Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2017 0719 CCSA REG ITEM 10L ITEM 10.L. CITY OF MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -6411:1*-410 TO: Honorable City Council ^Y: FROM: Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and R- w eation Director BY Jessica Sandifer, Program Manag14 = � DATE: July 10, 2017 (CC Meeting of 07/19/ ) SUBJECT: Consider Geotechnical Report for Civic Center Site BACKGROUND On December 7, 2016 the City Council authorized staff to move forward with the design and construction of a new public library, and selected a location on City property south of the existing library on the north side of High Street for the project. After the City Council approved the new location, staff was made aware of recent geotechnical studies in the downtown area that turned up soil conditionsthat present a significant risk of liquefaction. On April 5, 2017, the City Council authorized an agreement with Oakridge Geoscience (Oakridge) to study the soil conditions of the entire Civic Center site to determine the extent to which the soil would need to be stabilized prior to constructing any buildings on the site and the cost impacts of those stabilization measures. DISCUSSION Oakridge has completed their report on the soil conditions of the library site. The report studied several areas of concern, including liquefaction, dry seismic settlement, lateral movement, and hydroconsolidation. As suspected, the report indicates that the Civic Center soils are susceptible to liquefaction below the groundwater level (from 15 to 50 feet below surface) and dry seismic settlement above the groundwater level (from surface to 15 feet below surface). This means that seismically induced settlement or collapse can occur in the onsite soil in the upper 15 feet of the site with liquefaction occurring below 15 feet to about 50 feet deep. At the time of the sampling, the groundwater level was at 37 feet. Historic groundwater levels in the area have been as high as 15 feet. As a precaution, the analysis assumes the higher groundwater level. The site soil is also susceptible to lateral spreading and hydroconsolidation. All of these potential conditions can result in soil settlement of more than two inches. The California Building Code (CBC) requires that projects have seismic settlement of no more than two inches total and one inch of 109 Honorable City Council July 19, 2017 Page 2 differential settlement. Sites with estimated settlements of more than two inches require ground improvement of the soils to mitigate the amount of settlement from these conditions. The report indicates that ground improvement would be required to a depth of fifty (50) feet for the site. As a comparison, the Area Housing Authority (AHA) project was required to improve the soil to a depth of thirty (30) feet. The report suggests two different types of ground improvement methods 1) vibro replacement (also referred to as "stone columns"), and 2) deep soil mixing. The AHA project is utilizing the vibro replacement method. Due to the depth of required ground improvement, the report indicates that a combination of methods may need to be used to reduce the settlement. For instance, with the type of soils encountered during the testing, the vibro replacement would be most effective at densifying soils in the upper forty (40) feet of the site, but because we need to improve up to fifty (50) feet, the vibro replacement method might need to be coupled with a mat (12" thick) foundation or grade beam support system in order to sufficiently reduce the settlement potential of the site. As a part of the design and construction of the new library, the civil and structural engineers will need to review the geotechnical information to design an appropriate foundation for the building size and use. FISCAL IMPACT Based on discussions with the Oakridge, staff believes that improvements to the soil conditions could add an additional cost of approximately $725,000 to $955,000 to the library construction costs. This cost is somewhat dependent on the types of improvements ultimately recommended for this project. The project geotechnical and structural engineer will make a final recommendation based on the building and site design, while taking cost into consideration as much as feasible. It should be noted that once the ground improvement methods are installed, they are tested to ensure that they sufficiently densify the soil. If they are not found to have performed per the design specifications, there could be additional costs to prepare the foundation and ensure proper densification of the soil. We will not know what these costs are until we are under construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report Attachments: Civic Center Geotechnical Report • 110 ATTACHMENT 1 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 9ce/tc&/ l /Ll/. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED MOORPARK LIBRARY MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Moorpark June 17, 2017 Job No. 030.003 111 d._. OII/'Jl 7'e CeeLsc C/LCCA //GG. ® PO Box 2540, Camarillo,/ California 93011 www.Oakridgegeo.corn 805-368-7765 June 17, 2017 Project No. 030.003 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Mr. Chris Ball Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Proposed Moorpark Library, Moorpark, California Dear Mr. Ball: Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. (OGI) is pleased to provide this preliminary geotechnical report for the proposed library project in Moorpark, California. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical study was to evaluate if seismic related geohazards including liquefaction, dry seismic settlement and lateral spreading, and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential are present at the site and the need for ground improvement to mitigate potential settlements that may occur as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking. This report summarizes the geotechnical data review, field exploration, geotechnical laboratory testing, our evaluations, and our opinions of the site conditions based on the work performed. A supplemental geotechnical design report will be required as part of project design once the building type and location are selected. Closure Thank you for the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to the City of Moorpark for this project. Please contact us if you have any questions on the information presented herein or if we can be of further assistance on this project. SINCERELY, ��.0Ep Geo OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, I ' 4, LpRI '3��'.� ��, EC'y/Vj.., 4 i„...,,, , :„....., .:„., , . �' 4/31', , .9/30/2017 E 9 OF CAI.IVO-4. N9l ON. ,00f �P* F°F CA1 O ' Lori E. Prentice, CEG Rory"-:ny"Fobinson, GE President Principal Ge technical Engineer Copies Submitted: (1 electronic copy (pdf)via email) 112 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Proposed Project and Purpose 1 1.2 Work Performed and Authorization 1 1.2.1 Data Review and Project Coordination 1 1.2.2 Field Exploration 1 1.2.3 Laboratory Testing 2 1.2.4 Geotechnical Evaluation and Reporting 3 2.0 FINDINGS 3 2.1 Background 3 2.2 Geologic Setting 4 2.3 Regional Geologic Hazards 4 2.4 Site Conditions 4 2.5 Earth Materials 5 2.5.1 Engineering Properties 5 2.6 Soil Chemistry and Corrosion 6 2.6.1 Test Results 6 2.6.2 Corrosion and Cement Considerations 6 2.7 Groundwater Conditions 6 2.8 Data Interpretation and Analyses 7 2.9 Potential Variation of Subsurface Materials 7 2.10 Seismic Considerations and Geohazards 8 2.10.1 Faults 8 2.10.2 Ground Rupture Potential 8 2.10.3 Seismic Considerations for 2016 CBC 8 2.10.4 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters , 8 2.10.5 Liquefaction and Dry Seismic Settlement Potential 9 2.10.6 Data Summary 11 3.0 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 3.1 Summary of Subsurface Site Conditions 14 3.2 Ground Improvement Options 15 3.3 Preliminary Grading Considerations 17 3.3.1 General Site Clearing and Grubbing 17 3.3.2 Subgrade Preparation 17 3.3.3 Fill Material Selection 17 3.3.4 Dewatering 18 3.3.5 Fill Placement 18 3.3.6 Compaction 19 3.8 Site Drainage 22 3.9 Stormwater infiltration 22 113 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE. INC. CONTENTS -CONTINUED Page 4.0 LIMITATIONS 23 4.1 Report Use 23 4.2 Hazardous Materials 23 4.3 Local Practice 24 REFERENCES 25 PLATES PLATE 1 VICINITY MAP PLATE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP PLATE 3A GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' PLATE 3B GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION ii 114 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PURPOSE The City of Moorpark (City) is planning to build a new library building northwest of High Street and Moorpark Avenue near the location shown on Plate 1. As described in the staff report dated November 30, 2016, the library facility has not been designed but is anticipated to consist of an 18,000-square-foot, one-story building of standard wood frame construction. A recent geotechnical study for the nearby Area Housing Authority (AHA) site development south of Everett Street (Plate 1) recommended ground improvement to reduce potential foundation settlement associated with liquefaction and dry seismic settlement from earthquake-induced ground shaking due to subsurface conditions at that site (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2016). The City retained Oakridgq Geoscience, Inc. (OGI) to perform a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the proposed library site to evaluate whether the conditions onsite will require subsurface ground improvement similar to the AHA site, prior to hiring an architect or engineer to design the proposed structure. 1.2 WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZATION The work performed for this study consisted of data review, project coordination, field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical evaluation and reporting. The work was performed in general accordance with our revised proposal dated April 3, 2017 and was authorized by receipt of a Professional Services Agreement from the City, dated April 13, 2017. 1.2.1 Data Review and Project Coordination We reviewed readily available published data and existing geotechnical reports provided by the City for the nearby AHA site to the east (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2016) and the Moorpark Apartments site (Gorian and Associates, 2013a) to the west. The approximate locations of the AHA and Moorpark Apartments sites are shown on Plate 1. Prior to field exploration, we performed a site reconnaissance to locate and mark the exploration locations for coordination with Underground Service Alert. 1.2.2 Field Exploration Subsurface geologic conditions at the proposed library site were explored using a combination of cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) and drill holes near the locations shown on Plate 2. The CPT and drill hole logs are included in Appendix A. CPTs. Five CPTs were advanced to depths of about 75 feet each on April 27 by Kehoe Testing & Engineering. The CPT is mounted on a 30-ton 3-axle truck and consists of an about 1.4-inch-diameter rod fitted with a cone at the base. The cone is sequentially connected to 1-meter-long rods and pushed into the subsurface at a constant rate by hydraulic rams using the weight of the truck as resistance. Additional rods are added to the rod length as the depth increases. The cone is equipped with electronic load cells which measure point (tip) resistance to the penetration and frictional resistance between the soils and the cylinder side (sleeve) of the cone. The subsurface stratigraphy and engineering parameters of the penetrated materials are inferred based on correlations of the recorded tip and sleeve properties. The CPT collects 1 115 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE. INC. nearly continuous data (2-centimeter intervals) and allows for efficient evaluation of seismic- related hazards, engineering properties, and stratigraphy. Additionally, the CPT was equipped with a piezo-cone which measures excess pore pressure as a result of the penetration to further aid in evaluation of the depth to groundwater at the site. Pore-pressure dissipation tests were performed in CPT-3 and CPT-5. Following the completion of each CPT, the rods were withdrawn, and the small-diameter holes were backfilled to the ground surface with fine bentonite chips. Drill Holes. Two hollow-stem-auger drill holes, DH-1 and DH-2, were advanced near CPT-3 and CPT-4 by S/G Drilling on May 1, 2017 using a CME-85 drill rig equipped with 8-inch- diameter augers and a 140-pound automatic trip hammer. The drill holes were advanced to depths of 50 and 75 feet to help in evaluation of the subsurface conditions, to "ground truth" the CPT data, and to collect samples for laboratory testing and evaluation of liquefaction consistent with the guidelines published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, now California Geologic Survey [CGS]), Special Publication 117A(CGS, 2008). The drill holes were sampled at about 2.5-foot intervals to about 15 feet and at about 5-foot intervals to total depth using a combination of driven modified California and standard penetration test (SPT) samplers. In addition, bulk samples were collected from the near surface materials recovered from the auger flights. Our field geologist logged the recovered samples in general accordance with ASTM D2488 for visual soil classification. Groundwater depths encountered during drilling were measured and recorded on the drilling logs. Following completion of drilling and sampling at each location, the drill holes were backfilled to the surface with the drill cuttings mixed with cement to create soil-cement and tamped. 1.2.3 Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on selected earth materials sampled in the drill holes to characterize the materials and estimate relevant preliminary engineering design parameters. The testing consisted of moisture/density relationships, grainsize, Atterberg limits (plasticity), hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential, R-value, and soil chemistry for corrosion (pH, resistivity, sulfates, and chlorides). The laboratory test results are presented on the drill hole logs (Appendix A) and in Appendix B. 2 116 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 1.2.4 Geotechnical Evaluation and Reporting We evaluated the field and laboratory geotechnical data, developed preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for the project, and prepared this report to summarize our findings, opinions and recommendations. Our report includes the following: • Summary of soil and groundwater conditions encountered; • Logs of CPT and drill hole explorations; • Geologic cross sections depicting interpreted subsurface conditions; • Laboratory test data; • Evaluation of seismic-related hazards including fault rupture, liquefaction, dry seismic settlement and lateral spreading; • Potential need for ground improvement; • Preliminary design parameters for soil bearing and estimated settlement, and lateral earth pressures; • Suitability of onsite soil for use as fill and select fill material; • Anticipated excavation conditions; and • Preliminary grading recommendations. 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 BACKGROUND Geotechnical studies for two nearby sites: 1)AHA site (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2016) and 2) Moorpark Apartments (Gorian and Associates, 2013a) have documented the potential for seismic-related geohazards (liquefaction, dry seismic settlement, lateral spreading) and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential in the downtown Moorpark area. The approximate locations of the two sites relative to the proposed Moorpark Library site are shown on Plate 1. AHA Site. At the AHA site, Geotechnologies, Inc. reported zones of medium dense granular soils ranging from less than one-foot to about 18-feet thick between depths of 15 to 75 feet. Their report indicated those soils could liquefy in response to the design earthquake event with settlements ranging from about two- to six-inches. On that basis, Geotechnologies recommended ground improvement to a depth of 30 feet to reduce total settlement to less than two inches and differential settlement to less than one inch. Their report indicated the structure could be supported on shallow spread footings following the recommended ground improvement. Alternatively, if the ground improvement could not reduce the total settlement to less than two inches the structure could be supported on a mat foundation. The report indicated the "most feasible ground improvement techniques could consist of a mixture of soil mixing, stone columns, aggregate piers or earthquake drains." The final ground improvement design was to be performed by a specialized ground improvement contractor. As a follow-up to our initial review of the AHA geotechnical report, we spoke briefly with the City's Geotechnical review consultant, RJR Engineering. Mr. Rob Anderson with RJR 3 117 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. Engineering indicated seismic-related settlement issues have been reported at other locations within the City the Moorpark in addition to the AHA site. Sites closer to the Arroyo Simi drainage channel along the southern portion of the City seem to have a higher amount of estimated seismic settlement. The estimated seismic settlement in other areas in the City is variable. Moorpark Apartments Site. Gorian and Associates (Gorian, 2006; 2013a; 2013b) prepared a geotechnical study for the Moorpark Apartments site directly west and northwest of the proposed Library Site (Plate 1). Gorian's evaluation of the subsurface conditions indicated the potential for up to nine inches of seismic-related settlement (liquefaction and dry seismic settlement) based on a groundwater level of 15 to 25 feet below the ground surface and an earthquake ground acceleration of 0.68g. Exploration by Gorian was limited to a depth of 50 feet, therefore, subsurface data are not available to evaluate if liquefaction could also occur at deeper depths for that site. We note Gorian (2006) indicates up to 15 inches of dry seismic settlement were estimated from CPT-3A, but the calculated value was not considered accurate and the soils in the upper portion of the CPT would be mitigated as part of site grading. Gorian recommended ground improvement consisting of overexcavation and recompaction of soils to a depth of 13 to 22 feet below the existing grade to mitigate soils susceptible to seismic-related settlement; the proposed mitigation reduced the estimated vertical seismic settlement to about one-and-one-half to four inches. Gorian also recommended the proposed structures be supported on a "strong mat"type foundation to reduce the potential for differential settlement. 2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located within the Transverse Ranges geologic/geomorphic province of California. That province is characterized by generally east-west-trending mountain ranges composed of sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent. Major east-trending folds, reverse faults, and left-lateral strike-slip faults reflect regional north-south compression and are characteristic of the Transverse Ranges. Several authors including Dibblee (1992), and Weber(1973) have mapped the Moorpark area. The project site is located south of the confluence of two southerly draining tributaries (Walnut Canyon and an unnamed canyon) to the Arroyo Simi. As mapped by Dibblee (1992), the earth materials in the vicinity of the proposed library site consists of alluvial sediments of silt, sand, and gravel deposits. 2.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Mapping by the CDMG, (now CGS, 2000) indicates the proposed library site is locatedin a potential liquefaction area based on a regional evaluation of geologic and geotechnical conditions. Proposed habitable developments within this zone are required to have a site-specific liquefaction evaluation performed in accordance with CGS Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). 2.4 SITE CONDITIONS The project site is roughly an "L"-shaped vacant lot located west of the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and West High Street, south of the existing City library and parking lot as indicated on Plate 2. Review of images on Google Earth and the USGS topographic map • 4 118 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. indicate the project site was formerly developed with small structures that were demolished after about 2003. Asphalt concrete pavement is located in the northwest portion of the "L"-shaped property; the remainder of the site is earthen. The site topography slopes gently to the south. Based on ground surface elevations from the USGS Moorpark Quadrangle, the ground surface at the project site slopes southward from about elevation (El.) +520 feet at the northern portion of the site to about El. +514 feet at the southern portion of the site (6 feet of elevation difference) over a distance of about 270 feet (approximately a 2.2 percent slope). 2.5 EARTH MATERIALS Descriptions of soil conditions presented herein are based on visual classification of samples obtained from our field exploration combined with the results of laboratory testing. As depicted on the attached Geologic Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' (Plates 3a and 3b), the earth materials encountered by the CPTs and drill holes for this study consist primarily of interbedded granular alluvial deposits of sand and silty sand to depths of about 40 feet and interbedded silty to clayey sand, sandy clay, and silt from about 40 to 75 feet (maximum depth explored). As shown on the CPT logs in Appendix A, the silt, clay, and sand layers below a depth of 40 feet are typically thinly bedded ranging from several inches to two feet in thickness, with occasional clay or silty sand layers to about five feet thick. 2.5.1 Engineering Properties A summary of the general engineering parameters for the earth materials encountered in the explorations advanced for this study consists of: • Field SPT N-values ranged from about 2 to 15 blows per foot (bpf) from the ground surface to a depth of about 25 feet, and 12 to 22 bpf from about 25 to 75 feet below the ground surface (Appendix A). The SPT N-values indicate the granular soils classify as very loose to loose in the upper 25 feet and loose to medium dense from 25 to 75 feet. The fine-grained silt and clay soil layers generally classify as medium stiff, with the exception of a very soft layer at a depth of 50 feet in DH-1. • Moisture contents generally ranged from about 2 to 8 percent in the granular alluvial deposits above the groundwater level (above 37 feet) and from about 14 to 25 percent below the encountered groundwater level. • Dry densities of the granular soil in the upper 40 feet of the site ranged from 95 to 111 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the densities of interbedded soils from 40 to 75 feet ranged from 112 to 118 pcf. • The results of grainsize analyses indicate fines contents (percent passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from about 3 to 47 percent for the tested granular soil samples and from about 50 to 63 percent for cohesive materials. • Atterberg Limit tests indicate the tested fine-grained sandy clay layers have liquid limits of 21 to 26 and plasticity indexes of 6 to 9. Those soils classify as low plasticity sandy clay and sandy to silty clay (Appendix B). • The hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential for three silty sand soil samples from depths of 10, 25, and 30 feet was tested in accordance with ASTM D4546, Method 5 119 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. B. The test results are presented in Appendix B. The samples were selected for testing based on unit weight, degree of saturation, void ratio, and fines content (percent passing No. 200 sieve). The test results indicate hydroconsolidation potentials of 2.3 percent at 10 feet, 0.05 percent at 25 feet, and 0.4 percent at 30 feet. (Appendix B). • The near surface soil materials consist of silty sand with an R-value of 70 and an anticipated low expansion index (El of less than 20). • The results of the soil chemistry tests are summarized below. 2.6 SOIL CHEMISTRY AND CORROSION 2.6.1 Test Results A selected soil sample obtained from our exploration was provided to Cooper Testing Laboratories for resistivity, pH, chloride, and sulfate testing. The test results are summarized below and the laboratory test report is included in Appendix B. Table 1. Summary of Chemical Test Results Drill USCS Depth Sulfate Chloride Resistivity Hole Classification (feet) (mg/kg/%) (mg/kg) (ohm-cm) pH DH-1 Sand with Silt 0-5 6/0.0006 2 16,319 7.5 2.6.2 Corrosion and Cement Considerations As summarized in the table above, the measured pH of the tested sample (ASTM G51) is 7.5, the measured electrical resistivity (ASTM G57) is 16,319 ohm-centimeters, the chloride content (ASTM D4327) of the measured samples is 2 mg/kg, and the sulfate content (ASTM D4327) of the measured sample is x6mg/kg (0.0006 percent). Caltrans (2012) classifies soils as non-corrosive if the earth materials have less than 500 ppm chlorides, less than 0.20 percent sulfates (i.e., 2,000 mg/kg or ppm), a pH of 5.5 or more, or an electrical resistivity of 1,000 ohm-centimeters or more. The data suggest the tested soil materials are not corrosive to underground steel. If applicable, the test results should be evaluated by a corrosion engineer to determine how underground utilities should be protected from corrosion. The cement type should be selected with consideration of the sulfate content of the tested soils. Available sulfate content data suggest that, per Table 4-3-1 of ACI 318, Type II cement can be used for concrete that will be in contact with onsite granular soils. 2.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 36 to 37.5 feet in the drill holes advanced onsite (Appendix A). Interpretation of the CPT dissipation test data indicates similar groundwater depths of about 37 feet below ground surface at the time of our exploration on April 27, 2017 (Appendix A). Historically high groundwater levels reported by the CGS (2000) 6 120 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. indicate the groundwater levels at the project site have been within about 15 feet of the ground surface. Variations in groundwater levels and soil moisture conditions can occur as a result of rainfall, irrigation, runoff, and other factors. 2.8 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSES Data interpretation for this study utilized the CPTs and the SPT N-values from the drill holes advanced onsite (Appendix A). Analyses of the CPT and SPT data from this study were performed using the computer program GeoLogisMiki. Selected computer printouts from the GeoLogisMiki analyses are presented in Appendix C. A complete pdf file of the analyses can be provided upon request. The field SPT N-values presented on the drill hole logs in Appendix A were normalized to 1 ton/square foot and corrected for rig efficiency, hammer type, sampler type (no liner), and rod length as described in the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). Recent modifications to the CGS procedures by Boulanger and Idriss (2014) are incorporated into the software evaluation. We also utilized blow counts measured for the modified California sampler (MCS) in the analyses by dividing the MCS blowcount by 1.6 to provide an equivalent SPT N-value. The SPT N-value correction factors are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. SPT N-Value Correction Factors Correction Factor Value Comment Hammer Efficiency(CE) 1.3 Auto trip hammer 80%efficiency L<15'=0.75 Rod Length(CR) L<20'=0.85 L=Rod Length (feet) L<35'=0.95 L>35'=1.0 Sampling Method(Cs) 1.2 Modified California Sampler(MCS) MCS/1.6=SPT N-value Equivalent SPT N-Value blowcounts 2.9 POTENTIAL VARIATION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS There is a potential for variation in the consistency, density, and strength/hardness of the materials from what was encountered in our explorations. The potential exists to encounter perched water, zones of poorly consolidated soils, or other conditions not indicated on the exploration logs. If significant variation in the geologic conditions is observed during construction, we recommend the geotechnical engineer, in conjunction with the project designer, evaluate the impact of those variations on the project design. 7 121 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 2.10 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND GEOHAZARDS 2.10.1 Faults The project site is located in a seismically active portion of southern California and the project most likely will be subjected to strong earthquake ground motion during its lifetime. As summarized in the following table, numerous active or potentially active faults are known or postulated to exist within about 15 miles of the proposed new library site. Table 3. Nearby Faults Approximate Maximum Moment Fault Distance(miles)1 Magnitude(Mmax) Simi-Santa Rosa 2.1 6.8 Oak Ridge 6.0 7.1 San Cayetano 8.1 7.1 Northridge 12.1 6.8 Earthquake distances and magnitudes obtained from the USGS website(2017) 2.10.2 Ground Rupture Potential The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) and no known active or potentially active faults cross or trend toward the site. The potential for fault rupture to affect the site is considered low. 2.10.3 Seismic Considerations for 2016 CBC We estimated the probabilistic seismic ground acceleration at the proposed library site using the USGS web application (USGS; 2017). On the basis of the web-based analyses, the peak horizontal ground acceleration (pga) at the proposed site is estimated to be 1.035g for an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) assuming Site Class D soil conditions. The following table summarizes the probabilistically estimated strong ground motion parameters for the project site. Table 4. Summary of USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Results Return Period Mean Magnitude Mean Source Peak Horizontal (years) (Mw) Distance(miles) Ground Acceleration 2,475 6.9 5.0 1.035g 2.10.4 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters In accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC, the following parameters have been obtained from the USGS Seismic Design Maps web application (USGS, 2017) and shall be incorporated into the seismic design at the project site. The subsurface conditions at 8 122 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. the site are considered to satisfy the parameters for Site Class D1. The associated seismic design parameters for Site Class D for use in generating the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake and design level spectra are summarized in the following table. Table 5. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters 2013 California Building Code Seismic Parameter Site Class D Section 1613 Values --- Latitude 34.2857 Longitude -118.8829 Figure 1613.3.1(1) Mapped Acceleration Response Parameter(S5) 2.755g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Mapped Acceleration Response Parameter(Si) 0.968g Section 1613.3.2 Site Class D Section 1613.3.3 and Site Coefficient(Fa) 1.0 Table 1613.3.3(1) Section 1613.3.3 and Site Coefficient(F„) 1.5 Table 1613.3.3(2) Section 1613.3.3 PGAM Equation 11.8-1 PGAM=FPCiAPGA 1.035g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter(SMs) 2.755g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter(SM1) 1.452g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter(Sos) 1.837g Section 1613.3.3 Adjusted Acceleration Response Parameter(Sol) 0.968g 2.10.5 Liquefaction and Dry Seismic Settlement Potential Liquefaction is described as the sudden loss of soil strength because of a rapid increase in soil pore water pressures due to cyclic loading during a seismic event. In order for liquefaction to occur, three general geotechnical characteristics must be present 2 : 1) groundwater must be present within the potentially liquefiable zone; 2) the potentially liquefiable soil must meet certain grainsize and classification characteristics; and 3) the potentially liquefiable granular soil must be of low to moderate relative density. If those criteria 1A Site Class D soil is defined in California Building Code(CBC)as the soil having the following average parameters for the upper 100 feet of the site: 1)shear wave velocity of 600 to 1,200 ft/sec,2)standard penetration test SPT N-value of between 15 to 50, and 3) undrained shear strength of fine-grained soil between 1,000 to 2,000 psf. SPT N-values in the upper 50 feet of the Moorpark Library site ranged from 2 to 15 for granular soils to a depth of about 25 feet and 12 to 22 from about 25 to 75 feet (Appendix A). The average SPT N-values and soil shear strength in the upper 100 feet of the site would be consistent with Site Class D soil. 2 Based on studies by Seed and Idriss(1971)and Youd and Idriss(2000), liquefaction occurs primarily in clean granular soils that classify as sand(SP)and sand with silt(SP-SM). Dense granular soils with fines contents greater than 35%(silty sand-SM and clayey sand-SC)are less likely to liquefy.Liquefaction susceptibility criteria developed by Boulanger and Idriss(2006)indicates that fine-grained soils with a PI of 6 or less can be susceptible to liquefaction. Studies by Bray and Sancio(2006)indicates that silty soils with a PI of 12 or less could potentially liquefy. 9 123 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. are met and strong ground motion occurs, then those soils may liquefy, depending upon the intensity and cyclic nature of the strong ground motion. Liquefaction that produces surface effects generally occurs in the upper 40 to 50 feet of the soil column, although the phenomenon is not restricted to depths of less than 50 feet. As described in the Earth Materials section above, the soil profile consists primarily of interbedded granular alluvial deposits of sand and silty sand to depths of about 40 feet and interbedded silty to clayey sand, sandy clay, and silt from about 40 to 75 feet (Plates 3a and 3b). Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 37 feet during field exploration for this study. Historic high groundwater levels summarized by the CGS (2000) are about 15 feet below the ground surface. SPT N-values from the upper 25 feet of the drill holes range from 2 to 15 bpf, indicating the granular soils are very loose to medium dense in that zone. The SPT N-values from 25 to 75 feet range from 12 to 22 bpf, indicating the granular soils are medium dense and the fine-grained silt and clay soils are medium stiff within that zone. Research by Boulanger and Idriss2 (2006) has indicated fine-grained silt and clay soils with Plasticity Index (PI) values of 6 or less can be susceptible to liquefaction and research by Bray and Sancio (2006) indicates low plasticity silt with a PI of up 12 can liquefy during strong earthquake ground shaking. Clay soils with PI of greater than 18 generally exhibit a clay-like behavior and are considered non-liquefiable based on the criteria developed by Bray and Sancio (2006). The fine-grained sandy clay and sandy to silty clay soil layerstested for this study (Appendix B) have fines contents (percent passing the number 200 sieve) of 50 to 63 percent and Pi's of 6 to 9, suggesting those layers have low plasticity and may be susceptible to liquefaction in response to strong earthquake ground shaking. Analyses of the CPT and SPT data were performed.using the program GeoLogisMiki. The input values are summarized below and selected graphics from the analyses are presented in Appendix C: • The seismic ground motion is 1.03g for a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for the project site. • Historic high groundwater level of 15 feet below the ground surface. • CPT evaluation using the procedure recommended by Robertson (2009). • SPT data evaluation using the procedure recommended by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). Overall, the liquefaction analyses indicate the very loose to loose granular soils at the site are susceptible to liquefaction below the groundwater and dry seismic settlement above the groundwater. The estimated vertical liquefaction and dry seismic settlements are summarized in Table 6. Seismically induced settlement or collapse can occur in soils that are loose, soft, or that are moderately dense, but weakly cemented. The onsite very loose to loose granular and silty soils above the groundwater are susceptible to seismically induced settlement. The estimated seismically induced settlement in the upper 15 feet of site is summarized in Table 6. We note the groundwater is assumed to be at 15 feet; therefore, soils below that depth are subject to liquefaction potential in the analyses even though the groundwater depth encountered by our explorations was about 37 feet below the ground surface. 10 124 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. Table 6. Summary of Estimated Vertical Seismic Settlement Estimated Estimated Dry Total Estimated Estimated Lateral Exploration Liquefaction Seismic Seismic Displacement Location Settlement Settlement Settlement (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) CPT-1 7.5 6.9 14.4 200 inches CPT-2 8.0 8.3 16.3 200+inches • CPT-3 9.9 8.2 18.1 200+inches CPT-4 10.9 5.8 16.7 300+inches CPT-5 10.4 8.0 18.4 300+inches DH-1 13.8 34.0 37.8 108 inches DH-2 9.4 2.4 11.8 72 inches Range(inches) 7.5-13.8 2.4-34 11.8-37.8 - Average Value 10 9.4 19 - (inches) 2.10.6 Data Summary Review of the data plots in Appendix C indicates: • The liquefaction and dry seismic settlements estimated from the five CPTs advanced for this study are fairly consistent, ranging from 7 to 11 inches and 6 to 8 inches, respectively. • The estimated liquefaction and dry seismic settlement estimated from the SPT data ranges 9.4 to 13.8 inches and 2.4 to 34 inches, respectively. The estimated liquefaction settlements from the SPT data are fairly consistent with CPT data with a slightly higher value for estimated settlement in DH-1 which extended to 75 feet (25 feet deeper than DH-2). • The procedures for estimating dry seismic settlement from blowcount data are sensitive to low N-values such as was encountered in the near surface soil in DH-1. In DH-1, a three-foot-thick zone from 3.5 to 6.5 feet with an SPT N-value of 2 accounts for half(17 inches) of the estimated dry seismic settlement in that drill hole. • The analyses presented in Appendix C indicate the loose granular soils and soft low plasticity silt/clay layers have a seismic factor of safety of less than 1 and an associated liquefaction potential to a depth of 75 feet (maximum depth explored). • A majority of the estimated settlement from the CPT data occurs between the ground surface and a depth of about 40 to 50 feet. • Estimated liquefaction settlement below a depth of about 40 feet is about 2 to 4 inches based on the CPT data (Appendix C). • The total estimated liquefaction settlement in DH-1 (75 feet deep) is 13.8 inches; 4 inches of the settlement is estimated below about 50 feet. The analyses for DH-1 11 125 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. conservatively assumes all zones below a depth of 15 feet could liquefy except for a medium stiff clay from 66 to 69 feet. 2.10.7 Lateral Movement The occurrence of lateral spreading is generally associated with sites where liquefaction is possible and: 1) the ground surface is sloping, or 2) there is a free-face condition such as a road cut or riverbank. Existing analytical methods of assessing potential deformations caused by lateral spreading are based on a small number of case histories and generally involve layers of liquefiable soils of greater than about three feet (one meter). The procedures are generally considered reasonable in assessing risks where significant lateral deformations are possible (deformations of three feet or greater). The ability to reasonably predict small lateral spreading deformations is, however, considered significantly limited. As depicted on the regional geologic/topographic map for the Moorpark Quadrangle (Dibblee, 1992), the ground surface in the vicinity of the project site slopes southward at a gradient of about 2.2 percent or less (six feet over 270 feet). From High Street southward, the regional slope gradient is one percent or less to the west. As described above, based on the CPT and drill holes advanced for this study, there is a potential for liquefaction, primarily in the upper 40 to 50 feet of the site. The lateral displacements estimated from the CPT and SPT data are summarized in Table 6 and range from 72 inches to greater than 300 inches. CGS Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008) defines large-scale ground displacements as areas that exceed one to three feet horizontally and four to six inches vertically. The estimated lateral displacements summarized in Table 6 range from six to 25 feet, and estimated vertical settlements (combined liquefaction and dry seismic settlement) in Table 6 average 19 inches. Based on both of those criteria, ground improvement of the subsurface soils will be required prior to construction to reduce the estimated lateral displacement to acceptable levels. 2.11 HYDROCONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE) POTENTIAL Research by several authors including and Houston et al. (1997; 2001) and Purdue University (Howayek, 2012) indicates hydroconsolidation (collapse) typically occurs in silty and granular soil materials with densities below 105 pcf, degree of saturation of less than 25 percent, and high void ratios. In the Ventura County area, our experience indicates hydroconsolidation is commonly associated with silty soils deposited in debris-flow type environments. The depositional environment with high collapse potential previously observed in Ventura, Camarillo, and Simi Valley consists of Holocene- to Late Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits above the groundwater. As noted above in the Site Conditions section of this report, the proposed site is located at the mouth of tributary drainage to Arroyo Simi and is underlain by younger to older alluvial deposits; those deposits are equivalent to the Holocene- to Late Pleistocene-age fan deposits. Based on an evaluation of the laboratory index properties (soil density, moisture content, void ratio, and fines content), three samples were selected for collapse testing per ASTM D4546, Method B. The results of those tests are presented in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 7 below. Based on published criteria (ASTM D5333), a collapse index of two percent or less is classified as slight, two to six percent is moderate, six to ten percent is moderately 12 126 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. severe, and above 10 percent is severe. Based on the tested samples, the amount of hydroconsolidation ranges from 0.05 to 2.3 percent. The values of less than two percent are considered slight by ASTM D5333 classification and within background levels for soils in Ventura County based on our previous experience. The sample from DH-2 at 10 feet with 2.3 percent hydroconsolidation (collapse index) indicates a moderate degree of potential collapse settlement. The typical procedure to mitigate shallow collapse potential is to overexcavate and recompact the soil. If ground improvement is performed at the site, the near-surface soils would be densified and, in our opinion, likely reduce the hydroconsolidation potential to an acceptable level (i.e., less than two percent). Table 7. Summary of Hydroconsolidation (Collapse) Potential of Onsite Soils •Location Dry Moisture Void Fines Measured Soil Content Degree of and Density Ratio Content Hydroconsolidation Depth Type (pcf) (%) Saturation (%) (%) ()/0) DH-2 Silty Sand 96.9 3.5 13 0.71 22 2.3 10 feet (SM) DH-2 Silty Sand 89.9 5.6 18 0.84 29 0.05 25 feet (SM) DH-1 Sand 30 feet w/Silt 102 2.5 11 0.62 7 0.43 (SP-SM) 2.12 EXPANSIVE SOILS As described on the drill holes and laboratory data, the onsite surficial soils consist of sand and silty to clayey sand. The onsite granular soils are anticipated to have a low expansion potential. 13 127 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 3.0 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITIONS The geotechnical conditions for the proposed library site were evaluated based on the explorations advanced for this study supplemented by data from previous geotechnical reports from the project vicinity. Based on the work performed, the site conditions consist of: • Generally granular sand and silty sand soil in the upper 40 feet underlain by thinly interbedded silt, clay, and clayey sand from 40 to 75 feet(maximum depth explored). • SPT N-values from the upper 25 feet of the drill holes range from 2 to 15 bpf, indicating the granular soils are very loose to medium dense in that zone. The SPT N-values from 25 to 75 feet range from 12 to 22 bpf, indicating the granular soils are medium dense and the fine-grained silt and clay soils are medium stiff within that zone. • Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 37 feet during exploration. Historic high groundwater levels in the Moorpark area are about 15 feet below the ground surface. • The site is not located within a fault rupture hazard zone as defined by the State of California, California Geological Survey. • The site is located in a seismically active area of Ventura County and has an estimated peak ground acceleration PGAM of 1.03g. • The plasticity index of fine grained soils ranges from 6 to 9. Research by Bray and Sancio (2006) indicates the fine grained soils could potentially liquefy during a seismic event. • CPT and SPT data were evaluated (Appendix C) to estimate liquefaction and dry seismic settlement using the program GeoLogisMiki and the procedures developed by Robertson (2009) and Boulanger and Idriss (2014). The combined estimated liquefaction and dry seismic settlement ranges from about 12 to 34 inches with an average of about 19 inches in the upper 75 feet at the site. • A majority of the estimated seismically induced settlement occurs in the granular soil layers in the upper 50 feet of the site; less than two to four inches of settlement is estimated to occur below 50 feet. Based on the liquefaction analyses, the fine-grained silt and clay soil layers do not contribute to liquefaction settlement. • Estimated lateral spreading ranges from six feet to greater than 20 feet using the procedure developed by Robertson (2009) for CPT data and Boulanger and ldriss (2014)for SPT data. • Estimated hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential ranges from 0.05 to 2.3 percent based on the laboratory testing on three samples of onsite soil. • Nearby sites have estimated liquefaction/dry seismic settlement 2.5 inches (AHA Site; Geotechnologies, 2016) and 2 to 9 inches (Moorpark Apartments; Gorian, 2013). Liquefaction potential was identified to depths of about 60 feet with individual zones ranging from several feet to 18 feet thick. 14 128 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. • CGS Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008) and the California Building Code (CBC) typically require projects to have seismic settlement of no more than two inches total. and one inch of differential settlement. Sites with estimated settlements of more than two inches are normally required to mitigate settlement to about two inches with ground improvement. Potential ground improvement options are discussed in the following sections. 3.2 GROUND IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS As discussed above, ground improvement of the soils at the proposed library site will be required to mitigate the amount of estimated settlement to near two inches of total settlement and one inch of differential settlement. To reduce the estimated settlement to near two inches will require improving the site to a depth of approximately 50 feet. We note a 50-foot thick treatment depth would reduce the estimated settlement to less than two inches for most of the exploration locations performed for this study with the exception of DH-1. The data and analyses for DH-1 indicates up to four inches of settlement could occur from depths of 50 to 75 feet. However, in our opinion, if the upper 50 feet of soil were densified/improved, the site would have a 50-foot-thick cap of non-liquefiable improved soil to dampen any settlement below 50 feet. If the treatment depth was limited to 50 feet, a mat-type foundation may be required to reduce differential settlement to an acceptable level for the structure. The alternative would be to select a ground improvement option that could treat soil to a depth of greater than 50 feet as discussed below. The two primary ground improvement methods to mitigate seismically induced settlements to a depth of about 50 feet with groundwater at a .depth of 37 feet are: 1) vibro replacement (VR, also referred to as "stone columns"), and 2) deep soil mixing (DSM). The VR procedure consists of advancing a 30-inch diameter steel mandrel to the selected depth (approximately 50 feet) using a combination of the weight of mandrel and vibration. Once the mandrel reaches the selected depth, %-inch crushed rock is used to backfill the hole. The gravel is vibrated and "rammed" into the soft soil. The stone columns are placed on a grid pattern with a spacing typically in the range of six to nine feet on center. The soil displaced by the mandrel is "pushed" laterally into the adjacent soil, densifying the soil mass at the site to the point where it will resist liquefying and settlement in response to earthquake ground shaking. CPTs are advanced between columns after the VR is performed to evaluate the increase in soil strength/resistance to liquefaction. VR is an effective method of densifying granular soils to a depth of about 50 feet, but the process does not significantly improve the density of fine-grained silt and clay soils or highly interbedded fine-grained and granular soils. In our opinion, VR will be most effective in the upper 40 feet at the proposed library site. DSM uses a large diameter auger mounted to a large drill rig or crane to advance the auger to the target depth (approximately 50 feet for the library project). Cement is mixed into the soil at a regulated rate of around 10 percent and mixed by the auger using several up and down passes of the auger. The amount of cement added to the soil is determined by laboratory testing to optimize the soil strength versus amount of cement utilized. Once the cement and soil are uniformly mixed, the auger is withdrawn and moved to the next location. The DSM columns can be placed in a variety of patterns (grid, tangent, overlapping) depending on the project requirements. For the proposed library project, one option is to place the DSM columns on a 15 129 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. grid pattern with a center to center spacing of two to three diameters with a grade beam type foundation system supported on the columns. The column configuration will depend on the column diameter selected (typically three to six feet), cement percentage, soil type, and amount of soil improvement required. Once the columns are completed, a grade-beam type foundation can be installed on top of the DSM columns to support the structure. Other column configurations such as tangent columns, overlapping columns, etc. can be utilized depending on project requirements. The advantages of the DSM method are that it can installed to depths of greater than 50 feet and it can improve the strength of fine-grained soils. The final design of the ground improvement system is typically performed by the specialty ground improvement contractor working with the project civil, structural, and geotechnical engineers. Other options could be considered pending an evaluation by a specialty ground improvement contractor. Both methods are established procedures and are considered feasible for the Moorpark Library site pending detailed site analyses of the proposed method and cost proposal from a qualified ground-improvement contractor. The pros and cons of the two primary methods are summarized in the following table. Table 8. Summary of Ground Improvement Methods Ground Improvement Pros Cons General Cost Method Range Vibro • Established procedure, • Treatment depth limited to 50 • Mob/Demob- Replacement(VR) excepted by agencies feet $60,000 /Stone Columns • Densifies granular soil • Vibration could impact adjacent • $30/ft of column between individual structures.Vibration monitoring • Column center to columns recommended. center spacing • Provides conduit to • Limited density improvement to typically 6 to 9 feet dissipate buildup of water fine-grained silt and clay soils pressure during a seismic from 40 to 50 feet below the event ground surface. • multiple contractors • Treatment area usually extends perform procedure— out beyond building foundations multiple bids • Ground disturbance at surface • No spoil generated during requires upper several feet of installation site to be recompacted Deep Soil Mixing • Established procedure • More expensive mobilization • Mob/Demob- (DSM) excepted by agencies and per foot of column cost than $100,000 to • DSM columns can be vibro replacement $150,000 extended to depths of 75 • Does not densify soil between • $50/ft of column feet if required. columns • Replacement ratio • Treatment area can be • Soil between columns can settle 10% limited to building requiring a grade-beam type foundation footprint foundation to span across depending on site columns conditions • About 20 percent spoil generated during installation that needs to be disposed of. 16 130 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 3.2.1 Ground Improvement Limits Typically, ground improvement is performed beneath the building footprint for "habitable structures" plus a minimal distance outside the building footprint (generally one column spacing) to provide lateral support for the structure. Habitable structures are defined by the CGS as structures with 2,000 man-hours occupancy per year. The remainder of the site beneath auxiliary structures is generally not improved unless the structures are considered an essential facility (such as an emergency back-up generator). The area outside of the building footprints beneath auxiliary structures and paved areas would be overexcavated per the recommendations in this report. 3.2.2 Surface Treatment Installation of VR columns typically causes the upper several feet of the ground surface to heave. Once the VR columns have been installed, the upper two feet of soil in the building foundation area should be over-excavated and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. The compacted material could consist of onsite granular soil or crushed rock. For DSM projects, the loose disturbed soil in the upper portion of the site is removed to expose the upper part of the DSM columns. The surface treatment beneath the grade beam foundation treatment will be specified by the project civil and structural engineers based on the column and foundation configuration. 3.3 PRELIMINARY GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.1 General Site Clearing and Grubbing Soil containing debris, organics, trees and root systems, and other unsuitable materials should be excavated and removed from improvement areas prior to commencing grading operations. Areas should be cleared of old foundations, slabs, pavement, abandoned utilities, and soils disturbed during the demolition process. Depressions or disturbed areas left from the removal of such material should be replaced with compacted fill. 3.3.2 Subgrade Preparation For areas within the building foundation improved with VR, the ground surface should be overexcavated to a depth of two feet below the existing ground surface and replaced with compacted fill consisting of onsite granular soils or a blanket of crushed rock. For improved areas outside of the building foundation ground improvement area, the ground surface should be overexcavated to a depth of two feet below the existing ground surface or two feet below footing depth, whichever is deeper. The resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of eight inches and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (RC) and the fill placed above that level. Areas underlain by asphalt concrete pavement should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to 95 percent RC. 3.3.3 Fill Material Selection Recommended fill material selection requirements for subgrade fill, aggregate base, and use of onsite materials are presented below. Areas or zones where the various fill materials may be used are described below. 17 131 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. Use of Onsite Materials. As described above, the near-surface onsite materials consist of granular silty sand soils with some gravel and cobble-size rock fragments. The material generated from the site overexcavation can be utilized as compacted fill as long as those materials satisfy criteria for general fill. General Fill. General fill should consist of granular soil materials (SP, SW, SP-SM, and SM)free of organics, oversize rock (greater than six inches in diameter), trash, debris, and other deleterious or unsuitable materials, and should have an expansion index less than 20. The fill materials should have less than 15 percent larger than three inches in diameter. Aggregate and Miscellaneous Base. Base materials should consist of material conforming to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base, Section 26-1.02 (Caltrans, 2015) or Section 200-2.5 of the Greenbook (2015) for Processed Miscellaneous Base. Imported Fill. Although importing fill is not anticipated, if material is imported, the imported subgrade fill materials should comply with recommendations for general fill or as appropriate for its intended use. Imported fill should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to being transported to the site. 3.3.4 Dewatering On the basis of our subsurface exploration and previous studies nearby, we do not anticipate groundwater will be encountered during site grading activities. Although we do not anticipate the need for dewatering, groundwater levels may vary seasonally and it is possible some seepage may be encountered in the excavations following rain events. 3.3.5 Fill Placement Fill should be placed, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. In general, we recommend the moisture content of the fill should be 0 to 2 percent above the optimum. We note the tested on-site soils have low moisture contents in the range of 2 to 8 percent. On the basis of the test results, water will need to be added during grading to bring the moisture content up near the optimum moisture content of about 10 to 11 percent. Each layer should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly blade-mixed during the spreading to provide relative uniformity of material within each layer. Soft or yielding materials should be removed and be replaced with properly compacted fill material prior to placing the next layer. Rock, cobbles, and other oversized material greater than six inches in dimension in any direction should be removed from the fill material being placed. The contractor should be prepared to screen all native materials prior to placement as compacted fill. Rocks should not be nested and voids should be filled with compacted material. Organics, foreign matter, and other deleterious materials also should be removed from any material used in constructed fills. Fill and backfill materials should be placed in layers that can be compacted with the equipment being used. Fill should be spread in lifts no thicker than approximately eight inches prior to being compacted. Fill and backfill materials may need to be placed in thinner lifts to achieve the recommended compaction depending on the equipment being used. 18 132 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 3.3.6 Compaction Fill placement and grading operations should be performed according to the City of Moorpark, Greenbook Specification 300-4, and the grading recommendations of this report. Relative compaction should be assessed based on the latest approved edition of ASTM D1557. The building and general site improvement over-excavation and upper 1-foot of paved areas (subgrade plus base materials) should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. We recommend general fill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Recommended specified relative compaction should extend to a minimum of three feet horizontally beyond the limits of the improvements. 3.4 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN The following sections describes preliminary shallow foundation design parameters for the site assuming the seismic geohazards have been mitigated through ground improvement. Depending on the level of improvement and building design criteria, it may be necessary so support the proposed structure on a mat type foundation. The decision on the preferred foundation type should be coordinated with the project civil and structural engineers based on building settlement.tolerances. The following sections provides preliminary shallow foundation parameters consisting of isolated and continuous footings designed in accordance with current CBC and Greenbook requirements assuming that those values are suitable for the proposed structure. 3.4.1 Allowable Bearing Pressure Continuous and isolated spread footings will be supported on recompacted onsite materials underlain by alluvium. For these conditions, we recommend shallow footings be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable value incorporates a factor of safety of at least 3. The toe-pressure below retaining walls or eccentrically loaded footings can exceed the recommended bearing pressure, provided the resultant pressure is within the middle-third of the footing. In accordance with 2016 CBC Section 1806.1, the bearing values indicated above are for static loads (including the total of dead and frequently applied live loads), and may be increased for short duration loading (including the effects of wind or seismic forces) as allowed in 2016 CBC Section 1605.3.2. 3.4.2 Minimum Embedment Depth and Width In general, footings should be embedded to at least two feet below the adjacent grade and have a minimum width of 18 inches. Isolated pad footings should be at least three feet in least-dimension. 3.4.3 Sliding and Passive Resistance Ultimate sliding resistance (friction) generated at the interface of concrete foundations and compacted soils can be computed by multiplying the total dead weight structural load by a coefficient of 0.40. The ultimate net passive resistance developed from lateral bearing of foundations against compacted backfill or undisturbed native soil can be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf. The passive resistance for the upper one-foot of soil should be neglected unless the soils Bre confined at the ground surface by slab-on-grade or pavement. 19 133 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. Sliding resistance and passive pressure may be used together without reduction, when used with the recommended minimum factors of safety. For static conditions, minimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 are recommended for foundation overturning and sliding, respectively. The factor of safety for sliding can be reduced to 1.5, if passive resistance is neglected. The factor of safety for transient (seismic, wind) conditions should be at least 1.1. 3.4.4 Settlements Static Settlements. Static settlements will generally occur in response to foundation loads on the foundation support material. The structure should be designed to accommodate static differential settlements of at least one-half-inch over a distance of 30 feet (i.e., a distortion ratio of approximately 1/720)for similarly sized and loaded footings. Seismic Settlements. Seismically induced settlements are discussed previously in this report. We anticipate the alluvialsoils underlying the proposed excavation could experience seismic settlement of 19 inches without ground improvement and up to four inches with ground improvement to 50 feet with associated differential settlements of two-inches across the site. 3.5 SLAB-ON-GRADE At-grade floor slab thickness should be designed by the structural engineer, but should not be less than six inches thick. Control joints should be specified by the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should determine reinforcement requirements, but, at a minimum, reinforcement of on-grade floor slabs should consist of No. 4 bars at 18 inches each way, placed above slab mid-height with preferably about 1I/2- to 2-inches of clear cover. Means should be provided to maintain reinforcement location during construction and concrete placement. Proper concrete placement in accordance with applicable specifications and curing of concrete slabs inhibits moisture migration. The concrete slab water cement ratio should be maintained during concrete mixing and placement. The project architect and design engineer should select the desired concrete properties based on the concrete slab-on-grade performance requirements. The slab-on-grade should incorporate a moisture seal beneath the slab in areas where the concrete slab will be covered with flooring. The moisture seal should be bedded in sand per ACI criteria. 3.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 3.6.1 Existing Utilities We recommend any existing utilities be removed from the grading areas and relocated as necessary. The removal should consist of the excavation of the existing trench backfill and subsequent placement of new compacted fill. Excavation work required for the abandonment of utilities is anticipated to be relatively nominal but should be considered in the construction documents. Trenches should be excavated no closer than a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1h:1v) projection up from the bottom of the excavation in areas where an existing utility/pipeline parallel's or subparallels the trench excavation. The minimum clear distance between an 20 134 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. existing utility and the trench should be evaluated by the contractor. We recommend existing utility/pipelines be supported/protected or the trench be shored to prevent loss of lateral support for existing utility/pipelines when: 1) the trench is closer than a 1 h:1 v projection to the existing utility, 2) the stability of the existing utility is in question, or 3) there is a potential for sloughing of the trench sidewalls adjacent to the existing utility. 3.6.2 Excavation Conditions Subsurface materials encountered in our exploratory holes consisted of very loose to loose silty sand to sand (granular) sediments to the anticipated excavation depths. We expect excavations in those soils can be made using conventional heavy-duty equipment in good working order. 3.6.3 Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design of temporary slopes. Subsurface materials encountered in our exploratory holes consisted of very loose to loose granular sediments to the anticipated excavation depths. Temporary slopes should be braced or sloped according to the requirements of OSHA. As input to design, excavations without shoring that are shallower than 10 feet likely will be classified as Type C and should be sloped no steeper than 1.5h:1v as deemed appropriate based upon classification Type determined in the field per OSHA guidelines. OSHA requires excavations greater than 20 feet deep be designed by a qualified professional. We recommend all temporary excavations be monitored for signs of instability and appropriate actions (such as flattening the slope, providing shoring, and controlling groundwater, if encountered) should be undertaken if evidence of potential instability is observed 3.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 3.7.1 Subgrade Preparation The finished subgrade surface exposed after overexcavation should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to within 0 to 2 percent of optimum moisture, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (i.e., 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined from ASTM D1557). 3.7.2 Fill Material Selection Recommended fill material selection requirements for subgrade fill, aggregate base, and use of onsite materials are presented below. Areas or zones where the various fill materials may be used are described below. Subgrade Fill. General fill should be free of organics, oversize rock (greater than 3 inches in diameter), trash, debris, and other deleterious or unsuitable materials, and should have an expansion index less than 20. Aggregate and Miscellaneous Base. Aggregate or miscellaneous base material should be placed below the asphalt pavement. Base materials should consist of imported material conforming to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base, Section 21 135 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 26-1.02 (Caltrans, 2015) or Section 200-2.5 of the Greenbook (2015) for Processed Miscellaneous Base. Use of Onsite Materials. Materials generated during excavation and grading in pavement areas are generally anticipated to consist primarily of granular soil materials. Material derived from the overexcavation can be used as subgrade as long as those materials satisfy criteria presented above for subgrade fill. Imported Fill. Imported subgrade fill materials should comply with recommendations for subgrade fill or as appropriate for its intended use. Imported fill should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to being transported to the site. 3.7.3 Pavement Section A flexible pavement design section was estimated using the County of Ventura pavement design procedures for assumed Traffic Index (TI) of 5, an R-value of 70 for the tested onsite sandy subgrade materials, and our experience. The recommended asphalt pavement sections based on the assumed TIs and the R-value test data are presented in the following table. Asphalt pavement materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Table 9. Asphalt Pavement Section R-Value Traffic Thickness of Thickness of Index Asphalt Concrete(in) Aggregate Base(in) 70 5 3 4 3.8 SITE DRAINAGE Site grading should be provided such that positive drainage away from improvements is provided. Water should not be allowed to pond near the improvements; we recommend the construction of finish slopes of 1 to 2 percent away from improvements. 3.9 STORMWATER INFILTRATION Recent regulatory agency requirements mandate stormwater generated on a new project site be infiltrated into the onsite soils. While this concept may have merit from an environmental standpoint, it increases the potential to cause foundation damage to onsite improvements due to higher groundwater levels, reduced soil strength, hydroconsolidation of onsite soils, and moisture infiltration into buried structures. If onsite stormwater disposal is implemented at the site, the design needs to consider the locations of existing and proposed structures and impacts to offsite improvements. The liquefaction analyses performed for this study indicates up to about 12 inches of liquefaction related settlement could occur in response to the design seismic event. Infiltration of stormwater could increase groundwater levels beneath the site and reduce the shear strength of the soils which would increase the potential for liquefaction related settlement. In addition, the study indicated the potential for hydroconsolidation (collapse) of the onsite soil as high as 2.3 percent at a depth of 10 feet in areas not mitigated by ground improvement. A collapse of 2 22 136 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. percent over a depth of 35 feet (depth above current groundwater level) is equivalent to a collapse settlement of about 8 inches. Previous experience with collapse related settlements indicates concentrated water infiltration can cause hydroconsolidation of soils with collapse potential. Those concentrated settlements are typically associated with leaking water or sewer pipelines, but in our opinion, concentrated stormwater infiltration in a discrete basin has the potential to cause hydroconsolidation of the soils. The settlement contours from soil hydroconsolidation related settlement measured in previous forensic studies in the Ventura area documented a radial settlement pattern extending up to about 100 feet from the water infiltration source. If storm water is infiltrated at the proposed library site, we suggest the project civil engineer consider the above factors in the design process. If concentrated stormwater infiltration is proposed in a discrete basin, that basin should be located away from project structural elements and offsite improvements (including buried utilities) that could be impacted by settlement. A setback distance of at least 100 feet from a discrete infiltration location is likely a reasonable starting point for infiltration design. Another alternative would be a diffuse infiltration system that does not concentrate infiltration in a specific location. 4.0 LIMITATIONS 4.1 REPORT USE This preliminary report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Moorpark for evaluation of the liquefaction potential and need for ground improvement to mitigate potential settlements that may occur as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking at the library site. This preliminary report is intended to provide a summary of the site conditions, geohazard assessment, proposed ground improvement mitigations, and preliminary foundation recommendations. A supplemental geotechnical design report will be required as part of project design once the building type and location have selected, ground improvement option identified and foundation support conditions determined. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices of the project region. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Although information contained in this report may be of some use for other purposes, it may not contain sufficient information for other parties or uses. If any changes are made to the project as described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or validated in writing by OGI. 4.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This report does not provide information regarding the presence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or atmosphere. 23 137 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 4.3 LOCAL PRACTICE In performing our professional services, we have used generally accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering principles and have applied the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers currently practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. 24 138 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (2014), ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete American Society of Civil Engineers (2010), ASCE Standard 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Testing and Materials (1996), ASTM D5333, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Collapse Potential of Soils. California Building Code (2016), 2016 California Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, California Geological Survey (2000), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Moorpark Quadrangle 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Ventura County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 007, Revised 2002. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. (1992), Geologic Map of the Moorpark Quadrangle, Ventura County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF-40, Scale 1:24000. Geotechnologies, Inc. (2016), Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Southwest Corner of Everett Street and Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, California, File Number 21312, dated August 29. Gorian and Associates, Inc. (2006), Geotechnical Investigation, Moorpark Apartments, Southwest Corner of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road, City of Moorpark, California, dated August 29. (2013a), Updated Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan Review, Moorpark Apartments, Southwest Corner of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road, City of Moorpark, California, dated October 3. (2013b), Results of Infiltration Testing-Proposed Detention Basin, Moorpark Apartments, Southwest Corner of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road, City of Moorpark, California, dated October 24. Howayek, A,; Huang, Pao-Tsung; Bisnett, R; and Santagata, M.C.,, (2012) Identification and Behavior of Collapsible Soils, Purdue University, Joint Transportation Research Program, SPR-3109, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/12 Houston, S.L., Houston, W. N., Zapata, C.E. and Lawrence, C. (2001). "Geotechnical engineering practice for collapsible soils". Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 19: 333-335. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Houston, S. L., and Houston, W. N., (1997) "Collapsible Soils Engineering," Geotechnical Special Publication No. 68, Unsaturated Soil Engineering Practice, ASCE, New York, NY, 1997, pp. 199-232. USGS (2017), https:/earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Weber, H.F., Jr., et al. (1973), in Geology and Mineral Resources Study of Southern Ventura County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Preliminary Report No. 14, 102 pp. 25 139 PLATES 140 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. ,* - AHA Site 4e4e 0 , 4 . 0 , , , , , ..._-,. . _ „_ ,... „. .1,- , _ _ ,.. _, _ _.11 , i... - , _ 4-410ass 1 ,, It .. . , : .."- •-' u,.4 la Vp ,_,4 -- r T Moorpark — - -- ,. Apartments , _ .r Site : - ; .i n. n, 't1: -fi e a '� Library _ Site - lig . t *f .-fir -1, 3 s - te�� _ 14 Z 1,_m-_ „- -r. t—.._- ' '� kr $ 4 o , _ - Susana t _ -1 >w Rober s T y . _ -8 �- �_ 4 t _ 'Esther . .e - t Ilmi 4 - _ s o��, 45) r mm.. E'Lo�s Angeles-Ave X;_ _ to Vii , _ _ 0 Scale 500' _ ; a- # `I 2 - = '�.. _ _ t Ori_ Source:Google Earth,2017 VICINITY MAP Proposed New Library Site Moorpark, California PLATE 1 141 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 0, #311C-4.-1 x�.. +-� 111 -., • -.A!. — .14 , 2 --;,-:%€71-: - 7-.X:1 =_ will itill 1: ,,..saker_m#0101''.61, 2 "ir --tat- ,.,- .' _ . 1 -. -- _ *'-: .--.'L-:::-----v4-- t ` 1r_ 0 �, A ,� - 7- : -,__ -- __ _ CPT-3IDH-1 ' 1 =----1:" �' �r € t, 4 � �_ olio - ; _ _ = i �. CPT-2 B' ..,„7,. _ __ ,.:, ., -,..,-,-- a:, • -- nkr .;ar_ ti , CPTH - 1 1 €1 1 j 1 ' ' A it 44- N. - - 1 _ i. .` CPT-1 , . , = e -_- -- - CPT-4iDH-2 $ - ;'- 11 ! :: rT � - ar,..*„., ,,,,,____ _ z- i: — -,-_ _.s V4, . - --_ iii Approx.CPT Location ' x Approx. Drill Hole Location ` - . 4 3' _ ` 1 1 ------ Approx.Cross Section Location ir r EXPLORATION LOCATIONS Proposed New Library Site Moorpark, California PLATE 2 142 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE,INC. A 23 39 56 72 88 105 121 138 154 170 187 203 220 236 252 269 285 302 318 334 351 367 384 A' CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 fs(s) 9t ltsf) 50Tn fs(t4) qt(tsf) SBTn fs(tsr) 9t(tsf) 54Tn . 4 3 152 304 0 5 10 2 0 132 264 0 5 10 4 0 134 268 0 5 10 . C C 51.- 1 -516 µ 50.- Upper Sand zone j,,; ill 506 II 11111 1 49.- f II 496 i J GII!00illlCU ;� S LrJllllllllll CD I `, 48.- 1 -486 NrThL-- ------- ' , W 47.- ( - - -476 16'1'1"'i' 10'V Exa ration I� gge 46 - u J d -467 jr Lower Interbedded Zone 11: 30'H , 1!IB,IIr,'1 See legend on Plate 3b 45 - 457 44 1 -417 t , • , • , • 1 • 1 • t • , • , • , • , • , • , • , I • 1 • , I • i • , , i , • 23 39 56 72 88 105 121 138 154 170 187 203 220 236 252 269 285 302 318 334 351 367 384 Distance(feet) GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' Proposed New Library Site NOTE:Elevations are approximate and are based on USGS 7.5 minute topographic map of Moorpark quadrangle. Moorpark,California PLATE 3a H--t AP W City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE,INC. B B' 536 CPT-4 fs(tsf) .qt(ts0 sero CPT-5 2 0 260 520 0 5 10 7 fs(01) 0(ts0 SBTn 100 60 0 5 10 Upper Granular Layer 4I4 497 40:7. 4674 0 LL., I 15W Exaggeration 467 Lower Interbedded Zone gB 15'H as k , e67 o teaend 687n Legend •Sen6a,e fine grained ■Clayey srtto Sky clay ®Gravely and to sand •Organic sod 0 Silty and to sandy silt ■Vey stiff and to clayey and •Clay to silty day nil Clean and ao silty and 0 Vey stiff fine grained I • •I • I . I I • I • I a 25 e1 a .t 10 107 123 140 156 172 169 Distance(feet) NOTE:Elevations re approximate and are based on USGS 7.5 minute topographic map of Moorpark quadrangle. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' Proposed New Library Site Moorpark,California PLATE 3b I—, rP 5D.T V XICIN3ddV City of Moorpark OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. Project No.030.003 LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-1 z LOCATION: See Location Map n w o o Y at it m a m SURFACE EL.(ft): (ref.MSL datum) z ? w c� a c70 a W F— >- Q 7 ° rn Z N D. Q a d ° < m co z of MATERIAL DESCRIPTION >- 5 o . v a z 6 m ° '4 ARTIFICIAL FILL(af) _ _. ; .. 1 - Silty Fine SAND (SM): pale brown, dry, with gravel • • : ; ALLUVIUM (Dal)? " SAND (SP): very loose, moderate yellowish brown, damp ` 2 (5) 98 4 f .' 44 . ,, 3 2 Fine SAND with Clay(SP-SC): very loose, dark brown, damp • -loose, at 7' 8 4 (7) 105 8 Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM):very loose, moderate yellowish -:•:-:-:)( 10 - 5 4 brown,damp, with scattered course grains, and with few fine 6 15 rounded gravel to 1/2"-dia. - - . 12 Clayey SILT with Sand (ML): medium stiff, moderate to dark brown, 6 (10) damp111 15 4SAND"with Clay(SP-SC): loose, moderate brown, damp,with -_ 14 scattered coarse sand :..:X SAND with Silt(SP-SM): loose, moderate yellowish brown, damp, 7 7 with fine rounded gravel to 1/2"-dia. 5 7 • 16 -- :'.: . . .. -.. ---- 1 18 , • -with medium dense, dark brown sand with clay, from 19'to 21.25' : � 8 (23) 108 2 CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 75.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 37.5' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY:L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY:C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-la 146 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-1 (Continued) ..--a- _1 z LOCATION: See Location Map n W < o I- ~ m m O SURFACE EL.(ft): (ref. MSL datum) z D z o a N a 0_ W < D W V) z H ] `n Q• W W F 0 � J a O 0 < � rn z m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q 5 o < v a Z 8 : 22 •••-- • 24 Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM): loose, pale yellowish brown, damp, g g with few scattered coarse sand and 3/4"gravel fragments 5 23 26 •---- 28 — Fine to Medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM): medium dense, pale 102 3 30 -- • 10 (37) yellowish brown, damp 32 ------ ' 34 - -with 1.5"-thick moderate yellowish brown clayey fine sand, at 34.5' 11 20 8 7 36 •----• • 38 ---- • Clayey SAND(SC)/Sandy CLAY(CL): very loose, moderate brown, 12 2 wet; shut down after sampling for 5 min.; measured water at 37.5' 21 50 CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 75.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 37.5' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY: L Prentice DATE:. May1-2,2017 at this locators with the passage of time. CHECKED BY: C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-1 b 147 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-1 (Continued) z LOCATION: See Location Map c7 o w o SURFACE EL.(ft): (ref.MSL datum) z z o a o cs, o w g Q 2 w �I— (1) < `„ `� Z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Z 8 a• P i III 42 ... 44 - sE>; 13 (12) 112 19 -loose, at 44' p 0.5 -flowing/caving sand below 44'; adding water to augers prior to sampling below 49' 48 -••_ j> Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, moderate brown,wet 50 - 14 (36) -sand slough in sampler, blow counts may be affected 112 17 25 52 54 Fine to Medium SAND(SP):loose to medium dense, pale yellowish 15 21 brown, wet,with moderate brown clayey fine sand in sampler shoe; 14 3 _ sand slough in 9sampler 56 - .•. 15b 58 --- ' Clayey SAND(SC): medium dense, moderate brown, wet Far Clayey 14 16 25 CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 75.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 37.5' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY: L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY: C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-1c 148 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-1 (Continued) z LOCATION: See Location Map n w o O "7 < -1 W SURFACE EL. (ft): ref. MSL datum z z v =z Wim. m ) Wamr w y Lu >- Q D 0 Z U) ] a < co co z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION >_ 5 O < a Z co p U tl F— 111 62 64 66 p117 7 Fine Sandy CLAY(CL): medium stiff, moderate to dark brown,wet 24 63 68 slightly micaceous, silty Fine to Medium Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, moderate 70 18 22 brown, wet,with few coarse sand 72 -----r € € 74 Silty Fine SAND(SM): medium dense, moderate brown,wet 19 20 25 24 76 78 — CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 75.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 37.5' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY: L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY: C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-1c 149 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-2 J z LOCATION: See Location Map Q w o a w = E o ct,5 ct w o SURFACE EL. ft : (ref. MSL datum z D zy = a—i 0 eL 2 w >- Q D W `n z W ✓< 2 W � H 0 (n J Q 0 o to to z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION > 5 p " d z o m I p U 2 F— '' ARTIFICIAL FILL(af) 4 1 Silty Fine SAND (SM): with gravel, medium dense, grayish brown, dry to damp 2 ...-.-,:: •: :;:' 2 15 ii : ', ARTIFICIAL FILL(af)/ALLUVIUM (Gal)? Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, dark brown, dry to damp 4 --- €. 3 (15) ALLUVIUM (Gal) 97 4 Silty Fine SAND(SM): loose, moderate brown, dry to damp 6 -loose, damp,fine to medium grained, at 7' `'" 4 6 4 22 8 ----�:• • -fine to medium grained, darker,at 9' 10 ---: :::: 5 (14) -with dark brown fine silty lenses, at 9.75' 101 4 ........ 12 "` Fine to Medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM): loose, moderate brown, :' 6 7 damp 3 12 14 e.a� •. Silty Fine SAND(SM): loose, moderate brown,damp 7 (15) -with medium stiff, moderate brown silt with slight mottling and few 106 5 32 fine root hairs and minor fine caliche, at 14 to 15' `'•' -fine to medium grained with few scattered coarse sand, at 15' 18 -----,::•:•:- ::.:.::-: -- ::::: 8 13 medium dense, pale yellowish brown, at 19' CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 50.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 36' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY:L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY:C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-2a 150 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-2 (Continued) z LOCATION: See Location Map Q W o Q O J W = .1! Z o 7. 72 E- 0 a m O SURFACE EL.(ft): (ref.MSL datum) z D z CJ a rn U-I dWQ W z 1.= ranN d - 2 O u) ] Q a 2O Z2 CO z o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ce m 0 O a 22 ••• 24 -loose, at 24' 9 (15) 90 6 29 -with finely laminated sandy silt and silt in sampler shoe, at 25.5' 26 28 (7-7‘X Fine to Medium SAND (SP): medium dense, pale yellowish brown, 30 — 10 21 damp, with few coarse sand and few angular gravel fragments to about 1/2"-dia. 32 34 Clayey Fine to Medium SAND(SC):medium dense, dark brown, moist 11 (24) to wet 97 18 27 Medium to Coarse SAND (SP): medium dense, moderate brown, 36 �. .• moist to wet 38 - Sandy Silty CLAY(CL-ML):very soft, dark brown,wet P 0.1 12 WOH 21 52 CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 50.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 36' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY: L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY: C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-2b 151 City of Moorpark Project No.030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. LOG OF DRILL HOLE DH-2 (Continued) z LOCATION: See Location Map a W o Orn .071 LL D Nm m O SURFACE EL.(ft): (ref.MSL datum) Dzua o W F >- V F co a v < D 0 JQo ❑ z o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 'a z< O a m ❑ -shut down after sampling for 5 min.; measured water at 36' • -very stiff, at 41' 42 ••• 13 (27) 118 16 47 P 2.3 Medium to Coarse Clayey SAND(SC): medium dense, dark brown, p 2.7 wet 44 —IN -no recovery after sampling at 44' NR (10) 46 ---- €€'•.''. 48 • --, -no recovery after sampling at 49'; recovered sample with SPT. 14 (19) 17 27 52 w� 54 •----- 56 •---•- 58 -----• CONTRACTOR: S/G Drilling,Inc. NOTE:The log and data presented herein are a simplification of actual TOTAL DEPTH(ft): 50.5' METHOD: 8"-dia.Hollow-stem-auger subsurface conditions encountered at the time of exploration at the specific WATER DEPTH(ft): 36' BACKFILL: Cuttings with Portland location explored. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and LOGGED BY: L Prentice DATE: May1-2,2017 at this location with the passage of time. CHECKED BY: C Prentice MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE A-2c 152 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE,INC. Summary of Sampling Details Blowcount Symbol Number Push, Sampler Type or grab 'u�,,c` 1 Bulk Bulk Sample Blowcount Informtion Blowcount Description X 2 23 Standard Penetration Test(SPT) 63 63 blows for 1'penetration after initial 6"seating Sampler(1-3/8"ID/2"OD)driven 89/11 89 blows for 11"penetration after initial 6"seating 33/6 33 blows for 6"drive after initial 6"seating LJ 3 (23) Modified California Liner Sampler Ref >50 blows for initial 6"seating driven(2-3/8"ID/3"OD) (23) Blowcounts for modified California sampler INN 4 Push Thin-walled sampler iii pushed (2-7/8"ID/3"OD) Material Symbols and Classifications rr LEAN CLAY(CL) 0 Sandy SILT(ML) „����, CLAYSTONE PAVING AND BASE MATERIALS V FAT CLAY(CH) ,".77,7Silty SAND(SM) y0 SILTSTONE �����I CONCRETE Sandy CLAY(CL) L=} SAND with Silt(SP-SM) SANDSTONE SAND with Clay(SP-SC) IIIIII SanTdy SILT(ML) SAND(SP) VOLCANIC IIIIII ELASTIC SILT(MH) 0 Clayey SAND(SC) ►owl DOLOMITIC III ;!i!:! GRAVEL(GP) M SILICEOUS r1r•r•, F Other Symbols I Groundwater Strata break SUMMARY OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON LOGS PLATE A-3 153 u7 KKehoe Testing and Engineering "r 714-901-7270 Erich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT-1 Project: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc./MoorPark Library Project Total depth:75.29 ft,Date:4/27/2017 Location: W.High St&Moorpark Ave Moorpark,CA Cone Type:Vertek Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 o 0 Sand&silty sand Silty sand&sandy silt 5- 5- 5- 5- 5- Sand&silty sand 10- 10- 1o_ 10- 10_ Silty sand&sandy silt 15_ 15_ 15_ 15_ 15- 20- 20- 20- 20_ 20- Sad&silly sand 25- 25- 25- 25- 25- SCx 30- 30- 30- 30_ 30 Ilk san1}p}&HO sl ll %. �:, i, :u i� Silly sand&sandy silt - 35- 35- 4- 35- . 35- .�.- 35- i Sand&silty sand a a i Q 40- _ 40- Q 40- w 40- Q 40- Sand 0 45- 45_ C.3 — 0 a 45_ 45_ 45 C lay&silly clay Clay Sand&silly sand so- 50- 50- ) So- So ae Silty sand&sandy silt Clay&silk clay Silty sand sandy silt ss- ss- 55_ 55_ ,_ : 55 Sad&sil sand Silty sand sandy silt ''‘........ Sand&silty sand 60- 60- 60- 60- 60 Silty sand&sandy silt Clay&silty clay Silty sand&sandy silt 65- 65- 65- 65- 65_ Clay&silly clay eramminiiiiiiiiMii S and&siltyyd{yp�"sand 70- 70- t... .., 70_ 70_ 70 S llksand Ftsa l si li Sand&silty sand Clay&silk clay 75 I T , , , 75 75 75 , 1 , i , i , i , ' 75 r.,. i.... ' ' r illy SAOli 4j�t 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2,5 3 3.5 4 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12114 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (%) SBT (Robertson, 2010) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on:4/28/2017,11:49:28 AM PLATE A-4 Project file:C:\OakridgeMoorPk4-17\Plot Data\Plots.cpt 1r) ul KKehoe Testing and Engineering "� 714-901-7270 Erich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT-2 Project: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc./MoorPark Library Project Total depth:75.14 ft,Date:4/27/2017 Location: W.High St&Moorpark Ave Moorpark,CA Cone Type:Vertek Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 a _ 0 Sand&silly sand s- s- s- s- s- Silty sand&sandy silt Sand&silly sand Silty sand&sandy silt 1o_ 1o_ lo_ 1o_ 1o_ Sand&silsand ..,,_....._..,... Silly sand&sandy silt Silly sand&sandy silt 15_ 15_ 15- 15_ 15_ Silty sand&sandy silt 20- 20- 20- 20- 20- Sand&silly sand 25- 25- 25- 25- 25- Silty sand&sandy silt Sand&silty sand _____"' -. Clay&silty clay 30- 30- 30- , 30- 30- Sand&silty sand L— 1� is Sand&silly sand .�.� 35- 4- 35- .�.i 35- 35- - 35_ Silty sand&sandy silt a ao- aao- aao- o- ao_ o ao- Sand&silly sand Sand Sand&silly sand 45 45_ 45_ 45 45 �Ifi sill&cla�yysilt N lay&silly clay. SO- 50 so- 50- saand silty sand S ........ lay&silly clay _ Silty sand&sandy silt ss_ 55_ ss- 55- 55 ---' SI San sa SI .inir,.Imian•nuuhiumainm���n��,n,a Sy sand&sail l sill � il� Silty &silty clay 60- 60- 60- • "s --� 60- 60 94iih snit I s v..•.:': Sand &n tl&sandy silt Slay&silty clay a 65- 65- 65- 65 "� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 65 Silty sand&sandy sill w { Silly sand&sandy silt Silty sand&sandy silt 70- 70- 70- 70- 70-. Silly CSlay&sil clay Sil�sand sandy silt _ - Sand&silt'sand 75. 1 • 1 . l — 75 , 1 . 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 75 , , , , , 75 ,�7' 1 1 ' 1 1 75 , l • 1 • 1 • 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (%) SET (Robertson, 2010) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on:4/28/2017,11:49:57 AM PLATE A-5 Project file:C:\OakridgeMoorPk4-17\Plot Data\Plots.cpt VD If) KVKehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT-3 Project: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc./MoorPark Library Project Total depth:75.07 ft,Date:4/27/2017 Location: W.High St&Moorpark Ave Moorpark,CA Cone Type:Vertek Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 _ 0 0 0 0 Sand&silly sand s_ s- s_ 5_ 5- Silly sand&sandy sill 10_ 10_ 10_ 10_ 10_ Said&silly sand Sily sand&sandy sill Silly sand&sandy silt 15_ 15_ 15_ 15_ 15_ 20- 20- 20_ 20- 20- 20- 25- 25- 25- 25- Sand&silly sand 30_ 30- 30- 30- 30_ 4- 35- 35- 4'- 35- 4- 35- 35- �- Silty sand&sandy silt A Silly sand&sandy sill aa) 40- aa) 40_a a) 40- ao_ ao_ Silly sand&sandy sill o p p L O 0 Silty sand&sandy sill Sand&silly sand 45- 45_ 45_ 45- 45 i aWiwiuiiGiwwluai Clay&silty clay Clay&silly clay 50- 50- s0- so- so Clay&sil clay -..•J' Sand&sil sand Silly sand sandy sill ss_ ss_ ss_ ------a. SiClty ss_ Silt'sand&sarxjysill -- Silly s nd&sand silt 60 60- 60- . 60- 60_ Sand&sil j sand Silly sand&sandy silt Clay&silly clay 65- C5(_....i65-e 65- 65- 65- Clay&sil clay y Sa dsancl saw si 70- 70- 70- 70- 70 - Si sane&san rls Silly sand&sandy sil Si sandd&&NA g 750 100 200 • 300 , 400 ,500 600 75 75 1 75 , i , I , 1 , I , , , i , 75 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (%) SET (Robertson, 2010) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on:4/28/2017,11:50:09 AM PLATE A-6 Project file:C:\OakridgeMoorPk4-17\Plot Data\Plots.cpt N u7 KV EKehoe Testing and Engineering T 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT-4 Project: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc./MoorPark Library Project Total depth:75.16 ft,Date:4/27/2017 Location: W.High St&Moorpark Ave Moorpark,CA Cone Type:Vertek Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 0 0 s- 5- s- 5- 5- S and&silty sand Silty sand&sandy silt 10- 10_ 10_ 10- 10_ Sand&silty sand 15_ 15- 15_ 15- 15_ Silty sand&sandy silt Sand&silty sand 20- 20- 20- 20- 20- Silly sand&sandy sill 25- 25- 25- I25- zs- S and&silly sand Silty sand&sandy silt Sand&silty sand 30- 30_ 30- 30- 30_ - Silly sand&sandy sill i, .-.1.3* ;, ;, Sand&silly sand 35- 35- `✓ 35- `✓ 35- ..-� 35- Silty sand&sandy silt Silty sand&sandy silt aa, 40- ai 40- aa) 40- aa.) 40- CD 40- Sand&sillysand 0 0 Silty &sd&slate silt y M y 45- 45- 45-0 Cl 45- 45 Clay&silly clay Clay 50- 50- 50- SO- 50 y Clay ~_ AIM ss_ 55 Silty sand&sandy silt - 55_ 55- 55 Silty sand&sannte�silt Silly sand&sandy silt 60- 60- 60- 60- 604E1, Silty sand&sandy silt M Silly sand&sandy silt 65- �-+ fis- fis- 65- 65- .--"I"4. 5_ S Itlsand&sandy silt 70- 70 70- 70- 70_,'�--.,-_..., il�ayys&and&sarxlysift �m o S acid&silly seyd } C,„ay,{&silly clay 75 i i ;- i 75 • i I . 1 • 1 • i i ' 75 i 75 75 1,. i . i . I ,C4""a i 0 , 100 1 200 300 400 500 600 0 0.5, 1 1.5 2 2.5, 3 ,3.5 4 -15 -10 1 -5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (%) SBT (Robertson, 2010) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on:4/28/2017, 11:50:24 AM PLATE A-7 - Project file:C:\OakridgeMoorPk4-17\Plot Data\Plots.cpt co 11) KKehoe Testing and Engineering T 714-901-7270 Erich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT-5 Project: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc./MoorPark Library Project Total depth:75.27 ft,Date:4/27/2017 Location: W.High St&Moorpark Ave Moorpark,CA Cone Type:Vertek Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type } Said&silty sand s- s-I s_ s Silly sand&sandy sill to_ to_ to_ 10 _ Said&silly sand Sand&silty sand Sand&silly sand - 15_ 15.. 15— 15 s— Said&silty sand Said&silly sand 20— 20— 20— 20 20— S illy sand&sandy silt Said&silly sand 2s- 2s- zs- zs _ Siilysand&sa sill Silly sand&sandy sill r_ ..,..._ Silly sand&sandy sill �--�. � ' C lay 30_ 30_ 30- 30 30- Sand&sily sand 35- 4- 35- 35- 35 ,"�_. 3s- Silt'sand&san�Sill £ and&silty sand 4 2r Ind 40- v 40- - N 4°- N 40 40- S and 0 0 s 0 0 0 Silt'sand&sandy silt Clay&sily clay as_ as_ 45_ as 45_ Clay&sill&clay Clay&sdfv clay i it iN411u�N IIS ,,':, Sily sand&&savoy silt 50- so- so- so so Silt'sand&sarxy silt t IIIA i!.. silly sand � Clay&silNcla� ss_ ss_ ss_ ss - 5s gg {ysnil&sary silt Sand x' ? A. „I• Inl illi i ilP i1ail u Sand&silt'sand unoii,uoiri uuv Sand&silly sand 60- 60- 60- 60 fi0 . ClayC &silt clay Silly sand&se5ciy silt 65- ---- 65- 55- 65 65- "xa?! ' i; .._. Sand&sllNSand __..............-. Sand pu SI[y Sand 1s ' Clay&siltyclay 70- 70- 70- 70 g d&Sll sa °- SI sand sa silt Sand&silty sa 7s Sand&silty sand ."-:.—. . i 75 . , . , . t , . , , . 75 , . , . , . , . 75 0 • 100 200 • 300 , 400 '500 600 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (%) SBT (Robertson, 2010) CPeT-IT v.2.0.1.55-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on:4/28/2017,11:50:37 AM PLATE A-8 Project file:C:\OakridgeMoorPk4-17\Plot Data\Plots.cpt APPENDIX B 159 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 I f 1 I I I 90 80 70 I- 9 60 m 50 W z u. z 40 W u oc W a 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine SILT or CLAY Coarse) Medium Fine LOCATION DH-1 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%) DEPTH 10' Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) 15 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE Balb0 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE; INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 1 I I A I 90 80 70 I— = w 60 in } m 50 CC W iy z 40 W V OC W 0 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse' Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-1 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(% DEPTH 15' Fine to Medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 7 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-lb 161 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US SM SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 _- r I II II 90 80 70 I- w 60 W } 00 50 C: W z LL Z 40 W V Cr W a 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse) Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-1 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200 (Vol DEPTH 25' Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) 23 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1c 162 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 I I II I I 1 90 80 70 I— = 60 W r 50 oC LL Z 40 W cea 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse) Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-1 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200f%) DEPTH 35' Fine to Medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 7 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1 d 163 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 f I T I I I I 90 80 70 H = w 60 W 50 uJ W L. Z 40 W CCV W a 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse' Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-1 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200 (%) DEPTH 55' Fine to Medium SAND (SP) 3 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-le 164 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 I- I 90 80 70 I— w 60 w 50 rCW z T. Z 40 W ccU W a 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE (mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%) DEPTH 8' Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) 22 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-le 165 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 r r I I I 90 80 70 I— = 60 C7 W r 50 CC 40 cc 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse) Medium Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%) DEPTH 13' Fine to Medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 12 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-le 166 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 u - 1 111- T- I I 90 80 70 F = 60 W 50 Ce W LL Z 40 W cc W 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse' Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%) DEPTH 15' Silty Fine SAND (SM) 27 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1f 167 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 1 II 90 80 70 F- w = 60 W >- c0 50 CC W z LL z 40 W U W 0. 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine ,Coarse I Medium Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%) DEPTH 25' Silty Fine SAND(SM) 29 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1g 168 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US 5TD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 I I I 90 80 70 F- = 60 W o° 50 oc W z L Z 40 W V cc W a 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse) Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%l DEPTH 34' Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC) 27 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1 h 169 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. US STD SIEVE SIZE INCHES US STD SIEVE SIZE NUMBERS 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 I - 90 80 70 I— = 60 W m 50 W Z LT. Z 40 IY W 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAINSIZE(mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse' Medium I Fine SILT or CLAY LOCATION DH-2 CLASSIFICATION PASSING NO.200(%1 DEPTH 42' Sandy Silty CLAY(CL-ML) 47 GRAINSIZE DISTRIBUTION Moorpark Library Moorpark, California PLATE B-1 i 170 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 60 u Lina 50 — Aun • CH 40 — a •30 — a co CL MH 20 10 — ML • CL-ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit(LL or wL) LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY CLASSIFICATION LIMIT LIMIT INDEX LOCATION DH-1 ILL) (PL) (PI) DEPTH 67' Clayey SAND(SC) 26 17 9 MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE B-2a 171 City of Moorpark Project No. 030.003 OAKRIDGE GEOSCIENCE, INC. 60 • U Line' 50 — A Line CH 40 — a C 30 ea CL MH 20 — 10 — ML CL-ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit(LL or wL) LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY CLASSIFICATION LIMIT LIMIT INDEX LOCATION DH-2 (LL) (PL) LEI DEPTH 40' Sandy Silty CLAY(CL-ML) 21 15 6 MOORPARK LIBRARY Moorpark, California PLATE B-2b 172 Vertical Stress,ksf 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 2 - . 3 - + . C C• 4 - W 5 - 4. -it' --1---K-i...'•': 7.. ... .„ : • ; 11111 i • o Boring,Sample#,Depth DH-1 ,#10, 30.0 ft Preconsolidation Pressure,ksf -- tu USCS Classification: Poorly-graded SAND(SP):yellow,dry Inundation Increment,ksf 3.11 a 2 ce Q Liquid Limit -- n 2 Plastic Limit -- Initial Final m Plasticity Index -- w Water Content,% 2.5% 18.6% Passing#200 -- Dry Unit Weight, pcf 102.0 104.1 Estimated Gs 2.65 rt wa Saturation,% 11% 84% Y Test Method:ASTM D4546,Method B . OO Void Ratio 0.62 0.59 Q 030.003-Moorpark Library IL Diameter,in 2.42 2.42 2 After adding water the specimen ui Height,in 1.00 0.98 re collapsed 0.43%at a stress of 3.11 ksf. ONE DIMENSIONAL COLLAPSE TEST PLATE B-da'3 Vertical Stress,ksf 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 2 .._. 3 _. II! • c 4 5 = - 6 _ : -----: -- — 7 — _-_ _ , i 8 G Boring,Sample#, Depth DH-2,#5, 10.0 ft Preconsolidation Pressure,ksf -- Lu USCS Classification: Poorly-graded SAND with silt(SP-SM):light } Inundation Increment,ksf 1.03 o. brown,dry,lightly cemented a Liquid Limit -- U) E Plastic Limit -- Initial Final w Plasticity Index -- w Water Content,% 3.5% 21.0% Passing#200 -- i- Dry Unit Weight, pcf 96.9 100.1 Estimated Gs 2.65 ww Saturation,% 13% 85% m Test Method:ASTM D4546,Method B se 0 Void Ratio 0.71 0.65 Q 030.003-Moorpark Library . rea Diameter, in 2.42 2.42 w After adding water the specimen Height,in 1.00 0.97 ce collapsed 2.32%at a stress of 1.03ksf. ONE DIMENSIONAL COLLAPSE TEST PLATE B-30 4 Vertical Stress,ksf 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 2 3 4 rn i 5 • i i 6 I 8 o Boring,Sample#,Depth DH-2,#9,25.0 ft Preconsolidation Pressure, ksf -- aUSCS Classification: Poorly-graded SAND(SP):yellow brown, } Inundation Increment,ksf 2.49 a moist,fine Q Liquid Limit -- u) 2 Plastic Limit -- Initial Final co Plasticity Index -- w Water Content,% 5.6% 24.6% Passing#200 -- H Dry Unit Weight, pd 89.9 92.4 Estimated Gs 2.65 wSaturation,% 18% 82% Y Test Method:ASTM D4546,Method B a.00: Void Ratio 0.84 0.79 a 030.003-Moorpark Library a Diameter,in 2.42 2.42 w After adding water the specimen Height,in 1.00 0.97 re collapsed 0.05%ata stress of 2.49ksf. ONE DIMENSIONAL COLLAPSE TEST PLATE B-3d 5 C®PERR-value Test Report(Caltrans 301) Job No.: 903-017 Date: 05/22/17 Initial Moisture, 6.6 Client: Oakridge Geoscience Tested PJ R-value 70 Project: Moorpark Library-030.003 Reduced RU Sample DH-1 @ 0-5' Checked DC Expansion 0 psf Soil Type: Brown SAND w/Silt Pressure Specimen Number I A B C D _ Remarks: Exudation Pressure,psi 200 360 478 Prepaired Weight,grams 1200 1200 1200 Final Water Added,grams/cc 60 50 45 Weight of Soil&Mold,grams 3137 3143 3132 Weight of Mold,grams 2083 2090 2089 Height After Compaction, in. 2.50 2.50 2.42 Moisture Content,% 11.9 11.0 10.6 Dry Density,pcf 114.2 115.0 118.2 Expansion Pressure,psf 0 0 0 Stabilometer @ 1000 Stabilometer @ 2000 34 26 22 Turns Displacement 4.90 4.95 5.15 R-value 65 72 74 100 •R-value — 1000 •Expansion Pressure,psf - 90 — 900 80 800 70 700 . 60600ai 7 co e m 50 500 a cc c 40 , 400 c a x 30 300 w 20 200 10 100 0 a a a 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Exudation Pressure,psi PLATE B-4 176 CQ©PER Corrosivity Tests Summary CTL# 903-017 Date: Tested By: PJ Checked: PJ Client: Oakridge Geoscience Project: Moorpark Library Proj.No: 030.003 Remarks: Sample Location or ID Resistivity @ 15.5°C(Ohm-cm Chloride Sulfate pH ORP Sulfide Moisture As Rec. Min Sat. mg/kg mg/kg % (Redox) Qualitative At Test Dry Wt. Dry Wt. Dry Wt. EH(my) At Test by Lead Soil Visual Description % Boring ! Sample,No. I Depth,ft. ASTM G57 Cal 643 ASTM G57 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM G51 ASTM G200 Temp°C Acetate Paper ASTM D2216 DH-1 1 0-5 - - 16,319 2 6 0.0006 7.5 - - - 3.3 Brown SAND w/Silt 4 11. ' allil all a v O . a . PLATE B-5 F-+ v V APPENDIX C 178 GeoLogismiki G[0 Geotechnical Engineers a` Merarhias 56 `I`n "` `0 I""'`' ■i■ http://www.geologismiki.gr LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title:Moorpark Library Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,Caliornia CPT file:CPT-1 Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior , Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earthquake magnitude Mw,: 6.90 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans.detect.applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Ko applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot o — 0 00 0 1-1 5- 5- 5 5 5- 10- 10- 10 €- 10 1 10- r- 15- 15- 15 1 15 15- ur ng eaM. - 20- 20- 20 R = 20 7 20- 25- 25- 25 25 25- 41111 30- 30- 30 = _ 30 30- -C 35- 35- 35 S 35 35 4111111.111111 r S y 40-c. 40- 40 C 40 40- 45- 45- 45 — 45 'jniAll45 so 50- 50 i so i so --; _ 55- ft"--- 55 55 55 55 -- 60- — 60- 60- 60 60 --Aiiiii=111 60- 65 65- 7 65 t 65 , 65 —cif 70 70- 70 70 - 70 O. 75- 75 r 75 i i i 75 75 75--& 100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 qt(tsf) Rf(%) Ic(Robertson 1990) CRR&CSR Factor of safety Mw=7112,sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential 0.8 • ' ' I ' ' I I I 1,000_ , , . . - -, I � : Liquefaction - = 0.7- • •• M • N - u - ♦ • ro �r9 0.6- • .'t Vt. 100= . wfr, v 0.5- _ C - w :' -' 4. � f A o _ Q ZZ 5 in - - -1:3 10 '• • ' 0.3- E 0.2 _ - 0.1 1 10 0.1- Normal¢ed friction ratio(%) - Zone A,:Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading No Liquefaction - 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity,strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 1 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 179 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-1 CPT basic interpretation plots Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type o- 0 o - o " Ili' ° Said 2- 2- 2- 2 p, 2 4- 4, 4- 4 4 Silty sand&sa idy silt 6- 6- 6- 6 „ 6 8- 8- I - 8- 8 8 10- 10- _— 10- 10 9I 10 12- 12- 12- 12 I 12 - 14- 14- - 14- 14 14 16- 16- 16- 16 16 Said$silt said 18- 18- - 18- 18 d 18 y 20- 20- - 20- 20 20 22- - - 22- 22- 22 22 24- 24- 24- 24 i 24 26- 26- 26- 26 26 28- 28- 28- 28 28 30 30- - 30- 30 30 .-------,4 silty sand&sandy silt 32- -- 32- - 32- 32 - 32 II.' ' Sand&silty sand 34- 34- , 34- 34 34 L. Silty sand&sandy Silt 36- 36- 36- 9'' L 36 L 3fi Sand&silty said a 38- n 38- a 38- h., n 38 a 38 8 40- - g 40- a 40- 8 40 a' 40 i Sand 42- 42- 42- \ 42 42 G &sil 44 44- - 44- 44 44 aysilty day 46- 46- 46- \ 46 46 Silty sand&sandy silt 48- 46- 48 — 48 48 50 50- 50- 50 50 Silty Sand&sandy silt �� — Silty i sand&sandy silt sz sz 5z — sz 52Sand&Bitty sand 54- 54- 54 54 54 �m g &Sandy silt 56- 56- 56 56 56 IIllI�i� 58- ss- sa- sa Ss '���Ghl I` L sx sand 60- 60- 60- 60 60 Gay&SII day silt 62- 62- 62-_ 62 62 -� Silty sand&sandy silt- 64- -I - 64- — I - 64- 64 64 - Slty sand&Sandy silt-- 66- 66- ! 66- 66 '^ 66 Sand&silty sand -_ 72- 72- 72- 72 72 • Sihy sand&sandy silt_ II slty sand&sarxy Silt 68- 68- 68- 68 68 70 70- 70- 70 70 Said&silty said -- Silty sandSildA lt&sandy silt 74- 74- 74- 74 IL 74 I ,B'" V'Y,,,,4,,,,,,„,,,,.',i I I I 100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 qt(tsf) Rf(%) u(psi) Ic(SBT) SBT(Robertson et al. 1986) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBT legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 KQ applied: No III 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty Q 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt 'IIII! 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay Q 6.Clean sand to silty sand E 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 2 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 00 O This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-1 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm.cone resistance Norm.friction ratio Nom.pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 - i ° o Sand 2- 2- 2- 2 6 2- 4- 4- 4 4 4- Silty sand&sandy silt 6- 6- 6 6 6- 8- 8- 8 8 ! 8- 10- 10- 10 10 II 10- 12- 12- 12 12 1 12- Sand&Silt said 14- - 14- 14— — 14 , 14- Y 16- 1 16- 16- 16 16--'„" 1._ 18- 18- 18- — 18 18 20- 20- 20 ..— r _ ....— 20 i I 20 22- - 22- 22- 22 IIM 22 Si -..- kY sand&Sandy silt 24- T.._._.... 24- 24- 24 24 • 26- ' 26- 26- 26 26 Said&silty sand 28- 28- 28- 28 28 30- 30- 30- 30 30 a Silty_said&sandy silt 32- 32- 32- 32 - 32 Via: Silty Sand&Sandy Silt _ ..34 Gay&silty day " 36- -. v 36- w 36- w 36 I; !: 38- 38_ -c 38- .c 38 � 36- n n a n n 38- Sand&silty sand 8 40- 8 40 M 40- M 40 „ M 40- 42- 42- 42- 42 42 Sffy Sand& SIR 44- 44- 44- 44 44- 46- 46- 46- 46 46-�.:.w Clay&Silty day 48- _. 48- _ 48- 48 ,IIM'. 48- i :., ;.I Silty Sand&Sandy SIR 50- — i III IIGaq&silty day 54 fi 54 54 54 54-nxNin uimnaimuixiiiiini Silty sand&sandy silt 52- s 52- 52- 52 1 52- Silty &d sand m� Clay&silty clay 56- -,.. 56- _- • 56- 56 56- x.. Clay&silty ay 58- 58- 58- 5858- NMSilty sand&sa idy silt 60 Gay 62- 62- 62- I 62 IIIiii' plllll 62 Clay&silty clay 64- 64_ j I 64- Silt Clay &day SIR 66 66 66 66 IIIII11 i 66 CIS 68- 68 68 68 �'i�I,'III 681W CI &Sin da 70- 70- 70- 70 70 Silty sand&sandy Silt 72- 72- 72- 72 7231 Silty sand&sandy silt ti.74- 74- 74- 1 74 !: 74SRV sand&sandy silt , , , i I i I i I i i i . i i i , i i ' , f.,,..i , i r , 1 . 1 . 1 . 0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Qtn Fr(%) Bq Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBTn legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ko applied: No . 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty ❑ 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt I,: 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay ! l 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 3 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 03 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-1 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements o _ o .._ 0 - - 0 0 , 2 2 2 2- 2- _...... 4- 4 4 q_ ...-.- -.. q_ 8- 8 8- ---t 8- -I- + -t- 10 10 8 10 - 10- -1 12- - 12 10 12 12- . 14- T- 14 12 14- - j - 14- t.. 16- Boring-earthq - 16 1 14 16- 16- . �.. �_ 18- -._ 18 16 18 �.. -...-....- .- 18- [ _i 20- 20 18 20 .. 20- --_ -. 22- -- 22 20 22 1 - 22- t- -4- .-..- 1- _. 24- 24 24- 4- 24- .--.._ I_ 22 .)-_..- 1 1 26- 26 26- - 26- 28- 28 24 28 I - 28- 1 1- 30- -- 30 = 26 30 - 30- 32- 32 28 32- 32- i ^34- Y 34 = •.;:`.. 30 ^34 -.... i, 34- 1 ....-_ T 36 1 %36 v 32 36 1 36- --i- 1 a38- -11--i- n38 2- 34 0.38 --I n38- _ 8 40- 8 40 - in 8 40 - -4- M 40- T- _ f_ 42- 1 42 36 42 --... ---. .,- - 42- -. 44- 44 I 38 44 ...... 44- _4_ 46- _ -s 46 INN 40 46 - 46- 1 - - i 48- -- - 48 42 48 _ _-- 1---. - 48- I 50- 50 ! 44 50 -. 1 50- rt + 52- -1 ,......Lj 52 ill 46 52 - ...-_. I 52- , a 54- - - 54 48 54 - { 54- -4- 1 56- 56 56 56- t .- } 58 58 50 58- -1 58- + -_ 60- 60 52 60 INN t- 60- 62- - -4-. 62 54 62 I- _- t 62-- i 1 i 64- 1 64III 56 6464- - 66- - ' 66 586666- - 68- 68 60 6868- 1-70- 70 62 70 ...............-±- -I- 1--- 70- - +72- 72 72 1---- —I- - 72- 74- 74 4 an,. 64 74 74_a' I I 1 I I i 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 0 50 100 150 200 CRR&CSR Factor of safety Liquefaction potential Settlement(in) Displacement(in) Input parameters and analysis data F.S.color scheme LPI color scheme Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A • Almost certain it will liquefy ® Very high risk Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes 0 Very likely to liquefy 0 High risk Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 i a applied: No Liquefaction and no are equallylike) Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ❑ q li q' y ❑ Low risk Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No El Unlike to liquefy Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A IIIIlt Almost certain it will not liquefy CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 5 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I—, co N This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-1 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < Ic < 3.0) and a rate of change of I .Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of Ic is fast(i.e.delta Ic is small). The SBT, plot below, displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs. SBTn Index Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 o Seed 2 _ z 4 4- - —= Silty sand&sandy silt 8 8---- _ 10 `__ 10- — 12 - 12 14 14- - — Sad&Silty Sad 16 _ 16 ------___---------=---.,_=---—_—_ 18 18- 20 20 22 22-------------` Silty said&sandy silt 24 24---------_-_-------- 26 26-7:-- ---`__ sad Sand 28 28 30 _ 30-0111111111111110111 Silty sand&sandy silt 32 �_ 32- Silty sand&sady silt .. 34 - ,-.34_ Clay&Silty day 36 - 36-E._--,• -.-----,-,===_ n 38 a 38 _- --1— Sad&silty said g 40 i_ 40 42 42 J....... 't Silty Said&Sardy Silt 44 44 !' 46 ♦♦♦ 46 — Clay&silty day 48 �_ 48 Silty Said&Sandy sift 50 < 50 .— I- E Clay&silty day I 52 52 t Silty sad&sandy silt 54 54 T -_Sand&Silty sad 56 56 L Clay&silty day - Clay&silty day 58 - _- 58 Silty said&Sandy silt 60 60- 62 �� a 62- Clay&silty day 64 64-= - Clay&silty day 66 66 arty card&Sardy silt ay 68 68 Clay&silty day 70 70 -, Silty sad& silt 72 72 - Silty sand&sandy silt 74 74 Clay&silty day - cri1l�{¢ G91 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) r 1 Transition layer algorithm properties General statistics Ic minimum check value: 1.70 Total points in CPT file: 458 Ic maximum check value: 3.00 Total points excluded: 156 Ic change ratio value: 0.0100 Exclusion percentage: 34.06% Minimum number of points in layer: 4 Number of layers detected: 20 \ J CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 8 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 183 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-1 Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance SBTn Plot FS Plot Strain plot Vertical settlements o r-- o o — 0i* 0 2- 2 2P 2-6-� 2- 4- 4 4 4 s--� - - __ 4-88- 8-1110- ,_+- 1012IP 12- : 1T1T 14- 14 14 14 -C—-i- 14- 16- 16 16 .... 16- 16- ...-.I ---I 18- 18 18 18- 18- 20- 20 21 20- 20 1 —.._. .-.. 22- 22 22 22- ` 22 l 24- 24 24 24- 24- -.... .._ 26 26 26II 26- - 26- i- 28- 1 28i 28 28- 28 —... —.._. 30- 30 r 31 0 30- 30 32- 32 32 32 ® 32 ..... 34- ._ ..34 34 34- 34 --I-- V - 36- 36 36 36- 36 1 n 38 n 38 a 38 n 38- 1 a 38 ...— g 40- "' g 40 _ 8 40 — g 40- a 40 - J - 42-r 424 (' 42 44- 42 44 44 44II 44- 44 46- 46 ' 46 46 46 48- 48 48 48- 48 --- 50- 50 1 50- 50 I- 52- 52 52 a 52- -------" 52- - 54- 54 54 — 54- 54 c 56- 2 5656 II 56- 56 58- 58 58 58- i 58- on 60- 60 60 60 60 62- 62 62 62 62 64- 64 111 64 164-12' 64 66- 66 III' 66 66 66 68- 68 68 MA 68 68 7070 it 70 70 70 72- 72 r 72 72 OW 72 74- 74 74 MR 74—' 74 1 I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I 1 100 200 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volurrentric strain(%) Settlement(in) Abbreviations qt: Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) I,: Soil Behaviour Type Index FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 45 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I-, CO IA This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-1 Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements Geometric parameters:Gently sloping ground without free face(Slope 2.50%) Cone resistance SBTn Plot Corrected norm.cone resistar FS Plot Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements ° 2- 2 1111 pl Ilhl 0— _ __ 0 2 2I ', 2- 2- 4- 4 4- 4 111; 111 4- 4- i . ....."-C 6- 6 6- 6 li 6- 6- 8- 8 8- 8Illi 8- 8- 10- 10 10- 10 ill', 10- 10- 1.2- 12 12- 1.2 I!' '1111 ,!Hill 4 12- 12- 14- 14 14- 14 dl v v IIII'il0,Iiia III r 14- 14- 16- 16 16- 16 1 d sr 1Ii�l II'F111111 IIi1 11ii 16-' I 16- 18- 18 18- 18 11.1;111,11'„iii a i111,i 18- 18- 20- 22- 22 20- 20 20- 20- 22- 22 22- 22 22- . 22- 111 24- = 24- 26- 26 26- 261,111........- 26- I t 26- 28- I 28- 28 28- 28 28- 28 1 30- 30 30- r a 30 p, 30- 30- 32- 32 32- r 32 —”- 32 ® 32- +'34- Y 34 a, 34- a+ 34 1� a.,, 34- w 34- t 36- t 36 t 36- L 36 L 36- L 36- n 38- fl. 38 n 38- -'38 • n 38- a 38 8 40- 8 40 a 40- g 40 1,�,,,- g 40 g 40- 42- 42 42- 42 1111 42] 42- r 44 44 44- 44 44- 44- f 46- 46 46- 46 411,11 MEN 46 46- IJ 48- 48 48- 48 "l 48- 48- 50- 0 s 50- 50 50-C 50 52- 52 52- 52 52- 52- 54- 54 ' 54- _ 54 54• 54- 56- 56 56- 56 111 1 56- 56- 58- 58- 58 58- 62- 62 1� 62- 62 i�hia 62 �_ 62 64- 64 11 60- 60 � ' 1111 it 64- 64 ,p 64-' 64- 1 66- 66 66- 66 999• 66:-.)t66- 1 70 768 0 68- 68 �p 68 68- d, 72- 72 r 72- .. 72 111 72- _ 72- 74- � 74 74- 74 Nlgll= 74- 74-I1� i i , i i i i i i i 1 i 1 1 1 100 200 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Qtn,cs Factor of safety Gamma rrex(%) Displacement(in) Abbreviations Surface condition q1:Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) F.S.: Factor of safety Slope Ic: Soil Behaviour Type Index y,na■: Maximum cyclic shear strain a--- Qtn,�s: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance LDI: Lateral displacement index 5 100 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:47 PM 52 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq co rn GeoLogismiki GE0 Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 ■■® http://www.geologismiki.gr _ I_QUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title:Moorpark Library Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,Caliornia CPT file:CPT-2 Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans.detect.applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT K2,applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot o - 0 0 0 0 5- 5- 5 5 5 10- 10- 10 10 10 15- 15- 15 15 . ing earthq. i 15 20- 20- 20 20 20 25- 25- 25 25 25 30- 30- 30 30 30 II • • 35 35- 35 II -- 35 35 L _ rm. 40- 40- 40 40 _an= 40 ll 45 45- 45 45 45 50- 50- 50 50 50 55- 55- 55 - 55 55 ma i.e.,. im 60- 4"- 60- 60 60 60 EN lil 65- �� 65- 65 65 � 65 !!� � 70- c 70- 70 70 _' 70 C ^ I t 75- '� I i 75- , I , i , I , I , 75 75 t 75 100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt(tsf) Rf(%) Ic(Robertson 1990) CRR&CSR Factor of safety Mw=7112,sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential 0.8 . I . ' ' I I • ' • I ' ' ' 1,000= . I I . I . . .I � Liquefaction - _ f , 2 \ 8 l _ I _ ♦ wS ~ _ �vv, � 9 0.6- a - &..4;4' • - o 100= tY - ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ .♦♦♦ •♦♦jM ♦ - _ = v it N 0 0.5- _ c _ ' ..... *., o n i — Ian▪ - - v 10. - ...--- _.•,_,...t!-;,..%. : _ — v - N •== ` .. f • 0.3- E •`••• ••• - 0.2 _ - - 0.1 1 10 0.1 Normalized friction ratio(%) Zone A,:Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading No Liquefaction - 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,CS brittleness/sensitivity,strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 71 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 1 8 6 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-2 CPT basic interpretation plots Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type 0 - 0 0- 0 0- z- 2 2_ 2 2 , ' Sand&silty said 4- - 4-- -- 4- 4 4- ;I Silty sand&sady sift 6- 6-- 6- 6 6- ii' Sad&silty sand SRy sand& sift 8- 8- 8- 10- 10- 10- 10 10- - Said d 12 12- 12- 1212- &silty sari Clay&silty clay 14- 14- 14- 14 14- -, Silty sad&sandy sift - 16 16- 16- 16 16- --F- 18 18- 18- 18 18- - I- 20- 20- 20- 20 20- Il Said&silty sad 22--- 22- 22- 22 22- ,, . I 24- 24- 24- 24 24- 26- 26- 26- 26 26- Silty sand&sally silt Sad&silty said 28- 28- 28- 28 28- III silty sand&sandy silt 30- _ Ili Silty said&saxly Silt 32- 32 32- 32 s 34- -- .-34- .17-;34- .1 34 34- 53d&silty Sad 36- _ V 36- 36- 36 36 Silty Said&sandy silt • VI a 38- n 38- - .c 38- I dh E. 38 n 38- ! 8 40- g' 40- - $ 40- \ g 40 8 40- .I H Sand&Silty Sand 42- 42- -- 42- 42 42 44- 44- 44- -r Ilk — 44 Viii 44 46 46 46- 46 46 • silty sand&Safely silt 48- 48- 48- --- 48 I 48 - 1 Gay&silty day 50- so- 50- -1 �........ - 50 50- -I- Silty said&safely silt 52- 52- 52- - - 52 52- ' .,„, 54- 54- 54- 54 r- . 54-' Gay�y & ltday ay silt 56- 56-- 56- -- 56 56- Sand&silty said 58- 58—— 58- 58 • 58-1 Silty sad&sandy sift 60- i• 60- 60- 60 60- �� Silty said&Sally Sift 62- 62- 62- 62 62-I 1,- -Silty said&dsar*silt •64- 1� 64- 64 1 64 64- — 5ltyy sand Sad& y &sally si 66- 66- 66- +- 66 66- ) SRSally Siltft 68- 68- 68- 68 .„,, 68- 70- 70- 70- 1 I 70 70 Silt sad& I Y safely silt &silty da 72- 72- 72- 72 72 Sh Sand Sa1dy silt 74- ` 74- 74- , _ 74 74- Said&silty said I I I I I f—r 1 I I , i . i , 1 . 1 . i . 1 . f . i . 100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 qt(tsf) Rf(%) u(psi) Ic(SBT) SBT(Robertson et al. 1986) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBT legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 i Q applied: No . 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty 0 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude My,: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt Idlil 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay EJ 6.Clean sand to silty sand 0 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 72 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I-I GD V This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-2 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm.cone resistance Norm.friction ratio Nom.pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Norm.Soil Behaviour Type o- 0 0 - 0 0 Said&silty sand II, 2 2- _ 2-- 2- 2 4- -- 4-- 4- - 4 'p 4 Sty sand&sandy silt 6- 6 6- 6 6 Said&silty sand Silty sand&sandy silt 10- 10 10- 10 10II Sand&silty sand 12- 12- 12- 12 12 13an Silty sand&sdy sat 14- _- 14— 14- 14 14 — Sand&silty sand 16- - 16— 16- 16 16 Sty sand&saxjy Sift 18- -— 18- 18- 18 18 20- — 20- 20- 20 f 21 Said&silty sand 22- 22- 22- 22 22 24-. 24- 24- - 24 d 24 - Sty Sand&Sandy SIR 26- 26 26- 26 26 Said&silty said 28-- - 28- 28- 28 28 --t-- Clay&silty day 30- - 30- 30- 30 1i 30 11Clay&silty day 32- 32- 32- 32 32 - . 19 sisand&sandy silt } 34- %34- y 34 ..34 y 34 36- 36- 36- 36 4. 36 It — __ Gay&Silty day 38- 38- +_ 38- y 38 h a 38 g40- g 40- g 40-8 40 , a 40• Said&silty sand 42- 42- 42- 42 42 - 44- 44- 44- _ 44 44 I,. 48- 48- 48- 48 46 Sty sand&Sandy silt 48 1 Gay r 5052- 50 _ 50_ 50 50 1, Silty Clay&silty day Clay&silty clay _ _ Silty said&saloy silt 56- 56- 56- 56 56 '+ Gay&Silty day f f Clay&silty day 58- 58- 58- 58 Gay&Silty day 60- 60- 60- 6060plimii!iiulp Sty sand&sandy silt 62- 62- 62- 62 62 64 64 64- 64 64 + Gay 66- — 66- 66- 66 Gay&Silty day Silty sand&sandy silt • 68 68- 68- 68 +, 68 - -I-- Sty said&sandy silt .. — G 70- 70- 70- 70 70 + 74- 74 74- 74 ! ay 72 p:.. Clay&Silty day 74 Silty sand&Sally silt 0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Qtn Fr(%) Bq Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBTn legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ko applied: No 1111 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty 0 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude M,: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material ❑ 5.Silty sand to sandy.silt Alliin 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay 0 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 73 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq F-, CO OD This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-2 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements 0 0 0 - 0 0— 2- — 2 2- 2 2- 4- 4 4- 4 / 4- 6- 6 6- 6 ,✓ 6- 8 !— B p 8 8- 10 - { 10 8- '1(////' f 10 10 12- h-.-.- --- 12 - 10- 12 12- 14- 7 14 12- 14 14- 16 During2arthq 16 •, 14- 16 16- • 18 18 22 22 20- 20- 20 • 20 20 24- 2424 // 24- 26- 26 22- 26 I 1 26- i 28- 28 I 24- li 28 28- 30- 30 26- 30 30- 32- r 32 28- 32 I / 32- w_ 32- il, L 36- tt%L 36 .c". 34 �., 34- 34- - ,z., 34 .� 30- 36 �36- n 38- a 38 . 34- ri • 38 a 38- g 40 g 40 g - g 40 40- 42- 42 36 42 42- 44- i 44 _ 38- 44 44- > 46 46 40- 46 46- 46- .4.---4' 6- I 48- 48 42- 48 48- 50- 50 44_ //// 50 50- 52- 52 46_ JAli 52 52- 54- 54 48_JJ 54 54- 56- 56 56 56- �, 58- r 58 = 50- 58 58- 60- 1 60 = 52- 60 60 62 62 = 54- 62 62- 66 66 58- 66 L 64- 66- 68- 68 60-� 68 68 70- 70 62_ 70 70- 72- 72 72 72- 74- H"--".-4 74bIWVi: 74 74- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 50 100 150 200 CRR&CSR Factor of safety Liquefaction potential Settlement(in) Displacement(in) Input parameters and analysis data F.S.color scheme LPI color scheme Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A • Almost certain it will liquefy • Very high risk Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes ® Very likely to liquefy ❑ High risk Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ka applied: No ❑ Liquefaction and no liq.are equally likely ❑ Low risk Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No ❑ Unlike to liquefy Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • Almost certain it will not liquefy CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 75 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq F-1 00 II This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-2 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < I< < 3.0) and a rate of change of Ic.Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of I,is fast(i.e.delta Ic is small). The SBT„ plot below, displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs. SBTn Index Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 _ Sand&silty sad 2 2 = - 4 - 4 = - Silty sand&sandy silt 6 6----= - Sad&silty sad 8 8 — Silty sand&sandy silt 10 - 10--------- ---- Sad&silty sad 12 12 Silty sand&sandy silt Sand&silty sad 14 14- 16 16Shy sad&sady silt 18 18- 20 20- - Sad&silty sad 22 - 22- 24 24 26 26 — _ Silty s &sandy silt Sand&silty sad zs 28 Clay&silty day 30 t 30-...7*- Gay&silty day 32 S 32- Silty sad&sandy silt +� 34 34- L 36 = 36- Clay&Silty day -a 38 _-,= a 38- -_ 40g 40 r 42 - 42-- - — - Sand&Silty Sad 44 44 ___-_-.-__=i -- 46 46 - Sky said&sady silt 48 _ 48 _....._. .... Clay 50 . 50 _ Clay&silty day i i .+ Clay&silty day 52 52 Silty said&sandy silt t { 54 - 54 Gay&silty day.. 56 56 -. Gay&silty day - 58 58 -- Clay 60 60 Sad&silty sad 62 62 Clay&silty clay 64 64 Clay &silty day 66 - 66 - Silty sad&sandy silt 68 '®�- 68-11L— Slty Sail&Sandy silt 70 - - 70aay&silty day Clay 72 72 _- Clay&silty day 1 74 - 74l ' Silty sad&sally silt 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Transition layer algorithm properties General statistics Ic minimum check value: 1.70 Total points in CPT file: 458 Ic maximum check value: 3.00 Total points excluded: 160 Ic change ratio value: 0.0100 Exclusion percentage: 34.93% Minimum number of points in layer: 4 Number of layers detected: 20 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 78 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 190 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-2 Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance SBTn Plot FS Plot Strain plot Vertical settlements 4- 4 4 2in 0 — I. - 2� �._ 2- 2 2 4- 4- 6- 6 6 6- 6- 8- 8 "., 8 8- 8- — r 10- 10 10 10- 10- �..._ 14- 14 14 14- 1 HL7P 12- 12 12 C24- 24 24 24- —� 24 I 26- 26 H 26 26- �> 26- 28- 2828 28- 28- .__ -t.. — 30- 30 30 30- 30—.-. --1 32-- 32 32 la 32 I 32, 1- ,-., 34- 34 34 34- --34 t 36 i 36- 36 v 36 40- v 40- 1�.._ n n a38 a n -I 42- 8' 4 8' 42 8 42-0 8 42 40- 40 40 - I 44- : 44 44 44 44—.. ��.—.._ - 46 i -_ - 46 46 46- 46— - 48- -- - 48 48 48-] 48- C — • em 50- 50 ;; 50 50- 50- __.. —. 52- 52 52 52- 52-4...... I j -.. 54- 54 54 54- 54- i 56 --- 56 56 _ 56 56— } — - -_.. 58- 58 58 = 58 - 58 —.....�_. r --I- 60- 60 60 = 60� ` 60 4-- MI � 1 62- III,62 62 62 62- — F 64 64 64 64 64- -I 66- ..---- 66 � 66 ® 66- 66 ._ 68- 68 68PI 68-v 68- 1 --f- 70- 70- 70 70 7!- 70- +.. —1.. 72- 72 � � IIV ' � 72 72� 72- — 74- ' 74 74 74- 74 - 1 1 r I I . 1 r , r ' i ' r , r I i 50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volumentric strain(%) Settlement(in) Abbreviations qt: Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) Ic: Soil Behaviour Type Index FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 115 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-2 Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements Geometric parameters:Gently sloping ground without free face(Slope 2.50%) Cone resistance SBTn Plot Corrected norm.cone resistai FS Plot Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements 0 0 2- 2 2- 2Illi 2- 2- 4- 4 ii,, 4- 4 ill 4- 4- II 6- 6- —_ 8 8- 8- 6- 6 6- u 8- 8 1l 8-8 10- 1010- 10 10- 10- 12- 12 h` 12- 12 Ii 12- 12- 14- 14 14- 14 14- 14- 116- 16 n 16- + rt_ 16 16- r 16- I 20- 20 .1 20- 20 ' 18- 20- 22- 22 22- 22 llll 22- 22- 24- 24 li, 24- 24Ilf24- ( 24- 26- 26 - 26- 26 I, 26- - 26- 28- 28 28- 2811111 28- 28- 30- 30 30- 30 Iil 30- 30- 32- 34 I1 34- .--.."P34 illi 32 32 32 l,i ( 1 w 34- II i+ 34---- - c 34- �-- t `.--36- 36 I' 11 1111144. 36- V 36 36- v 36- -- a+ '� 16 4 l �11 11 M 40- - g 40 a 40 S - - 1 a 340-8- S 340 8 1 1 U� 38- 38 g 44- g 44- — I � 44 38 38- r— 44 44 lI i ;;:111],' 1 11:i 44- 1 42- 42-40- �I-......— r_ 42- 42 I II II 1 I p 42- 42 I,� 111 48 48 jl li �l 46- 46 46-] 46 46 46 Il II 48- 48 48-'ili l ill l ,;; IIu,I 48- 50 50 50 50 50 50 -1- 54-L . 54 t oll II 1 ,F i!'lI j I Un1 52- 52 52- 52- I._.. ; ,,r,,n�l II ll„l, IlIIii 54- 54 54 54- 1 I III 1 58 58 ,., 56 56- 1” 52- � 56 56 58- - 58 III i i � C �_90'6 58 58- _. t —. ,11I II ill 1 �E 60- 60 '1111�NNII 60 60- 11 62- 62 62 62- 1 , 64- 64 III, 1 1 111' liiiiillu 66- 66 �' Ill;� I� 66- 66 IVjlll 64 64- — 62 62 111 4 68- 68 68- 68 Ipl umi 68 68- ---1 1..._ I 70- 70 11 I dl'Ill' 70- 70 , _ 70-.S., 70- I 72- 72 IillhNillir T 72- 72 72� 72I --1 __ 1 I; 74- , --------.' 74 74 . 74 I ., 74- 74 r 100 200 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Qtn,cs Factor of safety Gamma rrex(%) Displacement(in) Abbreviations Surface condition qt:Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) F.S.: Factor of safety Slope Ic:Soil Behaviour Type Index ymax: Maximum cyclic shear strain .1--- Qm,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance LDI: Lateral displacement index iaa 5 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:49 PM 122 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I—` N GeoLogismiki CEO Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 Geotec dn.c a, Sof tware •• • http://www.geologismiki.gr LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title:Moorpark Library Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,Caliornia CPT file:CPT-3 Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans.detect.applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Kw applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot 0 — 0 0 - o • o 5- 5 5- 5 s 10 10 10- 10 10 15- 15 15- 15 15 - 20- 20 20- 20 20 25- 25 25- 25 25 30- 30 30- 30 30 • 35 35 35- 35 35 L L., g40- :ter 40 40- 40 40 , 45- 45 45- 45 ine . 45 I 50- 50 50- — 50 50 j 55- 55 55- _ 55 55 I 60- 60 60- 60 - 60 M 65- 65 65- This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 CPT basic interpretation plots Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 _ 0 0 2- 2- 2- 2 - 2 Said&silty said 4- 4- 4- 4 4 6- 6 6- 6 1 - 6 Silty sand&SarKty silt 8- 8- _ 8- 8 8 10- 10- 10- • 10 10 Said&silty sand 1142--- 2- 12 12 12 12 Sty said&saxty silt 14 14- 14- 14 14 16- 16- 16- 16 16 18- 18- 18- 18 18 Said&Silty said 20- 20- 20- 20 20 __ —1_... �_ 22- '--k 22- 22- 22 - 22 — L 24- - 24- 24- 24 24 26 26- 26- 26 26 _L — i 28- '>'. 444-`1 8 28- 28- 28 28 • 30- 30- — - 30- 30 _ 30 Said&silty sand 32- 32- - 32- 32 32 I 1 -- 34- }, 34- , 34 34 .�34 — _c 36- t 36- - t 36- ® r 36 liu,. _36 _ a 38 ? a 38- a 38- n 38 n 38 Silty sand&sandy silt g 40 g 40- g 40- _ g 40 p g 40 Sand&silty sat 42- 44- 44- 44 42 Silty salt&saKly silt 42- ` _� 42- 42- 42 Sant&Silty SAKI 44 46- 46- 46- 3 46 46 48- 48- 48-- 48 48 Gay&silty day 52 5�_ 50_ 50 � 50 + slty said&SaKJy silt �--- l "'""�l 52 Gay&Silty day 54- /..c.1.......: 54- 54- 54 , Sq Said 8,silty sand _ �" Sand&silty sand 56- 56- 56- 56 iii 56 58- 58- - 58- - 58 58 = Sand&Silty sand 60- 60- t— , 60 60Said&Silty Said 62- 62- 62- -1- I 62 62 �u, - Gay&Silty clay .....�* 64 -, Gay&silty day 64- 64- 64- I- 64 Sand&silty SAKI 66- 66- 66- — .�. 66 66 itl l 68- 68- 68- I 68i. 68 Gay&silty day 72-0 72- 72- • —_ 72 70 Gay&Silty day 1 72 Sad&silty said 74 — 74- 74- 74 "". .. 74 & • - Sat t sandsiltsandy I I — I I 1 ' i 1 I I 1 100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 qt(tsf) Rf(%) u(psi) Ic(SBT) SBT(Robertson et al. 1986) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBT legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ko applied: No In 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty Q 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt IIIIIIII 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 142 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I--' IA This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm.cone resistance Norm.friction ratio Nom.pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Norm.Soil Behaviour Type o .----_ 0 0 — 0 0 2- 2- 2 -r 2 2- Said&silty sand 4- 4- - 4 4 4- 6- 6 6 6 6- Silty sand&sandy SIR 8- 8- 8— 8 8- Sand&silty said 10- - - -- 10- -- 10 10 10- 12- - -- .- 12- 12 -�- 12 12- 14- 14 14 �_ 14 14 Silty Sand&saidy SIR 16- - - 16 16 16 16- 18- 18- 18- 18 18- Said&silty sand 20- - _. -- ._.- 20 _ 20 20 20- 22- - — - -- 22- 22- 22 22- 24- 1- T --- 24- 24- 24 24- 26- I -- 1 26- 26- - 26 26- 28- -' - _-- 28- 28- - 28 28- Said&silty Sand 30- --- 30- 30- 30 30 —{ ---t- 32- - 32- 32- - 32 32 --1--_._t.---t_.. 34- ! y 34- ,�;, 34- .34 344'7- ._...__1 1_.- 36 �r v 36 36 'III36 36 '' Slty sand&sandy sift a 38 n 38- a 38- a 38 a 38 S 40- �� 8 40- $ 40- a 40 8 40 __ Sand&silty sand 42- 42 42- 42 42 -r - Silty sand&a sand& silt silt 44- 44- 44- 44 44 Silty sand& silt 46- 46- 46- 46 46 Clay&silty day 48 48 48- 48 3 48 Clay 50- 50- 50- 50 50 Clay&silty day 52 52- 52- 52 52 Gay 54- 54- 54- 54 54 Saud&silty sand 56- 56- 56- 56 56 Silty sand&sandy silt Gay&silty day 58 i 58- I 58- 1 58 58 r u Gay&silty day 60- -- 60- - -- 60- 60 60 IglSand&silty sand 62- - 62- -- 62- _ 62 ll Clay&sil 62 Cl &silty day 64- 64 64- 64 164 Gay&silty day 66- {- 66- 66- T , 66 L. 66 .- Silty sand&sandy silt 68- 68- 68- 6868 Clay 70- 72- 70- 70 1 70 Gay 70- - 70- 72- 72 s 72 ,—_ Silty sand&sandy silt 74- 74 74- 74 ,. 74 Gay&silty day 't i i , i i -_- --. Said&silty said I , . i , , i ii i 0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Qtn Fr(%) Bq Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBTn legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ka applied: No • 1.Sensitive fine grained El 4.Clayey silt to silty ❑ 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude M,,: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material Q 5.Silty sand to sandy silt ���Y'" 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay SII 6.Clean sand to silty sand E 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 143 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I--' lO 0l This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements 0 _ 0 -- 0 0 2- 2 2 2- r 2- I ....- I ...._-.� 4- •, 4 4_ 4 4- 1 !- -..... 4 • 6- 6 6 6 6- 8- _ 8 8 8 _-_ 8- I j 10- 10 10 �.._.. .- 10- -11 �.._. 12- -- 12 10 12 �._ ....1 12 -....�-..-i_ 14- 14 12 14- 14 -.. 1 -f 16- Dunng-earthgi \ 16 . 14 16- - 16- j -{ 18- .-_..-- 18 16 18 -- L.. 18- _- .._ I.. -.- !.. 20- 1 - 20 18 20- ) 20- -I - Tr 22- 22 20 22 ..- ----t- 22- 1- - 7 -- 24 24 ■ 24 24- - I - I 26- 26 22 26 Thr 26- - ..... I 28- 28 24 28 - I - 28 .I _. I I 30- 30 j 26 30 I.... 30- �.. I 32- 32 ■ 28 32- - 1 32- I —1- 1 ;;34- +34 . +� 30 y 34 Y 34- - 40- y 40 = r 32 .c 36 �- 36- T_ n n a 34 c_38- n 38- 42- 42 - - g 38- i _ . _._...._ � 38 � � g 36 8 40 i ) 1 8 40- �_...._� ) 42 + 42 44 ` 44 1.1 36 44 —.. i 44- -._ I-----1--; _ L- - 46 '1 46 �e 40 46 --I- 48- L 46- i.... 48- 48 V 42 48- 48 - fi �_ 50- 50 = 44 50- f 50 r.... 1 52- 52 46 52- -... - i- 52- ----- -i - 54- 54 54 - 48 54 - 56- 56 56- -....� 56- i- t.- 58- ; 58 - 50 58- i 58- -I- 60- 60 52 60- � 1 60- 1 62 62 Iii 54 62- j t 62- _t 64- 64 Il 64- --1- -t I 64- 7- -I- r 66- ® 66 _ 58 66 _.. - 66- ,I 68- -.1- -- 68 68- 1 I 60 --1 7—. 68- ---t- 70- 70- 70- 1,, r 62 70- -� ---+- 70- 1 -1 1 72 72 72- 72- 74- 74 64 74- 1- -- 74- ----- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 50 100 150 200 250 CRR&CSR Factor of safety Liquefaction potential Settlerrent(in) Displacement(in) Input parameters and analysis data F.S.color scheme LPI color scheme Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A • Almost certain it will liquefy II Very high risk Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes 0 Very likely to liquefy ❑ High risk Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 IC,applied: No Li li like) Earthquake magnitude M,,: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ❑ Liquefaction and no q.are equally y ❑ Low risk Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No ❑ Unlike to liquefy Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A IIIA Almost certain it will not liquefy CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 145 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 01 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description . The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < Ic < 3.0) and a rate of change of I .Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of Ic is fast(i.e.delta I,is small). The SBT„plot below,displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs. SBTn Index Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 „a„,_-_ -r,__ 2 2 Sand&silty said 4 4 6 6 Silty sand&sally silt 8 _ 8 10 10 _ Sad&Sifty sand 12 12 14 14 :---- Sty sand&Sandy silt 16t 16 __ -, ...- $2nd&Silty sand 18 18 --20 20 —22 22 24 24 — 26 2628 28 Sand&silty sand 30 30 32 32 .. 34 - 34 = 36 - "36 Stty sad&sady sift , 38 a 38 1 g 40 $' 40 ___.,_ _. Sand&Silty sand 42 42 — t +. Shy sad&saxiy silt Silty sand&sanoV sift 44 ---- 14 Silty Said&Sandy silt 4646 —r--t--' Gay&silty day 48 48 i I Gay 50 = 50 --- t- Clay&silty day 52 52 _Ill t.- clay 54 54 . . Sand&silty sand Shy sad&sandy silt 56 -- 56 — Gay&silty day 58 58 Clay&sitty day 60 —-- 60 - Sad&silty sad 62 62 1 Gay&silty day Gay&silty day 64 ____----_ 64 Gay&Bitty day 66 `'— _, 66 ME Shy sad&sandy sift 6868 Clay 70 70MEE y Silty sand&sandy silt 72 t 72 Gay&silty day 74 ------ 74 ,-_ -___,__-_--= ,_,,_- Sand&silt sad 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) — -- — Transition layer algorithm properties General statistics Ic minimum check value: 1.70 Total points in CPT file: 458 Ic maximum check value: 3.00 Total points excluded: 139 Ic change ratio value: 0.0100 Exclusion percentage: 30.35% Minimum number of points in layer: 4 Number of layers detected: 20 --- - ---- — — — J CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 148 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 19 7 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance SBTn Plot FS Plot Strain plot Vertical settlements o - o 0 0- 0 - c=- ----_ _ __ 2- 2 6- 6 2 2- 2�._ 4- 4 I' 4 4- I I 1 - 4- , I 6 6- --} 6- l _ — —1-— I 8- 8 8 8 — 8_.__- 10- 10 I 10 10- i j—– 10— 4--- 12- 12 12 12- - fi 12- — 14 14 14 14- —a-- i - i 1142-N-- --- ._t..... ..._ 16- 16 i' 16 16- 16-18- 18 18 18- 18-4- —1— ' I 20- 20 20 20- 20- -i- ' 22- — 22 22 22- 24- 24 24 24 24�_.....—._ ..... H_ --i I I 26- 6 26 26- 26-..,, - _ i 28- 28 1 j 30 j32 34 2 34- 34-� j 36- . 36 36 36- 36 1 a 38 a 38 a 38 38- .38---- 8 40- • g 40 $ 40 $ 40- C g 40- _ i .. ......_ 42- ' 42 42 11 42- 42- I 1__ 44- 44 44 — 447. , 44 -— - -I am- - 46- 46 46 46- 46iI 48 -- 48 48 48- 48- -- H--- 50- 50 50 50-"-- 50- ..... 1 f 52- r 52 52 52- 52—... ........ ......... .... ......... .........--i -- 54_ - 54 54 54- 54- - i - � 56- 56 56 56-, 56- — i -- -t 58- 59 58 58- 58, 1 60- 60 60 in60- 60 62 62 62 ` 62- 62- I 1 - --I� — iIili li dl 686 66- 64 III 68- I 1 - _H 68 E ,Illi, ., 66 _ 66- 66 66- 66 I 68-__,. - r - 70 , i�. `� 70inn 70� 70- ��lib mu 72- 72 4 72 72-. 72- 74 — 74 ��� .., 74 74- 74- 50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volun ntric strain(%) Settlement(in) Abbreviations q,: Total cone resistance(cone resistance q,corrected for pore water effects) I,: Soil Behaviour Type Index FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 185 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq f--1 LO 00 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-3 Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements Geometric parameters:Gently sloping ground without free face(Slope 2.50%) Cone resistance SBTn Plot Corrected norm.cone resistat FS Plot Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements 0 -- - 0 1, 0 - _ --- 0 0 - 0� 2- 2 2- 2 2- 2- 4- 4 4-- 4 - 4- 4- 6- '1 8- 8 18- _ 6 6-6 11 8- 8- 10- -- 10 ;IH I10 - 10 10- 10- 12- 12 ,� 1212 12- 12- 14 - 14 1 14 14 14- 14- 16- 16 1'1 16- 16 201 I.1. 16- 16- 18- 20- — 0 '20- 20 20- 20- - 22- 22 22- L 22 22- • 22- 24 24 l` 24- 24 24- 24- _-..... t...... 26- - 26 '1 26- 26 26- L 1 i 26- - -+- 1 30 30 28- 28 28- 28- y l 30 30 30- 30 32- 32 !r1: 32- 32 32- 32- 1 + Y 34- 34 y 34- 34 34- 34- — - -. 4-36- 4-36 a L 36- '-36 4 36- I 4- `-'36- a 38 e a 38 Pq + a 38- a 38 a 38- a 38 --F g 40- s g 40 f g 40- g 40 g 40- dao g 40- (- __. 42- 42 42- 42 1 42- 42- .-...r. 44- - 44 -- 1 -44- 44 44- 44- 46- 46 e �, 46-- 46 46- - 46- r- 48- - 48- 48 48- 48 48- 48- 1- - 50 - 50f 50- 50 50- 50- 1 52- 52 I 52- 52 52- 52- 54- 5411 It I� 54- 1 54 54- 54- 'f 56- 56 I�' ' 56 i 56 56-,iii 56- 1 58- 58 IIIci qll 1 58 - 1 - 58 58- I 58- �..— 60- 60 60- 60 - 60- 60- 1 62- 62 62- 62 62-7 62- - + 64- 64 66- 66 ul 1 64- .__ 64 : 64-� 64- 66- 66 ..-- 66-� 66- 68- 68 68 68 IN 68- 68- 70- 0 70- 70 70-] 70 ( r 72- 72 721 72 t 72_ 7 74 74 74- 74 74- ® 74- �......_... !- r 1 r . 1 . 1 1 , 1 , i I 100 200 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Qtn,cs Factor of safety Gama rrex(%) Displacement(in) Abbreviations Surface condition qt:Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) F.S.: Factor of safety Slope Ic: Soil Behaviour Type Index y,,,,,: Maximum cyclic shear strain r^ Qt.,“: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance LDI: Lateral displacement index 5 100 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:51 PM 192 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq I-, l0 GeoLogismiki Gro Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 G"'"''''`a! ioltw"e ■■N http://www.geologismiki.gr LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT T Project title:Moorpark Library Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,Caliornia CPT file:CPT-4 Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans.detect.applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Kw applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot o- o- o o - o 5- 5- 5 5- 5- 10- 10- 10 10- 10I A - 15- 15- 15 15- 15- unng ea e 20- 20- 20 - --- 20- 20- 25- 25- 25 25- 25- 30- 30- 30 7 30- -I 30 35- 35- 35 35- 35- g40- 40- 40 40- 40- 45 45- 45 45- 45- 50 50- 50 50- 50- =- - sr 55 55- 55 55- 55- . 60- 60- 60 60 60 _- 65- 65 65 65- ...--- 65- 4 70- 70 70 70 70 s.1•• f. 75- I i 75 1 i 1 75 75- I 75 1_, 0 200 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt(tsf) Rf(%) Ic(Robertson 1990) CRR&CSR Factor of safety Mw=7°'2,sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential 0.8 t 1 1 1 1,000 : Liquefaction - - _ _ 7 f= 8 i 0.7- � ♦ * + u ► - 1 4.14-"= ��`�•♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦• • 0 100 ,7— / • LJ �, 0.5- cu o r • _ _ _ d s mss :•- .. 0.3- - E •••.. • U - - Z 0.2- __ 0.1 1 10 0.1- Normalized friction ratio(%) _ Zone At:Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading No Liquefaction - Zone Az:Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground - geometry 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zone B:Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely,check cyclic softening 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity,strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 211 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 2 0 0 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-4 CPT basic interpretation plots Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type o- o o - 0 0- 2- 2- 2- 2 2- 4- 4- 4- 4 ;I 4- Sand&silty sand 6- 6- 6- 6 ' 6- 8- 8- 8- 8 8- 10- 10- 10- 10 10- 12- 12- 12- 12 12- 14- 14- 14- 14 14- Said&Silty sand 16- 16- 16- 16 16- 18- 18- - 18- 18 18- 20- 20- 20- 20 20- 22- 22- 22- 22 22- Silty said&sandy silt 24- 24- 24- 24 24- Sand&silty sand 26- 26- 26- 26 26- Silty sand&sandy silt 28- 28- 28- 28 28- Said&silty said 30- 30- 30- 30 30- Silty said&sandy silt 32- 32- 32- 32 32- ^ 36- 36 ,- 36- 36 - 34- Sad&Silty sand w w n 38- a 38- -- a 38- fgt..0 a 38 a38- Silty sand&sandy sift g 40- g 40- g 40- I g 40 g 40- Sand&silty said 42- 42- 42- 42 "n 42 Silty sad&sady silt 44 44- 44- 44 44 Clay&silty day 46- 46- - 46- 46 46 48- 48- 48- -- 48 48 G 50- 50- 50- I 50 50 `ay 52- 52- I --- 52- ---i-- 52 52 Clay&silty day 54- 54- 54- I 54 54 56- 56- — 56- —.— I 56 ,;,, 56- Silty sand&sandy silt 58- 58- — 58- 58 58- Sad&silty sand 60- 60- 60- ---I 60 60-Ikl .' Clay&silty day 62- 62 62- — 62 62-1� G &silty day il 64- 64- 64- — 64 IIS' 64- sots,sand&sandy silt Sat 66- . 66- 66- 66 III' 66 68- 68 68- --4 '- 68 sa,d (I. 68- Silty sad&sandy silt 72- 72- S. 72- 72 70 72 —_ 72- Sand&silty sand 72- 72- 72- H. 74- 74-,- 74- 74 jll+ 74- Cly&silty day I I iiiiii I i i i 1 , i i i i i I i ' i ' I , 200 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 qt(tsf) Rf(%) u(psi) Ic(SBT) SBT(Robertson et al. 1986) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBT legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 IC,applied: No 111 1.Sensitive fine grained II 4.Clayey silt to silty ❑ 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude M,: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material ❑ 5.Silty sand to sandy silt ❑ 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay 0 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 212 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N O I--1 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-4 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm.cone resistance Norm.friction ratio Nom.pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 ----. _ 0 0 - 0 0 2 z- z 2_ z m',mm Said&Silty sand 4- 4- 4- 4 4- Sand 6- 6- 6- 6 6- &siftysand 8- 8- 8- 8 ,i 8- 10- 10- 10- 10 10 12- 12- 12- 12 12- 14 — 14- 14- 14 14- Sat&silty said —... 16- 16- 16 16 16- 20- 20- 20 2020- 4 1 22- 22- 22- 22 22- aRy said&sandy silt 24- 24- 24- 24 d'' 24- Sand&silty said 26- 26- 26- 26a 26- Sky said&sancty SIR 28- — 28- 28- _ 28 Said&silty sand 28- Silty said&sandy silt 30- —- 30- 30 30 H 30- 32 32- 32— _ 32 i^ 32- 1 I I Sand&silty sand +^; 34- v 34- 34- v 34 1: Y 34- t 36- L 36 36 t 36 „I 36- n 38- a 38- a 38- n 38 dip` z.38- Silty sand&Sandy Silt 8' 40- a 40- 8 40- 8' 40 $ 40- Said&silty said — 42- 42- 42- 42k 42 Gay&silty S ay 44- 44- 44- 44 . 44 46- 46- 46- : 46 I 46 48- - 48- 48- 48 114' 48 (lam 50- 50- 50- 50 Ir50 52- 4, 52- 52- 52 52 54 — 54- 54- 54 54 r 56- 56- _ 56- 56 56 _ ,- Gay&silty day 58- _ 58- -- 58- 58 Alirfir, 58 Said&silty said 60- 60- 60- 60 i 60 Gay 62- 62- 62- 6262 -- Gay - 64- - -- 64- 64- 64 64 Gay&silty day 66- +- '. • 66- 66- 66 11'� 66 sat Said&silty aid 68 68 68 68 68 Gay&silty day ' 72-70- 70- 70- 702 ' milli 70 Silty sand&sandy silt 72 Siltysand& silt 74- ® 74- 74-74- 74 (:: 74 Silty said&satty sift 0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Qtn Fr(%) Bq Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBTn legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 K.,applied: No • 1.Sensitive fine grained II 4.Clayey silt to silty 0 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt Ail: 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay m 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 213 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N) O N This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-4 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements 2— i 2 2 2- 4 — 4 4! 4-\ i 6- —t-.._._._._.— 6 6 6� _-.._—.....!I t 6 �..._—.._, 8- -- t_ — 8- 8- — -----H. --i — 8 —. -t- 10- 10- - i 10- 8 10-- _. 10- _. 12- 12- 10 12- II 12- 14- I 14- N 12 14- ......._� -+ -_ 14- -- 16-- (5 -earthgt - 16 14 16- -� - 16- - ' 18- 18 16 1811 18- 20- 20- 20 .-... - 20- 18 22 ! 22 22- -r- - 22-, -....� -i- 24 24 II 20 24- 24- 26- _- , 2611' 22 26- -_.. -..._ 26- -1 1. 28- 28 24 28- - 28 rt._ 34- 34 26 30- 30- . 30- 30 28 32- _ 32 3 32- 32 a.: �.. 1 "i' +30 ,;, 34- _...Y- ..... ..- --- -34- ..... 1-- n 38- n 38 ,II' L 32 L 36- - ',7,36- r 40- 8 40- g 34 8 401 t -t 8 40- ....- +� 38 -_ 38- 1 42- 42- 36 42- - - 42- ...- 44- � 44- 38 44- -... 44- i- 46- —w, 46- 40 46- 46- 48- 48- 42 48- 48- 50- 50- 44 50- ._. — 50- -h I 52- �� 52- 46 5 54- --� 54 � i,..ii 54-4- i 54- 56- 1. 56 56- 56- --- 58- 58- I 50 58 i —` 58- - 60- ` 60- iii 52 601 - -�-._ 60-. 62- 62- i 54 62- 62H 64- 64- 56 64 64-1... + -I 66- 66 mu 58 66 66 J...... 62-70_ 70 68 , 6U 68 68- .._ �_-....- _ 62 70- r ( 70- .. �..... 7 ; 72- - -- + 72- 74- 7q �u,: 64 74- 74- i i i 1 i r i i i i 1 i i 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300 CRR&CSR Factor of safety Liquefaction potential Settlerrent(in) Displacement(in) Input parameters and analysis data F.S.color scheme LPI color scheme Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A • Almost certain it will liquefy ® Very high risk Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes m Very likely to liquefy El High risk Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ka applied: No Liquefaction and no liq.are equally likely ❑ Low risk Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No 0 Unlike to liquefy Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A ® Almost certain it will not liquefy CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 215 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N) O W This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-4 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < Ic < 3.0) and a rate of change of I,.Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of Ic is fast(i.e.delta Ic is small). The SBT„plot below, displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs. SBTn Index Norm.Soil Behaviour Type o —- Sand&silty sand 2 2-r 4 - = 4- - - Sand&Silty Sad 8 8_ 10 10- 12 12- _ 14 - 14-- - — i Sad&silty said 16 - 16-___ 18 ------___:-..?-.'- 20 20-.-_-.--,_---. :-_--,,,z, 22 = 22- -- Sky sad&sandy silt 24 24- Said&silty sad 26 26 Sity sad&sady sift 28 28- - Sad&silty sad 30 30 --=_ Sty sad&sady sift 32 32- 34 34- = Sad&silty sad 36 36- a 38 a 38 •- Sky sad&sally silt g 40 g 40-f - Said&Silty Sad 42 42 Clay&silty day 44 44 46 46 48 48 Clay 50 50 52 52 54 54 56 56 Clay&silt day 58 58...)#-_ —._,-, Sky Sada sandy silt Sity sad&sanoy silt 60 - 60 Clay&nifty day 62 62 Clay 64 64 -- Clay&silty day .- -. Sad&silty sad 66 66- ._ Sad 68 68- Clay&silty day 70 70- Sky sad&sandy silt .---. 74 — ty sad&sandy Sift 74 __ = Sty smoky silt 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) 1 . Transition layer algorithm properties General statistics Ic minimum check value: 1.70 Total points in CPT file: 458 Ic maximum check value: 3.00 Total points excluded: 64 Ic change ratio value: 0.0100 Exclusion percentage: 13.97% Minimum number of points in layer: 4 Number of layers detected: 8 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 218 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 204 1 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-4 Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance SBTn Plot FS Plot Strain plot Vertical settlements 0 — 0 0 0 r �—-7--7 0 r 2- 2 2-� -I- I 2-• 4- 4 r 4 4- ------- -. -_ WM 4- 6- 6 i 6 ..... 6----4 =----- 61 8- 8 11 8 8- }...— - 8 10- 10 i 10 10- - 101 12- 12 12 12- I 12- - i ±- -- 114-4- 14 II 14 14- -+_-��— =f="Z-�._ ry 14—. -r- 16 16- 16- ,- - ;_.-__ 18- 18 , 18 18- 18- - 20- 20 I, 20 20- 20-22- 22 22 22- 22 -- 24- 24 24 24- 24� 26- 26 26 26- 26 28- - 28 28 28- 28- 30- 30 30 30- 30-4 32- 32 32 32- 32- _ i+ 34- 4., 34 ,-. 34 34- F 34- _ r_..- .-_.-- 36- 36 36 36- 36- a 38- n 38 a 38 n 38- n 38� 8 40- $ 40 8 40El8 40- $ 40 42- 42 42 42 42- 44- 44 44 44- 44- 46- 46 46 46- 46- 48- 48 gl,,ii ii 48 48 48- 50- 50 ,'1l[1 1 Ilii 50 50- 50 - ;I 52- 52 �piiiill 52 52 52- 1 54- 54 1I 1[11 I ll11 54 54 • 54- 58- 58 �Vi 56 56- 56- 58 ill58- 58- 60- 60 60 111 �., 60-III 62- i 62 62 — 621„ s 62- 1 64- - 64 64 64J 64- 66- 66 66 Mil 66 , 5. 66- 68- 68 68 68-' 68- 70 72 iMI tl•IIWI p�IJI��RrIR N ? 70 70- 70- np _---_, 72 72- 72- 74- ` 74 .,,...-+.---- 74 „^ 74-� 74- I I I 1 i ' 1 1 , 1 ' I . I , I I 1 1 100 200 300 400 500 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volumentric strain(%) Settlement(in) Abbreviations q1: Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) I,: Soil Behaviour Type Index FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 255 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq Ni O In This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-4 Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements Geometric parameters:Gently sloping ground without free face(Slope 2.50"/o) Cone resistance SBTn Plot Corrected norm.cone resistar FS Piot Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements 0- - 0 - 0- .. _ 0 0- -- o- 2- 2 2- -----h• 2 ¢tilr, 2- �_ �... 2- 6- 6 6-� -. 6 8- 1- ! - - 6 8 8 pl 8 8I 10- 1- 10 jI 10-- 10 10- - - - 10- 12- -- I 1- 12 1,11 12-... 12 12- - 4 - -- 12 16- ... II, 14 14 ... 14- 14- 18- �! 16 18 I! 16-....- - 16 16- 16- 14— - 14 18- - 18 18- 18- 20- +- 20 20— - - 20 20- 20- 22 22 22--... r 22 22- 22- 24-- 24 ,, 24-- ;.— 1 24 '1'1 24- 24- 26- 26 26- 26 26- - 26 (0( - 28- 28 I, 28- -- 28 28- 28- 30- 30 l Y 34 I 30- 30 30- 30- 32- 32 32- 32 32- 32- t `.' 36- _ - -- ' "- 36 Ij' `-'36- `'36 `-'36- • 36- 4- 34 w •� w w .4- `-' w _ a 38- a 38 _c 38- 1 a 38 ,I a 38- I n 38-i g442 42-4 44 g44- g44 g 40- �� 40-42- i 42- �44 44- II 446-6- 46 il;' 46- 46 46 46 - a-1I 48- ? 48 48- �- 48I I- 50- 50 50- - 50 50- 50-l 52- 52 52- 52- 54- 54 r�lll: 54- 54i 54 54- - 56- 56 56 - 56 56-' 5660- 601 58 58ili 58� 5858- 5860 60 60 ' 6062- 62 62 - - 62 62- - 62-64- 64 64- 764 = 64 �� 64- -- 66- 66- --.. j— 66 66- 66 Mi 66 66- -..- 68 - 68 68- 68 - 68-x^ 68- 70 70 °III 70- 70 70-r- 70- 1 72- 72 + ,� 72- 72 72-- 72- 74--_ 74 74- 74 - 74 74-\ I i i i i i i i i i 200 400 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Qtn,cs Factor of safety Gamma rrex(%) Displacement(in) Abbreviations Surface condition qt:Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) F.S.: Factor of safety Slope Ic: Soil Behaviour Type Index ymax: Maximum cyclic shear strain r Qm,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance LDI: Lateral displacement index Spp 5 CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:53 PM 262 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N O 01 GeoLogismiki GEO Geotechnical Engineers Merarhias 56 Gent ec hn.c 81 50l tware • • • http://www.geologismiki.gr Project title:Moorpark Library Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,Caliornia CPT file:CPT-5 Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans.detect.applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Ic applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot 5— 5 ! 5- % 5- 5 = 10- 10 10- 10- I 10 15- 15- 15- 15- V_ 15 zo^ zo- zo- zo- zo 25^ 25 25- _ 25 25 30^ 30- 30- 30- 30 r .'y.35- 35- 35- 35- 35 L - _ 8• 40- 40- 40-- 40- 40 45 45- 45= 45- 45 _ 50- 50- 50- 50- 50 -- 55^ 55- 55-4 55- 55 NM- 60- 60- 60 r __- 60- 60 MIN 65 ___••••• 65 65- _- 65- 65 70- 70- 70- — 70- J 70 75 75 , � , i , i , � , 75- , • • • • • • • 75- i 1 75 WA I 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt(tsf) Rf(%) Ic(Robertson 1990) CRR&CSR Factor of safety Mw=7112,sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential 0.8 . I r 1,000 Liquefaction - 0.7- •# No* c A \ y 7: 9 0.6- M•♦ • • •: ♦ • • M •• • - c 100 y` --. -• _ �`µ \ `_ All N .,_.V2 • A/ .1 • • se l 0.4- - U ., .ef• .•.-. v4.110 . 0. •_.. c'▪ 0.3- - g •.• 0.1 1 10 0.1- - Normalized friction ratio(%) Zone A,:Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading No Liquefaction - Zone A,.Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry 0 ' * * i * . * i * . . i * * * i * . * i . . . i * * * i * * * u . * ' . , * ' Zone B.Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely,check cyclic softening 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity,strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 281 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq 207 This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-5 CPT basic interpretation plots Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type 0 wimp 0 0 - 0 0 2- 2- 2- 2 ;, 2 Sad&silty said 4- 4 a- 4 I 4 gm - Sky said&lady silt 6- 6- 6- 6 1, 6 O SRy said&saxty silt 8- 8- 8- 8 ,I 8 — Said&silty sand 10- 10- - 10 1010 12- 12- 12- 12 �, 12 14- 14- - 14- • 14 14 Said&silty sand 16-- 16- 16- 16 16 18--- - 18- 18- 18 18 - 20— - 20- 20- 20 20 • SRy sand&sandy silt 22- 22- 22- 22 22 Sand&silty said 24- 24- 24- 24 24 IIII 26- - - 26- 26- 26 iu 26 Silty Basil saidy SIR Said&siltyy said 28— - --- 28- 28- 28 --$ 28 _ Clay 30-- 30- 30- 30 n 30 Gay&silty day 32- - 32- 32- 32 32 - Sand&silty sand w 34- ...i-.s., 34- w 34- w 34 ,-34 Shy sand 8,=silt _c 36- L 36- L 36 L 36 "'1u1, L 36 Said&silty n 38- a 38- a 38- "n 38 a 38 8 40- 8 40- - 8 40- i S 40 u $ 40 Said nd 42- 42- 42- 1 42 i I 42 Sand y&Silty d 44- 44- 44- - 44 V 44 gY silty day 46- 46- 46- 46 46 — Clay&silty day 48- 48- 48- Shy sand&Baily sift 1,1 50- 50- 50- 50 i 48 50 SRy sand&Sadi/silt II 52- 52- 52- - 52 52 SRy sand&sandy silt 58- 58 56- 58 54 Silty sand&sady Silt 56- 56- 56- r 56 56 i Sky sand&sally silt 58 I -Sad&silty sand 60- 60- 60- , 60 60 sandy silt u 1 Sky sand&sandy silt 62- 62- 62- ,, 62 62 I 64- 64- 64- 64 64 }-_Silty sand&sandy silt 66- " 66- 66- 66 ;.::'� 66 I Sand 68- 68- t 68- 68 68 -T SR sad& T Sky sand&Baldy sift 70- 70- . 70- \ 70 70 — Silty sat&saidy slt 72 72- 72- \ 72 F- 72 Y Sally silt i 74- C 74- 74- , 74 74 Sad&silty Sand 100 MO 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 qt(tsf) Rf(%) u(psi) Ic(SBTj SBT(Robertson et al. 1986) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBT legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Ka applied: No II 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty Ei 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils . 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt ® 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay 4: 6.Clean sand to silty sand ❑ 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 282 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N O CO This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-5 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm.cone resistance Norm.friction ratio Nom.pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 0- 0- 0 0 - Said 2- 2- 2- 2 2- 4- 4- 4- - 4 4- Sand&silty sand 6- 6- 6- - 6 6- Said&silty said 8- 8- • 8- 8 8- 10- 10- — — 10- 10 10- 12- - 12 12- 12 12- 14- 14 14- 14 14- Said&silty said 16- -- 16 _ 16- 16 16- 18- 18- 18- 18 18- 20- 20- 20- 20 20- Silty sand&sandy sift 22- i 22- 22- 22 22- Said&silty said 24- - 24- 24 24- I' 24- - Sky sand&sandy sift 26- -- 26- 26- 26 26 r sand&sandy sift i Sty sand&ssift 28– - 28- 28- za zs — I Cly 30- 30- 30- 30 30 --- Silty sand&sa idy sift 32- 32- 32- 32 32 - Said&silty sand y 36- - 2 36- - 36- 36 2 36- Silty sand&sadly silt a 38- a 38- a 38- a 38 .38- Said&silty sand 8 40- g 40- I i - 8 40- g 40 �I a 40- Sat 42 42- 42- 42 42 Silty sand&sandy silt 44- 44- 44- 44 44 Clay&Silty day 46 , 46- 46- 46 46 Gay&silty day 48 - 48- 48- 48 ` 48 Mihi,lib �I I i i 50 50- --- 50- 50 50 - Slty sand&sally silt 52- 52- 52- 52 % 52 Silty said&sandy silt 54- 11- 54- ---- 54- 54 t 54-!---7-""- Clay 56- • 56- 56- 56 56 pp !" Slty sand&sandy silt 58—— 58- — 58- 58 58-1,6 I SII Ilpgi Slty sand& silt I��� h I I'I Sand&Siltx 60- 60- - 60- 60 60 Shy said&Sa illy silt 62- PI -62- 62- 62 62 aay Clay&silty day 64- 64 64- 64 C..� 64 Silty said&sandy silt 66- 66- 66- - 66 66 Slty sand&sandy sift 68 68- 68- 1 68 68 Clay&silty day 70- 70- 70- 70 70 - SIty sand&sady silt 72- 72- 72- 72 72 Clay&siltty�day Sa74- 74- 74- 74 74 Silty sand ti saidy sally silt 1 • - 1 , I i i , i i i , i l • i . 1 . ii . i . i . i . i , 0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Qtn Fr(%) Bq Ic(Robertson 1990) SBTn(Robertson 1990) Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A SBTn legend Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 l( applied: No • 1.Sensitive fine grained • 4.Clayey silt to silty D 7.Gravely sand to sand Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils ■ 2.Organic material 0 5.Silty sand to sandy silt ® 8.Very stiff sand to Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A • 3.Clay to silty clay Q 6.Clean sand to silty sand D 9.Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 283 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N O LO This software is licensed to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-5 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements 0 0 0 o _ o 2- 2 2 2 -T- -- 2- 4- -.... 4 4 4 —1 - - -- 4- 6- ---- 6 6 I 6- 8- ---- 8 8 -- —._. 8- 10- 10 8 10 4 I - 10- .-.. j-.. -...._ 12- 12 10 12 I - 12 - I 14- • ---� - 14 12 14 I I 14- ___ 16- aurin g-ealttiq 16 ..' 14 16 .. 18- 18- 18 16 { _ 1822- 22 22 f ' .. _ - I 20- 2020 20- 24 24 24 �_ 22 i 24- --,---. { 26- 26 I22 26 -� - 26- 28- 28 24 28 1- -1- -r 28- 30- 30 26 30 -1- 30- 1 32- y� _ 32 28 32y 34 _ y 32- +34- 34 , 30 I —_1 36- - 36 32 36 l - 36- a 38- a 38 . n 38 n 38- ...... ._ 8 40- -y-- g 40 - $ 34 $ 40 - S 40- :_ 42- r - 42 36 42 -----� 42- -— 44— _ 111111 . 44 38 44 t.... - 44- —. 46 - 46 40 46 46- i` 1 - 48 ® 42 48 IIII f T 48 _L 50- 1 t ..... - 50 111 44 90 { + -{- 50- -- 52- r I..-�� 52 i 46 52 1- 52- w 54- - i I 54 - 54 -I- 54 56- 56 II 48 56 j I 56- j 58- j --... 58 !NEI 50 58 i 58- 60- .0.8r 60 52 60 --+ .. 60- ±.-. 62 . 62 111 54 62 - .. 62- I 64- 64 = 56 64 r- 64- 1- 66- ,---7166 OM 58 66 I - - 66- - 68- --� - 6868 L_ 68- 70- 70 = 60 70 I 70 72- 72 62 72 1 72 - 74- 74 : 64 74 ;, 74- ' I ' I ' I I I l I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300 CRR&CSR Factor of safety Liquefaction potential Settlement(in) Displacement(in) Input parameters and analysis data F.S.color scheme LPI color scheme Analysis method: Robertson(2009) Depth to water table(erthq.): 15.00 ft Fill weight: N/A • Almost certain it will liquefy ® Very high risk Fines correction method: Robertson(2009) Average results interval: 5 Transition detect.applied: Yes !u1 Very likely to liquefy ❑ High risk Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 ICS applied: No ❑ Liquefaction and no liq.are equally likely ❑ Low risk Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: All soils Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No ❑ Unlike to liquefy Depth to water table(insitu): 37.50 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A Il,! Almost certain it will not liquefy CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 285 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N I--, 0 1 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-5 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < Ic < 3.0) and a rate of change of Ic.Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of Ic is fast(i.e.delta Ic is small). The SBTn plot below,displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs. SBTn Index Norm.Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 Said 2 2 This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name:CPT-5 Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance SBTn Plot FS Plot Strain plot Vertical settlements c 1111 1I�Il 11 2- 2 2 "' �!I III 111 4- 2 `---a^• 2 4- 4 4 I;; 11 �I II VIII 6- 6 6- 6 6 1111 1h1'1 V till i illlhil'1 II 8- 8 lul �10- 10 10 III III hIIII ' 10- -_ 10 12- 12 1211,11111'1.[1111,111[111,111,1,1111[11,1112- 12 14- 14 14 m 14- 14 " .- — I 16- 16 16 ' [nr ear, 16- 16 18- 18 18 1111 18- 18 , 20- 20 20 ,1111: 20- 20 7 22- I 22 22 1 22- 22 1. 24- 24 24 RI 24 24 ,_ 26- - 26 26 ' 26- 26 :-- 28- 28 S 28 .a 28 -i- 30- 30 30 30 11I 30- 30 .. .- ▪ 34_ 34 34 32- 34 I 32 } 1 I ✓36 L 36 L 36 41, t 36— L 36 I _ J—.-. —� n n wN a I n 38�*- a 38 38- 38 38 8 40- a 40 idl 8 40 40- 8 40 42 42Ni'' 42 ��. 42 �► 42 fi - - p� 44- 44 44 44 44 — 46 46 46 111 46 46 — —#— 48-548 0 50 11II� 48- 48 I i — ll I 50- 50 -1- - t- 52'L 52 __. 52- 52 52 54- 54 . ._ __—1 54- 54 .1..., 54 T I 56- 56 56 11111i1111111 11 56- 56 — —- -..-. -- 58- 58 58 1.4.11 M1 58- 58 .... 1 MINE 60- 60 60Mill 1,1 60 60 1 1 —— 62- 62 62 62 62 64- r--'. 64 64 64- 64 66- 6666 1111 66-\_. 66 _' 111111.11111168 68 .._ �.._.. —I 70- 70 70 magnum 11 1 70- 70 1 72 72 � 72- 72 72 ...— illllll� Bill 74- - 74 74- I i ! 74 74 1111111111111' i�1�1 111 100 200 300 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volurrentric strain(%) Settlement(in) Abbreviations qt: Total cone resistance(cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects) I,: Soil Behaviour Type Index FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on: 6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 325 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N N N This software is licensed to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. CPT name: CPT-5 Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements Geometric parameters:Gently sloping ground without free face(Slope 2.50%) Cone resistance SBTn Plot Corrected norm.cone resistai FS Plot Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements 0- 0 II 0- - 0 ..T ...e__ ._■..,_ 0- 0- 2- 2 11,1 2- 2 2- 2- 4- 4 Ii 4- 4 4- 4- 6 6 ISI 6- 6 6- 6- ��II I 8_ 8- 8 61 8- 8 8- 10- 10 i 10- 10 10- 10- 12- 12 1111 12- 12 12- t -' 12- 14 14 114- 14 14- -+ 14- 16- 16 I!i 16- 16 1 16- 1 I 16- 18- 18 ,1 18- 18 18- r 18- 20- -1- 20 i' 20- 20 20- r I 20- , 22- 22 I, 22 22 22- 22- , 24- 24 ij 24- 24 24 24- - -t 26- 26 1 26- • T 26 26- 26- 28- -- 1 28 1 f 28- ---- 28 28j 28- t__ 30- 30 30- 30 30- 30- 32- 32 32- 1 32 32- 32- 4- 36- 36 a+ 34 ^34 ,^ 34- I Y 34- ' _c 38- 38 i _c 36- _c 36 z 36 _c 36- n 40- 40 n 38- n 38II a 38 n 38- - g 40- - -r 8 40 - a 40---,-.,--.„ g 40- I 42 42- �+' 42 42�.. 42- ---.1-- 46 46 44 44 44- 44- �- 46- 46 � 46� 46- -- 48- 48 ',' � 48- 48 ® 48- I 48- }- 44- 44 ! 50- 1- 50 50- 50 50- I 50- 52- 52 II , 52- 52 i 52� i - 52- 54- 1 54 11 t 54- 54 54- I 54- - 1 56- 56 ! 56- 56 I■ 56- 56- _ - i�Il�i 58- 58 NM 56-�- - " 58- 60- sa- 58 60- 1 60 1, 60- 60 _ 60 60- �_.-, 62- -..... 62 62- ism. ) 62 - 62- 62- 64- 64 c� 64- 64 64- . 64- - 66- 66 66- 66 = 66 66- - 768- 5-----0- 680 68- 68 68-=" 68- 70- 70 MI 70- l 70- 72 a 72- 72 e72- 72- 72- 74- 74 74- 74- 100 200 300 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 100 200 300 qt(tsf) Ic(Robertson 1990) Qtn,cs Factor of safety Garrrre rrex(%) Displacement(in) Abbreviations Surface condition qt:Total cone resistance(cone resistance qk corrected for pore water effects) F.S.: Factor of safety Slope L: Soil Behaviour Type Index y,na■: Maximum cyclic shear strain ♦--- Qv,,c: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance LDI: Lateral displacement index S 1m CLiq v.2.1.6.11-CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software-Report created on:6/5/2017, 1:10:56 PM 332 Project file:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Desktop\Moorpark Library\Moorpark Library.clq N) I—, G) GEO - Geotechr,caI Software .■ a SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title:Moorpark Library SPT Name:DH#1 Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue ::Input parameters and analysis properties:: Analysis method: Boulanger&Idriss,2014 G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Fines correction method: Boulanger&Idriss,2014 G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Sampling method: Standard Sampler Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 ft Borehole diameter: 200mm Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 g Rod length: 3.30 ft Eq.external load: 0.00 tsf Hammer energy ratio: 1.30 Raw SPT Data CSR-CRR Plot FS Piot LPI 5 10 10- 10 10 15- 15 Du.���q ear . 15 15 20-� 20- 20 — 20 25M 25- 25 25 (5 30� 30- 30 30 E 35 - s 35- x 35 35 0 401 0 40- 0 40CL 40 45M 45- 45 45 50� 50- 50 - 50 IV 55= 55_ L 55 111 55 60M 60- 60 60 ._ 651.1 65- 65 65 70 70 i 70 - 70 75= . t , t , . 1 r . t , t . I t . 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 20 SPT Count(blow s/ft) CSR-CRR Factor of Safety Liquefaction potential CRR 7.50 clean sand curve 0.8 _ F.S.color scheme - Liquefaction 00 0 0 • Almost certain it will liquefy is ® Very likely to liquefy 0.7- 0 0 Liquefaction and no liq.are equally likely 0 Unlike to liquefy 0 ® Almost certain it will not liquefy 0.6- 00 r100 o LPI color scheme co0.5- II Very high risk 0 High risk ul CA 0 Low risk v 0.4- Uv 0.3- > U - 0.2 0.1- No Liquefaction 0.0 t 1 1 t i f 1 t i 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 1 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.Isys 4 STZ v r .. H R < Depth(ft) C 7. ? of V V V pp�l Ol Ol Ol 111 Ul Vl Vl VI A A A A A W W W W W N N N N N r r r r r < o In r A N O 00 ma' - NO C7 Ol A NO CO CM NO OD (71 -D. NO 00 GT A NO OD al A N 0 07 Ol .AN A, 17 O IT " flii11 ' " I l i 1 riii d P. cvm C N I-'- r V C m t74 -Le 'n �o m o. Io' R. c o H m�1 roo v N a a r QW O — o 0- G 7 o of %Q �, 01y O g =- rD m 0 rt in 4.• 3 Depth(ft) > ri 0-r V V V O, Ol Ql Ol Ol Ul Ul VI Vl Vl .A A A A A W W W W W N N N N N r r r r . N Gl N O aD Ol - N O OD Ol N O O Ol A N O W Ol A N O OD Ol A N O C7 Ol A N O C7 Q1 A N f8 O O J , I . I . Ii 11 I . 1 , 111 , 1I1 . 111 e 1 I I I 12 I , 1 , 1111111 I I I I I I I I , I, I I I I I , I , I l l 1 l l l I l • l M n• ? - ,;, DO F n @ Q cn A— o 7J el L3 7a R no _ -- x, 3 Fr I-' 3 x Depth(ft) - N O W OCl A N O 0CD 001 - N O CD OCi - N O OWO OW1 - N O ONO ONl - N O C0 Ol A N O OD Ol A N G o co ao 3 pl !s cii 2', l �,r b- (n O IT N _- i _ -_ __, - - - - eT 03 cn to of Lt = _ NJ Depth(ft) V V 0�1l Ci Ol Ol Ol al In VI Vl Vl - - .A W W W W W N NJ NJ NJ NJ A N O CO Ol .A N 00 Ol - N O OO at - N O W Ol - N O co Ol A NJ 0 CO Ol -A NJ 0 CO CO - NJ i 1 • I L 1 , 1 I 1 , 119. I , I i I . I I , I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I . I , I , I I I . I I I . I I 1 , 1 , 1 4 1 . 1 , 1 1 1 , I L M a d r D) O d irs 7 cm - m 3 'rf �3 �_ A 7 rt N Depth(ft) V V V Ol Ol 01 01 Vl Vl (11 1.11 I.11 41, A A A A W U) W W W NJ N NJ N IN r 1.... ... ... .. -A NJ 0 W CO A N 0 O al A N O 00 CT A N O CO CT A N O o0 Ol A N O 00 Ol A N O CO Ol A N 1 . 1 I 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I I 1 I 1 r tom 01 A no -c, -1,- a v m v ol- U ib 3 a aD-m 0 co - N N This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Field input data:: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Infl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (a) (Pc) (ft) 2.00 3 12.00 98.00 2.00 No 3.50 2 12.00 98.00 2.00 No 7.00 4 12.00 105.00 4.00 No 9.00 4 15.00 105.00 3.00 No 12.00 6 15.00 111.00 2.00 No 14.00 7 7.00 111.00 3.00 Yes 19.00 14 7.00 111.00 7.00 Yes 24.00 9 23.00 108.00 5.00 Yes 29.00 23 7.00 107.00 5.00 Yes 34.00 20 7.00 107.00 5.00 Yes 39.00 2 50.00 112.00 5.00 Yes 44.00 8 50.00 112.00 5.00 Yes 49.00 23 25.00 112.00 5.00 Yes 54.00 21 3.00 112.00 5.00 Yes 59.00 14 25.00 112_00 5.00 Yes 66.00 7 63.00 112.00 3.00 No 69.00 22 24.00 112.00 3.00 Yes 74.00 20 24.00 112.00 3.00 Yes Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Infl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data Depth SPT Unit a„ u, a',,, m • CR CE Ca CR Cs (N1)60 FC A(N1)60 (Nl)60c, CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) ' 2.00 3 98.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.55 1.70 1.30 1.15 0.75 1.00 6 12.00 2.07 8 4.000 3.50 2 98.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.58 1.70 1.30 1.15 0.75 1.00 4 12.00 2.07 6 4.000 7.00 4 105.00 0.36 0.00 036 0.52 L70 1.30 1.15 0.80 1.00 8 12.00 2_07 10 4.000 9.00 4 105.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.51 1.53 1.30 1.15 0.80 1.00 7 15.00 3.26 10 4.000 12.00 6 111.00 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.50 1.30 130 . L15 0.85 1.00 10 15.00 3.26 13 4.000 14.00 7 111.00 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.53 1.21 1.30 1.15 0.85 1.00 11 7.00 0.14 11 4.000 19.00 14 . 111.00 1.02 0.00 1.02 0.44 L02 130 1.15 0.95 1.00 20 7.00 0.14 20 0206 24.00 9 108.00 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.48 ' 0.91 1.30 1.15 0.95 1.00 12 23.00 4.88 17 0.174 29.00 23 107.00 1.55 0.00 1.55 0.37 0.87 1.30 1.15 0.95 1.00 28 7.00 0.14 28 0384 34.00 20 107.00 1.82 0.00 1.82 0.41 0.80 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 24 7.00 0.14 24 0.268 39.00 2 112_00 2.10 0.05 2.05 0.60 0.67 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 2 50.00 5.61 8 0.105 44.00 8 112.00 2.38 0.20 2.18 0.52 0.69 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 8 50.00 5.61 14 0.148 49.00 23 112.00 2.66 036 2.30 0.37 0.75 130 1.15 1.00 1.00 26 25.00 5.07 31 4.000 54.00 21 112.00 2.94 0.51 2.43 0.42 0.70 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 22 3.00 0.00 22 0.233 59.00 14 112.00 3.22 0.67 235 0.46 0.66 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 14 25.00 5.07 19 0.194 66.00 7 112.00 3.61 0.89 2.72 0.55 0.60 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 6 63.00 5.59 12 4.000 _ 69.00 22 112.00 3.78 0.98 2.80 0.39 0.68 130 1.15 1.00 1.00 22 24.00 4.98 27 0.347 74.00 20 112.00 4.06 1.14 2.92 0.42 0.65 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 20 24.00 4.98 25 0.290 LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:3 216 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys This software is registered to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Cydic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit av ua oLa m CN Ce Cs Ce Cs (N1)60 FC A(Ni)60 (Ni)6o. CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) Abbreviations a: Total stress during SPT test(tsf) ua: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) a',,: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor CN: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor CB: Borehole diameter correction factor CR: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor N1(60): Corrected Nsvr to a 60%energy ratio A(Ni)60 Equivalent clean sand adjustment M(ea)ts: Corected Nr(6o)value for fines content CRR7.s: Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5 ::Cydic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: Depth Unit ay," ua,eq d„a,eq rd a CSR MSFina: (Nl)60,, MSF CSReq,M=7.5 K.igma CSR` FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (Pd.) 2.00 98.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.670 1.15 8 1.03 0.649 1.10 0.590 2.000 0 3.50 98.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.667 1.13 6 1.03 0.649 1.10 0.590 2.000 0 7.00 105.00 0.36 0.00 036 0.98 1.00 0.659 1.19 10 L04 0.633 1.10 0.575 2.000 0 9.00 105.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.98 1.00 0.654 1.19 10 1.04 0.628 1.08 0.583 2.000 0 12.00 111.00 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.96 L00 0.645 1.26 13 1.06 0.611 1.05 0.580 2.000 0 14.00 111.00 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.95 1.00 0.639 1.21 11 1.05 0.611 1.03 0.591 2.000 0 19.00 111.00 1.02 0.12 0.89 0.93 1.00 0.711 1.49 20 1.11 0.643 1.02 0.628 0.328 • 24.00 108.00 1.29 0.28 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.775 1.38 17 1.08 0.717 1.01 0.712 0.244 • 29.00 107.00 1.55 0.44 1.12 0.88 1.00 0.818 1.88 28 1.19 0.688 0.99 0.695 0.552 • 34.00 107.00 1.82 0.59 1.23 0.85 1.00 0.843 1.67 24 1.14 0.737 0.98 0.755 0.355 • 39.00 112.00 2.10 0.75 135 0.82 1.00 0.853 115 8 1.03 0.826 0.98 0.844 0.124 • 44.00 112.00 2.38 0.90 1.48 0.79 1.00 0.855 1.29 14 1.06 0.805 0.96 0.835 0.177 • 49.00 112.00 2.66 1.06 1.60 076 L00 0.849 206 31 1.23 0.692 0.91. 0.759 2.000 0 54.00 112.00 2.94 1.22 1.72 0.73 1.00 0.840 1.58 22 1.12 0.747 0.93 0.803 0.290 0 59.00 112.00 3.22 1.37 1.85 0.71 1.00 0.827 1.45 19 1.10 0.753 0.93 0.811 0.239 • 66.00 112.00 3.61 1.59 2.02 0.67 1.00 0.806 1.24 12 1.05 0.767 0.94 0.820 2.000 0 69.00 112.00 3.78 1.68 2.10 0.66 1.00 0.796 L82 27 1.18 0.677 0.88 0.770 0.450 • 74.00 112.00 4.06 1.84 2.22 0.64 1.00 0.781 1.72 25 1.15 0.676 0.88 0.769 0.377 • Abbreviations av,eq: Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) ua,eq: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) a',,,,,: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) rd: Nonlinear shear mass factor a: Improvement factor due to stone columns CSR: Cydic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,N=�.s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 k(sgma: Effective overburden stress factor CSR`: CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:4 217 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys This software is registered to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 2.00 2.000 0.00 9.70 1.50 0.00 3.50 2.000 0.00 9.47 1.50 0.00 7.00 2.000 0.00 8.93 3.50 0.00 9.00 2.000 0.00 8.63 2.00 0.00 12.00 2.000 0.00 8.17 3.00 0.00 14.00 2.000 0.00 7.87 2.00 0.00 19.00 0.328 0.67 7.10 5.00 7.28 24.00 0.244 0.76 6.34 5.00 7.31 29.00 0.552 0.45 5.58 5.00 3.81 34.00 0.355 0.64 4.82 5.00 4.73 39.00 0.124 0.88 4.06 5.00 5.42 44.00 0.177 0.82 3.29 5.00 4.13 49.00 2.000 0.00 2.53 5.00 0.00 54.00 0.290 0.71 1.77 5.00 1.92 59.00 0.239 0.76 1.01 5.00 L17 66.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.00 0.450 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.00 0.377 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall potential IL: 35.76 IL=0.00-No liquefaction IL between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable IL between 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable IL> 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (N2.)60 Tav p G... a b y Els Nc ENc Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (%) (ft) (in) 2.00 6 0.07 0-07 0.23 0.13 25789.58 0.05 0.16 10.08 1335 2.00 6.406 3.50 4 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.13 18434.08 0.10 0.43 10.08 36.24 2.00 17.396 7.00 8 0.23 0.24 0.47 0.14 1190857 0.02 0.05 10.08 4.45 4.00 4.275 9.00 7 0.30 0.31 0.53 0.14 10194.92 0.02 0.05 10.08 4.25 3.00 3.060 12.00 10 0.40 0.42 0.68 0.15 8470.78 0.01 0.02 10.08 L72 2.00 0.824 14.00 11 0.47 0.49 0.70 0.15 7681.29 0.02 0.03 10.08 2.83 3.00 2.038 Cumulative settlemetns:33.999 Abbreviations T.': Average cyclic shear stress p: Average stress Gmax: Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain £15: Volumetric strain after 15 cycles IC Number of cycles ENC: Volumetric strain for number of cycles (%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) LigSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:5 218 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys This software is registered to: Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (Ni)6o. yth. F. FSnq ymax ev dz So-io LDI (ft) (%) (o) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) 19.00 20 15.90 0.52 0.328 15.90 2.30 7.00 1.935 1.11 24.00 17 22.15 0.67 0.244 22.15 2.62 5.00 1.572 1.11 29.00 28 6.08 0.04 0.552 6.08 1.29 5.00 0.777 0.30 34.00 24 10.02 0.29 0.355 10.02 1.97 5.00 1.181 0.50 39.00 8 50.00 0.94 0.124 50.00 4.23 5.00 2.536 2.50 44.00 14 30.65 0.79 0.177 30.65 3.02 5.00 1.810 1.53 49.00 31 4.04 -0.16 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00 54.00 22 12.67 0.41 0.290 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.63 59.00 19 17.78 0.57 0.239 17.78 2.40 5.00 1.441 0.89 66.00 12 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.000 0.00 69.00 27 6.92 0.11 0.450 6.92 1.53 3.00 0549 0.21 74.00 25 8.88 0.23 0.377 8.88 1.90 3.00 0.683 0.27 Cumulative settlements: 13.760 9.05 Abbreviations Yum: Limiting shear strain(%) Fa/N: Maximun shear strain factor Vmaz: Maximum shear strain(%) eu:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) Sv-lo: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) • LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:6 21 9 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys I GEO ' Geotechnical Software ■■ n SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title:Moorpark Library SPT Name:DH#2 Location:High Street and Moorpark Avenue ::Input parameters and analysis properties:: Analysis method: Boulanger&Idriss,2014 G.W.T.(in-situ): 37.50 ft Fines correction method: Boulanger&Idriss,2014 G.W.T.(earthq.): 15.00 ft Sampling method: Standard Sampler Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.90 ft Borehole diameter: 200mm Peak ground acceleration: 1.03 g Rod length: 3.30 ft Eq.external load: 0.00 tsf Hammer energy ratio: 1.30 Raw SPT Data CSR-CRR Plot FS Plot LPI 2- 2 - ,-- _= 27 2- 4. 4 - 4- 4 6- 6 6- 6_ 8_ 8 8- 8 - 10 10- 10 = 10_ 12 12- 12 - 12- 14- 14- 14 e 14-s 16- 16_ During .gin. 16 -' '' . - 16- non 18- 18: 18 - 18- 20-. 20- 20 20_ 22 22- 22 22- .c 241 t 24_ r 24 t 24- c. 26- d 26- 0 26 E 26- 0 28: 0 28- 028 cl 28- 30 30- 30 ' 30- 32 32- 32 32_ 34 34:34- 34 34- 36- 36- 36 This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots:: Raw SPT Data CSR-CRR Plot FS Plot Vertical Liq.Settlements Lateral Liq.Displacements 2- 2 2- 2 4 ��� 2 4- 4 I, ip 4- 4- 6- 6 i 6- 6- 61 �'I 8- 8 8- 8- 8 1,111 ;l'I 10 10- 10 ;Iii 10_ 10_ 12- 12 Ir;', 12- 12- 12 ' 1 14 14- 7. 14 14- 14- w 16- :in,j ea n,q 16 41i11 ' e4r 16 16- r., 1 16 - 18 18- 18 18- 18-li 1 20 20-_ 20 ill 20- 20- 1 22- 22 lir: 22 22 22 I91i- E 24 a 24- a 24 . 24- a 24- a� a� o IT ' 0 26 n 26- n 26 I y 26- 26 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 11.1 28- 28 h 28- 28_ 28 - 30 32- 32 30- 30_ 32ii 30- 30 I 32- 32- 34 34- 34 34_ 34_ 36 - ii 36- 36 1111 36- 36- 38 38- 38 l�, 38- 38- 42 40- 40 Ilip 40- 40- 42- 42 iii - 40 , 42- 42- iV 44 , Ill, - 44- 44 44- 44- 48 Ili - - 46- 46 im- -- 46- 46- - 50 48- 48 V. 48- 48- 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 5 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPT Count(blow s/ft) CSR-CRR Factor of Safety Cuml.Settlement(in) Cuml.Displacement(ft) LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:8 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys N N I-1 This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Field input data:: • Test SPT Field Fines Unit Infl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) ("/o) (Pd) (ft) 2.00 15 22.00 102.00 3.00 No 4.00 9 22.00 102.00 3.00 No 7.00 6 22.00 101.00 3.00 No 9.00 9 22.00 101.00 3.00 No 12.00 7 12.00 101.00 2.00 No 14.00 9 27.00 106.00 4.00 Yes 19.00 13 27.00 106.00 5.00 Yes 24.00 9 29.00 95.00 6.00 Yes 29.00 21 6.00 95.00 5.00 Yes 34.00 15 27.00 97.00 5.00 Yes 39.00 0 52.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 41.00 17 52.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 44.00 6 47.00 118.00 4.00 Yes 49.00 12 27.00 118.00 4.00 Yes Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Infl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure Cycic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit a„ u0 a',,, m CN CE Ce CR Cs (N1)60 FC A(N1)bo (No)bocs CRR.s (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) 2.00 15 102.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.32 1.70 130 1.15 0.75 1.00 29 22.00 4.77 34 4.000 4.00 9 102.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 1.70 1.30 1.15 0.75 1.00 17 22.00 4.77 22 4.000 7.00 6 101.00 036 0.00 0.36 0.45 1_63 130 L15 0.80 1.00 12 22.00 4.77 17 4.000 9.00 9 101.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.42 1.43 1.30 1.15 0.80 1.00 15 22.00 4.77 20 4.000 12.00 7 101.00 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.49 131 1.30 L15 0.85 1.00 12 12.00 2.07 14 4.000 14.00 9 106.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.44 1.19 1.30 1.15 0.85 1.00 14 27.00 5.21 19 4.000 19.00 13 106.00 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.40 L03 1.30 1.15 0.95 1.00 19 27.00 5.21 24 0268 24.00 9 95.00 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.47 0.94 1.30 1.15 0.95 1.00 12 29.00 5.32 17 0.174 29.00 21 95.00 1.45 0.00 1.45 039 0.88 1.30 115 0.95 LOU 26 6.00 0.03 26 0316 34.00 15 97.00 1.70 0.00 1.70 0.42 0.82 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 18 27.00 5.21 23 0.249 39.00 0 118.00 1.99 0.05 1.94 0.63 0.68. 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 0 52.00 5.61 6 0.092 41.00 17 118.00 2.11 0.11 2.00 0.41 0.77 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 20 52.00 5.61 26 0.316 44.00 6 118.00 . 2.29 020 208 0.54 0.69 1.30 1.15 1.00 L00 6 47.00 5.61 12 0.132 49.00 12 118.00 2.58 0.36 2.22 0.47 0.70 1.30 1.15 1.00 1.00 13 27.00 5.21 18 0.184 LigSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:9 2 2 2 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.Isys This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. Cydic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit o., u, v'.o m CM Ce Ce CR Cs (Ni)60 FC A(Ni)6o (Ni)6o. CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) Abbreviations a.: Total stress during SFT test(tsf) U0: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) a'.o: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor CE: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor CB: Borehole diameter correction factor CR: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor Nr(60): Corrected Nsvr to a 60%energy ratio A(Ni)60 Equivalent clean sand adjustment N1(60)Cs: Corected Nli6ol value for fines content CRR7.5: Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5 Cydic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: Depth Unit Qv,eq Uo,oq O'.o,eq re a CSR MSFmex (N1)60o MSF CSReq,M=7.5 lKsigm• CSR' FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (Pd) 2.00 102.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.670 2.20 34 1.26 0.533 1.10 0.485 2.000 0 4.00 102.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.99 1.00 0.666 1.58 22 1.12 0.593 1.10 0.539 2.000 0 7.00 101.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.98 1.00 0.659 138 17 1_08 0.609 1.10 0.554 2.000 0 9.00 101.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.98 1.00 0.654 1.49 20 1.11 0.591 1.10 0.537 2.000 0 12.00 101.00 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.96 1.00 0.645 1.29 14 1_06 0.608 1.06 0.574 2.000 0 14.00 106.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.95 1.00 0.639 1.45 19 1.10 0.583 1.05 0.555 2.000 0 19.00 106.00 0.98 0.12 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.714 1.67. 24 1.14 0.625 1_03 0.604 0.444 • 24.00 95.00 1.22 0.28 0.94 0.90 1.00 0.788 1.38 17 1.08 0.728 1.01 0.718 0.242 • 29.00 95.00 1.45 0.44 1.02 0.88 1.00 0.840 1_77 26 1.17 0.721 1_01 0.716 0.441 • 34.00 97.00 1.70 0.59 1.10 0.85 1.00 0.874 1.62 23 1.13 0.771 0.99 0.776 0.321 • 39.00 118.00 1.99 0.75 124 0.82 1.00 0.880 L13 6 1.03 0.857 0.99 0.868 0.106 • 41.00 118.00 2.11 0.81 1.30 0.81 1.00 0.880 1.77 26 1.17 0.755 0.97 0.782 0.404 • 44_00 118.00 2.29 0.90 138 0.79 1.00 0.877 1.24 12 1.05 0.835 0.97 0.857 0.154 • 49.00 118.00 2.58 1.06 1.52 0.76 1.00 0.867 1.42 18 1.09 0.796 0.96 0.833 0.220 • Abbreviations Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) uo,eq: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) a'.o,eq: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) . re: Nonlinear shear mass factor a: Improvement factor due to stone columns CSR: Cydic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,M=7.s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 '<sigma: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 2.00 2.000 0.00 9.70 2.00 0.00 4.00 2.000 0.00 9.39 2.00 0.00 7.00 2_000 0.00 8.93 3.00 0.00 9.00 2.000 0.00 8.63 2.00 0.00 LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 10 2 2 3 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 12.00 2.000 0.00 8.17 3.00 0.00 14.00 2.000 0.00 7.87 2.00 0.00 19.00 •0.444 0.56 7.10 5.00 6.02 24.00 0.242 0.76 6.34 5.00 7.32 29.00 0.441 0.56 5.58 5.00 4.75 34.00 0.321 0.68 4.82 5.00 4.98 39.00 0.106 0.89 4.06 5.00 5.53 41.00 0.404 0.60 3.75 2.00 1.36 44.00 0.154 0.85 3.29 3.00 2.55 49.00 0.220 0.78 2.53 5.00 3.01 Overall potential IL: 35.53 IL=0.00-No liquefaction IL between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable IL between 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable IL> 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (Ni)60 r,, p Gm.x a b y £15 Nv Enc Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (%) (ft) (in) 2.00 29 0.07 0.07 0.38 0.13 25177.92 0.00 0.00 10.08 0.09 3.00 0.067 4.00 17 0.14 0.14 0.46 0.13 16611.23 0.00 0.00 10.08 0.35 3.00 0.254 7.00 12 0.23 024 0.56 0.14 1190334 0.01 0.01 10.08. 0.78 3.00 0.560 9.00 15 0.30 0.31 0.67 0.14 10245.08 0.01 0.01 10.08 0.47 3.00 0.340 12.00 12 039 0.41 0.69 0.15 8626.56 0.01 0.02 10.08 1.36 2.00 0.651 14.00 14 0.46 0.48 0.82 0.15 7833.59 0.01 0.01 10.08 0.54 4.00 0.516 Cumulative settlemetns: 2.387 Abbreviations Tay: Average cyclic shear stress p: Average stress Gmax: Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain £15: Volumetric strain after 15 cycles Nc: Number of cycles cm: Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc(%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (N1)6o. ylm F,, FSnq y... e„ dz S„-1D LDI (ft) (%) (%) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) 19.00 24 10.02 0.29 0.444 10.02 1.97 5.00 1.181 0.50 24.00 17 22.15 0.67 0.242 22.15 2.62 6.00 1.887 1.33 • 29.00 26 7.85 0.17 0.441 7.85 1.79 5.00 1.076 0.39 34.00 23 11.27 0.35 0.321 11.27 2.04 5.00 1.227 0.56 39.00 6 50.00 0.95 0.106 50.00 4.86 1.50 0.875 0.75 41.00 26 7.85 0.17 0.404 7.85 1.79 1.50 0.323 0.12 44.00 12 38.03 0.86 0.154 38.03 3.34 4.00 1.604 1.52 LigSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 11 224 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys This software is registered to:Oakridge Geoscience,Inc. ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: • Depth (Ni)so.. Ynm Fa FSnq /Inlay ev dz So-iD LDI (ft) (o) (%) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) • 49.00 18 19.85 0.62 0.220 19.85 2.51 4.00 1.204 0.79 Cumulative settlements: 9.376 5.97 Abbreviations Vim: Limiting shear strain(%) Fa/N: Maximun shear strain factor ymax: Maximum shear strain(%) eq:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) S„-ID: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) • • LigSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 12 2 2 5 Project File:C:\Users\Craig Prentice\Documents\Oakridge Geoscience\client-projects\GeoLogisMiki\MOORPARK LIBRARY\Moorpark LibrarySPT.lsys References • Ronald D.Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan,2009.Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 135, No. 6,June 1 • Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL&ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS • Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe,Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique- Colloquium at Darmstadt,Germany,on March 19th, 1998(also published in Ground Engineering,September 1998),Technical paper 12-57E • Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geolog ism iki.gr/ • Youd,T.L., Idriss, I.M.,Andrus, R.D.,Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian,J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127,October,pp 817-833 • Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,39: pp 1168-1180 • Zhang,G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE,Journal of Geotechnical&Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 130, No.8,861-871 • Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical& Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 124, No.4,364-368 • R. Kayen, R. E.S. Moss, E. M.Thompson, R. B.Seed,K.O.Cetin,A. Der Kiureghian,Y.Tanaka, K.Tokimatsu,2013. Shear- Wave Velocity—Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 139, No.3, March 1 • • • 226 LiqSVs 1.1.1.8-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software