Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix M - Prelim Geotech InvestigationAppendix M: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation www.haleyaldrich.com PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 131 TERMINAL COURT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Walnut Creek, California for US Terminal Court Owner, LLC Greenwood Village, Colorado File No. 0204962-001 May 2022 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. 2033 N. Main Street Suite 309 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.949.1012 3 May 2022 File No. 0204962-001 US Terminal Court Owner, LLC 5660 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 10 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 Attention: Ms. Ianthe Schaub Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations 131 Terminal Court South San Francisco, California Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is our preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the proposed redevelopment project located at 131 Terminal Court in South San Francisco, California (Site). Based on the results of our current evaluation, this report provides summary information regarding the Site’s general geologic and seismic conditions as well as preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding seismic hazards, Site preparation for building pads and pavements, and foundation type selection for the proposed buildings. Based on our preliminary analysis of the subsurface soil conditions, we conclude that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible. We find that the primary geotechnical issues that should be addressed during the design and construction of the planned project include the potential for seismic shaking at the Site, the relatively high groundwater table, and the presence of undocumented fill and soft compressible soft at the near surface. We conclude that the proposed moderate to heavy buildings are most economical when supported on deep foundations bearing at the dense to very dense Colma Formation soils. Lightly loaded one and two story buildings may be supported with shallow foundations depending on the structural conditions and changes to grades. Our recommendations regarding the deep foundations, site grading, fill compaction, and other geotechnical aspects of this project are presented in this geotechnical investigation report. A design level study, including additional field investigation, will need to be completed prior to preparing the design drawings and construction. www.haleyaldrich.com US Terminal Court Owner, LLC 3 May 2022 Page 2 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide engineering services on this project. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. Liang Chern Chow, PE (MN) Project Manager Catherine H. Ellis, PE, GE (CA) Senior Associate, Geotechnical Engineer Enclosures \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Deliverables\Geotechnical_Info\Reports\131 Terminal Ct\2022_0503_HAI_131 Terminal Ct_Geotech_F.docx www.haleyaldrich.com HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.2033 N. MAIN STREET SUITE 309 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 925.949.1012 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR REPORT ON PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 131 TERMINAL COURT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR US TERMINAL COURT OWNER, LLC GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO PREPARED BY: Liang Chern Chow, PE (MN) Project Manager Haley & Aldrich, Inc. REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Catherine H. Ellis, PE, GE (CA) Senior Associate, Geotechnical Engineer Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Table of Contents Page i List of Tables iii List of Figures iii List of Appendices iv 1. Introduction 1 2. Site and Subsurface Conditions 2 3. Geology 3 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3 3.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY 3 4. Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendations 4 4.1 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 4 4.1.1 Site Seismicity 4 4.1.2 Soil Liquefaction 5 4.1.3 Lateral Spreading 7 4.1.4 Cyclic Densification 7 4.1.5 Tsunami 7 4.2 EXPANSION POTENTIAL 7 4.3 WEAK SOIL DEPOSIT AND FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT 7 4.4 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING AND TEMPORARY SHORING OPTIONS 8 4.5 FOUNDATIONS AND SETTLEMENT 9 4.6 EARTHWORKS 9 4.6.1 Site Preparation and Grading 9 4.6.2 Subgrade Preparation 9 4.6.3 Imported, “Non-Expansive” Fill 10 4.6.4 Material for Fill 10 4.6.5 Reuse of On-Site Material 11 4.6.6 Fill Placement and Compaction 11 4.6.7 Weak or Wet Subgrade Mitigation 12 4.7 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 12 4.7.1 Vertical Pile Capacity 13 4.7.2 Lateral Resistance 14 4.8 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK 15 4.9 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN 15 4.10 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN 16 4.11 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SHORING 16 4.12 RETAINING WALLS 17 Table of Contents Page ii 5. Limitations 18 References 19 iii List of Tables Table No. Title I Seismic Design Parameters (embedded p. 5) II Values Used in Liquefaction Evaluation (embedded p. 6) III Estimated Liquefaction Settlement (embedded p. 6) IV “Non-Expansive Fill Grading Requirements (embedded p. 10) V General Engineered Fill Grading Requirements (embedded p. 10) VI Class 2 Aggregate Base Grading Requirements (embedded p. 11) VII Summary of Compaction Recommendations (embedded p. 11) VIII Lateral Capacity Input Parameters for SCPT-2 (embedded p. 14) IX Flexible Pavement Design (R-Value = 18) (embedded p. 15) X Rigid Pavement Design (embedded p. 16) XI Recommended Soil Parameters for Retaining Wall Based on SCPT-2 (Below Groundwater) (embedded p. 17) List of Figures Figure No. Title 1 Project Locus 2 Site Plan 3 Axial Resistance Charts for 16/22” Tubes Piles 4 Axial Resistance Charts for 18” ACIP Piles iv List of Appendices Appendix Title A Cone Penetration Test Results 1 1. Introduction Haley & Aldrich, Inc., (Haley & Aldrich) prepared these preliminary geotechnical investigation recommendations (Report) on behalf of US Terminal Court Owner, LLC, for the proposed redevelopment project located at 131 Terminal Court in South San Francisco, California (Site). The approximately 18-acre Site is currently developed with two warehouse buildings, a smaller administrative building, and a row of solar canopy. The existing warehouses are open to the public as well as wholesale distributers. The remainder of the Site is surrounded by asphalt-paved parking and loading areas. Based on the results of our current preliminary geotechnical investigation evaluation, this Report provides summary information regarding the Site’s general geologic and seismic conditions as well as preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding seismic hazards, Site preparation for building pads and pavements, and foundation type selection for the proposed buildings. The proposed redevelopment project will include the construction of eight (8) new 6-story buildings with subsurface parking garages at several buildings and a new parking structure: Buildings A1, A2, B2, and B4 are located within the 101 Terminal Court parcel; buildings B1, B3, B5, and B6 are within the 131 Terminal Court parcel. There are two phases planned for the new redevelopment. Phase I consists of Buildings A1, A2, and related amenities; Phase II includes the remaining six buildings and amenities. The proposed Phase I buildings (A1 and A2) will be six stories in above grade height with one level of below grade parking. The six Phase II buildings (B1 through B6) are planned to have six stories of above grade height and two levels of below grade parking. There will also be a five-story parking structure with roof top parking and two levels of below grade parking. We assume the project will also include underground utilities, asphalt and concrete pavements, stormwater management facilities, and landscaping. The project is still in a conceptual planning phase. Geotechnical recommendations for Phase I buildings in the adjacent 101 Terminal Court property were provided in the “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco” report prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc. (Rockridge, 2021) and the “Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation Report, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California” report prepared by Haley & Aldrich. Based on these references and additional geotechnical investigation, we prepared this Report to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed redevelopment of 131 Terminal Court. 2 2. Site and Subsurface Conditions The Site lies west of U.S. Route 101 and is located approximately one mile northwest of the San Francisco International Airport as shown in Figure 1. Two warehouse buildings, a smaller administrative building, and a row of solar canopy occupy the Site. The buildings are two-story structures. Nearby site features include commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and a surface parking lot. Commercial buildings bound the west side of the Site. Surface parking lots, including 101 Terminal Court and a Park ‘N Fly, are on the north and east of the Site, respectively. The San Bruno Canal cuts in from the bay shore (east) to the San Mateo Avenue (west) at the southern edge of the Site. On 14 March 2022, Haley & Aldrich performed a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) with seismic shear wave velocity measurements to a depth of 100 feet on the west side of the Site. This CPT location (designated as SCPT-2) along with exploratory locations in the adjacent 101 Terminal Court, are shown in Figure 2 and the results are appended. The log of SCPT-2 in included in Appendix A. Based on SCPT-2, the subsurface profile consists of 5½ feet of undocumented fill, underlain by Young Bay Mud (marsh deposit) to a depth of 17 feet below ground surface (bgs). However, geotechnical investigation data in the 101 Terminal Court site indicate that undocumented fill is generally 7½ to 8½ feet thick underlain by Young Bay Mud to depths of 20 feet to 41 feet bgs. Thicker Young Bay Mud was encountered at the north of the Site (i.e., boring HA-4). The Young Bay Mud is mostly soft to medium stiff consistency and known to be highly compressible. Below the Young Bay Mud, SCPT-2 encountered the Colma Formation (alluvial deposit) consisting of interbedded medium dense to very dense sand, clayey sand, and silty sand and stiff to hard clayey sand and clay to a depth of about 60 feet bgs. Below the Colma Formation, SCPT-2 encountered the Old Bay deposit, which is characterized by stiff to hard fat clay to a depth of approximately 73 feet bgs. This Old Bay deposit is underlain by interbedded dense to very dense sand and silty sand and very stiff to hard sandy clay and clay to the termination depth of 100 feet bgs. None of the borings that we drilled in 101 Terminal Court encountered competent mélange bedrock (Franciscan Complex) at the maximum exploration depths. The seismic test results indicate that the average shear wave velocity of the soils within the upper approximately 100 feet of the Site is approximately 684 feet per second (ft/s). Depths to groundwater levels were measured within borings and inferred from pore pressure dissipation tests performed at various depths at the CPT locations. These tests indicated that groundwater levels were at depths ranging from 5 to 8 feet bgs in mid-March 2022. Rockridge (2021) reported groundwater at depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet bgs in their CPTs during their exploration in December 2020. High groundwater as shallow as 1 foot bgs was recorded in the past. Groundwater fluctuates over time due to tides of the San Francisco Bay, rainfall, irrigation, construction activities, well pumping, and other factors. The conclusions and recommendations are based on the conditions encountered during our subsurface investigation. If soil or groundwater conditions exposed during future design phases or construction vary from those presented herein, Haley & Aldrich should be notified to evaluate whether our preliminary conclusions and recommendations should be modified. 3 3. Geology 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Site is located on the San Francisco Peninsula at the western Shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Coast Ranges Province is defined by northwest-trending mountain ridges and valleys that run approximately parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The bedrock within the province generally consists of Tertiary marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks. The upper bedrock is at least 100 feet bgs at the north end of the Site and dips sharply to at least 250 feet bgs at the southern edge of the Site. The Site and surrounding area are inland of the former Bay margin shoreline and east of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, except for San Bruno Mountain, which is located north of the Site. Based on mapping by Bonilla (1998), the Site is predominately underlain by Quaternary surficial deposits of artificial fill over tidal flat. The “Qaf/tf “unit, described as artificial fill over tidal flat, consists of clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris placed over tidal flats. Historical stream channels that cross through the Site are mapped as the “Qaf” unit and described as artificial fill consisting of clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris. The southwestern edge of the Site is near the mapped contact with the Colma Formation. The “Qc” unit described as the Colma Formation consists of mostly sandy clay, and silty sand; yellowish orange to gray. 3.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY The Site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site (California Department of Conservation, 2021). The major active faults closest to the Site are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward-Rodgers faults, in which the closest Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault is less than 3 miles away. The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in coordination with the California Geological Survey (CGS) and Southern California Earthquake Center, predicted a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area in 30 years (i.e., before the year 2044). More specifically, the 30-year probabilities of a magnitude 6.7 of greater earthquake are 14 percent for the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault, 6.4 percent for the San Andreas fault, and 2.5 percent for the San Gregorio Connected. 4 4. Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendations Based on our review of subsurface information for the Site, it is our opinion that the Site is geotechnically feasible. We conclude the primary geotechnical issues affecting the design and construction of the planned redevelopment include strong Site seismicity and potential seismic hazards; soft, compressible weak clayey soil; undocumented fill; and high groundwater. Our estimates of liquefaction-induced settlements are about 1 to 5 inches of total settlement with about ½ to 2½ inches of differential settlement over 50 feet or adjacent columns. Because of the thick Young Bay Mud layer, we estimate up to 5½ inches of settlement will occur under the new fill and building pad at the Site with a maximum grade raise of 3 feet and conventional shallow spread footing foundation using a maximum allowable dead plus live bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This magnitude of settlement under static loading conditions will exceed general requirements for building performance. At this Site, there are substantially denser coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) below the Young Bay Mud that are judged suitable for supporting the proposed structures. Because of this, it may be more economical to support the proposed structures on deep foundations bearing at the alluvial layer. Our recommendations for deep foundations, including Tubex and auger-cast piles, are given in the next sections. 4.1 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS During a major earthquake, seismic shaking has the potential to occur at the Site, as is typical throughout the Bay Area, and as experienced during the 1989 Loma Prieta event. Shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure, such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic densification. Haley & Aldrich’s assessment of these potential seismic hazards are presented in the following sections. 4.1.1 Site Seismicity A seismic hazard analysis was performed using the USGS Unified Hazard Tool (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/) website. Our deaggregation analysis utilized the USGS Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014 (v.4.2) edition. For our analyses, we evaluated the Site as Site Class D, based on an average shear wave velocity over the top 100 feet (30 meters) of the Site (Vs30) of about 684 ft/s; this value was calculated based on the average shear wave velocity measured at SCPT-1 and SCPT-2 during our field investigation on 14 March 2022. Based on the seismicity of faults that may impact the Site and the results of the deaggregation analysis, a design earthquake with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.86 was selected for the seismic hazard evaluation. The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) for the Site, which is based on the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with a return interval of 2,475 years, or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, is 1.07g. The risk-based site-modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) for the Site is 0.97g; this value was computed based on procedures outlined in ASCE 7-16. Recommended code-based seismic parameters for designing the proposed structures in conformance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-16 are presented in Table I. 5 TABLE I Seismic Design Parameters Seismic Parameter Design Value Site Class (ASCE 7-16 Table 1613.5.2) D Risk Category II MCER1 Ground Motion (Period = 0.2 second), Ss 2.056 g MCER Ground Motion (Period = 1.0 second), S1 0.851 g Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.881 g Site Amplification Factor at 0.2 second, Fa 1.0 Site Amplification Factor at 1.0 second, Fv (for Ts calculation only) -- Site Amplification Factor for PGA, FPGA 1.1 Site-Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.97 g Site-Modified Spectral Acceleration Value at 0.2 second, SMS 2.056 g Site-Modified Spectral Acceleration Value at 1.0 second, SM1 (for Ts calculation only) -- Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 second, SDS 1.371 g Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 second, SD1 (for Ts calculation only) -- Notes: 1) MCER = Risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake 2) g = acceleration of gravity 3) Per ASCE 7-16 Supplement 1, the provided values for Fv, SM1, and SD1 are only valid for calculation of Ts = SD1 / SDS for the purpose of developing seismic response coefficients (Cs). Site-specific seismic response analysis is required for evaluation of periods exceeding Ts. 4) Design values presented above are based on a site located at latitude / longitude = 37.643154 / -122.407188. 4.1.2 Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction is the process in which saturated, cohesionless soil experiences a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading resulting from earthquake ground motions. The type of soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded sand and silt that have low clay content. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures, and sand boils are evidence of liquefaction. According to an evaluation by CGS (2021) for seismically induced hazards, the project site is mapped within a Seismic Hazard Zone that may have the potential for liquefaction. We evaluated liquefaction potential at the Site by performing analyses in accordance with the methodology presented in publications prepared by Idriss and Boulanger (2008 and 2014). Our liquefaction analyses were performed using data from our explorations, which extended to depths of approximately 83 to 100 feet bgs. The parameters used in the liquefaction evaluation are shown in Table II. 6 TABLE II Values Used in Liquefaction Evaluation Liquefaction Evaluation Parameter Value Depth to Groundwater, Current (feet bgs) 5 - 8 Depth to Groundwater, during Design Earthquake (feet bgs) 1.0 Design Peak Ground Acceleration 0.97g Predominant Earthquake Moment Magnitude, Mw 7.86 Factor of Safety for Liquefaction Triggering 1.3 Based on our analyses, we conclude that the potential for on-Site liquefaction to occur within the upper 50 feet bgs is moderate to high across the Site. The potentially liquefiable soils include sand, silty sand, and sandy silt, which were identified between approximately 18 and 80 feet bgs, especially from 18 to 30 feet bgs, where the medium dense to dense silty sand resides. Estimated liquefaction settlements at the SCPT-2 location is about 5 inches in the upper 50 feet. We have included the estimated liquefaction settlements from other exploration locations in Table III – Estimated Liquefaction Settlement. Although the results of the analysis are reported for the borings, the sampling intervals can over predict the settlement. As such, we are disregarding these estimates. TABLE III Estimated Liquefaction Settlement Exploration No. Exploration Depth (feet) Estimated Settlement in Upper 50 feet (in.) Estimated Settlement for Full Depth (in.) CPT-21 100 3.8 5.7 CPT-31 83 3.3 4.5 CPT-41 98 1.3 2.2 SCPT-11 100 2.8 5.7 SCPT-2 99 4.8 7.7 CPT-21 100 3.8 5.7 CPT-31 83 3.3 4.5 HA-11,2 102 4.1 4.3 HA-21,2 102 0.4 3.1 HA-31,2 118 5.0 5.0 HA-41,2 127 7.9 12.4 HA-51,2 114 6.5 6.5 Notes: 1) These borings and CPTs were performed at the adjacent property, 101 Terminal Court. 2) Due to sampling intervals, these settlements are not considered representative. 7 4.1.3 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a potential hazard commonly associated with liquefaction where extensive ground cracking and settlement occurs as a response to lateral migration of subsurface liquefiable material. These phenomena typically occur adjacent to free faces such as slopes and creek channels. The free face for San Bruno Canal is located at the southern edge of the Site. We have no surveyed geometry of the canal, and therefore estimated the geometry based on Google Earth. We completed a preliminary lateral spreading analysis based on Zhang et al. (2004). Assuming a Site setback distance of 55 feet and free face height of 6 feet, we estimate the lateral spreading at the southern edge of the Site to be approximately 30 to 130 inches. During the design level phase of the project, more detailed topography should be collected and a detailed analysis presented. 4.1.4 Cyclic Densification Seismically induced compaction or densification of non-saturated granular soil (such as sand above the groundwater table) due to earthquake vibrations can result in settlement of the ground surface. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration program and given the estimated high-water table during a seismic event, we conclude that the potential for cyclic densification at the Site is low. 4.1.5 Tsunami The Site is subject to mapping in the California Tsunami Hazard Area of San Mateo County. Based on maps published by the State of California (2021), the Site is located outside of the area predicted to be affected by tsunamis. We therefore judge that the potential for a seismically induced wave to impact the Site to be nil. 4.2 EXPANSION POTENTIAL The near-surface native soils observed and/or sampled during the exploration program consisted of clayey gravel, silty sand, lean clay, and clayey sand with or without gravel, having very low to low expansive potential. Our recommendations to mitigate these expansive soil conditions are discussed in the “Earthworks” section. Given the low expansive nature of the surficial soil (fill), no mitigation measures are required. Although not anticipated, if slabs are supported on Bay Mud (marsh deposits), we should review these conclusions and recommendations. 4.3 WEAK SOIL DEPOSIT AND FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT Including results from the adjacent 101 Terminal Court property, our subsurface investigation indicates that approximately 7½ to 8½ feet of fill is present below the asphalt concrete and the fill is primarily underlain by the soft Young Bay Mud to depths ranging from 17 to 41 feet. The existing fill is variable with respect to the quality of materials and compaction level. The N-values suggest there are areas of fill where at least some of the fill materials were likely placed without compaction. This preliminary investigation did not explore within the existing building. Fill under the buildings may be of better quality and with a higher consistency. The underlying Young Bay Mud (marsh deposit) appears to be the limiting soil with respect to strength and compressibility. The amount of settlement expected will depend on the building loads and the construction material (wood, concrete, or steel), the building loads, and the anticipated grade changes. 8 Lightly loaded buildings of one to two stories may be able to be supported on shallow foundations. Moderately and heavily loaded buildings will require deep foundations. At this Site, there are substantially denser coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) below the Young Bay Mud that are judged suitable for supporting the proposed structures. Because of this, it may be more economical to support the proposed structures on deep foundations bearing at the alluvial layer. Our recommendations for deep foundations, including Tubex and auger-cast piles, are given in the next sections. Support of the floor slab will depend on elevation relative to existing fill and building loads. Lightly loaded buildings without significant grade change may be able to be supported on-grade with remedial earthwork. If the buildings have moderate or heavy loading, or if substantial fill is placed, structural slabs may need to be considered. 4.4 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING AND TEMPORARY SHORING OPTIONS Groundwater is expected to be encountered as shallow as approximately 1 foot bgs. Construction of utilities and other improvements that extend below groundwater levels will require dewatering and shoring programs capable of adapting to varied soil and groundwater conditions. We anticipate that water will have a low flow rate, although zones of sandy soils may present moderate to rapid water flow. Given the presence of generally fine-grained soils, though with some granular zones, the use of pumping from sumps within excavations is expected to be feasible for trench dewatering. However, the larger (e.g., underground parking) excavations may require the use of well point dewatering, unless watertight shoring embedded into the clay layer is used. Pumping from sumps may be effective in removing water from the bases of trenches but will not prevent or reduce the greater risk of trench wall caving and sloughing caused by seepage. We anticipate that the base of excavations will be soft and/or unstable if groundwater is present or within a few feet of the base of the trenches. If that is the case, we recommend placing stabilization material at the base of excavations. The use of a geotextile separation fabric may be necessary below stabilization material to help prevent the stabilization material from pushing into the unstable base materials. Construction of the below-grade levels will require excavation depths 12 to 25 feet bgs depending on the number of below grade levels of parking. These excavation depths include an excavation of approximately 1 foot below the base of the slab to accommodate a gravel layer, mud slab, and waterproofing material. As such, a support of excavation system is required to facilitate below-grade construction and to mitigate the flow of groundwater entering the excavation. The most appropriate shoring system(s) should take into account the requirements for protecting adjacent properties and improvements, as well as cost. We qualitatively evaluated the following systems:  Conventional soldier pile and lagging; and  Concrete diaphragm wall or soil-cement column walls. 9 Conventional soldier pile and lagging walls are difficult to install with soft compressive clays and allow water into the excavation. Mixed-in-place soil-cement column walls provide a relatively rigid shoring system that is capable of significantly limiting lateral deformations and ground subsidence adjacent to the shoring system. This system is considered to be a low-permeability shoring system and would provide superior resistance to lateral groundwater infiltration into the excavation. These walls will require internal and/or external lateral supports around the excavation perimeter to resist lateral pressures. 4.5 FOUNDATIONS AND SETTLEMENT Our subsurface investigation indicates that the subsurface profile consists of soft and compressible Young Bay Mud in the upper 20 feet of the Site with potentially thicker Mud north of the Site. Based on the consolidation test results, we estimate up to 5½ inches of settlement will occur under the new fill and building pad at the Site with a maximum grade raise of 3 feet and conventional shallow spread footing foundation using a maximum allowable dead plus live bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. We also estimate that approximately 50 percent of the total settlement will occur within about 7 months after the loads are applied. At our HA-4 location (northwest of this Site), where the Young Bay Mud is thickest, it will take longer time to consolidate. This magnitude of settlement under static loading conditions will exceed general requirements for building performance. At this Site, there are substantially denser coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) below the Young Bay Mud that are judged suitable for supporting the proposed structures. Because of this, it may be more economical to support the proposed structures on deep foundations bearing at the alluvial layer. Our recommendations for deep foundations, including Tubex and auger-cast piles, are given in the next sections. If building loads are light, less than 50 kips of dead plus live load, and very limited fill is placed, consideration may be given to supporting the structure on shallow foundations, including spread and isolated footing or a mat slab. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for dead plus live load may be used for preliminary estimating. 4.6 EARTHWORKS 4.6.1 Site Preparation and Grading The proposed building and parking lot areas should be cleared of existing pavements, trees, abandoned utilities and other obstructions. The proposed building and parking lot areas should be stripped of soil containing over 3 percent organic matter (if present). We anticipate the excavation for this project can be made using conventional earth-moving equipment. 4.6.2 Subgrade Preparation The Site should be rough graded to accommodate the proposed grading plan. Recommendations for mitigating existing fill are presented for each building type below. In proposed at grade building areas, subgrade preparation should extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the proposed building slabs and any adjoining flatwork. In exterior concrete slab and pavement areas, subgrade preparation should extend at least 2 feet beyond the limits of these improvements. 10 We estimate that approximately 7½ to 8½ feet of undocumented fill is present below the asphalt concrete pavement, although the CPT pushed at the Site encountered 5½ feet of fill. At the building area, loose or disturbed soil or undocumented fill soils should be over-excavated to a minimum of 1 foot below existing grade or finished pad elevation, whichever is deeper. The exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in the section entitled “Fill Placement and Compaction.” 4.6.3 Imported, “Non-Expansive” Fill All imported fill soils should be nearly free of free organic or other deleterious debris, essentially non-plastic, and less than 3 inches minus in maximum dimension. Specific requirements for import fill are provided below. TABLE IV “Non-Expansive” Fill Grading Requirements Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve 3 inch 100 1½ inch 85 to 100 #200 Screen 8-40 Atterberg Limits Percent Plasticity Index 12 or less Liquid Limit Less than 30 Fill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to placement and delivery to the Site. A representative sample of the proposed import fill should be delivered to our laboratory for evaluation at least 5 working days prior to importing to the Site. 4.6.4 Material for Fill Except for organic laden soil, the on-Site soil can be used as general engineered fill if it is free of deleterious matter and satisfies the criteria in Table V. Soil for use in engineered fill should be inorganic and free of deleterious materials and hazardous substances. For this project, inorganic soil is soil with an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight or without visible organic matter deemed excessive by Haley & Aldrich. TABLE V General Engineered Fill Grading Requirements Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve 3 inch 100 1½ inch 85-100 11 4.6.5 Reuse of On-Site Material Any existing asphalt or aggregate base that is removed during demolition may be suitable to be pulverized and mixed with the underlying base for use as engineered fill if it has an organic content of less than 2 percent by dry weight and meets the following requirements presented under the “Material for Fill” section of this report. The processed asphalt concrete/base material may be used as Class 2 Aggregate base if it meets the following requirements from Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications: TABLE VI Class 2 Aggregate Base Grading Requirements Sieve Size Percentage Passing 1 inch 100 min. ¾ inch 90 to 100 No. 4 35 to 60 No. 30 10 to 30 No. 200 2 to 9 Note Quality Requirements: Sand Equivalent: 25 min R-value: 78 min Site recycled material may be processed and reused as engineered fill, “non-expansive” fill, or aggregate base if it meets the requirements presented in this report for the specific materials. 4.6.6 Fill Placement and Compaction Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Compaction of fill should be performed by mechanical means only. Given the equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be necessary to achieve the recommended degree of compaction. Fill should be placed in accordance with Table VI, Summary of Compaction Recommendations. TABLE VII Summary of Compaction Recommendations Area Compaction Recommendations (See Notes 1 through 4) Subgrade Preparation and Placement of General Engineered Fill,5 Including Imported Non- Expansive Fill Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade and entire fill to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content. Where interior flatwork is exposed to vehicular traffic, compact aggregate base to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near optimum moisture content. Trenches6 Compact trench backfill to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture. Where trenches will be under the pavement section, flatwork, or other improvements, the upper 12 inches, measured from finished grade of the trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent compaction. 12 Area Compaction Recommendations (See Notes 1 through 4) Exterior Flatwork Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content. Compact aggregate base to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at or above optimum moisture content. Where exterior flatwork is exposed to vehicular traffic, compact aggregate base to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near optimum moisture content. Paved Areas Compact upper 12 inches of subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near to slightly over optimum moisture content. Compact aggregate baserock to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near optimum moisture content. Notes: 1) Depths are below finished subgrade elevation. 2) All compaction requirements refer to relative compaction as a percentage of the laboratory standard described by ASTM D-1557 (latest version). All lifts to be compacted shall be a maximum of 8 inches loose thickness. 3) All compacted surfaces, such as fills, subgrades, and backfills need to be firm and stable, and should be unyielding under compaction equipment. 4) Where fills, such as backfill placement after removal of existing underground utility lines, are greater than 7 feet in depth, the portion of the fill deeper than 7 feet should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent compaction. 5) Includes building pads. 6) In landscaping areas, this percent compaction in trenches may be reduced to 85 percent. Water jetting or flooding to obtain compaction of backfill should not be permitted. 4.6.7 Weak or Wet Subgrade Mitigation The depth to groundwater was at depths between 5 and 8 feet bgs or shallower during our subsurface explorations in March 2022. High groundwater as shallow as 1 foot bgs was recorded in the past. Excavations for foundations, utilities, and other improvements may encounter weak or wet soil conditions depending on the depths and elevations of these features. If weak or wet soil subgrade is encountered during grading and adequate compaction cannot be achieved, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately to assess the condition of the weak or wet subgrade and provide Site- specific recommendations for stabilizing and/or repairing the exposed subgrade. Potential subgrade repair options include:  Over-excavating and removing the weak or wet soil and replacing it with select non-expansive fill underlain by geotextile tensile fabric (Mirafi 500X or equivalent); or  Stabilizing the exposed subgrade by thoroughly blending a lime or cement admixture into the weak or wet soil at a concentration of approximately 5 percent of dry weight of soil being treated, and subsequently compacting the treated subgrade to at least 90-percent relative compaction. 4.7 DEEP FOUNDATIONS As discussed earlier, the marsh deposit is underlain by an alluvium layer and Colma Formation soil consisting of interbedded medium dense to very dense sand, clayey sand, and silty sand and stiff to hard clayey sand and clay to depths between 65 and 70 feet bgs. Sounding SCPT-2 encountered the dense to very dense layer from 45 to 65 feet bgs. Based on this, we recommend the proposed buildings be supported on deep foundations borne within the dense soil layer and deep foundations be extended to a depth of at least 45 to 60 feet bgs. In this report, we considered Tubex and auger-cast piles, or 13 equivalent, for this project. We recommend a minimum diameter of 16 inches for Tubex piles and 18 inches for auger-cast piles. 4.7.1 Vertical Pile Capacity 4.7.1.1 Tubex Piles We recommend that 16/22-inch-diameter, 3/8-inch-thick, Tubex pipe piles, or equivalent, be used on the project. The steel pipe diameter is 16 inches, and the grout shield diameter is 22 inches. Vertical pile capacity was evaluated based on the computer program APILE v2019 (Ensoft, Inc.) The ultimate axial capacity of a 16/22 Tubex pile installed from the existing ground surface for the general soil profile is presented on Figure 3. The weight of the foundation is not included in the ultimate resistance shown in these figures. The piles should extend to at least 45 to 60 feet into the dense to very dense coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) to develop support from friction in the fill and native soils as well as the end bearing in that layer. Axial capacity is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procedures for designing Tubex pile. For skin resistance calculations, this method uses the Nordlund method for granular soils and the Tomlinson method for cohesive soils. The program also uses the Thurman variation of the Meyerhof recommendations for calculation of tip resistance. For the cohesive soils, we estimated undrained shear strength based on correlations with the tip resistance and laboratory tests. Skin resistance in the upper 5 feet of soil is neglected in our analyses to account for potential disturbance and seasonal moisture changes. For allowable static axial capacity in Tubex pile design, we recommend a factor of safety of 2.5 ultimate axial resistance. For allowable uplift capacity, a factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate uplift capacity. No reduction in axial capacity based on group action is required for piles spaced at least 3 diameters on center-to-center. We also estimated an unfactored downdrag load of 190 kips due to consolidation of the Young Bay Mud and a seismic downdrag load of 30 kips. The downdrag loads should be considered as a structural load but need not be considered in the geotechnical capacity of the pile. 4.7.1.2 Auger-Cast Piles We recommend that a minimum of 18-inch-diameter ACIP piles be used on the project. The estimated axial capacities are presented in the attached Figure 4. The piles should extend to at least 45 to 60 feet into the dense to very dense coarse alluvial soils (Colma Formation) to develop support from friction in the fill and native soils as well as the end bearing in that layer. Axial capacity for ACIP pile was evaluated using the computer program SHAFT v2017 (Ensoft, Inc.) based on the FHWA procedures for drilled shafts. This method uses Alpha and Beta-values to estimate for skin resistances in cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. The end bearing resistance is estimated based on soil strength and SPT-N value at 60 percent efficiency near the tip of the pile for these soils. Skin resistance in the upper 5 feet of soil is neglected in our analyses to account for potential disturbance and seasonal moisture changes. 14 For allowable static axial capacity in ACIP pile design, we recommend a factor of safety of 2.5 be applied to the ultimate axial capacity. For allowable uplift capacity, a factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate uplift capacity. No reduction in axial capacity based on group action is required for piles spaced at least 3 diameters on center-to-center. We also estimated an unfactored downdrag load of 125 kips based on consolidation of the Young Bay Mud and a seismic downdrag load of 65 kips. The downdrag loads should be considered as a structural load but do not need to be considered in the geotechnical capacity of the pile. Pile foundations should be designed to resist the appropriate load combinations for downward and upward vertical loading, neglecting the potential vertical support provided by pile caps or grade beams. 4.7.2 Lateral Resistance Lateral loads, which may be imposed on the piles by wind or earthquake forces, can be resisted by horizontal bearing support of soil adjacent to the piles. The lateral capacity of a pile depends on its length, stiffness in the direction of loading, proximity to other piles, and degree of fixity at the head, as well as on the engineering properties of the soils. Structural details and loading conditions are not available to us yet. Our recommended parameters for the subsurface condition encountered in SCPT-2 for the design of lateral capacity are presented in Table VII, which includes parameters that can be used in the LPILE program (Ensoft, Inc.) The contribution of the fill found within the upper 5½ feet of the soil profile should be neglected in the design. The values presented in the table assume groundwater at the ground surface. The depths of each soil layer should be adjusted accordingly based on nearby CPT and boring logs. We anticipate that the marsh deposit is thickest at the north of the Site. If the piles will be constructed in groups, a P-multiplier may be required to account for group effects, depending on the pile layout geometry. Please contact us for further information if this information is required. TABLE VIII Lateral Capacity Input Parameters for SCPT-2 Layer P-y Model Depth (feet) Effective Unit Weight (pcf) Friction Angle (degrees) k (pci) Undrained Cohesion (psf) E50 Fill Sand (Reese) 0 to 5½ 52.6 31 60 n/a n/a Marsh Deposit Soft Clay (Matlock) 5½ to 17 47.6 n/a n/a 500 0.007 Alluvium1 Sand (Reese)1 17 to 30 62.6 34 60 n/a n/a Colma Formation Sand (Reese) 30 to 65 62.6 38 125 n/a n/a Old Bay Deposit Stiff Clay with Free Water (Reese) 65 to 73 47.6 n/a 1000 2700 0.005 Alluvium Sand (Reese) 73 to 100 62.6 38 125 n/a n/a Notes: 1) For seismic condition, use “Liquefied Sand Hybrid Model” with a SPT Blow Count of 24 for this layer. Recommendations for pile testing should be included in a design-level report. 15 4.8 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK The project structural engineer should provide the interior concrete floor slab thickness and reinforcement. It is recommended that concrete floor slabs, including adjacent entrance slabs, be supported on at least 6 inches of imported, non-expansive fill with floor slabs. This may include the 6 inches of capillary break or baserock material. The fill should extend a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet beyond all building areas, including the outer edge of perimeter footings and footings extending beyond perimeter walls. As a minimum, the floor slab should be directly underlain by at least a 6-inch- thick layer of Class 2 aggregate base or a 6-inch-thick water vapor retarder system, as described below. The soil subgrade beneath the interior floor slab system should be prepared and compacted as described in the section “Fill Placement and Compaction.” The subgrade should not be allowed to dry during construction. If the previously compacted soil subgrade is disturbed during foundation and/or utility excavation, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and rerolled to provide a firm, unyielding surface prior to placing the capillary break material or casting the concrete floor. To reduce water moisture transmission through the floor slab, we recommend installing a capillary moisture break and a minimum 15-mil-thick Class C water vapor retarder beneath the floor. Typically, finished spaces with slab-on-grade floors, such as offices, will utilize capillary moisture breaks and vapor retarders to reduce the potential for water vapor transmission through the floor, which can adversely impact flooring materials and carpeting. If moisture transmission through the slab is acceptable or if the slab is subject to vehicle loading, the slab-on-grade floor may be placed over a 6-inch-thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base or subbase that has been compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. 4.9 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN The State of California Resistance (R)-value method for flexible pavement design was used to develop recommendations for pavement sections. The thickness of pavement depends on the R-value of the subgrade soil and the volume of traffic anticipated. Based on the encountered soil type and R-value test results from the adjacent Site, we recommend using a design soil subgrade R-value of 18 and relying on the subgrade preparation method discussed in the “Earthworks” section of this report. We assume that flexible pavement throughout the Site will be designed using traffic indexes (TI) ranging from 4.5 to 9.0. Design sections for flexible pavement sections bearing directly over compacted native soil (R-value = 18), are presented in Table IX. TABLE IX Flexible Pavement Design (R-Value = 18) Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) Total (inches) 4.5 2.5 7.0 9.5 7.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 16 4.10 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN Rigid pavement design was performed in conformance with the AASHTO 1993 design method, including vehicle loads calibrated to a standard equivalent single axle load of 18,000 pounds and a maximum tandem axle load of 32,000 pounds. The thickness of rigid pavement depends on the R-value of the subgrade soil and the volume of traffic anticipated. The thickness of rigid pavement depends on the R value of the subgrade soil and the volume of traffic anticipated. For this Site, as stated in the “Flexible Pavement Design” section, we assume a design R-value of 18 for the existing subgrade. We assume that rigid pavements throughout the Site will be designed using TI up to 10.0. Based on these design parameters, we recommend using the pavement designs presented on Table X. TABLE X Rigid Pavement Design Traffic Index Portland Cement Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) Total (inches) ≤7.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 7.0 to 9.0 8.5 6.0 14.5 9.0 to 10.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 Notes: 1) Class 2 Aggregate Base to be placed over the subgrade prepared per “Fill Placement and Compaction”. The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be at least 600 pounds per square inch at 28 days, and the unconfined compressive strength of the concrete should be at least 3,500 pounds per square inch at 28 days. Contraction joints should be constructed at a 12.5-foot spacing for the 6-inch-thick concrete pavement and 15-foot spacing for the 7-inch-thick concrete pavement. Where the outer edge of a concrete pavement meets asphalt pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in 10. For better long-term performance, consideration should be given to reinforcing the slab with a minimum of No. 3 bars at 18-inch spacing in both directions. If there is a conflict between the civil and geotechnical design recommendations for contraction joint spacing or slab reinforcement, we defer to the civil engineer’s recommendations. Recommendations for subgrade preparation and aggregate base compaction for concrete pavements are provided in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section of this report. 4.11 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SHORING Temporary shoring walls will be required to support the vertical sides of the deep excavation. The shoring system should be designed to provide temporary lateral support for the excavation while ensuring safety and stability of the buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure adjacent to the excavation. If temporary shoring will act as a groundwater cut-off, embedment depth may be deeper than what is needed for the support of excavation. Final toe depths should be further reviewed and selected by the design-build shoring contractor. We assume that a cement-mix column cut-off wall is the preferred method of shoring for this project, given the constraints from the adjacent public streets, but it is still conceptual at this time. However, we have included recommendations for a cement-mix column cut-off wall with both tiebacks and with internal bracing for completeness. The cut-off wall will include steel members (presumably I- or W- section beams) to resist lateral earth pressures. 17 During the design phase of the project, detailed recommendations should be provided. 4.12 RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls are anticipated for the parking structure ramp between the lowest floor level up to the next level. Basement retaining walls will also be needed for the one to two levels of below grade parking. Retaining walls should be designed to resist both static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic loading, and additional surcharge pressures associated with vehicular traffic (if appropriate). Our recommended soil parameters for the design of retaining walls are provided in Table XI based on SCPT-2. The depths of each soil layer should be adjusted accordingly based on nearby CPT and boring logs. We anticipate that the marsh deposit is thickest at the north of the Site. Hydrostatic pressure of 62.4 psf was applied to at-rest and active conditions below the ground surface beneath the groundwater table. TABLE XI Recommended Soil Parameters for Retaining Wall Based on SCPT-2 (Below Groundwater) Depth below Surface (feet) Soil Description Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) At-Rest K0 Active Ka Passive Kp 0 to 5½ Fill (GM, GC, SM, SC) 90 85 235 5½ to 17 Marsh Deposit (CL, CH) 95 85 180 17 to 50 Alluvium (SP-SM, SC, SM) 90 80 280 We recommend that the retaining walls be designed for the more critical of either:  An at-rest equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution), plus a traffic surcharge as a uniform (rectangular distribution) lateral pressure of 100 psf applied to the entire vertical face of the retaining wall, where vehicular parking, streets and/or driveways are located within a horizontal distance of H, where H is the height of the adjacent retaining wall in feet; or  An active equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution), plus a uniform seismic increment (rectangular distribution) of 15 times the height of the wall in psf, where the height is in feet. Additional drainage recommendations should be provided in a design-level report. 18 5. Limitations The services provided for this project include professional opinions and judgments based on currently existing data. These services have been performed according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area at the time the report was written. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee are included or intended in this letter or in any opinion, documented or otherwise. These preliminary conclusions and recommendations are for the due diligence phase of the project. If US Terminal Court Owner, LLC, decides to proceed with the redevelopment, we recommend that Haley & Aldrich be retained to perform those services as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and prepare a design-level geotechnical report. \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Deliverables\Geotechnical_Info\Reports\131 Terminal Ct\2022_0503_HAI_131 Terminal Ct_Geotech_F.docx 19 References 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993. Design of Pavement Structures. 1993. 2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7-16. 3. ASTM International (ASTM), 2011. “ASTM E1643 Standard Practice for Selection, Design, Installation, and Inspection of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs,” Reapproved 2017. 4. ASTM, 2012. ASTM D 1557 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). 5. Bonilla, M.G., 1998. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5-Minute Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. Open-File Report 98-354, 1998. 6. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. 7. California Building Standards Commission, 2019. California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Volume 2. 8. California Department of Conservation, 2021. Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation. Website: <https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/>, accessed 4 April 2022. 9. California Geological Survey, 2021. Seismic Hazard Report for the San Francisco South 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 133, 2021. 10. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquake. EERI Publication, Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland. 11. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2014. Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors. 12. Rockridge Geotechnical, 2021, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California,” Project No. 20-1954, dated 12 January 2021. 13. State of California, 2021. Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County. Produced by the California Geological Survey and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 23 March 2021. 14. USGS, 2021. Unified Hazard Tool. Website <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/>, accessed 4 April 2022. 20 15. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2015. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (Version 3). <http://www.wgcep.org/UCERF3> 16. Zhang G., et. al., 2004. “Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Displacements using the Standard Penetration Test or Cone Penetration Test,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 2004. \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Deliverables\Geotechnical_Info\Reports\131 Terminal Ct\2022_0503_HAI_131 Terminal Ct_Geotech_F.docx FIGURES SITE 122°24'0"W122°25'0"W122°26'0"W 37°39'0"N 37°38'0"N GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\GIS\Maps\2022_04\204962_000_0001_PROJECT_LOCUS_131_TERMINAL_COURT.mxd ― USER: hwachholz ― LAST SAVED: 4/18/2022 10:50:46 PM MAP SOURCE: ESRISITE COORDINATES: 37°38'38"N, 122°24'28"W 131 TERMINAL COURTSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT LOCUS FIGURE 1APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 IN = 2000 FTAPRIL 2022 CA !?¤ !?¤ !?¤ !?¤ !?¤ @A @A @A @A @A !? !? !? !? BAYSHORE FRE EWAY (HWY 101) SAN MATEO AVENUE SCPT-2 SCPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 HA-4 HA-5 CPT-1/HA-1 CPT-2/HA-2 CPT-3/HA-3 CPT-4/HA-4 NOTES 1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ASSESSOR PARCEL DATA SOURCE: SAN MATEO COUNTY GIS 3. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, 29 SEPTEMBER 2021 131 TERMINAL COURTSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA SITE PLAN FIGURE 2SCALE: AS SHOWNAPRIL 2022 LEGEND @A SOIL BORING !?¤CONE PENETRATION TEST !?CONE PENETRATION TEST AND HAND-AUGER BORING,ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. (2020) SITE BOUNDARY GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\GIS\Maps\2022_04\204962_000_0002_SITE_PLAN_131_TERMINAL_COURT.mxd ― USER: hwachholz ― LAST SAVED: 4/25/2022 1:12:34 PM 0 150 300 SCALE IN FEET 131 TERMINAL CT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 16/22" TUBEX PILES AXIAL RESISTANCE CHARTS 18 April 2022 FIGURE 3 \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Project_Data\Calculations\Pile Analysis\[131 Terminal Ct-template Tubex_0418.xlsx]Template 6 Notes: 1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance in uplift. 2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to the ultimate compressive resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, a factor of safety of 3.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown above. 3) An unfactored downdrag of 190 kips was calculated and should be considered as a structural load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the geotechnical capacity of the pile. Notes: 1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance in uplift. 2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, the factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown above. 3) An unfactored seismic-induced downdrag of 30 kips was calculated and should be considered as a structural seismic load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the geotechnical capacity of the pile. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 De p t h ( f t ) Axial Capacity (kips) ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES - STATIC CONDITION Uplift Compression 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 De p t h ( f t ) Axial Capacity (kips) ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES - SEISMIC CONDITION Uplift Compression 131 TERMINAL CT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 18" AUGER CAST PILES AXIAL RESISTANCE CHARTS 18 April 2022 FIGURE 4 \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204962\Project_Data\Calculations\Pile Analysis\[131 Terminal Ct-template ACIP_0418.xlsx]Template 6 Notes: 1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance in uplift. 2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to the ultimate compressive resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, a factor of safety of 3.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown above. 3) An unfactored downdrag of 125 kips was calculated and should be considered as a structural load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the geotechnical capacity of the pile. Notes: 1) The net weight of the pile should be treated as a load applied to the top of the pile in compression. This load is not accounted for in these charts. This weight may be considered as additional resistance in uplift. 2) A recommended factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate resistance shown above. For uplift considerations, the factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the side resistance shown above. 3) An unfactored seismic-induced downdrag of 65 kips was calculated and should be considered as a structural seismic load. This load does not need to be considered when calculating the geotechnical capacity of the pile. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 De p t h ( f t ) Axial Capacity (kips) ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES - STATIC CONDITION Uplift Compression 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 De p t h ( f t ) Axial Capacity (kips) ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCES - SEISMIC CONDITION Uplift Compression APPENDIX A Cone Penetration Test Results GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com March 16, 2022 Haley & Aldrich Attn: Rati Subject: CPT Site Investigation 101 & 103 Terminal Ct South San Francisco, California GREGG Project Number: P7222007 & P7222008 Dear Rati: The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed: 1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) 2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) 3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) 4 Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) 5 Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) 6 Groundwater Sampling (GWS) 7 Soil Sampling (SS) 8 Vapor Sampling (VS) A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-903-6873. Sincerely, Gregg Drilling, LLC. CPT Reports Team Gregg Drilling, LLC. GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- CPT Sounding Identification Date Termination Depth (feet) Depth of Groundwater Samples (feet) Depth of Soil Samples (feet) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (feet) SCPT-1 3/14/2022 100.07 - - 23.62 CPT-2 3/15/2022 100.07 - - 24.93 CPT-3 3/15/2022 83.01 - - 21.33 CPT-4 3/15/2022 97.6 - - 23.29 SCPT-2 3/14/2022 99.41 - - 18.54 GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997 Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org Revised 10/21/2021 i Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT) Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system, Figure CPT. The cone takes measurements of tip resistance (qc), sleeve resistance (fs), and penetration pore water pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or 5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly continuous profile. CPT data reduction and basic interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on- site decision making. The above mentioned parameters are stored electronically for further analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are performed in accordance with revised ASTM standards (D 5778-12). The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location. A new saturated filter element is used on each sounding to measure both penetration pore pressures as well as measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT). Prior to each test, the filter element is fully saturated with oil under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy. When the sounding is completed, the test hole is backfilled according to client specifications. If grouting is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a hollow tremie pipe with a “knock out” plug to the termination depth of the CPT hole. Grout is then pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to the site is therefore minimized. Figure CPT Revised 10/21/2021 ii Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications Dimensions Cone base area 15 cm2 Sleeve surface area 225 cm2 Cone net area ratio 0.85 Specifications Cone load cell Full scale range 180 kN (20 tons) Overload capacity 150% Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf) Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf) Sleeve load cell Full scale range 31 kN (3.5 tons) Overload capacity 150% Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf) Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf) Pore pressure transducer Full scale range 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi) Overload capacity 150% Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi) Note: The repeatability during field use will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion, maintenance and zero load stability. Revised 10/21/2021 i Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by Robertson (1990). Typical plots display SBT based on the non-normalized charts of Robertson et al (1986). For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of Robertson (1990) which can be displayed as SBTn, upon request. The report also includes spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson (Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling LLC does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the software and does not assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. Some interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress. An estimate of the in-situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT results, but should be verified by the user. A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface. Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2. In these situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be used to infer the correct soil behavior type. Figure SBT (After Robertson et al., 1986) – Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots ZONE SBT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sensitive, fine grained Organic materials Clay Silty clay to clay Clayey silt to silty clay Sandy silt to clayey silt Silty sand to sandy silt Sand to silty sand Sand Gravely sand to sand Very stiff fine grained* Sand to clayey sand* *over consolidated or cemented Revised 10/21/2021 i Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation Gregg uses a proprietary CPT interpretation and plotting software. The software takes the CPT data and performs basic interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters using current published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997). The interpretation is presented in tabular format using MS Excel. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The user should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation. Many of the empirical correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending on soil type, geologic origin and other factors. The software uses ‘default’ values that have been selected to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameters. Input: 1 Units for display (Imperial or metric) (atm. pressure, pa = 0.96 tsf or 0.1 MPa) 2 Depth interval to average results (ft or m). Data are collected at either 0.02 or 0.05m and can be averaged every 1, 3 or 5 intervals. 3 Elevation of ground surface (ft or m) 4 Depth to water table, zw (ft or m) – input required 5 Net area ratio for cone, a (default to 0.85) 6 Relative Density constant, CDr (default to 350) 7 Young’s modulus number for sands, α (default to 5) 8 Small strain shear modulus number a. for sands, SG (default to 180 for SBTn 5, 6, 7) b. for clays, CG (default to 50 for SBTn 1, 2, 3 & 4) 9 Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt (default to 15) 10 Over Consolidation ratio number, kocr (default to 0.3) 11 Unit weight of water, (default to γw = 62.4 lb/ft3 or 9.81 kN/m3) Column 1 Depth, z, (m) – CPT data is collected in meters 2 Depth (ft) 3 Cone resistance, qc (tsf or MPa) 4 Sleeve resistance, fs (tsf or MPa) 5 Penetration pore pressure, u (psi or MPa), measured behind the cone (i.e. u2) 6 Other – any additional data 7 Total cone resistance, qt (tsf or MPa) qt = qc + u (1-a) Revised 10/21/2021 ii 8 Friction Ratio, Rf (%) Rf = (fs/qt) x 100% 9 Soil Behavior Type (non-normalized), SBT see note 10 Unit weight, γ (pcf or kN/m3) based on SBT, see note 11 Total overburden stress, σv (tsf) σvo = σ z 12 In-situ pore pressure, uo (tsf) uo = γ w (z - zw) 13 Effective overburden stress, σ'vo (tsf ) σ'vo = σvo - uo 14 Normalized cone resistance, Qt1 Qt1= (qt - σvo) / σ'vo 15 Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%) Fr = fs / (qt - σvo) x 100% 16 Normalized Pore Pressure ratio, Bq Bq = u – uo / (qt - σvo) 17 Soil Behavior Type (normalized), SBTn see note 18 SBTn Index, Ic see note 19 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic) see note 20 Estimated permeability, kSBT (cm/sec or ft/sec) see note 21 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft see note 22 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft see note 23 Estimated Relative Density, Dr, (%) see note 24 Estimated Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) see note 25 Estimated Young’s modulus, Es (tsf) see note 26 Estimated small strain Shear modulus, Go (tsf) see note 27 Estimated Undrained shear strength, su (tsf) see note 28 Estimated Undrained strength ratio su/σv’ 29 Estimated Over Consolidation ratio, OCR see note Notes: 1 Soil Behavior Type (non-normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below) 2 Unit weight, γ either constant at 119 pcf or based on Non-normalized SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below) 3 Soil Behavior Type (Normalized), SBTn Lunne et al. (1997) 4 SBTn Index, Ic Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5 5 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic) Qtn = ((qt - σvo)/pa) (pa/(σvo)n and recalculate Ic, then iterate: When Ic < 1.64, n = 0.5 (clean sand) When Ic > 3.30, n = 1.0 (clays) When 1.64 < Ic < 3.30, n = (Ic – 1.64)0.3 + 0.5 Iterate until the change in n, ∆n < 0.01 Revised 10/21/2021 iii 6 Estimated permeability, kSBT based on Normalized SBTn (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below) 7 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft Lunne et al. (1997) 60 a N )/p(qt = 8.5   4.6 I1c 8 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft (N1)60 = N60 CN, where CN = (pa/σvo)0.5 9 Relative Density, Dr, (%) Dr2 = Qtn / CDr Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 10 Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) tan φ ' =      29.0' qlog68.2 1 vo c Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show’N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 11 Young’s modulus, Es Es = α qt Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 12 Small strain shear modulus, Go a. Go = SG (qt σ'vo pa)1/3 For SBTn 5, 6, 7 b. Go = CG qt For SBTn 1, 2, 3& 4 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 8 & 9 13 Undrained shear strength, su su = (qt - σvo) / Nkt Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8 14 Over Consolidation ratio, OCR OCR = kocr Qt1 Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8 The following updated and simplified SBT descriptions have been used in the software: SBT Zones SBTn Zones 1 sensitive fine grained 1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic soil 2 organic soil 3 clay 3 clay 4 clay & silty clay 4 clay & silty clay 5 clay & silty clay 6 sandy silt & clayey silt Revised 10/21/2021 iv 7 silty sand & sandy silt 5 silty sand & sandy silt 8 sand & silty sand 6 sand & silty sand 9 sand 10 sand 7 sand 11 very dense/stiff soil* 8 very dense/stiff soil* 12 very dense/stiff soil* 9 very dense/stiff soil* *heavily overconsolidated and/or cemented Track when soils fall with zones of same description and print that description (i.e. if soils fall only within SBT zones 4 & 5, print ‘clays & silty clays’) Revised 10/21/2021 v Estimated Permeability (see Lunne et al., 1997) SBTn Permeability (ft/sec) (m/sec) 1 3x 10-8 1x 10-8 2 3x 10-7 1x 10-7 3 1x 10-9 3x 10-10 4 3x 10-8 1x 10-8 5 3x 10-6 1x 10-6 6 3x 10-4 1x 10-4 7 3x 10-2 1x 10-2 8 3x 10-6 1x 10-6 9 1x 10-8 3x 10-9 Estimated Unit Weight (see Lunne et al., 1997) SBT Approximate Unit Weight (lb/ft3) (kN/m3) 1 111.4 17.5 2 79.6 12.5 3 111.4 17.5 4 114.6 18.0 5 114.6 18.0 6 114.6 18.0 7 117.8 18.5 8 120.9 19.0 9 124.1 19.5 10 127.3 20.0 11 130.5 20.5 12 120.9 19.0 Revised 10/21/2021 i Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT) Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals can be used to measure equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT). If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is conducted when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and recorded. Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of:  Equilibrium piezometric pressure  Phreatic Surface  In situ horizontal coefficient of consolidation (ch)  In situ horizontal coefficient of permeability (kh) In order to correctly interpret the equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or the phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be monitored until it reaches equilibrium, Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred to as t100, the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated. A complete reference on pore pressure dissipation tests is presented by Robertson et al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997. A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests completed for this project is included in Table 1. Figure PPDT Revised 10/21/2021 i Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) can be conducted at various intervals during the Cone Penetration Test. Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A small interval for seismic testing, such as 1-1.5m (3-5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3-6m (10-20ft) allows for a more average shear wave velocity to be calculated. Gregg Drilling’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft) behind the tip. To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance between the source and the cone. To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be performed at two different depths. The arrival times between the two wave traces are compared to obtain the difference in time (∆t). The difference in depth is calculated (∆d) and velocity can be determined using the simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t Multiple wave traces can be recorded at the same depth to improve quality of the data. A complete reference on seismic cone penetration tests is presented by Robertson et al. 1986 and Lunne et al. 1997. A summary the shear wave velocities, arrival times and wave traces are provided with the report. Figure SCPT (S) 1 2 t 1 2 1 2 12 12 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-1 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 1 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-1 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 4003002001000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 2 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/14/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-1 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Shear Wave velocity HAND AUGER Vs (ft/s) 2000150010005000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Custom Data Shear Wave velocity Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay ClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 11:08:19 AM 1 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-2 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay Clay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 3 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 100.07 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-2 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 4003002001000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay Clay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:13 AM 4 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 83.01 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-3 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt ClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 5 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 83.01 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-3 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 4003002001000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt ClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 6 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 97.60 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-4 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty claySand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay ClaySilty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clay Clay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 7 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 97.60 ft, Date: 3/15/2022101 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: CPT-4 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 4003002001000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty claySand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay ClaySilty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clay Clay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:49:14 AM 8 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-2 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay ClaySand & silty sand Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:48:42 AM 1 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-2 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 4003002001000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay ClaySand & silty sand Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 10:48:42 AM 2 CLIENT: HALEY & ALDRICH GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 99.41 ft, Date: 3/14/2022131 TERMINAL CT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA CPT: SCPT-2 SITE: FIELD REP: RATICone ID: GDC-89 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 6004002000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Friction ratio Shear Wave velocity HAND AUGER Vs (ft/s) 2000150010005000 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Custom Data Shear Wave velocity Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De p t h ( f t ) 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay ClaySand & silty sand Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soil CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/16/2022, 11:09:03 AM 1 Geophone Offset:0.66 Feet Source Offset:1.67 Feet 03/14/22 Test Depth (Feet) Geophone Depth (Feet) Waveform Ray Path (Feet) Incremental Distance (Feet) Characteristic Arrival Time (ms) Incremental Time Interval (ms) Interval Velocity (Ft/Sec) Interval Depth (Feet) 5.09 4.43 4.73 4.73 7.5500 10.01 9.35 9.49 4.76 12.4000 4.8500 982.4 6.89 15.42 14.76 14.85 5.36 31.3500 18.9500 282.8 12.05 20.01 19.35 19.42 4.57 44.9500 13.6000 336.1 17.06 25.10 24.44 24.50 5.07 52.2000 7.2500 699.4 21.90 30.02 29.36 29.41 4.91 58.4000 6.2000 792.2 26.90 35.10 34.44 34.49 5.08 65.4000 7.0000 725.5 31.90 40.03 39.37 39.40 4.92 70.8500 5.4500 902.1 36.91 45.11 44.45 44.48 5.08 76.3500 5.5000 923.9 41.91 50.03 49.37 49.40 4.92 81.8500 5.5000 894.2 46.91 55.12 54.46 54.48 5.08 89.0500 7.2000 705.9 51.92 60.04 59.38 59.40 4.92 95.0500 6.0000 819.9 56.92 65.12 64.46 64.49 5.08 101.4000 6.3500 800.5 61.92 70.05 69.39 69.41 4.92 107.6500 6.2500 787.2 66.93 75.13 74.47 74.49 5.08 114.0000 6.3500 800.6 71.93 80.05 79.39 79.41 4.92 120.6000 6.6000 745.5 76.93 85.14 84.48 84.49 5.08 125.6000 5.0000 1016.8 81.93 90.06 89.40 89.41 4.92 130.3000 4.7000 1046.9 86.94 95.14 94.48 94.50 5.08 136.0500 5.7500 884.3 91.94 100.07 99.41 99.42 4.92 140.8000 4.7500 1035.9 96.94 SCPT-1 Shear Wave Velocity Calculations 101 Terminal Ct SCPT-1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 .0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 De p t h ( F e e t ) Time (ms) Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-1 Geophone Offset:0.66 Feet Source Offset:1.67 Feet 03/14/22 Test Depth (Feet) Geophone Depth (Feet) Waveform Ray Path (Feet) Incremental Distance (Feet) Characteristic Arrival Time (ms) Incremental Time Interval (ms) Interval Velocity (Ft/Sec) Interval Depth (Feet) 5.09 4.43 4.73 4.73 7.5500 10.01 9.35 9.49 4.76 22.0000 14.4500 329.7 6.89 15.09 14.43 14.53 5.03 41.2000 19.2000 262.2 11.89 20.01 19.35 19.42 4.90 54.1500 12.9500 378.1 16.89 25.10 24.44 24.50 5.07 60.9000 6.7500 751.2 21.90 30.02 29.36 29.41 4.91 69.1500 8.2500 595.4 26.90 35.10 34.44 34.49 5.08 75.6000 6.4500 787.3 31.90 40.03 39.37 39.40 4.92 81.6000 6.0000 819.4 36.91 45.11 44.45 44.48 5.08 88.5500 6.9500 731.1 41.91 50.03 49.37 49.40 4.92 93.0500 4.5000 1092.9 46.91 55.12 54.46 54.48 5.08 98.3000 5.2500 968.1 51.92 60.04 59.38 59.40 4.92 104.2500 5.9500 826.7 56.92 65.12 64.46 64.49 5.08 110.5000 6.2500 813.3 61.92 70.05 69.39 69.41 4.92 116.5000 6.0000 820.0 66.93 75.13 74.47 74.49 5.08 122.7000 6.2000 820.0 71.93 80.05 79.39 79.41 4.92 127.9500 5.2500 937.2 76.93 85.14 84.48 84.49 5.08 132.4500 4.5000 1129.8 81.93 90.06 89.40 89.41 4.92 137.9000 5.4500 902.8 86.94 95.14 94.48 94.50 5.08 142.1500 4.2500 1196.3 91.94 99.41 98.75 98.76 4.26 146.4000 4.2500 1003.4 96.62 SCPT-2 Shear Wave Velocity Calculations 131 Terminal Ct SCPT-2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 .0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 De p t h ( F e e t ) Time (ms) Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-2 Sounding: Depth (ft): Site: Engineer: GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test SCPT-1 23.62 101 Terminal Ct Rati 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 PS I Time (seconds) Sounding: Depth (ft): Site: Engineer: GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test CPT-2 24.93 101 Terminal Ct Rati -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 PS I Time (seconds) Sounding: Depth (ft): Site: Engineer: GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test CPT-3 21.33 101 Terminal Ct Rati 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 PS I Time (seconds) Sounding: Depth (ft): Site: Engineer: GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test CPT-4 23.29 101 Terminal Ct Rati 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 PS I Time (seconds) Sounding: Depth (ft): Site: Engineer: GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test SCPT-2 18.54 131 Terminal Ct Rati 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PS I Time (seconds)