Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SL08639-6 San Luis Ranch - Dalidio SER
", 4r 01, N LUIS RANCH — D;�Li�]Iw MADONNA ROAD LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA. PROJECT SL08639-62 Prepared for Attn: Mr. Dave Daniels MI Entitlement IV, LLC Coastal Community Builders el Post Office Box 19 Pismo Beach, California 93449 1021 Wet Tama Lane, Suite 105, Santa Maria, CA 93454 (805)614-6333, (805)614-6322 fax SBinfo@geosolutions.net Attn: Mr. Dave Daniels MI Entitlement IV, LLC C/o Coastal Community Builders, Inc. Post Office Box 19 Pismo Beach, California 93449 Subject: Soils Engineering Report San Luis Ranch — Dalidio, Madonna Road San Luis Obispo, California Dear Mr. Daniels: GeaSalutians, INC. 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)543-8539,(805)543-2171 fax info®geosolutions.net May 29, 2015 Project No. SL08639-6 This Soils Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed San Luis Ranch development located east of Madonna Road, west of the 101 Freeway, and south of Dalidio Drive in San Luis Obispo, California. This report is intended for use in the development of plans and specifications for the project. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, conventional foundations, post - tension foundations, exterior concrete flatwork, retaining walls, and pavement structural section design are presented herein. Based on the results of our field investigation, it is anticipated that graded pads will be constructed for the proposed structures within the development with foundations supported by engineered fill. Expansive surface soils are present within the development areas and should be taken into consideration during plan development due to the potential for expansive soil movement to negatively affect the proposed improvements, including but not limited to; foundation systems, concrete slabs -on - grade, exterior concrete flatwork, and pavements. All foundations are to be excavated into uniform material to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement. If cuts steeper than allowed by State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork" are proposed, a numerical slope stability analysis may be necessary for temporary construction slopes. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 543-8539. Sincerely, C51361 Kraig R. t Principal, San Luis Ranch — Dalidic, May 29,2015 Proiect SLO8639-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description.........,...11.1 .............................................. I .................... ......................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............. .................... ............................................................................. 2 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ......................................................................... 3 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................. -- ................................................ 5 4.1 Seismic Hazard Analysis ................... . ............................................. .................................. 5 4.2 Structural Building Design Parameters ................................................................................ 6 4.3 Liquification Potential ......................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Liquefaction Analysis .......................................................................................................... 7 5.0 GENERAL SOIL -FOUNDATION DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. .......................... 10 6.1 Preparation of Building Pad .............................................. ........... ................................... 10 6.2 Preparation of Paved Areas ............................................................................................... 12 6.3 Pavement Design............................................................................................................... 12 6.4 Interlocking Concrete Pavers ............................................................................................ . 13 6.5 Conventional Foundations ......................................... .................................... .................. 14 6.6 Post -Tensioned Slabs ......................................................................................................... 15 6.7 Slab -OD -Grade Construction ............................................................................ ................ 17 6.8 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................. 18 6.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ............................................................................................... 21 7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ............................................ ............................... 22 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ............................................................23 REFERENCES APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs CPT Logs Classification Data with Soil Behavior Types APPENDIX B Liquefaction Analysis APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports GOWFIDRUtfUnS, INE. San Luis Ranch —Dalidio MU 29 2015 Project SLOR639-6 APPENDIX D USGS Design Map Summary Report USGS Design Map Detailed Report APPENDIX E Preliminary Grading Specifications APPENDIX F Volflo 1.5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map ......... ......••. ......................... ......... ....................................1 Figure2: Site Plan.........................................................................................................................................2 Figure3: Google Earth Image...................:....................................................................................................3 Figure4: Regional Geologic Map..................................................................................................................4 Figure5: Liquefaction Potential....................................................................................................................8 Figure6: Sub -Slab Detail............................................................................................................................1 1 Figure7: Center Lift Diagram.....................................................................................................................16 Figure8: Edge Lift Diagram........................::..................................................................................... ...17 Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail ....................... ......... _. ......... ........ ..................................19 Figure 10: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges...............................................................................20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Engineering Properties....................................................................................................................4 Table 2: Recommended Pavement Structural Sections................................................................................12 Table 3: Driveway and Sidewalk Base Sections... ..... ................................................................................. 14 Table 4: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Dimensions..........................................................................14 Table 5: Post -Tension Foundation Criteria..................................................................................................16 Table 6: Retaining Wall Design Parameters................................................................................................19 Table 7: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils.............................................................................23 GenBnlutlnns, nue. SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT SAN LUIS RANCH — DALIDIO MADONNA ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SLO8639-6 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed San Luis Ranch located east of Madonna Road, west of the 101 Freeway, and south of Dalidio Drive in San Luis Obispo, California. See Figure 1: Site Location Map for the general location of the project area. Figure 1: Site Location Map was obtained from the computer program Topo USA 8.0 (DeLorme, 2009). 1.1 Site Description San Luis Ranch is located at 35.25612 degrees north latitude and 120.67920 degrees west longitude at a general Figure 1: Site Location Map elevation of 130 feet above mean sea level. The property is approximately rectangular in shape and 145 acres in size. The nearest intersection is where Madonna Road intersects Dalidio Drive at northern corner of the property. The topography of the Site is relatively flat with a gentle gradient that slopes down to the southwest at approximately 32:1 (horizontal to vertical). Surface drainage follows the topography to the southwest and flows to Prefumo Creek, which is located approximately 650 feet to the southwest. The Site is currently in use for agricultural purposes, with some existing structures and densely vegetated areas adjacent to Madonna Road. 1.2 Project Description At the time of the preparation of this report, the proposed development is to include approximately 350 single-family residences, 150 multi -family residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial space, 150,000 square feet of office space, and a 200 room hotel. It is anticipated that the proposed commercial structures will be located within the northeast portion of the Site, adjacent to Dalidio Drive. The proposed multi -family and single-family residences will be located to northwest and southwest of the commercial buildings, respectively. The project property will hereafter be referred to as the "Site." See Figure 2: Site Plan for the general layout of the Site. It is anticipated that the proposed residential and commercial development areas will utilize slab -on -grade lower floor systems. Dead and sustained live loads are currently unknown, but they are anticipated to be relatively light for the residential development areas and moderate for the commercial development areas with maximum continuous footing and column loads estimated to be approximately 1.5 to 4 kips per linear foot and 15 kips to 40 kips, respectively. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SLO8639-6 Figure 2: Site Plan 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and sub -surface soil conditions at the Site and to develop geotechnical information and design criteria. The scope of this study includes the following items: I. A literature review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site including geologic maps, and available on-line or in-house aerial photographs. 2. A field study consisting of site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration including exploratory borings and soundings in order to formulate a description of the sub -surface conditions at the Site. 3. Laboratory testing performed on representative soil samples that were collected during our field study. 4. Engineering analysis of the data gathered during our literature review, field study, and laboratory testing, 5. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading as well as geotechnical design criteria for building foundations, retaining walls, pavement sections, underground utilities, and drainage facilities. Gen5nlotlnne, mc. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SLO8639-6 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on March 11, 2015 using a CPT Truck provided by Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. and a Mobile B-24 drill rig. Twelve CPT soundings and five four -inch diameter exploratory borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Google Earth Image. Sampling methods included the Standard Penetration Test utilizing a standard split -spoon sampler (SPT) without liners and a Modified California sampler (CA) with liners. The Mobile B-24 drill rig was equipped with a safety hammer, which has an efficiency of approximately 60 percent and was used to obtain test blow counts in the form of N- values. An electric cone was used during the CPT sounding. The electric cone has a 35.7-mm diameter cone - shaped tip with a 60' apex angle, a 35.7-min diameter by 133.7-min long cylindrical sleeve, and a pore pressure transducer. The CPT soundings were advanced to provide a nearly -continuous soil behavior profile and to better characterize the Site. See Appendix A for CPT data and for a description and classification of the soil behavior types. Data gathered during the field investigation suggest that the soil materials at the Site consist of interbedded layers of colluvial and alluvial soil. The surface materials at the Site generally consisted of dark grayish brown to black sandy fat CLAY (CH) encountered in a slightly moist to moist and stiff condition and dark brown to black sandy CLAY (CL) encountered in a slightly moist and stiff condition to approximately 3.0 to 4.5 feet bgs. The sub -surface materials consisted of brown to dark olive brown sandy CLAY (CL) Figure 3: Google Earth Image with gravel encountered in a moist to wet and firm to very stiff condition underlain by light brown clayey SAND (SC) with gravel encountered in a moist and medium dense to very dense condition. Regional site geology was obtained by using the Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle (Dibblee, 2004) and the MapView internet application (USGS, 2013); the later application is available from the United States Geological Survey website (USGS, 2013) and compiles existing geologic maps. The majority of all underlying material at the Site was interpreted as Surficial Sediments. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. See Figure 4: Regional Geologic Map 3 BouffuIU1tinnm, IN[. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Proiect SLO8639-6 ) NM%p ICA YN W ILtf Y 1� 0 � I MOYFifl1 Figure 4: Regional Geologic Map SAN LUIS OBISPO MAP (DF-139) LEGEND YYEYgrogvnr - E.�Mwwprtlw ray. n�rei.q.�Wr •w ammv u�mm. nwYw�nY�ntl mrf+-mW Ye�yOW q�+ a�i.ip�rvw Eti d 4 s�mY�rrNr.r M �Y.tlrapmrr YMEEMfogYllY Yx.rrYM r•Yn�Y rwwxr.w ��esr•H�urYI err ��� GEOLOGISYMBOLS nw"�oi"vg.YYl Ynrm�w�u.H �isbYlTi� � fAVIT u+.I.ur.Marsw!A m.Y..ewa oOy=Y..e'YYY4�pM p ^ OTIOtYIAWLL W.�� `=r �r �� During the boring and sounding operations the soils encountered were continuously examined, visually classified, and sampled for general laboratory testing. A project engineer has reviewed a continuous log of the soils encountered at the time of field investigation. See Appendix A for the Boring Logs from the field investigation. Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples that were obtained fiom the Site during the field investigation. The results of these tests are listed below in Table 1: Engineering Properties. Laboratory data reports and detailed explanations of the laboratory tests performed during this investigation are provided in Appendix C. Table 1: Engineering Properties 9e v d E. C G o O tl O Sample Description o o i 4, U 4 U V u CL, E ow 5U1 k K O N Gr O CAE q o G 'O y 'D wv A Black Sandy Fat CLAY CH 69 Medium 107.1 15.2 36 86.0 Dark Olive Brown Sandy B CL 51 Medium - - 23 63.0 CLAY C Dark Grayish Brown CL 38 Low - - 17 64.0 Sandy CLAY D Olive Brown Sandy CLAY CL 62 Medium - 22 76.0 Grayish Brown Sandy E CL 57 Medium - 23 62.0 CLAY Gen5olotlon9, INC. San Luis Ranch —Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SLO8639-6 E p k d q G o R7 q q p Sample Description a ? U m U c U a U L c E L7 � q 03 Vl �= �/I F�1 LTi i1r � �i 0/-� Or G y V o-.i F:i o--i F Dark Gray Sandy CLAY CL 52 Medium - 19 53.0 G Very Dark Gray Sandy Fat CH 73 Medium - 38 89.0 CLAY H Dark Grayish Brown CH 79 Medium - 30 64.0 Sandy Fat CLAY I Olive Brown Sandy CLAY CL 77 Medium - 27 68.0 B-1 @ Dark Olive Brown Sandy CL 0.083 0.008 5.0 ft CLAY B-2 @ Very Dark Grayish Brown CL - - 0.070 0.007 5.0 ft Sandy CLAY with Gravel B-3 @ Very Dark Brown Sandy CL - 0.077 0.008 5.0 ft CLAY with Gravel B-4 @ Dark Olive Brown Sandy CL - - 0.086 0.009 5.0 ft CLAY with Gravel B-5 @ Dark Yellowish Brown 1 CL - - 0.101 0.010 5.011 Sandy CLAY 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Seismic Hazard Analysis According to section 1613 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC; 2013), all structures and portions of structures should be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions in accordance with the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE7) (ASCE, 2010). ASCE7 considers the most severe earthquake ground motion to be the ground motion caused by the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) (ASCE, 2010), which is defined in Section 1613 of the 2013 CBC to be short period SMs and 1-second period SMI, spectral response accelerations. 2. The am„Y of the Site depends on several factors, which include the distance of the Site from known active faults, the expected magnitude of the MCE, and the Site soil profile characteristics. Gen5nl"Unnls, INC. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 3. As per section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), the Site soil profile classification is determined by the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet of the Site profile (ASCE 7). Based on the (N060 values calculated for the in -situ tests performed during the field investigation, the Site was defined as Site Class D, Stiff Soil profile per ASCE 7 Chapter 20. 4. According to section 11.2 of ASCE7 and section 1613 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), buildings and structures should be specifically proportioned to resist Design Earthquake Ground Motions (Design a,,,a, ). ASCE7 defines the Design a,,,a as "the earthquake ground motions that are two-thirds of the corresponding MCE ground motions" (ASCE, 2006, p. 109). Therefore, the Design a..,, for the Site is equal to SDI=0.481 and SDs=0.832, which are 1-second period and short period design spectral response accelerations that are equal to two-thirds of the am,,, or MCE for the Site. 5. Site coordinates of 35.25612 degrees north latitude and 120.67920 degrees west longitude and a search radius of 100 miles were used in the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. 4.2 Structural Building Design Parameters Structural building design parameters within chapter 16 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and sections 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 of ASCE7 are dependent upon several factors, which include site soil profile characteristics and the locations and characteristics of faults near the Site. As described in section 4.1 of this report, the Site soil profile classification was determined to be Site Class D. This Site soil profile classification and the latitude and longitude coordinates for the Site were used to determine the structural building design parameters. 2. Spectral Response Accelerations and Site Coefficients were obtained from the Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, U.S. Seismic Design Map computer application (USGS, 2013); this program is available from the United States Geological Survey website (USGS, 2013). This computer program utilizes the methods developed in the 1997, 2000, 2003, 2008 and 2013 errata editions of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures and user -inputted Site latitude and longitude coordinates to calculate seismic design parameters and response spectra (both for period and displacement), for Site Classifications A through E. Analysis of the Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for the Site and of the Occupancy Category for the proposed structure assign to this project a Seismic Design Category of D per Tables 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2) of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013). 3. The site specific MCE peak ground acceleration (PGAM) as determined by the USGS computer program (web based) PGAM = 0.519 g which is present on Sheet 5 of 6 of the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report (ASCE 7-10 Standard). See Appendix D: USGS Design Maps Summary and Detailed Report. This PGAM was utilized in our liquefaction analysis. 6 GenSulutlone, wL San Luis Ranch—Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 4.3 Liguification Potential Liquefaction occurs when saturated cohesionless soils lose shear strength due to earthquake shaking. Ground motion from an earthquake may induce cyclic reversals of shear stresses of large amplitude. Lateral and vertical movement of the soil mass combined with the loss of bearing strength usually results from this phenomenon. The potential for liquefaction estimated from the twelve CPT soundings is shown below in Figure 5: Liquefaction Potential. 2. Liquefaction potential of soil deposits during earthquake activity depends on soil type, void ratio, groundwater conditions, the duration of shaking, and confining pressures on the potentially liquefiable soil unit. Fine, poorly graded loose sand, shallow groundwater, high intensity earthquakes, and long duration of ground shaking are the principal factors leading to liquefaction 3. The determination that Site soils are liquefiable was made following guidelines set forth in, "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, 1997." The procedure is termed the "simplified procedure" and is the current standard of care for liquefaction analysis. 4.4 Liquefaction Analysis GeoSolutions, Inc. utilized computer software program NovoCPT Version 3.32.2014.1209 by Novo Tech Software, which was developed using methods recommended in most recent publication, NCEER Workshop and SP117 Implementation was used to determine the liquefaction and settlement potential of the Site. Seismic load is estimated with Seed's simplified method (Seed, 1971), which uses a Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) that is compared to the Cyclic Resistance Ration (CRR) of the soil. 2. CPT soundings of the Site indicated the presence of saturated SAND type soils encountered in a loose to very dense condition at various depths from ground surface (bgs) to termination of CPT soundings at 50 feet bgs. These values are used to determine Factors of Safety (FOS) for isolated layers below ground surface. Overall seismic settlement on the order of 1.0 to 3.5 inches where obtained from the program with (FOS) less than 1.0 for the sand soils encountered at various depths below ground surface. The results from this analysis are summarized in Appendix B of this report. Based on the presence of sandy soils, the relative density of the in -situ soils, the depth to groundwater, and the expected ground acceleration caused by the Design Base Earthquake, the potential for seismic liquefaction of Site soils is high. Liquefaction was determined to likely occur in the sandy soil layers between the depths of 13 to 50 feet bgs and may manifest at the surface as seismically induced settlements. Seismically induced settlements were estimated to be on the order of 1.0 to 3.5 inches. 6eo5olutlons,lNc. San Luis Rauch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Proiect SL0S639-6 Figure 5: Liquefaction Potential 10 H w 21 w U 30 A CROSS SECTION A -A' 0 100 200 300 400 500 DISTANCE IN FEET CROSS SECTION B-B' 0 100 200 300 DISTANCE IN FEET Geo5olutlans, INC. San Luis Ranch -Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 10 40 50 CROSS SECTION C-C' 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 DISTANCE IN FEET LEGEND ■ NON LIQUEFIABLE (ABOVE GROUNDWATER) ■ NON LIO HIGH TIP (Es.> 1. j ❑ POTENITAL LIQUEFIABLE (1.5 > F.S. > 1.0) III LIKELY LIQUEFIABLE (1.0>ES.>0.75) ■ LIQUEFIABLE (ES. <0.75) mr GROUNDWATER' 1-a00S13lUtI0n9, lNE. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 5.0 GENERAL SOIL -FOUNDATION DISCUSSION The results of our on -site investigation show poor sub -surface soil conditions and a shallow groundwater table located at approximately 13 feet below ground surface. Under seismic loadings, the soils below the groundwater interface may liquefy. The result of liquefaction would be settlements on the order of 1.0 to 3.5 inches across the Site. Due to the existing subsurface conditions, a post tension type foundation system may be considered for the proposed commercial and residential structures. As an alternative, a graded engineered fill pad may be constructed for the proposed commercial and residential structures with all foundations excavated into engineered fill. All foundations are to be excavated into uniform material to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement. If cuts steeper than allowed by State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations; Trenches, Earthwork" are proposed, a numerical slope stability analysis may be necessary for temporary construction slopes. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns at the Site are The presence of loose surface soils and potential for debris resulting from demolition and removal of the existing structures and trees. 2. The presence of expansive soil materials. Expansive soils tend to swell when exposed to excess moisture and shrink when allowed to dry. The soil zone within the upper 2 to 3 feet of the Site is most affected by these seasonal changes in moisture content. The volume change associated with this soil movement can stress and damage foundations, concrete flatwork, interior slabs -on -grade, and roadway pavements. Foundations supported by expansive soils should be designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code. 3. The potential for settlement due to seismic liquefaction. Several layers of soil were identified as potentially liquefiable between depths of 13 and 50 feet bgs. The low densities encountered, along with the low fines content of the soil and saturated conditions indicate that these layers may potentially be liquefiable, manifesting at the surface as dynamic settlements. Seismically induced settlements were estimated to be on the order of 1.0 to 3.5 inches. 6.1 Preparation of Building Pad It is anticipated that graded engineered fill pads will be developed for residential and commercial structures within the proposed development with footings founded in engineered fill. 2. The ground surface within the development areas should be prepared for grading by removing the existing site improvements, foundations, vegetation, debris, disturbed soils, and other deleterious materials. Due to the presence of expansive soils within the surface and near -surface soils, removal of fractured, loose soil is recommended to expose competent native materials prior to fill placement. 10 Geusulutlnns, INC. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 3. For the development of an engineered fill pad, the native material should be over - excavated at least 48 inches below existing grade, 24 inches below the bottom of the footings, to competent material, or to one-half the depth of the deepest fill(measured from the bottom of the deepest footing); whichever is greatest. The limits of over -excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter foundation, to property lines or existing improvements, whichever is least. The exposed surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to 3 percent over optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent (ASTM D1557-07). The over - excavated material may then be processed as engineered fill. Refer to Figure 6: Sub -Slab Detail for under -slab drainage material and Appendix E for more details on fill placement. 4. The recommended soil moisture content should be maintained during construction and following construction of the proposed development. Where soil moisture content is not maintained, desiccation cracks may develop which indicate a loss of soil compaction, leading to the potential for damage to foundations, flatwork, pavements, and other improvements. Soils that have become cracked due to moisture loss should be removed sufficient depth to repair the cracked soil as observed by the soils engineer, and the removed materials should then be moisture conditioned to approximately 3 percent over optimum value, and compacted. 5. As an alternative, and to reduce the potential for moisture loss fi-om within the engineered fill pad areas, replacement of the upper 24 inches of building pad soils with an approved non -expansive import material, such as a Glass II/M aggregate sub -base placed as engineered fill, is recommended. The non -expansive material reduces the potential for movement of concrete slabs and exterior flatwork as well as the potential for desiccation cracks from soil shrinkage, to form within the pad areas. Figure 6: Sub -Slab Detail GeK3901"UODF., IN[. San Luis Ranch—Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 6.2 Preparation of Paved Areas Pavement areas should be excavated to approximate sub -grade elevation or to competent material; whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should be scarified an additional depth of twelve inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent (ASTM D1557-07 test method). The top 12 inches of sub -grade soil under all pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-07 test method at slightly above optimum. 2. Sub -grade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between moisture conditioning and compaction, and placement of the pavement structural section. 6.3 Pavement Design All pavement construction and materials used should conform to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (State of California, 1999). 2. As indicated previously in Section 6.2, the top 12 inches of sub -grade soil under pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-07 test method at slightly above optimum moisture content. Aggregate bases and sub -bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. 3. The following table provides the recommended Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement sections based on an estimated R-Value of less than 5 and Specification 7110 — Flexible Pavement Elements, from the City of San Luis Obispo Table 2: Recommended Pavement Structural Sections Traffic Index Structural Section Thickness in Inches LIMA/AC AB 4.5 2.5 10.0 5.5 3.5 11.0 6.5 4.0 14.0 7.0 4.25 15.5 8.5 5.5 19.0 9.5 6.5 21.5 HMA = Hot Mix Asphalt meeting Caltrans Specification HMA Type A'h inch mix AB — Aggregate Base meeting Caltrans Specification for Class 2 aggregate base (R-Value — 78 Min) 4. A minimum of ten inches of Class H Aggregate Base is recommended for all roadway pavement sections. All pavement sections should be crowned for good drainage. 12 Gouguiutions, INC. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio Mav 24 2015 Proiect SLO8639-6 In order to minimize the potential for cracking of the pavement surfaces at the Site due to lateral movement of the base courses during expansive shrink -swell cycles of the sub - grade materials, GeoSolutions, Inc. recommends that a laterally -reinforcing biaxial geogrid, such as Tensar BX1100, Tenax MS220, Syntec SBXll, or equivalent, be installed between the prepared sub -grade and base materials at the Site. 6. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be contacted prior to the design and construction of the pavement sections to provide recommendations regarding the selection of and installation of an appropriate laterally -reinforcing biaxial geogrid product. 6.4 Interlocicine Concrete Pavers I . Due to the expansion potential of the site soils and the potential adverse effects that expansive soils have on reinforced concrete flatwork and concrete pavement (heaving, cracking, settlement, etc.) interlocking concrete pavers may be utilized as the finish surface in these areas. Minimum recommended structural sections for driveways, sidewalks and alley approaches are provided based on; on -site soil properties, anticipated loadingluse, and ICPI (Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute) Technical Specifications. 2. In general we recommend a minimum section of Class 11 aggregate base over geotextile fabric in areas where vehicle loading is anticipated, and a minimum section of aggregate base material over prepared sub -grade in sidewalk areas. We recommend the use of geotextile fabric between the prepared sub -grade and Class II aggregate base materials in areas to receive vehicle loading to prevent the sub -grade soil from being pressed into the aggregate base under loads, especially during periods of wet weather, reducing the potential for ruts to form within the driveways. When geotextile fabrics are used they preserve the load bearing capacity of the base over a greater period of time than placement without them. 3. For sidewalk areas, we recommend a minimum of 6 inches of aggregate base material. The aggregate base material may consist of; Class If aggregate base, Class III aggregate sub- base, or and approved decomposed granite (D.G.) material. For construction of the paver section in sidewalk areas, the sub -grade soil should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 3 percent over optimum moisture value and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent (ASTM D1557-07 test method). Care should be exercised to maintain the moisture in the sub -grade soils prior to the placement of aggregate base material; sub - grade soils in a dry condition or with desiccation cracks will require re -processing prior to the placement of aggregate base material. The aggregate base material should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. 4. For driveways and alley approach areas, we recommend a minimum of 12 inches of Class II aggregate base material over an approved woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500x or equivalent, placed on the prepared sub -grade soil. For construction of the paver section in driveway areas, the sub -grade soil should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 3 percent over optimum moisture value and compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent (ASTM D1557-07 test method). Care should be exercised to maintain the moisture in the sub -grade soils prior to the placement of aggregate base material; sub - grade soils in a dry condition or with desiccation cracks will require re -processing prior to the placement of geotextile fabric. The fabric should be installed on the surface of the 13 GenSnlutinne, uuG San Luis Ranch - Dalidio May 29 2015 Proiect SLO8639-6 prepared sub -grade, laid flat with no wrinkles on the bottom surface. Within the excavated area for the structural section, the fabric should be turned up the sides of the opening, covering the sides of the aggregate base layer. Where fabric requires overlap, a minimum overlap of 2.0 feet should be used. When the aggregate base material is placed on the fabric, care should be taken to avoid vehicle tires from contacting the fabric, to avoid wrinkling or tearing of the fabric. The aggregate base material should then be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent. Table 3: Driveway and Sidewalk Base Sections Minimum Aggregate Minimum Minimum Geotextile Location Base Section Sub -grade Aggregate Base Fabric Thickness Compaction Compaction Sidewalks 6.0 inches 90 percent 90 percent None Driveways and Alley 12.0 inches 95 percent 95 percent Mirafi 500x Approaches or equal 5. Installation of the bedding sand, pavers and joint sand should be performed in accordance with manufacturers' specifications and ICPI specifications. 6.5 Conventional Foundations Conventional continuous and spread footings with grade beams may be used for support of the proposed structure. Isolated pad footings are not allowed. Foundations must be designed in accordance to section 1808.6.2, 2013 CBC, Foundations on Expansive Soils. 2. Minimum footing and grade beam sizes and depths in engineered fill should conform to the following table, as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. hi addition all foundations should be designed to accommodate the movements in Table 4: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Dimensions Table 4: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Dimensions Excavated in Engineered Fill Building Type Minimum Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Width One -Story 24 inches 12 inches Two -Story 24 inches 12 inches Three- Story 24 inches 15 inches Interior Grade Beams 1 18 inches 12 inches Minimum reinforcing steel for footings and grade beams excavated in engineered fill should be designed by the Structural Engineer and in accordance with Section 1808.6 of the 2013 California Building Code for expansive soils. 4. A representative of this firm should observe and approve all foundation excavations for required embedment depth prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. Concrete should be placed only in excavations that are free of loose, soft soil and debris and that have been maintained in a moist condition with no desiccation cracks present. 14 fiEnSUILIYl131111S, INC. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio MU 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,500 psf may be used for the design of footings founded in engineered fill. 6. A total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement of less than 1 inch in 30 feet are anticipated. Foundation design should also take into account the overall seismic settlement of 3.5 inches, and seismic differential settlement of 1.75 inches over 30 feet. 7. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the engineered fill and the bottom of the footings. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.30 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of footings extending a minimum of 24 inches into engineered fill. A passive pressure of 275-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in engineered fill. If friction and passive pressures are combined to resist lateral forces acting on shallow footings, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. Foundation excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. 9. Foundation design should conform to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2013). 10. The base of all grade beams and footings should be level and stepped as required to accommodate any change in grade while still maintaining the minimum required footing embedment and slope setback distance. 6.6 Post -Tensioned Slabs As an alternative to a conventional reinforced concrete foundation system with perimeter footings and grade beams, a post -tension foundation system may be utilized to support the proposed structures. 2. Post -tensioned slabs should be designed for total static and seismic settlements of 3.5 inches and a differential settlement of 1.0 inch over 30 feet. Post -tensioned slabs should be designed according to the method recommended in the Design and Construction of Post -Tensioned Slabs -on -Ground (PTI, 2012 PTI DC 10.5- 12). As a guideline, the following soil design criteria for the post -tensioned slab foundations may be used: 15 GeaSolutlon�, wc. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Proiect SL08639-6 Table 5: Post -Tension Foundation Criteria POST -TENSION FOUDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Center Lift Edge Lift All Perimeter Beam 24 Inch Deep Conditions Edge Beam Em Yin Em Ym Expansion Potential Structure Type (ft.) (in.) (ft.) (in.) Commercial 6.0 1.60 2.9 2.52 Multi -Family 6.0 1.74 2.9 2.75 Medium Single -Family 6.0 1.59 2.9 2.55 Footing/Slab Dimensions The footing width, depth and structural slab -on -grade thickness should be specified by the architect/engineer based upon the soil parameters provided in this report and the 2013 CBC Slab Subgrade Moisture Recommendations Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture Medium Expansive Potential content to a depth of 18 inches prior to concrete placement. 4. The following values were assumed when developing the above design values (Table 2) using the computer program Volflo vl.5: Soil fabric factor FF = 1.1, Ko = 0.33 (drying) 0.67 (wetting); Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -20; constant suction value pF = 3.8; depth to constant suction = 13 feet (2); post equilibrium case assumed with wet (swelling) cycle going from 4.5 pF to 2.9 pF and drying (shrinking) cycle going from 2.9 pF to 4.5 pF. See Appendix F, Volflo 1.5 for summary results. Flexible Uniform Clay Soil Transpiration Figure 7: Center Lift Diagram Datum Line Transpiration 16 Gungulut1on9, mc. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 Figure 8: Edge Lift Diagram 5. These values should be confirmed after grading based upon soil conditions at subgrade level on the building pads. The post -tensioned slabs should be designed to impose a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psl) for dead -plus - live loads. This value may be increased by one-third when considering total loads including wind or seismic loads. 6. A minimum slab thickness of 9 inches is recommended. The perimeter should be thickened to at least 12 inches, and the minimum backflll height of soil against the slab at the perimeter should be 6 inches. The final foundation plans should be reviewed by the Soils Engineer when they become available to verify conformance with these recommendations. Provided the above recommendations are implemented into the design of the proposed structures, a total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement of less than 1 inch in 30 feet are anticipated. 6.7 Slab -On -Grade Construction Concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of sub -grade to receive concrete slabs -on -grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report. Concrete slabs should be placed only over sub -grade that is free of loose, soft soil and debris and that has been maintained in a moist condition, with no associated testing required. 2. Concrete slabs -on -grade should be a minimum of inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 12 inches on -center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 200 psf. If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a Structural Engineer should evaluate the slab design. 17 6eo5olatlan!l,1N�. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SL08639-6 Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water -reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increase slump while maintaining a water/cement ratio, which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 4. Where concrete slabs -on -grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of four inches of clean free -draining material, such as a''/Z inch coarse aggregate mix, to serve as a cushion and a capillary break. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 15-mil Stego Wrap membrane (or equivalent installed per manufacturer's specifications) should be placed between the free -draining material and the slab to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. See Figure 6: Sub - Slab Detail for the placement of under -slab drainage material. It is suggested, but not required, that a two-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete, increasing the depth of the under -slab material to a total of six inches. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. 5. It should be noted that for a vapor barrier installation to conform to manufacturer's specifications, sealing of penetrations, joints and edges of the vapor barrier membrane may be required. If the installation is not performed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, there is an increased potential for water vapor to affect the concrete slabs and floor coverings The most effective method of reducing the potential for moisture vapor transmission through concrete slabs -on -grade would be to place the concrete directly on the surface of the vapor barrier membrane. However, this method requires a concrete mix design specific to this application with low water -cement ratio in addition to special concrete finishing and curing practices, to minimize the potential for concrete cracks and surface defects. The contractor should be familiar with current techniques to finish slabs poured directly onto the vapor barrier membrane. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water- soluble adhesives. Therefore, it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 6.8 Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the lateral pressures presented in Table 6: Retaining Wall Design Parameters and Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail for the design of retaining walls at the Site. The Active Case may be used for the design of unrestrained retaining walls, and the At -Rest Case may be used for the design of restrained retaining walls. 18 Gungulutlans, wr. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SLO8639-6 Table 6: Retaining Wall Design Parameters Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure, )cf Static, Active Case, Native (y'KA) 70 Static, Active Case, Import Sand or Gravel (y'KA) 35 Static, At -Rest Case, Native (y'Ko) 85 Static, At -Rest Case, Import Sand or Gravel (y'Ko) 50 Static, Passive Case, Engineered Fill (y'KP) 275 12" minimum 2. The above values for equivalent fluid pressure or equivalent alen q p or equivalent are based on retaining walls having level retained Ka = varies surfaces, having an Ko = varies approximately vertical surface against the retained material, and retaining Kp = 275 pcf granular backfill material or engineered fill composed of native soil Permeable Drain Rock within the active wedge. 4" Dia. Perf. Drain Pipe See Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail and Figure 10: Max Toe Pressure: 1,800 psf Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges for a description of the location Figure 9: Retaining Wall Detail of the active wedge behind a retaining wall. 3. Proposed retaining walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the top of the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at -rest case, for every degree of slope inclination. 4. We recommend that the proposed retaining walls at the Site have an approximately vertical surface against the retained material. If the proposed retaining walls are to have sloped surfaces against the retained material, the project designers should contact the Soils Engineer to determine the appropriate lateral earth pressure values for retaining walls located at the Site. 19 Gen9olutlone, iNc. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Proicct SLO8639-6 Clayey Material Wall Permeable Drain Rock 4-Inch Perf. Drain Pipe 45° -Qr/2 o• Drainage Swale Level Backfill 'We/— cale Passive Wedge Figure 10: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges H Retaining wall foundations should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade in engineered fill as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between engineered fill and concrete footings. Project designers may use a maximum toe pressure of 1,800 psf for the design of retaining wall footings founded in engineered fill. 6. Seismic active lateral earth pressure values were determined using the Pseudostatic Method and the Design a nax• See section 4.1 for a description of the analysis used to determine the Design amp. The seismic at -rest lateral earth pressure value was determined by multiplying the seismic active lateral earth pressure value by approximately 1.5. The dynamic increment in lateral earth pressure due to earthquakes should be considered during the design of retaining walls at the Site. Retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height should be designed to resist an additional lateral soil pressure of 25 pcf equivalent fluid pressure for unrestrained walls and 40 pcf equivalent fluid pressure for restrained walls. For earthquake conditions, the pressure resultant force should be assumed to act a distance of 1/3H above the base of the retaining wall, where H is the height of the retaining wall. 7. These seismic lateral earth pressure values are appropriate for retaining walls that have level retained surfaces, that have an approximately vertical surface against the retained material, and that retain granular backfill material or engineered fill composed of native soil within the active wedge. For other retaining wall designs, seismic lateral earth pressure values may be obtained using methods such as the Mononobe and Okabe Method developed by Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) and Okabe (1926), which are included in retaining wall computer design software such as Retain Pro. 8. Seismically induced forces on retaining walls are considered to be short-term loadings. Therefore, when performing seismic analyses for the design of retaining wall footings, we recommend that the allowable bearing pressure and the passive pressure acting against the sides of retaining wall footings be increased by a factor of one-third. 20 Geagalutlans, iNc. San Luis Ranch — Dalidio May 29 2015 Project SLO8639-6 9. In addition to the static lateral soil pressure values reported in Table 6: Retaining Wall Design Parameters, the retaining walls at the Site should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a retaining wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account in the design of the retaining wall. 10. The recommended lateral earth pressure values are based on the assumption that sufficient sub -surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a granular filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of granular filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to 12 inches from the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of moisture conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. Neither spread nor wall footings should be founded in the granular filter material used as backfrll. it. A 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted drainpipe (ASTM D1785 PVC) should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material and should daylight to discharge in suitably projected outlets with adequate gradients. The filter material should consist of a clean free -draining aggregate, such as a coarse aggregate mix. If the retaining wall is part of a structural foundation, the drainpipe must be placed below finished slab sub -grade elevation. 12. The filter material should be encapsulated in a permeable geotextile fabric. A suitable permeable geotextile fabric, such as non -woven needle -punched Mirafr 140N or equal, may be utilized to encapsulate the retaining wall drain material and should conform to Caltrans Standard Specification 88-1.03 for underdrains. 13. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45-pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the active and at - rest lateral earth pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 14. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 15. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be used for any basement construction, and for building walls that retain earth. 6.9 Exterior Concrete Flatworlc Due the presence of highly expansive surface soils within the proposed development areas, there is a high potential for considerable soil movement and flatwork if conventional measures are used, such as the placement of 4 to 6 inches of imported sand materials placed beneath concrete flatwork. Heaving and cracking are anticipated to occur. To reduce the potential for movement associated with expansive soils, we recommend the placement of a minimum of 24 inches of approved non -expansive import material placed as engineered fill beneath the flatwork.. 21 Gengn1ution9, w[. San Luis Ranch —Dalidio May29 2015 PrniectSL08639-6 2. Minimum flatwork reinforcement should consist of No. 3 reinforcing steel bars placed at 24 inches on -center each -way at or slightly above the center of the structural section. 3. Flatwork should be constructed with frequent joints to allow for movement due to fluctuations in temperature and moisture content in the adjacent soils. Flatwork at doorways, driveways, curbs and other areas where restraining the elevation of the flatwork is desired, should be doweled to the perimeter foundation by a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing steel dowels, spaced at a maximum distance of 24 inches on -center. 7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings/soundings and on the continuity of the sub -surface conditions encountered. GeoSolutions, Inc. assumes that it will be retained to provide additional services during future phases of the proposed project. These services would be provided by GeoSolutions, Inc. as required by City of San Luis Obispo, the 2013 CBC, and/or industry standard practices. These services would be in addition to those included in this report and would include, but are not limited to, the following services: 1. Consultation during plan development. 2. Plan review of grading and foundation documents prior to construction and a report certifying that the reviewed plans are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 3. Construction inspections and testing, as required, during all grading and excavating operations beginning with the stripping of vegetation at the Site, at which time a site meeting or pre job meeting would be appropriate. 4. Special inspection services during construction of reinforced concrete, structural masonry, high strength bolting, epoxy embedment of threaded rods and reinforcing steel, and welding of structural steel. 5. Preparation of construction reports certifying that building pad preparation and foundation excavations are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 6. Preparation of special inspection reports as required during construction. 7. In addition to the construction inspections listed above, section 1705.6 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) requires the following inspections by the Soils Engineer for controlled fill thicknesses greater than 12 inches as shown in Table 7: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils: 22 GeoSalatlon9. we San Luis Ranch — Dalidio MU 29 2015 Proiect SL08639-6 Table 7: Required Verification and Inspections of Soils Continuous Periodically Verification and Inspection Task During Task During Task Listed Listed 1. Verify materials below footings are adequate to achieve the X design bearing capacity. 2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have X reached proper material. 3. Perform classification and testing of controlled fill materials. X 4. Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses X during placement and compaction of controlled fill. 5. Prior to placement of controlled fill, observe sub -grade and X verify that site has been prepared property. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified immediately and GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render sections of this report invalid in less than 3 years. \Nas-el-d418\s\SL08500-SL08999\SL08639-6 -Dalidio Soils EngineeringTngineering\SLOS639-6 San Luis Ranch Dalidio SER.doc 23 GeoSolutinns, INc. Gon5olutlons, lmc. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05 Including Supplement No. 1. 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191. 2006. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations. Title 24. Part 2. Vol. 2. California Building Standards Commission: January 2013, DeLorme. Topo USA 8.0. Vers.8.0.0 Computer software. DeLorme, 2009. Microsoft Windows 7, DVD- ROM drive. Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr.. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle. Dibblee Geologic Center Map Number DF-t29. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History: 2004. NovoCPT Version 3.32.2014.1209 © 2009-2014 Novo Tech Software Ltd. State of California. Department of Industrial Relations, California Code of Regulations. 2001 Edition. Title 8. Chapter 4: Division of Industrial Safety. Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders, Article 6: Excavations. http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub4.htm1. State of California, Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications. State of California Department of Transportation Central Publication Distribution Unit: July 1999. United States Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php website. January 24, 2014. United States Geological Survey. MapView — Geologic Maps of The Nation. Internet Application. USGS, 26 August, 2013. <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapViewh Gen5olutlans, wc. APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs CPT Logs GeoBolutians, INC. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted March 11, 2015 using the Middle -Earth Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding equipment and a Mobile B-24 drill rig. The surface and sub -surface conditions were studied by advancing twelve CPT soundings and five exploratory borings. This exploration was conducted in accordance with presently accepted geotechnical engineering procedures consistent with the scope of the services authorized to GeoSolutions, Inc. The CPT sounding with a 20-tan electronic CPT cone was advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) with measurements for cone bearing (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and pore water pressure (u2) measurements recorded at approximately 5-cm intervals. This provides a near continuous hydro geologic log. All CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM D5778-95 (re -approved 2002) standards. The Mobile B-24 drill rig with a four -inch diameter solid -stem continuous flight auger bored five exploratory borings near the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Google Earth Image. The drilling and field observation was performed under the direction of the project engineer. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. maintained a log of the soil conditions and obtained soil samples suitable for laboratory testing. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. See the Soil Classification Chart in this appendix. Standard Penetration Tests with a two-inch outside diameter standard split tube sampler (SPT) without liners (ASTM D1586-99) and a three-inch outside diameter Modified California (CA) split tube sampler with liners (ASTM D3550-01) were performed to obtain field indication of the in -situ density of the soil and to allow visual observation of at least a portion of the soil column. Soil samples obtained with the split spoon sampler are retained for further observation and testing. The split spoon samples are driven by a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The sampler is initially seated six inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and is then driven an additional 12 inches with the results recorded in the boring logs as N-values, which area the number of blows per foot required to advance the sample the final 12 inches. The CA sampler is a larger diameter sampler than the standard (SPT) sampler with a two-inch outside diameter and provides additional material for normal geotechnical testing such as in -situ shear and consolidation testing. Either sampler may be used in the field investigation, but the N-values obtained from using the CA sampler will be greater than that of the SPT. The N-values for samples collected using the CA can be roughly correlated to SPT N-values using a conversion factor that may vary from about 0.5 to 0.7. A commonly used conversion factor is 0.67 0/3). More information about standardized samplers can be found in ASTM D1586-99 and ASTM D3550-01. Disturbed bulk samples are obtained from cuttings developed during boring operations. The bulk samples are selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples are placed in transport containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Logs of the borings and soundings showing the approximate depths and descriptions of the encountered soils, applicable geologic structures, penetration resistance, moisture content tests, recorded N-values, and the results of laboratory tests are presented in this appendix. The logs represent the interpretation of field logs and field tests as well as the interpolation of soil conditions between samples. The results of laboratory observations and tests are also included in the boring logs. The stratification lines recorded in the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between the surface soil types. However, the actual transition between soil types may be gradual or varied. Geasolutians, INE. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA GROUP SYMBOLS PRIMARY DI VISIONS Cu greeter than 4 and Ca between l and 3 GW Well graded gravels and gravel -send miewres,lili mm,fines Cimngraveh(lus GRAVELS Nan 5%fines') Poorly gradedgavels and apavalmnd Notmeaing boo, edta(a for OW GP mixtures, lime or n0 flaw Monagen50%0fwnsc fiaslionrelainFodon No. ARmberglimihplolbdow'A'lineorplesficity GM SillyguvelagraveI,md-siltmixturw 4 (4.]Smmj sieve Gravel with flaw (more ten 12% index let tan4 Aaetaralimits pI.( Indoor 'A' plasticity GC Chycy grovels,gravel-sandchymixtura COARSEOMWEDSOILS fines') Mmatan50%rehinedon Ne. index grmtmdco7 200 sieve C,grmler tan an 6 d C, between l and 3 Sw Well armed sands,gravely sands, tilde., Clmn and (let n0 flaw Poorly gradednndeand gravellyml SANDS tan5%fines') Not namfing both criteria go SW SP sands, gainer no flaw Sand wit Rom Atmbmg limihplot beloo, W line or deadeiry &M Silty sands. send-zillmixmar Mane tan 50%of.. Racuon passes No 4 index kutan4 (4.75mm)aicen (momtan 12% flow') Aaeiberglimitsplotabave"A"Ilnemdplardciry Sc Clapysands,amd-deymixtures isulso,uterten7 Inorganic soil PI<4ar plop below'A'-Ilne ML Imm mile acts, very fine mods, rate flour, sl Tlyore yay la finumed, SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clap oflove to medium (liquid limit less than 50) lemPeicsoil PI 7 and plots on or ebe. 'A'line^ CL pInficity, gravellydap, sandy dap, see, clay; IN. chp PINEGRAINEDSOILS Organiogoil LL(own ddsdAL(nol dried)< 0.75 OL Org.0,41ts and mgae silly el.,.fl.w 50%mrmm,,rssw Na20(, Plannity erve Ianrgmie it Plohbelow'A'Ilaa gyH Inorganic silts, miancomm dinomem.m finesmd..rsilb,ela ti,sills SILTS AND CLAYS InOrganiosoil Plobonorabove-A"Ilne CH Inorganic dap ofhlgh putridly, Itchy: aiquidlimit50mnam) Omani• Soil LL(oven ddd)sLL(nat dded)< 0.75 ON Organic silts and organic clays ofbtgh Plasticity Pant Highiyoupole Primadlymganic meter, dark in color, and metals odor PT Pest, muerted•ter Wildyorganicmits *Pines are those soil particles that pass the No. 200 sieve. For gravels and sands with between 5 and 12%fines, use ordeal symbols is required 0.a GW-GM, GW-GC, GP -GM, or GP -GC). 4•Ifdm plasticity indm is between 4 and 7 and it plots above the "A9Ine. the. dust symbols (Le, CLML) terequind. he W rim, Ikn dual symbol its. CLML) me arquison CONSISTENCY se CLAYS AND PLASTIC STRENGTR BLOWS/ TOMS)." SILTS FOOT* VERYSOFT 0.114 0-2 SOFT 1/4-In 2.4 FIRM In-1 4-8 STIFF 1.2 8-16. VFRYSrIFF 2-4 16-32 HARD Oem,1 Over32 IATIVRMNRITV SANDS,CRAVELSAND BIOVISa NON-PLASTICSILTS FOOT+ VERY LOOSE 0-4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUMDENSB 10 30 DENSE 30-50 WRY DENSE Over50 CLASSIFICATIONS EASED ON PERCENTAGE OF FINES Less than 5%, Pats No, 200(75mm)sieve) GW, OF, SW, SP More than 12% Pau N. 200(75 man) sieve GM, GC, SM, Sc 5%42% Pas, No. 200(75 man) sieve Borderline Classification requiring use ofdual symbols PLASTICITY CHART Pmaatmemseav u'u"Made son. a.a rtnsln,u.n oraaar.aPnlnmsah m ABaMgIMstap'dnry eeMxn k6uma um 0ameaYrewsaneeWss seyNHgmedaWayrMde. t Ep gualMaw: m.a]a RL-am .m 00 m as an ao an as an LFWdU"m Drilling Notes: m m /a + Number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30- Types of Samples: inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-3/8-inch I.D.) split 1. Sampling and blow counts X— Semple spoon (ASTM D1586), a. Califomia Modified — number of blows per foot SPA -Standard on ++Unconfined compressive strength in tone/sq.R. gas ofa 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches CA- California Modified Modified determined by laboratory, testing or approximated by b. Standard Penetration Test — number of blows per N- Nuclearete uge the standard penetration lost (ASTM D1586), packet 12 inches of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 PO —Pocket Penetrometerr(tons/aq.RJ penetrometer, lorvane, or visual observation. inches GeoSolutions, imc. GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG u 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BORING NO. B-1 1021 West Tama Lane, Suite 105 JOB NO. SL08639-6 Santa Maria, CA 93454 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: San Luis Ranch Dalidio DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: March 11, 2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT and CA LOGGED BY: JK HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater. Not Encountered Boring Terminated At:15 feet Page 1 of 5 O ° q SOIL DESCRIPTION W O O O 4y W -10 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 SANDY FAT CLAY: black, slightly moist, CH _ colluvium, stiff CL A CA 34 34 15.2 107.1 69 86.0 36 SANDY CLAY: dark olive brown with gravel and ... some cobbles, alluvium, very stiff \- _ B 57 63.0 23 \ stiff SPT 16 22 CL SILTY CLAY: brown with gravel, alluvium very stiff SPT 19 23 GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG BORING NO. B-2 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1021 West Tama Lane, Suite 105 JOB NO. SL08639-6 Santa Maria, CA 93454 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: San Luis Ranch Dalidio DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: March 11, 2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT and CA LOGGED BY: JK HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded s Depth of Groundwater: 13 feet Boring Terminated At:15 feet Page 2 of 5 x ¢ u 3 q s z ° SOIL DESCRIPTION 2 a' O G J N ti m ra a O U w ti WO U z -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 SANDY CLAY: dark brown, slightly moist, colluvium, stiff CL — N-21 -__._ ---- CL CA 35 35 SANDY CLAY: brown with gravel, alluvium, — very stiff _ CL \_ SANDY CLAY: dark grayish brown with gravel, very moist, alluvium \ firm SPT 7 10 \— wet _ C 38 64.0 17 \— SPT 7 8 GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG 220 High Sheet, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BORING NO, B-3 1021 West Tama Lane, Suite 105 JOB NO. SL08639-6 Santa Maria, CA 93454 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: San Luis Ranch Dalidio DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: March 11, 2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT and CA LOGGED BY: JK HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater: 12.5 feet Boring Terminated At:15 feet Page 3 of 5 v � S W k � a u 3SF W SOIL DESCRIPTION 00 Z a 3 e U b w z < w a w ww q -7 -8 -9 -10 -II -12 -13 -14 -15 -I6 -17 -18 -19 -20 SANDY CLAY: dark brown, slightly moist, CL colluvium, stiff —\_ \— CL CA 27 27 SANDY CLAY: olive brown with gravel, moist, —, alluvium, stiff \— D 62 76.0 22 SC SPT 16 22 CLAYEY SAND: light brown with gravel, alluvium CL " SANDY CLAY: light brown, wet, alluvium stiff SPT 12 14 GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BORING NO. B-4 1021 West Tama Lane, Suite 105 JOB NO, SLO8639-6 Santa Maria, CA 93454 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: San Luis Ranch Dalidio DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: March 11, 2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT and CA LOGGED BY: JK HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded = Depth of Groundwater: 10 feet Boring Terminated At:15 feet Page 4 of 5 W W x � z Q pN V U Q 3� V o s z } SOIL DESCRIPTION z o U U U -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 SANDY FAT CLAY: very dark gray, slightly CH moist, colluvium, stiff CL G 73 89,0 38 SANDY CLAY: grayish brown with gravel, moist, \— alluvium . . _ E 57 72.0 23 stiff CA 26 26 CL SANDY CLAY: dark gray, moist, alluvium \_ firm SP"r 7 10 with gravel F 52 53.0 19 stiff \ SPT 9 11 GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG a 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BORING NO. B-5 1021 West Tama Lane, Suite 105 JOB NO. SL08639-6 Santa Maria, CA 93454 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: San Luis Ranch Dalidio DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: March 11, 2015 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT and CA LOGGED BY: JK HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded = Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Terminated At:15 feet Page 5 of 5 ASOIL DESCRIPTION O J z '7 W O Q x Q N ze u 1 w o k zz 1'8 a w c8i W -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -I8 -19 -20 SANDY FAT CLAY: dark grayish brown with CH gravel, colluvium CL H 79 77 64.0 68.0 30 27 dry, alluvium SANDY CLAY: olive brown, d \- very stiff _ CA 50/51, SC CLAYEY SAND: light brown with gravel, moist, alluvium \_\ very dense SPT 25 35 \7—� with some cobbles —� SPT 39 48 3du aoIAVH39 Iios � � o N LL b q D D m 'O m aTi c T m N � z T C U n °. y m p > , , ar E o m E ■ ■ ■ IL v 'L o U 00 0 7 E O a v = •N c °O a a " n m m ° QQ ■ ■ ■ m a`E O o m a F Vi 3a o o O A a Qo�� V (7 0L)p z O V � LL N •N USN. U T ° T -0 w KC1 N po v N C p y N m a y EEo � Z=� 0 a -�xw a m LL a_ N m � " E � c 'm m `w o m ° C E E N a > U T m d c 2 10 " m U O N O (uJ H1d3( N " 3du NOVAVH38 FEW- Tos O N M Ui 9 L T d C U N � d ✓I > � O N d E m E ■ ■ ■ x m y.% m o U 00 o � E O m m a = •y � O M T 9 9 O N v « C N r ao m ■ ■ ■ m 6 0 c a Erb c eZR"i a 'd ao m` V y 00� C Z 0 LL "N a u u o ro E2 C; « « « m �OOa m N J V U N U N u N N I4 C C V N l0 ■ ■ ■ o c t a coo >>9 wZZU °M cy v LL�xw LL � FF v w � � N E LL' OI d � E w d N a d u m c w •N OI O � O Hld3a 2a a qm, ) llos In \ � ktr )/JljWW( ; $ � . « ; �k� v /® ■ - {\�k \ U) �k\© w o •Z ; ■ ■, b 0 U 0 - � (WE 2j\ - /§f /\// ! _ /` Rao ; ; ; IJ N ISd Zn MInSSMAd 3d.11 aOVAHH38 Mal IIOS u � o N N N .... v LL N 0 N p p y N C T y C U N � m E m E ■ ■ ■ =C� M m IY ie� o U ao o � E 0 m rt m p Q •y O � 9 p x OOD mOT L. N y ci Cif y LL�A4 N C w A 9 Y/ M N N QQ ■ ■ m v v■ 0 vE o 0 s a V/ 39$ O Q 2 2 C O N ^ 1.1. n U o�1 Z 0 LL A N a OF T m a a L q N UMG 2 2 w gw y J U U N y y U N N F O C Q N f0 0 t W O EEo ozz9 °o0 LLnxw LL v c E •a '� 16 O R N a d 0 N q ° E N m Q u T v o g m U 0 O N O c N N M M Q w N N y Hld34 h 9dA 2JOIAVH39 IIOS v z o M N b m N « c � H T h c m - u t a O1 m n � 0 m E � m E ■ ■ ■ C N M 'u. f7■ o U 00 o � E 0 � 9 a = b o d a a r Uo D w c N N C N a M � y O Q ", mvv r M m ■ ■ P m v W■ O nE 0 a N f `o 0 o ~ _ u! O mZ=o 0. no me V /d OUG z O 0 LL _ N N d L) N y�JU U N N ~ u N o ■ ■ ■ o a L ya E 0 E� dzzg m � O O!~ D o.�xw LL g M a v E E K 0 c m o G N y N � m c Z m u U C O ll'' Lj �tt� H1d c N ° ® ■ ■ 3dll 2JOIAVH38 IIOS ° � o a N M L •v L r � y 9 � y T N C m U fn N y C � N N m E ■ ■ ■ c va� ro L7 2� m o U m o � E 0 m m a +� •N c O moo 10 cUOI O m m a G a EF=mm o ° Z ° G W U ,don 20 V OCia Z .°-° F y m y • U F u T u Koa y J V m U m N C N y m f N G U y E Q N fO o a ■ ■ ■ z a E 3� m O N Z y ° o o N a a�Mw a_ a m W D y o c ° IN rn ° m L C @ E N rn Q y u T > m N El o y o (u) H1d30 " 3du aoUAHH3a lios u � c m m U N y N C C .O+ N T Z m T O L a. N > a O1 y m O ' E E m E ■ ■ ■ C M O m O 7 E 0 '3 ^Z D yQ �_ N O M = O N T 9 9 m 9 N [Op« q N VWI m m LL I zij N 9 N a AL O N r ro m 0 o w C z y OUO Z � N N u � fD rcoa m yJU U N N c N N N O u N ~ o C Q N m t G. aa0 E d==O QF .6 46 a`>mw d a a m H m o F a ep a a N E O ❑ U Ll d E a d 0 L) O m O � N N M M V V N ll11 N Hld30 N M 3dAl 2JOIAVH38IT Y lIOS i N � y m a rn y T N Z T If U W N > m E � E ■ ■ ■ m o GJ j o E 0 � a a C MON CY m N a tau' K In LL ` ❑ C ° y a °. dE m ui Eax a O P+z �o - N d dow- I ov°$ U (7 z v FN _ m "m ❑ b LL N �' N , O c K .0 c~a N J U m ra = U 'N Ur JN N V N F T C N u h to 0 L a Fb W, EE U zL NZd a pOy a�xw aLL a � FF ep O N O C E o 19 of N C A N G y U T N O 2 " of ° '� U O N O � M M V N y O ll11 N N of H1d30 N " adu NOVAVH38 Iios u � o � N a rn m T � � u a � O E O N m E ■ ■ ■ �y•K -am M m o U 00 o � E 0 J" a a = N c O a C ❑ o a N N C @ N a N a C M O Q N N Q A OJ N ■ ■ ■ A O d O N a E�x oa o as OC2- v C9LOW 0 L) a O z F a U F m ❑ O LL U :N A CnO « .2 0 N J V O N N U N N F O C V N N ■ ■ ■ o c t a na0 Er=� zz om °o - a>xw LL d F m a w C N E K v° c 12 m m w N p o m N Q j O A C UWj 2 rn v o U o c `o k# » a Ame *m a ) d r � � oA A.. f\V -A?�" }\)gL ; $ k _ 24 ,) e:Lt\ ! f ■ - i]"! ` § � « ■;;\ o `E U) ;lQI R = o ._ \)k� Q )(§ \ ) ) M XLU ; _ E \ ! k k yeo ® ; ; . 2u a qwe ,los )/| § � | � . / ( A A\ { \ f - . . � �r k E R § )o ) 000 o /, /nmw 0 -: ) �k y ° © ; ; m ; R m ■ ; m } \ Reo , ; ; . � IN I � • ���1�■■■i�lll■1■III = . ■■1111■■■■I�III�I■■Ililllll�l . ■■1111■■■rnu��l►■■I�II�m■� - ■■�111■■■�W■■IIII��11�1 ■�'�III■■■I■■■1111■I■1 . ■Illwf�■■■11!■■■Illl■I�11 - wIu■■■wry■ ■■■�r■� ■I�■■■■■■■■■ ■IL►1■1■■■■■■■■■JII Ii1111A■1■�► ■11111■11■■■■■IIIL►� ■iV11111�IL11111■■■1�111I1�Ilfil'N9111111111I11i1111,10l■� = • . wl■1'■IIfiW�JwJl�l�ll�■1■■Wi1111■1�1 - 111�■I■��11'�"'" Y'I■I■■■=11� 11■■■II■■■■■■■ 1�■■■■■■■■■ - I�■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■m■■ • ■■■■■■�Irll■1■�I■I ■■MI■■■■m■■Imm ■■1111m mmil 11111i1mmillIIIIII■ll - - ■■III■■■II�I'Ir1 � ■1111�III■1 . ,rA w.■iII■�i�mI■1■■■Immmmmmm ■1■ mmmmmmm ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■mm - ■■ mmmm■mm- IIMFuy �■1�0 ■ ■ ; '' 'girl■■■■■ m■ 1. - APPENDIX 13 Liquefaction Analysis Results GeoSG1Ut1Gns, INC. V N m wNK F J C Uyd�IT >cam v p LL mU' UUU a w w J z `a r a v Z O r U a LL. m W w D o � C o VV t� �p q 0 t v N U E ma aT U mp!n O OJ > J roN�� ❑z� C 0 WOH oo� a dU0Z TP O N V [O cD O N V (O W O N V CO aO O N V cD W O N (D OJ O N (44) 4Ida4 N ... __. T r r r mLq r m J O (8) 43da4 U v 0 v N_.-� I_.... o ' o (4) y;dad (u) 41daO rn r r r o � � N I V (11) y;daQ 0 3 0 (7l) 43daa T O N V <D m 0 O c0 m o N V (O m O N V tD m O N V CO m O N (14) y;dap v C M � N O O N V (O CO O N V (O m O N V CO m O N V (D m O N V t0 m O N ()j) y;daa N d � a C N O l n d m : r ___ ____ _ (O : , r U o (3!) 41daa r- VNxYYa �•YYRRYYY;Y .YY�..N�Y■••.Y�a/N.•R��' •Yf••}Y...1... �-YI..N��N-YYSY I.G.61•JYY....Y'.�iYYM�.•N•.j YRIR Y.YIY YY.i YRYR •YYYu YL•YYYYYY �. iYY«N LG-Y , f INNYYiNFRYYYI Y.Yd. Yj1Yt«YYYY.IYY Y:R YYYRI}•Y_�.Y IRYYY YIY •...Yb•Y.Y«•N[1RY1 YxNY.iYYYYYY w YYYYUYtGYYY Y.{NYY]iYL Y. Y. Y. I1.• GY•..Yf J�-IY;LRYRYYtYYY YY�}i .i_eY YY.� H. .• .''(qqYI.JY- Yi �Y•Y..Y�IY IYW 'iYJY. .Y.Re YYFp R.NNif"It a nYIYY.YYY.YYYYY.Y.YNN .Y_LNx YY A1 �G• . elYfj'l •Y.• . •GY.�. IY�YiY`�j Yy .li Y�, i�� Y '1fi �Y M.Wi V'Y ..YY Y• p • •.� .. ..... . ..p• 4YI •n..j �Y�IYGYY Y.'i. \YY •YYY Y ...n •i� 1 YID ly YIi�Y .. vYY •.S Y�Y..YY •.. S q..p..Y.l LI �ti ..YLL YJ Yi • J S Y _Y YI.S Y .,•_YY 1J Y n Y Y,b JIL.AI Y, of w U 0 Cl! 0 O (y) yldaa N N N N N M M M M M V V V W 41daa ()A) 41dea 0 E N O O W _- i___i___i__ .-♦. _� N N N N N M M CJ M M V V V V V (]3) 43da❑ O N R (O N O` V f0 07 O N V (D OJ O N V CO O7 O N V (D W ()J) 4;daa � Cp ao o � V CO W O N V c0 N O N V (O CO O N V CO OO (31) 43daO c c 0 O N o U I I I 0 (4) 43da❑ (V I O I IL T w o � o (11) y;dap o 1 O N � l0 N O N V f0 OJ O N V t0 m O N V (O N O N R (u) 43daO 0 2 A m O N V W m o N V (O N O N V CO N O N V (O M O N V (4) y;da4 (8) 93da4 0 3 C O y0 O d t� 0 O N V CO m O N V CO m O N V f0 m O N V (O m O N V (11) 41da❑ d: : O (31) 43da4 c I : : C I I I N I : : : N N N N N M M M M M V V V (4) y;dad a ! ) ° _&____2 ; §$ § 2 \} \ \ �G }§ \\\\\\ \ < (\ � \f \} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ )\ APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports GeuNalutions, mc. LABORATORY TESTING This appendix includes a discussion of the test procedures and the laboratory test results performed as part of this investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing is to assess the engineering properties of the soil materials at the Site. The laboratory tests are performed using the currently accepted test methods, when applicable, of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Undisturbed and disturbed bulk samples used in the laboratory tests are obtained from various locations during the course of the field exploration, as discussed in Appendix A of this report. Each sample is identified by sample letter and depth. The Unified Soils Classification System is used to classify soils according to their engineering properties. The various laboratory tests performed are described below: Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829-08) is conducted in accordance with the ASTM test method and the California Building Code Standard, and are performed on representative bulk and undisturbed soil samples. The purpose of this test is to evaluate expansion potential of the site soils due to fluctuations in moisture content. The sample specimens are placed in a consolidometer, surcharged under a 144-psf vertical confining pressure, and then inundated with water. The amount of expansion is recorded over a 24- hour period with a dial indicator. The expansion index is calculated by determining the difference between final and initial height of the specimen divided by the initial height. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (ASTM D1557-07) is performed to determine the relationship between the moisture content and density of soils and soil - aggregate mixtures when compacted in a standard size mold with a 10-lbf hammer from a height of 18 inches. The test is performed on a representative bulk sample of bearing soil near the estimated footing depth. The procedure is repeated on the same soil sample at various moisture contents sufficient to establish a relationship between the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum water content for the soil. The data, when plotted, represents a curvilinear relationship known as the moisture density relations curve. The values of optimum water content and modified maximum dry unit weight can be determined from the plotted curve. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM D4318-05) are the water contents at certain limiting or critical stages in cohesive soil behavior. The liquid limit (LL or WL) is the lower limit of viscous flow, the plastic limit (PL or W,.) is the lower limit of the plastic stage of clay and plastic index (PI or Ip) is a range of water content where the soil is plastic. The Atterberg Limits are performed on samples that have been screened to remove any material retained on a No. 40 sieve. The liquid limit is determined by performing trials in which a portion of the sample is spread in a brass cup, divided in two by a grooving tool, and then allowed to flow together from the shocks caused by repeatedly dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. To determine the Plastic Limit a small portion of plastic soil is alternately pressed together and rolled into a 1/8-inch diameter thread. This process is continued until the water content of the sample is reduced to a point at which the thread crumbles and can no longer be pressed together and re -rolled. The water content of the soil at this point is reported as the plastic limit. The plasticity index is calculated as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422-07) is used to determine the particle -size distribution of fine and coarse aggregates. In the test method the sample is separated through a series of sieves of progressively smaller openings for determination of particle size distribution. The total percentage passing each sieve is reported and used to determine the distribution of fine and coarse aggregates in the sample. Gen5olutions, Wc. Density of Soil in Place by the Drive -Cylinder Method (ASTM D2937-04) and Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216-05) are used to obtain values of in -place water content and in -place density. Undisturbed samples, brought from the field to the laboratory, are weighed, the volume is calculated, and they are placed in the oven to dry. Once the samples have been dried, they are weighed again to determine the water content, and the in -place density is then calculated. The moisture density tests allow the water content and in -place densities to be obtained at required depths. One -Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading (ASTM D2435-11) is used to determine the magnitude and rate of consolidation of a soil by applying a series of load increments to an undisturbed soil sample and recording sample deformation at selected time intervals. In this test method, a soil specimen is restrained laterally and drained axially while subjected to incrementally applied controlled -stress loading. Each stress increment is maintained until excess pore water pressures are completely dissipated. During the consolidation process, measurements are made of the change in the specimen height and this data is used to determine the relationship between the effective stress and void - ratio or strain, and the rate at which consolidation can occur by evaluating the coefficient of consolidation. The data from the consolidation test is used to estimate the magnitude and rate of both differential and total settlement of a structure or earth -fill. GenSolutions, wr. GeoSoltirtions, Inc. SOILS RRPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: March 15, 2015 Client: Project 11: SLO8639-6 Sam le: A Depth: 2.0 Feet Lab it: 16051 Location: B-1 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/Sp Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density ASTM D1557-07 Result: Black Sandy Fat CLAY 1075 107.0 _... - "...... ICI 106.5 --- ---- -- - -- -� !I a106.0 I 103.0 _. .. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Water Content, % Specification: CH Sieve Analysis r,', I ASTMD422.63R02 Size Passint Project S cifications 2„ No. 8 ,INo. 16 No.30 • 1'.No, 50 No. 100 No. 200 Sand E uivalent Cal 217 (06/201)) 1 SE 2 Mold ID n/a Mold Diameter, ins. 4 3 No. of Layers 5 Weight of Rammer, lbs. 10.00 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 55 Estimated Specific Gravity for 100% Saturation Curve = 2.45 Plastic Limit: 19 Trial 4 I 2 3 4 Plasticity Index: 36 Water Content: 12.4 15.3 19.3 Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dry Density: 104.6 107.1 103.6 Maximum Dry Density, pef: ]07.I Optimum Water Content, %: 15.2 Expansion Index: 69 Expansion Potential Medium Initial Saturation, %: 50 Moisture-Densi" ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216.05 Sample Depth (11) Water(Content(%) D Densit (et) Relative Density ': Sample Descrition Report By: Aaron Eichman GeoSolutions, Inc. PA.RTICIE-SIZEANALYSIS REPORT' (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/6/2015 Client: Project #: SL08639 6 Sample #: A De the 2.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-1 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Black Sandy Fat CLAY Sampled By: PM/Sp Sieve Analyis Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 ASTM D422-07 Project Project Sieve Size Percent Passing Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Specifications 2-in. 100 0.0259 68.0 1 1/2 in. 100 0.0168 63.0 Nn. 100 0,0101 56.0 3/4-in. too 0.0073 52.0 1/2-in, 99 0,0053 48.0 3/8-in. 97 0.0029 42.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 96 0,0012 35.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 95 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 94 No, 30 (0.85-mm) 93 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 92 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 90 No. 200 (0.075-mm) 86.0 4.75 mm 075 mm .002 mm 100.0 di i 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 a 50.0 40.0 w 30.0 20.0 100 Tt 0.0 li- 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Sand % = 10 Silt % = 47 Clay % = 39 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt :1a Re ort By: Aaron Eichman I i ICI 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm-475mm 002-.075mm<0.m m GeoSolutions, Inc. SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: March 26, 2015 Client: Project#: SLO8639-6 Sample: B Depth: 10.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-1 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 .. - Sampled By: PM/Sp Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density: ASTM D1557-07 Result: Dark Olive Brown Sandy CLAY 1.2 ' ! i 1.0 _ I_ -- p t 0,6 i f c ' 0.2 4No.4 — i 0.0 0.2 '. 0.4 0.6 p.8 1.0 1.2 Water Content, % Specification. CL Sieve Analysts ASTM D422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent , Passing Project Specifications 3' 2„ 3/4' No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 :I No. 50 No. 100 No, 200 1 Sand E uivalentCa1217(06/2014 1 SE 2 Mold ID Wit JMold Diameter, ins. 4.00 3 jWeight of Rammer, lbs, 10.00' - 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 42 Estimated S ecific rjmvity for 100%:Saturation Curve= Plastic Limit: 19 Trial# 1 2 ; 3 4 Plasticity Index; 23 Water Content Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dry Densi Maximum Dry Density,pcf', Optimum Water Content, %•. Expansion Index: 51 Expansion Potential: Medium Initial Saturation, %: 50 Moisture-Densi ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216.05 Sample Depth (it) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pet) Relative Densi!' Sample Description Report By: Aaron Richman B3 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/6/2015 Client: Project #: SL08639-6 Sample #: B Depth: 10.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-1 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Dark Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Sampled By: PM/SP Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in. too 0.0296 48.0 1 1/2 in. 100 0.0190 44.0 1-in. 100 0.0113 38.0 3/4-in. 100 0,0080 35.0 1/2-in. 97 0.0058 31.0 3/8-in. 97 0,0032 26.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 96 0,0013 21.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 94 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 90 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 86 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 80 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 72 No, 200 (0.075-mm) 1 63.0 _... 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 °�° 60.0 a 50.0 40.0 U a 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 too 4.75 mm .075 mm .002 mm 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Sand % = 33 Silt % = 40 Clay % = 23 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm .002-.075mm <0.002 mm Aaron I GeoSolutions, Ine.SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: March 26, 2015 Client: Project N: SLO8639-6 Sample: C Depth: 13.0 Peet Lab lt: 16051 Location: B-2 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density: 1ASTM D1557.07 Result: Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY �. 1.2 1 i 1.0 i q.8 os j - , ° r . q;0.4 0.2 I 1 ; 0.0 r 010 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Water Content, % _ '! Specification: CL Sieve Analysis ASTM D422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project : S ecifieations Z' IIn" I, 3/4" No, 4 No. 8 No. 16 No, 30 No, 50 No. 100 No. 260 Sand Equivalent Cal 217 06/2011) I SE 2 ° Mold ID n/a JMold Diameter, ins, 4.00 3 No. of Layers 5 Weight of Rammer, lbs. ': 10.00 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 38 Estimated Specific Gravity fox 100%Saturation Curve — Plastic Limit: 21 Trial 1 2 `: 3 4 Plasticity Index: 17 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTMD4829-08 Dry Diand ; Maximum;Dry Density, 1pcf., Optimum Water Content, %: Expansion Index: 38 Expansion Potential: Low Initial Saturation, %: 50 Moisture-Densi ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216-05 +. Sam le I Depth (f3) Water Content %) D Dens (ef) RchniveDensityf Sample Description Report By: Aaron Eichman L%N Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/6/2015 Client: Project#: SL08639-6 Sample #: C Depth: 13.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-2 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY - Sampled By: PM/Sp Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in, 100 0.0278 44.0 1 1/2 in. l00 0.0184 38.0 I -in. 100 0.0110 33.0 3/4-in. ]00 0.0079 29.0 1/2-in. 100 0,0057 26.0 3/8-in. 99 0.0031 21.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 97 0.0013 17.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 93 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 88 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 84 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 79 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 71 No. 200 (0.075-mm) 64.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 c 60.0 w 50.0 40.0 0 a 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 100 4.75 mm .075 mm .002 mm 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Sand % = 33 Silt % = 45 Clay % = 19 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm-4.75mm .002-,075mm <0.002mm ME GeoSolntions, Inc. SAILS At PORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: March 26, 2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 Sample: D Depth: 8.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-3 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density.; '.ASTM D1537-Q7 Result: Olive Brown Sandy CLAY 1.0 � 0.8 - a 06 0.4 —t — c � l i� 0.2 I j 0.0 j 0.0 0.2 0.4 06 0.8:. 1.0 '+ 1,2 Water Content, °% -- Specification: CL Sieve Analysis ASTM D422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent. Passin '. Project S ecifications ` 3 2u 3/4' No, 9 No. 8 Na. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No, 100 No.2 00 Sand Equivalent Cal217 06/2011) 1 SE 2 - Mold ID `: n/a i Mold Diameter, ins. 1 4 00 3 No. of La ers 5 Wei ht of Rammer, lbs. 10.00 4 No, of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 43 Estimated Specific Gravity for 100%Saturation Curve Plastic Limit: 21 Trial # 1 2 ff ': 3 4 Plasticity Index: 22 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dry Derarity: Maximum Dry Density, pcE Optimum Water Content, %: Expansion Index: 62 Expansion Potential: Medium Initial Saturation, %: 50 Moisture-Densi ASTM D2937.04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216-05 i Sample Depth (ft) Water. Content (%'. Dry Density (c Relative Density Sample Description Report By: Aaron Richman " B7 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/8/2015 Client: Project#: SLO8639-6 Sample #: D Depth: 8.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-3 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Sampled By: PM/SP Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in. 100 0.0266 56.0 11/2 in. 100 0,0179 49.0 1-in. 100 0,0108 42.0 3/4-in. 100 0,0077 39.0 1/2-in. 100 0,0055 35.6 3/8-in. 100 0,0030 30.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 98 0.0012 23.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 97 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 96 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 95 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 92 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 84 No. 200 (0.075-mm) 76.0 4.75 mm .075 mm .002 mm 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 c 60.0 50.0 40.0 a 30.0 20.0 10.0 00 Li �it'1 '1 1 I I { i �' 1000 100 Sand % = 22 Grain Size, mm Silt % = 50 Clay % = 26 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm .002-.075mm < 0.002 mm B8 GeoSolutions, Inc.SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: Aril 7, 2015 Client. Project It: SLO8639-6 Sample: E De the 6.0 Feel Lab 1(: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 .. .. Sampled By: PM/Sp Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density,' ASTMD1557.07 Result: Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY 1.2 1.0 I a I i , 0.6 Z 0.2 ' 0.0 a 0.0 '. 0.2 0.4 L `0.6 0.8. 1.0 ` 1.2 Water Content, % Specification CL Sieve Analysis ASTM D422.63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project S ectfications 1 l/T' 3/4' No. 4 1 No.8 1 No. 14 No. 30 No. 50 ;. No. 100 No. 200 Sand Equivalent Cal 217 06/2011 1 SE 2 Mold ID n/a Mold Diameter, ins. 4,00 3 No, of La eis 5 Weight of Returner, lbs, 10,00 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 43 Estimated Specific Gravi for 100%:Saturation Curve = PlastioLimit: 20 Trial# 1 2 3 4 Plasticity Index: 23 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTM D4929-08 Dr Demd : Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Water Content, %: Expansion Index: 57 Expansion Potential: Medium Initial Saturation,%: 50 Moisture-Densi ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216-05 Sample Depth A Water Content(%u D Densi (c RolativeDensity Sam leDescri tion Report By: Aaron Eichman ME Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/8/2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 Sample #: E Depth: 6.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY Sampled By: PM/SP Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in. 160 0,0275 46.0 11/2in. 100 0.0179 42.0 1-in. 100 0.0108 37.0 3/4-in. 100 0,0074 34.0 1/2-in. 100 0.0055 32.0 3/8-in. 99 0.0030 27.0 No.4 (4.75-mm) 98 0.0012 - 22.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 96 No, 16(1.18-mm) 93 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 90 No. 50 (0300-mm) 84 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 71 No. 200 (0.075-mm) 62.0 4.75 mm .075 mm .002 mm 100.0 90.0 80.0 0 70.0 c 60.0 N 50.0 40.0 U a 30.0 20.0 10.0 00 1000 100 10 Sand % = 36 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Silt % = 38 Clay % = 24 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm 002-.075mm < 0.002 mm B10 GeoSolutions, Inc.SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: April 7, 2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 _ Sample: P Depth: 10.0 Peet Lab #: 16051 _ Location: B-4 Sample Date: March It, 2015 . Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum '-ASTM D1557.07 Density Result: Dark Gray Sandy CLAY 12 _ J _ I {� n 08- i Ti; 0,6 1 O 0.4 J ( i 0.2 I 0,0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 018 1.0 1.2 Water Content, % I Specification CL Sieve Analysis ASTMD422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passin Project S eeifieations 2" lei 3/4" No. 4 No.g No. 16 No. 30 + No. 50 No. 100 -No.2 00 Sand E Divalent Ca1217 06/2011 1 SE 2 Mold ID ' n/a IMold Diameter, ins. 4.00 3 No, o£Le ors 5 JWcigId ofRammer, lbs. + 10,00' 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 36 Estimated lSpecific Grav for 100%Saturation Curve = PlasticLimiC 17 Trial 1 2 3 4 Plasticity Index: 19 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dry Densi' : Maximum Dry Density, pcL Optimum Water Content, %: Expansion Index: 52 Expansion Potential: Medium Initial Saturation, %i 50 Moisture -Dens ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216-05 Sample Depth (ft) Water Content (%). Dry Dens (c Relative Density Sample Description p Re ort By: Aaron Eichman R 11 Yro-ect San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/8/2015 Client - Project #: SLO8639-6 Sam le #: F Depth: 10.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Dark Gray Sandy CLAY Sampled By: PM/SP Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in. 100 0.0261 36.0 1 1/2 in. 100 0.0182 28.0 I -in. 100 0.0105 28.0 3/4-in. 99 0.0075 26.0 1/2-in. 99 0.0054 23.0 3/8-in. 98 0.0030 19.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 97 0,0012 14.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 96 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 93 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 87 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 80 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 65 4.75 mm 100.0 90.0 80,0 70.0 e 60.0 a 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 100 00 .075 mm .002 mm IM l !I y i 1 I I I -TTT 4 IIt�' I i I 11 *ri ! I I I 11 � III I 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size, mm Sand % = 44 Silt % = 37 Clay % = 16 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm I ,002-A75mm <0.002 mm B12 Geo$olutions, inc. SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: April 7, 2015 Client: Project 4: SL08639-6 Sample: G Depth: - 2.0 Feet Lab 4: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density; `;ASTMD1557-07 Result: Very Dark Gray Sandy Fat CLAY 1.2 1.0 o.. 0.8 � 0.6 1 C I e 0.4 0.0 0,0 0.2 0A 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Water Content, % Specification: CH Sieve Analysis ASTM D422.63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications 3"' 2" '.; 1 I/T' 1, 3/4" No, 4 No.8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 1 No.100 No.209 Sand EquiglentCal217 06/2011 1 SE 2 Mold B) i n/a + Ell ins. 4.00 3 No. ofLaycrs 5 ]Weight of Roamer, lbs. ' 10.00 `. - 4 No. of Blows `. 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 58 Estimated Specific Gravity for 100%Saturation Curve= Plastic Limit: 20 Trial # 1 2- 3 4 Plasticity Index: 38 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dg Donsi . Maximum. Pry Density, pef: Optimum Water Content, %: Expansion Index: 73 Expansion Potential: - Medium Initial Saturation, %: - 50 Moisture-Densi ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216-05 ' Sample Depth ft) Water Content (%) Dr Densi c RelativeDensi ; Sample es;2tion Report By: Aaron Eichman B 13 Project San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/10/2015 Client: Project #: SL08639-6 Sample #: G Depth: 2.0 Peet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Sieve Analyis Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications I I Specifications 2-in. 100-0,0261 71.0 11/2in. 100 0.0172 66.0 1/2-in, 99 1 0.0054 49.0 3/8-in. 99 0.0030 40.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 98 0.0012 31.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 98 No. 16(1.18-mm) 97 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 96 No, 50 (0.300-mm) 95 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 92 No. 200 t0.075-mm) 89.0 100.0 I,I 90,0 80.0 o _ FIT 60.0 50.0 �- i-- I y 40.0 a~. 30.0 200 100 0.0 1000 100 Sand % = 9 4.75 mm .075 run .002 mm 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Silt % = 54 Clay % = 35 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm-4.75mm .002-.075mm <0,002auto ME GeoSolutions, Inca SOILS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: Aril 7, 2015 Client: Project #:.. SI.08639-6 Sam le: H Depth: 2.0 Peet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-5 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2489-06 Laboratory Maximum Density:' iASTM D1557-07 Result: Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Pat CLAY 12 f r I 1.0 n 0.8 r II i 1 0.6 I ' �". 0.4 r 0 _ O2 �jj 1 — 0.0 I i 0.0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.81 ' ' 1.0 : ' 1.2 Water Content, % — Specification: CH Sieve Analysis ASTM D422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passing` Project Specifications 3' 11/2 3/4" No,4 No, 8 ( No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No.100 No.2 00 Sand Equivalent Cal217 06/2011) 1 SE 2 ` ` Mold ID ` n/a + Mold Diameter, ins. 4,00 '. 3 No. of La ers 5 WeightofRammer,lbs. '- 10.00' 4 No. of Blows f 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 51 Estimated S eeifio Gravi for 100%Saturation Curve = Plastic Limit: 21 Trial# 1 2 3 1 4 Plasticity lndex: 30 Water Content: Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dry Densi'; Maximum Dry Density, peE Optimum Water Content, %; Expansion Index: 79 Expansion Potential: Medium Initial Saturation, %i - 50 Moisture-DensfASTMD2937-04, Moisture Content ASTMD2216-05 Sample Depth (III Water Content (%) D Densiy (c RclafivcDensily Sam le Description Report By: Aaron Eichman Il Pro-ect: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/10/2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 Sample #: H Depth: 2.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-5 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Dark Grayish Brown Sandy -Fa t CLAY Sampled By: - - PM/SP ^- Sieve Analyis ASTM D422-07 Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Specifications Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing Project Specifications 2-in. 100 0.0255 44.0 1 1/2 in. 100 0.0170 40.0 ]-in. 100 0.0102 36.0 3/4-in. 100 0,0073 34.0 1/2-in. 98 0.0053 32.0 3/8 m. 96 0,0029 27.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) -91 0.0012 23.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 88 No. 16 (1.18-mm) 85 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 81 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 77 No. 100 (0150-mm) 71 100,0 T. 90.0 80.0 0 70.0 600 500 i ill.�l,. 400 a a 300 ` 2000.0 10.0 1000 100 Sand % = 27 4.75 mm .075 mm 002 mm 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0,0001 Grain Size, mm Silt % = 39 Clay % = 25 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm .002-.075mm < 0.002 mm B16 GeoSolkions, Inc. SOILS REPORT (805) 543.8539 Project San Luis Ranch Date'rested: Aril 7, 2015 Client: Project#: SLO8639-6 Sample: I Depth: 6.0 Peet Lab#: 16051 Location: B-5 Sam le Date: March 11, 2015 ' Sampled By: PM/SP Soil Classification ASTM D2487-06, D2488-06 Laboratory Maximum Density ASTM D1557-07 _ Result Olive Brown Sandy CLAY i 113.0 112.0 ---- --- -- ,""'k ,G 11110 e 2�1100 p1090 '108.0 107.0 I 306 0 - 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Water Content,% Specification: CL Sieve Analysis ASTM D422-63R02 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project S eoiPlcations 3 2' 1 I/2" 3/4' No, $ No: 16 Na 30 No, 50 No. 100 No. 200 Sand Equivalent Cal217 (06/2011) 1 SE 2 ` ii '. Mold Ill n/a Mold Diameter, ins, 4.00 3 No, of Laers 5 Weight of Rammer, lbs. 10.00 4 No. of Blows 25 Plasticity Index ASTM D4318-05 Liquid Limit: 48 Estimated Specific Gravit for 100%Saturation Curve= 2.6 Plastic Limit: 21 Trial # I 2 3 4 Plasticity Index: 27 Water Content: 12.9 16.8 18.7 Expansion Index ASTM D4829-08 Dr Densi : 110.7 112.0 107,0 Maximum Dry Density, pef: 112.2 Optimum Water Content, %: 16.3 Expansion Index: 77 Expansion Potentiate Medium Initial Saturation, %: 50 Moisture-Densi-ASTM D2937-04, Moisture Content ASTM D2216.05 Sample Depth (ft) Water Content (%) Dry Density (ci) Relative Deasit Sample Descri tion Re ort By: Aaron Eichman B 17 GeoSolutions, Inc. PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (805) 543-8539 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 4/10/2015 Client:_ Project #. SL08639-6 Sam le #: I Depth: 6.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-5 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Olive Brown Sandy CLAY SampledBy: PM/SP Sieve Analyis Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422-07 ASTM D422-07 Sieve Size Percent Passing Project Sieve Size (ram) Percent Passing Project Specifications Specifications 2-in. 100 0.0246 48.0 1 1/2 in. 100 0.0163 43.0 1-in. 100 0.0099 39.0 3/4-in, 100 0,0071 36.0 1/2-1n. 98 0.0052 33.0 3/8-in. 98 0.0029 29.0 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 96 0,0012 23.0 No. 8 (2.36-mm) 94 No. 16(L18-mm) 91 No. 30 (0.85-mm) 89 No. 50 (0.300-mm) 85 No. 100 (0.150-mm) 77 No. 200 (0.075-mm) 68.0 4.75 man .075 min .002 mm 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 11 r fi c 600 50.0 40.0 w 30.0 20.0 10.0 �_ ! J {I o.o -1 -- 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Grain Size, mm Sand % = 28 Silt % = 43 Clay % = 25 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay 75-300mm 4.75-75mm .075mm - 4.75mm .002-.075mmmain< 0.002 m B18 GeoSolutions, Inc. MOISTURE -DENSITY, D2937-04 (805) 543-8539 MOISTURE CONTENT, D2216-05 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: March 11, 2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 Sample #: Depth: Lab #: 16051 Location: B-I to B-5 Sample Date: March 11, 2015 Sampled By: PM/Sp Sample Depth Bw Lowest Adjacent Grade In-Situelo rSitu Water Content Optimum voter Cmrtc°t Percent of Optimum Moisture Soil Description B-1 10 22.7% Very Dark Sandy CLAY B-I 15 21.4% Very Dark Gray S ndy CLAY B-2 10 26.0% Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY B-2 15 23.8% Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY B-3 10 13.1% Dark Brown Clayey SAND B-3 15 25.7% Brown Sandy CLAY B-4 10 24.0% Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY B-4 15 25.5% Dark Brown Clayey SAND B-5 10 24.2% Dark Yellowish Brown Clayey SAND B-5 15 19.6% Dark Clayey SAND Comments: Re ortrt B :Aaron Eichman GeoSolutions, Inc. CONSOLIDATION REPORT 1 (805) 543-8539 ' D2435-11 Project: San Luis Ranch Date Tested: 3/19/2015 Client: Project #: SLO8639-6 Sample: B-1 5' Depth: 5.0 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-1 Sample Date. 3/11/2015 Material: Dark Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Sampled By: PM/Sp 0.00--------- - - - - - — -- 2.00 4.00 t 't 0 6.00 8.00 all 10.00 1 1911 12.00 1 10 100 1000 10000 Log of Pressure Applied Pressure (psf) 100 250 500 1000 2000 4000 1000 250 % Strain 0.77 2.02 4.37 7,04 9,89 9.26 8.46 Compression Index, Cc 0.083 Recompression Index, Cr 0.008 Report By: Aaron Eichman B 20 1 Project:1 Project1'. • . Sample pep 116051 • • .' 1 BrownMaterial: Very Dark Grayish • . • C PmTSP Nci::m::mm=mmmlllm: ®��:®�i��®=�i�®mi -- -- — .m.n■ 11 n::®imE86®®�a�®i� ®ci9ii ��®®i=E66ME�EMENIIII III ...... moll �mmonson ®5c : Mfg:?E=6®��S=EEE6����iima6 --....� ....-- — 11 IN MEN ME III MENOMONIE[ In MEN .moon �— moli®m36 on SOi MEN m minim 11 —�=ci�Eim ��SimEe6�==c:®E66��� :E ::��®c.....�m::mm:mm:::—�c.:E:: _='111111m�iEm6 ®®imE::=m�®�i ::=®®8sEs6 NINE .--.. .�—. .�—...�� —.moron .n ......� ....o■�m= m. n � E:��aem�EE66 mmmmm:IMc::m.:EMECCmmm :11 E:m�®:9iimi6� MEMMC ;::AMEN! s®iQ �6 —..�._:��..... ..m:m� .. 11 1 11 111 1111 11 1 11 111 2000 00 111 1 0.65 1.17 3.52 5.79 7.21 6.35 1 1 1 1 11 Report By: Aaron Eichman FIR 1 1 1• 1 '1' 1 Project: San Luis Ranch -3/23/2015 Client: Project 4: .6 116051 Location: B-3 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Material: Very Dark Brown Sandy CLAY with Gravel Sampled C 1 1 ilIM�...... �.....ms�9® ..lip . E ISO mill EM ®� IC.. 11 Emaummill Limo■■.=■.. lllosill . sill .■■■nr I LI..� �.■.■.n ■ ■.n��..a�. m.■■■■. .n� ■sll�l .■■■■sI logn� - . 11 � ■�■. ..■��.....' .ills.. ..■■■. ... _.....I0 ..■sill � III .moss. n� loll sll�=.■sill. .moss■ :11 �■■ .1� .n�mm .■■ss � .■■■s.l m.■■■.�� ■.■s. ��iiirii' iiiiooil il n� m�M.■■■.s 111 �■�.■■ �.m. .■■■■ll� ■our __.■■i�� _.■■ _......_ .■■. �iii1 INS NO �i MmMM ii 1 11 111 1111 '; 11 111 1118.65 111 111 i II 1.66 4.42 6.65 11.20 11.00 10,66 1' 111. AaronReport By: B 22 Project: San Luis Ranch • 1 Project•-. 1 Feet Lab #: 16051 Location: B-4 Sample •3/11/2015 Dark Olive 1 11 ■ � milli IN ::::�i®� :::::mn:loll MENEM Emim.■m®�:::�q .::■:: MENIM'�iME �M■■■nN 1,�mmom ► =among . 11 5:1�:ice ®:::C:i�=::;10QINEME 1� ����: 11 m::::i®m:°vi:� ®::::mi ®E::::I m 111 mmommom iNmmommosi�m M=:::::N--mi::::E,�::i:ii MEN Mae -=3I IN maga:::ai mossii® 1 11 111 1111 11 11 11 10 10 10 1 4.171 6.23 11.32 , 1: 11 ReportAaron B 23 0 0 1• o San Luis Ranch Date Tested:Project: Project 0: SLO8639-6 Sample: B - 5 (M 5' D. 6051 Location: B-5 Sample Date: 3/11/2015 Dark Yellowish Brown . ed By: Pm/sp 1 11 ...' ... m..EE::m�..:::m®®mMEN --■"" --■""�MMEENE _IN _ � 91� ME:Ecii=® 11 NIEMEN is ��.l..::� ��.�■E:mm��..►\.. in MME so SEEN Immillum moll IS mmmiiii MOMMIN 5Moll .�C 1®111®EE::m0---..E:: 11 WOMEN . ---- -.....;;1,__ ■ .. 111111101 �� � EN 6®EE�ii��ii■..n ,�iri■■.... ..... �Mm..E.::mom_ ° millions EE8I9 milli::m 5®�EEE..SM::E...,��=�..E.:mm EE:m ME 11 -MEE::mom=m®EEE:1m® '::::600®E �EEt m ��".EE:i��®EEE:mom ��:E::MO 11 1 11 11 1111 1000 000 000 000 .9 9.92 13.18 12,47 Report By: Aaron Eichman B 24 APPENDIX D USGS Design Map Summary Report USGS Design Map Detailed Report GeoSolutions, imc. 4/3/2015 Design Maps Summary Report MUSG5 Design Maps Summary Report User -Specified Input Report Title San Luis Ranch -- Dalidio Fri April 3, 2015 18:18:03 UTC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 35.256120N, 120.6792°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III r�t8aywoozHII - ?.b 0 SOQOm b r,!_,�„rt1; nv• 'Los 0so9 tiC:enr: f,5.neuSdir rs - - i l'GCi dAp,.ni,ipl 1s OLuis Obispo ManSa� �a .Y,W a ora Sian Park !I� •�r4. OA4tn R?ak 6'rrd iCrrh itinulinc.: '! 'NORTH ;1eordfeR M E R I C 'A p �.". �, 7 mdpGU86t 6201 apQuertedua ®2015'Omr 0MapQ0es2 USGS-Provided Output Ss = 1.245 g Sras = 1.248 g Sas = 0.832 g Si = 0.472 g S,14 = 0.721 g Se, = 0.481 g For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk -targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCEa Response Spectrum 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.20 2.00 Period, T (sec) Design Response Spectrum 0.99 TTTTT} 0.90 + 0.91 'illf- f ` 0.72 l CM 0.54 In 0.45 0.19 0.09 0.00 1 1 I I I 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0,20 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.90 2!00 Period, T (sec) For PGAW Tr, CRs, and CR, values, please view the detailed report. hf p://ehp3-earthquake.wr. usgs.gov/designmaps/us/sum m ary.php9tem pl ate=minimal &latitude=35.25612&I ongi lude=-120.6792&siteclass=3&ri skcategory=0&e... 1/2 402015 Design Maps Detailed Report �US(7$ Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (35.256120N, 120.6792°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain Ss) and 1.3 (to obtain S,). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1111 Ss = 1.245 g From Figure 22-2 [21 S, = 0.472 g Section 11.4.2 — Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site -specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class A. Hard Rock B. Rock C. Very dense soil and soft rock D Stiff Soil E. Soft clay soil F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 vs N or N,„ s„ >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index P! > 20, • Moisture content w >_ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength s� < 500 psf See Section 20 3.1 For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s lib/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 http://ehp3-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designm aps/us/report.php?tem pl ate=minimal&I of tude= 35.25612&I ongitude=-120,6792&sitecl ass=3&riskeategory=0&editi o... 116 4/3/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11,4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Site Class Mapped MCE . Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period S5 <- 0,25 SS = 0.50 S, = 0.75 SS = 1.00 Ss z 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1,2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S, For Site Class = D and Ss = 1.245 g, F, = 1.002 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F„ Site Class Mapped NICE a Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S, 5 0.10 S, = 0.20 S, = 0.30 S, = 0.40 S, >_ 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note; Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S, For Site Class = D and S, = 0.472 g, F„ = 1.528 http://ehp3.earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=35.26612&longitude=-120,6792&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0&editio... 216 413/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Equation (11.4-1): Equation (11.4-2): SMs = F,Ss = 1.002 x 1.245 = 1.248 g SM, = F S, = 1.528 x 0.472 = 0.721 g Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Equation (11.4-4): Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum SDs = % SMs = %3 x 1,248 = 0.832 g SDI =%SM,= /3x0.721=0.481g From Figure 22-12131 T, = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T<T, S,=8,,(0.4+0.0T/To) To5TST3:S,,=S. 5 =0.832 -- T3<TST,:S,=SDI /T T>T,:S,=S01TL/T' r m S;,1-0.481 __I____________________ T;,=0. 116 T;=0.578 1.000 Period, T (sec) hdp://ehp3-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/design aps/us/report.php?tem pl ate=minimal&latitude=3625612&longitude=-120.6792&sitecl ass= 3&ri skcategory=0&editio... 3/6 4/3/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.6 — Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The VICE, Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. S. , = 1.248 m N T." Period, T (sec) hftp://ehp3-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/desi gnm aps/us/report.php?tem plate=minimal &latitude=35.25612&longitude=-120,6792&sitecl ass=3&riskcategory=0&editio... 4/6 4/3/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7141 PGA = 0.519 Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0,519 = 0.519 g Table 11.8-1: site Coefficient F„o„ Site Class Mapped MICE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA PGA <_ 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA >_ 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0,519 g, Fpaq = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site -Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17151 CRS = 0.912 From Figure 22-18161 CR, = 0.947 http://ehp3-earthquake.w r.usgs.gov/design aps/us/repart.php?tem pl ate= m ini m al &latitude=35.25612&longitude=-120.6792&sitecl ass=3&ri s kcategory=0&edi tio... 5/6 4/3/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF SOS RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV SOS < 0.1679 A A A 0.167g <_ Sos < 0.33g B B C 0.339 <_ SOS < 0.50g C C D 0.50g 5 Sos D D D For Risk Category = I and So, = 0.832 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Cateqory Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF So, RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV SDI < 0.067g A A A 0.067g 5 Sol < 0.1339 B B C 0.133g <_ SDI < 0.20g C C D 0.20g <_ So, D D D For Risk Category = I and SD, = 0.481 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S, is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category = `the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References 1, Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-I.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201O_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201O_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earth quake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20I0_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17. pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18.pdf http://ehp3-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php' tem pl ate=minimal&latitude=35,25612&longitude=-120.6792&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0&editio... 6/6 APPENDIX E Preliminary Grading Specifications GeaSalutions, INC. PRELIMINARY GRADING SPECIFICATIONS A. General I . These preliminary specifications have been prepared for the subject site; GeoSolutions, Inc. should be consulted prior to the commencement of site work associated with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications. 2. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified at least 72 hours prior to site clearing or grading operations on the property in order to observe the stripping of surface materials and to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field. 3. These grading specifications may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of this report and/or subsequent reports. 4. If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading specifications, the Soils Engineer shall provide the governing interpretation. B. Obligation of Parties I . The Soils Engineer should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters. The Soils Engineer should report the findings and recommendations to the client or the authorized representative. 2. The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. The client or authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. During grading the client or the authorized representative should remain on -site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. 3. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with project plans, specifications, and controlling agency requirements. C. Site Preparation 1. The client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting which includes the grading contractor, the design Structural Engineer, the Soils Engineer, representatives of the local building department, as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 72 hours notice. 2. All surface and sub -surface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and disposed of off -site or as approved by the Soils Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, any debris, organic materials, construction spoils, buried utility line, septic systems, building materials, and any other surface and subsurface structures within the proposed building areas. Trees designated for removal on the construction plans should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed under the observations of a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Voids left from site clearing should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. [aenSulutions, iroc. 3. Once the Site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should determine the required depth of stripping at the time of work being completed. Strippings may either be disposed of off - site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas, if approved by the landscape architect. D. Site Protection l . Protection of the Site during the period of grading and construction should be the responsibility of the contractor. 2. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. 3. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor should install check -dams, de -silting basins, sand bags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. E. Excavations 1. Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under the observation and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to: 1) dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, or compressible natural soils; 2) fractured, weathered, or soft bedrock; 3) non -engineered fill; 4) other deleterious materials; and 5) materials identified by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. 2. Unless otherwise recommended by the Soils Engineer and approved by the local building official, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Final slope configurations should conform to section 1804 of the 2013 California Building Code unless specifically modified by the Soil Engineer/Engineering Geologist. 3. The Soil Engineer/Engineer Geologist should review cut slopes during excavations. The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. F. Structural Fill l . Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Imported fill should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to the Site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. G. Compacted Fill Structural fill using approved import or native should be placed in horizontal layers, each approximately 8 inches in thickness before compaction. On -site inorganic soil or approved imported fill should be conditioned with water to produce a soil water content near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent based on ASTM D1557-07. Geo5alutian9, INC. 2. Fill slopes should not be constructed at gradients greater than 2-to-1 (horizontal to vertical). The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. 3. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 10-to-1 (horizontal to vertical), we recommend that benches be cut every 4 feet as fill is placed. Each bench shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide with a minimum of 2 percent gradient into the slope. 4. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 5-to-1, we recommend that the toe of all areas to receive fill be keyed a minimum of 24 inches into underlying dense material. Ivey depths are to be observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Sub -drains shall be placed in the keyway and benches as required. H. Drainage I . During grading, a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should evaluate the need for a sub -drain or back -drain system. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with sub -surface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. Sub -surface drainage facilities may include gravel blankets, rock filled trenches or Multi -Flow systems or equal. The drain system should discharge in a non -erosive manner into an approved drainage area. 2. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. Final grading should be the responsibility of the contractor, general Civil Engineer, or architect. 3. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the Site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 4. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in solid pipes that discharge in controlled drainage localities. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of 2 percent gradient be maintained. 5. Attention should be paid by the contractor to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where hard edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 6. Sub -drains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of sub -drains should be determined after a review of the grading plan. The sub -drain outlets should extend into suitable facilities or connect to the proposed storm drain system or existing drainage control facilities. The outlet pipe should consist of a non -perforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. GeoSolution9, nuc. I. Maintenance l . Maintenance of slopes is important to their long-term performance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought -resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over -irrigating, a primary source of surficial failures. 2. Property owners should be made aware that over -watering of slopes is detrimental to long term stability of slopes. J. Underground Facilities Construction I . The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork." Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 2. Bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free -draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand to be used as bedding should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-07. 3. On -site inorganic soils, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-07. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report under Preparation of Paved Areas for vehicle pavement sub - grades. Trench walls must be kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. K. Completion of Work After the completion of work, a report should be prepared by the Soils Engineer retained to provide such services. The report should including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the approved Soils Engineering Report. 2. Soils Engineers shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibilities is in accordance with the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions within Chapter 18 of the 2013 CBC. GeaSolutions, INC. APPENDIX F Volflo 1.5 Gengulutinns, wc. Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeoSolulions, Inc Project Title : Dalidio - Commercial Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ym SHRINK CALCULATION Ym Center (Shrink) _ -1.60 inches Em Center = 6.00 feet 0.0 ft 0 cm 0.0 in i- 1.0 in 2.0 in Serial Number. 200-100-281 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date : Report Number: ( -4.07 centimeters ) ( 182.88 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.6 ft 1.2 ft 1.8 ft 2.4 ft 3.0 ft 3.6 ft 4.2 ft 4.8 ft 5.4 ft 6.0 ft 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm Shrink at Slab I Shrink at distance X from edge of slab Shrink at Edge Em 0.0 ft 0.6ft 1.2ft 1.8ft 2.4ft 3.0ft 3.6ft 4.2ft 4.8ft 5.4ft 6.0ft 0 cm 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm inches -1.60 -1.41 -1.22 -1.04 -0.86 -0.69 -0.52 -0.37 -0.23 -0.10 0.00 cm -4.07 -3.58 -3.10 -2.64 -2.19 -1.75 -1.33 -0.94 -0.58 -0.27 0.00 Page 1 of 18 \1Nasc1-0f-184s\SLOO6-SLOBg9g\SLOW39-e- Dalldlo Solls Englneedng\GraphalVOLFLOcommorciel.wI 10:14:16AM VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeoSolulions, Inc Project Title : Dalidio -Commercial Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Depth (feet) Balm 109112 serial Number: 200-198-281 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date Report Number: SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 4.5 15.0 \Was-c14f-18\s\SL88588SL88999\SL88839-e- Dalmio Soils Engineering\Graphs\VOLFLOc mmercial.val 18:14:18AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeOS01unon5, Inc Project Title : Dalidio - Commercial Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ym SWELL CALCULATION Ym Edge (Swell) = 2.52 inches Em Edge = 2.90 feet 0.0 ft 0cm 3.0 in F- 2.0 in 1.0 in 0.0 in Sedal Number: 200-10.281 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: ( 6.41 centimeters ) ( 88.39 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.3 ft 0.6 ft 0.9ft 1.2 ft 1.5 ft 1.7 ft 2.0 ft 2.3 ft 2.6 ft 2.9 ft 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm Swell at Slab I Swell at distance X from edge of slab Swell at Edge Em 0.0 ft 0.3 ft 0.6 ft 0.9 ft 1.2 ft 1.5 ft 1.7 ft 2.0 ft 2.3 ft 2.6 ft 2.9 ft 0 cm 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm inches 2.52 2.20 1.89 1.58 1.29 1.01 0.75 0.52 0.31 0.14 0.00 cm 6.41 5.59 4.79 4.02 3.28 2.57 1.91 1.32 0.80 0.36 0.00 Page 1 of 18 VWas ld4181s\SLO80005L0899MLO3039-8- Oalidlo Solis Engineenng\Graphs%VOLFLO-oommemial.vol Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc Registered To: GeoSolutions, Inc Sena) Number: 200100-281 Project Title : Dalidio -Commercial Structures Project Engineer: KRC Project Number: SL08639-6 Project Date: April 21, 2015 Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Report Date: Report Number: SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) i2C Depth (feet) 4.5 0M1] Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 \%Nascidf-18\s\SL08500SL08999\SL086395- Delldo Solis Engineering\GraphsWOLFLG-commemial.vol 10:15:10AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.6 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeoSolutlans, Inc Project Title : Dalidio - Multi -family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ifii SHRINK CALCULATION Ym Center (Shrink) _ -1.74 inches Em Center = 6.00 feet 0.0 ft 0 cm 0.0 in � i[Im 2.0 in Serial Number: 200-100-281 Project Number: SL08639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: ( -4.41 centimeters ) ( 182.88 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.6 ft 1.2 It 1.8 It 2.4 It 3.0 ft 3.6 It 4.2 ft 4.8 ft 5.4 It 6.0 ft 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm Shrink at Slab I Shrink at distance X from edge of slab Shrink at Edge Em 0.0 ft 0.6 ft 1.2 ft 1.8 ft 2.4 ft 3.0 ft 3.6 It 4.2 It 4.8 ft 5.4 It 6.0 ft 0 cm 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm inches -1.74 -1.53 -1.32 -1,12 -0.93 -0.74 -0.57 -0.40 -0.25 -0.12 0.00 cm -4.41 -3.88 -3.35 -2.85 -2.36 -1.89 -1.44 -1.02 -0.64 -0.29 0.00 Page 1 of 18 {1Nasci-0f-18\s1SL08WSL089991SLDe83M - Dalic to Solis EnglneednglGmphs\VOLFLO-commerraal.vol 11:08:54AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeoSolutlans, Inc Serial Number 200-100-281 Project Title : Dalidio - Multi -family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Project Number: SL08639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Report Date: Report Number: S: Depth (feet) SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) 3.5 15.0 Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 \Wase1-dF18lsGSL08500SL08999\SL08839L- Balidlo Soils Engineering\Gmphs\VOLFLO-commercial.vol 11:08:54 AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GeoSolutions. Inc Project Title : Dalidio - Multi -family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ym SWELL CALCULATION Ym Edge (Swell) = 2.75 inches Em Edge = 2.90 feet 0.0 ft 0 cm 3.0 in I-- 2.0 in 1.0 in 0.0 in Selo\ Number: 200-1W-281 Project Number: SL08639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: ( 7.00 centimeters ) ( 88.39 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.3ft 0.6ft 0.9ft 1.2ft 1.5ft 1.7ft 2.0ft 2.3ft 2.6ft 2.9ft 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm Swell at Slab I Swell at distance X from edge of slab Swell at Edge Em 0.0 ft 0.3 ft 0.6 It 0.9 ft 1.2 ft 1.5 ft 1.7 ft 2.0 ft 2.3 ft 2.6 ft 2.9 ft 0 cm 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm inches 2.75 2.40 2.06 1.73 1.42 1.12 0.84 0.58 0.35 0.16 0.00 cm 7.00 6.10 5.23 4.40 3.60 2.84 2.12 1.47 0.89 0.40 0.00 Page 1 of 18 \Wasc1-0f-lftVSL0850ML0899ML08b398 - balidlo Sails Englneenng\Gmphs\VOLFLO-commerdal.vol 11;10:12AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc Registered To: GeaSOlerions, Inc Serial Number: 200-i W-281 Project Title : Dalidio - Multi -family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Project Number: SL08639-6 Project Date: April 21, 2015 Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Report Date: Report Number: Depth (feet) SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 3.5 15.0 1Wascl-df-18ls SL08W0-SL089991SL08639-6 -Bulletin Solis Engineedng\Graphs\VOLFLO-wmmercial.vol 11:10:12AM WIN 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered TO: GEOSOInt10ns. Inc Project Title : Dalidio -Single-family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ym SHRINK CALCULATION Ym Center (Shrink) _ -1.59 inches Em Center = 6.00 feet 0.0 ft 0 cm 0.0 in � 1.0 in 2.0 in Senal Number: 200-IW-281 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date: April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: ( -4.04 centimeters ) ( 182.88 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.6 ft 1.2 ft 1.8 ft 2.4 ft 3.0 ft 3.6 ft 4.2 ft 4.8 It 5.4 ft 6.0 ft 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm Shrink at Slab I Shrink at distance X from edge of slab Shrink at Edge 1 Em 0.0 ft 0.6ft 1.2ft 1.8ft 2.4ft 3.0ft 3.6ft 4.2It 4.8ft 5.4ft 6.0ft 0 cm 18 cm 37 cm 55 cm 73 cm 91 cm 110 cm 128 cm 146 cm 165 cm 183 cm inches -1.59 -1.40 -1.21 -1.03 -0.86 -0.69 -0.53 -0.38 -0.24 -0.11 0.00 cm -4.04 -3.56 -3.08 -2.63 -2.19 -1.76 -1.35 -0.97 -0.61 -0.29 0.00 Page 1 of 18 M..l-df-161s1SL06500SL0899MSL08639-6- Delidlo Solis Engineering\Graphs\VOLFLO-multi-famlly.wl 11:23:24 AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: GecSoluOons, Inc Project Title : Dalidio -Single-family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) Serial Number: 200-10 281 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 0 3.0 5 Depth (feet) F8.0 10 15 15.0 Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 1Wasal-of-18ls SLOMOSLO89991SL00639 6- Oalialo Soils EngineaenglGraphs\VOLFLO-multi.familywI 11:23:24AM Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Regisle ed To: GeaSoldemi. Inc Project Title : Dalidio -Single-family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Ym SWELL CALCULATION Ym Edge (Swell) = 2.55 inches Em Edge = 2.90 feet 0.0 ft 0 cm 3.0 in � 2.0 in 1.0 in 0.0 in Serial Number: 200-100-2a1 Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Report Date: Report Number: ( 6.47 centimeters ) ( 88.39 centimeters ) DISTANCE 0.3ft 0.6ft 0.9ft 1.2ft 1.5 ft 1.7ft 2.0 ft 2.3ft 2.6ft 2.9ft 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm Swell at Slab f Swell at distance X from edge of slab Swell at Edge Em 0.0 ft 0.3 ft 0.6 ft 0.9 ft 1.2 ft 1.5 ft 1.7 ft 2.0 ft 2.3 ft 2.6 ft 2.9 ft 0 cm 9 cm 18 cm 27 cm 35 cm 44 cm 53 cm 62 cm 71 cm 80 cm 88 cm inches 2.55 2.23 1.92 1.62 1.34 1.06 0,81 0.56 0.34 0.15 0.00 cm 6.47 5.66 4.88 4.12 3.40 2.70 2.05 1.43 0.87 0.39 0.00 Page 1 of 18 \Wascl- f-18\s\SLOSSOOSLOS999\SLO%39E- Dalidio Solls Englneenng\Gmphs\VOLFLO-mulO-family.wl Build 100712 VOLFLO 1.5 Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc. Registered To: Geoftutions, Inc Serial Number: 200-100-281 Project Title : Dalidio - Single-family Residential Structures Project Engineer: KRC Project Number: SLO8639-6 Project Date : April 21, 2015 Geotechnical Report: San Luis Ranch - Dalidio Report Date: Report Number: Depth (feet) 1 SUCTION PROFILES Suction (pF) MW M 15.0 Initial suction at edge of slab Final suction at edge of slab Constant Suction Page 2 of 18 \Wascl-df-081s\SL0850ML00999\SLO6 3M-Dal& Sails Engineering\Gmphs\VOLFLO-multi-famlly.vol 41:24:09AM