APPENDIX 4.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report

APPENDIX 4.4

Geotechnical Investigation Report

GA R C R E S TRING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC ENGINEE

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING 3915 San Fernando Road

Glendale, California Prepared for: GEORGE GARIKIAN Glendale, California May 28, 2013 G13-004/1

G A R C R E S T 126 S. Jackson Street, Suite 300 - Glendale, California 91205 ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC Telephone: 818-241-2408 - Facsimile: 818-241-2282

1 of 1

May 28, 2013 Mr. George Garikian 3915 San Fernando Road Glendale, CA Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Building

3915 San Fernando Road Glendale, California Project Number: G13-004/1

Dear Mr. Garikian: We are pleased to present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed use building located at the subject site. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated April 12, 2013, which you authorized on April 22, 2013. The proposed development will require the excavation of one to two stories of subterranean levels under 5 levels above grade. The project will require the installation of shoring and tie-back anchors for a part of the shoring system. Following the placement of the shoring, the proposed building may be supported on shallow spread foundations established in the firm and unyielding native soils at the bottom of the excavation. The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project. The results of our investigation, our conclusions, and recommendations are presented in this report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 9 of this report. Part of obtaining a building permit for the project involves the submittal of this report by you or your representative to the appropriate government agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to be of services to you. Please feel free to contact us should you have any further questions or if we can be of further service. Respectfully submitted, GARCREST Engineering and Construction, Inc. Armen Gaprelian, PE, GE Principal Engineer Path: F:\GARCREST\Projects\2013 Projects\G13-004.1 - Garikian Glendale\Report\Garikian report (Repaired).doc

Armenak

AG Stamp 12

Armenak

Stamp Note

Armenak

AG Sign

Report of Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Mixed Use Building May 28, 2013 3915 San Fernando Road, Glendale, California

TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 - SCOPE .................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 2

3.0 - FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 2

4.0 - SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 3

5.0 – GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 3 5.1 – REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 – SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 3

5.2.1 - Artificial Fill ............................................................................................................................. 4 5.2.2 - Alluvium ................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2.3 - Ground Water ........................................................................................................................... 4

5.3 – REGIONAL FAULTING ............................................................................................................... 4 5.4 – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 5

5.4.1 - General ..................................................................................................................................... 5 5.4.2 - Surface Rupture Hazard............................................................................................................ 5 5.4.3 - Ground Shaking Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5 5.4.4 - Landslides ................................................................................................................................. 6 5.4.5 – Ground Lurching ...................................................................................................................... 6 5.4.6 – Tsunamis and Seiches .............................................................................................................. 6

6.0 - LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT EVALUATION ................................... 7

7.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 7 7.1 - GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................... 7 7.2 - EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................................ 8

7.2.1 - Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 8 7.2.2 – Excavation Conditions ............................................................................................................. 9 7.2.3 - Compaction............................................................................................................................... 9 7.2.4 - Material for Fill ........................................................................................................................ 9 7.2.5 - Trench Backfill ....................................................................................................................... 10 7.2.6 - Excavation and Temporary Slopes ......................................................................................... 10

7.3 – TEMPORARY SHORING ........................................................................................................... 10 7.3.1 – Lateral Pressure ...................................................................................................................... 11 7.3.2 – Design of Soldier Pile ............................................................................................................ 12 7.3.3 - Lagging ................................................................................................................................... 13 7.3.4 – Anchor Design ....................................................................................................................... 13 7.3.5 – Anchor Installation ................................................................................................................ 14 7.3.6 - Testing .................................................................................................................................... 14 7.3.7 – Internal Bracing ..................................................................................................................... 17 7.3.8 - Deflection ............................................................................................................................... 17

7.4 - FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 18 7.4.1 - Bearing Value ......................................................................................................................... 18 7.4.2 - Settlement ............................................................................................................................... 19

i of ii


ii of ii

7.4.3 - Lateral Resistance ................................................................................................................... 19 7.4.4 - Minor Foundations ................................................................................................................. 19

7.5 - SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................... 20 7.6 - WALLS BELOW GRADE ............................................................................................................ 20

7.6.1 - Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................................... 20 7.6.2 - Backfill ................................................................................................................................... 22 7.6.3 - Drainage ................................................................................................................................. 22

7.7 - FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 22 7.8 - SITE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................................... 24 7.9 - EXPANSIVE SOILS ..................................................................................................................... 24 7.10 – COLLAPSIBLE SOILS .............................................................................................................. 24 7.11 - CORROSIVITY .......................................................................................................................... 25

8.0 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................................. 25

9.0 - LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 26

PLATES Plate 1 - Site Location Map Plate 2 - Plot Plan APPENDICES Appendix A - Field Exploration Appendix B - Laboratory Tests


1.0 - SCOPE

This report provides foundation design recommendations for the proposed mixed use development located at 3915 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California. The site location is shown on Plate 1, Site Location Map. The proposed building footprint is shown on Plate 2, Plot Plan. The site investigation was authorized to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated April 12, 2013 and included performing a field investigation, laboratory testing, and preparing a geotechnical report including the following items and recommendations: • Vicinity map and plot plan showing approximate field exploration locations;

• Logs of borings;

• Discussion of the scope of work;

• Discussion of field exploration methods;

• Results of laboratory testing;

• Discussion of subsurface conditions, as encountered in our field exploration;

• Discussion of site geology;

• Discussion of geologic and seismic hazards impacting the site;

• Recommendations for grading and site preparation;

• Recommendations for temporary excavations and shoring;

• Recommendations for utility trench backfill;

• Recommendations for seismic near-source factors;

• Recommendations for spread foundations, foundation settlement, and lateral resistance;

• Recommendations for support of minor foundations;

• Recommendations for slabs on grade;

• Recommendations for walls below grade, and;

1 of 26


• Discussion of expansive and collapsible soils.

The assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of the contamination in the soils and groundwater was beyond the scope of this investigation. Our recommendations are based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and appropriate engineering analyses. Our analyses are based on the ultimate soil strength properties.

2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that a new mixed use multi-residential building is proposed for the subject site. The proposed development will consist of a 5 stories above grade and one to two stories below grade. The basement, ground and mezzanine levels will consist of Type I construction, while the remainder of the stories will consist of Type V wood frame construction. Structural loads are not available at this time but we anticipate column loads to be on the order of between 500 to 600 kips. The proposed building location is shown on Plate 2, Plot Plan.

3.0 - FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

The subsurface soil conditions at the site were explored by performing two hollow-stem-auger borings within the site. The borings were performed to a depth of approximately 50 to 55 feet below existing grade. Our field engineer supervised the fieldwork, logged the borings, and collected relatively undisturbed and disturbed samples for further evaluation and laboratory testing. The borings were performed at the locations indicated on Plate 2, Plot Plan. Details of the field investigation and the Log of Borings are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration. Laboratory testing was performed on selected relatively undisturbed and disturbed samples collected during the investigation to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine pertinent engineering properties used for the development of geotechnical recommendations. The following tests were performed: • In situ moisture and dry density determination • Direct shear test

2 of 26


• Consolidation • Preliminary corrosivity test Laboratory testing was performed by AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. of Pomona, California. All testing was performed in accordance with the latest versions of applicable ASTM methods. We have reviewed, approve, and concur with the results of the laboratory testing. Details of the laboratory testing and test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.

4.0 - SITE CONDITIONS

The site is located at 3915 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California. The site encompasses three parcels at the southwest corner of San Fernando Road and Central Avenue in Glendale, California. The site is relatively flat and is currently occupied by existing buildings and associated parking with uses ranging from office building to parking lot to an existing car wash facility and associated offices. The parking areas are generally paved aside from one parcel that currently has a gravel surface and is also occupied by construction trailers for a development to the north side of San Fernando Road. Various utilities cross the site.

5.0 – GEOLOGY

5.1 – REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The subject site is located in the southwest portion of the city of Glendale, on a gently southwesterly-sloping alluvial plain, east of the Santa Monica Mountains and north of the Elysian Park Hills. The Los Angeles River, which flows southeasterly around the eastern edge of Griffith Park, is located approximately ¾ mile southwest of the subject site. The site is underlain by Pleistocene-age alluvial sediments consisting of clay, silt, sand and gravel which have been dissected by southerly flowing drainages including the Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco to the southwest and southeast of the site, respectively (Dibblee, 1991 and Lamar, 1970).

5.2 – SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

Based on logging of the exploratory borings at the site, the site is underlain by a thin mantle of artificial sandy fill materials underlain by native deposits. The earth materials underlying the site are described generally in the following sections, and detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A.

3 of 26


5.2.1 - Artificial Fill

Artificial fill soil was encountered to depths of 4½ to 5 feet in our borings. The fill consisted of brown fine to medium silty sand with minor construction debris locally, and was in a generally moist condition.

5.2.2 - Alluvium

The native alluvial soils at the site consist of medium dense to dense silty sands to a depth of approximately 28 to 30 feet below existing grade, underlain by stiff silts and clays and dense to very dense coarser sands to the depth explored.

5.2.3 - Ground Water

Historical high ground water is reported to be approximately 45’ below grade (CGS, 1998). Ground water was encountered at a depth of 50½ feet in Boring B-2 during subsurface exploration at the site in April 2013. It should be noted that subsurface moisture, seepage and ground water conditions may change in the future in response to rainfall, irrigation practices and other factors not evident during subsurface exploration at the site.

5.3 – REGIONAL FAULTING

The subject site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California, within the zone of influence of several active and potentially active fault systems. An “active” fault is defined by the State of California as a fault which exhibits surface displacement within Holocene time (last 11,000 years). According to the Fault Activity Map of California (2010), the site lies approximately 3/4 mile north of the Hollywood fault zone, capable of producing an M6.5 earthquake, and approximately 2 miles southwest of the Verdugo fault, capable of producing an M6.7 earthquake. The subject site also lies approximately 6½ miles southwest of the Sierra Madre fault zone, capable of producing an M7 earthquake and approximately 10 miles northeast of the Newport-Inglewood fault system, capable of producing an M6.9 earthquake. The M5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake occurred October 1, 1987 approximately 11 miles southeast of the subject site on a previously-unknown, north-dipping blind thrust fault in the

4 of 26


eastern Los Angeles region, with no recorded surface rupture (Woods, 1995). The M6.7 Northridge earthquake occurred January 17, 1994 approximately 17 miles northwest of the subject site, at a focal depth of 19 km (12 miles), on a south-dipping blind thrust fault with no direct surface rupture. The February 9, 1971 M6.6 San Fernando earthquake occurred approximately 21 miles northwest of the subject site along the frontal fault system of the San Gabriel Mountains (Ziony, 1985). All of these earthquakes caused considerable damage near their epicenters and in surrounding cities. Based on the known seismic activity and fault framework surrounding the subject site, it should be anticipated that the site improvements may be subject to a moderate to severe level of ground shaking during the design lifetime of the proposed construction.

5.4 – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.4.1 - General

The subject site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California, within the zone of influence of several active and potentially active fault systems. The site will be periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Considerable damage can occur to the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event. Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at this time.

5.4.2 - Surface Rupture Hazard

There are no mapped active or potentially active faults that trend through the subject property based on the references cited. The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2000). Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the site during the design life of the structure is considered remote.

5.4.3 - Ground Shaking Analysis

Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Burbank 7.5-Minute Quadrangle (1998), the peak ground acceleration for alluvial conditions at the site is indicated to be approximately 0.55g with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.

5 of 26


5.4.4 - Landslides

According to the Seismic Hazards Zone Map published by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Burbank Quadrangle (1999), the subject site is not indicated to lie within a zone of potential seismically-induced landslide hazard. Due to the relatively level nature of the topography in the site vicinity, the potential for landslides is considered negligible.

5.4.5 – Ground Lurching

Ground lurching is defined as earthquake motion at right angles to a cliff or bluff, or more commonly to a stream bank or artificial embankment that results in yielding of material in the direction in which it is unsupported. The initial effect is to produce a series of more or less parallel cracks separating the ground into rough blocks. These cracks are generally parallel with the top of the slope or embankment. Lurching is also associated with undulating surface waves in the soil that have some similarities to ground oscillation generally in soft, saturated, fine-grained soils during seismic excitation. If adjacent to bodies of water, lurching can continue for a short time after the seismic shaking stops. The granular soil conditions beneath the site and relatively-flat, landward location of this site are not generally associated with ground lurching. As such, the risk of ground lurching at the subject site is considered low.

5.4.6 – Tsunamis and Seiches

Earthquakes can cause tsunami ("tidal waves"), seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies), and landslide splash waves in enclosed water bodies such as lakes and reservoirs. Earthquakes can also result in dam failures at reservoirs. The project site is not located near an enclosed body of water or a dam. The site is located approximately 16 mile from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 440 feet. Therefore, the potential risks of tsunami, seiche, or seismically induced dam failures are judged low at the subject site.

6 of 26


6.0 - LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT EVALUATION

Liquefaction is a phenomenon associated with shallow groundwater combined with the presence of loose, fine sands and/or silts within a depth of 50 feet below grade or less. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, loose, fine sands and/or silts are subjected to strong ground shaking resulting from an earthquake event. Liquefaction has the potential to result in the soil temporarily losing part or all of its shear strength. Part of this strength may return sometime after shaking ceases. Liquefaction potential decreases with an increase in grain size, and clay and gravel content. Increasing duration of the ground shaking during a seismic event can also increase the potential for liquefaction. As previously stated, groundwater was encountered in one of our borings at a depth of 55½ feet. Historical high groundwater at the site is reported to be at approximately 45 feet below grade. Further, the site is not located within a State of California designated liquefaction hazard zone. Due to the relative densities of the soil materials encountered within our borings, the depth of historical groundwater, the potential for liquefaction occurrence is considered low. Seismically induced settlement of the non-saturated soils due to seismic ground shaking has been evaluated based on field data and using the Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) procedures. We estimate the seismically induced dry settlements to be on the order of ¼-inch. Differential settlements are estimated to be less than ¼-inch.

7.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 - GENERAL

Based on our field exploration, the results of our laboratory testing, and our geotechnical analyses, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project may be constructed and is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction aspects of the proposed project. As discussed earlier, fill soils were encountered within our borings to a depth of approximately 4½ to 5 feet below existing grade. Deeper fill soils may be present between and beyond our borings. The onsite fill soils are not considered suitable for support of structures. The native soils generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands, underlain by stiff silts and clays and dense sands.

7 of 26


Based on our understanding of the project scheme, two levels of subterranean construction extending to a depth of approximately 23 to 25 feet below grade is proposed for the development at the site. The subterranean levels encompass the majority of the building footprint at the site, however portions of the basement level along the northeast and southeast sides of the development will remain as one level subterranean, whereas portions along the northwest and southwest along part of the alley, will extend to the full 2-level depth. Based on the dense native soils encountered at the site, we recommend that the proposed structure be supported on shallow spread foundations established in the relatively firm and unyielding native soils. Portions of the structure closer to grade may be supported on properly compacted engineered fill of on the firm and unyielding native soils below the surficial fill material, but not a combination. Due to the limited lateral distances from adjacent structures and property lines, shoring will be required prior to the excavation of the proposed subterranean garage level. Recommendations for shoring and walls below grade are presented in the following sections. Portions of the shoring system that extend to the second subterranean level will require tie-back anchors or internal bracing as recommended in the shoring section herein. Portions of the lower basement level excavation where room exists may be slopped back in lieu of shoring, however the top of the temporary slopes should maintain a setback of at least 20 feet from the front the first basement level soldier piles.

7.2 - EARTHWORK

7.2.1 - Site Preparation

For areas where portions of the proposed development will be at-grade level, the fill soils encountered within our borings are not considered suitable for support of structures or site improvements. We recommend that the existing fill soils be overexcavated to the firm and unyielding native soils. Following the overexcavation, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a Garcrest representative for unsuitable soils and debris and the excavation deepened as necessary. The exposed subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 6-inches, brought to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as obtainable by ASTM Designation D-1557. Following the subgrade preparation, engineered fill soils may be placed to grade and compacted as recommended below.

8 of 26


Based on the plans provided to us, the majority of the site will be excavated to a depth of approximately 23 to 25 feet below existing grade for the subterranean parking although portions to the northeast and south east will be excavated to approximately 13 to 15 feet below grade. Following the excavation, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a Garcrest representative for unsuitable soils and debris and the excavation deepened as necessary. The exposed subgrade at the bottom of the excavation should then be scarified to a depth of 6-inches, brought to near the optimum moisture content and compacted with heavy compaction equipment.

7.2.2 – Excavation Conditions

The borings were performed using a truck mounted hollow stem auger drilling equipment. Drilling was completed using moderate effort through the onsite soils. Conventional earthmoving equipment should be capable of performing the anticipated excavations required. The onsite soils consist of silty sands, silts and sands with varying amounts of gravel. Care should be taken during the installation of the soldier pile shoring to reduce the potential for raveling and caving in the sandy deposits.

7.2.3 - Compaction

Engineered fill soils should be placed in loose lifts of no more than 8-inches, brought to a moisture content of within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted using heavy roller and/or vibratory equipment. The fill soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density.

7.2.4 - Material for Fill

The onsite soils less any debris or organic matter, may be used as fill soils. Import soils should be granular in nature and be relatively non-expansive. Import fill soils should have a minimum sand equivalent of 30, and an expansion index of less than 35. The import soils should contain sufficient fines to provide a stable subgrade and maintain low to medium permeability. All import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to import onto the site.

9 of 26


7.2.5 - Trench Backfill

All required trench backfill should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts of 8-inches or less, brought to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and compacted with mechanical equipment. Jetting or flooding is not permitted. Some settlement of the backfill may occur and utilities within the trench should be designed to accept some differential settlement.

7.2.6 - Excavation and Temporary Slopes

Excavations deeper than 4 feet should be slopped back at 1:1 (H:V) or be shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a 1½:1 (H:V) plane drawn downward from the bottom of adjacent existing foundations. Based on the limited lateral distance at the site, we anticipate that site excavations will be shored. Earthen berms or other methods should be used during wet weather construction in order to prevent runoff water from entering the excavations. All runoff water should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits. Excavations should be observed by a representative from our firm so that modifications as a result of varying soil conditions may be facilitated. All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Excavations and temporary slopes should be protected from surficial erosion and the effects of inclement weather by the project contractor. Protective measures such as plastic or jute mesh may be used to protect against the potential for surficial sloughing.

7.3 – TEMPORARY SHORING

The proposed subterranean level will be constructed generally along the property lines. The lower level portion of the subterranean level however will be more limited to the central and northwest and southwestern sides of the site. The southeast and northeast portions will consist of one level subterranean level.

10 of 26


Approximately 23 to 25 feet of temporary excavations are anticipated for the deeper two story portion of the basement level and approximately 13 to 15 feet of excavation for the one level portions. For portions of the lower level excavation, particularly along the southeast side, where there is a greater setback between the lower and upper level basements, the lower level basement excavation may be sloped back instead of shored, if required. If sloping the excavation is considered, the top of slopes should be set back a distance of at least 20 feet from the upper level basement shoring system. Excavations should be shored where there is insufficient room to make a safe sloped excavation. Shoring should be designed to prevent significant lateral or vertical movement of the shored grade and settlement of the existing improvements or foundations. One method of shoring would consist of using timber laggings placed between steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes that are backfilled with concrete. The following recommendations may be used for the structural design of soldier pile and lagging shoring systems. Some difficulty may be anticipated during the drilling of the soldier piles because of caving and raveling potential anticipated in the sandy layer of the subsurface materials. Special techniques may be necessary to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles, such as the use of drilling fluid, casing, or reduced drilling speeds. Soldier piles should be drilled and installed alternately.

7.3.1 – Lateral Pressure

For the design of cantilever shoring up to 18 feet in height, an active equivalent fluid pressure of 25 pounds per cubic foot may be used for temporary shoring. Where the surface of the retained earth slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure may be required. Deeper excavations will require the use of bracing or tie backs. These recommendations may be provided if required. For excavations deeper than about 18 feet, we recommend restrained shoring be used. Soldier piles with lateral support (tie back anchors), may be designed for a rectangular pressure distribution equivalent of 20 H, where H is the height of the shoring in feet, as shown below.

11 of 26


The design of shoring should include surcharge loads imposed by existing adjacent foundation above a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of the proposed excavations. Conservatively, this surcharge load may consist of a uniform distribution equal to one half of the vertical pressure. Alternately, foundations adjacent to the shoring may be specifically analyzed by the geotechnical engineer once the existing vertical pressures are available. This surcharge may be neglected for foundations below or beyond the projection line.

0.2H

0.6H

0.2H

20H

H = HEIGHT OF WALL IN FT.

In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets or vehicle traffic should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the wall due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet, the surcharge may be neglected. We should be advised if special loading conditions such as cranes or heavy trucks are planned to operate directly adjacent to the shoring as these may impose additional lateral surcharge pressures on the shoring.

7.3.2 – Design of Soldier Pile

For the design of solider piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the subsurface soils at the site may be assumed to be an

12 of 26


equivalent fluid pressure of 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, up to maximum values of 6,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials. The portion of the soldier pile below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. A friction value of 250 pounds per square foot may be used for the portion of the pile below the excavated level.

7.3.3 - Lagging

The lagging may be either timber or gunite. Timber lagging may not remain in place unless it has been treated. The soldier piles should be designed for the full-anticipated pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. The lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot.

7.3.4 – Anchor Design

Tied-back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. The excavation required for the subterranean parking structure may be assumed to have a level backfill. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees through the bottom of the excavation. It is recommended that the anchors extend at least 15 feet beyond the potential active wedge for the excavation. Friction anchors shall extend to a greater length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. An average friction value of 450 pounds per square foot in the native soils may be used for preliminary design of anchors. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action. The capacities of the anchors should be evaluated by testing. High frictional resistance may be achieved through placement of the cement grout under pressure.

13 of 26


7.3.5 – Anchor Installation

Installation of the tie-back anchors should be conducted by an experienced contractor. Difficulties in installation of the anchors are anticipated in the sandier soil layers encountered at the site. Caving of the drilled anchors should be anticipated. The installation methods should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer-of-record prior to construction. The anchors shall be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. The portion of the anchor shaft within the assumed active wedge should not be filled with concrete prior to testing the anchor. At least 1 foot of the drilled hole at the active wedge should be filled with compressible material. Because of potential caving problems, this remaining portion of the shaft should be backfilled before testing, and we suggest that the backfill consist of sand. This portion of the shaft should filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The backfill could be placed by pumping; the sand may contain a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping. The portion of the anchor within the active wedge should be free to move. Portions of the tie back anchor will be installed below the groundwater and special drilling techniques such as casing may be required to prevent the collapse of the anchor boring. Tieback anchors should be installed at the angle of declination and alignment indicated in the approved shoring plans with a tolerance of (3 degrees at the bearing plate. The contractor should provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify placement of concrete within the anchor zone. The grout pump should be equipped with a pressure gauge capable of measuring pressures of at least 1000 kPa. The quantity of grout and the grout pressure should be recorded by the contractor for each anchor. Tiebacks spaced closer than 2½ diameters center-to-center should be drilled and placed alternately. Additional requirements for testing of temporary tie-back anchors are provided below.

7.3.6 - Testing

The allowable design capacities of all tiebacks should be verified by a program of proof tests and performance tests. The contractor should provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify the adequacy of the tiebacks. A dial gauge capable of measuring

14 of 26


displacements to 0.01 inch precision should be used to measure tieback anchor movement. A hydraulic jack and pump should be used to apply the test load. The jack and calibrated pressure gauge should be used to measure the applied load. The test load should be applied incrementally and be raised or lowered from one increment to another immediately after anchor movement is recorded unless noted otherwise herein. At least two tiebacks or a minimum of 3 percent of all tiebacks, whichever is greater, should be performance tested to 200 percent of design load for 24 hours by the following procedure. In addition, we recommend that three additional 200 percent Quick tests be conducted. The purpose of the test is to evaluate the friction value used in design. The anchor should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction where satisfactory tests are not achieved. The anchor diameter and/or length should be revised until a satisfactory test is achieved. A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load should be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. The axial load should be applied in increments of 25 percent of the design load. Each incremental load should be maintained for a period of 1 minute with the axial elongation measured at the beginning and end of this period, and the load released to the alignment load and the axial elongation should be measured following each successive maximum. Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load should be maintained for a period of 24 hours. During the 24-hour test, the total elongation should not exceed 12 inches. After the 200 percent load is applied, the anchor deflection should not exceed ¾ inch. If movement exceeds ¾ inch after 24 hours, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of design load or lower and maintained for additional 15-minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15-minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has evaluated the sustainable load, the down-rated design load should be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. If anchor movement after the 200 percent load is applied for 12 hours is less than ½ inch and the movement over the past 4 hours is less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated. Upon completion of the test period, the load should be incrementally reduced while taking measurements.

15 of 26


As stated above, we recommend that a minimum of three tiebacks be proof (quick) tested to 200 percent of design load for 30 minutes by the following procedure. The axial load should be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load should be maintained for a period of 30 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to the conclusion of the 30 minutes should not exceed ¼ inch and the total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 12 inches. If movement exceeds ¼ inch after 30 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of design load or lower and maintained for additional 15-minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.1 inch during a 15-minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has evaluated the sustainable load, the down-rated design load should be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. Upon completion of the test period, the load shall be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. All remaining anchors should be proof tested to 150 percent of design load for 15 minutes. The axial load should be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. Upon reaching 150 percent of design load, the load should be maintained for a period of 15 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 150 percent load to the conclusion of the 15 minutes should not exceed 0.1 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test should not exceed 4 inches. If movement exceeds 0.1 inch after 15 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced and maintained for additional 15-minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.1 inch during the 15-minute interval is evaluated. Once the geotechnical engineer has evaluated the sustainable load, the down-rated design load should be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. If the deflection measurements are acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, the tieback anchor should be locked-off at no less than 110 percent of rated design load. The anchor may be completely unloaded prior to lock off. After transferring the load and prior to removing the jack, a lift-off reading should be made. The lift-off should be within 10 percent of the required lock-off load (110 percent of design load). If not, the anchorage should be reset and the lift-off measurement repeated until a satisfactory reading is obtained. The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by the geotechnical engineer of record.

16 of 26


7.3.7 – Internal Bracing

Rakers could be used to internally brace the soldier piles as an alternate to the tiebacks. The rakers should be supported laterally by temporary concrete foundations or deadmen or by the permanent interior footings. For design of such footings, poured with the bearing surface normal to rakers inclined at 45 to 60 degrees with the vertical, a bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the movement of shoring, the rakers should be preloaded or at least tightly wedged between the footings and the soldier piles. In order to facilitate the installation of the rakers, temporary excavations could be made in front of the soldier piles up to the elevation of the rakers. After the installation of the rakers temporary excavation could be made down to the bottom of the basement wall footings. Temporary excavation to facilitate the installation of the rakers should not be steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical), and should start no deeper than 5 feet from the ground surface.

7.3.8 - Deflection

It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It shall be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of one inch at the top of a 10-foot shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to reduce settlement of the adjacent building. If it is desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure or at-rest pressure could be used in the shoring design. The maximum settlement could be up to 1.5 times the maximum lateral deflection. The shoring designer should estimate the lateral deflection as part of the design submittal to be reviewed by the owner and architect. Where soldier pile shoring is braced or tied and installed by good construction techniques, the maximum ground settlement and the maximum lateral movement adjacent to the shoring should not exceed 0.45 percent of the height of shored excavation. Some deflection of the shored embankments shall be anticipated during the planned excavation. Shoring adjacent to existing structures shall be designed and constructed so as to reduce the potential movement of the adjacent structures. We suggest that proper documentation (including

17 of 26


photographs) of existing structures be made, and that the existing structures be surveyed and monitored during construction to record any movements for use in the event of a dispute.

7.4 - FOUNDATIONS

The proposed buildings may be supported on shallow spread foundations established in the relatively firm and unyielding native soils at the bottom of the basement excavation. If deeper fill are encountered for any at-grade portions of the structures, we recommend that the foundations be deepened to the native soils, or that structural separations be introduced prior to supporting these portions of the buildings on properly compacted engineered fill. Prior to placement of steel reinforcement, the foundation excavations should be cleaned of debris and loose soils and water. The footing excavations should be observed by a Garcrest representative just prior to steel and concrete placement to verify the implementation of the recommendations made herein.

7.4.1 - Bearing Value

Continuous wall and isolated pad foundations supported on the firm and unyielding native soils may be designed for a net dead-plus-live allowable pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot. Foundations established on the properly compacted engineered fill may be deigned for a net dead-plus-live allowable pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. All foundations should have a minimum width of 24-inches and be embedded at least 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A one-third increase may be used for wind and seismic loading conditions. The recommended bearing value is a net value. The weight of the concrete in the footing may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of the soil backfill may be neglected when determining the downward loads. Footings may experience an overall loss in bearing capacity or an increased potential to settle where located above and in close proximity to existing or future utility trenches. Furthermore, stresses imposed by the footings on the utility lines may cause the utilities to crack, collapse

18 of 26


and/or lose serviceability. To reduce this risk, footings should extend below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the closest bottom corner of utility trenches.

7.4.2 - Settlement

Based on the anticipated foundation loads and dimensions, we anticipate the total static settlement of the proposed foundations to be one the order of ½ to ¾-inch. Differential settlements are anticipated to be less than ½-inch. Static settlement of all foundations is expected to be primarily elastic and should be essentially completed shortly after initial application of structural loads. The seismically induced settlements estimated earlier are in addition to the static settlements discussed above.

7.4.3 - Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by friction between the soil and the foundation, and by the passive resistance of the soil against the vertical face of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between the foundation and underlying soil. The passive resistance of the soil may be taken as equivalent to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase may be used for wind and seismic loading conditions and the passive and sliding values may be combined without reduction. Sloughing, caving, or overwidening of trench sidewalls during or following excavations may reduce or eliminate the passive resistance of the subgrade soils against foundations. In the event such conditions are encountered, our firm should be notified to review the condition and provide remedial recommendations, if necessary.

7.4.4 - Minor Foundations

Footings for minor structures, such as small retaining walls, that are structurally separate from buildings may be supported on shallow spread footings, established at least 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade, and be designed for a bearing capacity of 1,000 pounds per square foot. Such footings may be supported on properly compacted engineered fill or undisturbed native soils.

19 of 26


7.5 - SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The site is located within the seismically active Southern California region. As a minimum, we recommend that the proposed remodel activities be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The structure may be designed to resist earthquake forces following the 2010 edition of California Building Code (CBC), which is based on the 2009 edition of the International Building Code (IBC). The Site Classification, as defined in Section 1613.5.2 and Table 1613.5.2 of the CBC, may be assumed to be a Site Class D, Stiff Soil Profile. The mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations, Ss and S1, are obtained from Figures 1613.5(3) and 1613.5(4) from the CBC. Using site coefficients Fa and Fv of 1.0 and 1.5 respectively, spectral response accelerations SMS and SM1 of 1.986 and 0.965 and SDS and SD1 of 1.324 and 0.643 may be used for a Site Class D.

7.6 - WALLS BELOW GRADE

7.6.1 - Lateral Earth Pressures

For design of cantilevered walls below grade where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the retained soils exert a drained lateral earth pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a unit weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot in the active condition. A lateral earth pressure equal to a fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot may be used for an at-rest condition. For design of braced walls below grade, a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure should be used in design as shown in the sketch below.

20 of 26


0.2H H = HEIGHT OF

WALL IN FT. 0.6H

0.2H

25H

Where the surface of the backfill is level, a maximum lateral pressure of 25H pounds per square foot should be used in design, where H is the height of the retained earth in feet. The above values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. For seismic purposes, an additional lateral earth pressure may be used where a difference in retained grade greater than 6 feet exists across the site. The pressure distribution may be considered to be an inverted triangle with the maximum pressure at the top and zero on the bottom. The resultant of this force may be assumed to be at 2/3 the height of the wall from the bottom of the wall. For a level backfill condition, a maximum pressure of 20H pounds per square foot may be used, where H is the difference in height of retained grade across the site in feet. This pressure is in addition to the static pressures presented above and may be considered as an ultimate load in design. The design of walls below grade should include surcharge loads imposed by existing adjacent foundation above a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of the proposed excavations. Conservatively, this surcharge load may consist of a uniform distribution equal to one half of the vertical pressure. Alternately, foundations adjacent to walls below grade may be specifically analyzed by the geotechnical engineer once the existing vertical pressures are available. This surcharge may be neglected for foundations below or beyond the projection line. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 10 feet of walls below grade adjacent to streets or vehicle traffic should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the

21 of 26


wall due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet, the surcharge may be neglected.

7.6.2 - Backfill

All required backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommended presented in the Earthwork Section above.

7.6.3 - Drainage

Walls below grade should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures or be provided with a backdrain to reduce the accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. The recommended lateral earth pressures assume that drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains may consist of a 2-foot wide zone of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material located immediately behind the wall, extending to within 1 foot of the ground surface. If Class 2 base is not available, ¾-inch crushed rock with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 Sieve may be used. The backdrain should be separated from the adjacent soils using a non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Weep holes should be provided or a perforated pipe (Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed at the base of the backdrain and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility. A slope of at least 2-feet per 100 feet should be used for the drain lines. As an alternative, proprietary prefabricated drainage systems such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, placed behind the wall and connected to a suitable collection and discharge system may also be used.

7.7 - FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT

Following the preparation of the subgrade as recommended above, concrete floor slabs and walks may be supported on grade. The concrete slab on grade should have a minimum thickness of 4-inches and a structural engineer should design the minimum reinforcement requirements. Construction activities and exposure to the elements may cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. We recommend that the exposed subgrade be inspected by our representative and that

22 of 26


the subgrade be moisture conditioned and compacted, if necessary, prior to placement of the concrete floor slab. The proposed floor slab on grade may be designed for a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch. To reduce the impact of subsurface moisture and upward moisture migration on vinyl or other moisture sensitive flooring where such floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a vapor retarder and a layer of compacted crushed rock, as is the current industry standard. The rock typically consists of a minimum of 4 inches of crushed rock or aggregate base material compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. The vapor retarding membrane should consist of visqueen or poly-vinyl sheeting with a thickness of at least 10 mils. We recommend a low slump concrete with a slump not exceeding 3-inches be used to reduce possible curling of the slab. It should be noted that these vapor barriers, although currently the industry standard, may not completely inhibit the upward migration of subsurface moisture. Other factors such as the moisture transmission rates to meet for specific floor coverings and interior humidity levels that could induce mold growth may still be beyond the prevention capabilities of the current standard. The effectiveness of the industry standard system is highly dependent on the ultimate use and design of the proposed building, its ventilation, and the indoor moisture levels. Various factors such as surface grades, the presence of adjacent planters, the quality of the concrete placed, and permeability of the supporting soils will affect future performance. We recommend that the manufacturer for the specific flooring used be contacted for additional consultation specific to their product. The quality of the concrete slab, including the water/cement ratio and curing practices can also affect the ultimate performance of the slab. All concrete placement and curing should be performed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI) methods. We are not moisture proofing experts and therefore make no guarantees or provide assurances that the use of a capillary break/vapor retarding system will reduce infiltration of subsurface moisture through the floor slab in accordance with any specific flooring material performance specifications.

23 of 26


7.8 - SITE DRAINAGE

Ponding and saturation of the soils in the vicinity of the proposed foundations should be avoided. To reduce this potential, we recommend that positive drainage be provided for the site, in both improvement and landscaping areas, to carry surface water away from the building foundations and slabs on grade and towards appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. Site grading adjacent to structures and foundations should be slopped away a minimum of 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the face of wall. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of structures should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. These grades should be maintained for the life of the structure. We also recommend that roof runoff be connected to a suitable collection and discharge system to avoid surface discharge and potential saturating the soils near foundations. Poor perimeter and surface drainage may result in water migration beneath building foundations, and may result in potential distress to the proposed improvements. Planter areas adjacent to the building and foundations should be lined to reduce the infiltration of irrigation water beneath the building. Care should also be taken to maintain a leak-free irrigation system.

7.9 - EXPANSIVE SOILS

Soils that have the potential for volume change (shrinkage and swelling) caused by moisture variations or drying and wetting cycles are classified as expansive soils. Soil moisture variations are typically a result of rainfall, irrigation, poor drainage, roof drains discharging surficially, and exposure to heat and drought conditions. This shrinkage and swelling action can potentially result in distress to pavements, floor slabs-on-grade, and foundations and grade beams. Based on the results of our field investigation, the site is underlain by relatively granular soils that are anticipated to have very low to negligible expansion potentials.

7.10 – COLLAPSIBLE SOILS

Collapsible soils are defined as soils with a potential for a significant decrease in strength and increase in compressibility when wet or saturated (hydro-collapse). Collapsible soils typically consist of relatively sandy soils that exhibit a degree of cementation.

24 of 26


Based on the results of our laboratory testing, the onsite soils do not exhibit a significant collapse potential.

7.11 - CORROSIVITY

Selected samples of the near surface soils were collected and tested for corrosivity potential. The samples were tested for pH, resistivity, soluble chlorides, and soluble sulfates in general accordance with California Test Methods 643, 422, and 417 respectively. The results of the tests are presented in Appendix B. Preliminary corrisivity testing indicates that the soils have a moderate to high corrosivity potential to buried ferrous metals and a moderate potential to buried concrete structures. Based on the preliminary corrosivity results, concrete structures should comply with cement type, minimum compressive strength, and minimum water/cement ratio requirements as specified in ACI guidelines 318, Section 4.3. These tests are only an indicator of the soil corrosivity at the site. A competent corrosion engineer should be consulted to further evaluate the corrosion potential for the onsite soils, suggest additional testing if needed, and to provide further recommendations for corrosion mitigation as applicable to the specific project and improvements.

8.0 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES

We recommend that Garcrest perform a review of the project specifications and plans to evaluate the correct interpretation and incorporation of the recommendations presented in this report into the project design. We will assume no responsibility for incorrect or inadequate interpretation of the recommendations herein should we not be retained for the review of the project plans and specifications. We also recommend that our firm be retained to perform the geotechnical observation and testing services for the earthwork operations at the site. The services may include the following:

• Observation of cleaning and excavating operations, • Observation and inspection of the exposed subgrades to receive fill, • Observation of shoring installation, • Evaluation of the suitability of import soils, • Observation and testing of fill placed,

25 of 26


26 of 26

• Observation and probing of foundation excavations prior to placement of concrete. This service allows us the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented herein during the construction phase and allows us to make additional recommendations, if necessary. If another firm is retained to provide geotechnical observation services, our professional liability and responsibility would be limited to the extent that we would no longer be the geotechnical engineer of record.

9.0 - LIMITATIONS

The recommendations presented herein are based on our understanding of the described project information and our interpretation of the data collected during our field investigation. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in accordance with the accepted geotechnical practices. Our services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared exclusively for Mr. George Garikian and his design consultants for the specific application of their project located 3915 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California. This report has not been prepared for other parties and may contain insufficient information for the purpose of other parties and other uses. The client is responsible for the distribution of this report to all parties associated with the project, including design consultants, contractors, subcontractors. This report may be used to prepare project specifications but is not intended to be used as a specification document. This report is intended for the sole use of the Client for this specific project within a reasonable time from its issuance. Regulatory and site condition changes may result in the additional information to be incorporated into the report and additional work to be performed by Garcrest prior to the issuance of an update. Non-compliance with these limitations releases Garcrest from any liability resulting from the use of this report by other unauthorized parties

PLATES

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION


APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

The soil conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings using a truck-mounted hollow stem auger type drilling equipment provided by Cal Pac Drilling of Calimesa, California. The borings were performed on April 29, 2013. The borings were advanced to a depth of 50 to 55 feet below the existing grade. The boring locations are shown on Plate 2, Plot Plan. The borings were backfilled using the excavated cuttings and patched with rapid set concrete. The soils encountered were logged by our field engineer and relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were collected for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of our borings are presented on Figure A-1 through A-2, Log of Borings. The samples were classified in accordance with the Uniform Soil Classification Method (USCS). A California-type ring sampler was used to collect the relatively undisturbed samples. The sampler was driven a total of 18-inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches was recorded on the borings logs. The hammer weight and drop height are also indicated on the boring logs. Disturbed samples were also collected using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The sampler was driven a total of 18-inches and a number of blows required to drive the final 12-inches were recorder and are presented on the boring logs. The SPT was driven using a 140-pound automatic trip hammer falling a drop height of 30 inches.

1 of 1

Garcrest Engineering & Construction, Inc.LOG OF BORING

4-inch Asphaltic Concrete, No BaseSM FILL

SILTY SAND - medium, moist, brown, pieces of brick

SM NATIVE5 SILTY SAND - some Clay, fine, dark brown, moist, medium dense

1018 28 1 CORR

51013 23 2

1

-- less Clay, medium brown, moist

PROJECT NO.:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION:ELEVATION:

DRILL METHOD:G13-004/1 DRILLER:

HAMMER:

Cal Pac

140 pound Auto/30 inches8" Hollow Stem Auger

-- dark brown

Gra

phic

al L

og

Laboratory Testing

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS

LOGGED BY:OPERATOR:

RIG TYPE:

BORING NO.:

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

AGAndyB-61

DATE:

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

B-1

Garikian Glendale3915 San Fernando Rd, Glendale, CA

4/29/2013

10

5

Oth

ers

Blow

s/Fo

ot

Blow

s/ 6

"

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)

15

Sam

ple

Num

ber

SAMPLES

Sam

ple

Type

Dep

th (f

t)

141520 35 3 7.3 116 DS

58

13 21 4

112535 60 5 8.6 123 DS

---Ring ---SPT ---No Recovery ---Water Table

Page 1 of 2 chk: AG 05/23/13

PLATE A-1a

---Bulk

-- trace Gravel

Legend:

20

25

15


81012 22 6 ML

41122 33 7 11.2 101

468 14 8

1145

-- some Gravel

40

35

Blow

s/Fo

ot

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Dep

th (f

t)

Sam

ple

Type

Blow

s/ 6

"

30

SANDY SILT - fine, brown, moist, stiff to very stiff

SAMPLES

BORING NO.: B-1 (cont.)

G

raph

ical

Log

RIG TYPE: B-61

Laboratory Testing

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

Oth

ers


4/29/2013

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

DRILLER: Cal Pac

ELEVATION: DATE:LOCATION: 3915 San Fernando Rd, Glendale, CA HAMMER: 140 pound Auto/30 inches

PROJECT NO.: G13-004/1PROJECT NAME: Garikian Glendale

LOGGED BY: AGOPERATOR: AndyDRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger

111735 52 9

SM

24177 24 10

BORING TERMINATED AT 51.5'.Groundwater not encountered.Boring backfilled and surface patched


Page 2 of 2 chk: AG 05/23/13

PLATE A-1b

Legend: ---Bulk

55

NOTES:

50

SILTY SAND - fine, brown, moist, medium dense to dense

45


SM FILLSILTY SAND - fine to medium, moist, brown

29 SM NATIVE1820 38 1

2550/6"

2 11.8 117

LOGGED BY: AGOPERATOR: Andy

PROJECT NO.: G13-004/1PROJECT NAME: Garikian Glendale DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLER: Cal Pac

RIG TYPE: B-61ELEVATION: DATE: 4/29/2013LOCATION: 3915 San Fernando Rd, Glendale, CA HAMMER: 140 pound Auto/30 inches

Gra

phic

al L

og

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

Blow

s/Fo

ot

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Dep

th (f

t)

Sam

ple

Type

Blow

s/ 6

"

SAMPLES

BORING NO.: B-2Laboratory Testing

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

Oth

ers


5

-- medium brown

10

SILTY SAND - brown, moist, fine, medium dense to dense

-- medium

15 78

12 20 3

62021 41 4 8.5 110

78

12 20 5

ML

4


Page 1 of 2 chk: AG 05/23/13

PLATE A-2a

15

-- Sandier, medium to coarse

20

-- some Clay

SANDY SILT - brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium

Legend: ---Bulk

25


47

15 22 6 9.9 112 CS

CL

246 10 7 28.7

12 SP3638 74 8

11

LOGGED BY: AGOPERATOR: Andy

PROJECT NO.: G13-004/1PROJECT NAME: Garikian Glendale DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLER: Cal Pac

RIG TYPE: B-61ELEVATION: DATE: 4/29/2013LOCATION: 3915 San Fernando Rd, Glendale, CA HAMMER: 140 pound Auto/30 inches

Gra

phic

al L

og

USC

S Sy

mbo

l

Blow

s/Fo

ot

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Dep

th (f

t)

Sam

ple

Type

Blow

s/ 6

"

SAMPLES

BORING NO.: B-2 (cont.)Laboratory Testing

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

Oth

ers

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS30

SILTY CLAY - brown, moist to very moist, stiff35

40SAND - brown to orange brown, moist, coarse, dense to very dense

45 111025 35 9

ML

81535 50 10 25.8 98

SP

BORING TERMINATED AT 55'.Groundwater encountered at 50.5 feet.Boring backfilled with cuttings and tamped.


Page 2 of 2 chk: AG 05/23/13

PLATE A-2b

45

50

SANDY SILT - brown/grey, moist to very moist, very stiff, fine

55

SAND - light brown, wet, coarse, dense

Legend: ---Bulk

NOTES:

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to aid in the classification of the soils encountered and to determine engineering properties for the onsite soils. The laboratory tests were performed by AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. of Pomona, California. Field moisture content and dry densities of the soils were determined by performing tests on relatively undisturbed samples collected. The results are presented on the boring logs and Figure B-1, Moisture and Density Test Results. Direct Shear tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate the strength parameters of the soils. The tests were conducted on samples after soaking to near-saturated moisture content at various surcharges. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D-3080. The tests were performed at a strain rate of 0.005 inches per minute under soaked conditions. The results of the tests are shown on Figure B-2.1 and B-2.2, Direct Shear Test Results. A Consolidation test was performed on a selected sample to evaluate the compressibility of the soils. The test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D-2435. Water was added to the sample to illustrate the effect of moisture on compressibility. The results are presented on Figure B-3, Consolidation Curve. A series of corrosivity tests were performed on selected samples of the soils encountered at the site. The tests included pH, resistivity, soluble chlorides and soluble sulfates. The tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Methods 643, 422, and 417 respectively. The results are presented on Figure B-4, Corrosion Test Results

1 of 1

Client: Garcrest Laboratory No.: 13-0504Project Name: Car Wash Glendale Date: 05/06/13Project No.: G13-004

Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth (ft.) Content (%) (pcf)B1 - 35 11.2 101.8B2 - 10 11.8 117.2B2 - 20 8.5 110.3B2 - 35 28.7 --B2 - 50 25.8 97.8

MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS

Project Name: : Car Wash GlendaleProject No. : G13-004Boring No. : B1Sample No. : -Depth (ft) : 15Sample Type : Mod. Cal.Soil Type : Silty Sand, fine grainedTest Condition : InundatedInitial Dry Density : 115.69 pcfMoisture Content (before) : 7.34 %Moisture Content (after) : 16.22 %

INTERPRETED STRENGTH DATA

Peak Ultimate0

COHESION (PSF) : 350 150FRICTION ANGLE : 30 ° 30 °

May-13 Figure No.

DIRECT SHEARTEST RESULTS(ASTM D 3080)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Normal Stress (ksf)

She

ar S

tress

(ksf

)

Project Name: : Car Wash GlendaleProject No. : G13-004Boring No. : B1Sample No. : -Depth (ft) : 25Sample Type : Mod. Cal.Soil Type : Silty Sand w/gravel, fine-med grainedTest Condition : InundatedInitial Dry Density : 122.75 pcfMoisture Content (before) : 8.55 %Moisture Content (after) : 13.02 %

INTERPRETED STRENGTH DATA

Peak Ultimate0

COHESION (PSF) : 1050 100FRICTION ANGLE : 36 ° 37 °

May-13 Figure No.

DIRECT SHEARTEST RESULTS(ASTM D 3080)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (ksf)

She

ar S

tress

(ksf

)

Boring No. : B2 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 112.0

Sample No.: - Initial Moisture Content (%): 9.9

Depth (feet): 30 Final Moisture Content (%): 15.0

Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7

Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 0.50

Remarks:

Project Name: Car Wash GlendaleProject No.: G13-004Date:

AP No: 13-0504

CONSOLIDATION CURVEASTM D 2435 5/1/2013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.1 1 10 100VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)

CO

NSO

LID

ATI

ON

(Per

cent

of S

ampl

e Th

ickn

ess)

At Field Moisture After Saturation

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

Client Name: Garcrest AP Job No.: 13-0504 Project Name: Car Wash Glendale Date 05/08/13 Project No.: G13-004

Boring Sample Depth Soil Type pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) (ppm) (ppm)

B1 - 5 CL 7.0 476 152

NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417Chloride Content : California Test Method 422ND = Not DetectableNA = Not Sufficient SampleNR = Not Requested

2607 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona, CA 91768Tel. (909) 869-6316 Fax. (909)869-6318

MinimumResistivity (ohm-cm)

1175

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX 4.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report

Documents