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.


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


Table 5-1. Borings Summary

Boring ID Area Depth (ft) Samplea

B-1 Building 51.5 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.


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


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


(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.


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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:


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.


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


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.


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.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MAPS, PLANS AND FIGURES

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


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


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


APPENDIX B

FIELD EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS

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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)






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


(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


31


GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY J. Lee


CHECKED BY



AFTER DRILLING ---




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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)






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


(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


26

62


GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY J. Lee


CHECKED BY



AFTER DRILLING ---




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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)






Geo-Advantec, Inc.

SM

SC

2" AC6" Base(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown

(SC) Clayey SAND: fine, slightly moist, brown


49


GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY J. Lee


CHECKED BY



AFTER DRILLING ---




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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)






Geo-Advantec, Inc.

SM1.5" AC6" Base(SM) Silty SAND: fine, dry, brown


43


GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY J. Lee


CHECKED BY



AFTER DRILLING ---




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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)






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


GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY J. Lee


CHECKED BY



AFTER DRILLING ---




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


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

PAGE 1 OF 1Boring No. P-1





Geo-Advantec, Inc.

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

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



Tech: CC

Sample B-1@40' Test Specification: ASTM D422

Material Well-graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM)

Mesh Percent


(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 %


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)



BB

LE

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"

11-09-2018


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

SIEVE ANALYSIS

18-1153



Tech: CC

Sample [email protected]' Test Specification: ASTM D422


Mesh Percent


(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 %


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)



BB

LE

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"

11-09-2018


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

SIEVE ANALYSIS

18-1153



Tech: CC


Material Silty SAND (SM) and Clayey SAND (SC) Mixed

Mesh Percent


(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 %


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)



BB

LE

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"

11-09-2018


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

SIEVE ANALYSIS

18-1153



Tech: CC



Mesh Percent


(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 %


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)



BB

LE

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"

11-09-2018


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

SIEVE ANALYSIS

18-1153



Tech: CC



Mesh Percent


(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 %


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)



BB

LE

3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #2003/4"

11-09-2018


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)


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


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


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

18-1153

Project Project No. 18-1153 Date Tested


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


FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

18-1153

At Field Moisture After Inundation

Project Project No. Date Tested


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


At Field Moisture After Inundation



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)


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



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


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


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)


Fullerton, CA (See notes)

JC/AP bulk


18-1153

FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX D

QUADRANGLE MAP

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


PROJECT SITE

N

FIGURE

PROJECT NO.

Geo-Advantec Inc.

DATE

HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER MAP

D-218-1153

11-09-2018


APPENDIX E

ENGINEERING ANALYSES RESULTS

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 ( %)



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)



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


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



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 ( %)



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)



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


APPENDIX G

GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC DATA

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


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


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


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


GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT