Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
31.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
21.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-9
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand Sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:04 AM 43 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
31.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
21.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-9
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 100 200 300 400 500
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:04 AM 44 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
31.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
21.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-9
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:04 AM 45 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-10
35.00 ft
25.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:05 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 46 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-10
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 2 4 6 8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay
Clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:05 AM 47 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
35.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
25.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-10
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Clay Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:05 AM 48 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
35.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
25.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-10
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 200 400
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:05 AM 49 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
35.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
25.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-10
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:05 AM 50 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-11
26.00 ft
16.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:06 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 51 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-11
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 5 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:06 AM 52 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
26.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
16.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-11
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:06 AM 53 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
26.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
16.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-11
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
500 1,000 1,500
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:06 AM 54 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
26.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
16.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-11
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:06 AM 55 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-12
22.00 ft
12.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:07 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 56 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-12
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 500
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 5 10 15
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:07 AM 57 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
22.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
12.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-12
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:07 AM 58 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
22.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
12.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-12
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 500 1,000
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:07 AM 59 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
22.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
12.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-12
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:07 AM 60 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-13
27.00 ft
17.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:08 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 61 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-13
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:08 AM 62 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
27.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
17.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-13
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:08 AM 63 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
27.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
17.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-13
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
100 200 300 400
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:08 AM 64 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
27.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
17.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-13
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:08 AM 65 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-14
38.00 ft
28.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:09 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 66 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-14
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 2 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:09 AM 67 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
38.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
28.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-14
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:09 AM 68 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
38.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
28.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-14
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:09 AM 69 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
38.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
28.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-14
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:09 AM 70 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-15
34.00 ft
24.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 71 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-15
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 5 10
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 72 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
34.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
24.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-15
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Organic soil
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 73 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
34.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
24.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-15
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 74 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
34.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
24.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-15
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 75 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-16
20.00 ft
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 76 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 77 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 78 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 79 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:10 AM 80 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-16A
20.00 ft
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:11 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 81 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16A
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:11 AM 82 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16A
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:11 AM 83 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16A
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:11 AM 84 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
20.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
10.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-16A
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:11 AM 85 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-17
24.00 ft
14.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:12 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 86 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-17
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 2 4 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand Sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:12 AM 87 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
24.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
14.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-17
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand Sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:12 AM 88 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
24.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
14.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-17
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200 400 600 800
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:12 AM 89 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
24.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
14.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-17
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:12 AM 90 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-18
36.00 ft
26.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 91 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-18
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 92 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
36.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
26.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-18
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 93 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
36.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
26.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-18
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 94 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
36.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
26.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-18
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 95 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
L I QU E F A CT I O N A N A LYS I S R E P OR T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Location :
GMU Geotechnical, Inc.
23241 Arroyo Vista
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
www.gmugeo.com
CPT file : CPT-19
25.00 ft
15.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
All soils
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200
Depth (ft)
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq 96 This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-19
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
100 200 300
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 5 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 97 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
25.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
15.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-19
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
109876543210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 98 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw
:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
25.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
15.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-19
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. cone resistance
C h e c k f o r s t r e n g t h l o s s p l o t s ( R o b e r t s o n ( 2 0 1 0 ) ) Grain char. factor
Kc
10 32 654 87 9 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 99 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
Robertson (2009)
Robertson (2009)
Based on Ic value
6.63 0.64
25.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
15.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
No
All soils
No
N/A
This software is licensed to: GMU CPT name: CPT-19
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
100 200 300
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Vertical settlements
E s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t s Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 4/6/2023, 10:44:13 AM 100 Project file: U:\2020\20-108-04 Gypsum Canyon City Comments\Analyses\Liquefaction\02 Round 2\20-108-03_Leighton 2006 CPTs_uncorrected_GW.clq Abbreviations
qt:
Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
APPENDIX C-2
Select Drill Holes and CPT’s
For Lateral Spreading Analysis
Project No.
20-108-03
Project Name
Gypsum Canyon
Figure C-1
Integrated SPT Method for Estimating
Subsurface Stratification & Liquefaction
Drill Hole DH-4 (GMU) - 975-yr Earthquake
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CRR7.5
CRR
CRS
0 20406080
N-Value (bpf)
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Depth (ft)
Blowcount
(N1)60-CS
0 4 8 12 16 20
h (in)
Corrected Settlement
Uncorrected Settlement
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sr
'vo
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Clay/Silt
Sand
GWT
SPT Reduction
SPT REDUCTION AND NORMALIZATION
Project Name: Gypsum Canyon References:
Job Number: 20-108-03 Task: Profile of Unit Weights: 1) T. Leslie Youd & I.M. Idriss, 1997, "Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Explor. Dates: 5/16/2022 Depth (ft) Total Unit 2) T. Leslie Youd et al., Oct. 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Top Bottom Weight (pcf) 3) D. Pardel, April 1998, "Procedures to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Boring Number:DH-4 0.00 999.00 125 4) A. W. Skempton, 1986, "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing, and Overconsolidation," Geotechnique.
Drill Equipment:Hollow Stem Auger Bit Type: H.S.A. 999.00 999.00 5) Idriss & Boulanger, 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", EERI Monogram.
Hammer Type: Automatic Trip Efficiency: 0.88 999.00 999.00 6) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual-Design Acceleration Response Spectrum, January 2021.
SPT Sampler (Lined or Unlined):Unlined Bor. Dia.": 8.00 999.00 999.00 Stratification Inclusion 999.00 999.00 Needs Engineers Input Form The Layers
Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) EQ Mag. : 6.63 999.00 999.00 Input Parameter Encountered in the Boring Ground Surface: 0.00 407.00 PGA: 0.64 999.00 999.00 Pile Type: Square Frictional FS: 2 Existing Groundwater: 44.30 362.70 999.00 999.00 Pile Diameter (Circular, ft): NA Tip Resistant FS: 3 Design Groundwater: 24.00 383.00 999.00 999.00 Pile Width (Square, ft): Depth of Pile Top Relative to SPT (ft) 0 Factored Capacity Caltrans Vs Estimate 6
Sample Description/Classification %Fines PI Top Depth (ft) Bottom Depth (ft)
SPT
Blowcount
Mod-Cal
Blowcount
Measured
Blowcount
"SPT"
Distance (ft)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)
Contributory
Thickness
(ft)
Equivalent N
(bpf)
Corrected
N60 (bpf)
Effective
Stress (tsf) Cn (N1)60 (bpf)
Below
Design
GWL?
100 ft
aver(N)60
(bpf)
Ave(Seed &
Idriss+Sykora
& Stokoe)
Vs (ft/s)
di/Vsi Soil Type Geologic
Age ASF Vs (ft/s) di/Vsi Olson Cn
Deviation
of Cn (%)
Olson
(N1)60 (bpf)
K=0.7 +
0.015N Qsl (kips) flim (kips) Final Qsl
(tons)
Accumula
tive Qsl
(tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (kips)
qlim (kips) Final qb
(tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft) N Cu (ksf) Qsl (kips) Accumula
tive Qsl
(tsf)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tsf)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Qsl (tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
SM 10 5.00 6.42 76.00 38.0 0.92 5.96 8.2083333 41.5 62.93 0.37 1.64 103.1 FALSE 0.13 1269.23 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 510.89 0.02 1.33 -23.01 84 1.96 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0 0 0 5.96 401.04 41.5 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 10.00 11.50 29.00 14.5 1.00 11.00 5.0416667 14.5 29.35 0.69 1.21 35.4 FALSE 0.17 936.90 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 493.60 0.01 1.13 -7.00 33 1.20 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0 0 0 11.00 396.00 14.5 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 15.00 16.50 40.00 20.0 1.00 16.00 3.75 20.0 40 1.00 1.00 40.5 FALSE 0.09 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 579.33 0.01 1.00 0.18 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0 0 0 16.00 391.00 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 17.50 19.00 21.00 21.0 1.00 18.50 2.5 21.0 43 1.16 0.93 39.5 FALSE 0.06 1084.69 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 605.76 0.00 0.95 2.44 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0 0 0 18.50 388.50 21.0 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 20.00 21.50 27.00 13.5 1.00 21.00 2.5 13.5 27 1.31 0.87 23.9 FALSE 0.09 910.99 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 563.42 0.00 0.91 4.17 25 1.07 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0 0 0 21.00 386.00 13.5 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 22.50 24.00 24.00 24.0 1.00 23.50 2.5 24.0 49 1.47 0.83 40.1 FALSE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 659.99 0.00 0.87 5.51 42 1.34 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0 0 0 23.50 383.50 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 25.00 26.42 86.00 43.0 0.92 25.96 2.4583333 46.9 95 1.62 0.79 74.5 TRUE 0.03 1499.66 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 787.80 0.00 0.84 6.53 80 1.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0 0 0 25.96 381.04 46.9 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 27.50 29.00 29.00 29.0 1.00 28.50 2.5416667 29.0 59 1.78 0.75 44.0 TRUE 0.04 1234.16 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 720.62 0.00 0.81 7.35 47 1.41 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0 0 0 28.50 378.50 29.0 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SW 3 30.00 31.50 45.00 22.5 1.00 31.00 2.5 22.5 46 1.94 0.72 32.7 TRUE 0.05 1114.91 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 693.04 0.00 0.78 7.97 36 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0 0 0 31.00 376.00 22.5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 32.50 34.00 34.00 34.0 1.00 33.50 2.5 34.0 69 2.09 0.69 47.6 TRUE 0.04 1315.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.75 8.43 52 1.48 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0 0 0 33.50 373.50 34.0 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 35.00 36.50 48.00 24.0 1.00 36.00 2.5 24.0 49 2.25 0.67 32.4 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.73 8.75 35 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0 0 0 36.00 371.00 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 37.50 39.00 67.00 67.0 1.00 38.50 2.5 67.0 136 2.41 0.64 87.4 TRUE 0.02 1735.97 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 936.26 0.00 0.71 8.97 96 2.14 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0 0 0 38.50 368.50 67.0 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 40.00 41.50 53.00 26.5 1.00 41.00 2.5 26.5 54 2.56 0.62 33.5 TRUE 0.05 1190.29 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 767.41 0.00 0.69 9.09 37 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0 0 0 41.00 366.00 26.5 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 42.50 44.00 27.00 27.0 1.00 43.50 2.5 27.0 55 2.72 0.61 33.1 TRUE 0.05 1199.25 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 781.28 0.00 0.67 9.12 36 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0 0 0 43.50 363.50 27.0 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 45.00 46.50 20.00 10.0 1.00 46.00 2.5 10.0 20 2.82 0.60 12.0 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 627.07 0.00 0.65 9.10 13 0.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0 0 0 46.00 361.00 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 26 47.50 49.00 20.00 20.0 1.00 48.50 2.5 20.0 40 2.90 0.59 23.8 TRUE 0.06 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 740.09 0.00 0.65 9.06 26 1.09 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 0 0 0 48.50 358.50 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 SM 10 50.00 51.50 59.00 29.5 1.00 51.00 2.5 29.5 60 2.98 0.58 34.6 TRUE 0.04 1242.67 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 814.27 0.00 0.64 9.01 38 1.27 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 0 0 0 51.00 356.00 29.5 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 SM 10 52.50 54.00 10.00 10.0 1.00 53.50 2.5 10.0 20 3.06 0.57 11.6 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 638.7019 0.00 0.63 8.94 13 0.89 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 0 0 0 53.50 353.50 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 SM 10 55.00 56.50 15.00 7.5 1.00 56.00 2.5 7.5 15 3.13 0.56 8.6 TRUE 0.16 725.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 601.2944 0.00 0.62 8.86 9 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 0 0 0 56.00 351.00 7.5 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 SM 26 57.50 59.00 9.00 9.0 1.00 58.50 2.5 9.0 18 3.21 0.56 10.2 TRUE 0.14 777.93 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 630.6109 0.00 0.61 8.76 11 0.87 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 0 0 0 58.50 348.50 9.0 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 SM 26 60.00 61.50 36.00 18.0 1.00 61.00 2.5 18.0 36 3.29 0.55 20.1 TRUE 0.07 1020.32 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 743.7069 0.00 0.60 8.65 22 1.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 0 0 0 61.00 346.00 18.0 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 SC 49 62.50 64.00 8.00 8.0 1.00 63.50 2.5 8.0 16 3.37 0.54 8.8 TRUE 0.15 743.36 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 620.507 0.00 0.60 8.53 10 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 0 0 0 63.50 343.50 8.0 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 SM 26 65.00 66.50 14.00 7.0 1.00 66.00 2.5 7.0 14 3.45 0.54 7.6 TRUE 0.18 706.18 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 604.9251 0.00 0.59 8.39 8 0.82 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 0 0 0 66.00 341.00 7.0 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 SM 10 67.50 68.50 14.00 14.0 0.50 68.25 2.25 28.0 57 3.52 0.53 30.2 TRUE 0.04 1216.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 835.9784 0.00 0.58 8.26 33 1.19 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 0 0 0 68.25 338.75 28.0 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 SM 10 70.00 71.00 61.00 30.5 0.50 70.75 2.5 61.0 123 3.60 0.53 65.1 TRUE 0.02 1670.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1005.013 0.00 0.57 8.10 71 1.76 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 0 0 0 70.75 336.25 61.0 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 SM 10 72.50 73.75 94.00 94.0 0.75 73.38 2.625 125.3 254 3.68 0.52 132.3 TRUE 0.01 2253.44 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1192.223 0.00 0.57 7.92 144 2.85 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 0 0 0 73.38 333.63 125.3 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 SM 10 75.00 75.42 50.00 25.0 0.42 75.21 1.3333333 60.0 121 3.74 0.52 62.8 TRUE 0.01 1658.81 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1010.004 0.00 0.56 7.78 68 1.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 0 0 0 75.21 331.79 60.0 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 GM 5 76.00 76.08 50.00 25.0 0.08 76.04 0.8333333 300.0 607 3.76 0.52 313.0 TRUE 0.00 3266.83 0.00 Gravels Holocene 0.88 1695.462 0.00 0.56 7.72 339 5.79 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 0 0 0 76.04 330.96 300.0 10.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 Silty Sandstone 26 77.00 77.08 50.00 50.0 0.08 77.04 0.5416667 600.0 1214 3.79 0.51 623.5 TRUE 0.00 4414.20 0.00 Bedrock Tertiary 1837.27 0.00 0.56 7.65 675 10.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96 0 0 0 77.04 329.96 600.0 21.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96
22.916667 911 0.03 3893.35 0.01 1766.366 0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! N30 (bpf): VS30 (fps): VS30 (fps): #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
48.1 1309.2 785.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 399.0 239.3 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! * Includes hammer effieciency and sampler and short rod corrections NOTE: Shaded cells are required for adequate calculations Assumed 1 meter of rod to be above ground.
Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For SAND/SILT Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For CLAY
Cyclic Resistance
Revised Per Cetin et al. (2009)
CYCLIC RESISTANCE (in terms of N): Depth Below to Apply (ft): 0.00 Residual Shear Strength Clay ALL Saturated/Liquefiable Layer Settlements Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Pradel, 1998) Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) Sr/'vo Material SPT MidElev. (ft) SPT Mid-Depth (ft) SPT MidDepth (m) Equivalent N
(bpf)
Contributory
Thickness (ft) (N1)60 (bpf) Below Design
GWL? %Fines* PI (N1)60 cs (bpf)
Equivalent
(CRR)l cs
LIQUEF? LIQUEF FS LIQUEF FS per N-Value Ratio (N)160 + (NCorr)Settlement (QC1)CS Lower Bound
v
Lower
Bound h
(in)
Lower
Cumulative h
(in)
Upper Bound
v
Upper
Bound h
(in)
Upper
Cumulative h
(in)
'm (tsf) ave (tsf) Gmax (tsf) 15 NC
Layer
Settlement
(in)
Accumulative
Settlement (in) eff*(Geff/Gmax) eff v (%) Layer Settlement (in) Accumulative
Settlement (in)
LL Total
Settlement
(in)
UL Total
Settlement
(in)
Average v
DF Corrected v Layer
Settlement (in)
Corrected Total
Settlement (in)
' (deg)
No Void
Redistribution
With Void
Redistribution
Su/'vo
Sr or
Su/'vo
SM 401.04 5.96 1.82 41.45 8.21 103.1 FALSE 10 0 106 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 104.12 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.24 0.11 1015.96 1.64E-04 2.26E-05 1.72E-05 0.00E+00 0.02 1.10E-04 6.70 6.78 3.44E-05 0.90 3.09E-05 3.04E-03 0.42 56.00 1.48 1.48 1.48 SM 396.00 11.00 3.35 14.50 5.04 35.4 FALSE 10 0 37 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 36.40 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.45 0.20 969.97 4.12E-04 2.01E-04 1.53E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.10E-04 6.70 6.78 3.05E-04 0.81 2.49E-04 1.50E-02 0.42 46.12 1.04 1.04 1.04 SM 391.00 16.00 4.88 20.00 3.75 40.5 FALSE 10 0 42 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 41.48 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.65 0.29 1222.82 4.33E-04 1.80E-04 1.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.39E-04 6.70 6.78 2.74E-04 0.73 2.00E-04 8.99E-03 0.40 47.14 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 388.50 18.50 5.64 21.00 2.50 39.5 FALSE 10 0 41 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 40.53 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.75 0.34 1304.60 4.65E-04 1.99E-04 1.51E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.57E-04 6.70 6.78 3.03E-04 0.69 2.08E-04 6.24E-03 0.39 46.71 1.06 1.06 1.06 SM 386.00 21.00 6.40 13.50 2.50 23.9 FALSE 10 0 25 0.29 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 24.85 126.34 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.85 0.38 1176.51 7.00E-04 5.40E-04 4.10E-04 2.46E-02 0.02 3.22E-04 6.70 6.78 8.20E-04 0.64 5.29E-04 1.59E-02 0.39 41.58 0.89 0.25 0.89 SM 383.50 23.50 7.16 24.00 2.50 40.1 FALSE 10 0 42 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 41.08 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.95 0.42 1477.13 5.04E-04 2.13E-04 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.85E-04 6.67 6.76 3.23E-04 0.60 1.95E-04 5.84E-03 0.37 46.41 1.05 1.05 1.05 SM 381.04 25.96 7.91 46.91 2.46 74.5 TRUE 10 0 77 0.80 NO 1.95 2.19 75.54 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.05 0.46 1905.19 3.63E-04 7.38E-05 5.61E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 2.52E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.56 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.17 1.29 1.29 1.29 SM 378.50 28.50 8.69 29.00 2.54 44.0 TRUE 10 0 46 0.80 NO 1.97 1.33 44.98 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.16 0.50 1677.28 5.11E-04 1.93E-04 1.47E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.27E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.52 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.89 1.07 1.07 1.07 SW 376.00 31.00 9.45 22.50 2.50 32.7 TRUE 3 0 33 0.80 NO 1.96 0.95 32.72 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.26 0.54 1586.60 6.29E-04 3.49E-04 2.65E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.85E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.48 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.80 0.96 0.63 0.96 SM 373.50 33.50 10.21 34.00 2.50 47.6 TRUE 10 0 49 0.80 NO 1.78 1.32 48.56 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.36 0.57 1866.03 4.97E-04 1.71E-04 1.30E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.58E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.43 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 47.23 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 371.00 36.00 10.97 24.00 2.50 32.4 TRUE 10 0 34 0.80 NO 1.84 0.94 33.38 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.46 0.60 1704.01 6.26E-04 3.38E-04 2.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.24E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.39 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.29 0.94 0.70 0.94 SM 368.50 38.50 11.73 67.00 2.50 87.4 TRUE 10 0 90 0.80 NO 1.46 1.98 88.42 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.56 0.63 2445.54 3.58E-04 6.01E-05 4.57E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.17E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.68 1.31 1.31 1.31 SM 366.00 41.00 12.50 26.50 2.50 33.5 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.75 0.92 34.51 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.67 0.65 1839.05 6.00E-04 3.12E-04 2.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.48E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.31 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.25 0.94 0.84 0.94 SM 363.50 43.50 13.26 27.00 2.50 33.1 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.73 0.90 34.14 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.77 0.68 1887.49 5.96E-04 3.14E-04 2.39E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.62E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.26 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 42.96 0.93 0.79 0.93 SM 361.00 46.00 14.02 10.00 2.50 12.0 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.35 0.39 13.05 69.04 3.13 0.94 6.67 3.13 0.94 6.76 1.83 0.70 1377.07 1.21E-03 2.02E-03 1.54E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.53E-04 6.67 6.76 3.13E-02 0.22 6.91E-03 2.07E-01 0.37 33.32 0.15 0.11 0.15 SM 358.50 48.50 14.78 20.00 2.50 23.8 TRUE 26 0 31 0.80 NO 1.73 0.80 25.85 133.43 0.00 0.00 5.73 0.00 0.00 5.82 1.89 0.72 1746.93 7.50E-04 5.51E-04 4.19E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.25E-04 5.73 5.82 0.00E+00 0.18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 39.55 0.83 0.28 0.83 SM 356.00 51.00 15.54 29.50 2.50 34.6 TRUE 10 0 36 0.80 NO 1.67 0.90 35.60 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 5.73 0.00 0.00 5.82 1.94 0.73 2003.78 6.00E-04 3.01E-04 2.29E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.65E-04 5.73 5.82 0.00E+00 0.14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 43.09 0.94 0.94 0.94 SM 353.50 53.50 16.31 10.00 2.50 11.6 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.34 0.37 12.58 66.88 3.21 0.96 5.73 3.21 0.96 5.82 1.99 0.75 1414.43 1.28E-03 2.23E-03 1.70E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.68E-04 5.73 5.82 3.21E-02 0.09 3.02E-03 9.07E-02 0.16 32.73 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 351.00 56.00 17.07 7.50 2.50 8.6 TRUE 10 0 10 0.10 YES 0.27 0.29 9.57 54.42 3.83 1.15 4.77 3.83 1.15 4.85 2.04 0.76 1297.27 1.65E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.37E-04 4.77 4.85 3.83E-02 0.05 1.98E-03 5.95E-02 0.07 30.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 SM 348.50 58.50 17.83 9.00 2.50 10.2 TRUE 26 0 16 0.17 YES 0.42 0.45 12.24 65.37 3.28 0.98 3.62 3.28 0.98 3.70 2.09 0.77 1389.14 1.40E-03 2.53E-03 1.92E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.94E-04 3.62 3.70 3.28E-02 0.01 3.08E-04 9.25E-03 0.01 31.44 0.13 0.11 0.13 SM 346.00 61.00 18.59 18.00 2.50 20.1 TRUE 26 0 27 0.32 YES 0.72 0.70 22.16 110.82 1.80 0.54 2.64 2.09 0.63 2.72 2.14 0.78 1760.30 8.34E-04 7.38E-04 5.61E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.52E-04 2.64 2.72 1.94E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 37.54 0.77 0.20 0.77 SC 343.50 63.50 19.35 8.00 2.50 8.8 TRUE 49 0 16 0.17 YES 0.42 0.45 12.75 67.66 3.19 0.96 2.10 3.18 0.95 2.10 2.19 0.79 1357.64 1.52E-03 2.61E-03 1.98E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.18E-04 2.10 2.10 3.18E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 30.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 341.00 66.00 20.12 7.00 2.50 7.6 TRUE 26 0 13 0.14 YES 0.36 0.39 9.71 54.92 3.80 1.14 1.14 3.80 1.14 1.14 2.24 0.80 1309.14 1.68E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.46E-04 1.14 1.14 3.80E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 28.81 0.10 0.09 0.10 SM 338.75 68.25 20.80 28.00 2.25 30.2 TRUE 10 0 32 0.80 NO 1.75 0.80 31.21 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.80 2082.61 6.19E-04 3.63E-04 2.76E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.69E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 41.22 0.88 0.51 0.88 SM 336.25 70.75 21.56 61.00 2.50 65.1 TRUE 10 0 67 0.80 NO 1.40 1.35 66.10 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.80 2712.72 4.07E-04 9.70E-05 7.37E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.59E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.60 1.13 1.13 1.13 SM 333.63 73.38 22.36 125.33 2.63 132.3 TRUE 10 0 136 0.80 NO 1.03 1.98 133.26 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.80 3466.53 2.90E-04 2.98E-05 2.26E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 2.80E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 55.21 1.44 1.44 1.44 SM 331.79 75.21 22.92 60.00 1.33 62.8 TRUE 10 0 65 0.80 NO 1.45 1.33 63.83 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.80 2732.59 3.99E-04 9.92E-05 7.54E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.53E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.13 1.12 1.12 1.12 GM 330.96 76.04 23.18 300.00 0.83 313.0 TRUE 5 0 313 0.80 YES 0.58 2.55 313.05 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.81 4658.51 2.01E-04 7.42E-06 5.64E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 2.08E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 62.54 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Silty Sandstone 329.96 77.04 23.48 600.00 0.54 623.5 TRUE 26 0 704 0.80 YES 0.24 2.43 625.58 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.81 5872.08 1.55E-04 2.49E-06 1.89E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 1.66E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 67.63 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
22.92 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*0 if unknown
CYCLIC STRESSES (in terms of N): EQ Mag. : 6.63
PGA: 0.64
Based on Design GWT
SPT Mid-Depth (ft)
Total Stress
@ Mid-Depth
(tsf)
Effective Stress @ MidDepth (tsf) rd Kmag Dr (%) f KHynes & Olsen, 99)
KBoulanger &
Harder, 97)
(CSR) EQUIV
(N1)60 cs
5.96 0.37 0.37 0.99 0.73 171.77 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.30 26
11.00 0.69 0.69 0.97 0.73 101.42 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.30 25
16.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.73 108.30 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.29 25
18.50 1.16 1.16 0.96 0.73 107.05 0.46 0.93 0.98 0.29 25
21.00 1.31 1.31 0.95 0.73 83.72 0.58 0.89 0.96 0.29 25
23.50 1.47 1.47 0.95 0.73 107.78 0.46 0.81 0.94 0.29 25
25.96 1.62 1.56 0.94 0.73 146.27 0.27 0.72 0.92 0.30 25
28.50 1.78 1.64 0.93 0.73 112.79 0.44 0.76 0.92 0.31 26
31.00 1.94 1.72 0.92 0.73 95.33 0.52 0.77 0.91 0.32 26
33.50 2.09 1.80 0.90 0.73 117.21 0.41 0.71 0.90 0.32 27
36.00 2.25 1.88 0.88 0.73 97.12 0.51 0.74 0.89 0.32 27
38.50 2.41 1.95 0.86 0.73 158.27 0.21 0.59 0.88 0.32 27
41.00 2.56 2.03 0.84 0.73 98.74 0.51 0.70 0.87 0.32 27
43.50 2.72 2.11 0.82 0.73 98.22 0.51 0.69 0.86 0.32 27
46.00 2.88 2.19 0.80 0.73 60.50 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.32 27
48.50 3.03 2.27 0.78 0.73 92.90 0.54 0.68 0.85 0.32 27
51.00 3.19 2.35 0.76 0.73 100.30 0.50 0.65 0.84 0.31 26
53.50 3.34 2.42 0.74 0.73 59.39 0.70 0.77 0.83 0.31 26
56.00 3.50 2.50 0.72 0.73 51.72 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.31 26
58.50 3.66 2.58 0.70 0.73 66.24 0.67 0.73 0.82 0.30 26
61.00 3.81 2.66 0.68 0.73 86.49 0.57 0.66 0.81 0.29 25
63.50 3.97 2.74 0.66 0.73 65.80 0.67 0.72 0.81 0.29 25
66.00 4.13 2.81 0.64 0.73 59.99 0.70 0.73 0.80 0.28 25
68.25 4.27 2.89 0.62 0.73 93.89 0.53 0.61 0.79 0.28 24
70.75 4.42 2.96 0.60 0.73 136.81 0.32 0.48 0.79 0.27 24
73.38 4.59 3.05 0.58 0.73 194.36 0.03 0.34 0.78 0.26 23
75.21 4.70 3.10 0.56 0.73 134.43 0.33 0.47 0.78 0.26 23
76.04 4.75 3.13 0.56 0.73 294.88 -0.47 0.19 0.78 0.26 23
77.04 4.82 3.16 0.56 0.73 442.32 -1.21 0.08 0.77 0.26 23
Project No.
20-108-03
Project Name
Gypsum Canyon
Figure C-1.1
Integrated SPT Method for Estimating
Subsurface Stratification & Liquefaction
Drill Hole DH-4 (GMU) - 975-yr EQ w/High GW
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CRR7.5
CRR
CRS
0 20406080
N-Value (bpf)
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Depth (ft)
Blowcount
(N1)60-CS
0 4 8 12 16 20
h (in)
Corrected Settlement
Uncorrected Settlement
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sr
'vo
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Clay/Silt
Sand
GWT
SPT Reduction
SPT REDUCTION AND NORMALIZATION
Project Name: Gypsum Canyon References:
Job Number: 20-108-03 Task: Profile of Unit Weights: 1) T. Leslie Youd & I.M. Idriss, 1997, "Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Explor. Dates: 5/16/2022 Depth (ft) Total Unit 2) T. Leslie Youd et al., Oct. 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Top Bottom Weight (pcf) 3) D. Pardel, April 1998, "Procedures to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Boring Number: DH-4 0.00 999.00 125 4) A. W. Skempton, 1986, "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing, and Overconsolidation," Geotechnique.
Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Bit Type: H.S.A. 999.00 999.00 5) Idriss & Boulanger, 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", EERI Monogram.
Hammer Type: Automatic Trip Efficiency: 0.88 999.00 999.00 6) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual-Design Acceleration Response Spectrum, January 2021.
SPT Sampler (Lined or Unlined): Unlined Bor. Dia.": 8.00 999.00 999.00 Stratification Inclusion 999.00 999.00 Needs Engineers Input Form The Layers
Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) EQ Mag. : 6.63 999.00 999.00 Input Parameter Encountered in the Boring Ground Surface: 0.00 407.00 PGA: 0.64 999.00 999.00 Pile Type: Square Frictional FS: 2 Existing Groundwater: 44.30 362.70 999.00 999.00 Pile Diameter (Circular, ft): NA Tip Resistant FS: 3 Design Groundwater: 14.00 393.00 999.00 999.00 Pile Width (Square, ft): Depth of Pile Top Relative to SPT (ft): 0 Factored Capacity Caltrans Vs Estimate 6
Sample Description/Classification %Fines PI Top Depth (ft) Bottom Depth (ft)
SPT
Blowcount
Mod-Cal
Blowcount
Measured
Blowcount
"SPT"
Distance (ft)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)
Contributory
Thickness
(ft)
Equivalent N
(bpf)
Corrected
N60 (bpf)
Effective
Stress (tsf) Cn (N1)60 (bpf)
Below
Design
GWL?
100 ft
aver(N)60
(bpf)
Ave(Seed &
Idriss+Sykora
& Stokoe)
Vs (ft/s)
di/Vsi Soil Type Geologic
Age ASF Vs (ft/s) di/Vsi Olson Cn
Deviation
of Cn (%)
Olson
(N1)60 (bpf)
K=0.7 +
0.015N Qsl (kips) flim (kips) Final Qsl
(tons)
Accumula
tive Qsl
(tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (kips)
qlim (kips) Final qb
(tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft) N Cu (ksf) Qsl (kips) Accumula
tive Qsl
(tsf)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tsf)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Qsl (tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
SM 10 5.00 6.42 76.00 38.0 0.92 5.96 8.2083333 41.5 62.93 0.37 1.64 103.1 FALSE 0.13 1269.23 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 510.89 0.02 1.33 -23.01 84 1.96 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0 0 0 5.96 401.04 41.5 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 10.00 11.50 29.00 14.5 1.00 11.00 5.0416667 14.5 29.35 0.69 1.21 35.4 FALSE 0.17 936.90 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 493.60 0.01 1.13 -7.00 33 1.20 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0 0 0 11.00 396.00 14.5 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 15.00 16.50 40.00 20.0 1.00 16.00 3.75 20.0 40 1.00 1.00 40.5 TRUE 0.09 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 579.33 0.01 1.00 0.18 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0 0 0 16.00 391.00 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 17.50 19.00 21.00 21.0 1.00 18.50 2.5 21.0 43 1.16 0.93 39.5 TRUE 0.06 1084.69 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 605.76 0.00 0.95 2.44 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0 0 0 18.50 388.50 21.0 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 20.00 21.50 27.00 13.5 1.00 21.00 2.5 13.5 27 1.31 0.87 23.9 TRUE 0.09 910.99 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 563.42 0.00 0.91 4.17 25 1.07 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0 0 0 21.00 386.00 13.5 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 22.50 24.00 24.00 24.0 1.00 23.50 2.5 24.0 49 1.47 0.83 40.1 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 659.99 0.00 0.87 5.51 42 1.34 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0 0 0 23.50 383.50 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 25.00 26.42 86.00 43.0 0.92 25.96 2.4583333 46.9 95 1.62 0.79 74.5 TRUE 0.03 1499.66 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 787.80 0.00 0.84 6.53 80 1.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0 0 0 25.96 381.04 46.9 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 27.50 29.00 29.00 29.0 1.00 28.50 2.5416667 29.0 59 1.78 0.75 44.0 TRUE 0.04 1234.16 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 720.62 0.00 0.81 7.35 47 1.41 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0 0 0 28.50 378.50 29.0 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SW 3 30.00 31.50 45.00 22.5 1.00 31.00 2.5 22.5 46 1.94 0.72 32.7 TRUE 0.05 1114.91 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 693.04 0.00 0.78 7.97 36 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0 0 0 31.00 376.00 22.5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 32.50 34.00 34.00 34.0 1.00 33.50 2.5 34.0 69 2.09 0.69 47.6 TRUE 0.04 1315.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.75 8.43 52 1.48 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0 0 0 33.50 373.50 34.0 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 35.00 36.50 48.00 24.0 1.00 36.00 2.5 24.0 49 2.25 0.67 32.4 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.73 8.75 35 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0 0 0 36.00 371.00 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 37.50 39.00 67.00 67.0 1.00 38.50 2.5 67.0 136 2.41 0.64 87.4 TRUE 0.02 1735.97 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 936.26 0.00 0.71 8.97 96 2.14 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0 0 0 38.50 368.50 67.0 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 40.00 41.50 53.00 26.5 1.00 41.00 2.5 26.5 54 2.56 0.62 33.5 TRUE 0.05 1190.29 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 767.41 0.00 0.69 9.09 37 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0 0 0 41.00 366.00 26.5 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 42.50 44.00 27.00 27.0 1.00 43.50 2.5 27.0 55 2.72 0.61 33.1 TRUE 0.05 1199.25 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 781.28 0.00 0.67 9.12 36 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0 0 0 43.50 363.50 27.0 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 45.00 46.50 20.00 10.0 1.00 46.00 2.5 10.0 20 2.82 0.60 12.0 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 627.07 0.00 0.65 9.10 13 0.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0 0 0 46.00 361.00 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 26 47.50 49.00 20.00 20.0 1.00 48.50 2.5 20.0 40 2.90 0.59 23.8 TRUE 0.06 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 740.09 0.00 0.65 9.06 26 1.09 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 0 0 0 48.50 358.50 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 SM 10 50.00 51.50 59.00 29.5 1.00 51.00 2.5 29.5 60 2.98 0.58 34.6 TRUE 0.04 1242.67 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 814.27 0.00 0.64 9.01 38 1.27 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 0 0 0 51.00 356.00 29.5 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 SM 10 52.50 54.00 10.00 10.0 1.00 53.50 2.5 10.0 20 3.06 0.57 11.6 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 638.7019 0.00 0.63 8.94 13 0.89 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 0 0 0 53.50 353.50 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 SM 10 55.00 56.50 15.00 7.5 1.00 56.00 2.5 7.5 15 3.13 0.56 8.6 TRUE 0.16 725.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 601.2944 0.00 0.62 8.86 9 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 0 0 0 56.00 351.00 7.5 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 SM 26 57.50 59.00 9.00 9.0 1.00 58.50 2.5 9.0 18 3.21 0.56 10.2 TRUE 0.14 777.93 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 630.6109 0.00 0.61 8.76 11 0.87 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 0 0 0 58.50 348.50 9.0 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 SM 26 60.00 61.50 36.00 18.0 1.00 61.00 2.5 18.0 36 3.29 0.55 20.1 TRUE 0.07 1020.32 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 743.7069 0.00 0.60 8.65 22 1.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 0 0 0 61.00 346.00 18.0 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 SC 49 62.50 64.00 8.00 8.0 1.00 63.50 2.5 8.0 16 3.37 0.54 8.8 TRUE 0.15 743.36 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 620.507 0.00 0.60 8.53 10 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 0 0 0 63.50 343.50 8.0 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 SM 26 65.00 66.50 14.00 7.0 1.00 66.00 2.5 7.0 14 3.45 0.54 7.6 TRUE 0.18 706.18 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 604.9251 0.00 0.59 8.39 8 0.82 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 0 0 0 66.00 341.00 7.0 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 SM 10 67.50 68.50 14.00 14.0 0.50 68.25 2.25 28.0 57 3.52 0.53 30.2 TRUE 0.04 1216.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 835.9784 0.00 0.58 8.26 33 1.19 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 0 0 0 68.25 338.75 28.0 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 SM 10 70.00 71.00 61.00 30.5 0.50 70.75 2.5 61.0 123 3.60 0.53 65.1 TRUE 0.02 1670.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1005.013 0.00 0.57 8.10 71 1.76 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 0 0 0 70.75 336.25 61.0 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 SM 10 72.50 73.75 94.00 94.0 0.75 73.38 2.625 125.3 254 3.68 0.52 132.3 TRUE 0.01 2253.44 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1192.223 0.00 0.57 7.92 144 2.85 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 0 0 0 73.38 333.63 125.3 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 SM 10 75.00 75.42 50.00 25.0 0.42 75.21 1.3333333 60.0 121 3.74 0.52 62.8 TRUE 0.01 1658.81 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1010.004 0.00 0.56 7.78 68 1.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 0 0 0 75.21 331.79 60.0 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 GM 5 76.00 76.08 50.00 25.0 0.08 76.04 0.8333333 300.0 607 3.76 0.52 313.0 TRUE 0.00 3266.83 0.00 Gravels Holocene 0.88 1695.462 0.00 0.56 7.72 339 5.79 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 0 0 0 76.04 330.96 300.0 10.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 Silty Sandstone 26 77.00 77.08 50.00 50.0 0.08 77.04 0.5416667 600.0 1214 3.79 0.51 623.5 TRUE 0.00 4414.20 0.00 Bedrock Tertiary 1837.27 0.00 0.56 7.65 675 10.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96 0 0 0 77.04 329.96 600.0 21.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96
22.916667 911 0.03 3893.35 0.01 1766.366 0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! N30 (bpf): VS30 (fps): VS30 (fps): #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
48.1 1309.2 785.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 399.0 239.3 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! * Includes hammer effieciency and sampler and short rod corrections NOTE: Shaded cells are required for adequate calculations Assumed 1 meter of rod to be above ground.
Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For SAND/SILT Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For CLAY
Cyclic Resistance
Revised Per Cetin et al. (2009)
CYCLIC RESISTANCE (in terms of N): Depth Below to Apply (ft): 0.00 Residual Shear Strength Clay ALL Saturated/Liquefiable Layer Settlements Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Pradel, 1998) Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) Sr/'vo Material SPT MidElev. (ft) SPT Mid-Depth (ft) SPT MidDepth (m) Equivalent N
(bpf)
Contributory
Thickness (ft) (N1)60 (bpf) Below Design
GWL? %Fines* PI (N1)60 cs (bpf)
Equivalent
(CRR)l cs
LIQUEF? LIQUEF FS LIQUEF FS per N-Value Ratio (N)160 + (NCorr)Settlement (QC1)CS Lower Bound
v
Lower
Bound h
(in)
Lower
Cumulative h
(in)
Upper Bound
v
Upper
Bound h
(in)
Upper
Cumulative h
(in)
'm (tsf) ave (tsf) Gmax (tsf) 15 NC
Layer
Settlement
(in)
Accumulative
Settlement (in) eff*(Geff/Gmax) eff v (%) Layer Settlement (in) Accumulative
Settlement (in)
LL Total
Settlement
(in)
UL Total
Settlement
(in)
Average v
DF Corrected v Layer
Settlement (in)
Corrected Total
Settlement (in)
' (deg)
No Void
Redistribution
With Void
Redistribution
Su/'vo
Sr or
Su/'vo
SM 401.04 5.96 1.82 41.45 8.21 103.1 FALSE 10 0 106 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 104.12 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.24 0.11 1015.96 1.64E-04 2.26E-05 1.72E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 1.10E-04 7.05 7.22 3.44E-05 0.90 3.09E-05 3.04E-03 0.62 56.00 1.48 1.48 1.48 SM 396.00 11.00 3.35 14.50 5.04 35.4 FALSE 10 0 37 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 36.40 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.45 0.20 969.97 4.12E-04 2.01E-04 1.53E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.10E-04 7.05 7.22 3.05E-04 0.81 2.49E-04 1.50E-02 0.62 46.12 1.04 1.04 1.04 SM 391.00 16.00 4.88 20.00 3.75 40.5 TRUE 10 0 42 0.80 NO 2.57 1.61 41.48 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.65 0.29 1222.82 4.33E-04 1.80E-04 1.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.55E-04 7.05 7.22 0.00E+00 0.73 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.60 47.14 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 388.50 18.50 5.64 21.00 2.50 39.5 TRUE 10 0 41 0.80 NO 2.40 1.50 40.53 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.75 0.34 1304.60 4.65E-04 1.99E-04 1.51E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.93E-04 7.05 7.22 0.00E+00 0.69 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.60 46.71 1.06 1.06 1.06 SM 386.00 21.00 6.40 13.50 2.50 23.9 TRUE 10 0 25 0.29 YES 0.81 0.87 24.85 126.34 0.99 0.30 7.05 1.47 0.44 7.22 0.85 0.38 1176.51 7.00E-04 5.40E-04 4.10E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.86E-04 7.05 7.22 1.23E-02 0.64 7.93E-03 2.38E-01 0.60 41.58 0.89 0.25 0.89 SM 383.50 23.50 7.16 24.00 2.50 40.1 TRUE 10 0 42 0.80 NO 2.04 1.36 41.08 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 0.95 0.42 1477.13 5.04E-04 2.13E-04 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.57E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.41 1.05 1.05 1.05 SM 381.04 25.96 7.91 46.91 2.46 74.5 TRUE 10 0 77 0.80 NO 1.84 2.30 75.54 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.05 0.46 1905.19 3.63E-04 7.38E-05 5.61E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.15E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.56 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.17 1.29 1.29 1.29 SM 378.50 28.50 8.69 29.00 2.54 44.0 TRUE 10 0 46 0.80 NO 1.79 1.36 44.98 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.16 0.50 1677.28 5.11E-04 1.93E-04 1.47E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.03E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.52 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.89 1.07 1.07 1.07 SW 376.00 31.00 9.45 22.50 2.50 32.7 TRUE 3 0 33 0.80 NO 1.76 0.96 32.72 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.26 0.54 1586.60 6.29E-04 3.49E-04 2.65E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.70E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.48 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.80 0.96 0.63 0.96 SM 373.50 33.50 10.21 34.00 2.50 47.6 TRUE 10 0 49 0.80 NO 1.65 1.36 48.56 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.36 0.57 1866.03 4.97E-04 1.71E-04 1.30E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.33E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.43 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 47.23 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 371.00 36.00 10.97 24.00 2.50 32.4 TRUE 10 0 34 0.80 NO 1.67 0.95 33.38 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.46 0.60 1704.01 6.26E-04 3.38E-04 2.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.08E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.39 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.29 0.94 0.70 0.94 SM 368.50 38.50 11.73 67.00 2.50 87.4 TRUE 10 0 90 0.80 NO 1.41 2.12 88.42 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.56 0.63 2445.54 3.58E-04 6.01E-05 4.57E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.77E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.68 1.31 1.31 1.31 SM 366.00 41.00 12.50 26.50 2.50 33.5 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.61 0.93 34.51 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.67 0.65 1839.05 6.00E-04 3.12E-04 2.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.29E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.31 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.25 0.94 0.84 0.94 SM 363.50 43.50 13.26 27.00 2.50 33.1 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.59 0.91 34.14 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.77 0.68 1887.49 5.96E-04 3.14E-04 2.39E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.42E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.26 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 42.96 0.93 0.79 0.93 SM 361.00 46.00 14.02 10.00 2.50 12.0 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.32 0.38 13.05 69.04 3.13 0.94 6.76 3.13 0.94 6.78 1.83 0.70 1377.07 1.21E-03 2.02E-03 1.54E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.62E-04 6.76 6.78 3.13E-02 0.22 6.91E-03 2.07E-01 0.37 33.32 0.15 0.11 0.15 SM 358.50 48.50 14.78 20.00 2.50 23.8 TRUE 26 0 31 0.80 NO 1.60 0.80 25.85 133.43 0.00 0.00 5.82 0.00 0.00 5.84 1.89 0.72 1746.93 7.50E-04 5.51E-04 4.19E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 6.09E-04 5.82 5.84 0.00E+00 0.18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 39.55 0.83 0.28 0.83 SM 356.00 51.00 15.54 29.50 2.50 34.6 TRUE 10 0 36 0.80 NO 1.55 0.90 35.60 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 5.82 0.00 0.00 5.84 1.94 0.73 2003.78 6.00E-04 3.01E-04 2.29E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.37E-04 5.82 5.84 0.00E+00 0.14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 43.09 0.94 0.94 0.94 SM 353.50 53.50 16.31 10.00 2.50 11.6 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.31 0.36 12.58 66.88 3.21 0.96 5.82 3.21 0.96 5.84 1.99 0.75 1414.43 1.28E-03 2.23E-03 1.70E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.67E-04 5.82 5.84 3.21E-02 0.09 3.02E-03 9.07E-02 0.16 32.73 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 351.00 56.00 17.07 7.50 2.50 8.6 TRUE 10 0 10 0.10 YES 0.24 0.28 9.57 54.42 3.83 1.15 4.85 3.83 1.15 4.88 2.04 0.76 1297.27 1.65E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.42E-04 4.85 4.88 3.83E-02 0.05 1.98E-03 5.95E-02 0.07 30.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 SM 348.50 58.50 17.83 9.00 2.50 10.2 TRUE 26 0 16 0.17 YES 0.38 0.44 12.24 65.37 3.28 0.98 3.70 3.28 0.98 3.73 2.09 0.77 1389.14 1.40E-03 2.53E-03 1.92E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.90E-04 3.70 3.73 3.28E-02 0.01 3.08E-04 9.24E-03 0.01 31.44 0.13 0.11 0.13 SM 346.00 61.00 18.59 18.00 2.50 20.1 TRUE 26 0 27 0.32 YES 0.67 0.68 22.16 110.82 2.09 0.63 2.72 2.16 0.65 2.74 2.14 0.78 1760.30 8.34E-04 7.38E-04 5.61E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 6.25E-04 2.72 2.74 2.12E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 37.54 0.77 0.20 0.77 SC 343.50 63.50 19.35 8.00 2.50 8.8 TRUE 49 0 16 0.17 YES 0.39 0.43 12.75 67.66 3.18 0.95 2.10 3.18 0.95 2.10 2.19 0.79 1357.64 1.52E-03 2.61E-03 1.98E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.10E-04 2.10 2.10 3.18E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 30.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 341.00 66.00 20.12 7.00 2.50 7.6 TRUE 26 0 13 0.14 YES 0.33 0.37 9.71 54.92 3.80 1.14 1.14 3.80 1.14 1.14 2.24 0.80 1309.14 1.68E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.39E-04 1.14 1.14 3.80E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 28.81 0.10 0.09 0.10 SM 338.75 68.25 20.80 28.00 2.25 30.2 TRUE 10 0 32 0.80 NO 1.65 0.78 31.21 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.80 2082.61 6.19E-04 3.63E-04 2.76E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.26E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 41.22 0.88 0.51 0.88 SM 336.25 70.75 21.56 61.00 2.50 65.1 TRUE 10 0 67 0.80 NO 1.36 1.34 66.10 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.80 2712.72 4.07E-04 9.70E-05 7.37E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 4.01E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.60 1.13 1.13 1.13 SM 333.63 73.38 22.36 125.33 2.63 132.3 TRUE 10 0 136 0.80 NO 1.03 2.02 133.26 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.80 3466.53 2.90E-04 2.98E-05 2.26E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.12E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 55.21 1.44 1.44 1.44 SM 331.79 75.21 22.92 60.00 1.33 62.8 TRUE 10 0 65 0.80 NO 1.40 1.31 63.83 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.80 2732.59 3.99E-04 9.92E-05 7.54E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.93E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.13 1.12 1.12 1.12 GM 330.96 76.04 23.18 300.00 0.83 313.0 TRUE 5 0 313 0.80 YES 0.61 2.74 313.05 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.81 4658.51 2.01E-04 7.42E-06 5.64E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 2.31E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 62.54 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Silty Sandstone 329.96 77.04 23.48 600.00 0.54 623.5 TRUE 26 0 704 0.80 YES 0.28 2.81 625.58 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.81 5872.08 1.55E-04 2.49E-06 1.89E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 1.84E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 67.63 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
22.92 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*0 if unknown
CYCLIC STRESSES (in terms of N): EQ Mag. : 6.63
PGA: 0.64
Based on Design GWT
SPT Mid-Depth (ft)
Total Stress
@ Mid-Depth
(tsf)
Effective Stress @ MidDepth (tsf) rd Kmag Dr (%) f KHynes & Olsen, 99)
KBoulanger &
Harder, 97)
(CSR) EQUIV
(N1)60 cs
5.96 0.37 0.37 0.99 0.73 171.77 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.30 26
11.00 0.69 0.69 0.97 0.73 101.42 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.30 25
16.00 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.73 108.30 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.31 26
18.50 1.16 1.02 0.96 0.73 107.05 0.46 0.99 1.00 0.33 27
21.00 1.31 1.09 0.95 0.73 83.72 0.58 0.96 0.99 0.35 28
23.50 1.47 1.17 0.95 0.73 107.78 0.46 0.92 0.97 0.36 28
25.96 1.62 1.25 0.94 0.73 146.27 0.27 0.85 0.96 0.37 29
28.50 1.78 1.33 0.93 0.73 112.79 0.44 0.85 0.95 0.38 29
31.00 1.94 1.41 0.92 0.73 95.33 0.52 0.85 0.94 0.39 29
33.50 2.09 1.49 0.90 0.73 117.21 0.41 0.79 0.93 0.39 29
36.00 2.25 1.56 0.88 0.73 97.12 0.51 0.80 0.92 0.38 29
38.50 2.41 1.64 0.86 0.73 158.27 0.21 0.68 0.91 0.38 29
41.00 2.56 1.72 0.84 0.73 98.74 0.51 0.77 0.91 0.38 29
43.50 2.72 1.80 0.82 0.73 98.22 0.51 0.75 0.90 0.38 29
46.00 2.88 1.88 0.80 0.73 60.50 0.70 0.83 0.89 0.37 29
48.50 3.03 1.95 0.78 0.73 92.90 0.54 0.73 0.88 0.37 28
51.00 3.19 2.03 0.76 0.73 100.30 0.50 0.70 0.87 0.36 28
53.50 3.34 2.11 0.74 0.73 59.39 0.70 0.80 0.86 0.36 28
56.00 3.50 2.19 0.72 0.73 51.72 0.74 0.82 0.86 0.35 28
58.50 3.66 2.27 0.70 0.73 66.24 0.67 0.76 0.85 0.34 28
61.00 3.81 2.35 0.68 0.73 86.49 0.57 0.69 0.84 0.33 27
63.50 3.97 2.42 0.66 0.73 65.80 0.67 0.75 0.83 0.33 27
66.00 4.13 2.50 0.64 0.73 59.99 0.70 0.76 0.83 0.32 27
68.25 4.27 2.57 0.62 0.73 93.89 0.53 0.64 0.82 0.31 26
70.75 4.42 2.65 0.60 0.73 136.81 0.32 0.51 0.81 0.30 26
73.38 4.59 2.73 0.58 0.73 194.36 0.03 0.38 0.81 0.29 25
75.21 4.70 2.79 0.56 0.73 134.43 0.33 0.50 0.80 0.29 25
76.04 4.75 2.82 0.56 0.73 294.88 -0.47 0.22 0.80 0.29 25
77.04 4.82 2.85 0.56 0.73 442.32 -1.21 0.10 0.80 0.29 25
Cross Section 7-7’
Project No.
20-108-03
Project Name
Gypsum Canyon
Figure C-1
Integrated SPT Method for Estimating
Subsurface Stratification & Liquefaction
Drill Hole DH-4 (GMU) - 975-yr Earthquake
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CRR7.5
CRR
CRS
0 20406080
N-Value (bpf)
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Depth (ft)
Blowcount
(N1)60-CS
0 4 8 12 16 20
h (in)
Corrected Settlement
Uncorrected Settlement
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sr
'vo
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Clay/Silt
Sand
GWT
SPT Reduction
SPT REDUCTION AND NORMALIZATION
Project Name: Gypsum Canyon References:
Job Number: 20-108-03 Task: Profile of Unit Weights: 1) T. Leslie Youd & I.M. Idriss, 1997, "Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Explor. Dates: 5/16/2022 Depth (ft) Total Unit 2) T. Leslie Youd et al., Oct. 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Top Bottom Weight (pcf) 3) D. Pardel, April 1998, "Procedures to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Boring Number:DH-4 0.00 999.00 125 4) A. W. Skempton, 1986, "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing, and Overconsolidation," Geotechnique.
Drill Equipment:Hollow Stem Auger Bit Type: H.S.A. 999.00 999.00 5) Idriss & Boulanger, 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", EERI Monogram.
Hammer Type: Automatic Trip Efficiency: 0.88 999.00 999.00 6) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual-Design Acceleration Response Spectrum, January 2021.
SPT Sampler (Lined or Unlined):Unlined Bor. Dia.": 8.00 999.00 999.00 Stratification Inclusion 999.00 999.00 Needs Engineers Input Form The Layers
Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) EQ Mag. : 6.63 999.00 999.00 Input Parameter Encountered in the Boring Ground Surface: 0.00 407.00 PGA: 0.64 999.00 999.00 Pile Type: Square Frictional FS: 2 Existing Groundwater: 44.30 362.70 999.00 999.00 Pile Diameter (Circular, ft): NA Tip Resistant FS: 3 Design Groundwater: 24.00 383.00 999.00 999.00 Pile Width (Square, ft): Depth of Pile Top Relative to SPT (ft) 0 Factored Capacity Caltrans Vs Estimate 6
Sample Description/Classification %Fines PI Top Depth (ft) Bottom Depth (ft)
SPT
Blowcount
Mod-Cal
Blowcount
Measured
Blowcount
"SPT"
Distance (ft)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)
Contributory
Thickness
(ft)
Equivalent N
(bpf)
Corrected
N60 (bpf)
Effective
Stress (tsf) Cn (N1)60 (bpf)
Below
Design
GWL?
100 ft
aver(N)60
(bpf)
Ave(Seed &
Idriss+Sykora
& Stokoe)
Vs (ft/s)
di/Vsi Soil Type Geologic
Age ASF Vs (ft/s) di/Vsi Olson Cn
Deviation
of Cn (%)
Olson
(N1)60 (bpf)
K=0.7 +
0.015N Qsl (kips) flim (kips) Final Qsl
(tons)
Accumula
tive Qsl
(tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (kips)
qlim (kips) Final qb
(tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft) N Cu (ksf) Qsl (kips) Accumula
tive Qsl
(tsf)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tsf)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Qsl (tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
SM 10 5.00 6.42 76.00 38.0 0.92 5.96 8.2083333 41.5 62.93 0.37 1.64 103.1 FALSE 0.13 1269.23 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 510.89 0.02 1.33 -23.01 84 1.96 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0 0 0 5.96 401.04 41.5 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 10.00 11.50 29.00 14.5 1.00 11.00 5.0416667 14.5 29.35 0.69 1.21 35.4 FALSE 0.17 936.90 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 493.60 0.01 1.13 -7.00 33 1.20 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0 0 0 11.00 396.00 14.5 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 15.00 16.50 40.00 20.0 1.00 16.00 3.75 20.0 40 1.00 1.00 40.5 FALSE 0.09 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 579.33 0.01 1.00 0.18 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0 0 0 16.00 391.00 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 17.50 19.00 21.00 21.0 1.00 18.50 2.5 21.0 43 1.16 0.93 39.5 FALSE 0.06 1084.69 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 605.76 0.00 0.95 2.44 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0 0 0 18.50 388.50 21.0 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 20.00 21.50 27.00 13.5 1.00 21.00 2.5 13.5 27 1.31 0.87 23.9 FALSE 0.09 910.99 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 563.42 0.00 0.91 4.17 25 1.07 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0 0 0 21.00 386.00 13.5 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 22.50 24.00 24.00 24.0 1.00 23.50 2.5 24.0 49 1.47 0.83 40.1 FALSE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 659.99 0.00 0.87 5.51 42 1.34 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0 0 0 23.50 383.50 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 25.00 26.42 86.00 43.0 0.92 25.96 2.4583333 46.9 95 1.62 0.79 74.5 TRUE 0.03 1499.66 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 787.80 0.00 0.84 6.53 80 1.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0 0 0 25.96 381.04 46.9 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 27.50 29.00 29.00 29.0 1.00 28.50 2.5416667 29.0 59 1.78 0.75 44.0 TRUE 0.04 1234.16 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 720.62 0.00 0.81 7.35 47 1.41 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0 0 0 28.50 378.50 29.0 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SW 3 30.00 31.50 45.00 22.5 1.00 31.00 2.5 22.5 46 1.94 0.72 32.7 TRUE 0.05 1114.91 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 693.04 0.00 0.78 7.97 36 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0 0 0 31.00 376.00 22.5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 32.50 34.00 34.00 34.0 1.00 33.50 2.5 34.0 69 2.09 0.69 47.6 TRUE 0.04 1315.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.75 8.43 52 1.48 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0 0 0 33.50 373.50 34.0 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 35.00 36.50 48.00 24.0 1.00 36.00 2.5 24.0 49 2.25 0.67 32.4 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.73 8.75 35 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0 0 0 36.00 371.00 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 37.50 39.00 67.00 67.0 1.00 38.50 2.5 67.0 136 2.41 0.64 87.4 TRUE 0.02 1735.97 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 936.26 0.00 0.71 8.97 96 2.14 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0 0 0 38.50 368.50 67.0 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 40.00 41.50 53.00 26.5 1.00 41.00 2.5 26.5 54 2.56 0.62 33.5 TRUE 0.05 1190.29 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 767.41 0.00 0.69 9.09 37 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0 0 0 41.00 366.00 26.5 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 42.50 44.00 27.00 27.0 1.00 43.50 2.5 27.0 55 2.72 0.61 33.1 TRUE 0.05 1199.25 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 781.28 0.00 0.67 9.12 36 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0 0 0 43.50 363.50 27.0 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 45.00 46.50 20.00 10.0 1.00 46.00 2.5 10.0 20 2.82 0.60 12.0 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 627.07 0.00 0.65 9.10 13 0.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0 0 0 46.00 361.00 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 26 47.50 49.00 20.00 20.0 1.00 48.50 2.5 20.0 40 2.90 0.59 23.8 TRUE 0.06 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 740.09 0.00 0.65 9.06 26 1.09 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 0 0 0 48.50 358.50 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 SM 10 50.00 51.50 59.00 29.5 1.00 51.00 2.5 29.5 60 2.98 0.58 34.6 TRUE 0.04 1242.67 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 814.27 0.00 0.64 9.01 38 1.27 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 0 0 0 51.00 356.00 29.5 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 SM 10 52.50 54.00 10.00 10.0 1.00 53.50 2.5 10.0 20 3.06 0.57 11.6 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 638.7019 0.00 0.63 8.94 13 0.89 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 0 0 0 53.50 353.50 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 SM 10 55.00 56.50 15.00 7.5 1.00 56.00 2.5 7.5 15 3.13 0.56 8.6 TRUE 0.16 725.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 601.2944 0.00 0.62 8.86 9 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 0 0 0 56.00 351.00 7.5 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 SM 26 57.50 59.00 9.00 9.0 1.00 58.50 2.5 9.0 18 3.21 0.56 10.2 TRUE 0.14 777.93 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 630.6109 0.00 0.61 8.76 11 0.87 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 0 0 0 58.50 348.50 9.0 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 SM 26 60.00 61.50 36.00 18.0 1.00 61.00 2.5 18.0 36 3.29 0.55 20.1 TRUE 0.07 1020.32 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 743.7069 0.00 0.60 8.65 22 1.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 0 0 0 61.00 346.00 18.0 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 SC 49 62.50 64.00 8.00 8.0 1.00 63.50 2.5 8.0 16 3.37 0.54 8.8 TRUE 0.15 743.36 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 620.507 0.00 0.60 8.53 10 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 0 0 0 63.50 343.50 8.0 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 SM 26 65.00 66.50 14.00 7.0 1.00 66.00 2.5 7.0 14 3.45 0.54 7.6 TRUE 0.18 706.18 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 604.9251 0.00 0.59 8.39 8 0.82 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 0 0 0 66.00 341.00 7.0 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 SM 10 67.50 68.50 14.00 14.0 0.50 68.25 2.25 28.0 57 3.52 0.53 30.2 TRUE 0.04 1216.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 835.9784 0.00 0.58 8.26 33 1.19 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 0 0 0 68.25 338.75 28.0 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 SM 10 70.00 71.00 61.00 30.5 0.50 70.75 2.5 61.0 123 3.60 0.53 65.1 TRUE 0.02 1670.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1005.013 0.00 0.57 8.10 71 1.76 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 0 0 0 70.75 336.25 61.0 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 SM 10 72.50 73.75 94.00 94.0 0.75 73.38 2.625 125.3 254 3.68 0.52 132.3 TRUE 0.01 2253.44 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1192.223 0.00 0.57 7.92 144 2.85 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 0 0 0 73.38 333.63 125.3 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 SM 10 75.00 75.42 50.00 25.0 0.42 75.21 1.3333333 60.0 121 3.74 0.52 62.8 TRUE 0.01 1658.81 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1010.004 0.00 0.56 7.78 68 1.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 0 0 0 75.21 331.79 60.0 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 GM 5 76.00 76.08 50.00 25.0 0.08 76.04 0.8333333 300.0 607 3.76 0.52 313.0 TRUE 0.00 3266.83 0.00 Gravels Holocene 0.88 1695.462 0.00 0.56 7.72 339 5.79 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 0 0 0 76.04 330.96 300.0 10.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 Silty Sandstone 26 77.00 77.08 50.00 50.0 0.08 77.04 0.5416667 600.0 1214 3.79 0.51 623.5 TRUE 0.00 4414.20 0.00 Bedrock Tertiary 1837.27 0.00 0.56 7.65 675 10.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96 0 0 0 77.04 329.96 600.0 21.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96
22.916667 911 0.03 3893.35 0.01 1766.366 0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! N30 (bpf): VS30 (fps): VS30 (fps): #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
48.1 1309.2 785.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 399.0 239.3 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! * Includes hammer effieciency and sampler and short rod corrections NOTE: Shaded cells are required for adequate calculations Assumed 1 meter of rod to be above ground.
Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For SAND/SILT Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For CLAY
Cyclic Resistance
Revised Per Cetin et al. (2009)
CYCLIC RESISTANCE (in terms of N): Depth Below to Apply (ft): 0.00 Residual Shear Strength Clay ALL Saturated/Liquefiable Layer Settlements Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Pradel, 1998) Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) Sr/'vo Material SPT MidElev. (ft) SPT Mid-Depth (ft) SPT MidDepth (m) Equivalent N
(bpf)
Contributory
Thickness (ft) (N1)60 (bpf) Below Design
GWL? %Fines* PI (N1)60 cs (bpf)
Equivalent
(CRR)l cs
LIQUEF? LIQUEF FS LIQUEF FS per N-Value Ratio (N)160 + (NCorr)Settlement (QC1)CS Lower Bound
v
Lower
Bound h
(in)
Lower
Cumulative h
(in)
Upper Bound
v
Upper
Bound h
(in)
Upper
Cumulative h
(in)
'm (tsf) ave (tsf) Gmax (tsf) 15 NC
Layer
Settlement
(in)
Accumulative
Settlement (in) eff*(Geff/Gmax) eff v (%) Layer Settlement (in) Accumulative
Settlement (in)
LL Total
Settlement
(in)
UL Total
Settlement
(in)
Average v
DF Corrected v Layer
Settlement (in)
Corrected Total
Settlement (in)
' (deg)
No Void
Redistribution
With Void
Redistribution
Su/'vo
Sr or
Su/'vo
SM 401.04 5.96 1.82 41.45 8.21 103.1 FALSE 10 0 106 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 104.12 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.24 0.11 1015.96 1.64E-04 2.26E-05 1.72E-05 0.00E+00 0.02 1.10E-04 6.70 6.78 3.44E-05 0.90 3.09E-05 3.04E-03 0.42 56.00 1.48 1.48 1.48 SM 396.00 11.00 3.35 14.50 5.04 35.4 FALSE 10 0 37 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 36.40 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.45 0.20 969.97 4.12E-04 2.01E-04 1.53E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.10E-04 6.70 6.78 3.05E-04 0.81 2.49E-04 1.50E-02 0.42 46.12 1.04 1.04 1.04 SM 391.00 16.00 4.88 20.00 3.75 40.5 FALSE 10 0 42 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 41.48 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.65 0.29 1222.82 4.33E-04 1.80E-04 1.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.39E-04 6.70 6.78 2.74E-04 0.73 2.00E-04 8.99E-03 0.40 47.14 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 388.50 18.50 5.64 21.00 2.50 39.5 FALSE 10 0 41 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 40.53 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.75 0.34 1304.60 4.65E-04 1.99E-04 1.51E-04 0.00E+00 0.02 2.57E-04 6.70 6.78 3.03E-04 0.69 2.08E-04 6.24E-03 0.39 46.71 1.06 1.06 1.06 SM 386.00 21.00 6.40 13.50 2.50 23.9 FALSE 10 0 25 0.29 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 24.85 126.34 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.85 0.38 1176.51 7.00E-04 5.40E-04 4.10E-04 2.46E-02 0.02 3.22E-04 6.70 6.78 8.20E-04 0.64 5.29E-04 1.59E-02 0.39 41.58 0.89 0.25 0.89 SM 383.50 23.50 7.16 24.00 2.50 40.1 FALSE 10 0 42 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 41.08 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.95 0.42 1477.13 5.04E-04 2.13E-04 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.85E-04 6.67 6.76 3.23E-04 0.60 1.95E-04 5.84E-03 0.37 46.41 1.05 1.05 1.05 SM 381.04 25.96 7.91 46.91 2.46 74.5 TRUE 10 0 77 0.80 NO 1.95 2.19 75.54 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.05 0.46 1905.19 3.63E-04 7.38E-05 5.61E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 2.52E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.56 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.17 1.29 1.29 1.29 SM 378.50 28.50 8.69 29.00 2.54 44.0 TRUE 10 0 46 0.80 NO 1.97 1.33 44.98 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.16 0.50 1677.28 5.11E-04 1.93E-04 1.47E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.27E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.52 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.89 1.07 1.07 1.07 SW 376.00 31.00 9.45 22.50 2.50 32.7 TRUE 3 0 33 0.80 NO 1.96 0.95 32.72 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.26 0.54 1586.60 6.29E-04 3.49E-04 2.65E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.85E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.48 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.80 0.96 0.63 0.96 SM 373.50 33.50 10.21 34.00 2.50 47.6 TRUE 10 0 49 0.80 NO 1.78 1.32 48.56 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.36 0.57 1866.03 4.97E-04 1.71E-04 1.30E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.58E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.43 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 47.23 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 371.00 36.00 10.97 24.00 2.50 32.4 TRUE 10 0 34 0.80 NO 1.84 0.94 33.38 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.46 0.60 1704.01 6.26E-04 3.38E-04 2.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.24E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.39 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.29 0.94 0.70 0.94 SM 368.50 38.50 11.73 67.00 2.50 87.4 TRUE 10 0 90 0.80 NO 1.46 1.98 88.42 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.56 0.63 2445.54 3.58E-04 6.01E-05 4.57E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.17E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.68 1.31 1.31 1.31 SM 366.00 41.00 12.50 26.50 2.50 33.5 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.75 0.92 34.51 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.67 0.65 1839.05 6.00E-04 3.12E-04 2.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.48E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.31 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.25 0.94 0.84 0.94 SM 363.50 43.50 13.26 27.00 2.50 33.1 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.73 0.90 34.14 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.77 0.68 1887.49 5.96E-04 3.14E-04 2.39E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.62E-04 6.67 6.76 0.00E+00 0.26 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 42.96 0.93 0.79 0.93 SM 361.00 46.00 14.02 10.00 2.50 12.0 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.35 0.39 13.05 69.04 3.13 0.94 6.67 3.13 0.94 6.76 1.83 0.70 1377.07 1.21E-03 2.02E-03 1.54E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.53E-04 6.67 6.76 3.13E-02 0.22 6.91E-03 2.07E-01 0.37 33.32 0.15 0.11 0.15 SM 358.50 48.50 14.78 20.00 2.50 23.8 TRUE 26 0 31 0.80 NO 1.73 0.80 25.85 133.43 0.00 0.00 5.73 0.00 0.00 5.82 1.89 0.72 1746.93 7.50E-04 5.51E-04 4.19E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.25E-04 5.73 5.82 0.00E+00 0.18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 39.55 0.83 0.28 0.83 SM 356.00 51.00 15.54 29.50 2.50 34.6 TRUE 10 0 36 0.80 NO 1.67 0.90 35.60 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 5.73 0.00 0.00 5.82 1.94 0.73 2003.78 6.00E-04 3.01E-04 2.29E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.65E-04 5.73 5.82 0.00E+00 0.14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 43.09 0.94 0.94 0.94 SM 353.50 53.50 16.31 10.00 2.50 11.6 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.34 0.37 12.58 66.88 3.21 0.96 5.73 3.21 0.96 5.82 1.99 0.75 1414.43 1.28E-03 2.23E-03 1.70E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.68E-04 5.73 5.82 3.21E-02 0.09 3.02E-03 9.07E-02 0.16 32.73 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 351.00 56.00 17.07 7.50 2.50 8.6 TRUE 10 0 10 0.10 YES 0.27 0.29 9.57 54.42 3.83 1.15 4.77 3.83 1.15 4.85 2.04 0.76 1297.27 1.65E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.37E-04 4.77 4.85 3.83E-02 0.05 1.98E-03 5.95E-02 0.07 30.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 SM 348.50 58.50 17.83 9.00 2.50 10.2 TRUE 26 0 16 0.17 YES 0.42 0.45 12.24 65.37 3.28 0.98 3.62 3.28 0.98 3.70 2.09 0.77 1389.14 1.40E-03 2.53E-03 1.92E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 6.94E-04 3.62 3.70 3.28E-02 0.01 3.08E-04 9.25E-03 0.01 31.44 0.13 0.11 0.13 SM 346.00 61.00 18.59 18.00 2.50 20.1 TRUE 26 0 27 0.32 YES 0.72 0.70 22.16 110.82 1.80 0.54 2.64 2.09 0.63 2.72 2.14 0.78 1760.30 8.34E-04 7.38E-04 5.61E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.52E-04 2.64 2.72 1.94E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 37.54 0.77 0.20 0.77 SC 343.50 63.50 19.35 8.00 2.50 8.8 TRUE 49 0 16 0.17 YES 0.42 0.45 12.75 67.66 3.19 0.96 2.10 3.18 0.95 2.10 2.19 0.79 1357.64 1.52E-03 2.61E-03 1.98E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.18E-04 2.10 2.10 3.18E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 30.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 341.00 66.00 20.12 7.00 2.50 7.6 TRUE 26 0 13 0.14 YES 0.36 0.39 9.71 54.92 3.80 1.14 1.14 3.80 1.14 1.14 2.24 0.80 1309.14 1.68E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.46E-04 1.14 1.14 3.80E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 28.81 0.10 0.09 0.10 SM 338.75 68.25 20.80 28.00 2.25 30.2 TRUE 10 0 32 0.80 NO 1.75 0.80 31.21 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.80 2082.61 6.19E-04 3.63E-04 2.76E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.69E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 41.22 0.88 0.51 0.88 SM 336.25 70.75 21.56 61.00 2.50 65.1 TRUE 10 0 67 0.80 NO 1.40 1.35 66.10 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.80 2712.72 4.07E-04 9.70E-05 7.37E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.59E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.60 1.13 1.13 1.13 SM 333.63 73.38 22.36 125.33 2.63 132.3 TRUE 10 0 136 0.80 NO 1.03 1.98 133.26 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.80 3466.53 2.90E-04 2.98E-05 2.26E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 2.80E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 55.21 1.44 1.44 1.44 SM 331.79 75.21 22.92 60.00 1.33 62.8 TRUE 10 0 65 0.80 NO 1.45 1.33 63.83 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.80 2732.59 3.99E-04 9.92E-05 7.54E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.53E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.13 1.12 1.12 1.12 GM 330.96 76.04 23.18 300.00 0.83 313.0 TRUE 5 0 313 0.80 YES 0.58 2.55 313.05 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.81 4658.51 2.01E-04 7.42E-06 5.64E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 2.08E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 62.54 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Silty Sandstone 329.96 77.04 23.48 600.00 0.54 623.5 TRUE 26 0 704 0.80 YES 0.24 2.43 625.58 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.81 5872.08 1.55E-04 2.49E-06 1.89E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 1.66E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 67.63 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
22.92 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*0 if unknown
CYCLIC STRESSES (in terms of N): EQ Mag. : 6.63
PGA: 0.64
Based on Design GWT
SPT Mid-Depth (ft)
Total Stress
@ Mid-Depth
(tsf)
Effective Stress @ MidDepth (tsf) rd Kmag Dr (%) f KHynes & Olsen, 99)
KBoulanger &
Harder, 97)
(CSR) EQUIV
(N1)60 cs
5.96 0.37 0.37 0.99 0.73 171.77 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.30 26
11.00 0.69 0.69 0.97 0.73 101.42 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.30 25
16.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.73 108.30 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.29 25
18.50 1.16 1.16 0.96 0.73 107.05 0.46 0.93 0.98 0.29 25
21.00 1.31 1.31 0.95 0.73 83.72 0.58 0.89 0.96 0.29 25
23.50 1.47 1.47 0.95 0.73 107.78 0.46 0.81 0.94 0.29 25
25.96 1.62 1.56 0.94 0.73 146.27 0.27 0.72 0.92 0.30 25
28.50 1.78 1.64 0.93 0.73 112.79 0.44 0.76 0.92 0.31 26
31.00 1.94 1.72 0.92 0.73 95.33 0.52 0.77 0.91 0.32 26
33.50 2.09 1.80 0.90 0.73 117.21 0.41 0.71 0.90 0.32 27
36.00 2.25 1.88 0.88 0.73 97.12 0.51 0.74 0.89 0.32 27
38.50 2.41 1.95 0.86 0.73 158.27 0.21 0.59 0.88 0.32 27
41.00 2.56 2.03 0.84 0.73 98.74 0.51 0.70 0.87 0.32 27
43.50 2.72 2.11 0.82 0.73 98.22 0.51 0.69 0.86 0.32 27
46.00 2.88 2.19 0.80 0.73 60.50 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.32 27
48.50 3.03 2.27 0.78 0.73 92.90 0.54 0.68 0.85 0.32 27
51.00 3.19 2.35 0.76 0.73 100.30 0.50 0.65 0.84 0.31 26
53.50 3.34 2.42 0.74 0.73 59.39 0.70 0.77 0.83 0.31 26
56.00 3.50 2.50 0.72 0.73 51.72 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.31 26
58.50 3.66 2.58 0.70 0.73 66.24 0.67 0.73 0.82 0.30 26
61.00 3.81 2.66 0.68 0.73 86.49 0.57 0.66 0.81 0.29 25
63.50 3.97 2.74 0.66 0.73 65.80 0.67 0.72 0.81 0.29 25
66.00 4.13 2.81 0.64 0.73 59.99 0.70 0.73 0.80 0.28 25
68.25 4.27 2.89 0.62 0.73 93.89 0.53 0.61 0.79 0.28 24
70.75 4.42 2.96 0.60 0.73 136.81 0.32 0.48 0.79 0.27 24
73.38 4.59 3.05 0.58 0.73 194.36 0.03 0.34 0.78 0.26 23
75.21 4.70 3.10 0.56 0.73 134.43 0.33 0.47 0.78 0.26 23
76.04 4.75 3.13 0.56 0.73 294.88 -0.47 0.19 0.78 0.26 23
77.04 4.82 3.16 0.56 0.73 442.32 -1.21 0.08 0.77 0.26 23
Project No.
20-108-03
Project Name
Gypsum Canyon
Figure C-1.1
Integrated SPT Method for Estimating
Subsurface Stratification & Liquefaction
Drill Hole DH-4 (GMU) - 975-yr EQ w/High GW
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CRR7.5
CRR
CRS
0 20406080
N-Value (bpf)
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Depth (ft)
Blowcount
(N1)60-CS
0 4 8 12 16 20
h (in)
Corrected Settlement
Uncorrected Settlement
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sr
'vo
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Clay/Silt
Sand
GWT
SPT Reduction
SPT REDUCTION AND NORMALIZATION
Project Name: Gypsum Canyon References:
Job Number: 20-108-03 Task: Profile of Unit Weights: 1) T. Leslie Youd & I.M. Idriss, 1997, "Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Explor. Dates: 5/16/2022 Depth (ft) Total Unit 2) T. Leslie Youd et al., Oct. 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Top Bottom Weight (pcf) 3) D. Pardel, April 1998, "Procedures to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," ASCE Geotechnical Journal.
Boring Number: DH-4 0.00 999.00 125 4) A. W. Skempton, 1986, "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing, and Overconsolidation," Geotechnique.
Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Bit Type: H.S.A. 999.00 999.00 5) Idriss & Boulanger, 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", EERI Monogram.
Hammer Type: Automatic Trip Efficiency: 0.88 999.00 999.00 6) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual-Design Acceleration Response Spectrum, January 2021.
SPT Sampler (Lined or Unlined): Unlined Bor. Dia.": 8.00 999.00 999.00 Stratification Inclusion 999.00 999.00 Needs Engineers Input Form The Layers
Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) EQ Mag. : 6.63 999.00 999.00 Input Parameter Encountered in the Boring Ground Surface: 0.00 407.00 PGA: 0.64 999.00 999.00 Pile Type: Square Frictional FS: 2 Existing Groundwater: 44.30 362.70 999.00 999.00 Pile Diameter (Circular, ft): NA Tip Resistant FS: 3 Design Groundwater: 14.00 393.00 999.00 999.00 Pile Width (Square, ft): Depth of Pile Top Relative to SPT (ft): 0 Factored Capacity Caltrans Vs Estimate 6
Sample Description/Classification %Fines PI Top Depth (ft) Bottom Depth (ft)
SPT
Blowcount
Mod-Cal
Blowcount
Measured
Blowcount
"SPT"
Distance (ft)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)
Contributory
Thickness
(ft)
Equivalent N
(bpf)
Corrected
N60 (bpf)
Effective
Stress (tsf) Cn (N1)60 (bpf)
Below
Design
GWL?
100 ft
aver(N)60
(bpf)
Ave(Seed &
Idriss+Sykora
& Stokoe)
Vs (ft/s)
di/Vsi Soil Type Geologic
Age ASF Vs (ft/s) di/Vsi Olson Cn
Deviation
of Cn (%)
Olson
(N1)60 (bpf)
K=0.7 +
0.015N Qsl (kips) flim (kips) Final Qsl
(tons)
Accumula
tive Qsl
(tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (kips)
qlim (kips) Final qb
(tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft) N Cu (ksf) Qsl (kips) Accumula
tive Qsl
(tsf)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tsf)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
Ultimate
Qsl (kN)
Ultimate
qb (kN)
Ultimate
Capacity
"SPT" MidDepth (ft)"SPT" MidElev. (ft)
Qsl (tons)
Tip
Capacity
qb (tons)
Total Pile
Capacity
(tons)
SM 10 5.00 6.42 76.00 38.0 0.92 5.96 8.2083333 41.5 62.93 0.37 1.64 103.1 FALSE 0.13 1269.23 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 510.89 0.02 1.33 -23.01 84 1.96 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0 0 0 5.96 401.04 41.5 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 401.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 10.00 11.50 29.00 14.5 1.00 11.00 5.0416667 14.5 29.35 0.69 1.21 35.4 FALSE 0.17 936.90 0.01 Sands Holocene 0.88 493.60 0.01 1.13 -7.00 33 1.20 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0 0 0 11.00 396.00 14.5 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 396.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 15.00 16.50 40.00 20.0 1.00 16.00 3.75 20.0 40 1.00 1.00 40.5 TRUE 0.09 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 579.33 0.01 1.00 0.18 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0 0 0 16.00 391.00 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 391.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 17.50 19.00 21.00 21.0 1.00 18.50 2.5 21.0 43 1.16 0.93 39.5 TRUE 0.06 1084.69 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 605.76 0.00 0.95 2.44 41 1.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0 0 0 18.50 388.50 21.0 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 388.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 20.00 21.50 27.00 13.5 1.00 21.00 2.5 13.5 27 1.31 0.87 23.9 TRUE 0.09 910.99 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 563.42 0.00 0.91 4.17 25 1.07 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0 0 0 21.00 386.00 13.5 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 386.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 22.50 24.00 24.00 24.0 1.00 23.50 2.5 24.0 49 1.47 0.83 40.1 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 659.99 0.00 0.87 5.51 42 1.34 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0 0 0 23.50 383.50 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 383.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 25.00 26.42 86.00 43.0 0.92 25.96 2.4583333 46.9 95 1.62 0.79 74.5 TRUE 0.03 1499.66 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 787.80 0.00 0.84 6.53 80 1.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0 0 0 25.96 381.04 46.9 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.96 381.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 27.50 29.00 29.00 29.0 1.00 28.50 2.5416667 29.0 59 1.78 0.75 44.0 TRUE 0.04 1234.16 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 720.62 0.00 0.81 7.35 47 1.41 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0 0 0 28.50 378.50 29.0 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.50 378.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SW 3 30.00 31.50 45.00 22.5 1.00 31.00 2.5 22.5 46 1.94 0.72 32.7 TRUE 0.05 1114.91 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 693.04 0.00 0.78 7.97 36 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0 0 0 31.00 376.00 22.5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 376.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 32.50 34.00 34.00 34.0 1.00 33.50 2.5 34.0 69 2.09 0.69 47.6 TRUE 0.04 1315.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.75 8.43 52 1.48 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0 0 0 33.50 373.50 34.0 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.50 373.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 35.00 36.50 48.00 24.0 1.00 36.00 2.5 24.0 49 2.25 0.67 32.4 TRUE 0.05 1144.00 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 775.79 0.00 0.73 8.75 35 1.23 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0 0 0 36.00 371.00 24.0 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 371.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 37.50 39.00 67.00 67.0 1.00 38.50 2.5 67.0 136 2.41 0.64 87.4 TRUE 0.02 1735.97 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 936.26 0.00 0.71 8.97 96 2.14 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0 0 0 38.50 368.50 67.0 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.50 368.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 40.00 41.50 53.00 26.5 1.00 41.00 2.5 26.5 54 2.56 0.62 33.5 TRUE 0.05 1190.29 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 767.41 0.00 0.69 9.09 37 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0 0 0 41.00 366.00 26.5 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 366.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 42.50 44.00 27.00 27.0 1.00 43.50 2.5 27.0 55 2.72 0.61 33.1 TRUE 0.05 1199.25 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 781.28 0.00 0.67 9.12 36 1.25 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0 0 0 43.50 363.50 27.0 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 363.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 10 45.00 46.50 20.00 10.0 1.00 46.00 2.5 10.0 20 2.82 0.60 12.0 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 627.07 0.00 0.65 9.10 13 0.90 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0 0 0 46.00 361.00 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 361.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 26 47.50 49.00 20.00 20.0 1.00 48.50 2.5 20.0 40 2.90 0.59 23.8 TRUE 0.06 1063.85 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 740.09 0.00 0.65 9.06 26 1.09 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 0 0 0 48.50 358.50 20.0 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.50 358.50 SM 10 50.00 51.50 59.00 29.5 1.00 51.00 2.5 29.5 60 2.98 0.58 34.6 TRUE 0.04 1242.67 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 814.27 0.00 0.64 9.01 38 1.27 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 0 0 0 51.00 356.00 29.5 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 356.00 SM 10 52.50 54.00 10.00 10.0 1.00 53.50 2.5 10.0 20 3.06 0.57 11.6 TRUE 0.12 810.35 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 638.7019 0.00 0.63 8.94 13 0.89 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 0 0 0 53.50 353.50 10.0 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.50 353.50 SM 10 55.00 56.50 15.00 7.5 1.00 56.00 2.5 7.5 15 3.13 0.56 8.6 TRUE 0.16 725.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 601.2944 0.00 0.62 8.86 9 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 0 0 0 56.00 351.00 7.5 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.00 351.00 SM 26 57.50 59.00 9.00 9.0 1.00 58.50 2.5 9.0 18 3.21 0.56 10.2 TRUE 0.14 777.93 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 630.6109 0.00 0.61 8.76 11 0.87 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 0 0 0 58.50 348.50 9.0 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.50 348.50 SM 26 60.00 61.50 36.00 18.0 1.00 61.00 2.5 18.0 36 3.29 0.55 20.1 TRUE 0.07 1020.32 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 743.7069 0.00 0.60 8.65 22 1.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 0 0 0 61.00 346.00 18.0 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 346.00 SC 49 62.50 64.00 8.00 8.0 1.00 63.50 2.5 8.0 16 3.37 0.54 8.8 TRUE 0.15 743.36 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 620.507 0.00 0.60 8.53 10 0.84 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 0 0 0 63.50 343.50 8.0 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.50 343.50 SM 26 65.00 66.50 14.00 7.0 1.00 66.00 2.5 7.0 14 3.45 0.54 7.6 TRUE 0.18 706.18 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 604.9251 0.00 0.59 8.39 8 0.82 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 0 0 0 66.00 341.00 7.0 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.00 341.00 SM 10 67.50 68.50 14.00 14.0 0.50 68.25 2.25 28.0 57 3.52 0.53 30.2 TRUE 0.04 1216.88 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 835.9784 0.00 0.58 8.26 33 1.19 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 0 0 0 68.25 338.75 28.0 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 338.75 SM 10 70.00 71.00 61.00 30.5 0.50 70.75 2.5 61.0 123 3.60 0.53 65.1 TRUE 0.02 1670.13 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1005.013 0.00 0.57 8.10 71 1.76 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 0 0 0 70.75 336.25 61.0 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.75 336.25 SM 10 72.50 73.75 94.00 94.0 0.75 73.38 2.625 125.3 254 3.68 0.52 132.3 TRUE 0.01 2253.44 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1192.223 0.00 0.57 7.92 144 2.85 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 0 0 0 73.38 333.63 125.3 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.38 333.63 SM 10 75.00 75.42 50.00 25.0 0.42 75.21 1.3333333 60.0 121 3.74 0.52 62.8 TRUE 0.01 1658.81 0.00 Sands Holocene 0.88 1010.004 0.00 0.56 7.78 68 1.72 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 0 0 0 75.21 331.79 60.0 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.21 331.79 GM 5 76.00 76.08 50.00 25.0 0.08 76.04 0.8333333 300.0 607 3.76 0.52 313.0 TRUE 0.00 3266.83 0.00 Gravels Holocene 0.88 1695.462 0.00 0.56 7.72 339 5.79 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 0 0 0 76.04 330.96 300.0 10.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.04 330.96 Silty Sandstone 26 77.00 77.08 50.00 50.0 0.08 77.04 0.5416667 600.0 1214 3.79 0.51 623.5 TRUE 0.00 4414.20 0.00 Bedrock Tertiary 1837.27 0.00 0.56 7.65 675 10.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96 0 0 0 77.04 329.96 600.0 21.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.04 329.96
22.916667 911 0.03 3893.35 0.01 1766.366 0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! N30 (bpf): VS30 (fps): VS30 (fps): #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
48.1 1309.2 785.0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 399.0 239.3 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! * Includes hammer effieciency and sampler and short rod corrections NOTE: Shaded cells are required for adequate calculations Assumed 1 meter of rod to be above ground.
Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For SAND/SILT Pile Design by Olson 1990 Method, For CLAY
Cyclic Resistance
Revised Per Cetin et al. (2009)
CYCLIC RESISTANCE (in terms of N): Depth Below to Apply (ft): 0.00 Residual Shear Strength Clay ALL Saturated/Liquefiable Layer Settlements Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Pradel, 1998) Unsaturated Layer Settlement (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) Sr/'vo Material SPT MidElev. (ft) SPT Mid-Depth (ft) SPT MidDepth (m) Equivalent N
(bpf)
Contributory
Thickness (ft) (N1)60 (bpf) Below Design
GWL? %Fines* PI (N1)60 cs (bpf)
Equivalent
(CRR)l cs
LIQUEF? LIQUEF FS LIQUEF FS per N-Value Ratio (N)160 + (NCorr)Settlement (QC1)CS Lower Bound
v
Lower
Bound h
(in)
Lower
Cumulative h
(in)
Upper Bound
v
Upper
Bound h
(in)
Upper
Cumulative h
(in)
'm (tsf) ave (tsf) Gmax (tsf) 15 NC
Layer
Settlement
(in)
Accumulative
Settlement (in) eff*(Geff/Gmax) eff v (%) Layer Settlement (in) Accumulative
Settlement (in)
LL Total
Settlement
(in)
UL Total
Settlement
(in)
Average v
DF Corrected v Layer
Settlement (in)
Corrected Total
Settlement (in)
' (deg)
No Void
Redistribution
With Void
Redistribution
Su/'vo
Sr or
Su/'vo
SM 401.04 5.96 1.82 41.45 8.21 103.1 FALSE 10 0 106 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 104.12 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.24 0.11 1015.96 1.64E-04 2.26E-05 1.72E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 1.10E-04 7.05 7.22 3.44E-05 0.90 3.09E-05 3.04E-03 0.62 56.00 1.48 1.48 1.48 SM 396.00 11.00 3.35 14.50 5.04 35.4 FALSE 10 0 37 0.80 Above Design GWT Above Design GWT Above Design GWT 36.40 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.45 0.20 969.97 4.12E-04 2.01E-04 1.53E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.10E-04 7.05 7.22 3.05E-04 0.81 2.49E-04 1.50E-02 0.62 46.12 1.04 1.04 1.04 SM 391.00 16.00 4.88 20.00 3.75 40.5 TRUE 10 0 42 0.80 NO 2.57 1.61 41.48 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.65 0.29 1222.82 4.33E-04 1.80E-04 1.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.55E-04 7.05 7.22 0.00E+00 0.73 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.60 47.14 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 388.50 18.50 5.64 21.00 2.50 39.5 TRUE 10 0 41 0.80 NO 2.40 1.50 40.53 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.75 0.34 1304.60 4.65E-04 1.99E-04 1.51E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 2.93E-04 7.05 7.22 0.00E+00 0.69 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.60 46.71 1.06 1.06 1.06 SM 386.00 21.00 6.40 13.50 2.50 23.9 TRUE 10 0 25 0.29 YES 0.81 0.87 24.85 126.34 0.99 0.30 7.05 1.47 0.44 7.22 0.85 0.38 1176.51 7.00E-04 5.40E-04 4.10E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.86E-04 7.05 7.22 1.23E-02 0.64 7.93E-03 2.38E-01 0.60 41.58 0.89 0.25 0.89 SM 383.50 23.50 7.16 24.00 2.50 40.1 TRUE 10 0 42 0.80 NO 2.04 1.36 41.08 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 0.95 0.42 1477.13 5.04E-04 2.13E-04 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 3.57E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.41 1.05 1.05 1.05 SM 381.04 25.96 7.91 46.91 2.46 74.5 TRUE 10 0 77 0.80 NO 1.84 2.30 75.54 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.05 0.46 1905.19 3.63E-04 7.38E-05 5.61E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.15E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.56 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.17 1.29 1.29 1.29 SM 378.50 28.50 8.69 29.00 2.54 44.0 TRUE 10 0 46 0.80 NO 1.79 1.36 44.98 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.16 0.50 1677.28 5.11E-04 1.93E-04 1.47E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.03E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.52 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 46.89 1.07 1.07 1.07 SW 376.00 31.00 9.45 22.50 2.50 32.7 TRUE 3 0 33 0.80 NO 1.76 0.96 32.72 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.26 0.54 1586.60 6.29E-04 3.49E-04 2.65E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.70E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.48 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.80 0.96 0.63 0.96 SM 373.50 33.50 10.21 34.00 2.50 47.6 TRUE 10 0 49 0.80 NO 1.65 1.36 48.56 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.36 0.57 1866.03 4.97E-04 1.71E-04 1.30E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 4.33E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.43 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 47.23 1.08 1.08 1.08 SM 371.00 36.00 10.97 24.00 2.50 32.4 TRUE 10 0 34 0.80 NO 1.67 0.95 33.38 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.46 0.60 1704.01 6.26E-04 3.38E-04 2.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.08E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.39 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.29 0.94 0.70 0.94 SM 368.50 38.50 11.73 67.00 2.50 87.4 TRUE 10 0 90 0.80 NO 1.41 2.12 88.42 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.56 0.63 2445.54 3.58E-04 6.01E-05 4.57E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.77E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 52.68 1.31 1.31 1.31 SM 366.00 41.00 12.50 26.50 2.50 33.5 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.61 0.93 34.51 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.67 0.65 1839.05 6.00E-04 3.12E-04 2.37E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.29E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.31 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 43.25 0.94 0.84 0.94 SM 363.50 43.50 13.26 27.00 2.50 33.1 TRUE 10 0 35 0.80 NO 1.59 0.91 34.14 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 6.78 1.77 0.68 1887.49 5.96E-04 3.14E-04 2.39E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.42E-04 6.76 6.78 0.00E+00 0.26 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.37 42.96 0.93 0.79 0.93 SM 361.00 46.00 14.02 10.00 2.50 12.0 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.32 0.38 13.05 69.04 3.13 0.94 6.76 3.13 0.94 6.78 1.83 0.70 1377.07 1.21E-03 2.02E-03 1.54E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.62E-04 6.76 6.78 3.13E-02 0.22 6.91E-03 2.07E-01 0.37 33.32 0.15 0.11 0.15 SM 358.50 48.50 14.78 20.00 2.50 23.8 TRUE 26 0 31 0.80 NO 1.60 0.80 25.85 133.43 0.00 0.00 5.82 0.00 0.00 5.84 1.89 0.72 1746.93 7.50E-04 5.51E-04 4.19E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 6.09E-04 5.82 5.84 0.00E+00 0.18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 39.55 0.83 0.28 0.83 SM 356.00 51.00 15.54 29.50 2.50 34.6 TRUE 10 0 36 0.80 NO 1.55 0.90 35.60 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 5.82 0.00 0.00 5.84 1.94 0.73 2003.78 6.00E-04 3.01E-04 2.29E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.37E-04 5.82 5.84 0.00E+00 0.14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.16 43.09 0.94 0.94 0.94 SM 353.50 53.50 16.31 10.00 2.50 11.6 TRUE 10 0 13 0.14 YES 0.31 0.36 12.58 66.88 3.21 0.96 5.82 3.21 0.96 5.84 1.99 0.75 1414.43 1.28E-03 2.23E-03 1.70E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.67E-04 5.82 5.84 3.21E-02 0.09 3.02E-03 9.07E-02 0.16 32.73 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 351.00 56.00 17.07 7.50 2.50 8.6 TRUE 10 0 10 0.10 YES 0.24 0.28 9.57 54.42 3.83 1.15 4.85 3.83 1.15 4.88 2.04 0.76 1297.27 1.65E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.42E-04 4.85 4.88 3.83E-02 0.05 1.98E-03 5.95E-02 0.07 30.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 SM 348.50 58.50 17.83 9.00 2.50 10.2 TRUE 26 0 16 0.17 YES 0.38 0.44 12.24 65.37 3.28 0.98 3.70 3.28 0.98 3.73 2.09 0.77 1389.14 1.40E-03 2.53E-03 1.92E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 7.90E-04 3.70 3.73 3.28E-02 0.01 3.08E-04 9.24E-03 0.01 31.44 0.13 0.11 0.13 SM 346.00 61.00 18.59 18.00 2.50 20.1 TRUE 26 0 27 0.32 YES 0.67 0.68 22.16 110.82 2.09 0.63 2.72 2.16 0.65 2.74 2.14 0.78 1760.30 8.34E-04 7.38E-04 5.61E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 6.25E-04 2.72 2.74 2.12E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 37.54 0.77 0.20 0.77 SC 343.50 63.50 19.35 8.00 2.50 8.8 TRUE 49 0 16 0.17 YES 0.39 0.43 12.75 67.66 3.18 0.95 2.10 3.18 0.95 2.10 2.19 0.79 1357.64 1.52E-03 2.61E-03 1.98E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.10E-04 2.10 2.10 3.18E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 30.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 SM 341.00 66.00 20.12 7.00 2.50 7.6 TRUE 26 0 13 0.14 YES 0.33 0.37 9.71 54.92 3.80 1.14 1.14 3.80 1.14 1.14 2.24 0.80 1309.14 1.68E-03 3.99E-03 3.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.00 8.39E-04 1.14 1.14 3.80E-02 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 28.81 0.10 0.09 0.10 SM 338.75 68.25 20.80 28.00 2.25 30.2 TRUE 10 0 32 0.80 NO 1.65 0.78 31.21 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.80 2082.61 6.19E-04 3.63E-04 2.76E-04 0.00E+00 0.00 5.26E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 41.22 0.88 0.51 0.88 SM 336.25 70.75 21.56 61.00 2.50 65.1 TRUE 10 0 67 0.80 NO 1.36 1.34 66.10 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.80 2712.72 4.07E-04 9.70E-05 7.37E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 4.01E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.60 1.13 1.13 1.13 SM 333.63 73.38 22.36 125.33 2.63 132.3 TRUE 10 0 136 0.80 NO 1.03 2.02 133.26 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.80 3466.53 2.90E-04 2.98E-05 2.26E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.12E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 55.21 1.44 1.44 1.44 SM 331.79 75.21 22.92 60.00 1.33 62.8 TRUE 10 0 65 0.80 NO 1.40 1.31 63.83 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.80 2732.59 3.99E-04 9.92E-05 7.54E-05 0.00E+00 0.00 3.93E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 48.13 1.12 1.12 1.12 GM 330.96 76.04 23.18 300.00 0.83 313.0 TRUE 5 0 313 0.80 YES 0.61 2.74 313.05 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.81 4658.51 2.01E-04 7.42E-06 5.64E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 2.31E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 62.54 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! Silty Sandstone 329.96 77.04 23.48 600.00 0.54 623.5 TRUE 26 0 704 0.80 YES 0.28 2.81 625.58 Over the Range 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.81 5872.08 1.55E-04 2.49E-06 1.89E-06 0.00E+00 0.00 1.84E-04 0.00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 67.63 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
22.92 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
*0 if unknown
CYCLIC STRESSES (in terms of N): EQ Mag. : 6.63
PGA: 0.64
Based on Design GWT
SPT Mid-Depth (ft)
Total Stress
@ Mid-Depth
(tsf)
Effective Stress @ MidDepth (tsf) rd Kmag Dr (%) f KHynes & Olsen, 99)
KBoulanger &
Harder, 97)
(CSR) EQUIV
(N1)60 cs
5.96 0.37 0.37 0.99 0.73 171.77 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.30 26
11.00 0.69 0.69 0.97 0.73 101.42 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.30 25
16.00 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.73 108.30 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.31 26
18.50 1.16 1.02 0.96 0.73 107.05 0.46 0.99 1.00 0.33 27
21.00 1.31 1.09 0.95 0.73 83.72 0.58 0.96 0.99 0.35 28
23.50 1.47 1.17 0.95 0.73 107.78 0.46 0.92 0.97 0.36 28
25.96 1.62 1.25 0.94 0.73 146.27 0.27 0.85 0.96 0.37 29
28.50 1.78 1.33 0.93 0.73 112.79 0.44 0.85 0.95 0.38 29
31.00 1.94 1.41 0.92 0.73 95.33 0.52 0.85 0.94 0.39 29
33.50 2.09 1.49 0.90 0.73 117.21 0.41 0.79 0.93 0.39 29
36.00 2.25 1.56 0.88 0.73 97.12 0.51 0.80 0.92 0.38 29
38.50 2.41 1.64 0.86 0.73 158.27 0.21 0.68 0.91 0.38 29
41.00 2.56 1.72 0.84 0.73 98.74 0.51 0.77 0.91 0.38 29
43.50 2.72 1.80 0.82 0.73 98.22 0.51 0.75 0.90 0.38 29
46.00 2.88 1.88 0.80 0.73 60.50 0.70 0.83 0.89 0.37 29
48.50 3.03 1.95 0.78 0.73 92.90 0.54 0.73 0.88 0.37 28
51.00 3.19 2.03 0.76 0.73 100.30 0.50 0.70 0.87 0.36 28
53.50 3.34 2.11 0.74 0.73 59.39 0.70 0.80 0.86 0.36 28
56.00 3.50 2.19 0.72 0.73 51.72 0.74 0.82 0.86 0.35 28
58.50 3.66 2.27 0.70 0.73 66.24 0.67 0.76 0.85 0.34 28
61.00 3.81 2.35 0.68 0.73 86.49 0.57 0.69 0.84 0.33 27
63.50 3.97 2.42 0.66 0.73 65.80 0.67 0.75 0.83 0.33 27
66.00 4.13 2.50 0.64 0.73 59.99 0.70 0.76 0.83 0.32 27
68.25 4.27 2.57 0.62 0.73 93.89 0.53 0.64 0.82 0.31 26
70.75 4.42 2.65 0.60 0.73 136.81 0.32 0.51 0.81 0.30 26
73.38 4.59 2.73 0.58 0.73 194.36 0.03 0.38 0.81 0.29 25
75.21 4.70 2.79 0.56 0.73 134.43 0.33 0.50 0.80 0.29 25
76.04 4.75 2.82 0.56 0.73 294.88 -0.47 0.22 0.80 0.29 25
77.04 4.82 2.85 0.56 0.73 442.32 -1.21 0.10 0.80 0.29 25
APPENDIX D
Slope Stability Analyses
APPENDIX D-1
Design Shear Strengths
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Strength ‐ Qafc
(Remolded)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.0025‐0.005
Remolded Samples
Geologic Unit: Qaf
Classification: ML‐CL, SC, CL
ϕ = 28°
c = 475 psf
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 1000200030004000500060007000 80009000 10000 11000 12000 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Peak Shear Strength ‐ Qafc
(Remolded)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.0025‐0.005
Remolded Samples
Geologic Unit: Qaf
Classification: ML‐CL, SC, CL
ϕ = 30°
c = 460 psf
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Strength ‐ Qal
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.01‐0.05
Undisturbed Samples
Geologic Unit: Qal
Classification: SM, SP, SM‐SC
ϕ = 32°
c = 200 psf
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Peak Shear Strength ‐ Qal
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.01‐0.05
Undisturbed Samples
Geologic Unit: Qal
Classification: SM, SP, SM‐SC
ϕ = 36°
c = 300 psf
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Strength ‐ Qls
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.001
Undisturbed Samples
Geologic Unit: Qls
Classification: ML
ϕ = 22°
c = 280 psf
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Peak Shear Strength ‐ Qls
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.001
Undisturbed Samples
Geologic Unit: Qls
Classification: ML
ϕ = 28°
c = 860 psf
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Ultimate Shear Strength ‐ Tvs
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.001‐0.01
Undistubed Samples
Geologic Unit: Tvs
Classification: SC, SP‐SM, SM, CL, ML
ϕ = 30°
c = 325 psf
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Peak Shear Strength - Tvs
(Undisturbed)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20-108-03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.001-0.01
Undistubed Samples
Geologic Unit: Tvs
Classification: SC, SP-SM, SM, CL, ML
ϕ = 38°
c = 850 psf
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal stress (psf)
Residual Shear Strength ‐ Tvs
(Undisturbed and Remolded)
CHJ Direct Shear Data
GMU Direct Shear Data
Leighton Direct Shear Data
Stark Residual Correlations (GMU, Leighton, CHJ)
Lower Bound Stark Correlation (phi=16deg.,c=0psf)
Best Fit Line (phi=16deg.,c=125psf)
Project: Gypsum Canyon
Project No.: 20‐108‐03
Strain Rate (in/min)=0.001‐0.0017
Undistubed and Remolded Samples
Geologic Unit: Tvs
Classification: CL (red beds)
Lower Bound Stark Correlation
ϕ = 16°
c = 0 psf
Best Fit Line through Direct Shear Data
ϕ = 16°
c = 125 psf
APPENDIX D-2
Slope Stability Analyses
1.8 Distance
-260 -60 140 340 540 740 940 1,140 1,340 1,540 1,740 1,940 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 1-1'
February 2023
Static Analysis, Run 10.4
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls
Landslide Plane
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Qafc
Keyway 60'x135' (DxW)
Afu
Qal
6 to 12 degrees out-of-slope
1.1 Distance
-260 -60 140 340 540 740 940 1,140 1,340 1,540 1,740 1,940 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 1-1'
February 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 10.4
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls
Landslide Plane
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Qafc
Keyway 60'x135' (DxW)
Afu
Qal
6 to 12 degrees out-of-slope
1.6 Distance
-260 -60 140 340 540 740 940 1,140 1,340 1,540 1,740 1,940 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 1-1'
March 2023
Static Analysis, Run 10.3
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls
Landslide Plane
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Qafc
Keyway 60'x135' (DxW)
Afu
Qal
6 to 12 degrees out-of-slope
1.1 Distance
-260 -60 140 340 540 740 940 1,140 1,340 1,540 1,740 1,940 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 1-1'
March 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 10.3
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls
Landslide Plane
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Qafc
Keyway 60'x135' (DxW)
Afu
Qal
6 to 12 degrees out-of-slope
1.8 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
February 2023
Static Analysis, Run 13.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.1 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
February 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 13.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.5 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
March 2023
Static Analysis, Run 13.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.1 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
March 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 13.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.5 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
February 2023
Static Analysis, Run 14.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.3 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
February 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 14.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.5 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
March 2023
Static Analysis, Run 14.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.1 Distance
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Elevation
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 3
March 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 14.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qls Qaf
Qafc
Landslide Plane
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Fault Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Landslide
Plane
Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Qls Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 16
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qal
Keyway 40'x120' (DxW) Fault
1.6 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 5
February 2023
Static Analysis, Run 1.3
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qaf
Qal Tvs Keyway 50'x120'
1.1 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 5
February 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 1.3
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qaf
Qal Tvs Keyway 50'x120'
1.6 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 5
February 2023
Static Analysis, Run 1.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qaf
Qal Tvs Keyway 50'x120'
1.1 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 5
March 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 1.2
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Block
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qafc
Qaf
Qal Tvs Keyway 50'x120'
2.9 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Static Analysis, Run 2.0
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
2.2 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 2.0
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.15
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
2.9 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Post-Earthquake Analysis, Run 2.0
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Liq 1
2.9 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
2.2 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.15
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
2.9 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Post-Earthquake Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Liq 1
2.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
1.5 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
2.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Post Earthquake Analysis, Run 2.0
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Tvs
Qal
Liq 1
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
2.1 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
1.5 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Pseudo-Static Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.18
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
2.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Elevation
200
300
400
500
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 12
April 2023
Post Earthquake Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Slip Surface Option: Block
Tvs
Qal
Liq 1
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 325 30 16 deg. 0 psf
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Qafc
Roadway
Problem Description: 2:1 Fill Slope 4 feet of saturated soil Parameters
Depth of Saturation (ft), Z = 4
Buoyant Unit Weight of Soil (pcf), b = 57.6
Total Unit Weight of Soil (pcf), t = 120
Slope Angle, = 26.6
Angle of Internal Friction, = 28
Cohesion (psf), c = 475
Force Tending To Cause Movement
FD = (1/2) Zt
sin 2 = 192.18 lb/ft
Force Tending To Resist Movement
FR = Zb
cos2
tan c
= 572.94 lb/ft
Factor of Safety, F.S.
F.S. = 2Zb
cos2
tan 2c
Zt
sin 2
= 2.98
Job Name: Gypsum Canyon
Proj. No: 20-108-03
Designed/Checked: AV
GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SURFICIAL SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS
FLOWLINES z
FR
FD
Problem Description: 2:1 Bedrock Slope 4 feet of saturated soil Parameters
Depth of Saturation (ft), Z = 4
Buoyant Unit Weight of Soil (pcf), b = 57.6
Total Unit Weight of Soil (pcf), t = 120
Slope Angle, = 26.6
Angle of Internal Friction, = 30
Cohesion (psf), c = 325
Force Tending To Cause Movement
FD = (1/2) Zt
sin 2 = 192.18 lb/ft
Force Tending To Resist Movement
FR = Zb
cos2
tan c
= 431.35 lb/ft
Factor of Safety, F.S.
F.S. = 2Zb
cos2
tan 2c
Zt
sin 2
= 2.24
Job Name: Gypsum Canyon
Proj. No: 20-108-03
Designed/Checked: AV
GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SURFICIAL SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS
FLOWLINES z
FR
FD
APPENDIX E
Lateral Spreading and
Seismic Deformation Analyses
APPENDIX E-1
ky Analyses for
Seismic Deformation Analyses
1.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
August 2022
Seismic Deformation Analysis, Run 2.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.6
Slip Surface Option: Block
975-year Earthquake Event
Deformation = 0.5 inches
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Phi-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
C-Anisotropic
Strength Fn.
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 250 23
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 36
Tvs Anisotropic Fn. 120 850 38 16 deg. 0 psf
Bridge
Bedding 12 to 24 degrees
out-of-slope
Qaf
Liq 1
1.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-03
Section 7-7'
February 2023
Deformation Analysis, Run 3.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.25
Slip Surface Option: Block
Proposed Roadway Adjacent to Bridge
5% in 50 years Deformation = 5 inches
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Mohr-Coulomb 120 325 30
Bridge
Qaf
Liq 1
1.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 7-7'
February 2023
Deformation Analysis, Run 4.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.23
Slip Surface Option: Block
Raise Groundwater 10 feet
5% in 50 years Deformation = 5.5 inches
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 475 28
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Mohr-Coulomb 120 325 30
Bridge
Qaf
Liq 1
1.0 Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Elevation
200
300
400
500
600
Project No. 20-108-04
Section 7-7'
February 2023
Deformation Analysis, Run 5.1
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.45
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Proposed Bridge
5% in 50 years Deformation = 1.25 inches
Tvs
Qal
Qafc
Keyway 15'x20' (DxW)
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Tau/Sigma
Ratio
Liq 1 SHANSEP 120 0.1
Qaf Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 20
Qafc Mohr-Coulomb 120 460 30
Qal Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 32
Tvs Mohr-Coulomb 120 325 30
Bridge
Qaf
Liq 1
APPENDIX E-2
Seismic Deformation Analyses
Project No. 20-108-03
Average Seismic Displacement
Section 7-7'
975-year EQ
Seismic Displacement (Bray and Macedo, 2019) = 2.40 cm or 0.94 inch 50% Probability of Exceedance (D2)
1cm = 0.393701 in.
Seismic Displacement (Rathje and Antonakos, 2011) = 0.00 cm 0.00 inch [kmax, k-velmax]
Average Displacement = 2.40 cm 0.47 inch
DATA FOR SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSES Typical Input Project:
INPUT: Slide h (ft): 23.7 RESULTS: Site Period, Ts (sec): 0.1813 Slide Vs (ft/sec): 523.0 1.5*Site Per. (sec): 0.2719
Depth to Rx (km): 0.01 EQ Mean Period, Tm (sec): 0.569
Ave. Vs(30) (m/s): 239.3 Ts/Tm: 0.32
Ave. Site Class: D Estimated PGV (cm/sec): 125.05
Mean Magnitude: 6.63 Duration (D5
‐D95) (sec): 16.3
Mean Dist. (km): 13.9 Sa(1.5Ts) Min Vs(30) 0.0000
ky: 0.600 Sa(1.5Ts) Ave Vs(30) 1.5722
5‐Percent Damped Spectra Sa(1.5Ts) Max Vs(30) 0.0000
Period Min. Vs(30) Ave. Vs(30) Max. Vs(30)
0.01 0.6400
0.1 1.0600
0.2 1.4500 Ts: 4h/Vs
0.3 1.6200 Tm: Rathje et al. (2004)
0.5 1.5700 PGV: Watson‐Lamprey and Abrahamson (2006)
1.0 1.2700 Duration: Bommer et al. (2009)
2.0 0.65000
3.0 0.41000
4.0 0.28000
5.0 0.20000
Slide Mass Area =
Lengh of Slide Mass =
Average Slide H (ft) =
20‐108‐03 Gypsum Canyon ‐ Section 7‐7'
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
012345
Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Min. Vs(30)
Ave. Vs(30)
Max. Vs(30)
1.5*Site Per. (sec):
Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) by Jonathan D. Bray and Jorge Macedo, UC Berkeley and Georgia Tech PulsesD100 (EQ4&5) Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, ASCE JGGE, 2019, 145(12), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002143 PulsesD50 (EQ6&7) Deterministic-Pseudoprobabilistic (EQ8OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3)
SEE NOTES BELOW FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE OF SPREADSHEET
Input Parameters
Case OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) * Select Ordinary or Pulse or Combined Equations Dependence on ky Yield Coefficient (ky) (a)
0.60 (a) Based on pseudostatic analysis ky P(D="0") D (cm) Dmedian (cm) D-84% (cm) D-16% (cm) Initial Fundamental Period (Ts) (b) 0.18 seconds (b) 1D: Ts=4H/Vs 2D: Ts=2.6H/Vs 0.020 0.000 166.8 166.8 341.3 81.5 Degraded Period (1.3Ts) 0.24 seconds (c) Input the Spectral Acceleration (g) at 0.05 0.000 92.7 92.7 189.7 45.3 Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.6 the base of the sliding mass assuming 0.07 0.000 67.4 67.4 138.0 33.0 Spectral Acceleration ( Sa(1.3Ts) ) (c)
1.57 g there is no material above it. 0.1 0.000 45.3 45.3 92.7 22.1 PGV Information PGV is not used in this case, enter 1 below (d) PGV (cm/s) is required for near‐fault pulse 0.15 0.001 26.7 26.7 54.7 13.0 Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) (d) 1.0 cm/s motions & for EQ9 when PGV > 115 cm/s; 0.2 0.008 17.5 17.4 35.7 8.4 Percentile (if Pulse ground Motion) (e)
No Pulse it is estimated at the base of sliding 0.3 0.112 9.0 8.0 17.4 2.8 Additional Input Parameters mass assuming no material above it. 0.4 0.371 5.3 2.96 8.61 <0.5 Probability of Exceedance #1 (P1) 84 % (e) If Pulse motion the percentile is given Probability of Exceedance #2 (P2) 50 % as either D100 or D50. D100 should be Probability of Exceedance #3 (P3) 16 % used for fault-normal direction Displacement Threshold (d_threshold) 10 cm
Intermediate Calculated Parameters
Non-Zero Seismic Displacement Est (D) 2.4 cm eq. (3) or (5) or (7) or (9) Standard Deviation of Non-Zero Seismic D 0.72
Results
Probability of Negligible Displ. (P(D=0)) 0.00 eq. (2) or (4) or (6) or (8) D1 1.2 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D2 2.4 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D3 4.9 cm calc. using eq. (11)
P(D>d_threshold) 0.02 eq. (11)
Notes
1. Values highlighted in blue are input parameters, and results are presented in the table with the yellow heading.
2. Probability of Exceedance is the desired probability of exceeding a particular displacement value.
3. Displacements D1, D2, and D3 correspond to P1, P2, and P3, respectively. (e.g., the probability of exceeding displacement D1 is P1 and it is referred to as the (100% - P1) percentile value.
4. The 16%, 50%, and 84% percentile displacement values at selected ky values are shown to the right.
5. Calculated seismic displacements are due to deviatoric deformation only (add in volumetrically induced movement).
6. ky may range between 0.01 and 0.8, Ts between 0 and 2 s, Sa between 0.002 and 4.5 g, Mw between 5.5 and 8.2
7. Rigid slope is assumed for Ts < 0.05 s, i.e. Ts = 0.0. If Ts is just less than 0.05 s, set Ts = 0.050 s
8. When a value for D is not calculated, D is < 0.5 cm
9. ky should be estimated with a slope stability program; the simplified equations shown below provide approximate values.
10. Examples of how Ts is estimated are shown below.
11. Vs = weighted avg. shear wave velocity for the sliding mass, e.g., for 2 layers, Vs = [(h1)(Vs1) + (h2)(Vs2)]/(h1 + h2) Figures from Bray, J.D. (2007) “Chapter 14: Simplified Seismic Slope Displacement Procedures,” Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - Invited Lectures, in Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering Series, Vol. 6, Pitilakis, Kyriazis D., Ed., Springer, Vol. 6, pp. 327-353.
0.1 1
10 100
1000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Median Displacement (cm)
Yield Coefficient
Median
84% Percentile
16% Percentile
Sliding displacement models from Rathje and Antonakos (2011) Prediction of dynamic response and sliding displacement of a sliding mass during earthquake shaking Inputs
PGA (g) 0.64 median ‐1σ +1σ
PGV (cm/s) 125.05 kmax (g) 0.509 0.396 0.653 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ ky (g) 0.6 k‐velmax (cm/s) 133.88 104.27 171.91 [kmax, M] ‐13.96 1.074 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tm (s) 0.569054 [kmax, k‐velmax] ‐13.26 0.735 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ts
(s) 0.181262
M 6.63 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ
Ts/Tm 0.318532 [kmax, M] ‐13.96 1.074 0.00 0.00 0.00
[kmax, k‐velmax] ‐13.26 0.735 0.00 0.00 0.00
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
PGV Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s)
ky Critical or Yield Acceleration (g)
Tm Mean Period of an Earthquake Motion (s)
Ts Site Period or the Natural Period of a Sliding Mass (s). For rigid sliding set Ts = 0 s M Earthquake Magnitude
kmax maximum seismic coefficient (g)
k‐velmax the maximum velocity of the seismic coefficient‐time history (cm/s) D Predicted Sliding Displacment (cm)
Reference: Rathje, E.M. and Antonakos, G. 2011. “A Unified Model for Predicting Earthquake‐Induced Sliding Displacements of Rigid and Flexible Slopes,” Engineering Geology, 122, 51‐60, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.12.004.
Dynamic Response Displacement Given Median Dynamic Response Displacement
Model
Sliding Displacements, D (cm)
Sliding Displacements, D (in)
Project No. 20-108-03
Average Seismic Displacement
Section 7-7'
975-year EQ
Deep Failure Surface of Adjacent Roadway to Bridge
Seismic Displacement (Bray and Macedo, 2019) = 23.25 cm or 9.15 inch 50% Probability of Exceedance (D2)
1cm = 0.393701 in.
Seismic Displacement (Rathje and Antonakos, 2011) = 0.12 cm 0.05 inch [kmax, k-velmax]
Average Displacement = 19.95 cm 4.60 inch
DATA FOR SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSES Typical Input Project:
INPUT: Slide h (ft): 70.0 RESULTS: Site Period, Ts (sec): 0.5354 Slide Vs (ft/sec): 523.0 1.5*Site Per. (sec): 0.8031
Depth to Rx (km): 0.01 EQ Mean Period, Tm (sec): 0.569
Ave. Vs(30) (m/s): 239.3 Ts/Tm: 0.94
Ave. Site Class: D Estimated PGV (cm/sec): 125.05
Mean Magnitude: 6.63 Duration (D5
‐D95) (sec): 16.3
Mean Dist. (km): 13.9 Sa(1.5Ts) Min Vs(30) 0.0000
ky: 0.250 Sa(1.5Ts) Ave Vs(30) 1.3882
5‐Percent Damped Spectra Sa(1.5Ts) Max Vs(30) 0.0000
Period Min. Vs(30) Ave. Vs(30) Max. Vs(30)
0.01 0.6400
0.1 1.0600
0.2 1.4500 Ts: 4h/Vs
0.3 1.6200 Tm: Rathje et al. (2004)
0.5 1.5700 PGV: Watson‐Lamprey and Abrahamson (2006)
1.0 1.2700 Duration: Bommer et al. (2009)
2.0 0.65000
3.0 0.41000
4.0 0.28000
5.0 0.20000
Slide Mass Area = 23059
Lengh of Slide Mass = 453
Average Slide H (ft) = 50.90
20‐108‐03 Gypsum Canyon ‐ Section 7‐7'
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
012345
Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Min. Vs(30)
Ave. Vs(30)
Max. Vs(30)
1.5*Site Per. (sec):
Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) by Jonathan D. Bray and Jorge Macedo, UC Berkeley and Georgia Tech PulsesD100 (EQ4&5) Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, ASCE JGGE, 2019, 145(12), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002143 PulsesD50 (EQ6&7) Deterministic-Pseudoprobabilistic (EQ8OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3)
SEE NOTES BELOW FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE OF SPREADSHEET
Input Parameters
Case OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) * Select Ordinary or Pulse or Combined Equations Dependence on ky Yield Coefficient (ky) (a)
0.25 (a) Based on pseudostatic analysis ky P(D="0") D (cm) Dmedian (cm) D-84% (cm) D-16% (cm) Initial Fundamental Period (Ts) (b) 0.54 seconds (b) 1D: Ts=4H/Vs 2D: Ts=2.6H/Vs 0.020 0.000 352.4 352.4 721.1 172.2 Degraded Period (1.3Ts) 0.70 seconds (c) Input the Spectral Acceleration (g) at 0.05 0.000 188.4 188.4 385.4 92.0 Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.6 the base of the sliding mass assuming 0.07 0.000 135.0 135.0 276.3 66.0 Spectral Acceleration ( Sa(1.3Ts) ) (c)
1.39 g there is no material above it. 0.1 0.000 89.3 89.3 182.8 43.7 PGV Information PGV is not used in this case, enter 1 below (d) PGV (cm/s) is required for near‐fault pulse 0.15 0.001 51.8 51.8 105.9 25.3 Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) (d) 1.0 cm/s motions & for EQ9 when PGV > 115 cm/s; 0.2 0.008 33.5 33.3 68.3 16.1 Percentile (if Pulse ground Motion) (e)
No Pulse it is estimated at the base of sliding 0.3 0.112 16.9 15.1 32.7 5.3 Additional Input Parameters mass assuming no material above it. 0.4 0.371 9.9 5.49 16.00 <0.5 Probability of Exceedance #1 (P1) 84 % (e) If Pulse motion the percentile is given Probability of Exceedance #2 (P2) 50 % as either D100 or D50. D100 should be Probability of Exceedance #3 (P3) 16 % used for fault-normal direction Displacement Threshold (d_threshold) 10 cm
Intermediate Calculated Parameters
Non-Zero Seismic Displacement Est (D) 23.2 cm eq. (3) or (5) or (7) or (9) Standard Deviation of Non-Zero Seismic D 0.72
Results
Probability of Negligible Displ. (P(D=0)) 0.00 eq. (2) or (4) or (6) or (8) D1 11.4 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D2 23.2 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D3 47.6 cm calc. using eq. (11)
P(D>d_threshold) 0.88 eq. (11)
Notes
1. Values highlighted in blue are input parameters, and results are presented in the table with the yellow heading.
2. Probability of Exceedance is the desired probability of exceeding a particular displacement value.
3. Displacements D1, D2, and D3 correspond to P1, P2, and P3, respectively. (e.g., the probability of exceeding displacement D1 is P1 and it is referred to as the (100% - P1) percentile value.
4. The 16%, 50%, and 84% percentile displacement values at selected ky values are shown to the right.
5. Calculated seismic displacements are due to deviatoric deformation only (add in volumetrically induced movement).
6. ky may range between 0.01 and 0.8, Ts between 0 and 2 s, Sa between 0.002 and 4.5 g, Mw between 5.5 and 8.2
7. Rigid slope is assumed for Ts < 0.05 s, i.e. Ts = 0.0. If Ts is just less than 0.05 s, set Ts = 0.050 s
8. When a value for D is not calculated, D is < 0.5 cm
9. ky should be estimated with a slope stability program; the simplified equations shown below provide approximate values.
10. Examples of how Ts is estimated are shown below.
11. Vs = weighted avg. shear wave velocity for the sliding mass, e.g., for 2 layers, Vs = [(h1)(Vs1) + (h2)(Vs2)]/(h1 + h2) Figures from Bray, J.D. (2007) “Chapter 14: Simplified Seismic Slope Displacement Procedures,” Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - Invited Lectures, in Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering Series, Vol. 6, Pitilakis, Kyriazis D., Ed., Springer, Vol. 6, pp. 327-353.
0.1 1
10 100
1000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Median Displacement (cm)
Yield Coefficient
Median
84% Percentile
16% Percentile
Sliding displacement models from Rathje and Antonakos (2011) Prediction of dynamic response and sliding displacement of a sliding mass during earthquake shaking Inputs
PGA (g) 0.64 median ‐1σ +1σ
PGV (cm/s) 125.05 kmax (g) 0.266 0.207 0.341 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ ky (g) 0.25 k‐velmax (cm/s) 112.14 87.33 143.99 [kmax, M] ‐3.22 0.997 0.04 0.01 0.11 Tm (s) 0.569054 [kmax, k‐velmax] ‐2.08 0.667 0.12 0.06 0.24 Ts
(s) 0.535373
M 6.63 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ
Ts/Tm 0.940812 [kmax, M] ‐3.22 0.997 0.02 0.01 0.04
[kmax, k‐velmax] ‐2.08 0.667 0.05 0.03 0.10
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
PGV Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s)
ky Critical or Yield Acceleration (g)
Tm Mean Period of an Earthquake Motion (s)
Ts Site Period or the Natural Period of a Sliding Mass (s). For rigid sliding set Ts = 0 s M Earthquake Magnitude
kmax maximum seismic coefficient (g)
k‐velmax the maximum velocity of the seismic coefficient‐time history (cm/s) D Predicted Sliding Displacment (cm)
Reference: Rathje, E.M. and Antonakos, G. 2011. “A Unified Model for Predicting Earthquake‐Induced Sliding Displacements of Rigid and Flexible Slopes,” Engineering Geology, 122, 51‐60, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.12.004.
Dynamic Response Displacement Given Median Dynamic Response Displacement
Model
Sliding Displacements, D (cm)
Sliding Displacements, D (in)
Project No. 20-108-03
Average Seismic Displacement
Section 7-7'
975-year EQ
Raise Groundwater 10-ft
Seismic Displacement (Bray and Macedo, 2019) = 26.72 cm or 10.52 inch 50% Probability of Exceedance (D2)
1cm = 0.393701 in.
Seismic Displacement (Rathje and Antonakos, 2011) = 0.69 cm 0.27 inch [kmax, k-velmax]
Average Displacement = 23.14 cm 5.40 inch
DATA FOR SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSES Typical Input Project:
INPUT: Slide h (ft): 70.0 RESULTS: Site Period, Ts (sec): 0.5354 Slide Vs (ft/sec): 523.0 1.5*Site Per. (sec): 0.8031
Depth to Rx (km): 0.01 EQ Mean Period, Tm (sec): 0.569
Ave. Vs(30) (m/s): 239.3 Ts/Tm: 0.94
Ave. Site Class: D Estimated PGV (cm/sec): 125.05
Mean Magnitude: 6.63 Duration (D5
‐D95) (sec): 16.3
Mean Dist. (km): 13.9 Sa(1.5Ts) Min Vs(30) 0.0000
ky: 0.230 Sa(1.5Ts) Ave Vs(30) 1.3882
5‐Percent Damped Spectra Sa(1.5Ts) Max Vs(30) 0.0000
Period Min. Vs(30) Ave. Vs(30) Max. Vs(30)
0.01 0.6400
0.1 1.0600
0.2 1.4500 Ts: 4h/Vs
0.3 1.6200 Tm: Rathje et al. (2004)
0.5 1.5700 PGV: Watson‐Lamprey and Abrahamson (2006)
1.0 1.2700 Duration: Bommer et al. (2009)
2.0 0.65000
3.0 0.41000
4.0 0.28000
5.0 0.20000
Slide Mass Area = 23059
Lengh of Slide Mass = 453
Average Slide H (ft) = 50.90
20‐108‐03 Gypsum Canyon ‐ Section 7‐7'
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
012345
Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Min. Vs(30)
Ave. Vs(30)
Max. Vs(30)
1.5*Site Per. (sec):
Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) by Jonathan D. Bray and Jorge Macedo, UC Berkeley and Georgia Tech PulsesD100 (EQ4&5) Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, ASCE JGGE, 2019, 145(12), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002143 PulsesD50 (EQ6&7) Deterministic-Pseudoprobabilistic (EQ8OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3)
SEE NOTES BELOW FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE OF SPREADSHEET
Input Parameters
Case OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) * Select Ordinary or Pulse or Combined Equations Dependence on ky Yield Coefficient (ky) (a)
0.23 (a) Based on pseudostatic analysis ky P(D="0") D (cm) Dmedian (cm) D-84% (cm) D-16% (cm) Initial Fundamental Period (Ts) (b) 0.54 seconds (b) 1D: Ts=4H/Vs 2D: Ts=2.6H/Vs 0.020 0.000 352.4 352.4 721.1 172.2 Degraded Period (1.3Ts) 0.70 seconds (c) Input the Spectral Acceleration (g) at 0.05 0.000 188.4 188.4 385.4 92.0 Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.6 the base of the sliding mass assuming 0.07 0.000 135.0 135.0 276.3 66.0 Spectral Acceleration ( Sa(1.3Ts) ) (c)
1.39 g there is no material above it. 0.1 0.000 89.3 89.3 182.8 43.7 PGV Information PGV is not used in this case, enter 1 below (d) PGV (cm/s) is required for near‐fault pulse 0.15 0.001 51.8 51.8 105.9 25.3 Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) (d) 1.0 cm/s motions & for EQ9 when PGV > 115 cm/s; 0.2 0.008 33.5 33.3 68.3 16.1 Percentile (if Pulse ground Motion) (e)
No Pulse it is estimated at the base of sliding 0.3 0.112 16.9 15.1 32.7 5.3 Additional Input Parameters mass assuming no material above it. 0.4 0.371 9.9 5.49 16.00 <0.5 Probability of Exceedance #1 (P1) 84 % (e) If Pulse motion the percentile is given Probability of Exceedance #2 (P2) 50 % as either D100 or D50. D100 should be Probability of Exceedance #3 (P3) 16 % used for fault-normal direction Displacement Threshold (d_threshold) 10 cm
Intermediate Calculated Parameters
Non-Zero Seismic Displacement Est (D) 26.7 cm eq. (3) or (5) or (7) or (9) Standard Deviation of Non-Zero Seismic D 0.72
Results
Probability of Negligible Displ. (P(D=0)) 0.00 eq. (2) or (4) or (6) or (8) D1 13.1 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D2 26.7 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D3 54.7 cm calc. using eq. (11)
P(D>d_threshold) 0.91 eq. (11)
Notes
1. Values highlighted in blue are input parameters, and results are presented in the table with the yellow heading.
2. Probability of Exceedance is the desired probability of exceeding a particular displacement value.
3. Displacements D1, D2, and D3 correspond to P1, P2, and P3, respectively. (e.g., the probability of exceeding displacement D1 is P1 and it is referred to as the (100% - P1) percentile value.
4. The 16%, 50%, and 84% percentile displacement values at selected ky values are shown to the right.
5. Calculated seismic displacements are due to deviatoric deformation only (add in volumetrically induced movement).
6. ky may range between 0.01 and 0.8, Ts between 0 and 2 s, Sa between 0.002 and 4.5 g, Mw between 5.5 and 8.2
7. Rigid slope is assumed for Ts < 0.05 s, i.e. Ts = 0.0. If Ts is just less than 0.05 s, set Ts = 0.050 s
8. When a value for D is not calculated, D is < 0.5 cm
9. ky should be estimated with a slope stability program; the simplified equations shown below provide approximate values.
10. Examples of how Ts is estimated are shown below.
11. Vs = weighted avg. shear wave velocity for the sliding mass, e.g., for 2 layers, Vs = [(h1)(Vs1) + (h2)(Vs2)]/(h1 + h2) Figures from Bray, J.D. (2007) “Chapter 14: Simplified Seismic Slope Displacement Procedures,” Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - Invited Lectures, in Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering Series, Vol. 6, Pitilakis, Kyriazis D., Ed., Springer, Vol. 6, pp. 327-353.
0.1 1
10 100
1000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Median Displacement (cm)
Yield Coefficient
Median
84% Percentile
16% Percentile
Sliding displacement models from Rathje and Antonakos (2011) Prediction of dynamic response and sliding displacement of a sliding mass during earthquake shaking Inputs
PGA (g) 0.64 median ‐1σ +1σ
PGV (cm/s) 125.05 kmax (g) 0.266 0.207 0.341 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ ky (g) 0.23 k‐velmax (cm/s) 112.14 87.33 143.99 [kmax, M] ‐1.55 0.973 0.21 0.08 0.56 Tm (s) 0.569054 [kmax, k‐velmax] ‐0.37 0.646 0.69 0.36 1.32 Ts
(s) 0.535373
M 6.63 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ
Ts/Tm 0.940812 [kmax, M] ‐1.55 0.973 0.08 0.03 0.22
[kmax, k‐velmax] ‐0.37 0.646 0.27 0.14 0.52
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
PGV Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s)
ky Critical or Yield Acceleration (g)
Tm Mean Period of an Earthquake Motion (s)
Ts Site Period or the Natural Period of a Sliding Mass (s). For rigid sliding set Ts = 0 s M Earthquake Magnitude
kmax maximum seismic coefficient (g)
k‐velmax the maximum velocity of the seismic coefficient‐time history (cm/s) D Predicted Sliding Displacment (cm)
Reference: Rathje, E.M. and Antonakos, G. 2011. “A Unified Model for Predicting Earthquake‐Induced Sliding Displacements of Rigid and Flexible Slopes,” Engineering Geology, 122, 51‐60, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.12.004.
Dynamic Response Displacement Given Median Dynamic Response Displacement
Model
Sliding Displacements, D (cm)
Sliding Displacements, D (in)
Project No. 20-108-03
Average Seismic Displacement
Section 7-7'
975-year EQ
Deep Failure Surface Near Proposed Bridge
Seismic Displacement (Bray and Macedo, 2019) = 6.20 cm or 2.44 inch 50% Probability of Exceedance (D2)
1cm = 0.393701 in.
Seismic Displacement (Rathje and Antonakos, 2011) = 0.00 cm 0.00 inch [kmax, k-velmax]
Average Displacement = 5.89 cm 1.22 inch
DATA FOR SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSES Typical Input Project:
INPUT: Slide h (ft): 43.0 RESULTS: Site Period, Ts (sec): 0.3139 Slide Vs (ft/sec): 548.0 1.5*Site Per. (sec): 0.4708
Depth to Rx (km): 0.01 EQ Mean Period, Tm (sec): 0.569
Ave. Vs(30) (m/s): 239.3 Ts/Tm: 0.55
Ave. Site Class: D Estimated PGV (cm/sec): 125.05
Mean Magnitude: 6.63 Duration (D5
‐D95) (sec): 16.3
Mean Dist. (km): 13.9 Sa(1.5Ts) Min Vs(30) 0.0000
ky: 0.450 Sa(1.5Ts) Ave Vs(30) 1.5773
5‐Percent Damped Spectra Sa(1.5Ts) Max Vs(30) 0.0000
Period Min. Vs(30) Ave. Vs(30) Max. Vs(30)
0.01 0.6400
0.1 1.0600
0.2 1.4500 Ts: 4h/Vs
0.3 1.6200 Tm: Rathje et al. (2004)
0.5 1.5700 PGV: Watson‐Lamprey and Abrahamson (2006)
1.0 1.2700 Duration: Bommer et al. (2009)
2.0 0.65000
3.0 0.41000
4.0 0.28000
5.0 0.20000
Slide Mass Area = 11853
Lengh of Slide Mass = 280
Average Slide H (ft) = 42.33
20‐108‐03 Gypsum Canyon ‐ Section 7‐7'
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
012345
Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Min. Vs(30)
Ave. Vs(30)
Max. Vs(30)
1.5*Site Per. (sec):
Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) by Jonathan D. Bray and Jorge Macedo, UC Berkeley and Georgia Tech PulsesD100 (EQ4&5) Procedure for Estimating Shear-Induced Seismic Slope Displacement for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, ASCE JGGE, 2019, 145(12), doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002143 PulsesD50 (EQ6&7) Deterministic-Pseudoprobabilistic (EQ8OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3)
SEE NOTES BELOW FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE OF SPREADSHEET
Input Parameters
Case OrdinaryGM (EQ2&3) * Select Ordinary or Pulse or Combined Equations Dependence on ky Yield Coefficient (ky) (a)
0.45 (a) Based on pseudostatic analysis ky P(D="0") D (cm) Dmedian (cm) D-84% (cm) D-16% (cm) Initial Fundamental Period (Ts) (b) 0.31 seconds (b) 1D: Ts=4H/Vs 2D: Ts=2.6H/Vs 0.020 0.000 241.3 241.3 493.8 117.9 Degraded Period (1.3Ts) 0.41 seconds (c) Input the Spectral Acceleration (g) at 0.05 0.000 134.3 134.3 274.8 65.6 Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.6 the base of the sliding mass assuming 0.07 0.000 97.7 97.7 199.9 47.7 Spectral Acceleration ( Sa(1.3Ts) ) (c)
1.58 g there is no material above it. 0.1 0.000 65.6 65.6 134.3 32.1 PGV Information PGV is not used in this case, enter 1 below (d) PGV (cm/s) is required for near‐fault pulse 0.15 0.001 38.7 38.7 79.3 18.9 Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) (d) 1.0 cm/s motions & for EQ9 when PGV > 115 cm/s; 0.2 0.008 25.4 25.2 51.8 12.2 Percentile (if Pulse ground Motion) (e)
No Pulse it is estimated at the base of sliding 0.3 0.112 13.1 11.6 25.2 4.1 Additional Input Parameters mass assuming no material above it. 0.4 0.371 7.8 4.29 12.49 <0.5 Probability of Exceedance #1 (P1) 84 % (e) If Pulse motion the percentile is given Probability of Exceedance #2 (P2) 50 % as either D100 or D50. D100 should be Probability of Exceedance #3 (P3) 16 % used for fault-normal direction Displacement Threshold (d_threshold) 10 cm
Intermediate Calculated Parameters
Non-Zero Seismic Displacement Est (D) 6.2 cm eq. (3) or (5) or (7) or (9) Standard Deviation of Non-Zero Seismic D 0.72
Results
Probability of Negligible Displ. (P(D=0)) 0.00 eq. (2) or (4) or (6) or (8) D1 3.0 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D2 6.2 cm calc. using eq. (11)
D3 12.7 cm calc. using eq. (11)
P(D>d_threshold) 0.25 eq. (11)
Notes
1. Values highlighted in blue are input parameters, and results are presented in the table with the yellow heading.
2. Probability of Exceedance is the desired probability of exceeding a particular displacement value.
3. Displacements D1, D2, and D3 correspond to P1, P2, and P3, respectively. (e.g., the probability of exceeding displacement D1 is P1 and it is referred to as the (100% - P1) percentile value.
4. The 16%, 50%, and 84% percentile displacement values at selected ky values are shown to the right.
5. Calculated seismic displacements are due to deviatoric deformation only (add in volumetrically induced movement).
6. ky may range between 0.01 and 0.8, Ts between 0 and 2 s, Sa between 0.002 and 4.5 g, Mw between 5.5 and 8.2
7. Rigid slope is assumed for Ts < 0.05 s, i.e. Ts = 0.0. If Ts is just less than 0.05 s, set Ts = 0.050 s
8. When a value for D is not calculated, D is < 0.5 cm
9. ky should be estimated with a slope stability program; the simplified equations shown below provide approximate values.
10. Examples of how Ts is estimated are shown below.
11. Vs = weighted avg. shear wave velocity for the sliding mass, e.g., for 2 layers, Vs = [(h1)(Vs1) + (h2)(Vs2)]/(h1 + h2) Figures from Bray, J.D. (2007) “Chapter 14: Simplified Seismic Slope Displacement Procedures,” Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - Invited Lectures, in Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering Series, Vol. 6, Pitilakis, Kyriazis D., Ed., Springer, Vol. 6, pp. 327-353.
0.1 1
10 100
1000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Median Displacement (cm)
Yield Coefficient
Median
84% Percentile
16% Percentile
Sliding displacement models from Rathje and Antonakos (2011) Prediction of dynamic response and sliding displacement of a sliding mass during earthquake shaking Inputs
PGA (g) 0.64 median ‐1σ +1σ
PGV (cm/s) 125.05 kmax (g) 0.386 0.300 0.495 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ ky (g) 0.45 k‐velmax (cm/s) 129.78 101.08 166.65 [kmax, M] ‐12.95 1.070 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tm (s) 0.569054 [kmax, k‐velmax] ‐12.12 0.731 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ts
(s) 0.313869
M 6.63 µlnD σlnD median ‐1σ +1σ
Ts/Tm 0.551562 [kmax, M] ‐12.95 1.070 0.00 0.00 0.00
[kmax, k‐velmax] ‐12.12 0.731 0.00 0.00 0.00
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
PGV Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s)
ky Critical or Yield Acceleration (g)
Tm Mean Period of an Earthquake Motion (s)
Ts Site Period or the Natural Period of a Sliding Mass (s). For rigid sliding set Ts = 0 s M Earthquake Magnitude
kmax maximum seismic coefficient (g)
k‐velmax the maximum velocity of the seismic coefficient‐time history (cm/s) D Predicted Sliding Displacment (cm)
Reference: Rathje, E.M. and Antonakos, G. 2011. “A Unified Model for Predicting Earthquake‐Induced Sliding Displacements of Rigid and Flexible Slopes,” Engineering Geology, 122, 51‐60, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.12.004.
Dynamic Response Displacement Given Median Dynamic Response Displacement
Model
Sliding Displacements, D (cm)
Sliding Displacements, D (in)
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
For
Public & Proposed Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
PROJECT LOCATION
APNS: 514-012-35
Anaheim, CA
PREPARED FOR:
Orange County Cemetery District
25751 Trabuco Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
949-951-9102
PREPARED BY:
2603 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact:
Carl F. Taylor, RCE 30924
phone: (949) 988-5825
email: [email protected]
12/13/2023
Carl F. Taylor, P.E. Date
PREPARED: December 13, 2023
1/12/2024, 2:10:32 PM
ANAH-TECH2022-01448
Victor Aguirre
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
2 of 14
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Purpose & Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 4
5.0 Proposed Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4
5.1 On-site Drainage Improvements .................................................................................................. 4
6.0 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 6
7.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Technical Appendices
Appendix A Maps
A-1: Vicinity Map
A-2: Existing Hydrology Map
A-3: Proposed Hydrology Map
Appendix B Hydrology Parameters
B-1: NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Statistics
B-2: NRCS Soil Data Survey and Orange County Hydrologic Group Soils B-3: Image of Pre-Development
B-4: Geotechnical Investigations Report
Appendix C Hydrologic Analyses
C-1: Existing AES Hydrologic Analysis (2-, 10-, 25-, 100-yr) C-2: Proposed AES Hydrologic Analysis (2-, 10-, 25-, 100-yr) C-3: Hydrographs and Flood Routing Analysis (2-, 10-, 25-, 100-yr) Appendix D Hydraulic Analyses
D-1: Saint Anthony Falls Energy Dissipator
D-2: Flow Splitter
D-3: Trapezoidal Channel – Onsite Flow
Appendix E Water Quality Best Management Practice Devices E-1: Dry Extended Detention Basin
E-2: Modular Wetland Systems from Contech (or Equivalent) Appendix F Referenced Materials
F-1: City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage Exhibit
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
3 of 14
1.0 Introduction
This preliminary drainage report has been prepared for Orange County Cemetery District for the development of the Public and Proposed Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California. The project site is at the southeast of the intersection of State Route 91 freeway and State Route CA-241 toll road (Appendix A-1: Vicinity Map).
The project proposes to develop ~283 acres of vacant land into roads for site access and circulation, utility infrastructure, administrative buildings, committal chapels, internment/burial areas, maintenance facilities, open space, irrigation and landscape improvements.
Per the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage, the Project site is located within the Drainage District
42. In addition, the site is tributary to the Santa Ana River (Reach 2 and 1) and finally the Pacific Ocean.
2.0 Purpose & Design Criteria
The report is prepared for the analysis of the existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions associated with the project. Accordingly, design flow rates and storm drain sizes required for the proposed development will be computed in the Final Engineering Phase. Methods and assumptions, consistent with the City of Anaheim Drainage Manual (2005), used in the analysis are as follows:
• Habitable structures shall have protection from a 100-year flood; • A 25-year storm event for all open and underground channels and storm drains with drainage areas less than 640 acres, and tributary to the Santa Ana River watershed. • Off-site public streets shall be protected from flooding due to storm runoff from a 10-year frequency storm, in accordance with city standards or approved equivalent; • The drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage and applicable elements of the city general plan or any adopted specific plan; and • For flood control purposes, storm runoff from the 100-year frequency storm is to be fully mitigated, in accordance with City standards or approved equivalent.
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis
On-site hydrologic analysis was prepared using the methodology outlined in the City of Anaheim Drainage Manual (CADM). Consequently, rational method calculations were completed for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year return events using the AES software and the following assumptions. • The 1-hour precipitations for the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year frequency events, and slope of the intensity duration curve are obtained from the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM).
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
4 of 14
• Rainfall intensities are derived by AES using the rainfall intensity curve and the expected time of concentration.
• 2-year storm event analysis assume (antecedent moisture content) AMC of I. • 10- and 25-year storm event analyses assume AMC of II. • 100-year storm event analysis assumes AMC of III.
• Based on the geotechnical report provided by GMU (Project No. 2982-CR), the underlying soils are gravelly, silty, and clayey sands with cobbles and some boulders, concrete pieces, and other debris. There is also alluvium within and adjacent to the Gypsum Creek. • The USDA NRCS soil database and Orange County Hydrologic Group Soils classify the site hydrologic soil groups as type “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”. Orange County Hydrologic Group Soils defines the area with NRCS map unit 185 as soil group “D” (Appendix B-2). • Vegetation with Turf with only 90% pervious cover (as opposed to the usual good turf 100% pervious cover) is used to account for impervious area in the cemetery. Subareas with only roads and buildings are accounted for separately as well.
Detail calculations and tabulation for the hydrologic analysis can be found in Appendix C.
3.2 Hydraulic Analysis
Onsite hydraulic analysis will be completed based on the 100-year rational method hydrologic flow rates in the Final Engineering Phase.
4.0 Existing Conditions
The Existing Condition Map highlights drainage areas and drainage patterns for the proposed development (Appendix A). Storm water runoff from the project is considered in the analysis.
The site, formerly a mining site, is a vacant land. Current land use can be categorized as barren for the existing condition hydrology analysis (see Appendix B-3). The site is comprised of two large watersheds (i.e., Upper and Lower Pads). Upper Pad is in the east and Lower Pad is the west. Runoff from the site flows via surface flow south and then west towards the Gypsum Creek. There is currently no public storm drain in the vicinity of the site.
5.0 Proposed Conditions
A portion of the Lower Pad in the existing condition is integrated with the Upper Pad in the proposed condition and vice versa. The Proposed Condition Map shows the proposed drainage area boundaries and highlights drainage patterns (Appendix A). There are improvements for on-site drainage to convey flow effectively and prevent flooding of downstream facilities.
5.1 On-site Drainage Improvements
The proposed development is for Public and Proposed Veterans’ cemeteries, and the proposed impervious surface is ~10% including roofs, concrete walkways and roads. Therefore, the total pervious surface is 90%, and it includes open space and landscape areas including burial areas.
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
5 of 14
Existing drainage patterns are to be maintained in the proposed condition. Accordingly, all areas will be graded to allow runoff to drain towards a designated private road or area drain, leading to the proposed storm drain infrastructure and flowing south or south west general direction. All storm drain infrastructure including but not limited to grate inlets, curb and gutters and storm drain pipes will be sized per CADM and OCHM standards. Private storm drain lines will collect on-site runoff and direct it to one of two underground detention systems (UDS). Each UDS is designed with a lining as well as outlet orifices that drain to the Gypsum Creek. The UDS mitigates runoff from the proposed development to lower than the existing runoff level. Finally, outflow from the site is discharged into unlined Gypsum Creek as it is in the existing condition. Accordingly, the Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) stilling basin energy dissipator is designed to reduce the flow velocity to maximum of 2 ft/s (Li, 2008; HEC-14, 1983) and avoid erosion of the creek banks and channel.
In addition, there are two above-ground and lined dry extended detention basins (DEDB) and three Modular Wetland Systems from Contech (or equivalent) for stormwater treatment benefits (Appendix E). The water quality volume (or design capture volume, DCV) is diverted from each Pad to a DEDB using a flow splitter. The DEDB is designed for biofiltration of DCV from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event and discharge of the same volume over 48 to 72 hours (WQMP TGD, 2013). During heavy storm events, an emergency spillway will allow overflow of the DEDB. The three Modular Wetland Systems are placed along the approach road to collect and treat runoff from the road as well as the bridge. See the Water Quality Management Plan for detail calculations.
Also, the storm drain system is designed to prevent off-site low flows from entering the system. Off-site flow from the southeast is conveyed to the Gypsum Creek via a series of storm drain inlets and pipes that capture the flow and convey it in pipes onsite that confluence with treated onsite flows and discharge into an energy dissipator before flowing into Gypsum Creek.
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
6 of 14
6.0 Results
The hydrologic analysis indicates that the flow rate increases but time of concentration decreases in the proposed condition (Table 1). The change in flow characteristics is a result of differences in acreage, flow length, slope, land use, and flow type between the existing and proposed conditions.
Table 1. Summary of Unmitigated Runoff for the Rational Method. Existing Condition Existing
Node:
105 299 & 421 425 605 & 705 805 Totala
Area (ac) 2.98 347.10 7.48 14.57 6.68 378.81
Q2 (cfs) 5.40 251.32 11.86 17.34 6.42 292.34
Tc2 (min) 5.00 13.18 5.65 9.15 13.40 -
Q/acre 1.81 0.72 1.59 1.19 0.96 0.77
Q10 (cfs) 10.22 534.12 23.35 35.67 13.42 616.78
Tc10 (min) 5.00 11.88 5.56 8.30 12.07 -
Q/acre 3.43 1.54 3.12 2.45 2.01 1.63
Q25 (cfs) 12.27 663.04 28.27 43.60 16.97 764.15
Tc25 (min) 5.00 11.57 5.54 8.55 11.31 -
Q/acre 4.12 1.91 3.78 2.99 2.54 2.02
Q100 (cfs) 15.92 887.52 37.01 57.35 22.60 1020.40
Tc100 (min) 5.00 11.12 5.51 8.15 10.82 -
Q/acre 5.34 2.56 4.95 3.94 3.39 2.69
Proposed (i.e., Unmitigated)
Condition
Equivalent
Proposed
Node:
105 205 & 480 505 610 705 Totala
Area (ac) 4.20 348.31 7.48 15.73 3.09 378.81
Q2 (cfs) 7.61 303.16 11.86 18.99 4.13 345.75
Tc2 (min) 5.00 9.13 5.65 9.24 8.29 -
Q/acre 1.81 0.87 1.59 1.21 1.33 0.91
Q10 (cfs) 14.40 611.00 23.35 38.52 8.29 695.56
Tc10 (min) 5.00 9.13 5.56 8.62 7.63 -
Q/acre 3.43 1.75 3.12 2.45 2.67 1.84
Q25 (cfs) 17.29 747.66 28.27 47.07 10.08 850.37
Tc25 (min) 5.00 9.13 5.54 8.49 7.50 -
Q/acre 4.12 2.15 3.78 3.00 3.25 2.24
Q100 (cfs) 22.44 981.52 37.01 61.91 13.35 1116.23
Tc100 (min) 5.00 9.13 5.51 8.31 7.23 -
Q/acre 5.34 2.82 4.95 3.94 4.31 2.95
aTotal flows are given for comparison purposes only.
Next, the peak flow rates from the proposed condition are mitigated using two UDSs (Table 2).
Accordingly, the flood routing analysis for the UDSs under the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events has been provided (Appendix C-3). For total flow comparison in each Pad, flow from the routed flow detention basin is combined with the rest of the flow values for each pad. Therefore, the Table 2 contains comparison of flow from the entire pad.
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
7 of 14
Table 2. Summary of Mitigated Runoff for the Unit Hydrograph Method By Runoff Node. Existing Peak Discharge Existing Node: 105a 299 & 415a 425a 605 & 705a 805a Totalc Area (ac) 2.98 347.10 7.48 14.57 6.68 378.81
Q2 (cfs) 5.4 251.32 11.86 17.34 6.42 292.34
Q10 (cfs) 10.22 534.12 23.35 35.67 13.42 616.78
Q25 (cfs) 12.27 663.04 28.27 43.60 16.97 764.15
Q100 (cfs) 15.92 887.52 37.01 57.35 22.60 1020.40
Proposed (Mitigated)
Peak Discharge (cfs)
Equivalent
Proposed
Node:
105b 205 & 480b 505b 610b 705b Totalc
Area (ac) 4.20 348.31 7.48 15.73 3.09 378.81
Q2 (cfs) 7.61 193.63 11.86 18.99 4.13 236.22
Delta +40.93% -22.95% 0.00% +9.52% -35.67% -19.20%
Q10 (cfs) 14.40 365.28 23.35 38.52 8.29 449.84
Delta +40.90% -31.61% 0.00% +7.99% -38.23% -27.07%
Q25 (cfs) 17.29 450.51 28.27 47.07 10.08 553.22
Delta +40.91% -32.05% 0.00% +7.96% -40.60% -27.60%
Q100 (cfs) 22.44 605.30 37.01 61.91 13.35 740.01
Delta +40.95% -31.80% 0.00% +7.95% -40.93% -27.48%
aExisting Peak discharges are from the Rational Method Models. bProposed Peak discharge from the Unit Hydrograph Models. cTotal flows are given for comparison purposes only.
Next, the Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) Energy Dissipator is designed to reduce the flow velocity to maximum of 2 ft/s (Li, 2008; HEC-14, 1983; Table 6-3 of OC LDM) coming from the proposed site at Node 480 and avoid erosion of the Gypsum Creek banks and channel with find sand (USDA NRCS soil database). The exit velocity for the designed system is 1.30 fps. See Appendix D for calculations.
Furthermore, the capacity of the trapezoidal channel for capturing flow from the eastern most slope in the Upper Pad is verified. The channel has a base width of 1.5 ft, side slopes of 2:1, and a height of 2 ft.
FlowMaster calculation indicates that the normal depth of the flow is 8.8 inch. Therefore, the channel has ample capacity. See Appendix D for calculations.
In addition, offsite flows from areas east of the project site under the 100-year storm event is calculated to be 382.88 cfs (Appendix C-2). The 100-year peak flow from node 40 to node 455 is 308.80 cfs, and the 100-year peak flow from node 45 to node 455 is 74.08 cfs. A series of inlets and pipes will collect flow and the storm drain system will carry it to the same discharge outlet at the Gypsum Creek.
In conclusion, the UDSs successfully mitigate increased flow from the proposed development, and control flood per the requirements of the City of Anaheim.
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
8 of 14
7.0 References
HEC-14 (1983). Thompson, P. L., Corry, M. L., Watts, F. J., Richards, D. L., Jones, J. S., & Bradley, J.
N. (1983). Hydraulic design of energy dissipators for culverts and channels (No. HEC 14).
Li, M. H. (2008). Stream Restoration Design Handbook (National Engineering Handbook, 210-VI, Part 654), JM Bernard, J. Fripp, K. Robinson (Eds.), US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007.
OCLDM (2020). Local Drainage Manual. County of Orange, Department of Public Works, December 2020.
WQMP TGD (2013). Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/ Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), December 2013.
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
9 of 13
Appendix A
A-1: Vicinity Map
A-2: Existing Hydrology Map
A-3: Proposed Hydrology Map
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
Document Path: C:\Users\hhtun\Documents\_Projects\GypsumCanyonCemetery\GIS\GypsumCanyonCemetery - Project Location - H&H Report.mxd (8.5x11 print-out) GYPSUM CANYON CEMETERY
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TITLE: FIGURE TITLE:
VICINITY MAP
Date: 8/26/2022
1 inch equals 1,200 feet
0 1,200 600 ¯ Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
GypsumCreek
City of Anaheim Limits
CULVERT UNDER SR-91
CONVEYING FLOW
TOWARDS SANTA ANA RIVER
1058.19 EG
984.25 EG
1025.31 EG
706.33 EG
1140.97 EG
1101.23 EG
1082.68 EG
860.00 EG
625.00 EG
715.00 EG
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine
Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820
2603 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92614
204'
137'
224'
182'
146'
70'
70'
250'
145'
242'
35.8'
122.77'
BMP 2
UNDERGROUND DETENTION
SYSTEM FOR LOWER PAD
VOLUME = 103,515 CF
BMP 3
UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR UPPER PAD
VOLUME = 55,920 CF
BMP 4
DRY EXTENDED
DETENTION BASIN
DCV = 103,646 CF
BMP 1
DRY EXTENDED
DETENTION BASIN
DCV = 104,381 CF
CULVERT UNDER SR-91
CONVEYING FLOW
TOWARDS SANTA ANA RIVER
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
FOR CAPTURING FLOW
FROM THE SLOPE
ASSEMBLY AREA
COMMITTAL
SHELTER
ADMIN/PUBLIC INFO/
RESTROOM
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING AND
YARD
DETENTION BASIN
OUTLET PIPE
EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
BMP 7
MODULAR WETLANDS SYSTEM
FOR BRIDGE RUNOFF
MWS-L-4-17-C
APPROXIMATE BRIDGE LOCATION
BRIDGE RUNOFF AREA
0.914 ACRES
BMP 6
MODULAR WETLANDS SYSTEM
FOR ROADWAY RUNOFF
MWS-L-4-21-C
BMP 5
MODULAR WETLANDS SYSTEM
FOR ROADWAY RUNOFF
MWS-L-8-12-C
FLOW DIVERSION
STRUCTURE PER DETAIL
SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PER DETAIL
1025.31 EG
706.33 EG
1140.97 EG
1101.23 EG
DETENTION
BASIN OUTLET PIPE
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
FOR CAPTURING FLOW
FROM THE SLOPE
DETENTION BASIN
INLET PIPE
FLOW DIVERSION
STRUCTURE PER
DETAIL
1058.19 EG
1082.68 EG
984.25 EG
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FOR CAPTURING
FLOW FROM THE SLOPE (BASE WIDTH =
1.5 FT, SIDE SLOPE = 2:1, HEIGHT = 2 FT)
940.00 EG
830.00 EG
730.00 EG
692.00 EG
860.00 EG
640.00 EG
611.20 EG
638.00 EG
632.00 EG
682.00 EG
715.00 EG
630.00 EG
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine
Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820
2603 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92614
City of Anaheim Drainage Report
10 of 13
Appendix B
B-1: NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Statistics
B-1: NRCS Soil Data Survey and Orange County
Hydrologic Group Soils
B-3: Image of Pre-Development
B-4: Geotechnical Investigations Report
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Anaheim, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.8651°, Longitude: -117.7002°
Elevation: 700.25 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.128
(0.107-0.155)
0.166
(0.139-0.200)
0.217
(0.181-0.263)
0.260
(0.215-0.318)
0.321
(0.256-0.407)
0.370
(0.288-0.479)
0.420
(0.320-0.559)
0.474
(0.350-0.649)
0.550
(0.389-0.787)
0.611
(0.416-0.906)
10-min 0.184
(0.154-0.222)
0.238
(0.199-0.287)
0.311
(0.260-0.377)
0.373
(0.308-0.456)
0.460
(0.367-0.583)
0.530
(0.413-0.686)
0.603
(0.458-0.801)
0.680
(0.502-0.930)
0.788
(0.557-1.13)
0.876
(0.597-1.30)
15-min 0.222
(0.186-0.268)
0.288
(0.240-0.347)
0.376
(0.314-0.456)
0.451
(0.373-0.552)
0.557
(0.444-0.705)
0.641
(0.500-0.830)
0.729
(0.554-0.968)
0.822
(0.607-1.13)
0.953
(0.674-1.36)
1.06 (0.722-1.57)
30-min 0.310
(0.259-0.374)
0.401
(0.335-0.485)
0.525
(0.438-0.637)
0.630
(0.521-0.770)
0.777
(0.620-0.984)
0.894
(0.698-1.16)
1.02 (0.773-1.35)
1.15 (0.847-1.57)
1.33 (0.940-1.90)
1.48 (1.01-2.19)
60-min 0.443
(0.371-0.535)
0.574
(0.480-0.693)
0.751
(0.626-0.911)
0.901
(0.744-1.10)
1.11 (0.886-1.41)
1.28 (0.998-1.66)
1.45 (1.11-1.93)
1.64 (1.21-2.25)
1.90 (1.34-2.72)
2.11 (1.44-3.14)
2-hr 0.663
(0.555-0.799)
0.854
(0.714-1.03)
1.12 (0.930-1.35)
1.34 (1.11-1.64)
1.65 (1.32-2.09)
1.91 (1.49-2.47)
2.18 (1.65-2.89)
2.47 (1.82-3.37)
2.88 (2.03-4.12)
3.22 (2.19-4.77)
3-hr 0.826
(0.691-0.997)
1.06 (0.889-1.28)
1.39 (1.16-1.68)
1.66 (1.38-2.03)
2.06 (1.64-2.61)
2.38 (1.86-3.08)
2.72 (2.07-3.61)
3.09 (2.28-4.22)
3.62 (2.55-5.17)
4.05 (2.76-6.01)
6-hr 1.18
(0.985-1.42)
1.52 (1.27-1.83)
1.99 (1.66-2.40)
2.38 (1.97-2.91)
2.94 (2.35-3.73)
3.40 (2.65-4.40)
3.88 (2.95-5.16)
4.40 (3.25-6.03)
5.15 (3.64-7.37)
5.77 (3.93-8.56)
12-hr 1.55
(1.30-1.87)
2.03 (1.69-2.45)
2.67 (2.23-3.24)
3.21 (2.65-3.92)
3.96 (3.16-5.02)
4.56 (3.56-5.90)
5.18 (3.94-6.89)
5.84 (4.31-8.00)
6.77 (4.78-9.68)
7.51 (5.12-11.1)
24-hr 2.04
(1.81-2.36)
2.72 (2.40-3.14)
3.61 (3.18-4.18)
4.36 (3.81-5.09)
5.39 (4.56-6.49)
6.19 (5.13-7.62)
7.03 (5.69-8.85)
7.90 (6.22-10.2)
9.11 (6.89-12.3)
10.1 (7.36-14.0)
2-day 2.53
(2.24-2.92)
3.41 (3.01-3.94)
4.58 (4.03-5.30)
5.55 (4.85-6.48)
6.90 (5.84-8.32)
7.96 (6.60-9.80)
9.06 (7.34-11.4)
10.2 (8.05-13.2)
11.8 (8.95-15.9)
13.1 (9.59-18.3)
3-day 2.74
(2.42-3.16)
3.72 (3.28-4.29)
5.03 (4.43-5.82)
6.12 (5.35-7.15)
7.65 (6.47-9.22)
8.86 (7.34-10.9)
10.1 (8.19-12.7)
11.4 (9.01-14.8)
13.3 (10.1-17.9)
14.8 (10.8-20.6)
4-day 2.97
(2.63-3.43)
4.05 (3.58-4.68)
5.50 (4.84-6.37)
6.71 (5.87-7.83)
8.41 (7.11-10.1)
9.75 (8.09-12.0)
11.2 (9.03-14.1)
12.6 (9.96-16.4)
14.7 (11.1-19.8)
16.4 (12.0-22.8)
7-day 3.42
(3.02-3.94)
4.64 (4.10-5.37)
6.30 (5.55-7.30)
7.69 (6.72-8.98)
9.64 (8.16-11.6)
11.2 (9.28-13.8)
12.8 (10.4-16.1)
14.5 (11.4-18.8)
16.9 (12.8-22.8)
18.8 (13.8-26.3)
10-day 3.72
(3.29-4.29)
5.06 (4.47-5.84)
6.86 (6.05-7.95)
8.38 (7.32-9.78)
10.5 (8.90-12.7)
12.2 (10.1-15.0)
14.0 (11.3-17.6)
15.9 (12.5-20.6)
18.5 (14.0-25.0)
20.7 (15.1-28.8)
20-day 4.41
(3.90-5.08)
6.02 (5.32-6.95)
8.22 (7.24-9.52)
10.1 (8.82-11.8)
12.7 (10.8-15.4)
14.9 (12.3-18.3)
17.1 (13.9-21.6)
19.6 (15.4-25.3)
23.0 (17.4-31.0)
25.8 (18.9-36.0)
30-day 5.22
(4.62-6.03)
7.16 (6.32-8.27)
9.82 (8.65-11.4)
12.1 (10.6-14.1)
15.4 (13.0-18.6)
18.1 (15.0-22.2)
20.9 (16.9-26.3)
24.0 (18.9-31.0)
28.4 (21.5-38.3)
32.0 (23.4-44.6)
45-day 6.13
(5.42-7.07)
8.39 (7.41-9.69)
11.6 (10.2-13.4)
14.3 (12.5-16.7)
18.3 (15.5-22.0)
21.5 (17.9-26.5)
25.0 (20.3-31.6)
28.9 (22.8-37.4)
34.5 (26.1-46.5)
39.1 (28.6-54.5)
60-day 7.03
(6.22-8.12)
9.60 (8.48-11.1)
13.2 (11.6-15.3)
16.4 (14.3-19.1)
21.0 (17.7-25.3)
24.8 (20.6-30.5)
28.9 (23.4-36.4)
33.5 (26.4-43.3)
40.1 (30.3-54.1)
45.7 (33.4-63.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.8651&... 1 of 4 6/13/2022, 11:01 AM
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.8651&... 2 of 4 6/13/2022, 11:01 AM
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.8651&... 3 of 4 6/13/2022, 11:01 AM
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.8651&... 4 of 4 6/13/2022, 11:01 AM
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Orange County and
Part of Riverside
County, California
Gypsum Canyon Cemetery
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
June 13, 2022
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 12 Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California................................14 145—Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes................. 14 146—Corralitos loamy sand........................................................................15 163—Metz loamy sand................................................................................17 185—Pits.....................................................................................................18 191—Riverwash..........................................................................................19 192—Rock outcrop-Cieneba complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes................. 19 224—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes............................. 21 225—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded................ 22 226—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes........................... 23 W—Water....................................................................................................25 References............................................................................................................26 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3746400 3746600 3746800 3747000 3747200 3747400 3747600 3747800 3748000 3748200 3746400 3746600 3746800 3747000 3747200 3747400 3747600 3747800 3748000 3748200 434200 434400 434600 434800 435000 435200 435400 435600 434200 434400 434600 434800 435000 435200 435400 435600 33° 52' 24'' N
117° 42' 43'' W
33° 52' 24'' N
117° 41' 43'' W
33° 51' 18'' N
117° 42' 43'' W
33° 51' 18'' N
117° 41' 43'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 450 900 1800 2700
Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,960 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 19, 2020—Dec 5, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report
10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 145 Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex,
30 to 75 percent slopes
25.1 8.8%
146 Corralitos loamy sand 10.2 3.6%
163 Metz loamy sand 0.5 0.2%
185 Pits 63.5 22.4%
191 Riverwash 6.4 2.3%
192 Rock outcrop-Cieneba complex,
30 to 75 percent slopes
0.6 0.2%
224 Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to
30 percent slopes
53.6 18.9%
225 Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to
30 percent slopes, eroded
10.0 3.5%
226 Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 30 to
50 percent slopes
112.6 39.7%
W Water 1.1 0.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 283.5 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas Custom Soil Resource Report
12 are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California 145—Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcmp
Elevation: 500 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 35 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 110 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cieneba and similar soils: 60 percent
Rock outcrop: 30 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cieneba
Setting
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 7 to 59 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 30 to 75 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 7 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R019XD073CA - SHALLOW LOAMY - ROCK OUTCROP
COMPLEX
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Rock Outcrop
Setting
Landform: Hills
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: unweathered bedrock
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Anaheim, loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
San andreas, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Tollhouse, soils
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Vista, coarse sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
146—Corralitos loamy sand
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcmq
Elevation: 30 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 30 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Corralitos and similar soils: 65 percent
Minor components: 35 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Corralitos
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser, flat
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from mixed
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loamy sand
H2 - 9 to 60 inches: stratified sand to loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R019XD035CA - SANDY (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 20 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fans
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Metz, loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Soboba, gravelly loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Capistrano, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 163—Metz loamy sand
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcn8
Elevation: 30 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 340 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Metz and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Metz
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from mixed
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 17 inches: loamy sand
H2 - 17 to 63 inches: stratified sand to fine sandy loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R019XD035CA - SANDY (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Minor Components
San emigdio, fine sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hueneme, fine sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Corralitos, loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Fans
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Metz, mod fine substratum
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
185—Pits
Map Unit Composition
Pits: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Pits
Setting
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand
H2 - 6 to 60 inches: very gravelly coarse sand
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 191—Riverwash
Map Unit Composition
Riverwash: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Riverwash
Setting
Landform: Fans
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium
Typical profile
C1 - 0 to 6 inches: gravelly sand
C2 - 6 to 60 inches: stratified gravelly coarse sand to sandy loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.9 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8w
Ecological site: R019XG912CA - Sandy Fan
Hydric soil rating: Yes
192—Rock outcrop-Cieneba complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcp6
Elevation: 500 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 35 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 110 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rock outcrop: 50 percent
Cieneba and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 Description of Rock Outcrop
Setting
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Cieneba
Setting
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 7 to 59 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 30 to 75 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R019XD073CA - SHALLOW LOAMY - ROCK OUTCROP
COMPLEX
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Soper, cobbly loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Anaheim, loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
20 Hydric soil rating: No
Vista
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Tollhouse
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
224—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcq7
Elevation: 100 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 300 to 350 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Yorba and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Yorba
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 11 inches: cobbly sandy loam
H2 - 11 to 40 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
H3 - 40 to 63 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report
21 Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD061CA - CLAYPAN (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Gabino, gravelly clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Modjeska, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Myford, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Soper, cobbly loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
225—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcq8
Elevation: 100 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 300 to 350 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Yorba and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Yorba
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed Custom Soil Resource Report
22 Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: cobbly sandy loam
H2 - 7 to 36 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
H3 - 36 to 63 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD061CA - CLAYPAN (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Myford, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Gabino, gravelly clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Soper, cobbly loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Modjeska, gravelly loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
226—Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcq9
Elevation: 100 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 300 to 350 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Custom Soil Resource Report
23 Map Unit Composition
Yorba and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Yorba
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 11 inches: very cobbly sandy loam
H2 - 11 to 40 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
H3 - 40 to 63 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 30 to 50 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD061CA - CLAYPAN (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Gabino, gravelly clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Myford, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Soper, cobbly loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Modjeska, gravelly loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
24 W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
25 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 26 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
27 Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine
Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820
2603 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92614
Hydro Group
Soils
PPrriivvaattee
MMeemmbbeerr
OC Public Works
View Map
SSuummmmaarryy
Land Development
LLooookkiinngg ffoorr ssoommeetthhiinngg eellssee?? See other datasets nearby More
AAttttrriibbuutteess Learn about charts
Hydrologic Group - Dominant Condition
Shape__Area
Shape__Length
Sign In
Hydro Group Soils | County of Orange, CA https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/OCPW::hydro-group-soi... 1 of 4 5/12/2023, 9:43 AM
DDeettaaiillss
DDaattaasseett
Feature Layer
AApprriill 2277,, 22002222
Info Updated
AApprriill 2277,, 22002222
Data Updated
JJaannuuaarryy 1111,, 22002222
Published Date
33,,447733 RReeccoorrddss
View data table
PPuubblliicc
Anyone can see this content
NNoo LLiicceennssee PPrroovviiddeedd
Request permission to use
RReelleevvaanntt AArreeaa
II wwaanntt ttoo......
CCrreeaattee aa MMaapp
Start a map with this data
CCrreeaattee aa SSttoorryy
Open in ArcGIS StoryMaps
OCPW / OCSurvey / Geospatial Services Powered by Esri
Sign In
Hydro Group Soils | County of Orange, CA https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/OCPW::hydro-group-soi... 2 of 4 5/12/2023, 9:43 AM
VViieeww AAPPII RReessoouurrcceess
Try out the API Explorer
VViieeww DDaattaa SSoouurrccee
Select to open in a new tab
VViieeww AAllll MMeettaaddaattaa
Select to open in a new tab
OOppeenn iinn AArrccGGIISS OOnnlliinnee
Select to open in a new tab
YYoouu mmaayy bbee iinntteerreesstteedd iinn
MMaapp
Regional Watersheds
grewalj
Polygons representing drainage areas
across the County of Orange.
TTyyppee:: Feature Service
DDaattee UUppddaatteedd:: April 13, 2022
MMaapp
Regional Subbasins and Watersheds
grewalj
Polygons representing drainage areas
across the County of Orange.
TTyyppee:: Feature Service
DDaattee UUppddaatteedd:: April 13, 2022
MMaapp
2014-2016 Impaired Polygons
grewalj
Land Development
TTyyppee:: Feature Service
DDaattee UUppddaatteedd:: April 27, 2022
MMaapp
Regional Subbasins
grewalj
Polygons representing drainage areas
across the County of Orange.
TTyyppee:: Feature Service
DDaattee UUppddaatteedd:: April 13, 2022
Sign In
Hydro Group Soils | County of Orange, CA https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/OCPW::hydro-group-soi... 3 of 4 5/12/2023, 9:43 AM
TTaaggss
Land Development
Explore Feeds Manage Privacy
Sign In
Hydro Group Soils | County of Orange, CA https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/OCPW::hydro-group-soi... 4 of 4 5/12/2023, 9:43 AM
Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
1 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2224.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
2 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2225.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
4 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2227.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
5 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2228.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
6 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2229.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
8 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2231.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
9 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2232.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
11 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2234.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
12 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2235.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
13 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2236.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
17 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2240.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
20 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2243.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
24 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2247.JPG Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery Site Visit 03-04-2022
26 of 26
\\hzirvine2\oddproj\R314515.01 - Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon\04 Planning\04.2 Photos\2022-03-04 Site Visit\DSCN2249.JPG Orange County Cemetery District
June 12, 2023
FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
STUDIES AND REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY GRADING
PLAN FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2022-160,
GYPSUM CANYON CEMETERY SITE, CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and
Review of Preliminary Grading Plan for
Tentative Parcel Map 2022-160,
Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site,
City of Anaheim, California
Prepared For
ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
June 12, 2023
GMU Project No. 20-108-03
TRANSMITTAL
ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
25751 Trabuco Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
DATE: June 12, 2023
PROJECT: 20-108-03
ATTENTION: Mr. Tim Deutsch
SUBJECT: Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading Plan for Tentative Parcel Map 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, California DISTRIBUTION:
Addressee: electronic copy
RJM Design Group
Attn: Ms. Tamara McClory (electronic copy)
Mr. Larry Ryan (electronic copy)
Mr. Craig Sensenbach (electronic copy)
Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Carl Taylor (electronic copy)
LSA
Attn: Ms. Deborah Pracilio (electronic copy)
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 i GMU Project 20-108-03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE................................................................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................................... 1 LOCATION.............................................................................................................................................. 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 2 SITE GEOMORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS................................................................... 2 SITE HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 PLANNED GRADING ................................................................................................................................ 4 FUTURE PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................... 4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS...................................................................................................... 5 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................... 5 RECENT INVESTIGATION (GMU)...................................................................................................... 5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS............................................................................................................. 5 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM..................................................................................................... 6 RECENT LABORATORY TESTING..................................................................................................... 6 PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................. 6 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO REVIEW ................................................................................................. 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 8 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 8 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS................................................................................................................... 8 Artificial Fill (Qaf)............................................................................................................................... 8 Landslide Debris (Qls1, Qls2, Qls3, and Qls4).................................................................................... 9 Alluvial Deposits (Qal and Qoal)....................................................................................................... 10 Slopewash Deposits (Qsw)................................................................................................................. 10 Vaqueros and Sespe Formation, Undifferentiated (Tvs).................................................................... 11 Santiago Formation (Tsa)................................................................................................................... 11 ANCIENT LANDSLIDES ..................................................................................................................... 11 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 14 GROUNDWATER................................................................................................................................. 14 High Groundwater Analysis............................................................................................................... 14 Impact on Grading.............................................................................................................................. 15 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................. 15 Rippability.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Oversized Materials............................................................................................................................ 15 SOIL AND ROCK MOISTURE CONDITIONS................................................................................... 16 Wet Soils............................................................................................................................................ 16 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND FINDINGS....................................................... 17 SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................................. 17 Seismicity........................................................................................................................................... 17 Seismic Design Parameters................................................................................................................ 17 Liquefaction ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Earthquake-Induced Settlement ......................................................................................................... 20 Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 ii GMU Project 20-108-03
Lateral Spreading ............................................................................................................................... 21 SLOPE STABILITY .............................................................................................................................. 22 Overview............................................................................................................................................ 22 Cross Sections and Analytical Methods............................................................................................. 23 Groundwater....................................................................................................................................... 24 Shear Strength Model......................................................................................................................... 24 Slope Stability Results ....................................................................................................................... 26 Lateral Spreading and Seismic Deformation Analysis....................................................................... 27 Surficial Stability of Fill and Cut Slopes............................................................................................ 29 STATIC SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 29 SETTLEMENT SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 30 SOIL EXPANSION AND CORROSION .............................................................................................. 31 INFILTRATION CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................... 32 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 35 SITE PREPARATION AND REMEDIAL GRADING......................................................................... 35 General ............................................................................................................................................... 35 Clearing .............................................................................................................................................. 35 Remedial Grading .............................................................................................................................. 35 Ancient Landslide Mitigation............................................................................................................. 36 Removals............................................................................................................................................ 36 Keyways............................................................................................................................................. 38 Over-Excavation................................................................................................................................. 39 Daylight Cuts ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Temporary Excavations...................................................................................................................... 41 Processing .......................................................................................................................................... 41 FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT................................................................................................ 42 Suitability ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Compaction Standard and Methodology............................................................................................ 42 Fill Slope Compaction........................................................................................................................ 43 Use of Oversize Rock or Broken Concrete ........................................................................................ 43 SUBDRAINS ......................................................................................................................................... 44 General ............................................................................................................................................... 44 Canyon Bottom Subdrains ................................................................................................................. 44 Keyway and Buttress Backdrains and Outlets ................................................................................... 44 SETTLEMENT MONITORING............................................................................................................ 45 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL BRIDGE ASSESSMENT........................................................... 46 FUTURE UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS........................................................... 46 OPEN TRENCH EXCAVATIONS ....................................................................................................... 47 General ............................................................................................................................................... 47 Temporary Trench Excavations......................................................................................................... 47 STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION..................................................................................................... 47 General ............................................................................................................................................... 47 Pipe Bedding (Bedding and Shading)................................................................................................ 48 Trench Backfill................................................................................................................................... 48 CONCRETE........................................................................................................................................... 49 SURFACE DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL, AND SLOPE LANDSCAPING ............................ 49 Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 iii GMU Project 20-108-03
FUTURE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL........................................... 49 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION......................... 49 FUTURE INVESTIGATION, ANALYSES, AND REPORTS............................................................. 50 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 50 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................. 51 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 52 PLATES
PLATE 1 LOCATION MAP
PLATE 2.1 GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PLATE 2.2 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
PLATES 3.1 -3.3 GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTIONS
PLATE 4 TYPICAL BENCHING AND KEYWAY
PLATE 5 TYPICAL CANYON OR KEYWAY BACKDRAIN
PLATE 6 TYPICAL BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION FILL
PLATE 7 TYPICAL BACKDRAIN TYPE SUBDRAIN
PLATE 8 SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL
PLATE 9 NEAR SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONITORING POINT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROCEDURE AND LOGS
APPENDIX A-1 RECENT INVESTIGATION BY GMU GEOTECHNICAL
APPENDIX A-2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS BY GMU GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX A-3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS BY OTHERS
APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX B-1 RECENT LABORATORY DATA BY GMU GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX B-2 PREVIOUS LABORATORY DATA BY GMU GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX B-3 PREVIOUS LABORATORY DATA BY OTHERS
APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
APPENDIX C-1 LIQUIFACTION ANALYSES ON ALL RELEVANT CPT’s APPENDIX C-2 SELECT DRILL HOLES AND CPT’S FOR LATERAL SPREADING ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D-1 DESIGN SHEAR STRENGTHS
APPENDIX D-2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
APPENDIX E LATERAL SPREADING AND SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSES APPENDIX E-1 Ky ANALYSES FOR SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSES APPENDIX E-2 SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading Plan for Tentative Parcel Map 2022-160 is prepared for Orange County Cemetery District’s Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project. The purpose of this report is to document the geotechnical studies performed to date and our review of the reference (1) preliminary grading plan. This final report incorporates our responses to City of Anaheim’s (City) review comments (references (3) and (4)) and therefore supersedes our previous reference (2) report. The reference (5) City review sheet conditionally approves our reference (2) report and reference (3) and (4) responses.
SCOPE
To date, GMU’s studies have included the following:
1. Compiled and reviewed available geotechnical data, including published geologic maps, seismic hazard maps, aerial photographs, and subsurface data from previous geotechnical investigations in the area. Various stages of subsurface exploration have occurred at the site since 1989.
2. Performed recent additional geologic mapping, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing for Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site in support of the current land planning and earthwork design effort.
3. Prepared geotechnical maps and cross sections based on available geotechnical data.
4. Conducted geotechnical analyses to evaluate the planned mass grading, which focused on liquefaction, slope stability, lateral spreading, settlement, and remedial grading.
5. Performed preliminary analysis with respect to the future Gypsum Canyon bridge foundation design.
6. Prepared this report that summarizes the results of our geotechnical studies as well as previous studies conducted by others for Gypsum Canyon, and documents our review of the preliminary grading shown on the reference (1) plan.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 2 GMU Project 20-108-03
LOCATION
Orange County Cemetery District’s planned Gypsum Canyon Cemetery is located south of California State Route 91 and east of California Highway 241 (Eastern Transportation Corridor) within the City of Anaheim, California. A Location Map showing the project site is included as Plate 1.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The planned Gypsum Canyon Cemetery site is currently a vacant parcel of land in the northeast region of Orange County. The parcel of land is approximately 291 acres in size located east of Gypsum Canyon. The western region of the site is comprised of the major north-trending Gypsum Canyon drainage with a smaller westerly trending tributary canyon in the southern region of the site. The site is bounded to the east and south by undeveloped land.
SITE GEOMORPHOLOGY
The subject site’s geomorphology generally entails gradually sloping topography from east to west (Plate 2.1 – Geotechnical Map). The north-trending Gypsum Canyon drainage in the western region of the site is the lowest elevation of the site which drains north into the Santa Ana River.
The site topography gradually ascends from Gypsum Canyon drainage in the western region and California State Route 91 in the northern region towards the southeast. The northern region of the site ascends towards an easterly trending appendage ridgeline in the central/eastern region of the site. This appendage ridgeline ascends towards the eastern project limits (towards the main northerly ridgeline) and provides the highest elevations within the site. North of this easterly trending ridgeline, the topography displays a bowl-like shape as it descends to the north; south of this easterly trending ridgeline, the topography descends to an unnatural plateau at the base of several tributary drainages. The southwestern region of the site ascends toward this plateau. The plateau gradually descends to the southern project limits.
SITE CONDITIONS AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
The majority of the site consists of vacant undeveloped land; however, there are existing improvements located within the project limits. A segment of the Questar natural gas pipeline transects the southern region of the site. The pipeline is 16 inches in diameter and has a general east to west alignment. The current easement for the pipeline is 50 feet wide. This segment of the Questar pipeline will need to be relocated prior to grading in the southern portion of the site.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 3 GMU Project 20-108-03
The topography in the central to northeast region of the site is bowl-shaped and site observations indicate that this area was graded to be a desilting basin. The northern region of the bowl-shaped topography contains an embankment that separates a larger basin upgradient from a smaller basin downgradient. Surface observations indicate that a corrugated riser and storm drain may connect these two basins.
SITE HISTORY
Starting in the 1950’s, the site was used as a source of sand and gravel that was extracted by surface mining operations by Robertson’s Ready Mix. Approximately 40 years after the surface mine was established, the southeasterly area of the site was used as an asphalt batch plant by All American Asphalt Company. These companies operated under an extraction license agreement with The Irvine Company. This license agreement was terminated in 2004.
Surface mining and batch plant operations significantly altered the natural topography. Prior to the surface mining operations, the site consisted of a series north-northwesterly trending ridgelines.
These ridgelines previously reached elevations of 900 to 940 feet above mean sea level (msl; USGS, 1954). Today, the area of this previous topographic high has an approximate elevation of 600 to 640 feet above msl, indicating a 300-foot vertical reduction. Topographic reduction of a lesser scale occurred throughout portions of the site.
In 2002, a large landslide was activated in the northeast region of the site during mining operations.
Portions of the landslide were removed and replaced with observed, but untested, fill to stabilize further movement of the landslide mass. Portions of the landslide mass were left in-place. Between 2004 and 2009, additional grading occurred at the site placing artificial fill within mining pits and restoring the site to either a level or gently sloping topography. Current elevations across the site range from approximately 400 feet msl in the northwest region of the site to approximately 850 feet above msl in the eastern region of the site.
After site reclamation, Irvine Community Development Company (ICDC) planned a large residential development called Mountain Park which was to include development of the previous mining site. Development plans for Mountain Park were terminated and the land was dedicated to the County of Orange for open space in 2014. Current plans are to use the open space as public and veterans’ cemetery sites.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 4 GMU Project 20-108-03
PLANNED GRADING
The preliminary grading shown on the reference (1) plan shows mass grading the existing vacant parcel of land in order to create two large, contoured pad areas for cemetery development. We understand the lower pad will be for a public cemetery for Orange County, while the upper pad will serve as a California Veteran’s (Cal-Vet) cemetery site.
The proposed preliminary grading has been provided to GMU by Huitt-Zollars, Inc., and a composite of this plan was utilized as the base map for our Geotechnical Map included as Plate 2.1.
In general, the preliminary grading creates the following:
• Two large contour pads (i.e., lower and upper sites) separated by a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) north-northeasterly trending slope with a maximum height of 175 feet. The majority of the upper pad will be divided into 2 levels by a 2:1 north to northeasterly trending slope with a maximum height of 19 feet. The mass graded pads surface drain from 1% to 7% with all pads ultimately draining to the south towards the perimeter access road where future storm drain improvements will be located.
• A site access road along the southwesterly and southerly perimeter of the site adjacent to the Gypsum Canyon drainage.
• A secondary access road in the south-central portion of the project site. • Bridge abutments for the future bridge that spans the Gypsum Canyon drainage to connect Gypsum Canyon Road to the planned site access road.
The maximum depth of design cut and fill are about 147 feet and 102 feet, respectively. The highest 2:1 cut slope is about 200 feet as shown on Cross Section 3-3’ (Plates 2.1 and 3.1). The highest fill slope is about 182 feet as shown on Cross Section 3-3’ (Plates 2.1 and 3.1).
FUTURE PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the reference (8) overall site plan by RJM Design Group, most of the lower site (i.e., public cemetery) will be developed as a park-like setting consisting of softscape with minor areas of hardscape and roads, monument structures, crypt burial structures, a maintenance building, an administration building, and supporting utilities. Design recommendations for these lower site structures and improvements are not a part of this report and will be provided at a later date. Currently there is no site development plan for the future Cal-Vet 100-acre upper pad site.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 5 GMU Project 20-108-03
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
GENERAL
GMU conducted geologic field mapping to supplement and refine previous investigations conducted at the site. Subsurface exploration completed to date has consisted of hollow stem auger drill holes, bucket auger drill holes, rock core drill holes, dual rotary drill holes, Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings, and backhoe/excavator test pits. The Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1) illustrates geologic contacts and shows locations of all pertinent borings and test pits performed to date within and immediately adjacent to the subject area.
Portions of the site are located within zones of required investigation for liquefaction as indicated on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Black Star Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001). The proposed site grading is overlain on the Seismic Hazard Map on Plate 2.2. Subsurface exploration and studies have been performed in accordance with the guidelines outlined by California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG).
RECENT INVESTIGATION (GMU)
GMU’s recent investigations (GMU Project Nos. 20-108-01 and 20-108-03) were focused on collecting data for geotechnical design in support of grading plans for the planned Gypsum Canyon Cemetery and bridge. Our recent investigations consisted of 5 drill holes, completed using a hollow stem auger drill rig and bucket auger drill rig, and 15 new test pits completed using a backhoe.
Each of the borings and test pits were sampled and logged either by, or under the supervision of, a Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). Boring and test pit locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1) and the logs are contained in Appendix A-1.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Numerous site investigations have been performed at the site since 1989: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) in 1989, 1990, and 2003; CHJ, Inc. in 2003; and Leighton Consulting Group (LCG) in 2006 and 2019. Overall, the field investigations consisted of the following:
• 53 bucket auger borings
• 35 hollow-stem borings
• 22 CPT’s
• 5 rock cores
• 4 core borings
• 46 test pits
• 5 seismic refraction lines, 1 refraction microtremor (ReMi) profile, and 2 electrical resistivity (Sting) lines
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 6 GMU Project 20-108-03
Investigation locations performed by others are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1), and boring logs, test pit logs, and seismic refraction data are included in Appendix A-2.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Laboratory test results (recent and previous) are presented in Appendix B of this report. Recent test results by GMU are presented in Appendix B-1.
RECENT LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed by GMU on bulk and undisturbed samples collected during our field investigations. Testing was performed on soil and bedrock samples, and included the following tests:
• Moisture and density
• Maximum density
• Sieve and hydrometer
• Atterberg limits
• Expansion index
• Corrosion (pH, resistivity, chlorides, soluble, sulfates) • Direct shear tests
PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING
GMU also compiled pertinent laboratory testing data from previous investigations by others previously listed. Compiled previous laboratory tests include:
• Moisture and density
• Maximum density
• Sieve and hydrometer
• Atterberg limits
• Expansion index
• Corrosion (pH, resistivity, chlorides, soluble, sulfates) • Direct shear tests
• Consolidated undrained triaxial shear tests
• Consolidation
• Swell/Settlement
• Sand equivalent
• Unconfined compressive strength
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 7 GMU Project 20-108-03
HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO REVIEW
An aerial photo review was performed for the site in order to assess historical land use and geological features. GMU analyzed available stereo-paired air photos and online historic aerial photographs (historicaerials.com) spanning from the 1930’s through 2018.
The aerial photos revealed the site remained natural until the mid-1950’s. By 1959, sand mining began in the western region of the site by Robertson’s Ready Mix. In 1959, surface mining is occurring in the southern portion of the western region. Belt feeders have been constructed in the central portion of the western region and settling ponds have been excavated in the southern portion of the western region. Between 1963 and 1972, the mining operation expands toward the eastern region of the site. By 1980, the sand mining operation occupies a majority of the site with a majority of the excavation occurring in the northern portion of the site. By 1992, the southern region of the site becomes occupied by an asphalt batch plant. Between 1992 and 2002, mining operations greatly alters the topography of the northern region of the site. In 2002, a large landslide is activated in the northeast region of the site during mining operations. Both mining and asphalt operations cease in 2004, and by 2005, all site structures appear to have been removed from the site. By 2009, site grading restores the site to gently sloping topography and the parcel remains vacant to present day with only minor dirt road alterations.
Table 1. Aerial Photo References
Date Flight # Negative #
12-12-1952 3K 87-88 (E)
12-12-1952 3K 24-25 (W)
3-28-1959 261-6-24 189-190-191 (W)
3-28-1959 261-7-25 13 (E)
3-30-1967 2 114-115 (E)
3-30-1967 2 74-75 (W)
1-30-1970 60-4 102-103-104
10-29-1973 132-10 3-4-5
1-13-1975 157-11 5-6-7
1-24-1977 181-11 6-7
12-13-1978 203-11 6-7-8
12-13-1978 203-12 8-10-11
2-25-1980 80033 31-32-33
1-31-1981 211-11 4-5-6
4-2-1983 218-11 8-9
12-30-1986 F 109-110-111 (E)
1-9-1987 F 22-228 (W)
1-13-1989 Y, LINDA-1 3-4-5
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 8 GMU Project 20-108-03
Date Flight # Negative #
6-12-1990 C84-14 23-24-25
6-9-1993 C93-15 114-115-116
2-29-1995 C103-33 231-232-233
10-16-1997 C118-33 144-145-146-147
2-23-1999 C133-33 229-230-231
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The project is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is characterized by northwest-trending ranges and valleys sub-parallel to faults branching from the San Andreas. More specifically, the site resides within the northern extent of the Santa Ana Mountains on the western side of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The Santa Ana Mountains are underlain by pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock and Cretaceous plutonic rocks. These rocks are overlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks comprised of sandstones, siltstones, claystones, and conglomerates with localized volcanic units. No active faults have been mapped within the subject site. The site is not within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
The soil and rock materials underlying the site are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1), and the predominant geologic formations are described below.
Artificial Fill (Qaf)
Artificial fill was encountered throughout the project site and is associated with the previous mining operations, grading associated with stabilizing the man-induced landslide that occurred in 2002, and land reclamation that occurred at the site after mining operations were ceased. These fills are expected to be variable in depth across the site and range from less than 5 feet deep to upwards of 120 feet. The deepest fills are located in the southeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of an old drainage course and overlie alluvium.
Where encountered, the artificial fill consists of clay and silt from washing operations, clayey sands, and silty sands with varying amounts of gravels, cobbles, and boulders. The artificial fill materials generally range from medium dense to very dense and have variable moisture contents ranging from dry to locally saturated. Man-made debris (concrete wash-out deposits, rebar, metal and concrete piping, etc.) were also observed during subsurface investigations. Blow counts, Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 9 GMU Project 20-108-03
in-situ densities, and consolidation testing indicate that the fills have been significantly densified during placement. Zones of saturation were observed during previous investigations. The boring and test pit logs in Appendices A-1 and A-2 contain detailed descriptions of the artificial fill.
Based on observations made during our recent exploration, review of previous exploration logs by others, and laboratory test results, we consider the underlying artificial fill materials to be left in-place suitable for support of the planned grading and cemetery development (provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed) for the following reasons:
• In-situ densities and blow counts of the existing fills below a general depth of 10 feet indicate these fill materials have been densified during placement and are adequate to support the planned grading and cemetery development.
• Consolidation testing data (contained in Appendix B) indicates the existing fill has a low potential of settlement with regards to hydro-collapse. • Moisture contents of the fill materials below an approximate depth of 10 feet are generally near or above optimum moisture content, which supports the low hydro-collapse potential. • No concentration of trash, organic matter, or decomposable debris was observed.
However, there is a potential for consolidation settlement of the existing fill in areas where significant loading of new fill over thick deposits of the existing fill and/or alluvium will occur.
Therefore, where these conditions occur, settlement monitoring will be required as discussed in the “Recommendations” section of this report (Page 35).
Landslide Debris (Qls1, Qls2, Qls3, and Qls4)
Both recent landslide materials (Qls1) and ancient landslide materials (Qls2, Qls3, and Qls4) are mapped within or adjacent to the site as shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1). Ancient landslide materials Qls2 and Qls3 are both located east of and adjacent to the subject site. Ancient landslide materials Qls4 are located well beyond the project limits on the western side of Gypsum Canyon. Where observed, the ancient landslide materials are derived from the Vaqueros and Sespe Formation, undifferentiated, and are composed of clayey silts and sands.
The recent landslide materials (Qls1) activated in late 2002 during mining operations is located within the northeast region of the site. The recent landslide materials (Qls1) are also derived from the Vaqueros and Sespe Formation, undifferentiated. Where observed, these materials are composed of sandy silts and sandy clays and are generally reddish brown, dry to damp, and soft to very dense. At times, these materials have been observed to contain perched groundwater. Buttress keyways with back/sub-drainage will be required to provide adequate safety factors and cut off perched groundwater flow.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 10 GMU Project 20-108-03
Both recent and ancient landslides contained fractured bedrock blocks overlying a clay rupture surface. The landslide debris to be left-in-place and stabilized following remedial grading is not expected to have any adverse impact on the planned grading or future cemetery improvements.
Alluvial Deposits (Qal and Qoal)
Surficial alluvium and older alluvium are discussed together due to the gradational nature of the geologic contacts between these units. These soil materials are present within Gypsum Canyon and associated tributary canyons and reside below the proposed bridge and embankment alignment. The older alluvium is present at higher elevations and is above the active channel of Gypsum Canyon. Alluvium ranging in thickness from a few feet to greater than 75 feet is present within and adjacent to the westerly and southwesterly portion of the site. Older alluvium materials predominantly reside below artificial fill materials within the western and southern regions of the site.
The alluvial deposits are typically comprised of mixtures of sand, silty sand, clayey sand, gravelly sand, sandy gravel, and clays with various amounts of cobbles and boulders. These materials can be generally characterized as gray to brown, dry to wet, and medium dense to very dense with some loose soils near the ground surface. The alluvial soils have been deposited by a large watershed that has the potential for high flow volumes/rates, and contain cobbles and boulders that are comprised of very hard rock materials (granitic and volcanic rocks) that have been transported from higher in the watershed. The cobbles and boulders will be encountered during earthwork operations and possibly bridge construction.
Portions of the alluvial soils near Gypsum Canyon are located within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction, as indicated on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Black Star Canyon Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001). Potential liquefaction is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report.
Based on the nature of the majority of the alluvial soil materials to be left in-place and consolidation testing data (contained within Appendix B), which indicates the underlying alluvial soils have a low potential of settlement with regards to hydro-collapse, we consider the alluvial soils underlying new fill areas to be suitable to support the planned grading and cemetery development, provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. However, as previously discussed, consolidation settlement of the existing fill in areas where significant loading of new fill over thick deposits of the existing fill and/or alluvium will require settlement monitoring as discussed in the “Recommendations” section of this report (Page 35).
Slopewash Deposits (Qsw)
Slopewash deposits (Qsw) are typically found on the flanks of hillsides and within the bottom of smaller ravines. These grade into the alluvial sediments found near the larger tributary canyons and Gypsum Canyon.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 11 GMU Project 20-108-03
For this report, colluvium will be included within slopewash discussions. Slopewash deposits are characterized by loose to medium dense silty sand and clayey sand with areas of an elevated percentage of silt and clay. These areas are due to the process of in-place weathering and downhill colluvial transport from the canyon margins.
The natural slopes within the subject site are typically covered with a 2- to 3-foot-thick mantle of slopewash/colluvium materials. These materials were observed to be typically porous, with desiccation cracks and gypsum stringers. Slopewash materials are generally considered unsuitable for support of the proposed grading as they are potentially highly expansive and compressible.
Therefore, variable depth removals will be required in the slopewash prior to fill placement.
Vaqueros and Sespe Formation, Undifferentiated (Tvs)
Undifferentiated Vaqueros and Sespe Formation bedrock underlies the subject site. This bedrock formation primarily consists of moderately to well-cemented, poorly bedded to massive, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone and clayey sandstone. The sandstone is locally interbedded with claystone, siltstone, and basal conglomerate. These materials are typically dry to moist and moderately hard to very hard with various amounts of cobbles and boulders. Excavations within the conglomerate beds and hard sandstone beds are expected to generate oversize materials (i.e., greater than 12 inches in diameter) that require special handling during excavation and fill placement.
Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Santiago Formation bedrock is mapped northeast adjacent to the subject site. This bedrock formation primarily consists of moderately cemented, poorly bedded to massive, fine- to mediumgrained sandstone. The sandstone is locally interbedded with coarse sandstone and lesser amounts of sandy siltstone, siltstone, rarer clayey siltstone with a basal conglomerate. These materials are typically damp (i.e., below optimum moisture content) and moderately hard to hard.
ANCIENT LANDSLIDES
The previous section of this report discusses the presence of recent (Qls1) and ancient (Qls2, Qls3, and Qls4) landslide materials which are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1). CHJ (2003) interpreted the recent landslide mass (Qls1) as a reactivation of a larger ancient landslide which encompasses a majority of the subject site. To address this interpretation of the underlying geology of the site, we conducted an extensive review of the available site data which is summarized below:
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 12 GMU Project 20-108-03
Aerial photograph review was conducted on photographs spanning from the 1930’s through 2018 with a focus on the aerial photograph captured in 1952. Our conclusion of the aerial photograph analysis is that there is no surficial indication of a larger ancient landslide that encompasses the site. Our aerial photograph analysis conclusion is based on the following:
• Geomorphologic characteristics in the 1952 aerial photograph in the southern/central region of the project limits display characteristics that do resemble an ancient landslide crest, however, the feature lacks true crest and saddle characteristics. • Ridgelines within suggested landslide debris zone north of the crest-like feature exhibit similar elevations to the ridgeline south of the crest-like feature. If the feature was an ancient landslide, the debris zone would likely display lower elevations rather than elevations near what would be the headscarp area.
• The suggested landslide debris zone north (down dip) of the crest-like feature does not display hummocky characteristics typical of a large landslide mass. • The steeply incised erosional features within the suggested landslide mass north (down dip) of the crest-like feature suggest the material to be very hard/resistant which is typically not characteristic of landslide debris derived from the Vaqueros-Sespe Formation. GMU’s experience with landslide debris derived from the Vaqueros-Sespe Formation is that these materials are highly fractured and broken up with the absence of steeply incised drainages.
Subsequent to CHJ’s 2003 report, site investigations were conducted by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (2006), Leighton Consulting, Inc. (2019), and GMU (2022). These more recent and thorough investigations acquired additional data and did not observe evidence that would indicate the recent landslide (Qls1) was a reactivation of a larger ancient landslide. In addition, CHJ’s boring B-1 drilled to a depth of 270 feet did not indicate that a deep ancient landslide was present.
A thorough review of CHJ’s (2003) report, interpretations, and conclusions was conducted. Our thoughts on CHJ’s report are summarized below:
• CHJ’s investigation included surface logging of spoils which were produced while drilling with an Ingersoll-Rand TH-100 dual wall reverse circulation drill rig with a
5.5-inch tricone bit and a Texoma 900 drill rig with a 24-inch flight auger. These are not effective drilling methods to identify landside characteristics. • CHJ’s geologic map, cross sections, and boring logs characterize all material encountered as Vaqueros-Sespe Formation without distinguishing recent or ancient landslide debris.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 13 GMU Project 20-108-03
• CHJ’s geologic map provides an attitude for bedding, and the location of the attitude on their map suggests the information was collected within the area they interpret to be an ancient landslide mass. However, the orientation is consistent with the bedding orientation that was observed below and outside the failure surface throughout the site. • CHJ’s boring logs call out depth of the recent slide plane and depth of a suspected slide plane without describing geologic observations or data used in interpreting the feature. • CHJ’s slope inclinometer exhibit displays a single plot between the dates of 11/27/02 and 12/6/02, The text suggests this inclinometer data was used to identify the rupture surface for the adjacent boring logs (B-2, B-3, B-4). We do not disagree with the depth of the recent rupture surface as indicated by the slope inclinometer at B-1, however, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to project this surface along apparent dip to intersect borings B-2, B-3, and B-4. Leighton and Associates, Inc. (2006) conducted a boring (HS-14) near CHJ’s B-2 and did not identify recent or ancient landslide debris. • CHJ describes “previously sheared clays” and the sheared/disturbed character of the Vaqueros-Sespe Formation within the text of the report; however, they do not provide evidence or documentation of observations to support this characterization.
Specifically, none of the CHJ boring logs state that “previously sheared clays” were observed. Also, the drilling methods used by CHJ would not provide evidence to indicate whether the clays had been previously sheared.
CHJ (2003) characterized the active landslide mass conditions at the time of their investigation as the following: “the landslide had broken into several separate slide masses moving semiindependently in different directions and at different rates.” CHJ assumed “the possibility that the slide may be occurring along various slip surfaces within a relatively thick shear zone.” This is just an assumption and possibility posed by CHJ. We do not believe a pre-existing thick shear zone existed, but rather that the slide initially failed along a lower strength claystone bed (red bed) of the Vaqueros-Sespe Formation near the toe that was undermined by mining operations at the site.
After this initial failure, masses or blocks upslope began failing obliquely to dip, filling in space created by the initial failure. This scenario represents a progressive failure along adversely oriented and unsupported claystone beds. We believe this explains why the rupture surface that we observed is along dip near the toe and oblique to dip closer to the crest. This would also explain CHJ’s observation of various masses moving semi-independently at different rates within the landslide mass.
In conclusion, our detailed analyses of all the data indicate that a large deep-seated landslide does not exist below the site. However, at the City Reviewer’s request, bedrock was modeled to reflect the possibility of an ancient landslide beneath the site until additional exploration can be conducted. Our shear strength modeling is discussed in the “Geotechnical Engineering Analyses and Findings” section of this report (Page 17).
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 14 GMU Project 20-108-03
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Regional geologic structure near the site is predominately controlled by faulting and uplift during regional mountain building processes. The site is characterized by a mostly homoclinal sequence of generally westerly dipping strata within the Vaqueros and Sespe Formation. The Vaqueros and Sespe Formation is predominantly massive, with strata bounded by poorly to well-defined changes in rock type (i.e., sandstone vs. claystone). Clay seam and/or landslide rupture surfaces observed generally trend parallel to bedding. As shown on our Geotechnical Sections (Plates 3.1 through
3.3), planned cut slopes in the eastern region of the site will contain adversely dipping sandstone and siltstone beds. Localized folding and faulting of strata is present on the eastern margin of the site that is associated with the mapped shear zone shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 2.1).
GROUNDWATER
In previous investigations, surface water was observed within the detention basins located across the site, perched groundwater was encountered within borings and test pits across the site, and groundwater was encountered in the borings within the Gypsum Canyon drainage. Groundwater, when encountered within the Gypsum Canyon drainage, varied in depth over the years (1989- 2022) from approximately 19 to 70 feet below ground surface (bgs).
During our recent investigation, groundwater was only encountered within DH-4, which is located east adjacent to the Gypsum Canyon drainage near the proposed bridge eastern abutment. At the time of our investigation, groundwater was at 44 feet bgs. Variations in perched groundwater and groundwater depths between previous and recent investigations indicate that groundwater elevation is seasonally controlled and highly variable. Groundwater within the subject area may be higher during wetter than normal winters as controlled by the Gypsum Canyon watershed and discussed in the following “High Groundwater Analysis” section. Inversely, groundwater elevation may be lower (on the order of tens of feet) during drier years.
High Groundwater Analysis
Historic high groundwater within the Gypsum Canyon drainage, as shown on the referenced Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Black Star Canyon Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001), is at 40 feet bgs. As static groundwater was encountered in previous investigations at depths ranging from 19 to 70 feet bgs over a 30-year timeframe (i.e., from 1989 to 2021), high groundwater for the purpose of our liquefaction and lateral spreading analysis was conservatively assumed to be at the shallowest groundwater elevation encountered during previous investigations, or at a groundwater elevation of 40 feet bgs, whichever was shallower, within and near the Gypsum Canyon drainage.
A hypothetical 10-foot rise in groundwater was also used to evaluate the influence a potential significant rise in groundwater (i.e., due to future landscaping water, etc.) would have on earthquake-induced settlement. However, we do not believe that this extremely conservative rise Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 15 GMU Project 20-108-03
in groundwater is possible due to the geomorphologic characteristics of the site. Groundwater base level within Gypsum Canyon is controlled by the Santa Ana River. Water introduced to the site would drain to the Santa Ana River prior to contributing to an increased influx in the water table.
Impact on Grading
Perched groundwater should be expected to be encountered during remedial grading and mass excavation grading within portions of the site (i.e., central-eastern region of upper pad and southerly-westerly area of lower pad). Dewatering, top-loading, and/or handling of wet soils may be needed in order to complete the remedial and design grading within these areas. The need for dewatering, top-loading, and/or handling of wet soils will be dependent on the time of year grading will be performed, climatic changes, and contractor logistics.
Our preliminary design for the bridge foundation will consist of spread footings with a structural slab approach. Therefore, it is not expected that groundwater will be encountered in the western region of the site, adjacent to the Gypsum Canyon drainage, during future bridge construction.
However, if deep foundations are constructed for the bridge, then dewatering measures will be required.
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
Rippability
Design cuts for the subject mass grading are proposed up to 147 feet deep from existing surface within bedrock of the Vaqueros/Sespe Formation. GMU’s drilling in the Vaqueros/Sespe Formation with an EZ-Bore bucket auger drill rig was slow but successful to depths of about 100 feet within the planned grading area. In previous studies, seismic refraction studies and drilling to depths up to 170 feet using an EZ-Bore bucket auger or equivalent drill rig were performed. The information and data collected at the site during both ours and previous explorations indicate the bedrock materials are rippable. However, the deeper bedrock cuts (i.e., greater than 40 feet) and/or shallower cuts in conglomerate or sandstone bedrock materials are anticipated to be moderately hard to very hard and therefore require heavy ripping with a D10 dozer or equivalent. In addition, oversize rock materials should be expected when heavy ripping in bedrock materials is required.
Oversized Materials
Existing Artificial Fill: Excavations within the artificial fill materials are expected to encounter oversize hard rock materials (i.e., cobbles and boulders of possibly greater than 18 inches in diameter derived from the conglomeratic beds of the Vaqueros/Sespe Formation during the previous mining operations). In addition, asphalt and concrete pieces, some possibly greater than 24 inches in dimension, which were generated from previous concrete and asphalt plants at the site, may also be encountered. These oversized materials will make excavation within the existing Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 16 GMU Project 20-108-03
artificial fill more difficult and is expected to require special handling for removal and placement in the fill (i.e., use of a rock bucket, rock rake, rock trucks, etc.).
Bedrock: Cuts in the Vaqueros/Sespe Formation bedrock materials (i.e., conglomerate, siltstone, and claystone) are expected to generate oversize rock fragments. Hard boulders of greater than 12 inches in diameter are expected within the conglomerate beds. Oversize rock within the siltstone and claystone rock materials is expected but may be able to be broken down prior to placement within engineered fill.
All oversized rock materials may be broken down to less than 12 inches in diameter or placed in the fill as discussed in our “Recommendations” section of this report (Page 35).
SOIL AND ROCK MOISTURE CONDITIONS
Observation of the on-site soils, in addition to the moisture and density data included in Appendix B, indicate that the soils that will be encountered during grading have variable moisture contents. Soil materials derived from the Vaqueros/Sespe Formation and shallow slopewash/alluvial soils are often below optimum moisture content. Wetting and thorough mixing/blending will therefore be required during grading to achieve proper moisture and compaction requirements. Wet soils in the artificial fill and landslide debris materials discussed above may require drying to reach the necessary compaction. The required amount of wetting, drying, and/or mixing/blending is also dependent on seasonal precipitation, time of year that grading is performed, and the contractor’s grading logistics.
Wet Soils
As discussed above, remedial grading will include removal and recompaction of some locally saturated soils throughout the site. In addition, deeper cuts in the central/easterly area may encounter perched groundwater.
Although dewatering is not anticipated (except possibly during foundation construction for the future Gypsum Canyon Bridge), portions of the existing artificial fill and alluvial soils could potentially be well above optimum moisture content (i.e., at or near saturation) depending on the season when grading occurs (i.e., grading during the winter/rainy season). Grading in these wet soils will require increased effort by the grading contractor in order to effectively load the material into earthmoving equipment and dry the soils to compactable moisture ranges prior to placement as engineered fill. Top loading of wet soils may be required depending on the time of year grading occurs and contractor’s excavation means and methods.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 17 GMU Project 20-108-03
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismicity
The site is not within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are known to exist within the site. However, localized folding and faulting of strata is present on the eastern margin of the site that is associated with the mapped shear zone shown on the Geotechnical Map – Plate 2.1, and the site is located in the seismically active region of southern California. The Elsinore Fault zone is adjacent to the eastern margin of the site and the Chino Fault zone is located about 4 miles from the site.
Seismic Design Parameters
For the proposed bridge and roadway analysis, a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed utilizing Caltrans ARS Online program (version 3.0.2) to evaluate the likelihood of various ground motion levels at the site as reflected in peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) and acceleration response spectra (ARS).
Coordinates of N33.8643oand W117.7095o were utilized for evaluation of the ARS. An average shear-wave velocity for the upper 100 feet (VS30) was estimated to be 237 m/s near the proposed bridge and roadway for the alluvial deposits over bedrock based on the shear wave velocity measurements at CPT-4A, CPT-9, CPT-15, B-35 (GSI 1998), and DH-4 (GMU 2021).
The results of the hazard de-aggregation indicated that the total hazard for the Design Earthquake, as defined by Caltrans, was primarily dominated by earthquakes with a mean magnitude of 6.6 with an approximate distance of 9 miles. PGHA of 0.64g with a magnitude of 6.6 was used in our liquefaction and lateral spreading analyses for the bridge and proposed western roadway.
Table 2 (next page) provides the Caltrans design acceleration response spectra for designing the proposed bridge and roadway structures.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 18 GMU Project 20-108-03
Table 2. Site Specific Caltrans Acceleration Spectra
Period (sec) Caltrans ARS (g)
VS30=237 m/s
PGA 0.64
0.1 1.06
0.2 1.45
0.3 1.62
0.5 1.57
0.75 1.40
1.0 1.27
2.0 0.65
3.0 0.41
4.0 0.28
5.0 0.20
Seismic design coefficients based on ASCE 7-16 and 2022 CBC will be provided in a future design report for design of future proposed buildings and associated cemetery site improvements.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sands and gravels capped by or containing seams of impermeable sediment or non-plastic fine-grained soils. Liquefaction evaluation procedures are presented by Youd and Idriss, et al. (1997 and 2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008).
When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause increased pore-water pressure that induces liquefaction. Liquefaction can cause softening and deformation. In loose granular soils, softening can also be accompanied by a loss of shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations or even flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath a foundation or sloping ground (NCEER/NSF, 1998 Workshop).
Loose granular soil can also settle (i.e., become more consolidated) during liquefaction and as pore pressures dissipate following an earthquake. Very limited field data is available on this subject, however, in some cases, settlement on the order of 2 to 3 percent of the thickness of the liquefied zone has been measured.
Based on review of California Geological Survey’s Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Black Star Canyon Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001), the site is partially underlain by and adjacent to zones requiring investigation for liquefaction potential in the Gypsum Canyon drainage areas located along the westerly and southwesterly edges of the development (as shown on Plate 2.2). The saturated alluvial deposits in these canyon areas are potentially liquefiable based on soil type, Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 19 GMU Project 20-108-03
groundwater elevation, and regional seismicity. Therefore, a site-specific liquefaction analyses was performed to evaluate the liquefaction potential and its effects on the proposed bridge and roadway along the westerly and southwesterly edge conditions.
Our liquefaction evaluation was performed on all available CPT’s performed in the western and southwestern alluvial areas to determine the most critical sections for lateral spreading analysis along the proposed bridge and roadway. CLiq, v.3.3.3.2, software and Robertson (2009) methodology were used for the liquefaction evaluation of CPT data. Then drill holes and CPT’s along the critical cross sections were analyzed further to determine the layers of the potentially liquefiable soils and their assigned liquefied shear strengths. Youd et al. (2001) methodology was used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soils based on drill hole data (i.e., SPT data). The following locations were analyzed:
Table 3. Liquefaction Evaluation
Cross Section
No. Analyzed Drill Holes and CPTs Condition
N/A
CPT-2, CPT-2A, CPT-3, CPT-4A,
CPT-5, CPT-6, CPT-7, CPT-8, CPT-9,
CPT-10, CPT-11, CPT-12, CPT-13,
CPT-14, CPT-15, CPT-16, CPT-16A,
CPT-17, CPT-18, CPT-19 (L&A 2006)
All available CPTs within
Gypsum Canyon drainage
7-7’ DH-4 (GMU 2021), B-36 (GSI 1998) Proposed bridge area Liquefaction analyses were performed using the estimated historic high groundwater depth below ground surface and a hypothetical 10-foot rise in groundwater as discussed previously in the “Groundwater” section of this report (Page 14).
Our analyses confirmed there is liquefaction potential for the alluvium to be left in-place along the western and southwestern edges of the proposed development. Consequently, the potential for earthquake-induced settlement and lateral spreading at the proposed bridge location was analyzed, as discussed in the “Earthquake-Induced Settlement” and “Lateral Spreading” sections of this report (Pages 20 & 21). Earthquake-induced settlements and lateral spreading were not evaluated for the northwestern and southwestern portion of the site (i.e., western edge of the site that is north and south of the proposed bridge location) since there are no planned improvements near the slopes that are required to remain serviceable after a seismic event. This is further explained in the “Lateral Spreading” section of this report (Page 21).
Results of our liquefaction analysis are provided in Appendix C. The residual shear strength of liquefiable soils and strain softening of the fine-grained alluvial deposits to be left in-place below the high groundwater table that were determined from our liquefaction analysis are utilized further in our stability analyses.
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 20 GMU Project 20-108-03
Earthquake-Induced Settlement
Granular soils tend to densify when subjected to shear strains induced by ground shaking during earthquakes. Earthquake-induced soil settlement was estimated based upon the CPT and drill hole (i.e., SPT) data. The seismic settlement analyses were performed based on “Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlements from CPT for Level Ground,” by Zhang, Robertson, and Brachman (2002) for CPT data, and based on the Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) procedure for drill hole (i.e., SPT) data.
Some potentially liquefiable layer(s) will be left in-place after the proposed remedial grading at the proposed bridge location and below the development in the southwestern portion of the site.
The estimated earthquake-induced settlements with consideration of the proposed remedial grading and fill placement are summarized in the following table.
Table 4. Earthquake-Induced Settlements
CPT or
Boring
No.
Corrected (“depthweighting” factor)
Earthquake-Induced
Settlement (in)
Uncorrected EarthquakeInduced Settlement (in)
Condition
Highest
Encountered
Groundwater
Groundwater
10ft Higher
than Highest
Encountered
Groundwater**
Highest
Encountered
Groundwater
Groundwater
10ft Higher
than Highest
Encountered
Groundwater**
CPT-4A 1.19 1.19 3.54 4.28 Within limits of proposed
roadway
DH-4
(GMU
2021)
0.42 6.78 0.62 7.22
Within limits of proposed
bridge
CPT-17* 0.33 0.33 0.76 1.91
Near the proposed bridge
abutment and adjacent
access road tie-in. 15 feet
of remedial grading
required for reported
seismic settlement.
*Boring/CPT did not penetrate through the entire alluvial layer into bedrock (i.e., settlement calculation at this location is likely higher than shown in table).
**A hypothetical 10-foot rise in groundwater was used to evaluate the influence a significant rise in groundwater would have on earthquake-induced settlement. However, we do not believe this extremely conservative rise in groundwater is possible due to the geomorphologic characteristics of the site as discussed in the “High Groundwater Analysis” section of this report (Page 14).
Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 21 GMU Project 20-108-03
The anticipated range of earthquake-induced settlement ranges from 0.4 to 7.2 inches at the proposed bridge area (provided the remedial grading recommendations contained in this report are followed). Final settlement analysis at the bridge will be provided in the Bridge Foundation Design Report.
For development pad areas that are underlain by new fill over existing fill and/or bedrock/landslide debris (i.e., beneath most of the development pad areas and below all proposed building locations), the total and differential earthquake-induced settlements are expected to be less than 1-inch and ½-inch, respectively. The only exception would be the southwestern edge of the lower pad where some saturated alluvium may still be left in-place. In these areas, earthquake settlements may be on the order of those determined at the bridge location.
Results of our earthquake-induced settlement analyses are provided in Appendix C. It should be noted that the majority of the CPTs are within the Gypsum Canyon drainage and are outside the proposed development limits. Therefore, calculated seismic vertical settlements for CPTs outside the proposed development limits contained in Appendix C are not applicable to the proposed development; however, data within Appendix C was used for lateral spreading analyses applicable to the project.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to slippage along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil displace laterally towards the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Generally, failure in this mode is analytically unpredictable, because it is difficult to determine where the first tension crack will occur.
Lateral spreading of the proposed slopes at the location of the proposed bridge was evaluated for Cross Sections 7-7’ in the following “Slope Stability” section (Page 22), and our lateral spreading analyses are included in Appendix E. As summarized in the following section, the analyses indicate a lateral spreading deformation of 5.5 inches. Lateral spreading was not evaluated for the northwestern portion of the site near Section 8-8’ and the southwestern portion of the site near Cross Sections 11-11’, 12-12’, and 13-13’ (i.e., western edge of the site that is north and south of the proposed bridge location) since there are no planned improvements near the slopes that are required to remain serviceable after a seismic event.
To avoid ground remediation along the southwestern edge of the property due to potential lateral spreading, a secondary access road is to be constructed outside the underlying alluvial soils as indicated on Plate 2.1 – Geotechnical Map. This secondary access road will ensure that if future deformation were to occur along the proposed access road during a seismic event, secondary access Mr. Tim Deutsch, ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICT
Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading for TPM 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California June 12, 2023 22 GMU Project 20-108-03
to and from the site will be provided. The proposed secondary access road will extend from the proposed bridge to the upper pad. The proposed bridge foundation will be designed for lateral spreading as discussed in the following “Slope Stability” section below.
Lateral spreading down the thalweg of the creek was not analyzed due to the following characteristics of the creek suggesting that large continuous lateral movements are unlikely to occur:
• Narrow width of the creek;
• Sinuous nature of the creek;
• Groundwater variability (as discussed in the “Groundwater” section of this report,