Geotechnical Report

File No.
494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 2
10,000 Santa Monica Blvd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An evaluation of the proposed construction of a multi-story condominium building over several
levels of subterranean parking was performed by this office. The evaluation consisted of historical
aerial photographic research, review of geotechnical reports for surrounding buildings, an extensive
subsurface investigation including laboratory testing, geologic analysis of seismic hazards, and soil
engineering analysis of potential settlement and liquefaction effects on the proposed building.
Based on our findings the site is free from hazards associated with landsliding, slippage, soil erosion,
subsidence, and liquefaction. The Design Basis Earthquake and estimated peak ground acceleration
for the site are average and will not necessitate unusual structural design. Affects from typical
settlement or seismic hazards can be mitigated with standard foundation design. There are no known
active faults located close to the property.
Heavy seepage was encountered at depths between 35 and 50 feet (227 to 216 elevation) below the
ground surface and is likely representative of groundwater. The shallowest seepage (closest to the
ground surface) was encountered along the south side of the site. If the below grade portion of the
building is proposed deeper than the current groundwater level then permanent dewatering of the site
or a special foundation and slab design will be required. Based on the geometry of the surrounding
building foundations and the depth of the groundwater there will be no detrimental affect to adjacent
structures during permanent or temporary dewatering (if it is needed).
Although dependant upon the final building design, preliminary analysis indicates that the new
condominium building will be founded on a conventional mat foundation.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
1.0
1.1
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject
site and to provide design and construction criteria for the construction of a multi-story
condominium tower of approximately forty stories in height with approximately four subterranean
levels of parking.
1.2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of work performed during this investigation involved the following;
Research and review of available pertinent geotechnical literature;
Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of four borings (B1, B2, B3, B4) and
advancing four CPT (CPT1, CPT2, CPT3, CPT4);
Sampling and logging of the subsurface soils;
Laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected from the subsurface exploration to
determine the engineering properties of the soil;
Engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data; and
Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the
proposed construction.
1.3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the City of Los Angeles just north of Beverly Hills High School at the
southwest corner of Moreno Drive and Santa Monica Boulevard (Figure 1). An aerial photograph is
included as Figure 2 and a topographic map is included as Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows the
locations of a storm drain line and a sewer line easement located along the east side of the property.
The site is currently vacant following demolition of the previous office building. Santa Monica
Boulevard descends gently to the east and Moreno Drive descends to the south. From the northwest
corner to the southeast corner of the property the site elevation varies by 15 feet.
1.4
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
It is our understanding that conceptually, site development will consist of construction that may
include approximately four subterranean levels of parking and a condominium tower of
approximately forty stories in height.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Figure 1. Location map of the site.
Page 4
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of subject lot and surrounding area.
Page 5
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 6
Figure 3. Topographic map of the subject site and surrounding area. The red star is located on the
subject property. The location of the storm drain is shown by the blue line and the sewer line
easement is shown by the red hachured area.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 7
Previous Reports
Research at the Los Angeles City Building and Safety Department yielded geological and soil
reports for several of the surrounding high-rise developments and for the subject property. The
reports for the surrounding properties indicated that the natural alluvium is relatively uniform, dense,
and can support high structural loads. None of the boring logs that were reviewed and none of the
reports indicated that there were any environmental concerns in the area.
The reports for the surrounding buildings indicate that they are all founded on conventional
foundations consisting of spread footings, driven piles, or cast-in-place caissons.
The original soil and geology report prepared by Leroy Crandall and Associates for the subject
property in 1958 was obtained. The report stated that old, dense, alluvium underlies the majority of
the subject site except for the eastern side along Moreno Drive where 15 feet of loose fill was found.
The old fill contained trash and oil saturated sand. The report stated that the older fill would be
partially removed during excavation for a basement and recommended that the remaining fill be
removed and new fill compacted during development. Conventional spread footings were
recommended for the building foundation and caissons were used under the perimeter, property-line
block wall. In 1960, a report was issued for the foundation of a proposed 14-story tower that was to
be constructed along the north side of the property. Because the construction of the office building
was already underway and grading for the tower foundation was not possible, cast-in-place caissons
up to 48 feet in depth were reportedly going to be installed. However, the towers were never
constructed and the pile clusters that were proposed were never constructed and were not found
during the recent site demolition.
A methane report included within the due diligence documents stated that groundwater was
encountered 5 feet below the bottom of a probe drilled to 45 feet (no logs of the drilling were
provided within the report); a call to the principal engineer for the project verified that groundwater
was encountered at 50 feet below the ground surface.
Site Demolition
A site visit was conducted on May 26th, 2006. Discussion with the demolition contractor, Holcomb
Engineering Contractors, Inc., revealed that no unusual subsurface conditions were encountered.
Mr. Holcomb stated that the 14-story towers were never constructed and he has searched for but has
not found any pile clusters.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
2.0
2.1
Page 8
INVESTIGATION
GENERAL
Our field investigation was performed on January 18-20, 2007, and consisted of a review of site
conditions and exploration involving excavation of four borings; advancing four CPT soundings and
soil sampling. Our investigation also included laboratory testing of selected soil samples. A brief
summary of these various tasks are provided below.
2.2
FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface investigation performed at the site consisted of excavating four borings by use of a
hollow-stem auger drill rig and four electronic piezocone soundings (CPT). The purpose of the
borings and CPT soundings was to determine the existing subsurface conditions and to collect
subsurface soil in the areas of the proposed construction and throughout the site.
The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 100.5 below the existing ground surface.
The CPTs were pushed to a maximum depth of 100.21 below the existing ground surface.
The soil materials encountered in Borings 1-4 consisted of fill over Older Alluvium.
A review of geological maps1,2 indicates that the material underlying the subject site is comprised of
Alluvium of Quaternary age (Figure 4).
The borings were logged by our field geologist using both visual and tactile means. Both bulk and
relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained.
The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached site plan included in Appendix
A. Detailed boring and CPT logs are presented in Appendix B.
2.3
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples obtained during our field exploration.
Samples were tested for the purpose of estimating material properties for use in subsequent
engineering evaluations. Testing included in-place moisture and density, maximum density,
optimum moisture content, hydro-response-swell/collapse, and shear strength testing. A summary of
the laboratory test results is included in Appendix C.
The physical properties of the soils were tested at Soil Labworks, LLC. The undersigned geologist
and engineer have reviewed the data and concur and accept it.
Dibblee, Thomas, 1991, Geologic Map of the Beverly Hills and Van Nuys (south ) Quadrangles, Los
Angeles County, California Map #DF-31.
2
Hoots, H.W., 1931, Geology of the eastern part of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County,
California: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 165-C.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 9
Figure 4. Portion of Dibblee Geologic Map. Site is designated by a red star.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
3.0
3.1
Page 10
SITE GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, POTENTIAL HAZARDS

SITE GEOLOGY
Regional geologic maps and the subsurface exploration indicated that the property is underlain by
Quaternary Age Older Alluvium (Figure 4) overlain by variable amounts of fill. Descriptions of the
materials encountered in our exploratory borings are described below.
3.2.1
Fill
The fill consists of fine to coarse grained silty and gravelly sand with minor amounts of clay. The
color varies from light brown to brown. The fill is medium dense, moist and contains occasional
construction spoils. The fill on site varied from between 2 to about 6 feet with the exception of
boring four where it was found down to a depth of about thirteen feet; this is consistent with the
findings of the previous site investigation reports.
3.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium
The alluvium consists of admixtures of gravel, sands, silts and clays which vary from light to dark
brown, gray, greenish-gray, orange-brown. The alluvium was moist to saturated, medium dense to
dense, firm to stiff, containing caliche and mica. The alluvium is generally weakly horizontally
layered with no significant structural planes.
3.2.3
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during the recent excavations and soundings at depths ranging from
35 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Historically, the highest groundwater in this area of Los
Angeles is estimated to be about 25 feet below the ground surface Figure 5 (Plate 1.2, Historically
Highest Groundwater Contours and Borehole Log Data Locations, Beverly Hills 7 Minute
Quadrangle in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Burbank Quadrangle, SHZR-023).
Feffer Boring
Designation
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
Elevation of
Boring
272
261
262
261
Depth to
Groundwater
50
45
35
35
Groundwater
Elevation
222
216
227
226
A monitoring well/piezometer has been installed within Boring 4 so that groundwater levels can be
monitored over time. A measurement taken on February 27, 2007 indicated that groundwater was
35 below the surface level at B-4.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 11
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
3.3
Page 12
SEISMICITY
A risk common to all areas of Southern California that should not be overlooked is the potential for
damage resulting from seismic events (earthquakes). The site is located within a seismically active
area, as is all of Southern California. Although we are not aware of any active faults on or within the
immediate vicinity of the site, earthquakes generated on large regional faults such as the San Andreas
and Santa Monica-Hollywood, Verdugo, Newport Inglewood and Raymond Faults could affect the
site.
The closest known potentially active faults to the site are the east-west trending Santa MonicaHollywood, Newport Inglewood, Verdugo and Raymond Faults. The Santa Monica Fault is located
within two kilometers of the site. Since no active faults cross the property, the surface rupture hazard
at the site is very low.
Due to the distance from the coastline the site is not susceptible to the effects of tsunamis and seiches.
Figure 3.3 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Beverly Hills Quadrangle contains ground
motion values assigned by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for this area of Los Angeles.
The Design Basis Earthquake (10% Exceedance in 50 years) for the study area is peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of about 0.50g. The de-aggregated predominant earthquake magnitude (Mw) is
6.5. These values are average and will not necessitate unusual structural design. Groundwater maps
within the referenced report indicate that historical groundwater is deeper than 25 feet.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a process that occurs when saturated sediments are subjected to repeated strain
reversals during an earthquake. The strain reversals cause increased pore water pressure such that
the internal pore pressure approaches the overburden pressure and the shear strength approaches
zero. Liquefied soils may be subject to flow or excessive strain, which can cause settlement.
Liquefaction occurs in soils below the groundwater table. Soils commonly subject to liquefaction
include loose to medium dense sand and silty sand that are normally consolidated and Holocene in
age. Predominantly fine-grained soils, such as silts and clay, are less susceptible to liquefaction.
Generally, soils with a clay content of greater than 15 percent and/or a fines content (percent passing
the 200 sieve) greater than 30 percent, are not considered subject to liquefaction.
The subject property is not included within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake
liquefaction or seismic ground deformation. This investigation has determined the clay content of
the soils too high for liquefaction. Therefore, the liquefaction potential of the site is low. Similarly,
hazards associated with liquefaction, such as lateral spreading, ground failure and dynamic
settlement are considered low to nil. Mitigation of the liquefaction hazards are not indicated for the
site.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
4.0
4.1
Page 13
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
Subsurface materials at the site consist of older alluvium below variable amounts of fill. On the subject
property there was up to thirteen feet of fill over older alluvium. Laboratory testing indicates that the
alluvium at a shallow depth has a moderate to high potential for consolidation and hydrocollapse. The
older alluvium at the depth of the lowest level of the subterranean garage has a low potential for
consolidation and hydrocollapse. The alluvium at the subject site is competent and not subject to
liquefaction or earthquake induced ground deformation. The following paragraph provides general
discussions about settlement and expansive soil activity.
4.2
SETTLEMENT
Our investigation indicated that the consolidation and hydrocollapse potential of the older alluvium at
the depth of the proposed subterranean garage is low. The dry densities and blow counts were high for
the samples taken at depth and it is our experience that these soils have a very low potential for
consolidation. Recommendations are presented below to mitigate the settlement hazard associated with
consolidation of the near surface soils.
4.3
EXPANSIVE SOIL
The on-site, near surface soil was found to possess low to moderate expansive characteristics based
upon expansion index testing and field soil classifications.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
5.0
5.1
Page 14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BASIS
Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided,
information gathered, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic evaluations, experience, and
judgment. Recommendations contained herein should be considered minimums consistent with
industry practice. More rigorous criteria could be adopted if lower risk of future problems is desired.
Where alternatives are presented, regardless of what approach is taken, some risk will remain, as is
always the case.
5.2
SITE SUITABILITY
The site is within an area including completed housing and building developments. Geotechnical
exploration, analyses, experience, and judgment result in the conclusion that the proposed development
is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint.
It is our opinion that the site can be improved without hazard of landslide, slippage, or settlement, and
improvement can occur without similar adverse impact on adjoining properties. Realizing this
expectation will require adherence to good construction practice, agency and code requirements, the
recommendations in this report, and possible addendum recommendations made after plan review and
at the time of construction.
5.3
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION
It is not known if the proposed structures are going to be designed using dynamic or static analyses.
Feffer Geological has not performed a site-specific seismic ground motion study or produced seismic
response spectra. The following recommendations may be used for static design.
As discussed before, the nearest known potentially active seismic source are the Santa MonicaHollywood, Newport Inglewood, Verdugo and Raymond Faults. These faults are Type B faults. The
soil profile of the site is characterized as SD (stiff soil). The following seismic design parameters are
recommended according to Chapter 16 of the 2002 Edition of the County of Los Angeles Building
Code.
Soil Profile Type
: SD
Seismic Zone Factor (z)
: 0.4
Seismic Source Type
:B
Near-Source Factor, Na
: 1.3
Near-Source Factor, Nv
: 1.6
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Coefficient, Cv
: 0.44Na
: 0.64Nv
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 15
It should be realized that the purpose of the seismic design utilizing the above parameters is to
safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, but not to prevent damage altogether. Even
if the structural engineer provides designs in accordance with the applicable codes for seismic design,
the possibility of damage cannot be ruled out if moderate to strong shaking occurs as a result of a large
earthquake. This is the case for essentially all structures in Southern California.
5.4
EARTHWORK
5.4.1
General
Demolition of the previous structures disturbed the upper five to fifteen feet of existing fill and
alluvium; all foundations should be founded on firm undisturbed older alluvium. Remedial grading
is not anticipated for subterranean levels that penetrate the existing disturbed earth materials and are
founded in competent older alluvium. Portions of the proposed floor slabs and structures that
penetrate the surficial materials may be founded on firm undisturbed older alluvium. Where a
compacted fill cap is used it should extend at least two feet below the building slabs. If it is
anticipated that the proposed construction may require grading of the site, it should be done in
accordance with good construction practice, minimum code requirements and recommendations to
follow. Grading criteria are included within Appendix E.
5.4.2 Site Preparation and Grading
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, we recommend that footings be founded
in firm older alluvium. Prior to the start of grading operations, utility lines within the project area, if
any, should be located and marked in the field so they can be rerouted or protected during site
development. All debris and perishable material should be removed from the site. No permanent
cut and fill slopes should be constructed steeper than a 2:1 gradient.
If fill is to be placed the upper six to eight inches of surface exposed by the excavation should be
scarified; moisture conditioned to two to four percent over optimum moisture content, and
compacted to 95 percent relative compaction3. If localized areas of relatively loose soils prevent
proper compaction, over-excavation and re-compaction will be necessary.
Relative compaction refers to the ratio of the in-place dry density of soil to the maximum dry density of the
same material as obtained by the "modified proctor" (ASTM D1557) test procedure.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
5.5.1
Page 16
New Structures
All proposed footings shall be embedded within approved firm older alluvium, in accordance with
the recommendations below.
Formal design parameters, such as the anticipated structural loads and the depth of the basement
have not been provided. Foundations loads are anticipated to be very high. The following design
parameters assume that the lower subterranean level will extend 40 feet below existing grade. Based
on the anticipation of high structural loads conventional column foundations and slabs are not
feasible and a mat foundation is likely.
Based upon the recently measured groundwater levels of 35 to 50 feet below grade, and the
historically highest groundwater reported for the site of 25 feet, either permanent dewatering or a
hydrostatic design will be required. Since it is not likely tenable to permanently pump groundwater
to maintain the static level below the elevation of the deepest foundation and slab, a hydrostatic
design is appropriate.
Mat Foundations
A mat foundation may be used to distribute concentrated loads to the bearing soils to mitigate
differential settlement. The thickness of the mat should be determined by the structural engineer.
For capacity of the mat, a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot may be
assumed for the native alluvium at the basement level. A increase may be used for wind or
seismic loads. For bearing calculations, the weight of the concrete in the footing may be neglected.
A coefficient of subgrade reaction of 335 kips per cubic foot may be used for the mat to compute
deflections. The recommended subgrade modulus has already been factored to reflect the
anticipated size.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
5.6
Page 17
RETAINING WALL AND SHORING
Retaining Wall
Cantilevered retaining walls up to 20 feet high that support older alluvium and approved retaining
wall backfill, may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot
(calculations included within Appendix D). Restrained basement walls that are pinned at the top by
a non-yielding floor should be designed for a trapezoidal distribution of pressure. The design earth
pressure on restrained basement wall is 30H psf, where H is the height of the basement wall in feet.
Retaining walls should be provided with a subdrain or weepholes covered with a minimum of 12
inches of inch crushed gravel.
28H
Basement retaining walls surcharged by existing foundations or vehicular traffic should be designed
to withstand the surcharge. Feffer Geologic would be happy to assist the structural engineer in
evaluating the magnitude of the surcharge pressure and the point of application.
Backfill
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as
determined by ASTM D 1557-02. Where access between the retaining wall and the temporary
excavation prevents the use of compaction equipment, retaining walls should be backfilled with
inch crushed gravel to within 2 feet of the ground surface. Where the area between the wall and the
excavation exceeds 18 inches, the gravel must be vibrated or wheel-rolled, and tested for
compaction. The upper 2 feet of backfill above the gravel should consist of a compacted fill blanket
to the surface. Retaining wall backfill should be capped with a paved surface drain or a concrete
slab.
It should be pointed out that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining
walls can result in excess wall movement and/or soil loadings exceeding design values. In this
regard, care should be taken during backfilling operations.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 18
Waterproofing
Where retaining walls form portions of the building interiors, very special consideration should be
given to waterproofing the walls to prevent damage to the building interior. Unless dampness is
acceptable on exterior wall faces, waterproofing should also be incorporated into the exterior
retaining wall design. Although the project architect is the party who should provide actual
waterproofing details, it is suggested the waterproofing consist of a multi-layered system such as an
initial generously applied layer of hot-mopped asphalt over which a layer of construction felt could
be applied, then thoroughly mopped again with hot asphalt. In the case of all retaining walls, it is
suggested that a layer of 10-mil Visqueen be placed as a finish layer. The multi-layered system
should be covered with protective foam board, or similar, to prevent damage during the backfilling
operation.
Extreme care should be exercised in sealing walls against water and water vapor migration. Where
retaining walls are planned against interior space, continuity should be provided between the
aforementioned wall moisture-proofing on the back of the retaining wall and the moisture barrier
typically placed under slab areas. This waterproofing is necessary to prevent the foundation
concrete from acting as a wick through which moisture migrates to the interior space despite wall
moisture proofing. As aforementioned, the architect or structural engineer should develop the actual
waterproofing details.
5.6.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
Temporary excavations will be required to construct the proposed subterranean levels. The
excavations could be up to 50 feet in height and will expose scattered fill over Older Alluvium.
Where not surcharged by existing footings or structures, the Older Alluvium is capable of
maintaining vertical excavations up to 5 feet. Where vertical excavations in the Older Alluvium
exceed 5 feet in height, the upper portion should be trimmed to 1:1 (45 degrees). Vertical
excavations removing lateral or vertical support from existing structures or the public right-of-way
will require the use of temporary shoring. Any excavation that encroaches within a 1:1 plane
projected downward from the edge of the footing is considered to remove lateral support from the
footing.
Shoring
Shoring may consist of drilled, cast-in-place concrete piles with wood lagging. Shoring piles should
be a minimum of 24 inches in diameter and a minimum of 8 feet into native soils below the base of
the excavation. Piles may be assumed fixed at 3 feet below the base of the excavation. The concrete
placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in
that portion of the soldier pile, which is below the planned excavated level, should be of sufficient
strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils.
Cantilevered shoring up to a height of 20 feet may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 35
pcf. The recommended design pressure on shoring in excess of 20 feet is 40 pcf. For the vertical
forces, piles may be designed for a skin friction of 200 pounds per square foot for that portion of pile
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 19
in contact with the soil. Soldier piles should be spaced a maximum of 8 feet on center. Due to
arching on the soils, the design fluid pressure should be multiplied by the pile spacing.
Shoring that is restrained by tie-back anchors, rakers or struts should be designed for a trapezoidal
distribution of soil pressure. The design earth pressure on restrained shoring wall is 22H psf, where
H is the height of the shored excavation wall in feet. The recommended soil pressures do not include
surcharge pressures from traffic or existing structures. The shoring engineer should add appropriate
surcharge pressures to account for existing structures, property line retaining walls and vehicular
traffic. Feffer Geological can assist the shoring engineer in determining the surcharge pressure and
the point of application.
Lateral Design of Shoring
The friction value is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by
one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Resistance
to lateral loading may be provided by passive earth pressure within the Older Alluvium below the
base of the excavation.
Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per
cubic foot. The maximum allowable earth pressure is 6,000 pounds per square foot. For design of
isolated piles, the allowable passive and maximum earth pressures may be increased by 100 percent.
Piles spaced more than 2 pile diameters on center may be considered isolated.
Lagging
Lagging is required between shoring piles. The lagging should be designed for a maximum pressure
of 400 pounds per square foot.
Earth Anchors
Earth anchors (tie backs) may be employed to assist the shoring system. Pressure grouted friction
anchors are recommended. For design purposes, it is assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the
shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 30 degrees with the vertical through the bottom excavation.
Friction anchors should extend at least 20 feet beyond the potential active wedge, or to a greater
length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. The capacities of the anchors should be
determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in a following section.
For shallow conventional, straight-shaft friction anchors (less than 15 feet of over-burden) the
estimated skin friction is 300 pounds per square foot. Deeper anchors will develop an average value
of 550 to 750 pounds per square foot. Post-grouted anchors are expected to achieve capacities of 3
to 8 kips/ft, depending on the depth. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active
wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least six feet on
center, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action.
The anchors may be installed at angles of 20 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving and
sloughing of the anchor hole should be anticipated and provisions made to minimize such caving and
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 20
sloughing. To minimize chances of caving and sloughing, that portion of the anchor shaft within the
active wedge should be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft
should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill should be placed
by pumping; the sand may contain a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping.
The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting a
portion of the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the
soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.25. (This value is based on the assumption that
uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean-mix concrete and
between the lean-mix concrete and the retained earth). In addition, the soldier piles below the
excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. The downward frictional resistance between
the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 200
pounds per square foot.
The initial anchors should be performance tested to verify the design assumptions and capacities.
The shoring engineer should specify a testing program that is acceptable to the geotechnical
engineer. The following may be used as a guide. Three of the initial anchors should be scheduled
for a 24-hour 200 percent test and 10 percent of the remaining anchors for quick 200 percent tests.
The specific anchors selected for the 200 percent test should be representative and acceptable to the
geotechnical engineer. The purpose of the 200 percent tests is to verify the friction value assumed in
design and the bond length. Anchor rods of sufficient strength should be installed in these anchors
to support the 200 percent test loading. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial
anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are
obtained. The total deflection during the 24-hour 200 percent test should not exceed 12 inches.
During the 24-hour test, the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inches, measured after the 200
percent test load is applied. If the anchor movement after the 200 percent load has been applied for
12 hours is less than 0.5 inches, and the movement over the previous four hours has been less than
0.1 inches, the 24-hour test may be terminated.
For the quick 200 percent tests, the 200 percent test load should be maintained for 30 minutes. The
total deflection of the anchor during the 200 percent quick tests should not exceed 12 inches; the
deflection after the 200 percent test load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30minute period.
All of the anchors should be proof tested to at least 150 percent of the design load. Total deflection
during the test should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150 percent test should not
exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period for the anchor to be approved for the design loading.
After a satisfactory test, each anchor should be locked-off at the design load. The locked-off load
should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. If the locked-off load varies by more than
10 percent from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked-off within 10
percent of the design load.
The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 21
Deflection Monitoring
Some deflection is expected for a well designed and constructed shoring system. Where offsite
structures or the public right-of-way are located within 10 feet of the shored excavation, it is
recommended that the deflection be limited to inch or less. Where offsite structures and the
public right-of-way are located within more than 10 feet of the shored excavation, it is recommended
that the deflection be limited to 1 inch or less.
Prior to construction and excavation for the subterranean levels, it is recommended that the existing
conditions along the property line be documented and surveyed. Documentation should include
photographs and descriptions of the offsite structures and conditions. Survey monuments should be
affixed to representative structures and to points along the property line and offsite. The survey
points should be measured prior to construction to form a baseline for determining settlement or
deformation. Upon installation of the soldier piles, survey monuments should be affixed to the tops
of representative piles so that deflection can be measured.
The shored excavation and offsite structures should be visually inspected every day. Survey
monuments should be measured once a month during the construction process. Should the surveys
reveal offsite deformation or excessive deflection of the shoring system, the shoring engineer and
geotechnical engineer should be notified. Excessive deflection may require additional anchors, postgrouting and re-tensioning or internal bracing to restrain the shoring system.
Excavation Characteristics
The borings and CPT soundings did not encounter hard, cemented bedrock. Groundwater was
encountered at depths of 35 to 50 feet and should be anticipated for drilled shafts and deep
excavations. Drilled foundations and anchors below the groundwater level may be subject to caving
and casing, drilling muds or special drilling techniques may be required. Water should be pumped
from foundation excavations prior to placing concrete. As an alternative, water may be displaced from
drilled foundation shafts by placing the concrete from the bottom up. The compressive strength of
concrete placed below the water table should be increased by 1,000 psi over the design strength. A
dewatering consultant should be retained to evaluate the feasibility of lowering the groundwater table
to facilitate construction.
5.7
EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Whenever planned, the exterior flatwork should be placed over at least a two foot blanket of approved
compacted fill. Five inch net sections with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c.e.w. are also advised. Control
joints should be planned at not more than twelve foot spacing for larger concrete areas. Narrower
areas of flatwork such as walkways should have control joints planned at not greater than 1.5 times the
width of the walkway. Recommendations provided above for interior slabs can also be used for
exterior flatwork, but without a sand layer or Visqueen moisture barrier. Additionally, it is also
recommended that at least 12-inch deepened footings be constructed along the edges of larger concrete
areas.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 22
Movement of slabs adjacent to structures can be mitigated by doweling slabs to perimeter footings.
Doweling should consist of No. 4 bars bent around exterior footing reinforcement. Dowels should be
extended at least two feet into planned exterior slabs. Doweling should be spaced consistent with the
reinforcement schedule for the slab. With doweling, 3/8-inch minimum thickness expansion joint
material should be provided. Where expansion joint material is provided, it should be held down about
3/8 inch below the surface. The expansion joints should be finished with a color matched, flowing,
flexible sealer (e.g., pool deck compound) sanded to add mortar-like texture. As an option to
doweling, an architectural separation could be provided between the main structures and abutting
appurtenant improvements.
5.8
CONCRETE
Based on our experience soils at the site have low levels of sulfates. As such, no special sulfate
resistant cure mix design is required for the project. However, we recommend that the low
permeable concrete be utilized at the site to limit moisture transmission through slab and foundation.
For this purpose, the water/cement ratio to be used at the site should be limited to 0.5 (0.45
preferred). Limited use (subject to approval of mix designs) of a water reducing agent may be
included to increase workability. The concrete should be properly cured to minimize risk of
shrinkage cracking. The code dictates at least seven days of moist curing. Two to three weeks is
preferred to minimize cracking. One-inch hard rock mixes should be provided. Pea gravel mixes
are specifically not recommended but could be utilized for relatively non-critical improvements
(e.g., flatwork) and other improvements provided the mix designs consider limiting shrinkage.
Contractors/other designers should take care in all aspects of designing mixes, detailing, placing,
finishing, and curing concrete. The mix designers and contractor are advised to consider all
available steps to reduce cracking. The use of shrinkage compensating cement or fiber reinforcing
should be considered. Mix designs proposed by the contractor should be considered subject to
review by the project engineer.
5.9
DRAINAGE
Drainage should be directed away from structures via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal
areas. Two percent drainage is recommended directly away from structures. Two percent minimum
is recommended for drainage over soil areas. In pipes or paved swales, one percent should be
adopted as the minimum unless otherwise recommended by the project civil engineer. For area
drains, a six inch minimum pipe diameter is recommended because experience has shown that three
and four-inch pipes tend to clog. All enclosed planters should be provided with a suitably located
drain or drains and/or flooding protection in the form of weep holes or similar. Preferably, structures
should have roof gutters and downspouts tied directly to the area drainage system.
5.10
PLAN REVIEW
When detailed grading and structural plans are developed, they should be forwarded to this office for
review and comment.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
5.11
Page 23
AGENCY REVIEW
All soil, geologic, and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and
approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can
dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the
proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable.
5.12
SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING
During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site geotechnical
conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Although
not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required by the governing agencies,
the more site reviews requested, the lower the risk of future site problems. The following site
reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the agencies.
Preconstruction/pregrading meeting ................................................ Advised
Continuous observation and testing during any grading.................Required
Shoring Observation .......................................................................Required
Reinforcement for all foundations ................................................... Advised
Slab subgrade moisture barrier membrane ...................................... Advised
Slab subgrade rock placement ......................................................... Advised
Presaturation checks for all slabs in primary structure areas..........Required
Presaturation checks for all slabs for appurtenant structures........... Advised
Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures............... Advised
Compaction of utility trench backfill............................................... Advised
Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, all supplemental consulting services will be provided on an
as-needed, time-and-expense, fee schedule basis.
5.13
PROJECT SAFETY
The contractor is the party responsible for providing a safe site. This consultant will not direct the
contractor's operations and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than his own
representatives on site. The contractor should notify the owner if he is aware of and/or anticipates
unsafe conditions. If the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction considers conditions
unsafe, the contractor, as well as the owner's representative, will be notified. Within this report the
terminology safe or safely may have been utilized. The intent of such use is to imply low risk.
Some risk will remain, however, as is always the case.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
6.0
Page 24
REMARKS
Only a portion of subsurface conditions have been reviewed and evaluated. Conclusions,
recommendations and other information contained in this report are based upon the assumptions that
subsurface conditions do not vary appreciably between and adjacent to observation points. Although
no significant variation is anticipated, it must be recognized that variations can occur.
This report has been prepared for the sole use and benefit of our client. The intent of the report is to
advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the proposed improvements. It should be
understood that the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are not perfect.
Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical
aspect of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. The client is the only
party intended by this office to directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this report can only be
authorized by the client. Any transferring of information or other directed use by the client should
be considered "advice by the client."
Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty. Geotechnical engineering is often
described as an inexact science or art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly
based upon the evaluations of technical information gathered, partly on experience, and partly on
professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered
"advice." Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically,
"minimum" recommendations have been presented. Although some risk will always remain, lower
risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were adopted. Final decisions
on matters presented are the responsibility of the client and/or the governing agencies. No
warranties in any respect are made as to the performance of the project.
File No.494-64
March 24, 2007
Page 25
REFERENCES
1.
Blake, T., 2000, EQFault, Version 3.00b, Program for Deterministic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration from Digitized Faults.
2.
Blake, T., 2000, EQSearch, Version 3.00b, Program for Estimation of Peak Acceleration
from California Earthquake Catalogs.
3.
Blake, T., 2000, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, Program for Computation of 1997 Uniform
Building Code Seismic Design Parameters.
4.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale
1:750,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Map Data Series.
5.
State of California, Seismic Hazard Zone Mapping, 1998, Beverly Hills Quadrangle.
APPENDIX A
Site Plan
LARGE GRAVEL PILE
CPT-1
FILL OVER OLDER ALLUVIUM
B-1
CPT-3
B-3
CPT-2
B-2
B-4
PROPOSED FORTY-STORY BUILDING OVER

FOUR LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING
CPT-4
SITE PLAN
JB:
494-64
NAME:
SUNCAL CO.
BY:
YH
10000 SANTA
MONICA BLVD
BASE MAP FROM S.E.C. CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEY
DATE:
3/24/07 SCALE:1=30
SITE:
REF:
LEGEND
B-4
LOCATION OF BORING
CPT-4
LOCATION OF CPT
APPENDIX B
Boring Logs
&
CPT Logs
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 1
Boring Location: See
Drill Type:
Site Plan for location
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Moisture
Density
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Date Performed: 1/20/07
Depth in Feet
Sheet 1 of 3
Bedrock/ Soil Description
brown
Fill:
Silty sand, fg
8
9 R
11
10
4
7
11
15
10
12 R
16
20
4
5
8
SPT
SPT
Silty sand with gravel, mg-cg
brown
Alluvium:
Silty sand, with gravel, fg-mg, clay binder
Silty sand to clay sand, fg
medium
dense
moist
dense
mottled
orange, brown dense to firm
greenish-gray
Sandy silt, fg
dense
25
7
12 R
14
Interbedded silty sand and silty clay, fg
orange
gray-brown
30
7
11
14
Silty sand, fg-mg, with gravel
brown
red-brown
35
17
20 R
22
SPT
slightly
moist
mottled
brown, gray
Clayey silt, fg
40
Feffer Geological Consulting
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 1
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Moisture
Density
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 2 of 3
40
6
9
10
SPT
45
16
22 R
25
50
6
10
11
55
4
5
8
SPT
Silty sand, mg-cg, with clay binder
Silty clay to clay silt, fg
mottled
brown
green-brown
Water, interbeded gravelly sand and

silty sand, mg-fg
brown
red-brown
Gravelly sand, cg, cohesionless
brown
60
5
8
13
65
22
50 R
sandy clay, fg, calche
70
5
10
13
75
21
27 R
30
SPT
SPT
brown
dense
moist
saturated
medium
dense
medium
dense to
dense
Interbeded silty sand, fg, and gravelly

sand, cg, gravelly sand is cohesionless
gray
stiff
Silty sand to sandy silt, fg-mg, with

occasional gravel, calche
mottled
orange-brown
gray-brown
dense
Silty sand to sandy silt, fg, calche
mottled
brown
gray-green
moist
80
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
Boring No: 1
494-64
Cal Co
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Moisture
Density
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 3 of 3
80
12
15
22
SPT
Sandy silt to silty sand, fg, calche
85
25 R
50
Sandy silt, fg, calche
90
13
15
17
Interbeded sandy clay and sand, fg,

calche
95
22 R
50
100
105
7
8
15
SPT
SPT
brown
dense
moist
gray
brown
Clay, fg, poor recovery
brown
Silty clay, fg
mottled
gray-green
brown
stiff
End at 100 Fill to 10

Water at 50, No Caving
110
115
120
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
Boring No: 2
494-64
Cal Co
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Moisture
Density
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 1 of 3
brown
Fill:
Silty sand, fg
10
15 R
17
Alluvium:
Interbedded sandy silt and silty sand with
gravel, fg-mg, clay binder
10
5
6
9
Silty clay, fg
15
9
12 R
15
20
4
5
7
SPT
SPT
dense
moist
firm to stiff
Silty sand, fg, clay binder
mottled
orange-brown
greenish-gray
brown
Sandy silt, fg
25
8
12 R
15
Sandy silt to clayey silt, fg, occasional

gravel & slate chips
30
14
18
30
Silty sand grades into gravelly sand,

mg-cg, gravel up to 1/2
35
20
22 R
28
SPT
brown,
gray brown,
green brown
slightly
moist
Silty sand to sandy silt, fg, occasional

gravel
dense
medium
dense
dense
brown
brown
orange-brown
40
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 2
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Moisture
Density
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 2 of 3
40
6
8
11
SPT
Clayey silt, fg, occasional gravel
mottled
orange-brown
gray-green
brown
dense
45
14
20 R
28
Water, No recovery
50
50
for
6
Gravelly sand, cg, rock fragments up to 1
brown
red-brown
55
23
R
30
Gravelly sand, mg, grades into sandy clay,

mg
green-gray
dense to firm
60
15
18
25
Silty sand to clay sand, fg-mg
mottled
green-gray
red-brown
brown
dense
65
25
55 R
Gravelly sand, cg, clay binder, slate chips

up to 3/4
red-brown
gray-brown
brown
70
10
15
19
75
20
23 R
28
SPT
SPT
SPT
Silty sand with gravel, mg-cg, slate chips,

calche
Silty sand to clay sand with gravel up to

1/16, calche
moist
saturated
moist
brown
dense to stiff
80
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
Boring No: 2
494-64
Cal Co
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Density
brown
green-brown
dense
Moisture
Color
Bulk
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 3 of 3
80
13
19
20
SPT
85
17
20 R
23
90
12
14
19
95
100
105
SPT
29
50
SPT
Sandy silt to silty sand, fg, clay binder
moist
mottled
orange-brown
gray-green
brown
Silty sand, fg-mg
Silty sand, fg-mg, calche, occasional

gravel
Silty sand to sandy silt, fg
Interbeded silty sand, fg, and gravelly

sand, cg
mottled
green-gray
brown
brown
saturated
End at 100 Fill to 5

110
115
120
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 3
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Color
Density
Moisture
Bulk
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 1 of 2
orange-brown
gray, brown
dense
moist
Fill:
Silty sand with gravel
5
10
26
55 R
Alluvium:
Gravelly sand, cg, gravel up to
15
17 R
19
Interbeded clay sand and silty sand
brown
15
10
12 R
15
Silty clay, fg, with occasional gravel
mottled gray
orange-brown
green-brown
20
13
15 R
17
Silty clay, fg
mottled
orange-brown
brown
25
17
19 R
20
Clayey silt to silty clay, fg
30
14
17 R
18
Silty sand to sandy silt, fg-mg, with gravel

up to 3/4
mottled
red-brown
black, gray
35
20
21 R
23
Water, Gravely sand, mg-cg, clay binder,

gravel up to 3/4
brown
red-brown
firm to dense
firm to stiff
green-gray
dense
saturated
40
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 3
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Density
Moisture
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 2 of 2
dense
saturated
40
45
50
55
21 R
24
28
9
15 R
18
14
16 R
20
Gravely sand, cg, cohesionless, clay

inclusions, gravel up to 1/2
brown

inclusions, gravel up to no recovery,
Clay sand, cg, with gravel
dense to stiff
End at 50, Fill to 5

60
65
70
75
80
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 4
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Density
Moisture
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 1 of 2
dense
moist
Fill:
Silty sand with gravel
5
14
15 R
17
Gravelly sand, cg, cohesionless
10
26
50 R
Gravelly sand, cg, cohesionless, concrete

debris
15
12
14 R
17
Alluvium:
Silty sand, mg-cg, with gravel
20
14
15 R
16
Sandy silt, fg, with clay binder
25
8
10 R
11
Clayey silt, fg
30
7
12 R
14
Gravely sand, mg-cg, cohesionless, clay

inclusions
35
17
23 R
28
brown, tan
mottled
orange
brown
gray brown
greenish
gray-brown
Water, Gravely sand, mg-cg, cohesionless,

gravel up to 1/4
slightly
moist to
moist
light brown
gray
brown
black
orange
brown
moist
dense
to firm
dense
saturated
40
Figure

Job Number:
Project: Sun
494-64
Cal Co
Boring No: 4
Drill Type:
8 Hollow Stem Rig
Density
Moisture
Bulk
Color
Sample
Type
Undisturbed
Blows per Foot
Depth in Feet
Sheet 2 of 2
dense
saturated
40
45
21 R
24
28
9
15 R
18
50
14
16 R
20
55
14
17 R
22
60
14
15 R
19
Gravely sand, mg-cg, cohesionless,

gravel up to 1/4
brown
Gravely sand, cg, cohesionless, poor

recovery in rings, bag sample only

inclusions, poor recovery in rings, bag
sample only
Gravelly sand, mg-cg, clay inclusions,
cohesionless
Gravelly sand, mg-cg, clay inclusions,

cohesionless
End at 60, Fill to 15
65
70
75
80
Figure
Kehoe Testing & Engineering

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Customer: Feffer Geological
Job Site: Vacant Lot
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-1
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
Interbedded
Sand Mix
Silt Mix
Clay
Organics
Clay
Silt Mix
10
10
Clay
Sand Mix
Silt Mix
Clay
20
20
Depth (ft)
Silty Clay
Clay
30
30
Silty Clay
40
40
Silt Mix
50
50
Maximum depth: 100.09 (ft)
Page 1 of 3
Test ID: CPT-1
File: Z18J0707C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-1
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
50
50
Silt Mix
Silty Sand
Sand
60
60
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
VS Fine Gr
70
70
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
80
80
VS Fine Gr
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
90
90
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
100
100
Page 2 of 3
Test ID: CPT-1
File: Z18J0707C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-1
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
100
110
110
120
120
130
130
140
140
Depth (ft)
100
150
150
Page 3 of 3
Test ID: CPT-1
File: Z18J0707C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-2
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
0
Interbedded
Silt Mix
Clay
Silty Clay
Sandy Silt
Silty Clay
Sandy Silt
10
10
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
20
20
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
Clay
Silt Mix
30
30
Clay
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
40
40
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
Gr Sand
Sandy Silt
Sand
50
50
Page 1 of 3
Test ID: CPT-2
File: Z18J0703C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
50
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-2
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
Sand
50
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
60
Silt Mix
60
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
VS Fine Gr
70
70
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
80
Sandy Silt
80
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
90
90
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
100
100
Page 2 of 3
Test ID: CPT-2
File: Z18J0703C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-2
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
100
110
110
120
120
130
130
140
140
Depth (ft)
100
150
150
Page 3 of 3
Test ID: CPT-2
File: Z18J0703C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-3
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
0
Sand
Sandy Silt
Clay
Sand Mix
Silty Clay
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
Silty Clay
10
10
Silty Clay
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
20
20
Depth (ft)
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
Silty Clay
Silt Mix
30
30
Clay
Silty Clay
Clay
Sand Mix
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
40
40
Silty Sand
Clay
Silt Mix
50
50
Page 1 of 3
Test ID: CPT-3
File: Z18J0705C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
50
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-3
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
Silt Mix
Sand
50
VS Fine Gr
Clay
Sand
VS - Sandy
60
Silty Sand
Gr Sand
Sand
70
60
70
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
80
80
Sandy Silt
90
90
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
100
100
Page 2 of 3
Test ID: CPT-3
File: Z18J0705C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-3
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
100
110
110
120
120
130
130
140
140
Depth (ft)
100
150
150
Page 3 of 3
Test ID: CPT-3
File: Z18J0705C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-4
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
Silt Mix
Clay
Silty Clay
10
10
Sand Mix
VS - Sandy
VS Fine Gr
20
20
Depth (ft)
Silty Clay
Clay
30
30
VS Fine Gr
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
VS - Sandy
VS Fine Gr
40
40
VS - Sandy
Silty Sand
VS Fine Gr
Silty Sand
VS Fine Gr
50
50

Page 1 of 3
Test ID: CPT-4
File: Z18J0706C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-4
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
50
50
VS Fine Gr
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
60
60
Silt Mix
70
Depth (ft)
70
VS Fine Gr
Silt Mix
80
80
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
90
90
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
100
100
Page 2 of 3
Test ID: CPT-4
File: Z18J0706C.ECP

Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
skehoe@msn.com
Tip Stress COR
0
(tsf)
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Sleeve Stress
700
(tsf)
Date: 18/Jan/2007
Test ID: CPT-4
Project: LosAngeles
Pore Pressure
10
-1
(tsf)
Ratio COR
30
(%)
SBT FR
8
(Rob. 1986) 12
100
110
110
120
120
130
130
140
140
Depth (ft)
100
150
150
Page 3 of 3
Test ID: CPT-4
File: Z18J0706C.ECP
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing
APPENDIX D
Engineering Calculations
NAVFAC DENSITY
IC:
CLIENT:
CONSULT:
494-64
SUNCAL COMPANIES
GRAPH #
JAI
ESTIMATED COMPACTNESS FROM SPT BLOW COUNTS

MODIFIED FROM NAVFAC FIG. 1 7.1-14
140
CPT-1
CPT-2
N60 BLOW COUNTS (blows/ft)
69.104
101.477
80
1.432
0.449
0.471
1.426
1.825
2.562
3.413
3.42
3.734
4.024
40 FEET
1.492
CPT-4
2.861
2.26
1.019
0.678
0.433
0.485
0.599
30 FEET
CPT-3
12024.073
28.675
24.334
14.66
13.211
10.214
10012.815
13.529
VERY DENSE
3.758
-3.528
DENSE
60
40
MEDIUM
20
LOOSE
VERY LOOSE
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (tsf)
3.5
4.0
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

JN:
CLIENT:
CONSULT:
494-64
SUNCAL COMPANIES
GRAPH #
INTERNAL SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

1700
CPT-2 - SEISMIC
1500
S-WAVE VELOCITY (ft/sec)
1300
SOIL PROFILE TYPE S C

1100
SOIL PROFILE TYPE S D
900
700
500
300
0
20
40
DEPTH (feet)
60
80
100
JF
CPT/SPT BLOW COUNT

CONSULT:
494-64
SUNCAL COMPANIES
IC:
CLIENT:
CORRELATION SHEET #
JAI
SPT N60 BLOW COUNT CORRELATION
100
CPT-1
Boring 1
90
BLOW COUNTS (N60)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
DEPTH (feet)
80
100
CPT/SPT BLOW COUNT

CONSULT:
494-64
SUNCAL COMPANIES
IC:
CLIENT:
CORRELATION SHEET #
JAI
SPT N60 BLOW COUNT CORRELATION
100
CPT-2
Boring 2
90
BLOW COUNTS (N60)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
DEPTH (feet)
80
100
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
CONSULT:
494-64
SUNCAL COMPANIES
IC:
CLIENT:
JAI
CALCULATION SHEET #
TOTAL SETTLEMENT-CONSTRAINED MODULUS

MAT FOUNDATION (40' DEEP - 6,000 PSF)
0.80
CPT-1
CPT-2
0.70
CPT-3
CPT-4
TOTAL SETTLEMENT (inches)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
20
40
60
DEPTH (feet)
80
100
RETAINING WALL
IC:
CLIENT:
CONSULT: JF
494-64
FEFFER/SUNCAL COMPANIES
CALCULATION SHEET #
CALCULATE THE DESIGN MINIMUM EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (EFP) FOR PROPOSED RETAINING
WALLS. THE WALL HEIGHT AND BACKSLOPE AND SURCHARGE CONDITIONS ARE LISTED BELOW.
ASSUME THE BACKFILL IS SATURATED WITH NO EXCESS HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. USE THE
MONONOBE-OKABE METHOD FOR SEISMIC FORCES.
CALCULATION PARAMETERS
EARTH MATERIAL:
ALLUVIUM
WALL HEIGHT
B-1
SHEAR DIAGRAM:
BACKSLOPE ANGLE:
SURCHARGE:
COHESION:
280 psf
PHI ANGLE:
SURCHARGE TYPE:
27 degrees
DENSITY
INITIAL FAILURE ANGLE:
125 pcf
SAFETY FACTOR:
1.5
FINAL FAILURE ANGLE:
0 degrees
INITIAL TENSION CRACK:
WALL FRICTION
CD (C/FS):
186.7 psf
FINAL TENSION CRACK:
PHID = ATAN(TAN(PHI)/FS) =
18.8 degrees
HORIZONTAL PSEUDO STATIC SEISMIC COEFFICIENT (k h)
0 %g
VERTICAL PSEUDO STATIC SEISMIC COEFFICIENT (k v)
0 %g
20
0
1000
P
10
70
4
40
CALCULATED RESULTS
CRITICAL FAILURE ANGLE
AREA OF TRIAL FAILURE WEDGE
TOTAL EXTERNAL SURCHARGE
WEIGHT OF TRIAL FAILURE WEDGE
NUMBER OF TRIAL WEDGES ANALYZED
LENGTH OF FAILURE PLANE
DEPTH OF TENSION CRACK
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO UPSLOPE TENSION CRACK
CALCULATED HORIZONTAL THRUST ON WALL
CALCULATED EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE
DESIGN EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE
56
130.3
1000.0
17288.1
2257
19.7
3.7
11.0
8773.4
43.9
45.0
degrees
square feet
pounds
pounds
trials
feet
feet
feet
pounds
pcf
pcf
THE CALCULATION INDICATES THAT THE PROPOSED CANTILEVERED

RETAINING WALLS MAY BE DESIGNED FOR AN EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE OF 45 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT.
feet
degrees
pounds
Point
degrees
degrees
feet
feet
APPENDIX E
Grading Specifications
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations performed under
our supervision.
GENERAL
1) The Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the developer's representative on the project.
2) All clearing, site preparation or earth work performed on the project shall be conducted by the contractor
under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer.
3) It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of
the Geotechnical Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the
specifications of the Geotechnical Engineer. The contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
4) It is the contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to
handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion
of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the contractor, with due consideration for the
fill material, rate of placement and time of year.
5) A final report shall be issued by our firm outlining the contractor's conformance with these
specifications.
SITE PREPARATION
1) All vegetation and deleterious materials such as rubbish shall be disposed of off-site. Soil, alluvium or
rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall
be removed and wasted from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
Page 2
Standard Grading Specifications
2) The Engineer shall locate all houses, sheds, sewage disposal systems, large trees or structures on the site
or on the grading plan to the best of his knowledge prior to preparing the ground surface.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe
lines, or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical
Engineer.
3) After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced or bladed by the
contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks or other uneven features which may prevent
uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted
as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches (12") in depth, the excess shall be removed and
placed in lifts restricted to six inches (6").
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested and approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIALS
1) The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which when compacted shall not exceed six inches
(6") in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to insure
uniformity of material and moisture of each layer.
2) Where the moisture content of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Geotechnical
Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required to assure thorough bonding and thorough
compaction.
3) Where the moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Geotechnical
Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is
adequate.
Page 3
COMPACTED FILLS
1) Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material
has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Roots, tree branches or other matter missed
during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer.
2) Rock fragments less than six inches (6") in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks.
c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Geotechnical Engineer.
3) Rocks greater than six inches (6") in diameter shall be taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Details for rock
disposal such as location, moisture control, percentage of rock placed, will be referred to in the "Conclusions and
Recommendations" section of the geotechnical report.
If the rocks greater than six inches (6") in diameter were not anticipated in the preliminary geotechnical and
geology report, rock disposal recommendations may not have been made in the "Conclusions and
Recommendations" section. In this case, the contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer if rocks greater than
six inches (6') in diameter are encountered.
The Geotechnical Engineer will than prepare a rock disposal
recommendation or request that such rocks be taken off-site.

4) Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory
by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any materials other than that previously
tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical
Engineer as soon as possible.
Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the
compacted fill.
5) Each layer shall be compacted to ninety percent (90%) of the maximum density in compliance with the
testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency (ASTM D-1557-02).
Page 4
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soil conditions, the area to receive fill compacted to less than ninety percent (90%)
shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.
6) Compaction shall be by sheeps foot roller, multi-wheeled pneumatic tire roller, or other types of
acceptable rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. The final surface of the lot
areas to receive slabs-on-grade should be rolled to a smooth, firm surface.
7) Field density tests shall be made by the Geotechnical Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill.
Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet (2') of fill height provided all layers are tested. Where
the sheeps foot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and density readings shall be
taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate the density of any layer
of fill or portion thereof is below the required ninety percent (90%) density, the particular layer or portion shall be
reworked until the required density has been obtained.
8) Buildings shall not span from cut to fill. Cut areas shall be over excavated and compacted to provide a
fill mat of three feet (3').
FILL SLOPES
1) All fills shall be keyed and benched through all top soil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep material into
sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five (5) horizontal to one (1) vertical,
in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.
2) The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') within bedrock or firm materials, unless
otherwise specified in the geotechnical report.
3) Drainage terraces and subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.
4) The Contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of ninety percent (90%) out to
the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over-building
Page 5
the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,
or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
5) All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by methods specified in the geotechnical
report and by the governing agency.
6) Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium, or creep material into rock or
firm materials. The transition zone shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill.
CUT SLOPES
1) The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes excavated in rock, lithified, or formation material
at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet (10').
2) If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints, or fault planes, are encountered
during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer; and
recommendations shall be made to treat these problems.
3) Cut slope that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by
a non-erosive interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
4) Unless otherwise specified in the geological and geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated
higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies.
5) Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
GRADING CONTROL
1) Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer during the progress of
grading.
2) In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet (2') of fill height or every
five hundred (500) cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of
the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction
is being achieved.
Page 6
3) Density tests should also be made on the surface materials to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical
Engineer.
4) All clean-out, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposal must be
inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing any fill.
It shall be the Contractor's
responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
1) Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior
to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.
2) Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Geotechnical Engineer, no further
filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other
features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
3) Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales, or other devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.

Geotechnical Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

File No.

Research and review of available pertinent geotechnical literature;

Sampling and logging of the subsurface soils;

Figure 1. Location map of the site.

Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of subject lot and surrounding area.

Figure 4. Portion of Dibblee Geologic Map. Site is designated by a red star.

SITE GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, POTENTIAL HAZARDS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION

Seismic Source Type

RETAINING WALL AND SHORING

LARGE GRAVEL PILE

FILL OVER OLDER ALLUVIUM

PROPOSED FORTY-STORY BUILDING OVER

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Site Plan for location

8 Hollow Stem Rig

Blows per Foot

Date Performed: 1/20/07

Bedrock/ Soil Description

Silty sand with gravel, mg-cg

Silty sand to clay sand, fg

Interbedded silty sand and silty clay, fg

Silty sand, fg-mg, with gravel

Feffer Geological Consulting

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Site Plan for location

8 Hollow Stem Rig

Blows per Foot

Date Performed: 1/20/07

Bedrock/ Soil Description

Silty sand, mg-cg, with clay binder

Silty clay to clay silt, fg

Water, interbeded gravelly sand and

Gravelly sand, cg, cohesionless

sandy clay, fg, calche

Interbeded silty sand, fg, and gravelly

Silty sand to sandy silt, fg-mg, with

Silty sand to sandy silt, fg, calche

Feffer Geological Consulting

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Site Plan for location

8 Hollow Stem Rig

Blows per Foot

Date Performed: 1/20/07

Bedrock/ Soil Description

Sandy silt to silty sand, fg, calche

Sandy silt, fg, calche

Interbeded sandy clay and sand, fg,

Clay, fg, poor recovery

End at 100 Fill to 10

Feffer Geological Consulting

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Site Plan for location

8 Hollow Stem Rig

Blows per Foot

Date Performed: 1/19/07

Bedrock/ Soil Description

Silty sand, fg, clay binder

Sandy silt to clayey silt, fg, occasional

Silty sand grades into gravelly sand,

Silty sand to sandy silt, fg, occasional

Feffer Geological Consulting