GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT
Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT
PROJECT:
PROPOSED CHAPMAN NEWELL SITE DEVELOPMENT AT
FULLERTON COLLEGE
SOUTHEAST OF EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE & NORTH NEWELL PLACE
FULLERTON, CA 92832
FOR:
NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FULLERTON COLLEGE
321 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE
FULLERTON, CA 92832
PREPARED BY:
GEO-ADVANTEC INC.
457 W. ALLEN AVENUE, SUITE 113
SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773
PROJECT NO. 18-1153
NOVEMBER 9, 2018
Table of Contents
Subject Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 2
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................................ 2
4. SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................................................... 3
5. FIELD EXPLORATORY WORKS.................................................................................................................. 3
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
7. LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................................. 5
8. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................................... 5
9. SITE GEOLOGY.............................................................................................................................................. 6
10. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 6
10.1. General ................................................................................................................................................. 6
10.2. Landsliding and Slope Stability ........................................................................................................... 8
10.3. Liquefaction ......................................................................................................................................... 8
10.4. Earthquake-Induced Dry Settlement .................................................................................................... 9
10.5. Flooding ............................................................................................................................................... 9
10.6. Oil Wells .............................................................................................................................................. 9
11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 10
11.1. General ............................................................................................................................................... 10
11.2. Grading Requirements for Conventional Shallow Footings .............................................................. 10
11.3. General Grading Requirements .......................................................................................................... 11
11.4. Fill Materials and Import ................................................................................................................... 12
11.5. Seismic Coefficients .......................................................................................................................... 12
11.6. Foundations ........................................................................................................................................ 13
11.6.1. General ..................................................................................................................................... 13
11.6.2. Conventional Shallow Spread/Strip Footings ........................................................................... 13
11.7. Floor Slab........................................................................................................................................... 14
11.8. Pavement for Parking Lot .................................................................................................................. 15
11.9. Concrete Flatwork .............................................................................................................................. 16
11.10. Utility Trench Backfilling .................................................................................................................. 17
11.11. Temporary Excavations ..................................................................................................................... 18
11.12. Infiltration Rate Determination .......................................................................................................... 18
11.12.1. General ..................................................................................................................................... 18
11.12.2. Test Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 19
11.12.3. Infiltration Rate......................................................................................................................... 20
12. SOIL CORROSIVITY ................................................................................................................................ 21
13. SOIL EXPANSIVITY ................................................................................................................................ 21
14. OBSERVATION AND TESTING ............................................................................................................. 21
15. CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 22
457 West Allen Avenue, Suite 113. San Dimas, California 91773. Phone: (909) 305 – 0400. WWW.GeoAdvantec.com
Ms. Megan Moscol, LEED AP BD+C, O+M November 9, 2018 Assistant Project Manager, Campus Capital Projects Project No. 18-1153 North Orange County Community College District Fullerton College 321 East Chapman Avenue Fullerton, CA 92832
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development at Fullerton College Southeast of East Chapman Avenue & North Newell Place Fullerton, CA 92832
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Engineering evaluation performed by Geo-
Advantec, Inc. (GAI) for the proposed Chapman Newell Site development at Fullerton College
located within the City of Fullerton, California. This geotechnical evaluation was performed to
provide geotechnical information for the design and construction of the proposed development,
as described in the forthcoming sections of this report. This report also includes our
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development from a
geotechnical standpoint.
The recommendations provided within this submittal are based on the results of our field
exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our experience from similar projects.
Our services were performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 18-1153(R.01), dated
September 24, 2018.
A vicinity map is presented as Figure A-1 within Appendix A. An aerial photo of the site,
presented as Figure A-2 within Appendix A, has been used as the base map to depict the
approximate locations of the proposed development, the borings, and the percolation test
performed.
Our professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this
or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional
advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for the North Orange County
Community College District (NOCCCD), Fullerton College (“the Client”), and their design
consultant for the subject project. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 2 of 23 November 9, 2018
may not contain sufficient information for other parties or the purposes of other uses. The
Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be allowed to review the plans for the proposed
development and perform such additional geotechnical analyses as may be required to confirm
the applicability of the recommendations contained in this report to the final design.
2. SITE CONDITIONS
The site of the proposed development is located on the block southeast of the intersection of East
Chapman Avenue and North Newell Place. Based on the topographic and boundary survey plan
provided by the Client from Kimley-Horn and Associates, this block consists of five different
lots. The easternmost one and a half lots belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (“the Church”), which shall remain in place. The other three and a half lots consist of
uninhabited houses, garages, driveways, and grass/vegetation areas. These three and a half lots,
where the new development will span across, is outlined in Figure A-2 within Appendix A, and
will be known as the Chapman Newell Site. The Chapman Newell Site is separated from the
Church by a concrete masonry unit block wall with a height of about 6 feet. Parts of the
Chapman Newell Site is currently being used as a private staff parking lot for Fullerton College.
The site is relatively flat with an approximate elevation of 160 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL), and is approximately 30,000 square-feet (sf). More detailed information about the
location of the subject project is presented on Figures A-1 and A-2 within Appendix A of this
report.
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the plan and information provided by the Client, it is our understanding that the
proposed development at the Chapman Newell Site includes construction of a one- to two-story
instructional building in the northern half of the site and a parking area in the southern half of the
site. The instructional building will have a footprint of less than 10,000 sf and is roughly outlined
in Figure A-2 within Appendix A. The development also consists of an on-site stormwater
infiltration system at an undetermined location at this time. Our understanding of the proposed
development is based on the information provided by the Client, and it is the basis for the
geotechnical recommendations provided in this submittal.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 3 of 23 November 9, 2018
4. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this project included the followings:
• Performing a site reconnaissance, evaluating the general site conditions, and marking the
proposed boring locations for the purpose of underground utility clearance.
• Conducting five exploratory borings at the proposed locations within vicinity of the
proposed development using truck-mounted hollow stem drilling rig and sampling at 5
feet intervals.
• Conducting one falling head borehole percolation test for the proposed on-site
stormwater infiltration system.
• Performing laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained from our exploratory
borings.
• Reviewing the field data and laboratory test results and performing engineering analyses.
• Preparing a final geotechnical evaluation report for the site, which includes our findings
and recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development from
a geotechnical point of view.
5. FIELD EXPLORATORY WORKS
The field exploration program took place on October 17 and 18, 2018, and it consisted of
performing a total of six 8-inch diameter borings. Figure A-2 within Appendix A presents the
approximate locations of the conducted borings plotted on an aerial photo of the site along with
the rough footprint of the proposed development. The borings were conducted using a truck-
mounted hollow stem drilling rig and were drilled down to the planned depths. Table 5-1
summarizes the area, depth, and samples collected for each boring. Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and Modified California Sampler samples were taken starting at 5 feet and alternating
every 5 feet thereafter until the planned depths for Borings B-1 to B-3
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 4 of 23 November 9, 2018
Table 5-1. Borings Summary
Boring ID Area Depth (ft) Samplea
B-1 Building 51.5 Bulk, SPT, MC
B-2 Building 31.5 Bulk, SPT, MC
B-3 Building 31.5 Bulk, SPT, MC
B-4 Parking 5.0 Bulk
B-5 Parking 5..0 Bulk
P-1 Infiltration 2.8 Bulk aSPT: Standard Penetration Test MC: Modified California (Thick-wall) Driven Sampler
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil encountered in our exploratory work was predominantly silty sand in the upper 5 feet
below the ground surface (bgs), except for a layer of clayey sand encountered in Boring B-4. The
sand layer was underlain by a thick layer fat clays (Boring B-1) and lean clays (Borings B-2 and
B-3) to about 25 feet bgs. Alternating about 5-feet layers of silty sands and lean clays continued
from about 25 to 40 feet bgs, followed by well-graded sands down to the maximum depth
explored (i.e. 51.5 feet bgs).
The fat clay and lean clay layers were generally very stiff throughout with the infrequent soft to
firm consistencies at the shallow depth and hard consistencies at deeper depths. The silty sand
layers in Boring B-1 were generally dense to very dense, and were generally medium dense in
Borings B-2 and B-3. The encountered soils were generally dry to slightly moist throughout all
borings and depths.
Variations in the soil layer conditions, as well as more detailed information, are indicated on the
attached boring logs in Appendix B. Approximate locations of the borings are shown on the
boring locations plan, Figure A-2 within Appendix A.
The soil conditions described in this report are based on the soils observed in the borings drilled
for this investigation and the laboratory test results. It is possible that soil conditions could vary
in areas other than the boring locations.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 5 of 23 November 9, 2018
7. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing, including moisture content, unit weight, gradation, and plasticity index
(Atterberg limits) tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the site investigation
to aid in the classification of the encountered layers and to evaluate their engineering properties.
Also, direct shear, consolidation, R-Value, expansion index, sulfates, chlorides, resistivity, and
pH tests (corrosivity tests) have been conducted on selected samples. The following is the list of
tests performed:
• Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method (ASTM D 2937)
• Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422)
• Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index (ASTM D 4318)
• Direct Shear Test (ASTM D 3080)
• One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties (ASTM D 2435)
• Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure (ASTM D 2844)
• Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829)
• Sulfate Content and Chloride Content (CT 417 and CT 422)
• Resistivity and pH Measurements (CT 643)
The results of our laboratory tests are provided in Appendix C, and selected results are shown on
the boring logs in Appendix B.
8. GROUNDWATER
As mentioned above, the subject site has an approximate elevation of about 160 feet AMSL. We
have reviewed the historically highest groundwater contour map (Figure D-2 within Appendix
D) excerpted from the Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03 for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-
Minute Quadrangle published by the California Department of Conservation. Historically
highest groundwater depth is noted to be at approximately 45 feet bgs. Additionally,
groundwater was not encountered to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs during our exploratory
works (Appendix B).
Based on the site topography, historically highest groundwater contour map, and data obtained
from the exploratory borings conducted at the site, it is our opinion that the groundwater depth at
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 6 of 23 November 9, 2018
the site is lower than 45 feet from the existing grade, and it is unlikely that groundwater would
be encountered during the course of construction for the proposed development.
9. SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located within the Los Angeles physiographic basin. The Los Angeles basin is
bounded on the north by the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains, on the east and southeast
by the Santa Ana Mountains and the San Joaquin Hills, and on the west and south by the Pacific
Ocean. The Los Angeles basin represents a down-warped block of basement rock overlain by
approximately 31,000 feet of sediment.
The Los Angeles physiographic basin is part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province.
The Peninsular Ranges extend north to the San Gabriel Mountains and south into Mexico to the
tip of Baja California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is characterized by alluviated basins,
elevated erosion surfaces, and northwest-trending mountain ranges bounded by northwest
trending faults.
Morton and Miller (2006) showed most of the site to be underlain by younger alluvial fan
deposits of Holocene age. Borings placed on the site during our investigation in October 2018
encountered silty sands, clayey sands, lean clays, fat clays, and well-graded sands. The geologic
map of the site is shown in Figure G-1 within Appendix G.
10. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
10.1. General
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region
as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-
trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Newport-Inglewood and Whittier-
Elsinore fault zones.
By definition of the California Geological Survey (CGS), an active fault is one which has had
surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The CGS has
defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 7 of 23 November 9, 2018
(approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake
Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as
subsequently revised in 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act
is to require fault investigations on sites located within Special Studies Zone to preclude new
construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Puente
Hills (Coyote Hills) Fault. The fault is located approximately 1.75 miles (2.81 km) northwest of
our investigation location. No evidence of active or potentially active faulting was observed on
the subject site during our investigation. Surface rupture is not considered to be a potential
hazard to the site.
Table 10-1 below tabulates the faults, their corresponding maximum magnitude, and distances to
the site, and Figure G-2 in Appendix G illustrates the fault activity map at the vicinity of the
project.
Table 10-1. Active Faults at the Vicinity of the Site
Fault Name Maximum Magnitude Distance to the Site (km)
Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) 6.8 2.8
Elsinore Fault Zone (Whittier Section) 6.9 7.8
Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) 6.7 11.4
San Jose 6.7 18.7
San Joaquin Hills 7.1 19.9
Historic seismicity on the site was evaluated from earthquakes listed in the USGS database and
is included in Appendix G, Figure G-3. From historical records, the site has experienced
moderate to severe ground shaking in the past. There are no records of any failures due to
historic earthquakes for the site. No evidence of active or potentially active faulting was
observed on the subject site during our investigation. Surface rupture is not considered to be a
potential hazard to the site.
Probably the most important fault to the site from a seismic shaking standpoint is the northwest
trending Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) Fault, located approximately 1.74 miles (2.8 kilometers)
northwest of the site. The Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) Fault is zoned as an active fault in the
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 8 of 23 November 9, 2018
Based on the information available at this time, it is our opinion that a M6.8 earthquake may
occur on the Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) Fault. Large earthquakes could occur on other faults in
the general area, but because of their greater distance and/or lower probability of occurrence,
they are less important to the site from a seismic shaking standpoint.
Due to the proximity of the site to the Puente Hills Fault, near field effects from strong ground
motion associated with a large earthquake along this fault may occur at the site. These near field
effects, including “fling” and directivity of strong ground motion, may result in significantly
higher accelerations at the site.
10.2. Landsliding and Slope Stability
As mentioned above the site is relatively flat. Based on the Earthquake Zones of Required
Investigation – Anaheim Quadrangle map, published by the California Geological Survey, the
site is not located in an earthquake-induced landslide zone, as shown in Figure D-1 within
Appendix D. No evidence for landsliding was observed on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Therefore, it is our opinion that landsliding is not a potential hazard on the site.
10.3. Liquefaction
Liquefaction may occur when saturated, loose to medium dense, cohesionless soils are densified
by ground vibrations. If the soils are not sufficiently permeable to dissipate these pressures
during and immediately following an earthquake, the densification will result in increased pore
water pressures. When the pore water pressure is equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure,
liquefaction of the affected soil layers occurs. For liquefaction to occur, three conditions are
required:
• ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration;
• a ground water level at or above the level of the susceptible soils during the
ground shaking; and
• soils that are susceptible to liquefaction.
Based on the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – Anaheim Quadrangle map,
published by the California Geological Survey, the site lies in a seismic hazard zone of
liquefaction, as shown in Figure D-1 within Appendix D. Also, as discussed in the groundwater
section (Section 8) of this report, the historically highest groundwater depth is at about 45 feet,
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 9 of 23 November 9, 2018
and groundwater was not encountered during our site exploration to a maximum depth of 51.5
feet bgs.
The liquefaction analyses were performed for Boring B-1 using Youd et al. (2001) and Idriss and
Boulanger (2008) methods to a maximum depth of 55 feet bgs with groundwater at a depth of 40
feet bgs. The analyses were performed using an earthquake magnitude (M) of 6.7 obtained from
USGS PSHA Deaggregation (Figure G-4 within appendix G) and peak ground acceleration
(PGA) of 0.66g.
The summary result of the analyses is provided as Figure E-1 within Appendix E, concluding no
liquefaction at the site in any soil layers. The soil layers under the historically highest
groundwater table were not susceptible to liquefaction due to their relatively high blow counts as
indicated in the methods used.
10.4. Earthquake-Induced Dry Settlement
Strong ground motion during earthquake will reduce the pore space between soils particles and it
is well known that loose sands tend to compress during dynamic shaking. Soils underlying the
site and to the maximum depth explored include some coarse-grained layers of silty sands and
well-graded sands with silt. The dry settlement analysis was performed with groundwater level at
approximately 55 feet bgs. The results of our analyses are provided in Figures E-2 within
Appendix E of this report and it indicates that a maximum total earthquake-induced dry
settlement of about 0.2 inches is expected to occur at the site.
10.5. Flooding
The site does not lie within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), i.e. 100-year flood area, nor in a
dam inundation area, as shown on the FEMA Flood Map #06059C0131J (Figure A-3 within
Appendix A). Therefore, flooding is not considered to be a potential hazard to the site.
10.6. Oil Wells
The project site is located within any specific oil and/or gas field, and the search result on the oil
wells at the vicinity of the site on the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is presented in Figure A-4 within Appendix A. The DOGGR
records indicate that there is a cluster of three wells within a one-mile radius of the site.
However, all three wells (clustered approximately ¾ miles north of the site) have been
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 10 of 23 November 9, 2018
abandoned since the 1920s. Therefore, it is our opinion that no hazardous materials associated
with any oil well/field is expected on the site.
11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1. General
Based on our understanding of the project, we have determined that the planned development is
feasible from a geotechnical engineering point of view provided the geotechnical
recommendations presented in this report are followed. The shallow on-site soils from below the
ground surface consist of silty sands followed by soft to stiff lean clay and stiff to very stiff fat
clay. Therefore, to reduce any potential future damages, due to likelihood of excessive total and
differential settlement under the anticipated loads, as well as damages due to expansiveness/
heave of the subgrade soils, the following recommendations should be incorporated into design
and construction of the proposed on-site development. As discussed in the following sections of
this report, conventional shallow footings are recommended.
It is recommended that a formal review of foundation plans be performed by GAI, when plans
become available, to verify the applicability of the recommendations contained herein.
11.2. Grading Requirements for Conventional Shallow Footings
As discussed, the upper soils strata underlying the site and the area of the proposed development
consists of silty sands followed by soft to stiff lean clay and stiff to very stiff fat clay. Therefore,
to provide a more uniform bearing stratum and to minimize any potential settlement/heave and
creep to a tolerable level, over-excavation, reworking the on-site soil, and backfilling below the
designated areas for the proposed instructional building is recommended.
It is our recommendation that the on-site soils below the footprint of proposed building be over-
excavated, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted, so that the new footings will be supported
entirely on at least 30 inches of compacted fill. The over-excavation shall laterally extend at least
5 feet from the outer faces of the perimeter footings in all directions. The over-excavated area
shall be backfilled to the designated grade. Adjacent to existing structures, over-excavation shall
be performed by employing slot-cut (A-B-C) method.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 11 of 23 November 9, 2018
The backfilled materials shall comply with the requirements outlined in Section 11.4 of this
report and shall be moisture-conditioned to a moisture content between the optimum and 3
percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557. Prior to placement of backfill, the bottom of
removal shall be observed and confirmed to be competent by the Geotechnical Engineer of
Record.
Following the over-excavation, we recommend that the areas to receive engineered fill be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to a moisture content between
the 1 and 4 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557.
11.3. General Grading Requirements
All fills, unless otherwise specifically stated in the report, shall be compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557 Method of Soil Compaction.
The moisture content during compaction shall be as stated in items 5 and 6 below, unless
otherwise specifically stated in the report.
1. No fill shall be placed until the area to receive the fill has been adequately prepared and
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative.
2. Fill soils should be kept free of debris and organic material.
3. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 3 inches may not be placed in the fill without
approval of the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, and in a manner specified
for each occurrence.
4. The fill material shall be placed in layers which, when loose, shall not exceed 8 inches
per layer. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the
spreading to insure uniformity of material and moisture.
5. When the moisture content of the fill material is too low to obtain adequate compaction,
water shall be added and thoroughly dispersed until the soil has a moisture content
between the optimum and 3 percent above the optimum moisture content.
6. When the moisture content of the fill material is too high to obtain adequate compaction,
the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the soil has
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 12 of 23 November 9, 2018
a moisture content between the optimum and 3 percent above the optimum moisture
content.
7. Fill and cut slopes should not be constructed at gradients steeper than 2:1 (H:V).
11.4. Fill Materials and Import
In general, the on-site silty sand soils have been determined to have a very low to low expansion
potential and may be considered suitable for backfilling purpose. The clayey layers deeper than
about 4 to 5 feet bgs are expansive and shall not be used within the engineered fill underneath the
footings, slab-on-grades, and flatwork. Therefore, selected on-site soils or imported materials
could be used for backfilling purpose. On-site soils or import materials, if used, should have an
expansion index (EI) of less than 35 and should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to
be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. The material being
used for backfilling purpose should be free of organic materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 3
inches, with no more than 25 percent of the materials being larger than 2 inches in size and no
more than 35 percent passing #200 sieve. A bulk sample of potential backfill/import material,
weighing at least 30 pounds, should be submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 72
hours before fill operations. Upon approval of the potential backfill earth materials, contractor
will be allowed to start importing/hauling process. All backfill materials should be approved by
the Geotechnical Consultant prior to being placed at the site.
11.5. Seismic Coefficients
Under the Earthquake Design Regulations of Chapter 16A, Section 1613 of the CBC 2016, and
using the mapped acceleration parameters obtainable from the program available in the USGS
Website, the following coefficients and factors tabulated in Table 11-1 apply to lateral-force
design for structures at the site. Figure G-4 and G-5 within Appendix G show the PSHA
Deaggregation at PGA for 2475 years return period and design maps summary report for the site
respectively, obtained from USGS websites.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 13 of 23 November 9, 2018
Table 11-1. ASCE 7 Mapped Seismic Coefficients
Site Parameters Value
Site Class (CBC 2016 – 1613A.3.2) D (Stiff Soil)
Seismic Design Category based on Risk Category II (CBC 2016-Table 1604.5 &1613A.3) D
Mapped Acceleration Parameter for Short Period (0.2 Second), SS 1.767
Mapped Acceleration Parameter for 1.0 Second, S1 0.642
Adjusted Maximum Spectral Response Parameter for Short Period (0.2 Second), SMS 1.767
Adjusted Maximum Spectral Response Parameter for 1.0 Second Period, SM1 0.963
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 1.178
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 0.642
Mapped Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.659
Longitude: W 117.916168° Latitude: N 33.873590°
11.6. Foundations
11.6.1. General
By the time of preparation of this report, we had not been provided with the order of the
anticipated structural loads applicable on the foundations for the proposed building. For the
purpose of preparing this report, we assumed that the proposed structure will impose column
loads of less than 50 kilo-pounds (kips) and continuous footing loads of less than 3 kips per foot
(kpf). As recommended, the proposed footings should be founded entirely within the engineered
fills. All footings shall be underlain by compacted fill as addressed in grading section of this
report (Section 11.2). The recommendations for preparation of the soils underlying the footings
are also provided in the grading section of this report. GAI should be notified if the final
structural loads increase by more than 10 percent of the above-assumed loads, and to reevaluate
our analyses and provide revised recommendations, if necessary. The project’s Structural
Engineer should design foundations and floor slabs in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable building code.
11.6.2. Conventional Shallow Spread/Strip Footings
Bearing Capacity: The proposed structure may be supported on conventional spread and/or strip
footings designed using a bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) provided that the
recommendations addressed in the grading section of this report (Section 11.2) are strictly
followed and observed by the project’s Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction. Spread
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 14 of 23 November 9, 2018
and strip footings supporting the proposed structure should have a minimum width of 24 and 18
inches, respectively. The bottom of footings shall be located at least 2.0 feet below the lowest
adjacent finish grade, embedded into the recommended compacted fill and underlain by
compacted fill extended to the depth recommended. The recommended allowable bearing
capacity should not be increased for any additional footing embedment depth or width.
The recommended bearing value is a net value and the weight of concrete in the footings may be
taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The weight of soil backfill may be neglected when
determining the downward loads from the footings. A one-third increase in the bearing value
may be used when considering wind or seismic loads provided the load reduction factor of 0.75
is not applied to wind or seismic loads for load combinations.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance
utilized by the compacted on-site granular fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used
between the footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils comprised of compacted on-site
material, as recommended. The passive resistance of level properly compacted on-site material in
direct contact with the footings may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid
with a density of 300 pcf, to a maximum pressure of 3,000 psf. A one-third increase in the
passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive
resistance of the soils may be combined provided that the passive resistance is reduced by one-
third.
Settlement: Provided that the proposed shallow footings are constructed per the recommendations
provided in preceding sections of this report and have been designed using bearing values
recommended herein, we estimate that the total maximum settlement for the footings would be less
than about 0.8 inches. Additionally, the effect of excess settlement due to earthquake motions was
considered it was concluded that the earthquake-induced settlement at the site would be about 0.2
inches. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the foundations be evaluated and designed for a
combined differential settlement of 0.5 inches within a horizontal distance of 30 feet.
11.7. Floor Slab
Interior slab-on-grade within the building footprint shall be supported on the graded building pad of
compacted fill as recommended in the grading section of this report (Section 11.2). The building
floor slabs should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches and should contain as a minimum No. 4 bars
spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, in both directions. Thicker slabs and additional
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 15 of 23 November 9, 2018
reinforcement may be required depending on the floor loads and the structural requirements. These
conditions are referred to the project’s Structural Engineer.
Perimeter grades around the building should be sloped in a manner allowing water to drain away
from the structure and not pond next to the foundations. Roof down drains should be connected to
underground pipes carrying water away from the building area or have extenders so water does not
drain and pond next to the building.
11.8. Pavement for Parking Lot
At the time of this report, we have not been provided with Traffic Index (TI) values for the parking
lot. The new pavement sections recommendations presented in the following sections are based
upon assumed TI values of 4, 5, and 6. GAI does not take responsibility for the numerical
determination of the TI values or the areas where they apply within the project limits. However, for
light and regular conventional parking area, we recommend pavement sections for TI value of 4 or
5. For fire lanes and slightly heavier vehicular traffic, we recommend pavement sections for TI
value of 6. We would be pleased to provide additional pavement section recommendations for
different TI values upon request. Samples of the subgrade soils were obtained within the project
limits and one sample was selected and tested for its R-Value. The pavement section
recommendations provided in the following sections are based on the on-site subgrade soils having
a design R-Value of 36.
Two different options are recommended and provided in Table 11-2 for pavement section
thicknesses depending on whether base course will be used. Option 1 consists of constructing the
pavement section by placing layers of Hot Asphalt Concrete Mix (ACM) over the
reworked/recompacted subgrade materials. Option 2 consists of constructing the pavement section
by placing layers of ACM over compacted base materials. The base layer should be underlain by
reworked/recompacted subgrade soils. It is recommended that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade
soils below the base layer be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted. The subgrade soils
shall be moisture-conditioned to a moisture content between the optimum and 3 percent above the
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density
obtained per ASTM D1557.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 16 of 23 November 9, 2018
Table 11-2. Full Depth Construction Pavement Sections
Option Traffic Index Minimum Course Thicknesses (in)
Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Basea Reworked Subgradeb
1 4 4.0 -- 12.0
5 5.5 -- 12.0
6 7.0 -- 12.0
2 4 2.5 4.5 12.0
5 3.0 4.5 12.0 6 3.5 6.5 12.0
aOption 1 is full depth asphalt concrete and does not utilize aggregate base. The base course shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557. bThe reworked/recompacted subgrade shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557.
Base course material should consist of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) as defined by Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC) Section 200-2.2. In lieu of CAB material,
Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) material as defined by SSPWC Section 200-2.4 may be used.
Base course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of that
material. The assumed R-Value in design of the pavement sections above for CAB material is 78.
Base course material should be purchased from a supplier who will certify that the material will
meet or exceed the specifications in the SSPWC, as indicated.
In order to increase pavement performance and to extend the pavement life, concrete curbs should
be deepened to extend at least 6 inches into the base course material. The intent of deepening the
curbs and gutters is to form a “cut-off” wall to reduce the amount of water flowing through the base
from adjacent landscaped areas. Subgrade soils, which become saturated due to water flowing
through base material, can reduce the life of the pavement. Also, after completion of the work, all
the joints between curb/gutter segments and between curbs and adjoining flatwork shall be sealed
and waterproofed. Any abandoned footing and/or underground concrete structure within the work
limit shall be removed entirely and backfilled to the grade.
11.9. Concrete Flatwork
It is recommended that the upper 12 inches of soils below concrete flatwork or hardscapes located
around and within the vicinity of the proposed development, and subjected to pedestrian loads only,
be over-excavated, reworked, and recompacted. The backfilled materials shall comply with the
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 17 of 23 November 9, 2018
requirements outlined in Section 11.4 of this report and shall be moisture-conditioned to a
moisture content between the optimum and 3 percent above the optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557. Prior
to placement of backfill, the bottom of removal shall be observed and confirmed to be competent
by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Following the over-excavation, we recommend that the areas to receive engineered fill be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to a moisture content between 1
and 4 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density obtained per ASTM D1557
11.10. Utility Trench Backfilling
A minimum of 4 inches of bedding material shall be first placed below the bottom of the utility
line, on a firm and unyielding subgrade. Bedding material shall also be placed immediately
around a utility line extending to a point 12 inches above the top of the line. The bedding
material should consist of sand, fine-grained gravel, or cement slurry to support the line and
protect it. The bedding material should meet the specification given in the latest edition of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC). Sand or gravel should be
compacted in accordance with SSPWC specifications. No jetting or pounding is permitted.
Above the bedding material and up to the finished ground surface, utility trench backfills may
consist of low-expansive material (EI less than 35) and should be mechanically compacted to at
least 90 percent of the maximum dry density of the soils, except below pavements or within the
areas with a higher relative compaction such as building pads. A minimum relative compaction
of 95 percent will be required in the upper 1 foot of the backfill underneath the pavement areas
and the minimum required relative compaction for the upper 2 feet within the building pad shall
be as set forth for the building pad. Prior to backfilling, the gradation and expansivity of the
backfill material shall be tested, reviewed, and approved by the soils engineer. Both bedding and
backfilling materials should be placed in accordance with Sections 306-6 and 306-12 of the
SSPWC.
When adjacent to any footings, utility trenches and pipes should be located above an imaginary
line measured at a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projected down from the bottom edges of
any footings. Otherwise the pipe should be designed to accept the lateral effect from the footing
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 18 of 23 November 9, 2018
load, or the footing bottom should be deepened as needed to comply with this requirement, into
competent materials.
For bedding and backfilling of trenches and upon approval of the soils engineer, slurry mix
(CLSM) may be used. The slurry mix shall comply with the requirements of Section 201-6 of the
SSPWC. The backfill material shall be observed, tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer.
11.11. Temporary Excavations
Based on the grading recommendations provided, it is expected that the excavation for grading
and construction of the shallow conventional strip/spread footings be as deep as about 5 feet bgs.
The shallow soils at the site are expected to be temporarily stable when excavated at a gradient
of 1.5:1 (H:V) for excavations that are less than 5 feet in height. The top of slopes should be
barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 7 feet of the top of the slopes. A greater
setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles (e.g. concrete trucks and cranes) and
we should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be
established. When excavating adjacent to footings of existing buildings, proper means should be
employed to prevent any possible damage to the existing structures. Un-shored excavations that
are adjacent to existing buildings should not extend below a 1:1 (H:V) plane extending
downward from the lower edge of adjacent footings. All regulations of State or Federal OSHA
should be followed.
Temporary excavations are assumed to be those that will remain un-shored for a period of time
not exceeding 10 days. In dry weather, the excavation slopes should be kept slightly moist, but
not saturated. If excavations are made during the rainy season (normally from November through
April), particular care should be taken to protect slopes against erosion. Mitigative measures,
such as installation of berms, plastic sheeting, or other devices, may be warranted to prevent
surface water from flowing over or ponding at the top of excavations.
11.12. Infiltration Rate Determination
11.12.1. General
We have been requested to perform one percolation test to determine the infiltration rate within the
proposed development. It is our understanding that the infiltration rate for the soils is required for
the design of on-site stormwater infiltration system. The location and depth of the proposed
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 19 of 23 November 9, 2018
infiltration system was not provided at the time of this investigation. The percolation test was
performed at the corner with the lowest elevation within the proposed development, and the depth
was selected based on the subsurface profile from Borings B-1 through B-3. It was determined that
the most practical depth was in the upper 5 feet bgs, just above the lean clay and fat clay layers. The
percolation test location is shown in Figure A-2 within Appendix A.
In general, percolation tests are used for design and construction of subsurface sewage disposal
system and/or on-site storm drain system, and the test procedure for these purposes varies in
different localities. For the purpose of obtaining an infiltration rate at the subject site, the borehole
percolation test was performed following the procedure from the Orange County Technical
Guidance Document (Reference 13), which was adopted based on the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health. The following sections of the report are devoted to providing information
regarding the employed test method and the concluded infiltration rate.
11.12.2. Test Procedure
The boring for the percolation test was drilled using a hollow-stem truck-mounted drill rig down
to a depth determined based on the subsurface profile from other borings within vicinity. A
falling head borehole percolation test was employed to determine the infiltration rates of the
soils. The boring was performed within the southeast corner of the proposed development and
was drilled down to 2.87 feet bgs. Falling head borehole percolation test includes measurements
of change in water levels in an open stand pipe or hole over consistent time periods. Porchet
method was used to convert field percolation rates to infiltration rates (It in in/hr), using the
following equation:
Where:
ΔH is the change in height over the time interval of Δt
Havg is the average head height over the time interval of Δt
r is the radius of the drilled hole in inches.
The procedure for performing a shallow (less than 10 feet) falling head borehole percolation test
is summarized below:
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 20 of 23 November 9, 2018
1. Drill or auger an 8-inch diameter hole to the depth at which the test is to be executed.
2. Place a cushion of coarse gravel at the bottom of the hole and set an intake pipe and an
observation pipe into position.
3. Presoak the hole by inverting a full 5-gallon bottle (or more if necessary) of clear water
so that the water holds constant at a least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the
bottom of the hole. Testing may commence after all of the water has percolated
throughout the test hole or after 15 hours has elapsed since initiating the pre-soak.
4. Determine whether the soil condition is “sandy” or “non-sandy” by filling the test hole
with water equal to at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of the
hole, and measuring the water level changes in 25 minutes.
a. If two consecutive measurement shows that 6 inches of water seeps away in less than
25 minutes, the soil condition is considered “sandy”. The test shall be run for an
additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes, refilling after every 10-
minute reading. The drop that occurs during the final 10 minutes is used to calculate
the percolation rate.
b. If the soil is not considered “sandy”, the test shall be run for a period of 6 hours with
measurement taken every 30 minutes, refilling after every 30-minute reading. The
drop that occurs during the final 10 minutes is used to calculate the percolation rate.
11.12.3. Infiltration Rate
The data and results of the field percolation test are provided in Figure A-5 within Appendix A.
The resulting percolation rate is 1.98 minute/inch, corresponding to an infiltration rate of 2.71
inch/hour, as calculated from Porchet method mentioned above. No safety factor was utilized
into the infiltration rate above. Correction factors or safety factors should be chosen at the
Client’s discretion, considering the entire project scope and guidelines from the requesting
agency.
The subsurface soils at the tested depth were generally silty sand from below the grounds surface
to about 5 feet bgs, followed by lean clays and fat clays. Due to the clay layers presented, it is
recommended that the infiltration depth of proposed stormwater infiltration system not be deeper
than 4 feet bgs. Additional infiltration tests should be performed if the proposed infiltration depth
is deeper than 4 feet bgs.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 21 of 23 November 9, 2018
12. SOIL CORROSIVITY
Corrosivity tests were performed on one sample of on-site soils, and the results of the tests are
presented in Appendix C of this report. It is concluded that the amount of sulfate in tested soils in
the upper 5 feet bgs is less than 0.1 percent by weight (water soluble sulfate). The resistivity test
result indicates existence of a moderately corrosive condition. Further interpretation of the
corrosivity test results (including the resistivity value) and recommendations for corrosion design
and construction are referred to corrosion specialists/consultants and design engineers.
13. SOIL EXPANSIVITY
We have performed expansivity tests on selected soil samples obtained from Borings B-1 and B-
4 to determine the expansion characteristics of the on-site soils. Two of three samples were
obtained from on-site soils in the upper 5 feet bgs, which are susceptible to expansion when
facing seasonal cycles of saturation/desiccation. The test results are presented in Table 13-1
below.
Table 13-1. Expansion Test Results
Sample Location Sample Depth (ft) Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Potential (ASTM D4829)
B-1 0 – 5 48 Low
B-1 6 – 20 88 Medium
B-4 1 – 5 13 Very Low
The above tabulated test results on the samples obtained from on-site soils within the footprint of
the propose development indicate a very low to medium expansion potential (based on ASTM
D4829).
14. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
This final report has been prepared assuming that GEO-ADVANTEC, INC. will perform all
geotechnical-related field observations and testing. If the recommendations presented in this
report are utilized, and observation of the geotechnical work is performed by others, the party
performing the observations must review this report and assume responsibility for
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 22 of 23 November 9, 2018
recommendations contained herein. That party would then assume the title “Geotechnical
Consultant of Record”.
A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant should be present to observe all grading
operations as well as all footing excavations. Upon the Client’s request, a report or final
verification letter presenting the results of these observations and related testing should be issued
upon completion of the grading operations.
15. CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations presented in this final report were based on the results of our
field and laboratory investigations, combined with professional engineering experience and
judgment. The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles
and practice. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied.
The soils encountered in the boreholes are believed to be representative of the total under
consideration area for the subject proposed development; however, soil characteristics can vary
throughout the site. GAI should be notified if subsurface conditions are encountered which differ
from those described in this report.
Samples secured for this investigation will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 45 days
from the date of this report and will be disposed after this period unless other arrangements are
made.
Project No. 18-1153 Geo-Advantec, Inc. Page 23 of 23 November 9, 2018
Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, or the recommendations contained
herewith, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEO-ADVANTEC, INC.
Giang (Jack) Lee, P.E. Ronald C. Hanson, P.G., C.E.G. Senior Project Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
Shawn Ariannia, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Distribution:
1. Addressee (4 wet stamped copy + pdf copy via e-mail) 2. File
19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps and Plans and Figures
Figure A-1: Vicinity Map Figure A-2: Boring Locations Plan Figure A-3: FEMA Flood Map Figure A-4: DOGGR Oil Well Map Figure A-5: Percolation Test Data Sheet
Appendix B: Field Exploratory Logs
Keys to Logs Borings B-1 to B-5 Boring P-1
Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results
Sieve Analysis Percent Finer than No. 200 Plasticity Chart Direct Shear Test Consolidation Test R-Value Test Corrosivity Test
Appendix D: Quadrangle Maps
Figure D-1: Seismic Hazard Zones Map Figure D-2: Historically highest Groundwater Map
Appendix E: Engineering Analyses Results Figure E-1: Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements Figure E-2: Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements (Dry Settlement)
Appendix G: Geologic and Seismic Data
Figure G-1: Geologic Map Figure G-2: Fault Activity Map Figure G-3: Historical Earthquakes Figure G-4: PSHA Deaggregation at PGA Figure G-5: USGS Seismic Design Map
REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2017, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08 and 04.09 Soil and Rock.
2. Building News, 2018, The Greenbook: Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03.
4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Anaheim Quadrangle.
5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2017, Highway Design Manual Sixth Edition.
6. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Engineering Services, June 2007, Method for Determining Field and Laboratory Resistivity and pH Measurements for Soil and Water, California Test 643.
7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Engineering Services, June 2014, Method of Testing Soils, Concrete Patching Materials and Waters for Chloride Content, California Test 422.
8. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Engineering Services, June 2014, Method of Testing Soils, Concrete Patching Materials and Waters for Sulfate Content, California Test 417.
9. California Geological Survey, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant.
10. Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr., 2003, Geologic Map of the Beaumont Quadrangles, Riverside County, California, Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-114.
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 26, 2008, Flood Insurance Rate map of Los Angeles County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 06037C1088F.
12. Morton, Douglas M., & Miller, Fred K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California. Version 1.0.
13. Orange County, December 20, 2013. Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). Exhibit 7.III.
PROJECT SITE
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
VICINITY MAP
A-111-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
B-1 (51.5')
B-3 (31.5')B-2 (31.5')
B-4 (5')
B-5 (5')
P-1 (2.9')
LEGEND
BORING LOCATION
PERCOLATION TEST
NAME (DEPTH)B-5 (5')
N
SCALE (FT)
100500 25
FIGURE
A-2PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
BORING LOCATIONS PLAN
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
18-1153
PROJECT SITE
FIGURE
A-3PROJECT NO.
FEMA FLOOD MAPGeo-Advantec Inc.
DATE 11-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
LEGEND
N
SCALE (mile)
1.00.50.250
Oil Well API Number
ONE MILE RADIUSWITHIN PROJECT SITE
05900968
API# 05900968API# 05900969API# 05900970
FIGURE
A-4PROJECT NO.
DOGGR OIL WELL MAPGeo-Advantec Inc.
DATE 11-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Project / Client Project No. Date Tested
Site Location Tested by Weather
Test Hole No. Hole Depth (ft) Diameter (in) USCS Soil
0.42 1.98
5 12:47 12:57 10 0.97 1.41 0.44 1.89
3 12:23 12:33 10 0.97 1.42
2
0.45 1.85
Greater than or Equal to 0.5 feet? (Y/N)
2.87P-1 8.0 SM
Time Interval (minutes)
Clear 77° FJLFullerton, CA
0.45 1.85
0.97 1.44 0.47 1.77
12:12 12:22 10 0.97 1.42
Change in Water Level (feet)
Percolation Rate (minute/inch)
Start Stop Initial Final
Initial Final
Change in Water Level (feet)
25 0.87 2.05 1.18
1
2
11:00 11:25 25
1 12:00 12:10 10
4 12:35 12:45 10 0.97 1.42 0.45 1.85
6 12:58 13:08 10 0.97 1.39
BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 18-1153 10-30-2018
TrialNo.
TimeTime Interval
(minutes)
Depth to Water (feet)
TrialNo.
If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for anadditional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurementsper hole over at least six hours (approximately 30-minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches.
Yes
Time Depth to Water (feet)
Start Stop
0.87 2.34 1.47 Yes
11:30 11:55
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
A-511-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Water Level at TimeDrilling, or as Shown
Water Level After 24Hours, or as Shown
Water Level at End ofDrilling, or as Shown
Water Level at TimeDrilling, or as Shown
Water Level After 24Hours, or as Shown
Water Level at End ofDrilling, or as Shown
USCS
SYMBOL
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
KEY TO LOGS
GRAPHIC
LOG
SOILS CLASSIFICATION
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
GRAVELS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN NO.
4 SIEVE
SANDS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS 50 OR MORE
50% OR MORE OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVEMORE THAN 12%
FINES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,
SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
TYPICAL NAMES
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILTS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50
MAJOR DIVISIONS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
LESS THAN 5%
FINES
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
MORE THAN 12%
FINES
CLEAN
SANDS
LESS THAN 5%
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
50% OR MORE OF
MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
FINE FINE COARSE
#200
#40
#10
#4
3/4
"
3"
12"
SIEVE SIZES
SAND
GRAIN SIZES
COARSE
GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERSSILT AND CLAY
MEDIUM
Bulk Bag Sample
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
California Modified Sampler
Change in material observed in sample or
cores
Change in material cannot be accurately
located due to limitations in the
drilling/sampling methods used
Water Level at End ofDrilling
Water Level at TimeDrilling
Water Level AfterSpecified Hours
SPT SPT CD
0-4 0-4 0-8
5-8 5-10 9-18
9-15 11-30 19-54
16-30 31-50 55-90
over 30 over 50 over 90
KEY TO LOGS
Almost saturated; visible free
water
APPROXIMATE MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITION
Dry to the touch; no observable
moisture
Some moisture but still a dry
appearance
Damp, but no visible water
Enough moisture to wet the hands
WET >40 20-25
VERY MOIST 30-38 15-20
15-24 6-8
DEFINITION
MOIST 24-28 10-13
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
DRY <10 2 - 4
SLIGHTLY MOIST
SPT/CD BLOW COUNTS VS. CONSISTENCY/DENSITY
FINE-GRAINED SOILS (SILTS, CLAYS, etc.)
CD
SOFT 0-4 VERY LOOSE
CONSISTENCY*BLOWS/FOOT
GRANULAR SOILS (SANDS, GRAVELS, etc.)
RELATIVE DENSITY*BLOWS/FOOT
SOME 20 - 35%
GRANULAR SOILS
(SILTS, CLAYS, etc.) (SANDS, GRAVELS, etc.)
*THE FOLLOWING "DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY/ RANGES OF MOISTURE CONTENTS" HAVE BEEN
USED FOR MOISTURE CLASSIFICATION IN THE LOGS.
DESCRIPTION
AND 35 - 50%
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSEVERY STIFF 19-39
FIRM 5-9
STIFF 10-18
VERY DENSEHARD over 39
* CONVERSION BETWEEN CALIFORNIA DRIVE SAMPLERS (CD) AND STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST (SPT) BLOW COUNT HAS BEEN CALCULATED USING "FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HAND
BOOK" BY H.Y. FANG. (VALUES ARE FOR 140 Lbs HAMMER WEIGHT ONLY)
PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT
DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVE VS. PERCENTAGE
DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVE
TRACE
LITTLE
1 - 10%
10 - 20%
4-6-12(18)
6-6-14(20)
13-16-22
(38)
9-10-14
(24)
10-26-40
(66)
5-8-13(21)
16-33-50
(83)
SM
CH
SM
CL
SM
1654
3.7
4.4
23.1
26.3
16.6
12.6
8.9
6.9
95.2
91.5
104.4
123.9
38
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown
loose to medium dense
(CH) Sandy Fat CLAY: fine, stiff to very stiff, dry, dark brown
Fat CLAY with Sand: fine, very stiff, slightly moist, dark brown
moist
trace fine sand, slightly moist, brown
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, moist, dense, reddish brown
grades to less fines, fine to coarse, trace fine gravel, slightlymoist to moist, orange brown
(CL) Lean CLAY with Sand: fine sand, very stiff, slightly moist,reddish brown
(SM) Silty SAND: fine to medium, dense, slightly moist to moist,browngrades to fine to coarse, trace gravel, slightly moist
86
13
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/17/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
(Continued Next Page)
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 2Boring No. B-1
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
10-27-38
(65)
18-50
10-15-22
(37)
SW-SM
3.3106.3
(SW-SM) Well-graded SAND with Silt: fine to coarse, trace finegravel, very dense, dry, beige
grades to fine to medium, no gravel
dense
Bottom of borehole at 51.5 feet.
8
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
40
45
50
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 2 OF 2Boring No. B-1
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
5-8-8(16)
7-8-14(22)
7-10-14
(24)
6-9-12(21)
11-18-23
(41)
4-10-16
(26)
SM
CL
SM
CL
NPNP
10.8
15.1
21.8
15.7
8.1
97.6
105.2
114.7 NP
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown
(CL) Sandy Lean CLAY: fine, stiff, dry to slightly moist, darkbrown
Lean CLAY with Sand: fine sand, very stiff, slightly moist, darkbrown
variegated white
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, medium dense, slightly moist, orangebrown
(CL) Lean CLAY with Sand: fine , very stiff, slightly moist tomoist, dark brown
Bottom of borehole at 31.5 feet.
31
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/17/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. B-2
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
2-2-2(4)
9-5-23(28)
6-10-15
(25)
7-15-22
(37)
17-14-14
(28)
9-16-23
(39)
SM
CL
SM
CL
1647
18.8
20.6
18.7
11.5
9.5
103.0
119.8
120.0
31
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown
(CL) Lean CLAY with Sand: fine sand, soft to firm, slightly moist,dark brown
very stiff
less fines, brown
dry to slightly moist, dark brown
(SM) Silty SAND: fine, medium dense, slightly moist, reddishbrown
(CL) Sandy Lean CLAY: fine, very stiff to hard, dry, dark brown
Bottom of borehole at 31.5 feet.
26
62
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/17/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. B-3
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
SM
SC
2" AC6" Base(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown
(SC) Clayey SAND: fine, slightly moist, brown
Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet.
49
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/17/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0
5
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. B-4
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
SM1.5" AC6" Base(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown
Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet.
43
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/17/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0
5
Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. B-5
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
SM
NPNP NP
2" AC(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry to slightly moist, light brown
Bottom of borehole at 2.9 feet. 47
NOTES Groundwater not encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LOGGED BY J. Lee
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
DATE DRILLED 10/18/18
DRILLING CONTRACTOR One Way Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
Blo
w C
ount
s(N
Val
ue)
Gap
hic
Log
ATTERBERGLIMITS
Sam
pler
US
CS
Dep
th(f
t)
0 Pla
stic
Lim
it
Liqu
id L
imit
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt(%
)
Ele
vatio
n(f
t)
Dry
Uni
t W
eigh
t(p
cf)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
Description / Interpretation
Fin
es C
onte
nt(%
)
PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. P-1
CLIENT North Orange County Community College District
PROJECT NUMBER 18-1153
PROJECT NAME Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development
PROJECT LOCATION Fullerton, CA
Geo-Advantec, Inc.
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample B-1@26' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Silty SAND (SM)
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 100.0 %
No. 4 4.75 97.6 %
No. 10 2.00 90.7 %
No. 40 0.425 40.4 %
No. 100 0.150 18.5 %
No. 140 0.106 15.4 %
No. 200 0.075 13.1 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample B-1@40' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Well-graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM)
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 99.7 %
No. 4 4.75 97.0 %
No. 10 2.00 83.1 %
No. 40 0.425 33.2 %
No. 100 0.150 12.6 %
No. 140 0.106 10.1 %
No. 200 0.075 8.2 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample [email protected]' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Silty SAND (SM)
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 99.4 %
No. 4 4.75 99.2 %
No. 10 2.00 98.9 %
No. 40 0.425 95.9 %
No. 100 0.150 53.9 %
No. 140 0.106 37.9 %
No. 200 0.075 26.4 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample [email protected]' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Silty SAND (SM) and Clayey SAND (SC) Mixed
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 98.3 %
No. 4 4.75 95.8 %
No. 10 2.00 93.7 %
No. 40 0.425 90.4 %
No. 100 0.150 69.6 %
No. 140 0.106 58.5 %
No. 200 0.075 49.2 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample [email protected]' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Silty SAND (SM)
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 97.1 %
No. 4 4.75 95.4 %
No. 10 2.00 93.5 %
No. 40 0.425 90.3 %
No. 100 0.150 63.8 %
No. 140 0.106 51.5 %
No. 200 0.075 43.0 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
Project: Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development Project No. 18-1153
Site: Fullerton, CA Date:
Tech: CC
Sample [email protected]' Test Specification: ASTM D422
Material Silty SAND (SM)
Mesh Percent
Sieve Opening Passing
(mm) (%)
1 1/2 in 38.1 100.0 %
1 in 25.4 100.0 %
3/4 in 19.0 100.0 %
3/8 in 9.51 100.0 %
No. 4 4.75 99.8 %
No. 10 2.00 99.7 %
No. 40 0.425 99.1 %
No. 100 0.150 75.0 %
No. 140 0.106 59.5 %
No. 200 0.075 47.2 %
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
10/22/2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SILT CLAYGRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium FineCO
BB
LE
3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SIEVE ANALYSIS
18-1153
B-1 10 115.9 16.8 85.5 CH
B-2 25 184.4 127.0 31.1 SM
B-3 30 113.3 43.6 61.5 CL
PRE-WASH DRY WEIGHT
(gm)
AFTER WASH DRY WEIGHT
(gm)% - # 200 SOIL TYPE
SIEVE ANALYSIS (SOIL PASSING #200) ASTM D1140
Boring Depth (ft)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
PERCENT FINER THAN NO.200 SIEVE
11-09-2018
18-1153
Symbol Source Depth (ft) Natural M.C. (%)
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plasticity Index (PI)
%Passing #200 Sieve
B-1 10 23.1 54 38 85.5
B-2 25 8.1 NP NP 31.1
B-3 10 20.6 47 31 -
P-1 2.8 - NP NP 47.2
Fat CLAY with Sand (CH)
Silty SAND (SM)
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL)
Silty SAND (SM)
Classification
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pla
stic
ity
Ind
ex (
PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)
PLASTICITY CHART (ASTM D4318)
CH
ML or OL
CL MH or OH
CL-ML
ML
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
PLASTICITY CHART
11-09-2018
18-1153
Project Project No. 18-1153 Date Tested
Site Location Tested by
Boring No. Depth Sample Type
Soil Description Test Condition
B-2 5 ft Intact CD
DIRECT SHEAR TEST (ASTM D3080)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 10/30/2018
Fullerton, CA YP/SS
10.8 0.73 40.0
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) Inundated
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Void Ratio
Saturation (%)
Normal Stress (psf)
Peak Shear Stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Stress (psf)
STRENGTH TYPE COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
1000 626 608
Preshear 126.5 102.1 23.8 0.65 99.1 2000Initial 108.1 97.6
1205 1205
4000 2354 2354
Peak Strength 50 30
Ultimate Strength 40 30
0
1000
2000
3000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
Peak Strength
Ultimate Strength
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
psf)
Shear Deformation (inches)
4000 psf
2000 psf
1000 psf
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
18-1153
Project Project No. 18-1153 Date Tested
Site Location Tested by
Boring No. Depth Sample Type
Soil Description Test Condition
Peak Strength 450 27
Ultimate Strength 60 18
1444 687
4000 2491 2265
STRENGTH TYPE COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
1000 972 372
Preshear 133.0 112.1 18.6 0.50 100.0 2000Initial 130.0 110.7 17.4 0.52 90.0
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL) Inundated
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Void Ratio
Saturation (%)
Normal Stress (psf)
Peak Shear Stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Stress (psf)
B-3 10 ft Intact CD
DIRECT SHEAR TEST (ASTM D3080)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 11/2/2018
Fullerton, CA YP/JL/SS
0
1000
2000
3000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
Peak Strength
Ultimate Strength
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Sh
ear
Str
ess (
psf)
Shear Deformation (inches)
4000 psf
2000 psf
1000 psf
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
18-1153
At Field Moisture After Inundation
Project Project No. Date Tested
Site Location Tested by
Boring No. Sample No. Depth Frame No. Sample Type
Soil Description Water added
Initial Moisture Content Final Moisture Content
Initial Dry Unit Weight, pcf Final Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Initial Void Ratio Final Void Ratio
Initial Degree of Saturation Final Degree of Saturation
Assumed Specific Gravity
Remarks
95.2 100.2
0.77 0.68
15% 93%
2.7
Sandy Fat CLAY (CH) 200 psf
4.4% 23.6%
CONSOLIDATION TEST (Consolidation Curve)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 18-1153 10/22/2018
Fullerton, CA RR/JC
B-1 6 ft 1 Intact CD
Collapse = 0.06 % upon inundation
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
100 1000 10000 100000
CO
NS
OLID
AT
ION
(%
of S
am
ple
Thic
kness
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST
11-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
At Field Moisture After Inundation
Project Project No. Date Tested
Site Location Tested by
Boring No. Sample No. Depth Frame No. Sample Type
Soil Description Water added
Initial Moisture Content Final Moisture Content
Initial Dry Unit Weight, pcf Final Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Initial Void Ratio Final Void Ratio
Initial Degree of Saturation Final Degree of Saturation
Assumed Specific Gravity
Remarks
CONSOLIDATION TEST (Consolidation Curve)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 18-1153 10/22/2018
Fullerton, CA RR/JC
B-3 10 ft 2 Intact CD
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL) 200 psf
20.6% 22.8%
103.0 104.2
0.64 0.62
87% 100%
2.7
Swell = 2.40 % upon inundation
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%100 1000 10000 100000
CO
NS
OL
IDA
TIO
N (
% o
f S
am
ple
Th
ickn
ess
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST
11-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Project Project No. Date Tested
Site Location Test Specification ASTM D 2844
Boring No. Sample Depth Test Performed by ST
Soil Description Silty SAND (SM)
Mold Number
Water Added, g
Compact Moisture, %
Compaction Gage Pressure, psi
Exudation Pressure, psi
Sample Height, Inches
Gross Weight Mold, g
Tare Weight Mold, g
Net Sample Weight, g
Expansion, x10-4 inches
Stability 2,000 (160 psi)
Turns Displacement
R-Value Uncorrected
R-Value Corrected
Dry Density, pcf
Traffic Index
G.E. by Stability
G.E. by Expansion
B-5 1 - 5 ft
R-VALUE TEST DATA
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 18-1153 10/23/2018
Fullerton, CA
3695 85 75
14.6 13.7 12.8
A B C
R-V
ALU
E
By Exudation
100By Expansion *N/A167 323 505
2.6 2.6 2.6
200 250
361967 1967 1968
3076 3076 3083At Equilibrium(by Exudation)
1109 1109 1114
0 1 15
Re
mark
s
112.7 113.7 115.2
8 8 8
1.57 1.14
Gf = 1.34, and 0.0%Retained on the 3/4"
*Not Applicable
34/114 28/72 14/30
4.90 4.95 4.42
17 38 71
18 40 73
0.52
0.00 0.00 0.05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
R-V
alu
e
Exudation Pressure (psi)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Cove
r T
hic
kness
by
Sta
bilo
mete
r (f
t)
Cover Thickness by Expansion (ft)
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
11-09-2018
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Project / Client Project No. Date Tested
Site Location Test Specification
Tested by Sample Type
NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643
Sulfate Content: California Test Method 417
Chloride Content: California Test Method 422
*Minimum Resistivty values have been normalized to standard ground temperature of 15.5�C per CT-643
**Temperature of soil sample collected from final resistance measurement per CT-643
B-2 0-5 SM 2484 24.2 8.42 55 47
Boring No.Depth (feet)
Soil TypeMinimum Resistivity
(ohm-cm)*
Temp
(⁰C)**pH
Sulfate Content (ppm)
Chloride Content (ppm)
Proposed Chapman Newell Site Development 18-1153 10/22/2018
Fullerton, CA (See notes)
JC/AP bulk
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
18-1153
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
PROJECT SITE
SCALE (MILES)
1.00.50 0.25
N
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
D-118-1153
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
PROJECT SITE
N
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER MAP
D-218-1153
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Weighted Ground Accel. (M=7.5) = 0.49 Site Magnitude = 6.7g
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
LIQUEFACTION & SEISMIC SETTLEMENTS
18-1153 E-1
COMPUTER PROGRAM: EQLique&Settle"2"
Location………. B-1 Surcharge 0.00 ksf NOTE: If the total settlement is very small (e.g.<0.05"), it will not be
Elevation (MSL) (ft) 160 seen due to the scale used, and should be reported as "negligible".
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Removal &Recomp. Depth (ft) =
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Dep
th, ft
Stress or Resistance ( ksf )
Induced Stress (FS=1)
Induced Stress (FS= )
Resistance to Liquefaction
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
De
pth
, ft
Fines Content ( % )
Fines Content ( %)
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
Lab Test Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dep
th, ft
Blow Count
N1(60)cs (equivalent to clean sands)
N-SPT(w/hammer/sampler correction)
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Dep
th,
ft
Cumulative Settlement of Layers (from bottom), inch
Seismic Settlement After Removal
Seismic Settlement Prior to Removal
>4.5
Total SettlementPrior to Removal After Removal
inches inches0.08
4
0.05
1
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
Weighted Ground Accel. (M=7.5) = 0.49 Site Magnitude = 6.7g
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
LIQUEFACTION & SEISMIC SETTLEMENTS
18-1153 E-2
COMPUTER PROGRAM: EQLique&Settle"2"
Location………. B-2 & B-1 Surcharge 0.00 ksf NOTE: If the total settlement is very small (e.g.<0.05"), it will not be
Elevation (MSL) (ft) 160 seen due to the scale used, and should be reported as "negligible".
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Removal &Recomp. Depth (ft) =
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Dep
th, ft
Stress or Resistance ( ksf )
Induced Stress (FS=1)
Induced Stress (FS= )
Resistance to Liquefaction
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
De
pth
, ft
Fines Content ( % )
Fines Content ( %)
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
Lab Test Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dep
th, ft
Blow Count
N1(60)cs (equivalent to clean sands)
N-SPT(w/hammer/sampler correction)
GW Surface (Historic High)
GW Surface (Existing)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Dep
th,
ft
Cumulative Settlement of Layers (from bottom), inch
Seismic Settlement After Removal
Seismic Settlement Prior to Removal
>4.5
Total SettlementPrior to Removal After Removal
inches inches0.18
4
0.15
1
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
PROJECT SITE
APPROX. SCALE (MILES)
0 2.01.00.5
GEOLOGIC MAP OF THESAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA ANA
30' x 60' QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIAVERSION 1.0Compiled by
Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller2006
Digital Preparation by Pamela M. Cossette and Kelly R. Bovard
FIGURE
G-1PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
GEOLOGIC MAP
18-1153 Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
PROJECT SITE
California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6
Compilation and Interpretation by: Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant
Graphics by: Milind Patel, Ellen Sander, Jim Thompson, Barbara Wanish and Milton Fonseca
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
FAULT ACTIVITY MAP
G-218-1153
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Time Latitude LongitudeDepth Mag MagType Place
1999-10-16T09:59:38.000Z 34.240 -117.040 6.0 5.6 mb 7km ENE of Running Springs, CA
1994-01-17T12:31:58.120Z 34.275 -118.493 5.3 5.9 ml 1km ENE of Granada Hills, California
1994-01-17T12:30:55.390Z 34.213 -118.537 18.2 6.7 mw 1km NNW of Reseda, CA
1991-06-28T14:43:54.660Z 34.270 -117.993 8.0 5.8 mw 13km NNE of Sierra Madre, CA
1990-02-28T23:43:36.750Z 34.144 -117.697 3.3 5.5 ml 6km NNE of Claremont, CA
1987-10-01T14:42:20.020Z 34.061 -118.079 8.9 5.9 mw 2km SSW of Rosemead, CA
1971-02-09T14:02:45.740Z 34.416 -118.370 6.0 5.8 mh 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA
1971-02-09T14:01:12.450Z 34.416 -118.370 6.0 5.8 mh 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA
1971-02-09T14:00:41.920Z 34.416 -118.370 9.0 6.6 mw 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA
1933-03-11T01:54:10.660Z 33.631 -118.000 6.0 6.4 mw Long Beach, California Earthquake
1918-04-21T22:32:29.000Z 33.647 -117.433 10.0 6.7 mw Southern California
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATEG-3
HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
18-1153
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Mode (largest r-m bin)r: 8.08 kmm: 7.73ε : 0.39 σ0
Contribution: 10.96 %
USGS Dynamic:ConterminousU.S. 2014 (v4.1.1) EditionLatitude: 33.87359Longitude: -117.916168Site Class D: 259 m/s
Mean (for all sources)r: 11.99 kmm: 6.7ε : 1.11 σ0
Mode (largest ε bin)0
r: 8.83 kmm: 6.26ε : 0.84 σ0
Contribution: 4.99 %
Deaggregation TargetsReturn period: 2475 years
-1Exceedance Rate: 0.0004040404 yearPGA ground motion: 0.9223206 g
Recovered TargetsReturn period: 2834.1775 years
-1Exceedance Rate: 0.00035283605 year
FIGURE
G-4PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATE
PSHA DEAGGREGATION AT PGA
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA11-09-2018
18-1153
Report Title
Building Code Reference Document
Site Coordinates
Site Soil Classification
Risk Category
Design Maps Summary Report
User–Specified Input
Proposed Instructional Building at Fullerton College - Fullerton, CA
Wed October 17, 2018 07:12:53 UTC
ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
33.87359°N, 117.91617°W
Site Class D – “Stiff Soil”
I/II/III
USGS–Provided Output
SS = 1.767 g SMS = 1.767 g SDS = 1.178 g
S1 = 0.642 g SM1 = 0.963 g SD1 = 0.642 g
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the “2009 NEHRP” building code reference document.
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the
accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge.
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
Geo-Advantec Inc.
DATEG-5
SEISMIC DESIGN MAP
18-1153
11-09-2018
Proposed Chapman Newell Site DevelopmentFullerton College - Fullerton, CA