11.908 0.078 1.980 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.424 2.254 0.356 11.908 0.075 2.389 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.448 2.163 0.351 11.906 0.074 2.780 0.128 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.438 2.100 0.343 11.906 0.072 3.130 0.138 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.511 2.083 0.334 11.903 0.065 3.464 0.135 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.515 2.084 0.324 11.901 0.060 3.796 0.140 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.431 2.101 0.311 11.898 0.054 4.257 0.102 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.360 2.142 0.296 11.893 0.055 4.801 0.119 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.380 2.186 0.273 11.886 0.052 5.212 0.114 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.402 2.194 0.249 11.878 0.050 5.570 0.109 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.390 2.204 0.233 25.672 0.052 5.819 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.391 2.191 0.223 25.682 0.048 5.972 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.381 2.177 0.216 25.685 0.050 6.145 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.409 2.134 0.208 25.687 0.049 6.432 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.404 2.098 0.202 25.687 0.051 6.682 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.440 2.068 0.189 25.690 0.046 6.973 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.478 2.036 0.174 25.687 0.044 7.422 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.426 2.002 0.161 25.687 0.041 7.800 0.086 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.492 1.964 0.151 25.685 0.043 8.079 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.456 1.919 0.130 25.682 0.034 8.351 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.463 1.886 0.109 25.682 0.028 8.779 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.506 1.845 0.091 25.680 0.025 8.809 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.458 1.789 0.073 25.680 0.019 9.240 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.494 1.742 0.050 25.687 0.009 9.847 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.570 1.676 0.028 3.154 0.002 9.850 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.549 1.611 0.012 3.144 -0.003 10.172 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.454 1.584 1.286 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
*********************
NEXT INPUT MOTION
*********************
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IVEC4140
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.71 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.600 2.548 0.558 5.779 0.063 0.165 0.011 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.601 2.540 0.558 5.779 0.063 0.495 0.037 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.600 2.521 0.556 5.776 0.063 0.818 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.149 0.149 0.004 12.50
4 15.00 0.629 2.495 0.553 5.776 0.063 1.137 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.161 0.161 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.771 2.471 0.549 5.776 0.062 1.462 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.708 2.447 0.545 5.776 0.062 1.768 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.808 2.426 0.540 5.774 0.063 2.063 0.361 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.618 2.384 0.516 5.764 0.071 2.315 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.580 2.374 0.509 5.764 0.073 2.699 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.512 2.346 0.498 5.761 0.073 3.213 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.510 2.346 0.487 5.756 0.073 3.703 0.150 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.525 2.357 0.471 5.749 0.069 4.148 0.159 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.371 2.372 0.454 5.744 0.063 4.539 0.165 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.451 2.387 0.438 5.736 0.057 4.868 0.167 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.394 2.400 0.421 5.731 0.056 5.316 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.394 2.413 0.397 5.724 0.057 5.856 0.144 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.393 2.403 0.368 5.714 0.051 6.246 0.133 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.357 2.306 0.342 5.701 0.039 6.535 0.134 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.485 2.170 0.314 5.691 0.029 7.041 0.132 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.444 2.085 0.283 5.681 0.021 7.541 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.428 2.017 0.253 5.671 0.024 7.890 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.489 1.940 0.224 5.639 0.030 8.046 0.116 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.424 1.856 0.200 5.614 0.032 8.091 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.382 1.769 0.178 5.599 0.033 8.104 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.375 1.675 0.159 5.881 0.033 8.336 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.428 1.579 0.142 5.879 0.031 8.088 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.463 1.478 0.127 5.874 0.032 8.102 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.469 1.370 0.109 5.869 0.030 8.187 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.469 1.264 0.093 5.864 0.026 8.439 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.466 1.168 0.078 5.859 0.023 8.537 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.455 1.140 0.062 5.854 0.019 8.861 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.470 1.132 0.045 5.849 0.017 9.181 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.490 1.130 0.029 5.844 0.013 9.588 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.481 1.127 0.016 5.841 0.008 9.946 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.480 1.131 0.864 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IVEC4230
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.66 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.596 2.919 0.504 5.799 -0.076 0.164 0.010 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.583 2.897 0.504 5.799 -0.076 0.469 0.031 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.603 2.830 0.503 5.799 -0.076 0.760 0.071 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.149 0.149 0.004 12.50
4 15.00 0.675 2.731 0.499 5.799 -0.077 1.073 0.067 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.161 0.161 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.689 2.668 0.496 5.801 -0.079 1.381 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.675 2.606 0.494 5.801 -0.080 1.600 0.101 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.671 2.559 0.490 5.804 -0.081 1.837 0.349 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.598 2.509 0.474 5.809 -0.099 2.132 0.110 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.664 2.496 0.470 5.814 -0.101 2.349 0.097 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.523 2.463 0.464 5.819 -0.105 2.741 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.524 2.436 0.457 5.821 -0.108 3.108 0.140 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.472 2.417 0.444 5.826 -0.117 3.490 0.140 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.536 2.420 0.434 5.829 -0.124 3.914 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.516 2.411 0.425 5.831 -0.124 4.113 0.140 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.521 2.368 0.413 5.834 -0.131 4.474 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.514 2.295 0.394 5.834 -0.132 4.688 0.121 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.541 2.244 0.368 5.836 -0.132 5.048 0.110 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.496 2.241 0.344 5.834 -0.130 5.851 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.401 2.253 0.318 5.834 -0.128 6.689 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.443 2.287 0.294 5.831 -0.118 7.318 0.114 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.471 2.336 0.272 5.829 -0.109 7.962 0.112 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.386 2.366 0.249 5.826 -0.103 8.430 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.378 2.375 0.228 5.824 -0.091 8.888 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.395 2.371 0.207 5.819 -0.081 9.208 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.417 2.362 0.189 5.816 -0.070 9.539 0.105 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.394 2.339 0.168 5.814 -0.062 9.788 0.102 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.386 2.306 0.151 5.809 -0.046 10.103 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.454 2.288 0.132 5.804 -0.030 10.300 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.389 2.256 0.115 5.801 -0.026 10.379 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.398 2.242 0.098 5.799 -0.024 10.749 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.397 2.212 0.078 5.796 -0.015 10.799 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.407 2.198 0.058 5.791 -0.008 11.181 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.419 2.190 0.038 5.806 -0.004 11.176 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.484 2.186 0.020 5.771 -0.002 11.222 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.437 2.175 1.369 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 8
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 9
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 10
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 11
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 12
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 13
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 14
*********************
NEXT INPUT MOTION
*********************
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR JOS000
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.58 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.498 2.702 0.322 28.018 0.171 0.137 0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.491 2.697 0.322 28.018 0.171 0.406 0.028 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.512 2.686 0.321 28.020 0.171 0.672 0.066 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.249 0.249 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.566 2.665 0.322 28.020 0.175 0.924 0.061 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.247 0.247 0.005 17.50
5 20.00 0.537 2.643 0.320 28.020 0.176 1.165 0.059 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.453 2.610 0.318 28.023 0.177 1.401 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.462 2.568 0.317 28.025 0.179 1.612 0.230 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.518 2.481 0.327 28.035 0.199 1.776 0.086 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.434 2.441 0.326 28.038 0.201 2.094 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.421 2.404 0.323 28.043 0.202 2.513 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.409 2.391 0.320 28.048 0.205 2.899 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.408 2.378 0.318 28.050 0.209 3.220 0.116 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.455 2.353 0.306 28.053 0.203 3.492 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.416 2.328 0.290 28.055 0.194 3.710 0.110 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.384 2.294 0.278 28.055 0.186 3.968 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.350 2.223 0.255 28.058 0.171 4.216 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.347 2.116 0.232 28.060 0.155 4.338 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.348 2.033 0.207 37.875 0.138 4.551 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.347 2.014 0.192 16.455 0.119 4.770 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.331 1.987 0.174 16.445 0.110 4.981 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.334 1.944 0.158 25.545 0.095 5.180 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.348 1.882 0.157 25.542 0.093 5.572 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.393 1.822 0.150 25.542 0.086 5.894 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.423 1.795 0.146 25.535 0.086 6.060 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.442 1.768 0.139 20.248 0.080 6.307 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.458 1.763 0.123 20.246 0.069 6.648 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.433 1.755 0.110 20.238 0.061 6.949 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.423 1.767 0.095 20.233 0.053 7.430 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.403 1.760 0.081 20.228 0.041 7.405 0.066 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.394 1.784 0.065 20.221 0.029 7.627 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.418 1.760 0.056 20.216 0.028 7.750 0.064 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.397 1.756 0.040 20.213 0.014 7.946 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.416 1.757 0.026 13.885 0.008 8.057 0.060 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.436 1.752 0.015 13.883 0.001 8.200 0.057 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.397 1.742 0.941 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR JOS090
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.61 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.536 2.562 0.476 10.136 -0.025 0.147 0.009 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.531 2.552 0.476 10.136 -0.025 0.426 0.031 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.557 2.531 0.474 10.136 -0.024 0.702 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.249 0.249 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.595 2.474 0.471 10.136 -0.024 0.996 0.052 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.247 0.247 0.005 17.50
5 20.00 0.607 2.430 0.466 10.139 -0.022 1.276 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.661 2.368 0.462 10.136 -0.021 1.510 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.611 2.296 0.457 10.136 -0.018 1.751 0.269 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.562 2.214 0.441 10.134 -0.011 1.927 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.512 2.189 0.435 10.134 -0.011 2.273 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.502 2.146 0.427 10.131 -0.013 2.791 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.488 2.106 0.418 10.129 -0.011 3.285 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.476 2.067 0.402 10.124 -0.012 3.723 0.157 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.464 2.037 0.385 10.119 -0.009 4.141 0.160 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.443 2.008 0.369 10.114 -0.003 4.534 0.167 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.422 1.984 0.353 10.106 -0.006 5.080 0.123 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.391 1.964 0.331 10.096 -0.003 5.736 0.148 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.357 1.966 0.304 10.084 0.004 6.203 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.338 1.968 0.278 10.071 0.013 6.558 0.134 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.356 2.019 0.251 10.054 0.021 6.791 0.122 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.340 2.064 0.227 10.029 0.036 7.122 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.340 2.095 0.209 10.006 0.037 7.000 0.102 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.384 2.113 0.191 9.989 0.042 7.113 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.362 2.117 0.175 9.974 0.056 7.351 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.376 2.109 0.159 9.961 0.059 7.428 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.380 2.099 0.145 9.951 0.054 7.568 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.392 2.082 0.129 9.941 0.052 7.476 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.399 2.049 0.113 9.931 0.055 7.595 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.428 2.015 0.097 9.924 0.046 7.898 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.452 1.974 0.085 9.916 0.037 7.983 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.448 1.932 0.070 9.911 0.033 8.432 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.443 1.884 0.056 9.899 0.026 8.665 0.070 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.432 1.842 0.043 9.901 0.020 8.983 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.424 1.802 0.029 9.916 0.015 9.232 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.426 1.773 0.016 9.869 0.000 9.350 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.429 1.752 0.917 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 15
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 16
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 17
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 18
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 19
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 20
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 21
*********************
NEXT INPUT MOTION
*********************
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR NIS000
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.67 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.528 2.401 0.351 12.271 0.151 0.145 0.009 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.518 2.395 0.351 12.268 0.151 0.424 0.029 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.564 2.378 0.350 12.268 0.150 0.696 0.064 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.159 0.159 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.532 2.352 0.350 12.266 0.150 0.946 0.058 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.165 0.165 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.534 2.332 0.348 12.266 0.150 1.199 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.565 2.308 0.348 12.263 0.147 1.455 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.574 2.277 0.348 12.261 0.144 1.681 0.277 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.539 2.195 0.356 12.256 0.127 1.819 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.412 2.167 0.358 12.256 0.123 2.049 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.383 2.116 0.357 12.253 0.117 2.351 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.377 2.057 0.356 12.251 0.111 2.636 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.500 1.981 0.354 12.248 0.107 2.860 0.107 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.482 1.897 0.352 12.246 0.105 3.038 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.416 1.811 0.348 12.241 0.100 3.174 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.379 1.759 0.344 12.236 0.099 3.605 0.071 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.353 1.714 0.335 12.228 0.093 4.086 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.416 1.652 0.325 12.218 0.082 4.553 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.423 1.597 0.308 12.206 0.077 5.055 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.389 1.547 0.286 12.198 0.079 5.453 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.389 1.486 0.261 12.191 0.076 5.660 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.406 1.418 0.237 12.186 0.068 5.843 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.410 1.411 0.209 12.181 0.061 5.963 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.442 1.388 0.183 12.176 0.057 6.113 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.443 1.338 0.157 12.173 0.048 6.434 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.442 1.283 0.133 12.173 0.047 6.737 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.456 1.258 0.114 12.186 0.039 7.032 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.455 1.233 0.097 12.116 0.032 7.348 0.061 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.432 1.236 0.082 11.293 0.036 7.378 0.064 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.477 1.246 0.068 16.113 0.032 7.538 0.056 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.430 1.247 0.063 16.108 0.021 7.758 0.057 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.494 1.227 0.053 16.103 0.015 7.937 0.057 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.471 1.218 0.041 16.098 0.011 8.147 0.060 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.503 1.220 0.025 11.271 0.009 8.263 0.053 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.500 1.235 0.013 16.090 0.005 8.462 0.056 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.479 1.246 0.891 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR NIS090
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.62 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.621 2.411 0.300 11.421 -0.012 0.171 0.010 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.605 2.408 0.300 11.421 -0.012 0.496 0.036 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.593 2.393 0.300 11.421 -0.013 0.799 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.159 0.159 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.592 2.363 0.298 11.421 -0.015 1.116 0.060 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.165 0.165 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.592 2.345 0.298 11.421 -0.017 1.387 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.582 2.322 0.296 11.421 -0.018 1.664 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.566 2.289 0.295 11.421 -0.021 1.912 0.367 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.658 2.218 0.305 11.418 -0.040 2.064 0.107 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.515 2.210 0.305 11.418 -0.044 2.295 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.437 2.193 0.302 11.416 -0.048 2.484 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.456 2.174 0.300 11.413 -0.052 2.573 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.453 2.146 0.300 11.408 -0.062 2.805 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.427 2.113 0.294 11.403 -0.064 3.116 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.372 2.077 0.289 11.398 -0.067 3.402 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.381 2.042 0.282 11.393 -0.069 3.799 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.350 1.978 0.269 11.363 -0.071 4.259 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.356 1.897 0.253 40.346 -0.073 4.661 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.337 1.816 0.246 40.346 -0.076 5.137 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.332 1.741 0.238 40.344 -0.079 5.594 0.097 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.345 1.714 0.237 40.341 -0.090 5.959 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.360 1.687 0.231 40.339 -0.095 6.127 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.350 1.663 0.221 40.339 -0.096 6.187 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.363 1.629 0.207 40.336 -0.092 6.172 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.380 1.616 0.191 40.336 -0.087 6.369 0.071 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.393 1.640 0.175 40.334 -0.081 6.289 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.370 1.680 0.161 15.653 -0.077 6.501 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.399 1.718 0.139 15.650 -0.063 6.678 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.403 1.742 0.121 15.645 -0.052 6.878 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.403 1.762 0.106 15.643 -0.047 7.007 0.066 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.414 1.769 0.084 15.638 -0.035 7.103 0.064 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.417 1.769 0.071 15.635 -0.030 7.142 0.067 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.415 1.765 0.052 15.628 -0.021 7.367 0.058 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.442 1.760 0.034 15.623 -0.014 7.714 0.057 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.463 1.747 0.015 15.618 -0.004 7.989 0.059 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.432 1.734 1.020 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 22
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 23
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 24
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 25
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 26
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 27
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 28
*********************
NEXT INPUT MOTION
*********************
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR YAR060
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.71 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.540 2.237 0.309 17.710 0.004 0.148 0.009 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.547 2.233 0.309 17.710 0.004 0.448 0.032 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.577 2.218 0.308 17.710 0.004 0.741 0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.215 0.215 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.525 2.203 0.307 17.710 0.002 1.029 0.061 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.495 2.186 0.306 17.708 0.001 1.297 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.480 2.164 0.304 17.705 0.000 1.554 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.493 2.137 0.304 17.705 -0.003 1.781 0.263 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.444 2.098 0.303 17.698 -0.008 1.911 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.425 2.096 0.302 17.698 -0.010 2.196 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.366 2.091 0.300 17.693 -0.012 2.554 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.394 2.088 0.303 17.693 -0.019 2.886 0.111 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.397 2.085 0.307 17.690 -0.029 3.280 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.379 2.076 0.311 17.690 -0.040 3.432 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.394 2.057 0.315 17.688 -0.051 3.518 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.361 2.034 0.319 17.688 -0.063 3.754 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.385 1.970 0.322 17.685 -0.077 4.001 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.381 1.894 0.320 17.685 -0.093 4.225 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.381 1.820 0.306 17.685 -0.094 4.424 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.381 1.791 0.295 17.685 -0.094 4.701 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.405 1.740 0.276 17.685 -0.095 5.110 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.423 1.691 0.256 17.683 -0.089 5.672 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.393 1.681 0.239 17.680 -0.085 6.070 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.389 1.671 0.220 17.678 -0.080 6.531 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.406 1.667 0.203 17.673 -0.078 6.932 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.484 1.673 0.184 17.665 -0.072 7.391 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.532 1.682 0.163 17.658 -0.068 7.702 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.491 1.691 0.139 17.645 -0.055 8.028 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.454 1.699 0.115 17.628 -0.042 8.462 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.490 1.693 0.097 17.615 -0.031 8.560 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.439 1.684 0.077 17.608 -0.020 8.758 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.518 1.668 0.059 10.229 -0.010 8.924 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.505 1.643 0.043 10.224 -0.004 9.067 0.070 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.490 1.644 0.029 10.221 0.001 9.311 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.486 1.642 0.015 10.219 -0.003 9.335 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.499 1.644 0.894 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR YAR330
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.71 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.591 2.505 0.452 17.005 0.236 0.162 0.010 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.567 2.504 0.452 17.005 0.236 0.463 0.031 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.553 2.500 0.450 17.005 0.235 0.764 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.215 0.215 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.541 2.492 0.443 17.005 0.231 1.049 0.059 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.535 2.485 0.437 17.003 0.228 1.328 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.545 2.474 0.433 17.003 0.225 1.605 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.545 2.460 0.424 17.003 0.220 1.859 0.343 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.566 2.423 0.379 17.000 0.183 2.033 0.112 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.440 2.405 0.369 17.003 0.178 2.321 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.382 2.371 0.353 17.003 0.167 2.666 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.388 2.333 0.335 17.008 0.157 2.968 0.126 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.383 2.277 0.308 17.010 0.134 3.173 0.121 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.360 2.217 0.287 10.316 0.113 3.288 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.383 2.149 0.293 17.565 0.093 3.361 0.105 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.395 2.087 0.302 17.563 0.075 3.611 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.419 1.986 0.300 17.558 0.063 4.005 0.097 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.405 1.866 0.294 17.550 0.050 4.520 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.365 1.756 0.281 17.550 0.040 4.907 0.099 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.414 1.768 0.268 17.550 0.029 5.474 0.097 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.385 1.780 0.251 17.553 0.025 5.987 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.365 1.788 0.241 17.553 0.011 6.381 0.086 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.361 1.789 0.228 17.550 0.002 6.836 0.107 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.394 1.792 0.210 17.545 0.001 7.187 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.364 1.776 0.189 17.538 0.005 7.528 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.381 1.745 0.167 17.530 0.004 7.796 0.102 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.413 1.706 0.152 17.523 -0.003 8.119 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.453 1.651 0.128 17.515 -0.002 8.313 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.484 1.602 0.111 17.510 -0.008 8.493 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.456 1.547 0.092 17.505 -0.006 8.622 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.530 1.501 0.082 17.503 -0.012 8.804 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.503 1.460 0.060 17.495 -0.010 8.932 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.504 1.423 0.045 17.493 -0.008 9.065 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.522 1.384 0.031 17.485 -0.006 9.133 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.514 1.357 0.014 17.503 -0.002 9.284 0.070 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.505 1.338 0.956 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 29
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 30
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 31
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 32
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 33
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 34
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 35
**************************************
NORMAL TERMINATION FOR THIS INPUT FILE
**************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: scpt12d
****************************************
Southline SCPT-12A
****************************************
Less variable Vs profile
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
3 3 0.700 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
4 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
3 80 0.50
4 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 700.00 1673.91 3.348 0.200 0.350
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 700.00 1673.91 3.013 0.180 0.350
3 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.22 671.00 1538.09 2.307 0.150 0.335
4 4 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.46 843.00 2427.68 2.913 0.120 0.421
5 1 5.00 0.110 1.69 855.00 2497.29 6.243 0.250 0.427
6 1 5.00 0.110 1.93 873.00 2603.55 5.207 0.200 0.436
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.15 703.00 1534.81 3.070 0.200 0.352
8 1 5.00 0.100 2.33 993.00 3062.26 6.125 0.200 0.496
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.67 1075.00 3947.79 7.106 0.180 0.269
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.14 1100.00 4133.54 6.200 0.150 0.275
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.62 1150.00 4517.86 6.777 0.150 0.287
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.09 1180.00 4756.65 7.135 0.150 0.295
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.57 1200.00 4919.25 8.855 0.180 0.300
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.05 1220.00 5084.60 7.627 0.150 0.305
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.81 1250.00 5580.36 11.161 0.200 0.156
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.86 1250.00 5580.36 11.161 0.200 0.156
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.91 1295.00 5989.38 14.973 0.250 0.162
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.97 1295.00 5989.38 14.973 0.250 0.162
19 1 20.00 0.115 10.02 1335.00 6365.09 15.913 0.250 0.167
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.07 1335.00 6365.09 15.913 0.250 0.167
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.12 1365.00 6654.38 16.636 0.250 0.171
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.17 1365.00 6654.38 16.636 0.250 0.171
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.23 1395.00 6950.09 17.375 0.250 0.174
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.28 1395.00 6950.09 17.375 0.250 0.174
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.33 1420.00 7201.43 18.004 0.250 0.177
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.38 1420.00 7201.43 18.004 0.250 0.177
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.43 1440.00 7405.71 18.514 0.250 0.180
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.49 1440.00 7405.71 18.514 0.250 0.180
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.54 1455.00 7560.80 18.902 0.250 0.182
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.59 1455.00 7560.80 18.902 0.250 0.182
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.64 1465.00 7665.09 19.163 0.250 0.183
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.69 1465.00 7665.09 19.163 0.250 0.183
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.75 1475.00 7770.09 19.425 0.250 0.184
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.80 1475.00 7770.09 19.425 0.250 0.184
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.440 2.135 0.642 5.636 -0.206 0.121 0.007 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.412 2.133 0.642 5.636 -0.206 0.333 0.024 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.440 2.124 0.641 5.636 -0.205 0.535 0.044 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.027 0.027 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.401 2.113 0.640 5.634 -0.206 0.726 0.038 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.028 0.028 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.438 2.102 0.638 5.634 -0.206 0.905 0.043 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.397 2.086 0.637 5.631 -0.206 1.096 0.054 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.397 2.065 0.635 5.631 -0.205 1.272 0.152 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.412 2.019 0.629 5.629 -0.207 1.422 0.062 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.350 1.997 0.628 5.629 -0.206 1.653 0.054 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.330 1.972 0.624 5.626 -0.205 1.955 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.374 1.939 0.617 5.626 -0.201 2.218 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.363 1.907 0.615 5.624 -0.202 2.464 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.390 1.878 0.608 5.624 -0.195 2.676 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.382 1.887 0.602 5.621 -0.191 2.860 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.335 1.897 0.597 5.621 -0.193 3.090 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.335 1.900 0.586 5.621 -0.195 3.416 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.346 1.888 0.571 5.619 -0.190 4.002 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.365 1.857 0.556 5.621 -0.188 4.512 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.343 1.822 0.537 5.616 -0.182 5.015 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.327 1.799 0.516 5.619 -0.174 5.518 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.387 1.819 0.495 5.621 -0.176 6.011 0.123 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.336 1.834 0.472 5.621 -0.176 6.175 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.365 1.840 0.442 5.611 -0.165 6.383 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.372 1.831 0.410 5.589 -0.153 6.415 0.126 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.381 1.792 0.386 5.576 -0.155 6.434 0.121 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.364 1.746 0.366 5.566 -0.163 6.634 0.127 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.358 1.696 0.336 5.556 -0.161 6.729 0.149 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.333 1.646 0.300 5.524 -0.158 6.912 0.156 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.428 1.599 0.260 5.504 -0.145 7.157 0.156 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.427 1.549 0.219 5.484 -0.108 7.215 0.173 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.467 1.501 0.181 5.464 -0.097 7.232 0.161 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.487 1.445 0.146 5.449 -0.082 7.465 0.170 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.494 1.398 0.106 5.434 -0.067 7.818 0.180 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.469 1.376 0.058 5.419 -0.032 8.178 0.186 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.583 1.376 0.834 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.389 3.118 0.625 25.732 0.231 0.107 0.007 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.400 3.115 0.625 25.735 0.231 0.324 0.021 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.446 3.106 0.625 25.735 0.231 0.529 0.042 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.027 0.027 0.005 12.50
4 15.00 0.444 3.093 0.623 25.737 0.230 0.733 0.038 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.028 0.028 0.003 17.50
5 20.00 0.464 3.080 0.623 25.737 0.230 0.945 0.046 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.50
6 25.00 0.467 3.064 0.621 25.737 0.229 1.136 0.060 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.456 3.045 0.619 25.740 0.228 1.318 0.178 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.467 2.999 0.616 25.742 0.226 1.459 0.066 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.50
9 40.00 0.420 2.974 0.612 25.742 0.224 1.678 0.061 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.385 2.931 0.609 25.742 0.222 1.960 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.362 2.885 0.602 25.745 0.218 2.214 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.392 2.850 0.595 25.745 0.212 2.513 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.372 2.814 0.584 25.747 0.204 2.786 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.389 2.781 0.572 25.747 0.195 3.049 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.360 2.749 0.551 25.750 0.178 3.368 0.101 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.316 2.716 0.525 25.752 0.163 3.732 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.349 2.691 0.498 3.434 0.142 4.184 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.315 2.657 0.481 3.434 0.135 4.632 0.105 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.347 2.615 0.463 3.434 0.129 5.098 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.346 2.552 0.449 4.376 0.116 5.470 0.126 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.374 2.484 0.434 4.376 0.101 5.832 0.133 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.443 2.406 0.418 4.379 0.075 6.246 0.138 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.418 2.324 0.401 4.376 0.046 6.583 0.139 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.372 2.235 0.379 4.376 0.023 6.892 0.150 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.381 2.163 0.350 4.376 -0.001 7.075 0.154 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.407 2.065 0.321 3.574 -0.016 7.158 0.170 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.389 1.957 0.298 3.574 -0.011 7.358 0.176 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.473 1.828 0.260 3.574 -0.021 7.476 0.196 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.430 1.728 0.223 3.569 -0.016 7.637 0.169 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.443 1.663 0.192 4.321 -0.036 8.087 0.198 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.434 1.634 0.169 4.319 -0.045 8.468 0.199 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.453 1.593 0.141 4.314 -0.045 9.228 0.177 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.424 1.575 0.095 4.304 -0.039 9.256 0.169 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.457 1.587 0.053 4.284 -0.022 9.566 0.174 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.504 1.577 1.238 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: SCPT17
****************************************
Southline SCPT-17
****************************************
Base case
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
5 3 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
8 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
5 80 0.50
8 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 500.00 854.04 2.562 0.300 0.250
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 600.00 1229.81 1.845 0.150 0.300
3 1 5.00 0.110 1.22 500.00 854.04 1.708 0.200 0.250
4 1 5.00 0.110 1.46 550.00 1033.39 2.067 0.200 0.275
5 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.69 800.00 2186.34 3.280 0.150 0.400
6 1 5.00 0.100 1.91 700.00 1521.74 4.565 0.300 0.350
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.10 800.00 1987.58 5.963 0.300 0.400
8 4 5.00 0.100 1.00 0.80 2.28 1300.00 5248.45 6.298 0.120 0.650
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.62 500.00 854.04 2.562 0.300 0.125
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.09 900.00 2767.08 4.151 0.150 0.225
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.57 1300.00 5773.29 8.660 0.150 0.325
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.04 1150.00 4517.86 5.421 0.120 0.287
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.52 1100.00 4133.54 7.440 0.180 0.275
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.00 1500.00 7686.33 13.835 0.180 0.375
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.76 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.81 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.86 1400.00 7000.00 17.500 0.250 0.175
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.92 1450.00 7508.93 18.772 0.250 0.181
19 1 20.00 0.115 9.97 1500.00 8035.71 20.089 0.250 0.187
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.02 1560.00 8691.43 21.729 0.250 0.195
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.07 1620.00 9372.86 23.432 0.250 0.203
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.12 1670.00 9960.36 24.901 0.250 0.209
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.18 1720.00 10565.71 26.414 0.250 0.215
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.23 1760.00 11062.86 27.657 0.250 0.220
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.28 1820.00 11830.00 29.575 0.250 0.227
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.33 1870.00 12488.93 31.222 0.250 0.234
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.38 1900.00 12892.86 32.232 0.250 0.237
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.44 1950.00 13580.36 33.951 0.250 0.244
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.49 1990.00 14143.21 35.358 0.250 0.249
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.54 2030.00 14717.50 36.794 0.250 0.254
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.59 2060.00 15155.71 37.889 0.250 0.257
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.64 2100.00 15750.00 39.375 0.250 0.262
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.70 2130.00 16203.21 40.508 0.250 0.266
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.75 2160.00 16662.86 41.657 0.250 0.270
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.479 2.825 0.484 6.146 0.013 0.132 0.016 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.478 2.820 0.484 6.146 0.013 0.391 0.041 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.448 2.797 0.484 6.146 0.014 0.629 0.115 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.441 2.733 0.483 6.146 0.020 0.828 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.461 2.668 0.483 6.144 0.031 0.985 0.056 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.142 0.142 0.005 22.50
6 25.00 0.477 2.641 0.483 6.149 0.037 1.179 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.513 2.590 0.482 6.149 0.044 1.322 0.096 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.524 2.543 0.482 6.149 0.050 1.467 0.042 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.295 0.295 0.003 37.50
9 40.00 0.449 2.527 0.482 6.149 0.052 1.706 0.675 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.517 2.225 0.442 6.156 0.126 2.018 0.146 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.424 2.140 0.418 6.159 0.125 2.370 0.054 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.414 2.093 0.412 6.159 0.123 2.709 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.417 2.012 0.391 6.161 0.115 2.944 0.116 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.465 1.929 0.379 6.164 0.111 3.282 0.054 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.402 1.884 0.372 6.164 0.104 3.647 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.384 1.776 0.355 6.166 0.098 4.409 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.370 1.711 0.335 6.169 0.095 5.075 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.413 1.707 0.314 6.171 0.091 5.455 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.374 1.758 0.293 6.171 0.088 5.831 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.355 1.792 0.271 6.174 0.080 6.152 0.099 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.370 1.807 0.252 6.171 0.076 6.474 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.413 1.804 0.233 6.174 0.076 6.897 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.375 1.790 0.210 6.171 0.067 7.338 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.335 1.755 0.184 6.169 0.060 7.678 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.389 1.706 0.155 6.166 0.047 8.129 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.381 1.661 0.133 6.159 0.042 8.207 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.407 1.629 0.114 5.441 0.036 8.572 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.457 1.607 0.100 5.436 0.029 9.192 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.450 1.588 0.089 5.431 0.012 9.183 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.450 1.570 0.078 5.426 0.006 9.556 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.418 1.547 0.063 5.424 -0.006 9.914 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.408 1.527 0.047 5.416 -0.003 10.320 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.495 1.502 0.033 5.414 -0.002 10.598 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.542 1.478 0.018 5.414 -0.000 10.789 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.473 1.444 0.806 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.469 2.772 0.500 25.647 0.211 0.129 0.015 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.466 2.756 0.500 25.647 0.211 0.381 0.042 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.462 2.717 0.498 25.647 0.212 0.620 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.548 2.614 0.485 25.647 0.201 0.871 0.171 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.573 2.515 0.472 25.647 0.192 1.073 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.142 0.142 0.005 22.50
6 25.00 0.527 2.471 0.468 25.650 0.191 1.274 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.586 2.407 0.463 25.647 0.191 1.526 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.573 2.349 0.459 25.650 0.191 1.669 0.050 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.295 0.295 0.003 37.50
9 40.00 0.492 2.326 0.458 25.647 0.191 1.898 1.174 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.430 2.220 0.340 25.527 0.109 2.151 0.196 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.425 2.248 0.331 25.522 0.111 2.457 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.412 2.256 0.329 25.522 0.113 2.753 0.140 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.381 2.268 0.311 25.535 0.107 3.054 0.136 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.380 2.285 0.305 25.542 0.108 3.339 0.062 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.363 2.293 0.302 25.547 0.108 3.765 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.349 2.291 0.293 25.550 0.109 4.256 0.099 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.362 2.270 0.278 25.547 0.105 4.651 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.372 2.232 0.262 25.545 0.098 4.914 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.393 2.195 0.259 25.537 0.106 5.175 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.406 2.165 0.251 25.525 0.108 5.638 0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.475 2.170 0.237 25.515 0.105 6.063 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.439 2.159 0.229 25.692 0.104 6.455 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.472 2.147 0.211 25.692 0.094 6.769 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.497 2.119 0.191 25.690 0.080 7.016 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.497 2.076 0.174 25.685 0.070 7.623 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.531 2.030 0.148 25.682 0.051 7.734 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.497 1.974 0.142 25.680 0.054 7.937 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.488 1.924 0.124 25.682 0.046 8.407 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.549 1.860 0.106 25.680 0.039 8.802 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.513 1.798 0.086 25.677 0.028 9.260 0.079 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.505 1.740 0.066 25.675 0.020 9.781 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.582 1.682 0.046 25.675 0.011 10.171 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.469 1.635 0.028 25.682 0.006 10.743 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.487 1.590 0.015 3.224 0.000 11.033 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.446 1.552 1.280 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.008
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: scpt17b
****************************************
Southline SCPT-17
****************************************
Smoothed velocity profile
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
5 3 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
8 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
5 80 0.50
8 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 500.00 854.04 2.562 0.300 0.250
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 600.00 1229.81 1.845 0.150 0.300
3 1 5.00 0.110 1.22 500.00 854.04 1.708 0.200 0.250
4 1 5.00 0.110 1.46 550.00 1033.39 2.067 0.200 0.275
5 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.69 800.00 2186.34 3.280 0.150 0.400
6 1 5.00 0.100 1.91 700.00 1521.74 4.565 0.300 0.350
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.10 800.00 1987.58 5.963 0.300 0.400
8 4 5.00 0.100 1.00 0.80 2.28 1300.00 5248.45 6.298 0.120 0.650
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.62 800.00 2186.34 6.559 0.300 0.200
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.09 900.00 2767.08 4.151 0.150 0.225
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.57 1000.00 3416.15 5.124 0.150 0.250
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.04 1150.00 4517.86 5.421 0.120 0.287
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.52 1100.00 4133.54 7.440 0.180 0.275
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.00 1200.00 4919.25 8.855 0.180 0.300
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.76 1300.00 6035.71 12.071 0.200 0.162
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.81 1370.00 6703.21 13.406 0.200 0.171
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.86 1400.00 7000.00 17.500 0.250 0.175
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.92 1450.00 7508.93 18.772 0.250 0.181
19 1 20.00 0.115 9.97 1500.00 8035.71 20.089 0.250 0.187
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.02 1560.00 8691.43 21.729 0.250 0.195
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.07 1620.00 9372.86 23.432 0.250 0.203
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.12 1670.00 9960.36 24.901 0.250 0.209
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.18 1720.00 10565.71 26.414 0.250 0.215
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.23 1760.00 11062.86 27.657 0.250 0.220
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.28 1820.00 11830.00 29.575 0.250 0.227
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.33 1870.00 12488.93 31.222 0.250 0.234
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.38 1900.00 12892.86 32.232 0.250 0.237
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.44 1950.00 13580.36 33.951 0.250 0.244
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.49 1990.00 14143.21 35.358 0.250 0.249
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.54 2030.00 14717.50 36.794 0.250 0.254
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.59 2060.00 15155.71 37.889 0.250 0.257
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.64 2100.00 15750.00 39.375 0.250 0.262
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.70 2130.00 16203.21 40.508 0.250 0.266
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.75 2160.00 16662.86 41.657 0.250 0.270
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.502 2.694 0.412 6.126 -0.044 0.138 0.017 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.483 2.687 0.412 6.124 -0.044 0.400 0.045 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.482 2.662 0.412 6.126 -0.043 0.656 0.135 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.443 2.601 0.415 6.129 -0.035 0.883 0.165 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.602 2.542 0.419 6.131 -0.026 1.137 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.324 0.324 0.006 22.50
6 25.00 0.562 2.510 0.419 6.134 -0.023 1.299 0.131 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.490 2.463 0.422 6.134 -0.015 1.490 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.490 2.420 0.421 6.136 -0.011 1.678 0.046 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.456 0.456 0.004 37.50
9 40.00 0.480 2.402 0.421 6.136 -0.010 1.967 0.131 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.435 2.298 0.424 6.141 0.008 2.298 0.195 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.465 2.202 0.421 6.149 0.032 2.530 0.159 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.527 2.112 0.414 6.151 0.047 2.739 0.136 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.515 2.036 0.406 6.154 0.058 2.971 0.135 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.474 1.951 0.394 6.156 0.065 3.268 0.110 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.463 1.867 0.385 6.159 0.069 3.754 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.413 1.768 0.369 6.161 0.073 4.230 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.413 1.732 0.345 6.164 0.072 4.916 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.346 1.699 0.320 6.166 0.074 5.516 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.384 1.722 0.295 6.166 0.065 6.034 0.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.405 1.753 0.272 6.166 0.061 6.385 0.088 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.431 1.771 0.248 6.166 0.055 6.660 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.423 1.784 0.223 6.164 0.050 6.872 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.413 1.785 0.199 6.164 0.047 7.115 0.080 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.417 1.776 0.173 6.161 0.035 7.340 0.086 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.422 1.752 0.150 6.156 0.031 7.601 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.390 1.718 0.130 4.484 0.023 8.006 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.415 1.679 0.111 4.491 0.009 8.305 0.081 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.412 1.646 0.100 4.441 0.011 8.661 0.077 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.434 1.622 0.088 4.431 0.005 9.005 0.069 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.403 1.600 0.074 4.421 0.001 9.333 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.420 1.578 0.061 4.416 0.000 9.565 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.437 1.546 0.043 4.409 -0.007 9.942 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.466 1.513 0.030 5.411 -0.006 10.600 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.426 1.476 0.015 4.399 -0.001 10.434 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.497 1.441 0.806 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.548 2.858 0.452 25.592 0.160 0.151 0.018 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.551 2.856 0.451 25.592 0.161 0.443 0.049 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.537 2.825 0.450 25.592 0.160 0.732 0.168 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.512 2.727 0.443 25.590 0.158 0.967 0.209 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.473 2.612 0.435 25.582 0.156 1.126 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.324 0.324 0.006 22.50
6 25.00 0.487 2.552 0.430 25.580 0.152 1.347 0.156 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.617 2.466 0.424 25.580 0.152 1.609 0.126 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.693 2.393 0.419 25.577 0.151 1.817 0.074 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.456 0.456 0.004 37.50
9 40.00 0.500 2.356 0.414 25.580 0.149 2.027 0.164 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.486 2.198 0.397 25.582 0.143 2.446 0.302 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.442 2.153 0.358 25.602 0.115 2.803 0.238 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.416 2.175 0.341 25.610 0.109 3.113 0.198 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.402 2.200 0.327 11.903 0.097 3.387 0.175 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.459 2.229 0.314 11.896 0.088 3.643 0.142 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.365 2.247 0.304 11.891 0.089 4.032 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.343 2.264 0.289 25.637 0.089 4.520 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.332 2.269 0.281 25.667 0.092 4.937 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.354 2.263 0.278 25.685 0.097 5.231 0.104 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.362 2.238 0.272 25.695 0.100 5.405 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.377 2.222 0.259 25.700 0.094 5.707 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.371 2.195 0.242 25.702 0.086 5.962 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.411 2.164 0.224 25.702 0.076 6.410 0.091 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.405 2.140 0.210 25.702 0.071 6.736 0.085 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.464 2.115 0.196 25.700 0.067 6.998 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.452 2.077 0.180 25.697 0.064 7.288 0.082 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.456 2.036 0.161 25.692 0.055 7.553 0.078 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.493 1.989 0.137 25.690 0.045 7.852 0.068 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.533 1.934 0.123 25.687 0.041 8.195 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.519 1.869 0.106 25.685 0.038 8.656 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.511 1.792 0.078 25.682 0.021 9.120 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.528 1.725 0.060 25.680 0.015 9.720 0.076 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.482 1.660 0.046 25.677 0.014 9.907 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.548 1.608 0.029 3.141 0.003 10.449 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.511 1.578 0.013 3.146 -0.001 10.743 0.072 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.425 1.571 1.280 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.010
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
***************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
TESS2 - Version 3.00Z
Copyright 2020 Robert Pyke
Built by rmp on 07/14/2020
Using Simply FORTRAN v. 2.4
**************************************************
**************************************************
INPUT/OUTPUT FILE NAME: scpt17d
****************************************
Southline SCPT-17
****************************************
Smoothed velocity profile
****************************************
REDISTRIBUTION AND DISSIPATION OF PORE PRESSURES
IS NOT INCLUDED!
CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENTS IS TURNED ON
UNITS ARE KIPS, FEET AND SECONDS
**********
INPUT DATA
**********
MATERIAL PROPERTY PARAMETERS
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
1 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MTYPE VT ALPHA GMRP TSTR FSTR
2 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLE DEGRADATION
MTYPE SS RS E SG RG ST RT
2 0.12 0.65 1.50 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.65
PARAMETERS FOR PORE PRESSURE GENERATION CURVES
LAYER NO. MTYPE TAUAV/SIGV NL E F G
5 3 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
8 4 0.800 10 2.00 0.10 2.00
PARAMETERS FOR SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
LAYER NO. ARD FACTOR
5 80 0.50
8 90 0.50
PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING OF SHEAR MODULUS
MAT.TYPE KHARD FHARD FHARDS
3 1 1.00 0.50
4 1 1.00 0.50
**********************************************************
THE TIMESTEP HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 4
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COURANT STABILITY CRITERION
ALTERNATELY YOU MAY INCREASE THE LAYER THICKNESS(ES)
**********************************************************
**********
LAYER DATA
**********
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE = 10.00
TRAVEL TIMES ARE RELATIVE TO A TIMESTEP OF 0.0025 SECONDS
LAYER NO. MTYPE THICK UNIT WT OCR KO SIGV VS GMAX TAUMAX GAMREF TTR
1 1 5.00 0.110 0.28 500.00 854.04 2.562 0.300 0.250
2 1 5.00 0.110 0.83 600.00 1229.81 1.845 0.150 0.300
3 1 5.00 0.110 1.22 500.00 854.04 1.708 0.200 0.250
4 1 5.00 0.110 1.46 550.00 1033.39 2.067 0.200 0.275
5 3 5.00 0.110 1.00 0.80 1.69 800.00 2186.34 3.280 0.150 0.400
6 1 5.00 0.100 1.91 700.00 1521.74 4.565 0.300 0.350
7 1 5.00 0.100 2.10 800.00 1987.58 5.963 0.300 0.400
8 4 5.00 0.100 1.00 0.80 2.28 1300.00 5248.45 6.298 0.120 0.650
9 1 10.00 0.110 2.62 800.00 2186.34 6.559 0.300 0.200
10 1 10.00 0.110 3.09 900.00 2767.08 4.151 0.150 0.225
11 1 10.00 0.110 3.57 1000.00 3416.15 5.124 0.150 0.250
12 1 10.00 0.110 4.04 1150.00 4517.86 5.421 0.120 0.287
13 1 10.00 0.110 4.52 1200.00 4919.25 8.855 0.180 0.300
14 1 10.00 0.110 5.00 1220.00 5084.60 7.627 0.150 0.305
15 1 20.00 0.115 5.76 1250.00 5580.36 11.161 0.200 0.156
16 1 20.00 0.115 6.81 1250.00 5580.36 11.161 0.200 0.156
17 1 20.00 0.115 7.86 1295.00 5989.38 14.973 0.250 0.162
18 1 20.00 0.115 8.92 1295.00 5989.38 14.973 0.250 0.162
19 1 20.00 0.115 9.97 1335.00 6365.09 15.913 0.250 0.167
20 1 20.00 0.115 11.02 1335.00 6365.09 15.913 0.250 0.167
21 1 20.00 0.115 12.07 1365.00 6654.38 16.636 0.250 0.171
22 1 20.00 0.115 13.12 1365.00 6654.38 16.636 0.250 0.171
23 1 20.00 0.115 14.18 1395.00 6950.09 17.375 0.250 0.174
24 1 20.00 0.115 15.23 1395.00 6950.09 17.375 0.250 0.174
25 1 20.00 0.115 16.28 1420.00 7201.43 18.004 0.250 0.177
26 1 20.00 0.115 17.33 1420.00 7201.43 18.004 0.250 0.177
27 1 20.00 0.115 18.38 1440.00 7405.71 18.514 0.250 0.180
28 1 20.00 0.115 19.44 1440.00 7405.71 18.514 0.250 0.180
29 1 20.00 0.115 20.49 1455.00 7560.80 18.902 0.250 0.182
30 1 20.00 0.115 21.54 1455.00 7560.80 18.902 0.250 0.182
31 1 20.00 0.115 22.59 1465.00 7665.09 19.163 0.250 0.183
32 1 20.00 0.115 23.64 1465.00 7665.09 19.163 0.250 0.183
33 1 20.00 0.115 24.70 1475.00 7770.09 19.425 0.250 0.184
34 1 20.00 0.115 25.75 1475.00 7770.09 19.425 0.250 0.184
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN BASE = 3800.
UNIT WEIGHT OF BASE = 0.130
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02180
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.70 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.459 2.147 0.633 5.634 -0.216 0.126 0.016 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.448 2.146 0.633 5.634 -0.216 0.368 0.040 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.426 2.138 0.632 5.631 -0.215 0.591 0.122 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.393 2.113 0.628 5.631 -0.217 0.775 0.144 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.538 2.093 0.622 5.631 -0.215 0.924 0.058 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.079 0.079 0.005 22.50
6 25.00 0.451 2.083 0.619 5.631 -0.214 1.090 0.098 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.483 2.062 0.616 5.631 -0.213 1.268 0.083 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.752 2.044 0.614 5.629 -0.214 1.482 0.035 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.168 0.168 0.002 37.50
9 40.00 0.544 2.037 0.613 5.629 -0.213 1.654 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.350 1.985 0.606 5.631 -0.210 1.933 0.132 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.385 1.932 0.597 5.629 -0.203 2.126 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.423 1.903 0.591 5.629 -0.203 2.293 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.435 1.910 0.585 5.629 -0.202 2.440 0.073 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.424 1.914 0.580 5.629 -0.204 2.571 0.084 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.340 1.909 0.574 5.629 -0.202 2.937 0.075 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.288 1.889 0.563 5.624 -0.203 3.512 0.092 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.326 1.853 0.547 5.626 -0.199 4.064 0.093 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.320 1.812 0.532 5.624 -0.198 4.542 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.266 1.806 0.513 5.629 -0.194 4.894 0.103 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.331 1.829 0.494 5.626 -0.187 5.178 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.309 1.844 0.474 5.624 -0.177 5.577 0.117 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.315 1.850 0.453 5.611 -0.170 5.775 0.133 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.328 1.839 0.423 5.596 -0.161 5.990 0.110 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.345 1.807 0.401 5.589 -0.159 6.127 0.108 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.348 1.765 0.382 5.579 -0.160 6.269 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.334 1.719 0.360 5.571 -0.158 6.446 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.358 1.672 0.337 5.564 -0.163 6.665 0.145 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.403 1.624 0.299 5.529 -0.151 6.872 0.159 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.426 1.575 0.259 5.506 -0.140 7.053 0.152 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.447 1.525 0.223 5.486 -0.124 7.150 0.165 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.534 1.469 0.188 8.759 -0.117 7.325 0.173 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.550 1.421 0.157 8.756 -0.105 7.616 0.164 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.571 1.391 0.107 8.749 -0.066 7.944 0.179 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.578 1.379 0.059 8.764 -0.040 8.154 0.194 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.558 1.384 0.834 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
***********************************************************
OUTPUT FOR IV02270
WITH A PEAK ACCELERATION OF 0.63 G
AND SLOPE = 0.00
***********************************************************
******************************************************
MAXIMUM RESPONSE VALUES AT TOP OF OR IN EACH LAYER
******************************************************
LAYER NO. DEPTH AMAX VMAX DMAXR TIME DFINALR TAUMAX CYCLIC FINAL FINAL FINAL UMAX UFINAL SETTLE DEPTH TO
TO TOP GAMMAX DELTA DETAG DETAU MIDLAYER
1 0.00 0.422 3.137 0.668 25.717 0.243 0.116 0.015 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.50
2 5.00 0.420 3.133 0.667 25.720 0.243 0.346 0.036 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.50
3 10.00 0.425 3.123 0.667 25.722 0.243 0.569 0.111 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.50
4 15.00 0.434 3.096 0.662 25.730 0.242 0.782 0.142 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.50
5 20.00 0.476 3.075 0.656 25.735 0.240 0.981 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.079 0.079 0.005 22.50
6 25.00 0.465 3.043 0.652 25.737 0.237 1.161 0.114 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.50
7 30.00 0.481 3.004 0.649 25.742 0.235 1.319 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.50
8 35.00 0.502 2.969 0.646 25.742 0.234 1.480 0.037 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.168 0.168 0.002 37.50
9 40.00 0.454 2.955 0.646 25.742 0.235 1.705 0.126 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.00
10 50.00 0.400 2.884 0.633 25.745 0.227 2.016 0.199 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.00
11 60.00 0.384 2.826 0.602 25.750 0.204 2.323 0.154 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.00
12 70.00 0.400 2.788 0.581 25.752 0.189 2.601 0.134 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.00
13 80.00 0.376 2.762 0.557 25.752 0.172 2.859 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.00
14 90.00 0.447 2.741 0.542 25.755 0.159 3.073 0.123 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.00
15 100.00 0.353 2.718 0.536 3.444 0.149 3.374 0.095 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.00
16 120.00 0.297 2.693 0.521 3.441 0.135 3.683 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 130.00
17 140.00 0.324 2.661 0.504 3.441 0.119 4.155 0.094 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 150.00
18 160.00 0.345 2.620 0.489 3.441 0.112 4.654 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.00
19 180.00 0.353 2.573 0.470 3.444 0.109 4.951 0.122 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 190.00
20 200.00 0.345 2.516 0.452 3.559 0.098 5.390 0.130 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 210.00
21 220.00 0.350 2.451 0.436 3.564 0.081 5.768 0.124 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 230.00
22 240.00 0.372 2.380 0.419 3.569 0.055 6.134 0.137 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 250.00
23 260.00 0.367 2.287 0.401 3.574 0.050 6.395 0.141 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.00
24 280.00 0.432 2.204 0.385 3.576 0.039 6.618 0.148 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 290.00
25 300.00 0.379 2.107 0.363 3.574 0.017 6.737 0.149 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 310.00
26 320.00 0.414 2.005 0.342 3.571 0.014 6.979 0.160 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.00
27 340.00 0.422 1.902 0.309 3.579 0.017 7.206 0.175 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.00
28 360.00 0.396 1.791 0.277 3.574 0.018 7.431 0.186 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.00
29 380.00 0.420 1.698 0.239 3.571 0.017 7.646 0.167 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 390.00
30 400.00 0.417 1.635 0.200 3.569 -0.008 8.007 0.184 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 410.00
31 420.00 0.465 1.619 0.156 3.564 -0.020 8.332 0.197 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 430.00
32 440.00 0.403 1.600 0.114 3.564 -0.035 8.724 0.198 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 450.00
33 460.00 0.414 1.584 0.082 4.296 -0.036 9.193 0.169 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 470.00
34 480.00 0.468 1.585 0.049 28.298 -0.029 9.600 0.185 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 490.00
BASE 500.00 0.515 1.579 1.237 GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT 0.007
DFINALR IS FINAL RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT WHEN SLOPE IS ZERO AND INCREASE IN FRD IF SLOPE IS GREATER IS GREATER THAN ZERO
DMAX FOR BASE IS ABSOLUTE DISPACEMENT, OTHERS ARE RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 1
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 2
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 3
HISTORY OF SUSTAINED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 4
FOR SECOND COMPONENT
HISTORY OF ACCELERATION AT TOP OF LAYER 1 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 5
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRESS IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 6
HISTORY OF SHEAR STRAIN IN LAYER 5 IS SAVED IN OUTPUT FILE NUMBER 7
Southline Development 129-3-6 Page D-1
APPENDIX D: GROUNDWATER CONTROL ASSESSMENT
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
14241 NE Woodinville Duvall Rd, PMB 226 | Woodinville, WA 98072
TO: Scott Fitinghoff, Cornerstone Earth Group
Nicholas Devlin, Cornerstone Earth Group
FROM: Robert Middour
DATE: July 24, 2020
RE: Southline Project – Groundwater Control Assessment
This memorandum provides our groundwater control assessment for the Southline project in
South San Francisco, California. We understand the project design team would like to understand the
groundwater control requirements for the project, how the earth retention systems interact with
groundwater control measures, and what impacts may arise due to controlling groundwater for the
proposed excavations. Our subsurface assessment and groundwater control recommendations are based
on the information contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation reports dated March 13, 2018,
November 19, 2019, and April 9, 2020 prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group and the Phase 1
Geotechnical Investigation report dated July 24, 2020 also prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group.
The Southline project is a large redevelopment project that will be constructed in three phases.
The construction phases are shown on Figure 2 of the July 24, 2020 Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation
report. We understand four multistory buildings are planned for Phase 1; Buildings B1, B2, and B7 are
proposed on the south side of the proposed Southline Avenue and a fourth building (Parking Structure L)
located in the northeast corner of the project site. Buildings B1 and B2 will be constructed over a common
two-level parking/basement structure that has a proposed subgrade elevation of 3 feet (i.e. 23 to 27 feet
below existing grade). Building B 7 and Parking Structure L will each be constructed over a two-level
parking/basement structure that have proposed subgrade elevations of -1 and -2 feet (i.e. 24 feet below
existing grade).
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The geotechnical reports provide a discussion of the site soil and groundwater conditions as
determined from multiple soil borings and cone penetration tests (CPTs) advanced 25 to 100 feet below
existing grade. Three soil borings were completed as observation wells to monitor shallow groundwater
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 2
Project No. 20081001.01
levels; the observation wells were constructed with 20 feet of well screen positioned 13 to 33 feet or 18
to 38 feet below existing grade.
The subsurface conditions consist of a mixture of fine-grained soils (silt and clay) and granular
soils (sand and sand mixtures) to the explored depths. The distribution of fine-grained and granular soils
varies considerably both laterally and vertically. Generally, 5 to 10 feet of clay was encountered below
the ground surface which was underlain by about 15 to 25 feet of silty sand. The soil underlying the silty
sand in the southern and eastern portions of the site consisted of interlayered silty or clayey sand and clay
with the thicknesses of the layers varying considerably between explorations. In the northeast portion of
the site, the interlayered conditions consisted of silty sand interlayered with soils classified as sandy
silt/silty sand.
Based on measured groundwater levels in the wells constructed at the locations of MW-1 through
MW-3 in July 2020 and the presence of a relatively consistent layer of sand occurring between about 15
to 35 feet below existing grade, an unconfined to partially confined aquifer, depending on location,
appears to exist below the project site. The groundwater system proximate to the three observation wells
flows in a southwest to northeast direction under a gradient of about 0.007.
The soil boring descriptions indicate granular soils below the shallow aquifer are also saturated.
Pore pressure dissipation tests performed in select CPT explorations at depths ranging from about 38 to
55 feet (elevation -20 to -30 feet), indicate the piezometric level of the soil varied from about elevation
18 to 6 feet. The soil identified at the testing depth for the pore water dissipation tests was not within a
well-defined sand layer for most of the tests. The pore water pressure tests performed in CPT-17 and
CPT-19 appear to reflect piezometric level from sand layers yet the piezometric levels varied from about
elevation 8 to 17 feet.
The geotechnical investigations did not perform any on site testing to characterize the hydraulic
properties of the unconfined to partially confined aquifer soils. Four gradation tests were performed on
silty sand (SM) soil samples collected below the water table from soil borings EB-9, EB-11, and EB-12. One
gradation test was performed on a sand with silt (SP-SM) soil sample from soil boring EB-13. The gradation
data was analyzed by numerous methods using the program HydrogeoXL to estimate the hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer soils. The geometric mean for the various estimation methods provided
maximum and minimum hydraulic conductivities for the silty sand of 3.2x10-3 and 4.4x10-4 ft/min
respectively. The hydraulic conductivity estimated for sand with silt soil sample was 3.8x10-2 ft/min. For
planning purposes, we propose a hydraulic conductivity for the unconfined to partially confined aquifer
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 3
Project No. 20081001.01
of 5.0x10-3 for estimating dewatering discharge and drawdown outside the project site. For design
purposes, we recommend using the maximum and minimum values to ensure proper well spacing.
GROUNDWATER CONTROL APPROACH
Dewatering excavations or controlling groundwater proximate to excavations is typically
performed by passive or active groundwater control measures. Passive measures such as sump pumping
and French drains passively allow water to drain by gravity from the surrounding soil to sumps or trenches
constructed at a lower elevation. Water collected in the sumps/trenches is extracted by pumping to
maintain a hydraulic low point or sink for continued drainage. Active groundwater control measures such
as standard dewatering wells and vacuum wellpoint systems involve installing wells into the aquifer
and/or water bearing layers prior to starting the excavation and pumping the wells to lower the
groundwater level prior to excavating.
Determining the most appropriate groundwater control approach depends on multiple factors,
such as geometry of the excavation, access limitations, aquifer properties, depth of excavation, type of
shoring method, and the aquifer thickness below the base of the excavation (subgrade). Based on the
geotechnical information, the proposed excavation will encounter saturated fine-grained and granular
soils below elevation 19 to 16 feet. The subgrade elevations for the various building excavations is
situated within the relatively thick and laterally continuous unconfined to partially confined aquifer.
Dewatering fine-grained soils can be accomplished but the costs associated with extensive
dewatering systems and schedule delays due to lengthy operation periods are generally cost prohibitive.
Passive groundwater control measures and/or excavating saturated fine-grained soils is generally a more
practical and cost-effective approach for controlling seepage occurring from fine-grained soils. Granular
soils are conducive to active groundwater control measures. If the granular soils are sufficiently thick and
laterally extensive, groundwater can be lowered below the base of excavations by implementing a system
of wells or vacuum wellpoints. If the granular soils occur in discrete areas or layers, active groundwater
control measures are effective but complete dewatering of the granular soil area or layer is generally not
achieved; Figure 1 provides a graphical representation for this condition. As shown in Scenario A on Figure
1, some amount of saturated thickness will remain between neighboring wells for a specific well spacing
and set of aquifer parameters. The residual groundwater/saturated thickness between wells creates the
necessary hydraulic head to drive water to the wells. If the excavation subgrade is above the resultant
drawdown between wells, the excavation will be completely dewatered. However, if the excavation
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 4
Project No. 20081001.01
extends deeper or is constructed in fine-grained soils, the residual groundwater/saturated thickness
between wells will promote seepage into the excavation at the contact between the granular and fine-
grained soils. Scenario B on Figure 1 demonstrates the benefit of decreasing the spacing between wells
to reduce the saturated thickness but note the reduction in well spacing only reduces the saturated
thickness, it does not eliminate it.
Generally, controlling groundwater prior to it entering the excavation is the most economical
approach which typically consists of a system of wells or wellpoints around the perimeter of the
excavation. Implementing wells or wellpoints inside the shoring walls is usually avoided as the presence
of the wells and associated piping slows excavation efforts and material handling. The type of shoring is
another factor that must be considered in determining the most appropriate groundwater control
approach.
Watertight Shoring Methods
Watertight shoring methods (secant piles, sheet piles, soil freeze, and cement soil mix (CSM)
walls) mechanically cutoff lateral groundwater seepage assuming the walls are designed to withstand
hydrostatic forces. If the watertight shoring walls are embedded into a low permeable soil layer located
below the excavation subgrade, groundwater control can be as simple as removing the finite amount of
groundwater from the granular soils within the limits of the shoring walls. If the shoring walls do not
embed/terminate into a low permeable soil, then groundwater can flow beneath the walls and seep
vertically upward into the excavation. Controlling vertical seepage involves active groundwater control
measures (wells or wellpoints) to be installed inside the excavation to capture water below the excavation
subgrade. Implementing watertight shoring walls generally reduces the amount of groundwater
withdrawal to dewater the excavation as well as reduce the amount of drawdown outside the excavation
limits. If the shoring walls terminate in a low permeable layer, drawdown outside the excavation will be
negligible; for walls terminating above a low permeable layer the amount of drawdown outside the
excavation is dependent on the amount of aquifer remaining beneath the wall.
Permeable Shoring Methods
Generally, any shoring method that isn’t considered watertight is permeable though the amount
of groundwater seepage through the wall can vary dramatically depending on the method. Excavations
retained by permeable shoring methods typically require active groundwater control measures if the
excavation extends below the groundwater table. Perimeter systems of wells or wellpoints installed
behind or through the shoring wall is the standard approach for permeable shoring methods. A
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 5
Project No. 20081001.01
dewatering system in conjunction with a permeable shoring system will require significantly more
groundwater withdrawal and generate a larger drawdown outside the excavation limits compared to an
excavation retained by watertight shoring methods.
GROUNDWATER CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
To evaluate risk versus costs associated with groundwater control, we have developed two
groundwater control approaches for the project; one that incorporates an impermeable shoring wall and
the other incorporates a permeable shoring wall. Controlling groundwater during the excavation and
construction of the foundation is dependent on the type of earth retention system selected. Below we
provide an overview of the groundwater control approach for watertight and permeable shoring methods.
The groundwater control measures discussed below are for controlling groundwater in the granular soils
above elevation -20 feet.
Watertight Shoring Methods
Based on the subsurface information in the geotechnical reports, a watertight shoring wall
constructed around the perimeter of each excavation that extends down to at least elevation -20 feet
should effectively cut off lateral groundwater seepage for each excavation. A shoring wall termination
elevation of -20 feet appears to coincide with fine-grained soils which should provide a barrier to vertical
seepage.
The watertight shoring wall will effectively cutoff groundwater from flowing laterally into the
excavation and vertical groundwater seepage from the underlying fine-grained soils is anticipated to be
negligible; assuming no uplift/heave concerns. The majority of groundwater trapped in the granular soils
within the watertight shoring walls be removed by a system of standard dewatering wells however if fine-
grained soils are present some amount of sump pumping will be required to dewater or “mop up” the last
few feet of saturated granular soil.
Assuming the permeability of watertight shoring is sufficiently low, the shoring walls are
constructed properly, and the fine-grained soils below subgrade are continuous across the excavation,
the watertight shoring option provides the least risk of dewatering induced settlement and/or the
mobilization of neighboring contaminant plumes created by drawdown occurring outside the property
limits. This option will also provide the lowest dewatering discharge rates and the shortest pumping
duration.
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 6
Project No. 20081001.01
Permeable Shoring Methods
Implementing permeable shoring methods such as soldier pile and lagging below the groundwater
table requires some type of active groundwater control measure to lower the groundwater on the back
side of the shoring wall. Based on the excavation subgrade elevations, 9 to 10 feet of granular soil exist
below subgrade as such, standard dewatering wells is likely the most appropriate active groundwater
control measure. Alternatively, a vacuum wellpoint system installed through the shoring wall is a viable
option. However, potential construction conflicts with the wellpoints installed through the shoring wall
and additional costs associated with penetrations through the foundation wall likely deem this approach
unacceptable.
DEWATERING CALCULATIONS
Dewatering calculations were performed to estimate potential discharge rates, the number of
wells, and the spacing between wells required to lower the groundwater level two feet below subgrade
for the largest Phase 1 excavation (Buildings B1 and B2).
Dewatering calculations were performed using a computer spreadsheet model that accounts for
well interference among multiple pumping wells and aquifer boundary conditions using the principle of
superposition and image well theory. The spreadsheet model calculates the net drawdown from all
pumping and image wells through a predetermined section of the aquifer by solving the Theis non-
equilibrium equation for drawdown using the radial distance associated with each pumping and image
well.
Soil and groundwater parameters used in the dewatering design calculations were derived from
the project geotechnical reports or were estimated from previous experience if not contained in the
geotechnical reports and are listed below:
• The aquifer is unconfined.
• Groundwater elevation of 17 feet (about 9 feet below existing grade)
• Aquifer thickness is 18 feet
• Specific yield is 0.15 (unitless)
• Maximum aquifer hydraulic conductivity of 5x10-3 ft/min for the silty sand aquifer soils.
• Target dewatering elevation of 2 feet below the subgrade elevation of 3 feet.
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 7
Project No. 20081001.01
Dewatering Discharge Analysis
The dewatering discharge rate for the Building B1 and B2 excavation will decrease with time until
semi-steady state conditions are reached within the aquifer. Calculations using a hydraulic conductivity
of 0.005 ft/min indicate the dewatering discharge rate could be up to 450 gpm during the initial startup
(first few hours of operation) as the storage is depleted. The discharge rate drops to about 200 gpm after
3 weeks of operation and after 6 months of operation the discharge rate declines to about 65 gpm.
Similarly, for Building B7 and Parking Structure L which are roughly about the same size,
dewatering calculations indicate the dewatering discharge rates at 3 weeks and 6 months are respectively
about 120 gpm and 45 gpm.
Drawdown Analysis
Operation of the dewatering well systems will lower the groundwater level inside as well as
outside the excavation limits. The lowered groundwater level or drawdown will propagate away from the
excavation and may extend beneath subsurface and above ground structures which may induce ground
settlement and/or mobilize existing groundwater contaminate plumes. To assess the potential for
dewatering induced settlement, we have performed calculations to estimate the lateral extent of the
drawdown resulting from operation of the dewatering well system around the Buildings B1 and B2
excavation. The graphical output from the drawdown calculations is shown on Figure 2 which depicts the
cone of depression emanating perpendicular to the south shoring wall after six months of operation.
Based on the size of the excavation for Buildings B1 and B2 and the required amount of
dewatering/drawdown, the drawdown profile presented on Figure 2 can serve as a conservative estimate
for the other Phase 1 excavations.
The spreadsheet model assumes homogeneous and isotropic subsurface conditions as such, the
actual drawdown cone may deviate from our estimate depending on the actual subsurface properties. If
dewatering is occurring on other Phase 1 excavations and/or other projects in the surrounding area, the
cone of depression may be greater than our estimate. We recommend geotechnical engineering and
environmental disciplines review this plan to evaluate potential adverse effects due to lowering of
groundwater levels.
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
SOUTHLINE PROJECT| South San Francisco, CA July 24, 2020 | Page 8
Project No. 20081001.01
DEPRESSURIZATION
The pore pressure dissipation test data yielded a range of piezometric elevations for a given depth
interval which is likely the result of the test being performed in different soil types (granular versus fine-
grained). As such, the piezometric level (confined groundwater pressure) of the granular soil layers
existing below the base of the excavation is not fully understood. We recommend installing observation
wells that are constructed with well screens within the granular soil layer(s) to measure the piezometric
level of the granular soils occurring between elevation -15 and -30 feet. The groundwater levels measured
in the deep observation wells will provide the data to determine if depressurization of these granular soils
is required to prevent subgrade instability during construction.
LIMITATIONS
This memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Cornerstone Earth Group for their
proposed work on the Southline project in South San Francisco, California. No other party is entitled to
rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the
express written consent of Middour Consulting LLC. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and
recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review
and authorization by Middour Consulting, shall be at the user’s sole risk. Middour Consulting warrants
that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently
practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make no other warranty, either
express or implied.
Well Spacing and Dewatering to Bottom of Aquifer or Sand Layer
FIGURE 1
SOUTHLINE PROJECT | South San Francisco, CA
Project No. 20081001.01 | July 19, 2020
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
groundwater control for underground construction
Scenario A
Scenario B
90 ft
wetted screen
wetted screen
Coalesced or resultant drawdown between two wells
NOT TO SCALE
Fine-grained soil
(silt/clay)
X ft
Static water level
Static water level
Standard Dewatering Wells
NOTES:
Dewatering wells lower groundwater to
maximum depth “X ft” for a given well
spacing and aquifer conditions. Wells
installed at a closer spacing in Scenario B
produces a lower resultant drawdown.
However, some amount of groundwater
will bypass the system of wells as some
amount of hydraulic head will remain in
between two wells.
X ft
90 ft
Granular soil
(sand)
Fine-grained soil
(silt/clay)
Granular soil
(sand)
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Groundwater Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Buildings B1 and B2 Excavation - Drawdown vs Distance Profile
FIGURE 2
SOUTHLINE PROJECT | South San Francisco, CA
Project No. 20081001.01 | July 19, 2020
MIDDOUR CONSULTING LLC
groundwater control for underground construction
South Shoring Wall
(permeable)
NOTES
1) Drawdown profile representative of a hydraulic conductivity
value of 5x10-3 ft/min and a pumping duration of 6 months.
Static Groundwater EL. 17 ft
Subgrade EL. 3 ft