geotechnical investigation...2020/04/08 · geotechnical investigation 8 april 2020 1621 harrison...

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1621 HARRISON STREET

Oakland, California

Prepared For:

Oakland Housing Authority 1801 Harrison Street, 2nd Floor

Oakland, California 94612

Prepared By:

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 501 14th Street, Third Floor Oakland, California 94612

Katrina L. Watkins, PE

Project Engineer

Lori Simpson, PE, GE Senior Principal

750659601 8 April 2020

dadaniya

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B

dadaniya

Typewritten Text

dadaniya

Typewritten Text

Geotechnical Investigation 8 April 2020 1621 Harrison Street 750659601 Oakland, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................... 1

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................... 2 3.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) ............................................................................. 2 3.2 Treadwell & Rollo 2009 Investigation ............................................................... 3 3.3 Corrosion Testing .............................................................................................. 3

4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 3

5.0 REGIONAL SEISMICITY AND FAULTING ..................................................................... 4

6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................... 6 6.1 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................ 7 6.2 Seismic Densification ........................................................................................ 7 6.3 Fault Rupture ..................................................................................................... 7

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 8 7.1 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 8 7.2 Foundations and Settlement ............................................................................ 8

7.2.1 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................. 9 7.2.2 Micropiles ............................................................................................... 9 7.2.3 Micropile Load Testing ........................................................................ 10 7.2.4 Micropile Installation Work Plan ......................................................... 10

7.3 Fill Placement and Compaction ...................................................................... 11 7.4 Temporary Excavations ................................................................................... 12 7.5 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................................ 12 7.6 Construction Monitoring ................................................................................. 13

8.0 Development of Site-Specific Response Spectra ...................................................... 13

9.0 SERVICES DURING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE .................................................................. 15

10.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 16

REFERENCES

FIGURES

APPENDIX A – Logs of Cone Penetration Tests

APPENDIX B – Logs of Borings and Laboratory Tests from Previous Investigations

APPENDIX C – Corrosion Test Results

APPENDIX D – Development of Site-Specific Response Spectra

Geotechnical Investigation 8 April 2020 1621 Harrison Street 750659601 Oakland, California Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Plan

Figure 3 Map of Major Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in the San Francisco Bay Area

Figure 4 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

Figure 5 Recommended BSE-2N, BSE-1N, BSE-2E, and BSE-1E Spectra

Geotechnical Investigation 8 April 2020 1621 Harrison Street 750659601 Oakland, California Page 1

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1621 HARRISON STREET

Oakland, California

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the voluntary seismic retrofit

at 1621 Harrison Street in Oakland, California. The property is on the west side of Harrison Street,

on the block between 16th and 17th Streets. The approximate site location is shown on Figure 1.

The building has plan dimensions of about 125 by 150 feet. Based on the original foundation

plans titled “Administration Building and 101 Units (Elderly), Housing Authority of the City of

Oakland” by T.Y. Lin, Kulka, Yang & Associate Structural Engineering, Sheets 2, 14, 16, 17, and

22, the structure has a single basement level and is supported on shallow footings.

We understand a Probable Maximum Loss, Scenario Expected Loss, and Scenario Upper Loss

evaluation is being performed on the existing structure, and that a seismic evaluation will be

performed to determine seismic retrofit options. From discussions with project structural

engineer, Miyamoto International, Inc., we understand the dead plus live loads and seismic

strengthening of the building may impose total foundation loads between 7,400 to 10,600 pounds

per square foot (psf) at perimeter wall footings, 3,800 to 5,200 psf at column spread footings,

and 9,300 to 10,700 psf at the interconnected grid footings beneath the tower.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our geotechnical investigation was performed in general accordance with the scope of services

included in our proposal dated 13 September 2019. Our scope of services consisted of

conducting a subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program, and performing engineering

studies to develop conclusions and design-level recommendations for the retrofit regarding:

soil and groundwater conditions

Seismic Ground Motion Hazard Assessment in accordance with Level G2 as described in

ASTM E2026-16

site specific assessment of site stability in accordance with requirement of Level SS2

Investigation as described in ASTM E2026-16

seismic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, and differential compaction.


ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with ASCE 41-17 Section 2.4.2 and ASCE 7-

16 Section 21.2

allowable vertical and lateral soil pressures for spread footing upgrades at basement level,

plus any lateral bearing pressures in combination with skin friction at basement walls for

lateral load resistance

recommendations for micropiles installed at the existing basement level foundations

2019 California Building Code (CBC) site class and seismic design parameters

soil corrosivity

subgrade preparation for slab-on-grade at ground level and basement level

construction considerations.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

We explored subsurface conditions at the site by performing one cone penetration test (CPT).

The approximate location of the CPT is presented on Figure 2. Prior to performing the field

investigation, we obtained a drilling permit from the Alameda County Public Works Agency

(ACPWA), a parking lane and lane closure permit from the City of Oakland, notified Underground

Service Alert (USA), and retained a private underground utility locating service to check for

underground utilities in the vicinity of the CPT.

3.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

The CPT, designated as CPT-1, was advanced by Gregg Drilling of Martinez, California on 3

January 2020. CPT-1 was advanced to a depth of 75 feet below existing ground surface (bgs).

The CPT was performed by hydraulically pushing a cone-tipped probe with a projected area of

15 square centimeters into the ground. The cone-tipped probe measures tip resistance, and the

friction sleeve behind the cone tip measures frictional resistance. Electrical strain gauges within

the cone continuously measure soil parameters for the entire depth advanced. Cone data,

including tip resistance and frictional resistance, were recorded by a computer while the test was

conducted. Accumulated data were processed to provide engineering information such as the

types and approximate strength characteristics of the soil encountered. The CPT log presents tip

resistance, skin friction, and friction ratio by depth, as well as interpreted soil classifications. The

log of the CPT is presented in Appendix A.


During the advancement of the CPT, shear wave velocity measurements were attempted, but

not completed due to the location of the CPT rig to avoid conflicts with existing utilities at the

site.

Upon completion of the field investigation, the CPT hole was backfilled with cement grout in

accordance with the ACPWA requirements and under the observation of an ACPWA inspector.

3.2 Treadwell & Rollo 2009 Investigation

We reviewed the results of a geotechnical investigation performed by Treadwell & Rollo at 1633

Harrison Street. Treadwell & Rollo presented their results in a report dated 29 August 2009. They

drilled three hollow-stem auger borings to a depth of 50 feet bgs and advanced five CPTs to

depths ranging from 14.5 to 16 feet bgs, where they met practical refusal. The locations of the

borings and CPTs are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the borings, CPTs, and laboratory tests are

provided in Appendix B.

3.3 Corrosion Testing

Soil corrosivity can adversely affect underground utilities, foundations, and below-grade

elements. A soil sample was obtained from the upper five feet of the CPT and submitted for

corrosion testing. Results of the corrosivity tests along with a brief corrosion evaluation are

presented in Appendix C.

4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The property is on the west side of Harrison Street, on the block between 16th and 17th Streets.

The building has plan dimensions of about 125 by 150 feet and consists of a thirteen-story

residential tower and two-story podium. The structure has a single basement level and is

supported on shallow footings, based on the foundation drawings. The site is adjacent to several

buildings which abut the property line, including 1633 Harrison Street to the north, as shown on

Figure 2.

Based on the results of our site investigation and our review of the subsurface information in the

site vicinity, the soil conditions outside the building perimeter likely consist of about 3 to 9 feet

of fill consisting of loose to medium dense clayey sand and stiff sandy clay. Corrosivity analyses

indicate the fill is classified as corrosive; see Appendix C for more detail. The fill is underlain by


the native Merritt Sand formation, which generally consists of fine-grained sand with varying

amounts of fines and ranges from medium dense to very dense. The Merritt Sand extends to a

depth of about 26 to 27 feet below ground surface.

The fill and Merritt Sand are underlain by very stiff to hard clay, clay with sand, and sandy clay

which are interbedded with generally dense to very dense sand and gravel with varying amounts

of fines content. These interbedded layers extend to a depth of about 73 feet bgs.

Beneath a depth of 73 feet, the Alameda formation was encountered. The Alameda formation is

a Pleistocene age alluvial fan and marine deposit present at depth across Oakland. At the site,

the soils of the Alameda formation consist of very stiff to hard clay, clay with sand, and sandy

clay which is interbedded with thin dense to very dense sand, clayey sand, and silty sand layers.

The clay within the Alameda formation is generally overconsolidated and has moderate to very

high plasticity.

Based on geologic maps of the area, the Alameda formation extends to bedrock, which likely

consists of the Franciscan Formation. We anticipate the depth to bedrock is between 500 and

600 feet bgs (Rodgers/Pacific 1991).

Groundwater was measured during our field investigation from a pore pressure dissipation test

in CPT-1 at about 19 feet bgs. The investigation by Treadwell & Rollo showed groundwater was

encountered 27 and 29.5 feet bgs in borings B-2 and B-3, respectively. The California Geologic

Survey shows the historical high groundwater level between 10 to 20 feet bgs (CGS 2003).

5.0 REGIONAL SEISMICITY AND FAULTING

The major active faults in the area are the Hayward, San Andreas, and Calaveras faults. These

and other faults of the region are shown on Figure 3. For each of these faults, as well as other

active faults within about 50 kilometers (km) of the site, the distance from the site and estimated

mean characteristic Moment magnitude1 [2007 Working Group on California Earthquake

Probabilities (WGCEP) (2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1.

1 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a

faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.


TABLE 1 Regional Faults and Seismicity

Fault Segment

Approx.

Distance from fault (km)

Direction from Site

Mean Characteristic

Moment Magnitude

Total Hayward 5.2 East 7.00

Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 5.2 East 7.33

Mount Diablo Thrust 21 East 6.70

Total Calaveras 22 East 7.03

N. San Andreas - Peninsula 24 West 7.23

N. San Andreas (1906 event) 24 West 8.05

Green Valley Connected 26 East 6.80

N. San Andreas - North Coast 27 West 7.51

San Gregorio Connected 30 West 7.50

Rodgers Creek 35 Northwest 7.07

Greenville Connected 39 East 7.00

West Napa 40 North 6.70

Monte Vista-Shannon 41 South 6.50

Great Valley 5, Pittsburg Kirby Hills 44 East 6.70

Figure 3 also shows the earthquake epicenters for events with magnitude greater than 5.0 from

January 1800 through August 2014. Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on

the San Andreas Fault. In 1836 an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the

Modified Mercalli (MM) scale (Figure 4) occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas Fault

(Toppozada and Borchardt 1998). The estimated Moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is

about 6.25. In 1838, an earthquake occurred with an estimated intensity of about VIII-IX (MM),

corresponding to an Mw of about 7.5. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most

significant damage in the history of the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage.

This earthquake created a surface rupture along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to

San Juan Bautista approximately 470 kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM),

an Mw of about 7.9, and was felt 560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The

Loma Prieta Earthquake occurred on 17 October 1989, in the Santa Cruz Mountains with an Mw

of 6.9, approximately 92 km from the site.

In 1868 an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on

the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward fault. The estimated

Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw of

about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this

fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2).


The most recent earthquake to affect the Bay Area occurred on 24 August 2014 and was located

on the West Napa fault, approximately 46 km from the site, with a MW of 6.0.

The 2014 Working Group for California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) at the U.S. Geologic

Survey (USGS) predicted a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring

in the San Francisco Bay Area in 30 years (WGCEP 2015). More specific estimates of the

probabilities for different faults in the Bay Area are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2

WGCEP (2015) Estimates of 30-Year Probability (2014 to 2043) of a Magnitude 6.7 or Greater Earthquake

Fault

Probability (percent)

Hayward-Rodgers Creek 32

N. San Andreas 33

Calaveras 25

Green Valley 7

San Gregorio 6

Greenville 6

Mount Diablo Thrust 4

6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

During a major earthquake, strong to violent ground shaking is expected to occur at the project

site. Strong ground shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that

associated with soil liquefaction,2 lateral spreading,3 and seismic densification4. Each of these

conditions has been evaluated based on our literature review, field investigation and analysis, and

is discussed in this section.

2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged), cohesionless soil experiences a temporary loss of

strength because of the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during cyclic loading such as those induced by earthquake. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sand.

3 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has formed within an

underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial blocks are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces.

4 Seismic densification (also referred to as Differential Compaction) is a phenomenon in which non-saturated,

cohesionless soil is densified by earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement.


6.1 Liquefaction

When a saturated soil with little to no cohesion liquefies during a major earthquake, it experiences

a temporary loss of strength as a result of a transient rise in pore water pressure generated by

strong ground motions. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing,

ground fissures, and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction.

The site is not mapped within a liquefaction hazard zone.

Our liquefaction evaluation was performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the

1996 NCEER and the 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on the Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance

of Soils (Youd and Idriss, 2001) using a site-specific MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGAM) of

0.743 times gravity (g) and a high groundwater level at 17 feet bgs. Thin layers (less than one

foot thick) of potentially-liquefiable sand were encountered in CPT-1. Using the Tokimatsu and

Seed (1987) method for evaluating earthquake-induced liquefaction settlement, we estimate

ground surface settlements from liquefaction could be up to ½ inch. Because the liquefiable

layers encountered at the site are not continuous and the site is relatively flat, we conclude the

potential for lateral spreading at the site is low.

6.2 Seismic Densification

Seismic densification can also occur during strong ground shaking in loose, clean granular

deposits above the water table, resulting in ground surface settlement. The majority of layers

subject to potential seismic densification are above the bottom of the basement slab. We

conclude the potential for seismic densification within the building footprint is low. We anticipate

that up to ¾ inch of seismic densification settlement could occur outside of the building footprint.

6.3 Fault Rupture

Historically, ground surface fault ruptures closely follow the traces of geologically young faults.

The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zoning Act, and no active or potentially active faults exist on the site. In a seismically active area,

the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed;

however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure is

low.


7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of our investigation and engineering analyses, we conclude the proposed

retrofit is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations provided

herein are incorporated into the project design and construction. Our discussion and conclusions

regarding these and other geotechnical issues are discussed in this section.

7.1 Groundwater

The groundwater level at the site has been measured at a depth of about 19 feet bgs. However,

the groundwater elevation is likely to fluctuate seasonally and may be influenced my several

factors, including climate change. We conclude a design high groundwater depth of 17 feet bgs

should be used in design. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered in footing

excavations.

7.2 Foundations and Settlement

The building is supported on shallow foundations. Beneath the tower, the building is supported

on interconnected grid footings that bear about 2½ to 4¼ feet below the existing building slab.

The elevator pits in the tower footprint bear at depths between 8¾ to 12 feet below the existing

basement slab. The remainder of the building footprint is supported on interior isolated footings

and continuous perimeter footings bearing about two feet beneath the top of existing basement

slab. The isolated footings are generally about 4½ to 9 feet square; the continuous perimeter

footings are about 3 to 4 feet wide. The interconnected grid footings are generally about 5 to 5½

feet wide. The top of basement slab is shown at Elevation 26’ 3-3/8” (datum unknown). The top

of basement slab is shown at about 6½ feet below the ground surface; therefore, the bottoms

of footings are generally between 8½ to 10¾ feet bgs and14½ to 18½ feet bgs at elevator pits.

Where the building is supported 8½ feet below the ground surface, the closest exploration point

(Boring B-3) indicates that the Merritt Formation extends from about 3 to about 26½ feet beneath

street grades. Where the building is supported between 10¾ feet to 18 feet below street grades

(beneath the tower footprint), the closest exploration points (CPT-1, B-1, and CPT-5) indicate the

Merritt Foundation extends from about 9 to 27 feet below ground surface. We conclude the

building foundations bear on native dense to very dense Merritt Formation silty and clayey sand.

The Merritt formation at these depths is strong and only slightly compressible under the building

loads. We understand the existing foundations are performing adequately under the current static

loads. The design bearing pressures of the existing foundations were not shown in the


construction drawings, however, we do not anticipate any additional settlement of the existing

footings under the current loading. However, new loads applied to foundations will cause

additional settlement.

Based on the loads provided by Miyamoto International, Inc., we understand the seismic

strengthening of the building may impose foundation loads between 7,400 to 10,600 pounds per

square foot (psf) at perimeter wall footings, 3,800 to 5,200 psf at column spread footings, and

9,300 to 10,700 psf at the grid footings beneath the tower. We conclude that new static and total

loads (including wind and seismic) can be supported on existing footings or a combination of new

and existing footings. We understand the design team is considering micropiles to resist

overturning loads.

7.2.1 Shallow Foundations

Foundations bearing on the native dense to very dense Merritt Sand have a high ultimate bearing

capacity. We conclude the existing footings can be checked for an allowable bearing pressure of

8,500 psf for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase for total loads, including wind and/or

seismic loads. New footings bearing on Merritt Sand may be designed for an allowable bearing

pressure of 8,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase

for total loads, including wind and/or seismic loads. This bearing pressure corresponds to

foundation settlements of about ½ to 1 inch. The settlement of existing footings under the

existing building load has already occurred; any increase in load on these footings will cause

additional settlement.

Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressures acting against the vertical

faces of the footings and friction along the base of the footings. Lateral resistance may be

calculated using an allowable equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) above

water and 150 pcf below the water table, using the design high groundwater level of 17 feet

below street grade. The upper foot of soil should be ignored unless confined by a concrete slab

or pavement. Allowable frictional resistance can be computed along the base of foundations

using an allowable friction coefficient of 0.30. The passive and frictional resistances include a

factor of safety of 1.5 and may be used in combination without reduction.

7.2.2 Micropiles

Micropiles consist of small-diameter (typically 6- to 12-inch-diameter), drilled, concrete- or grout-

filled shafts with steel bars or pipes embedded in the concrete or grout. Micropiles develop their

resistance from friction between the perimeter of the shaft and the surrounding soil. The capacity


of micropiles will vary depending on the installation procedure used by the specialty contractor.

For budgetary and cost-estimating purposes, an allowable skin friction between the Merritt Sand

and a well-constructed and post-grouted micropile can be assumed to be about 1,600 pounds

per square foot (psf). The Merritt Sand likely only extends to a depth of 26 to 27 feet beneath

sidewalk grade, where it is underlain by interbedded sand and clay layers. The allowable skin

friction in the soil underlying the Merritt Sand can be assumed to be about 1,000 psf. These

allowable friction values have a factor of safety of about 2.0 and assume that the micropiles will

be post grouted. For total load conditions, lower factors of safety can be used--typical factors of

safety under a design level and maximum credible earthquake are 1.5 and 1.1, respectively.

Higher friction values may be obtained depending on the techniques used by the contractor and

the results of compression/pullout tests. Micropiles should be spaced at least four shaft

diameters or four feet apart, whichever is greater. The actual bond strength should be

determined by the specialty contractor. Because the micropiles will be permanent, we

recommend they be double corrosion protected, as appropriate. Because of limited headroom

constraints we recommend that specialty contractors be consulted to review the site conditions

and constraints for their particular system.

7.2.3 Micropile Load Testing

For micropiles, we recommend load tests be performed to confirm the axial compression and

tension pile capacities. We recommend at least 10 percent of the micropiles be tested, with a

minimum of one load test be performed for each proposed production micropile installation

methodology (i.e. rig type, predrilling depth and diameter, micropile length, etc.). The test

micropile locations should be selected by us in conjunction with the project structural engineer.

Due to space constraints the load tests can be performed in tension; the tension tests should be

performed in accordance with the current ASTM D3689. Equipment used for the test (load frame,

jacks, and reaction piles) should be capable of applying at least 2 times the ultimate design

capacity of the micropiles. The load tests should be performed to confirm the ultimate design

load and will be interpreted using accepted criteria per the 2019 CBC to determine the ultimate

capacities of the micropiles.

7.2.4 Micropile Installation Work Plan

A work plan describing the proposed installation equipment and methodology, including, but not

limited to, predrilling depth, diameter of auger used for predrilling, micropile diameter, micropile

length, and micropile embedment, as well as the proposed micropile load test set-up and

procedure should be submitted to Langan for review and approval at least two weeks prior to the

micropile load test programs. The work plan should include a site plan and a drawing showing


the layout of the load test set up. Following the completion of micropile load tests, we will require

at least three working days to review and evaluate the load test results and propose

recommendations for production micropile installation.

Additional micropile load tests will be required if, during production micropile installation, the

equipment or installation procedure deviates from the approved work plan.

7.3 Fill Placement and Compaction

Fill placement at the site will be limited to backfill of excavations for micropile brackets at the

existing footings. We anticipate excavated on-site soil, will generally be acceptable for reuse as

backfill. Organic matter or rocks larger than three inches in greatest dimension, if present, should

be removed from the soil prior to its use as fill or backfill. Any imported fill should be non-

hazardous, free of organic matter, contain no rocks or lumps larger than three inches in greatest

dimension, have a low expansion potential (defined by a liquid limit of less than 40 and plasticity

index lower than 12), non-corrosive, and approved by Langan.

On-site and imported soil used as backfill should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum

moisture content, placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness, and

compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.5 Where used, imported sand containing

less than 10 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) and aggregate base should be

compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

Samples of proposed import fill materials should be submitted to Langan for approval at least

three business days prior to use at the site. Prior to importing fill to the site, the contractor should

provide analytical test results or other suitable environmental documentation to the project

environmental consultant for approval. A bulk sample of approved fill should be provided to the

geotechnical engineer at least three working days before use at the site so a compaction curve

can be prepared.

If new footings are constructed, the subgrade should consist of native dense Merritt Sand. If

loose soil or non-engineered fill is encountered at footing subgrade, it should be over-excavated

and replaced with lean concrete. If loose soil or non-engineered fill is encountered in areas to

5 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density

of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557 laboratory compaction procedure.


receive fill or other improvements, including at-grade portions of the floor slab, it should be

scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture

content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

7.4 Temporary Excavations

If micropiles are installed, we anticipate temporary excavations will need to be made around the

existing footings to attach the micropile brackets to the existing footings. If shallow foundations

are constructed, we anticipate temporary excavations will be made for the footing construction.

We anticipate the soil to be excavated will consist of fill or dense to very dense sand, which can

be excavated using conventional earth-moving equipment. Excavations that will be deeper than

five feet and will be entered by workers will need to be shored or sloped in accordance with the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards (29 CFR Part 1926). The

contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal regulations for temporary

shoring, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

Temporary cuts in sandy soil (including fill) should be inclined no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to

vertical), provided that they are above groundwater and are not surcharged by equipment or

building material. Because the upper soil includes clean sand, localized sloughing could occur.

Forms may be required to support excavation sidewalls and reduce caving in the cohesionless

sand encountered at the site. We do not anticipate the groundwater will be encountered in

excavations, however if groundwater is encountered, excavations will need to be dewatered prior

to placement of backfill.

Excavations should bottom above a 30-degree line drawn down from the bottom of an existing

footing in order to maintain bearing of existing footings. Any excavations made immediately

adjacent to existing footings should not extend below the bottom of existing footings. In addition,

excavations made adjacent to existing footings should be limited in extent such that only a portion

of the footing is exposed. The contractor should prepare an excavation workplan for our review.

7.5 Soil Corrosivity

A corrosivity evaluation was performed on select soil samples by Cerco Analytical and the results

of its study are presented in Appendix C. The results of the analysis indicate the fill at the site is

classified as corrosive. Unprotected steel elements placed below grade will corrode; protection

of foundations, utilities, and other structural elements, which extend into this layer will be

required. For more detail, see the brief recommendations by Cerco Analytical in Appendix D.

A corrosion consultant should be retained to provide project specific corrosion recommendations.


7.6 Construction Monitoring

We recommend the condition of the buildings be photographed and surveyed prior to the start

of construction and monitored periodically during construction. A thorough crack survey of the

buildings should be performed prior to the start of construction.

8.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE-SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA

We expect the site will experience strong ground shaking during a major earthquake on any of

the nearby faults. To develop site-specific response spectra in accordance with ASCE 7-16/ASCE

41-17, we performed probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic analysis to

develop smooth, site-specific horizontal spectra for four levels of shaking, namely:

Basic Safety Earthquake (BSE)-2N or Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake

(MCER), which corresponds to the lesser of two percent probability of exceedance in 50

years (2,475-year return period) or 84th percentile of the controlling deterministic event,

both considering the maximum direction as described in ASCE 7-16

BSE-1N or Design Earthquake (DE), which corresponds to 2/3 of the MCER

BSE-2E, which corresponds to 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (975-year

return period), not to exceed BSE-2N

BSE-1E, which corresponds to 20 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (225-year

return period), not to exceed BSE-1N

The BSE-2N is defined as the lesser of the risk-targeted probabilistic spectrum having 2 percent

probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475 year return period) or the 84th percentile deterministic

event on the governing fault both in the maximum direction with appropriate checks. The BSE-

1N spectrum is defined as two-thirds of the BSE-2N, however, cannot be taken as less than 80%

of Sa determined in Section 11.4.6. The BSE-2N cannot be taken as less than 1½ times the BSE-

1N.

The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed using the computer code

EZFRISK 8.06 (Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2015). This approach is based on the probabilistic seismic

hazard model developed by Cornell (1973) and McGuire (1976). Our analysis modeled the faults

in the Bay Area as linear sources and earthquake activities were assigned to the faults based on

historical and geologic data.


Details of our analyses are presented in Appendix D. The recommended horizontal BSE-2N

(MCER), BSE-1N (DE), BSE-2E, and BSE-1E spectra are shown on Figure 5, respectively. Digitized

values of the recommended spectra are presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6

Recommended Horizontal BSE-2N (MCER), BSE-1N (DE), BSE-2E, and BSE-1E Spectra

Period (seconds)

Sa for 5 percent damping ratio

BSE-2N (MCER) (g’s)

BSE-1N (DE) (g’s)

BSE-2E (g’s)

BSE-1E (g’s)

0.01 0.885 0.590 0.885 0.590

0.10 1.398 0.932 1.398 0.932

0.20 1.883 1.255 1.883 1.255

0.30 2.139 1.426 2.139 1.413

0.40 2.187 1.458 2.187 1.370

0.50 2.111 1.407 2.111 1.289

0.60 1.909 1.273 1.909 1.140

0.75 1.705 1.137 1.705 0.981

1.00 1.633 1.089 1.433 0.795

1.50 1.084 0.722 0.916 0.495

2.00 0.767 0.511 0.635 0.335

3.00 0.472 0.315 0.377 0.190

4.00 0.319 0.213 0.253 0.130

5.00 0.232 0.155 0.181 0.094

6.00 0.177 0.118 0.136 0.069

7.00 0.141 0.094 0.108 0.052

8.00 0.124 0.083 0.088 0.041

9.00 0.098 0.065 0.072 0.033

10.00 0.079 0.053 0.061 0.029

Because the site-specific procedure was used to determine the recommended response spectra,

the corresponding values of SMS, SM1, SDS and SD1 per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16 should be used

as shown in Table 7.


TABLE 7

Design Spectral Acceleration Values

Parameter

Spectral Acceleration Value (g’s)

SMS 1.969

SM1 1.633

SDS 1.312

SD1 1.089

9.0 SERVICES DURING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE

During final design we should be retained to consult with the design team as geotechnical

questions arise. Technical specifications and design drawings should incorporate Langan’s

recommendations. When authorized, Langan will assist the design team in preparing

specification sections related to geotechnical issues such as foundation installation and testing,

temporary shoring and excavation support, earthwork, and backfill. Langan should also, when

authorized, review the project plans, as well as Contractor submittals relating to materials and

construction procedures for geotechnical work, to check that the designs incorporate the intent

of our recommendations.

Langan has investigated and interpreted the site subsurface conditions and developed the

foundation design recommendations contained herein, and is therefore best suited to perform

quality assurance observation and testing of geotechnical-related work during construction. The

work requiring quality assurance confirmation and/or special inspections per the Building Code

includes, but is not limited to, installation and testing of foundations, earthwork, backfill, and

excavation support. In fulfillment of these duties, during construction we should observe the

installation of the indicator/test deep foundation elements, load testing, production deep

foundation installation, installation of temporary shoring, and excavation. We should also observe

any fill placement and perform field density tests to check that adequate fill compaction has been

achieved.

Recognizing that construction observation is the final stage of geotechnical evaluation, quality

assurance observation during construction by Langan is necessary to confirm the design


assumptions and design elements, to maintain our continuity of responsibility on this project, and

allow us to make changes to our recommendations, as necessary. The foundation system and

general geotechnical construction methods recommended herein are predicated upon Langan

reviewing the final design and providing construction observation services for the owner. Should

Langan not be retained for these services, we cannot assume the role of geotechnical engineer

of record, and the entity providing the final design and construction observation services must

serve as the engineer of record.

10.0 LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report result from our interpretation of

the geotechnical conditions existing at the site inferred from a limited number of borings as well

as structural information provided by MKA. Actual subsurface conditions could vary.

Recommendations provided are dependent upon one another and no recommendation should

be followed independent of the others. Any proposed changes in structures, depths of

excavation, or their locations should be brought to Langan’s attention as soon as possible so that

we can determine whether such changes affect our recommendations. Information on

subsurface strata and groundwater levels shown on the logs represent conditions encountered

only at the locations indicated and at the time of investigation. If different conditions are

encountered during construction, they should immediately be brought to Langan’s attention for

evaluation, as they may affect our recommendations.

This report has been prepared to assist the Owner, architect, and structural engineer in the design

process and is only applicable to the design of the specific project identified. The information in

this report cannot be utilized or depended on by engineers or contractors who are involved in

evaluations or designs of facilities on adjacent properties which are beyond the limits of that

which is the specific subject of this report.

Environmental issues (such as permitting or potentially contaminated soil and groundwater) are

outside the scope of this study and should be addressed in a separate evaluation.

REFERENCES

2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, (2015). “UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system,” U.S. Geological Survey 2015–3009, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153009.

Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (1996). Empirical Ground Motion Models, Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J., and Kamai, R. (2014). “Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions.” Earthquake Spectra, Volume 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1055.

ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

ASCE 7-16 Supplement No. 1 Proposal Form (2018). ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 21.2.2 and the commentary to Sections 21.2.2 and 21.3. Revised 9 April.

Boore, D. M., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G. M. (2014). “NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, Volume 30, No. 3, pp. 1057-1685.

Bray J. D., Rodriguez-Marek, A. and Gillie, J. L. (2009). “Design Ground Motions Near Active Faults.” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 1, March.

California Division of Mines and Geology (1996). "Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California." DMG Open-File Report 96-08.

California Division of Mines and Geology (2008). "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California." Special Publication 117A.

California Geological Survey (2003). "State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Oakland West Quadrangle, Official Map."

Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2014). “NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear acceleration response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1087-1115.

Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum D. and Wills, C. J. (2003). "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps June 2003," California Geological Survey.

Chiou, B. S.-J. and Youngs, R. R. (2014). “Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1117-1153.

Cornell, C. A. (1968). "Engineering seismic risk analysis." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58(5).

Fugro Consultants, Inc. (2015). “EZFRISK computer program.” Version 8.00.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153009

REFERENCES (Continued)

Kempton, J.J. and Stewart, J.P. (2006). “Prediction Equations for Significant Duration of Earthquake Ground Motions Considering Site and Near-Source Effects.” Earthquake Spectra, Volume 22, No. 4, pp. 985-1013.

Lienkaemper, J. J. (1992). "Map of recently active traces of the Hayward Fault, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California." Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2196.

Mazzoni, S., Hachem, M., and Sinclair, M. (2012). “An Improved Approach for Ground Motion Suite Selection and Modification for Use in Response History Analysis.” Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

McGuire, R. K. (1976). "FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis." U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 76-67.

Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W. (1990) Geology of California, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rodgers/Pacific (1991). Structure Contour Map on Top of Bedrock. July.

Shahi, S. K. and Baker, J. W. (2013). “NGA-West2 Models for Ground-Motion Directionality.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. PEER 2013/10, May.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed H. B. (1987). "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand due to Earthquake Shaking." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.

Toppozada, T. R. and Borchardt G. (1998). “Re-Evaluation of the 1836 “Hayward Fault” and the 1838 San Andreas Fault earthquakes.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 88(1), 140-159.

Townley, S. D. and Allen, M. W. (1939). “Descriptive catalog of earthquakes of the Pacific coast of the United States 1769 to 1928.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 29(1).

Treadwell & Rollo (2008). “Geotechnical Investigation, 1633 Harrison Street, Oakland, California”. 29 August.

Wells, D. L. and Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). “New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974-1002.

Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). “Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 91(1312).

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) (2008). “The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2.” Open File Report 2007-1437.

Youngs, R. R., and Coppersmith, K. J. (1985). “Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75( ), 939-964.

FIGURES

Project Dra wing T itle

SITELOCATION MAP

Pa th: \\la nga n.com \da ta \O AK\da ta 6\750659601\Project Da ta \ArcGIS\M XD\Geotech_Figures\Site Loca tion M a p.m xd

Project No.

Da te

Sca le

Dra wn By

Figure7506596012/20/2020

JNE

.

Notes:1. Site loca ted in the O a kla nd West USGS Qua dra ngle.2. T opogra phic b a sem a p is provided through La nga n’s Esri ArcGIS softwa re licensing a nd ArcGIS online,Na tiona l Geogra phic Society, i-cub ed.

1

1,000 0 1,000

SCALE IN FEET

501 14th Street, 3rd FloorO a kla nd, CA 94612-1420

T : 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7701 www.la nga n.com

La nga n Engineering & Environm enta l Services, Inc.La nga n Engineering, Environm enta l, Surveying a nd

La ndsca pe Architecture, D.P.C.La nga n Interna tiona l, LLC

Collectively known a s La nga n

1 " = 1,000 '

© 2020 Langan

LegendSite b ounda ry

O AKLAND

1621 HARRISONSTREET

CALIFO RNIAALAM EDA CO UNT Y

SITE

Project Drawing Title

SITE PLAN

Path: \\langan.com\data\OAK\data6\750659601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Geotech_Figures\Site Plan 2.mxd

Project No.

Date

Scale

Drawn By

Figure

4/7/2020

JNE

)O

)O

)O

)O

)O

)O@A

@A

@A

CPT-1

CPT-1

CPT-2

CPT-3

CPT-4

CPT-5 B-1

B-2

B-3

.

Notes:1. Aerial imagery provided by Langan's subscription to Nearmap.com.Aerial flown 2/16/2020.2. All features shown are approximate.

2

25 0 25

SCALE IN FEET

Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying and

Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.Langan International, LLC

Collectively known as Langan

1 " = 40 '

© 20

20 La

ngan

Legend)O Approximate location of CPT by Langan, 2020

@AApproximate location of geotechnical boring byTreadwell & Rollo, Inc., June 2008

)OApproximate location of CPT byTreadwell & Rollo, Inc., June 2008Site boundary

CALIFORNIA

750659601501 14th Street, 3rd FloorOakland, CA 94612-1420

T: 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7701 www.langan.com

OAKLAND

1621 HARRISONSTREET

ALAMEDA COUNTY

17th Street

Harri

son S

treet


MAP OF MAJOR FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE

EPICENTERS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Path: \\langan.com\data\OAK\data6\750659601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Geotech_Figures\Fault Map.mxd Date: 2/20/2020 User: jenzminger Time: 2:06:48 PM

© 20

20 La

ngan

Project No.

Date

Scale

Drawn By

Figure

2/20/2020

JNE

PA C I F I CPA C I F I CO C E A NO C E A N

SITE

Monterey San BenitoFresno

Merced

Santa Cruz

Santa Clara

San Mateo

Stanislaus

Alameda

San JoaquinContra Costa

Marin

Calaveras

Solano

SacramentoSonoma

NapaAmador

Yolo

Grea

tVa

lley 9

GreatValley 8

Great Valley4b

Quien Sabe

Mount Diablo Thrust

West Napa

Great Valley 5

Rinconada

Rodgers Creek

Great Valley 7

Monte Vista-Shannon/Be rrocal

Point Reyes

Greenville Connected

Green Valley

Zayante-Vergeles

San Andreas

Monterey Bay-Tularcitos

Ortigalita

Total CalaverasSan Gregorio ConnectedHayward

.

3

0 2010

Miles

Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying and

Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.Langan International LLC


1 '' = 20 miles

LegendCounty BoundaryFault

Earthquake EpicenterMagnitude

Magnitude 5 to 5.9Magnitude 6 to 6.9Magnitude 7 to 7.4Magnitude 7.5 to 8

Notes: 1. Quaternary fault data displayed are based on a generalized version of USGS

Quaternary Fault and fold database, 2010. For cartographic purposes only. 2. The Earthquake Epicenter (Magnitude) data is provided by the U.S Geological

Survey (USGS) and is current through 08/26/2014. 3. Basemap hillshade and County boundaries provided by USGS and California

Department of Transportation. 4. Map displayed in California State Coordinate System, California (Teale) Albers,

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), Meters.

CALIFORNIA

750659601501 14th Street, 3rd FloorOakland, CA 94612-1420

T: 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7701 www.langan.com

OAKLAND

1621 HARRISONSTREET

ALAMEDA COUNTY

I Not felt by people, except under especially favorable circumstances. However, dizziness or nausea may be experienced.

Sometimes birds and animals are uneasy or disturbed. Trees, structures, liquids, bodies of water may sway gently, and doors may swing very slowly.

II Felt indoors by a few people, especially on upper floors of multi-story buildings, and by sensitive or nervous persons.

As in Grade I, birds and animals are disturbed, and trees, structures, liquids and bodies of water may sway. Hanging objects swing,

especially if they are delicately suspended.

III Felt indoors by several people, usually as a rapid vibration that may not be recognized as an earthquake at first. Vibration is similar to that of a light, or lightly loaded trucks, or heavy trucks some distance away. Duration may be estimated in some cases.

Movements may be appreciable on upper levels of tall structures. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.

IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by a few. Awakens a few individuals, particularly light sleepers, but frightens no one except those apprehensive from previous experience. Vibration like that due to passing of heavy, or heavily loaded trucks. Sensation like a heavy body striking building, or the falling of heavy objects inside.

Dishes, windows and doors rattle; glassware and crockery clink and clash. Walls and house frames creak, especially if intensity is in the

upper range of this grade. Hanging objects often swing. Liquids in open vessels are disturbed slightly. Stationary automobiles rock

noticeably.

V Felt indoors by practically everyone, outdoors by most people. Direction can often be estimated by those outdoors. Awakens many, or most sleepers. Frightens a few people, with slight excitement; some persons run outdoors.

Buildings tremble throughout. Dishes and glassware break to some extent. Windows crack in some cases, but not generally. Vases and small or unstable objects overturn in many instances, and a few fall. Hanging objects and doors swing generally or considerably. Pictures knock against walls, or swing out of place. Doors and shutters open or close abruptly. Pendulum clocks stop, or run fast or slow.

Small objects move, and furnishings may shift to a slight extent. Small amounts of liquids spill from well-filled open containers. Trees and bushes shake slightly.

VI Felt by everyone, indoors and outdoors. Awakens all sleepers. Frightens many people; general excitement, and some persons run outdoors.

Persons move unsteadily. Trees and bushes shake slightly to moderately. Liquids are set in strong motion. Small bells in churches and schools ring. Poorly built buildings may be damaged. Plaster falls in small amounts. Other plaster cracks somewhat. Many dishes and

glasses, and a few windows break. Knickknacks, books and pictures fall. Furniture overturns in many instances. Heavy furnishings move.

VII Frightens everyone. General alarm, and everyone runs outdoors.

People find it difficult to stand. Persons driving cars notice shaking. Trees and bushes shake moderately to strongly. Waves form on

ponds, lakes and streams. Water is muddied. Gravel or sand stream banks cave in. Large church bells ring. Suspended objects quiver. Damage is negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary buildings; considerable in

poorly built or badly designed buildings, adobe houses, old walls (especially where laid up without mortar), spires, etc. Plaster and some stucco fall. Many windows and some furniture break. Loosened brickwork and tiles shake down. Weak chimneys break at the roofline.

Cornices fall from towers and high buildings. Bricks and stones are dislodged. Heavy furniture overturns. Concrete irrigation ditches are

considerably damaged.

VIII General fright, and alarm approaches panic.

Persons driving cars are disturbed. Trees shake strongly, and branches and trunks break off (especially palm trees). Sand and mud erupts in small amounts. Flow of springs and wells is temporarily and sometimes permanently changed. Dry wells renew flow. Temperatures of spring and well waters varies. Damage slight in brick structures built especially to withstand earthquakes; considerable

in ordinary substantial buildings, with some partial collapse; heavy in some wooden houses, with some tumbling down. Panel walls

break away in frame structures. Decayed pilings break off. Walls fall. Solid stone walls crack and break seriously. Wet grounds and steep slopes crack to some extent. Chimneys, columns, monuments and factory stacks and towers twist and fall. Very heavy furniture moves

conspicuously or overturns.

IX Panic is general.

Ground cracks conspicuously. Damage is considerable in masonry structures built especially to withstand earthquakes; great in other masonry buildings - some collapse in large part. Some wood frame houses built especially to withstand earthquakes are thrown out of

plumb, others are shifted wholly off foundations. Reservoirs are seriously damaged and underground pipes sometimes break.

X Panic is general.

Ground, especially when loose and wet, cracks up to widths of several inches; fissures up to a yard in width run parallel to canal and

stream banks. Landsliding is considerable from river banks and steep coasts. Sand and mud shifts horizontally on beaches and flat

land. Water level changes in wells. Water is thrown on banks of canals, lakes, rivers, etc. Dams, dikes, embankments are seriously damaged. Well-built wooden structures and bridges are severely damaged, and some collapse. Dangerous cracks develop in excellent

brick walls. Most masonry and frame structures, and their foundations are destroyed. Railroad rails bend slightly. Pipe lines buried in earth tear apart or are crushed endwise. Open cracks and broad wavy folds open in cement pavements and asphalt road surfaces.

XI Panic is general.

Disturbances in ground are many and widespread, varying with the ground material. Broad fissures, earth slumps, and land slips develop in soft, wet ground. Water charged with sand and mud is ejected in large amounts. Sea waves of significant magnitude may develop. Damage is severe to wood frame structures, especially near shock centers, great to dams, dikes and embankments, even at

long distances. Few if any masonry structures remain standing. Supporting piers or pillars of large, well-built bridges are wrecked. Wooden bridges that "give" are less affected. Railroad rails bend greatly and some thrust endwise. Pipe lines buried in earth are put

completely out of service.

XII Panic is general.

Damage is total, and practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Disturbances in the ground are great and varied, and numerous shearing cracks develop. Landslides, rock falls, and slumps in river banks are numerous and extensive. Large

rock masses are wrenched loose and torn off. Fault slips develop in firm rock, and horizontal and vertical offset displacements are notable. Water channels, both surface and underground, are disturbed and modified greatly. Lakes are dammed, new waterfalls are

produced, rivers are deflected, etc. Surface waves are seen on ground surfaces. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects are

thrown upward into the air.


jlafcfba=

jbo`îif=

fkqbkpfqv=p`îb

Path: \\langan.com\data\OAK\data6\750659601\Project Data\ArcGIS\MXD\Geotech_Figures\Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.mxd

Project No.

Date

Figure

2/20/20204

Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying and

Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.

Langan International, LLC


© 2

02

0 L

an

ga

n

CALIFORNIA

750659601

501 14th Street, 3rd Floor

Oakland, CA 94612-1420

T: 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7701 www.langan.com

OAKLAND

NSON=eôofplk

pqobbq

ALAMEDA COUNTY

Notes 1. Damping Ratio = 5%

2. Estimated VS30 = 302 m/s

Project Figure Title Project No. Figure No.

750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:

ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA KLW

© 2019 Langan

LANGAN1621 HARRISON STREET RECOMMENDED BSE-2N , BSE-

1N , BSE-2E, AND BSE-1E

SPECTRA5

LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

501 14th Street, Third Floor


T: 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7001 www.langan.com CITY OF OAKLAND

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

BSE-2N

BSE-1N

BSE-2E

BSE-1E

APPENDIX A

LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TEST

GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES

2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302

www.greggdrilling.com

January 8, 2020 Langan Attn: Katrina Watkins Subject: CPT Site Investigation 1621 Harrison Street Oakland, California GREGG Project Number: D205003MA Dear Ms. Watkins: The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed:

1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) 2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) 3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) 4 UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST) 5 Groundwater Sampling (GWS) 6 Soil Sampling (SS) 7 Vapor Sampling (VS) 8 Pressuremeter Testing (PMT) 9 Vane Shear Testing (VST) 10 Dilatometer Testing (DMT)

A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 708-2036. Sincerely, GREGG Drilling, LLC. Tim Boyd CPT Manager, Gregg Drilling, LLC.

http://www.greggdrilling.com/





Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1-

CPT Sounding Identification

Date Termination Depth (feet)

Depth of Groundwater Samples (feet)

Depth of Soil Samples (feet)

Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (feet)

CPT1 01/03/2020 75.46 47.41 and 75.46





Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997 Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org


http://www.ce.gatech.edu/%7Egeosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html

http://www.ce.gatech.edu/%7Egeosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html

Revised 02/05/2015 i

Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)

Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests

(CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system,

Figure CPT.

The cone takes measurements of tip resistance (qc),

sleeve resistance (fs), and penetration pore water

pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or

5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly

continuous profile. CPT data reduction and basic

interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on‐

site decision making. The above mentioned

parameters are stored electronically for further

analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are

performed in accordance with revised ASTM standards

(D 5778‐12).

The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located

directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location. A new

saturated filter element is used on each sounding to

measure both penetration pore pressures as well as

measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT). Prior

to each test, the filter element is fully saturated with

oil under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy.

When the sounding is completed, the test hole is

backfilled according to client specifications. If grouting

is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a

hollow tremie pipe with a “knock out” plug to the

termination depth of the CPT hole. Grout is then

pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled

from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to

the site is therefore minimized.

Figure CPT

Revised 02/05/2015 ii

Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications

Dimensions

Cone base area 15 cm2

Sleeve surface area 225 cm2

Cone net area ratio 0.80

Specifications

Cone load cell

Full scale range 180 kN (20 tons)

Overload capacity 150%

Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf)

Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf)

Sleeve load cell

Full scale range 31 kN (3.5 tons)


Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf)

Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf)

Pore pressure transducer

Full scale range 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi)


Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi)

Note: The repeatability during field use will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion,

maintenance and zero load stability.

Revised 2/05/2015 i

Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the

report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by

Robertson (1990). Typical plots display SBT based on the non‐normalized charts of Robertson et al

(1986). For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of

Robertson (1990) which can be displayed as SBTn, upon request. The report also includes

spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and

various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive

review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson

(Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for

geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. does not warranty

the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the

software and does not assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user

should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. Some

interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress.

An estimate of the in‐situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT

results, but should be verified by the user.

A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths

referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface.

Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2. In these

situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be

used to infer the correct soil behavior type.

Figure SBT (After Robertson et al., 1986) – Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots

ZONE SBT 12

3456789

101112

Sensitive, fine grainedOrganic materials ClaySilty clay to clayClayey silt to silty claySandy silt to clayey siltSilty sand to sandy siltSand to silty sand Sand

Gravely sand to sand Very stiff fine grained*Sand to clayey sand*

*over consolidated or cemented

Revised 02/05/2015 i

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation Gregg uses a proprietary CPT interpretation and plotting software. The software takes the CPT data and

performs basic interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters

using current published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson

and Powell (1997). The interpretation is presented in tabular format using MS Excel. The interpretations

are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg does not

warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the

software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The user

should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.

The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation. Many of the empirical

correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending

on soil type, geologic origin and other factors. The software uses ‘default’ values that have been

selected to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameters.

Input:

1 Units for display (Imperial or metric) (atm. pressure, pa = 0.96 tsf or 0.1 MPa)

2 Depth interval to average results (ft or m). Data are collected at either 0.02 or 0.05m and

can be averaged every 1, 3 or 5 intervals.

3 Elevation of ground surface (ft or m)

4 Depth to water table, zw (ft or m) – input required

5 Net area ratio for cone, a (default to 0.80)

6 Relative Density constant, CDr (default to 350)

7 Young’s modulus number for sands, α (default to 5)

8 Small strain shear modulus number

a. for sands, SG (default to 180 for SBTn 5, 6, 7)

b. for clays, CG (default to 50 for SBTn 1, 2, 3 & 4)

9 Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt (default to 15)

10 Over Consolidation ratio number, kocr (default to 0.3)

11 Unit weight of water, (default to γw = 62.4 lb/ft3 or 9.81 kN/m3)

Column

1 Depth, z, (m) – CPT data is collected in meters

2 Depth (ft)

3 Cone resistance, qc (tsf or MPa)

4 Sleeve resistance, fs (tsf or MPa)

5 Penetration pore pressure, u (psi or MPa), measured behind the cone (i.e. u2)

6 Other – any additional data

7 Total cone resistance, qt (tsf or MPa) qt = qc + u (1‐a)

Revised 02/05/2015 ii

8 Friction Ratio, Rf (%) Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%

9 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT see note

10 Unit weight, γ (pcf or kN/m3) based on SBT, see note

11 Total overburden stress, σv (tsf) σvo = σ z

12 In‐situ pore pressure, uo (tsf) uo = γ w (z ‐ zw)

13 Effective overburden stress, σ'vo (tsf ) σ'vo = σvo ‐ uo

14 Normalized cone resistance, Qt1 Qt1= (qt ‐ σvo) / σ'vo

15 Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%) Fr = fs / (qt ‐ σvo) x 100%

16 Normalized Pore Pressure ratio, Bq Bq = u – uo / (qt ‐ σvo)

17 Soil Behavior Type (normalized), SBTn see note

18 SBTn Index, Ic see note

19 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic) see note

20 Estimated permeability, kSBT (cm/sec or ft/sec) see note

21 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft see note

22 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft see note

23 Estimated Relative Density, Dr, (%) see note

24 Estimated Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) see note

25 Estimated Young’s modulus, Es (tsf) see note

26 Estimated small strain Shear modulus, Go (tsf) see note

27 Estimated Undrained shear strength, su (tsf) see note

28 Estimated Undrained strength ratio su/σv’

29 Estimated Over Consolidation ratio, OCR see note

Notes:

1 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)

2 Unit weight, γ either constant at 119 pcf or based on Non‐normalized SBT (Lunne et al.,

1997 and table below)

3 Soil Behavior Type (Normalized), SBTn Lunne et al. (1997)

4 SBTn Index, Ic Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5

5 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic)

Qtn = ((qt ‐ σvo)/pa) (pa/(σvo)n and recalculate Ic, then iterate:

When Ic < 1.64, n = 0.5 (clean sand)

When Ic > 3.30, n = 1.0 (clays)

When 1.64 < Ic < 3.30, n = (Ic – 1.64)0.3 + 0.5

Iterate until the change in n, ∆n < 0.01

Revised 02/05/2015 iii

6 Estimated permeability, kSBT based on Normalized SBTn (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)

7 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft Lunne et al. (1997)

60

a

N

)/p(qt

= 8.5

4.6

I1 c

8 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft (N1)60 = N60 CN,

where CN = (pa/σvo)0.5

9 Relative Density, Dr, (%) Dr2 = Qtn / CDr

Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9

10 Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) tan φ ' =

29.0'

qlog

68.2

1

vo

c

Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show’N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9

11 Young’s modulus, Es Es = α qt

Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9

12 Small strain shear modulus, Go

a. Go = SG (qt σ'vo pa)1/3 For SBTn 5, 6, 7

b. Go = CG qt For SBTn 1, 2, 3& 4

Show ‘N/A’ in zones 8 & 9

13 Undrained shear strength, su su = (qt ‐ σvo) / Nkt

Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8

14 Over Consolidation ratio, OCR OCR = kocr Qt1

Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8

The following updated and simplified SBT descriptions have been used in the software:

SBT Zones SBTn Zones

1 sensitive fine grained 1 sensitive fine grained

2 organic soil 2 organic soil

3 clay 3 clay

4 clay & silty clay 4 clay & silty clay

5 clay & silty clay

6 sandy silt & clayey silt

Revised 02/05/2015 iv

7 silty sand & sandy silt 5 silty sand & sandy silt

8 sand & silty sand 6 sand & silty sand

9 sand

10 sand 7 sand

11 very dense/stiff soil* 8 very dense/stiff soil*

12 very dense/stiff soil* 9 very dense/stiff soil*

*heavily overconsolidated and/or cemented

Track when soils fall with zones of same description and print that description (i.e. if soils fall

only within SBT zones 4 & 5, print ‘clays & silty clays’)

Revised 02/05/2015 v

Estimated Permeability (see Lunne et al., 1997)

SBTn Permeability (ft/sec) (m/sec)

1 3x 10‐8 1x 10‐8

2 3x 10‐7 1x 10‐7

3 1x 10‐9 3x 10‐10

4 3x 10‐8 1x 10‐8

5 3x 10‐6 1x 10‐6

6 3x 10‐4 1x 10‐4

7 3x 10‐2 1x 10‐2

8 3x 10‐6 1x 10‐6

9 1x 10‐8 3x 10‐9

Estimated Unit Weight (see Lunne et al., 1997)

SBT Approximate Unit Weight (lb/ft3) (kN/m3)

1 111.4 17.5

2 79.6 12.5

3 111.4 17.5

4 114.6 18.0

5 114.6 18.0

6 114.6 18.0

7 117.8 18.5

8 120.9 19.0

9 124.1 19.5

10 127.3 20.0

11 130.5 20.5

12 120.9 19.0

Revised 02.05.2015 i

Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT) Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals can be used to measure equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT). If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is conducted when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and recorded. Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of:

Equilibrium piezometric pressure

Phreatic Surface

In situ horizontal coefficient of

consolidation (ch)

In situ horizontal coefficient of

permeability (kh)

In order to correctly interpret the equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or the phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be monitored until it reaches equilibrium, Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred to as t100, the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated. A complete reference on pore pressure dissipation tests is presented by Robertson et al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997. A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests are summarized in Table 1.

Figure PPDT

CLIENT: LANGAN

Gregg Drilling, LLC


Total depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 1/3/20201621 HARRISON STREET - OAKLAND

CPT: CPT1

SITE:

FIELD REP: KATRINA WATKINS

SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty clay

5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to clayey

9. Very stiff fine grained

CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.22 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 1/8/2020, 2:31:07 PM 1

Project file: C:\Users\TimBoyd\Desktop\CPT DATA PROCESSING\205003MA\WORKING\2205003ma.cpt

CLIENT: LANGAN

Gregg Drilling, LLC


Total depth: 75.46 ft, Date: 1/3/20201621 HARRISON STREET - OAKLAND

CPT: CPT1

SITE:

FIELD REP: KATRINA WATKINS

SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty clay

5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to clayey

9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY

CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.22 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 1/8/2020, 2:31:07 PM 2

Project file: C:\Users\TimBoyd\Desktop\CPT DATA PROCESSING\205003MA\WORKING\2205003ma.cpt

Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:

GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation Test

CPT147.411621 HARRISON KATRINA

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Pore

Pre

ssur

e (p

si)

Time (seconds)

Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:

GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation Test

CPT175.461621 HARRISON KATRINA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Pore

Pre

ssur

e (p

si)

Time (seconds)

APPENDIX B

LOGS OF BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

27

23

11

14

51

49

TES

T G

EO

TEC

H L

OG

483

301.

GP

J T

R.G

DT

8/2

9/08

SP-SC

SPT

24

51212

17

SPT

6712

101821

S&H

SANDY CLAY (CL)olive, very stiff, wet, fine-grained sand

S&H

SPT

22

SPT

CLSPT

SC

CL

SC

SPS&H

32

very dense

SAND (SP)brown, dense, moist

SAND with CLAY (SP-SC)olive with orange mottles, medium dense, moist

wet

119

9

SANDY CLAY (CL)olive-brown with occasional red mottles, stiff,moistLL = 21, PI = 7; see Appendix B

51

11.8

CLAYEY SAND (SC)brown, medium dense, moist

2 inches asphalt over3 inches aggregate baseCLAYEY SAND (SC)brown with orange mottles, medium dense, moist

yellow-brown

5 715

LABORATORY TEST DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

122328

DE

PTH

(feet

)

S&H

LITH

OLO

GY

PAGE 1 OF 2Log of Boring B-11633 HARRISON STREET

Oakland, California

Project No.:

PROJECT:

1aFigure:

SAMPLESS

PT

N-V

alue

1

4833.01

Boring location:

Date started:

Drilling method:

K. Schmidt

Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches

She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q Ft

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test

Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

Blo

ws/

6"

1,700PP

151212

101215

9710

283250

Fine

s%

Date finished: 6/5/08

Sam

ple

Sam

pler

Type

Logged by:

Sampler:

See Site Plan, Figure 2

6/5/08

Hollow Stem Auger

Ground Surface Elevation: 35.5 feet2

Hammer type: Downhole Wireline

Sprague & Henwood (S&H), Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

193030

S&H121525

Fine

s%

3350/6"

TV

TV

2,600

1,800

Sam

pler

Type

Sam

ple

Blo

ws/

6"

SP

TN

-Val

ue1

LITH

OLO

GY

DE

PTH

(feet

)

1 S&H blowcounts converted to equivalent SPT blowcountsusing a factor of 0.6.

2 Elevation based on City of Oakland datum.

S&H

S&H

S&H

CL

SW-SC

CL

24

11

30/6"

36

SANDY CLAY (CL) (continued)

occasional sub-angular gravel up to 1/4 inch

stiff

SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL (SW-SC)red-brown, very dense, wet, fine- tocoarse-grained sand, sub-angular gravel up to 3/4inch

SANDY CLAY (CL)brown with orange mottles, stiff, wet

10910

PROJECT:

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

1bFigure:

LABORATORY TEST DATASAMPLES


Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q Ft

4833.01Project No.:

TES

T G

EO

TEC

H L

OG

483

301.

GP

J T

R.G

DT

8/2

9/08

1633 HARRISON STREETOakland, California

Boring terminated at a depth of 50 feet below groundsurface.Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater not measured.PP indicates pocket penetrometer.TV indicates Torvane.

Log of Boring B-1PAGE 2 OF 2

26

11

26

9

14

38

44

SC

TES

T G

EO

TEC

H L

OG

483

301.

GP

J T

R.G

DT

8/2

9/08

61

S&H

34

81214

S&H

142350

91113

121121331

7612

S&H

SP-SC

S&H

SP-SC

S&H

SPT

SPT

SPT

S&H

very dense

(6/5/08; 1:15 PM)SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL (SP-SC)brown, dense, wet, fine- to medium-grained sizesand, subangular gravel up to 1/2 inch

28

SAND with CLAY (SP-SC)olive-gray, dense, moist

43

7

13.8

13.5 121

olive-brown, medium dense, fine-grained sand

2 inches asphalt over4 inches aggregate baseCLAYEY SAND (SC)brown with orange, black and red mottles, mediumdense, moist

light brown with orange mottles, looseLL = 20, PI = 7; see Appendix B

occasional red-brown mottles, medium dense

122638

122833



778

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30


Oakland, California

Project No.:

PROJECT:

4833.01 2aFigure:

SAMPLES

Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft


6/5/08

Hollow Stem Auger

Boring location:

Date started:

Drilling method:

Sampler:

K. Schmidt


She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q Ft

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test


Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

Fine

s%

121420

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

SP

TN

-Val

ue1

Blo

ws/

6"

Sam

ple

LITH

OLO

GY

DE

PTH

(feet

)

Sam

pler

Type




Logged by:

S&H

LITH

OLO

GY

14

CL

SC

SC

CL

SPT

SP-SC



51SPT

877

6710

151635

133243

TV 1,400

Sam

pler

Type

Blo

ws/

6"

S&H

SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL (SP-SC)(continued)(6/5/08; 12:30 PM)CLAY (CL)olive-brown with occasional orange mottles, stiff,wet

olive-gray with orange mottles, occasionalsubangular gravel up to 1/4 inch

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)orange-brown, very dense, wet, subangular gravelup to 1/2 inch

CLAYEY SAND (SC)brown, dense, wet, fine-grained sand

CLAY (CL)olive-brown, very stiff, wet

10

SP

TN

-Val

ue1

45

DE

PTH

(feet

)

Sam

ple

SAMPLES

Figure:2b


4833.01

PROJECT:

Project No.:

1633 HARRISON STREETOakland, California Log of Boring B-2

PAGE 2 OF 2TE

ST

GE

OTE

CH

LO

G 4

8330

1.G

PJ

TR

.GD

T 8

/29/

08

Boring terminated at a depth of 50 feet below groundsurface.Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater measured at a depth of 27 feet immediatelyafter drilling.TV indicates Torvane.

Fine

s%

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q FtMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

S&H

22

13

S&H

SPT

SC

S&H

(6/5/08, 9:35 AM)

TES

T G

EO

TEC

H L

OG

483

301.

GP

J T

R.G

DT

8/2

9/08

S&H

SPT

SPT

SPT

2342

50/5"

S&H

203338

3050/6"

4.3101423

2 inches asphalt over3 inches aggregate baseCLAYEY SAND (SC)light brown, medium dense, moist

occasional black mottles

dark brown with orange and red mottles, dense

yellow-brown, very dense

orange-brown, dense

olive-brown, very dense, wet

CLAY with SAND (CL)olive, very stiff, wet

CL

brown with orange-brown mottles, very dense

111

110

11.7

51

22

85

30/6"

53

43

55/11"

48

22

194246


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

SAMPLES

204243

192325



Oakland, California

Project No.:

PROJECT:

4833.01 3aFigure:

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

Sampler:

K. Schmidt


She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q Ft

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

DE

PTH

(feet

)

Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft

Boring location:

Date started:

Drilling method:

Fine

s%

71012

172526

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test


LITH

OLO

GY

SP

TN

-Val

ue1

Blo

ws/

6"

Sam

ple

Sam

pler

Type

Logged by:





6/5/08

Hollow Stem Auger



SANDY CLAY (CL)light brown with black mottles, very stiff, wet

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)brown, medium dense, wet, medium-grained sand

CLAY (CL)olive-brown, stiff, wet

SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL)olive-brown, very stiff, wet, fine-grained sand,subangular gravel up to 1/2 inch

1,800

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)brown, medium dense, wet, medium- tocoarse-grained sand

S&H

CLAY with SAND (CL) (continued)

152320

10141591010

12

11913

CL

25

22

29

26

CL

SC

24

CL

SC

CL

SPT

S&H

S&H

SPT

TV

21


LABORATORY TEST DATASAMPLES

Figure:

151923

4833.01

PROJECT:

Project No.:

1633 HARRISON STREETOakland, California Log of Boring B-3

PAGE 2 OF 2TE

ST

GE

OTE

CH

LO

G 4

8330

1.G

PJ

TR

.GD

T 8

/29/

08

Boring terminated at a depth of 50 feet below groundsurface.Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater measured at a depth of 29.5 feet duringdrilling.TV indicates Torvane. 3b

She

ar S

treng

thLb

s/S

q Ft

Sam

ple

Blo

ws/

6"

SP

TN

-Val

ue1

LITH

OLO

GY

DE

PTH

(feet

)

Fine

s%

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

Lbs/

Sq

Ft

Dry

Den

sity

Lbs/

Cu

Ft

Type

of

Stre

ngth

Test

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Nat

ural

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt, %

Sam

pler

Type

Project No. FigureDate 4833.0106/10/08 A-4

CLASSIFICATION CHART

Major Divisions Symbols Typical Names

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PTHighly Organic Soils

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

Inorganic silts and clayey silts of low plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity

Inorganic silts of high plasticity

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

Organic silts and clays of high plasticity

Peat and other highly organic soils

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Range of Grain Sizes

Grain Sizein Millimeters

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

Above 12"

12" to 3"

Classification

Boulders

Cobbles

Above 305

305 to 76.2

Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.075

GRAIN SIZE CHART

SAMPLER TYPE

Co

arse

-Gra

ined

So

ils(m

ore

than

hal

f of s

oil >

no.

200

siev

e si

ze

Fin

e -G

rain

ed S

oils

(mor

e th

an h

alf o

f soi

l<

no.

200

sie

ve s

ize)

Gravels(More than half ofcoarse fraction >no. 4 sieve size)

Sands(More than half ofcoarse fraction <no. 4 sieve size)

Silts and ClaysLL = < 50

Silts and ClaysLL = > 50

Gravel coarse fine

3" to No. 43" to 3/4"

3/4" to No. 4

No. 4 to No. 200No. 4 to No. 10No. 10 to No. 40No. 40 to No. 200

76.2 to 4.7676.2 to 19.119.1 to 4.76

4.76 to 0.0754.76 to 2.002.00 to 0.4200.420 to 0.075

Sand coarse medium fine

C Core barrel

CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter

D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube

O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube

PT Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube

S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter

SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside diameter

ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure

SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS/SYMBOLS

Sample taken with Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter. Darkened area indicates soil recovered

Classification sample taken with Standard Penetration Test sampler

Undisturbed sample taken with thin-walled tube

Disturbed sample

Sampling attempted with no recovery

Core sample

Analytical laboratory sample

Sample taken with Direct Push sampler

Sonic

Unstabilized groundwater level

Stabilized groundwater level

Treadwell&Rollo


16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400

Qc (tsf)

CONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTSCPT-1

Project No. Figure4833.01 A-5Date 08/19/08

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rf (percent)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 50 100 150

SPT (N)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ø (deg)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Su (ksf)

Terminated at 14.5 feet due to practical refusal in dense to very dense sand.Groundwater not encountered.Date performed: 06/05/08.Ground surface elevation: 33 feet, City of Oakland Datum.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


σ σv v, ',

σ

σ

v

v'Effective vertical

stress,

Total vertical stress,

Undrained ShearStrength, su

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400

Qc (tsf)



16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rf (percent)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 50 100 150

SPT (N)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ø (deg)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Su (ksf)

Terminated at 15.5 feet due to practical refusal in dense to very dense sand.Groundwater not encountered.Date performed: 06/05/08.Ground surface elevation: 36.5 feet, City of Oakland Datum.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


σ σv v, ',

σ

σ

v


stress,



18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400

Qc (tsf)



18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rf (percent)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

SPT (N)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ø (deg)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Su (ksf)

Terminated at 16 feet due to practical refusal in dense to very dense sand.Groundwater not encountered.Date performed: 06/05/08.Ground surface elevation: 36 feet, City of Oakland Datum.

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


σ σv v, ',

σ

σ

v


stress,



16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400

Qc (tsf)



16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rf (percent)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 50 100 150

SPT (N)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ø (deg)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Su (ksf)

Terminated at 15 feet due to practical refusal in dense to very dense sand.Groundwater not encountered.Date performed: 06/05/08.Ground surface elevation: 36 feet, City of Oakland Datum.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


σ σv v, ',

σ

σ

v


stress,



16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400

Qc (tsf)



16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rf (percent)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 50 100 150

SPT (N)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ø (deg)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Su (ksf)

Terminated at 14.5 feet due to practical refusal in dense to very dense sand.Groundwater not encountered.Date performed: 06/05/08.Ground surface elevation: 36 feet, City of Oakland Datum.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


σ σv v, ',

σ

σ

v


stress,



APPENDIX C

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX D

DEVELOPMENT OF SITE-SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA

Appendix D Project Number 750659601 Site-Specific Response Spectra 8 April 2020 Page D-1

APPENDIX D

SITE-SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA

This appendix presents the details of our estimation of the level of ground shaking at the site

during future earthquakes. To develop site-specific response spectra in accordance with ASCE

7-16/ASCE 41-17, we performed probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic

analysis to develop smooth, site-specific horizontal spectra for four levels of shaking, namely:

Basic Safety Earthquake (BSE)-2N or Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER), which corresponds to the lesser of two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year return period) or 84th percentile of the controlling deterministic event, both considering the maximum direction as described in ASCE 7-16

BSE-1N or Design Earthquake (DE), which corresponds to 2/3 of the MCER

BSE-2E, which corresponds to 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (975-year return period), not to exceed BSE-2N

BSE-1E, which corresponds to 20 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (225-year return period), not to exceed BSE-1N

D1.0 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Because the location, recurrence interval, and magnitude of future earthquakes are uncertain, we

performed a PSHA, which systematically accounts for these uncertainties. The results of a PSHA

define a uniform hazard for a site in terms of a probability that a particular level of shaking will be

exceeded during the given life of the structure.

To perform a PSHA, information regarding the seismicity, location, and geometry of each source,

along with empirical relationships that describe the rate of attenuation of strong ground motion

with increasing distance from the source, are needed. The assumptions necessary to perform

the PSHA are that:

the geology and seismic tectonic history of the region are sufficiently known, such that the rate of occurrence of earthquakes can be modeled by historic or geologic data

the level of ground motion at a particular site can be expressed by an attenuation relationship that is primarily dependent upon earthquake magnitude and distance from the source of the earthquake

the earthquake occurrence can be modeled as a Poisson process with a constant mean occurrence rate.


As part of the development of the site-specific spectra, we performed a PSHA to develop a site-

specific response spectra for 2,475-year, 975-year, and 225-year return periods. The ground

surface spectrum was developed using the computer code EZFRISK 8.06 (Fugro Consultants

2019). The approach used in EZFRISK is based on the probabilistic seismic hazard model

developed by Cornell (1968) and McGuire (1976). Our analysis modeled the faults in the Bay Area

as linear sources, and earthquake activities were assigned to the faults based on historical and

geologic data. The levels of shaking were estimated using attenuation relationships that are

primarily dependent upon the style of faulting, the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance

from the site to the fault, and the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the soil

profile.

D1.1 Probabilistic Model

In probabilistic models, the occurrence of earthquake epicenters on a given fault is assumed to

be uniformly distributed along the fault. This model considers ground motions arising from the

portion of the fault rupture closest to the site rather than from the epicenter. Fault rupture lengths

were modeled using fault rupture length-magnitude relationships given by Wells and

Coppersmith (1994).

The probability of exceedance, Pe(Z), at a given ground-motion, Z, at the site within a specified

time period, T, is given as:

Pe(Z) = 1 - D-V(z)T

where V(z) is the mean annual rate of exceedance of ground motion level Z. V(z) can be calculated

using the total-probability theorem.

i

M|RMi dmm)dr(r;(m)fr]fm,|zP[ZνV(z)iii

where:

vi = the annual rate of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than a threshold Moi in source i

P [Z > z | m,r] = probability that an earthquake of magnitude m at distance r produces ground

motion amplitude Z higher than z

fMi (m) and fRi|Mi (r;m) = probability density functions for magnitude and distance


Z represents peak ground acceleration, or spectral acceleration values for a given frequency of

vibration. The peak accelerations are assumed to be log-normally distributed about the mean with

a standard error that is dependent upon the magnitude and attenuation relationship used.

D1.2 Source Modeling and Characterization

The segmentation of faults, mean characteristic magnitudes, and recurrence rates were modeled

using the data presented in the WGCEP (2008) and Cao et al. (2003) reports. We also included

the combination of fault segments and their associated magnitudes and recurrence rates as

described in the WGCEP (2008) in our seismic hazard model. Table D-1 presents the distance

and direction from the site to the fault, mean characteristic magnitude, mean slip rate, and fault

length for individual fault segments. We used the California fault database identified as “USGS

2008 California– 2014 Rates Excluded” in EZFRISK 8.06. This source model is also known as

UCERF2. We understand EZFRISK obtained this database directly from USGS and models the

faults with multiple segments. Each segment is characterized with multiple magnitudes,

occurrence or slip rates and weights. This approach takes into account the epistemic uncertainty

associated with the various seismic sources in our model.


TABLE D-1

Source Zone Parameters

Fault Segment

Approx. Distance

from fault (km)

Direction from Site

Mean Characteristic

Moment Magnitude

Mean Slip

Rate (mm/yr)

Approx. Fault

Length (km)

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HN 5.3 East 6.60 9 35

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HN+HS 5.3 East 7.00 9 87

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC+HN 5.3 East 7.19 9 97

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC+HN+HS 5.3 East 7.33 9 150

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HS 5.3 East 6.78 9 52

Mount Diablo Thrust 22 East 6.70 2 25

Calaveras; CN 23 East 6.87 6 45

Calaveras; CN+CC 23 East 7.00 11 104

Calaveras; CN+CC+CS 23 East 7.03 12 123

N. San Andreas; SAN+SAP 24 West 7.73 22 274

N. San Andreas; SAN+SAP+SAS 24 West 7.87 21 336

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN+SAP 24 West 7.95 22 410

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN+SAP+SAS 24 West 8.05 22 472

N. San Andreas; SAP 24 West 7.23 17 85

N. San Andreas; SAP+SAS 24 West 7.48 17 147

Green Valley Connected 27 East 6.80 4.7 56

N. San Andreas; SAN 27 West 7.51 24 189

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN 27 West 8.00 24 326

San Gregorio Connected 30 West 7.50 5.5 176

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC 35 Northwest 7.07 9 62

Greenville Connected 39 East 7.00 2 50

West Napa 40 North 6.70 1 30

Monte Vista-Shannon 41 South 6.50 0.4 45

Great Valley 5, Pittsburg Kirby Hills 44 East 6.70 1 32

Point Reyes 52 West 6.90 0.3 47

Calaveras; CC 57 Southeast 6.39 15 59

Calaveras; CC+CS 57 Southeast 6.50 15 78

Great Valley 4b, Gordon Valley 61 Northeast 6.80 1.3 28

Great Valley 7 66 East 6.90 1.5 45

Hunting Creek-Berryessa 72 North 7.10 6 60

N. San Andreas; SAS 74 Southeast 7.12 17 62

Zayante-Vergeles 84 Southeast 7.00 0.1 58

Great Valley 4a, Trout Creek 84 Northeast 6.60 1.3 19

Maacama-Garberville 94 Northwest 7.40 9 221

Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 99 South 7.30 0.5 83


D1.3 Attenuation Relationships

Based on the subsurface conditions and measured shear wave velocities, the site is classified as

a stiff soil profile (Site Class D). We estimated an average shear wave velocity in the upper 100

feet (30 meters) below the bottom of basement, VS30, to be 990 feet per second. We used values

of Z1.0 and Z2.5 of 150 meters and 850 meters, respectively.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) embarked on the NGA-West 2 project

to update the previously developed ground motion prediction equations (attenuation

relationships), which were mostly published in 2014. We used the attenuation relationships

developed by Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014), and

Chiou and Youngs (2014) for shallow crustal sources. These attenuation relationships consider

VS30. Since these relationships were developed using the subset of the same earthquake

databases at the discretion of the different developer teams, the average of the relationships

was used to develop the recommended spectra. The NGA-West 2 relationships were developed

for the orientation-independent geometric mean of the data. Geometric mean is defined as the

square root of the product of the two recorded components.

D1.4 Directivity and Directionality Considerations

D.1.4.1 Near-Source Effects

The site is in the near-field region (i.e. distances less than about 15 kilometers from a fault) and

therefore may experience near-field directivity effects during an earthquake on a nearby fault. It

has been recognized that ground motions recorded in the near-field regions show rupture

directivity and near-source effects such as velocity and displacements pulses (sometimes

referred to as “fling”). In general, such effects tend to increase the long period portion of the

acceleration response spectrum when compared to the average spectrum. These effects have

been demonstrated by Golesorkhi and Gouchon (2002), Somerville et al. (1995 and 1997), and

Singh (1985). Somerville et al. (1997) and Abrahamson (2000) quantified near-source directivity

effects and provided scaling factors for modifying the average spectra to capture these effects.

Bayless and Somerville (2013) provides a more recent and updated methodology to incorporate

these effects into a PSHA. This methodology is included in the version of EZFRISK we used for

this study and was used to develop the response spectra with consideration of near-source

effects. Directivity effects are included in the PSHA by randomizing the hypocenter using a

uniform distribution for each rupture location and magnitude. The average directivity spectrum

using Bayless and Somerville (2013) methodology was modified to generate a maximum

direction spectrum.


Because the site is about 5.3 km from the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault, we also developed the

site-specific spectra in the fault normal direction using Bayless and Somerville (2013)

methodology and compared it to the maximum direction.

D1.4.2 Maximum Direction

ASCE 7-16/ASCE 41-17specifies the development of BSE-2N site-specific response spectra in

the maximum direction. Shahi and Baker (2014) provide scaling factors that modify the geometric

mean spectra to provide spectral values for the maximum response (maximum direction).

Therefore, we used the scaling factors presented on Table 1 of Shahi and Baker (2014) for ratios

of SaRotD100/SaGMRotI50 to modify the mean PSHA results which included average directionality

effects.

For the development of the site-specific spectrum for BSE-2N, we used the envelop of the

maximum direction and fault normal spectra.

D2.0 PSHA RESULTS

Figure D-1 presents results of the PSHA for 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years

hazard level (2,475-year return period) using the four relationship discussed above. The average

of these relationships in the maximum direction is also presented. These results include average

directivity. Figure D-2 presents the results of the four attenuation relationships for fault normal

direction for a 2,475 year-return period; the mean of these relationships is also shown on Figure

D-2. Figure D-3 presents a comparison of the average of the maximum direction with the average

of the fault normal spectra for a 2,475-year return period. We recommend the envelop of the two

spectra shown on Figure D-3 be used to develop the spectrum for 2 percent probability of

exceedance in 50 years in the maximum direction. Figure D-4 presents a comparison between

the UCERF3 source model and our results. We recommend using the UCERF2 results.

Figure D-5 presents the deaggregation plots of the PSHA results for the 2 percent probability of

exceedance in 50 years hazard level. From the examination of these results, it can be seen that

the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault dominates the hazard at the project site at different periods of

interest. However, the Northern San Andreas fault also contributes to the longer periods as

shown on Figure D-5(c).

Figure D-6 presents the results of the PSHA for 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years

(975-year return period) using the four relationship discussed above. The average of these

relationships in the maximum direction is also presented. These results include average


directivity. Figure D-8 presents the 20 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (225-year

return period) using the four relationship discussed above. The average of these relationships in

the maximum direction is also presented. These results include average directivity.

D3.0 DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS

We performed a deterministic analysis to develop the BSE-2N spectrum at the site. In a

deterministic analysis, a given magnitude earthquake occurring at a certain distance from the

source is considered as input into an appropriate ground motion attenuation relationship. The

same attenuation, near-source directionality, and maximum direction relationships discussed

above were used in our deterministic analysis.

Figures D-8 and D-9 present the 84th percentile deterministic results for a Moment Magnitude

(MW) 7.33 event occurring on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault about 5.3 km from the site in the

maximum direction and fault normal directions, respectively. Figure D-10 presents the 84th

percentile deterministic results for a MW = 8.05 event occurring on the San Andreas fault about

24 km from the site in the maximum direction, without average directivity.

We conclude the envelop of the three scenarios be used as the deterministic basis for

development of the BSE-2N which is presented on Figure D-11.

D4.0 RECOMMENDED HORIZONTAL SPECTRA

The BSE-2N or MCER as defined in ASCE 41-17 or ASCE 7-16 is the lesser of the maximum

direction PSHA spectrum having a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year

return period) or the maximum direction 84th percentile deterministic spectrum of the governing

earthquake scenario and the BSE-1N spectrum is defined as 2/3 times the BSE-2N spectrum.

Furthermore, the BSE-2N spectrum is defined as a Risk-Targeted response spectrum, which

corresponds to a targeted collapse probability of one percent in 50 years. The USGS Risk-

Targeted Ground Motion calculator was used to determine the risk coefficients for each period

of interest for the probabilistic spectrum. We used these risk coefficients to develop the Risk-

Targeted PSHA spectrum.

Furthermore, we followed the procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement

No. 1 to develop the site-specific spectra for BSE-2N (MCER) and BSE-1N (DE). Chapter 21 of

ASCE 7-16 requires the following checks:

the largest spectral response acceleration of the resulting 84th percentile deterministic ground motion response spectra shall not be less than 1.5Fa;


the DE spectrum shall not fall below 80 percent of Sa determined in accordance with Section 11.4.6, where Fa and Fv are determined for Site Class D: Fa is determined using Table 11.4.-1 and Fv is taken as 2.5 for S1≥0.2 (Section 21.3 of Chapter 21 ASCE 7-16).

The site-specific BSE-2N spectral response acceleration at any period shall not be taken less than 150% of the site-specific design response spectrum determined in accordance with Section 21.3.

We note that the Fa and Fv factors in Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 are 1.0 (Ss ≥ 1.5) and 1.7 (S1 ≥ 0.6),

respectively for Site Class D. We calculated site-specific amplification factors by comparing both

the probabilistic and deterministic spectra to the corresponding spectra for a rock profile with Vs30

of 760 m/s and Z1.0 and Z2.5 equal to 50 meters and 0.8 kilometers, respectively. Figure D-12

presents the results of our amplification study. We calculated an amplification factor of 1.85 at a

period of 1.0 second. We used Fa and Fv values of 1.0 and 1.81, respectively, in calculating the

80% lower limit Design Earthquake Spectra.

Figure D-13 and Table D-1 present a comparison of the site-specific spectra for the Risk-Targeted

2,475-year return period PSHA (envelop of maximum direction and fault normal), the 84th

percentile deterministic (envelop of maximum direction and fault normal), and the Lower Limit

check for the deterministic spectrum per Supplement No.1 for Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16. The

largest spectral acceleration of the 84th percentile deterministic spectrum is 2.187g, is greater

than 1.5Fa (where Fa is 1.0) and hence does not need to be scaled. In this case, the 84th

percentile deterministic spectrum is less than the risk-targeted PSHA spectrum for a 2 percent

probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475 year return period) for periods up to three seconds

and greater than and equal to eight seconds. For periods greater than three seconds and less

than eight seconds, the risk-targeted PSHA spectrum for a 2 percent probability of exceedance

in 50 years is less than the 84th percentile deterministic spectrum. Therefore, the 84th percentile

deterministic spectrum should be used to develop the BSE-2N spectrum for periods up to three

seconds and greater than and equal to eight seconds, and the risk-targeted PSHA spectrum for

a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years should be used to develop the BSE-2N

spectrum for periods greater than three seconds and less than eight seconds.


TABLE D-1

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of BSE-2N Spectrum per ASCE 7-16/ASCE 41-17

Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

Risk-Targeted PSHA – 2,475-Year

Return Period – Envelop

Deterministic

84th percentile – Envelop

ASCE 7-16 Supplement No. 1

(1.5Fa) BSE-2N

0.01 1.239 0.885 1.500 0.885

0.10 2.121 1.398 1.500 1.398

0.20 2.754 1.883 1.500 1.883

0.30 3.014 2.139 1.500 2.139

0.40 2.979 2.187 1.500 2.187

0.50 2.815 2.111 1.500 2.111

0.60 2.497 1.909 1.500 1.909

0.75 2.217 1.705 1.500 1.705

1.00 1.873 1.633 1.500 1.633

1.50 1.132 1.084 1.500 1.084

2.00 0.795 0.767 1.500 0.767

3.00 0.476 0.472 1.500 0.472

4.00 0.319 0.338 1.500 0.319

5.00 0.232 0.251 1.500 0.232

6.00 0.177 0.182 1.500 0.177

7.00 0.137 0.140 1.500 0.137

8.00 0.112 0.111 1.500 0.111

9.00 0.094 0.090 1.500 0.090

10.00 0.079 0.075 1.500 0.075

Table D-2 presents the development of recommended BSE-1N spectrum following the

procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16. The BSE-1N is defined as 2/3 of the BSE-2N per

ASCE 41-17; however, the recommended DE may not be below 80 percent of the spectrum at

any period developed using the requirements of ASCE 7-16 Section 21.3 (lower limit).

Figure D-12 and Table D-2 presents a comparison of 2/3 of the BSE-2N spectrum and 80 percent

of the lower limit spectrum for Site Class D. As shown in Table D-2 and Figure D-12, 80 percent

of the general spectrum is lower than 2/3 of the BSE-2N spectrum for periods up to 7.0 seconds.

Therefore, we recommend that 2/3 of the BSE_2N spectrum be used to develop the BSE-1N soil

spectrum up to 7.0 seconds and 80 percent of the BSE-1N lower limit be used for periods greater

than 7.0 seconds.


TABLE D-2

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of BSE-1N Spectrum per ASCE 7-16/ASCE 41-17

Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

BSE-2N

2/3 times BSE-2N

80% ASCE 7-16 BSE-1N (DE) Lower Limit

(Fa=1.0, Fv=1.85)

Recommended BSE-1N

Recommended BSE-2N (1.5×BSE-

1N)

0.01 0.885 0.590 0.437 0.590 0.885

0.10 1.398 0.932 0.777 0.932 1.398

0.20 1.883 1.255 0.940 1.255 1.883

0.30 2.139 1.426 0.940 1.426 2.139

0.40 2.187 1.458 0.940 1.458 2.187

0.50 2.111 1.407 0.940 1.407 2.111

0.60 1.909 1.273 0.940 1.273 1.909

0.75 1.705 1.137 0.880 1.137 1.705

1.00 1.633 1.089 0.660 1.089 1.633

1.50 1.084 0.722 0.440 0.722 1.084

2.00 0.767 0.511 0.330 0.511 0.767

3.00 0.472 0.315 0.220 0.315 0.472

4.00 0.319 0.213 0.165 0.213 0.319

5.00 0.232 0.155 0.132 0.155 0.232

6.00 0.177 0.118 0.110 0.118 0.177

7.00 0.137 0.091 0.094 0.094 0.141

8.00 0.111 0.074 0.083 0.083 0.124

9.00 0.090 0.060 0.065 0.065 0.098

10.00 0.075 0.050 0.053 0.053 0.079

Table D-3 presents the development of recommended BSE-2E, which is defined as the 5%

probability of exceedance in 50 years (975-year return period), in the maximum direction, not to

exceed BSE-2N (MCER). Figure D-14 and presents a comparison of the 5% probability of

exceedance in 50 years the recommended BSE-2N. As shown in Table D-3 and Figure D-14, the

5% probability of exceedance in 50 years is higher than the recommended BSE-2N for periods

up to 1.0 second. Therefore, we recommend that the BSE-2N spectrum be used to develop the

BSE-2E soil spectrum up to 1.0 second and 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years be used

for periods greater than 1.0 second.


TABLE D-3

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of BSE-2E Spectrum Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

Recommended BSE-

2N

975-year Return Period

Recommended BSE-2E

0.01 0.885 0.976 0.885

0.10 1.398 1.604 1.398

0.20 1.883 2.166 1.883

0.30 2.139 2.421 2.139

0.40 2.187 2.377 2.187

0.50 2.111 2.218 2.111

0.60 1.909 1.953 1.909

0.75 1.705 1.716 1.705

1.00 1.633 1.433 1.433

1.50 1.084 0.916 0.916

2.00 0.767 0.635 0.635

3.00 0.472 0.377 0.377

4.00 0.319 0.253 0.253

5.00 0.232 0.181 0.181

6.00 0.177 0.136 0.136

7.00 0.141 0.108 0.108

8.00 0.124 0.088 0.088

9.00 0.098 0.072 0.072

10.00 0.079 0.061 0.061

Table D-4 presents the development of recommended BSE-1E, which is defined as the 20%

probability of exceedance in 50 years (225-year return period), in the maximum direction, not to

exceed BSE-1N (DE). Figure D-15 and presents a comparison of the 20% probability of

exceedance in 50 years the recommended BSE-1N. As shown in Table D-4 and Figure D-15, the

20% probability of exceedance in 50 years is higher than the recommended DE for periods up to

0.2 second. Therefore, we recommend that the BSE-1N spectrum be used to develop the BSE-

1E soil spectrum up to 0.2 second and 20% probability of exceedance in 50 years be used for

periods greater than 0.2 second.


TABLE D-4

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of BSE-1E Spectrum Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

Recommended BSE-

1N

225-year Return Period

Recommended BSE-1E

0.01 0.590 0.604 0.590

0.10 0.932 1.005 0.932

0.20 1.255 1.330 1.255

0.30 1.426 1.413 1.413

0.40 1.458 1.370 1.370

0.50 1.407 1.289 1.289

0.60 1.273 1.140 1.140

0.75 1.137 0.981 0.981

1.00 1.089 0.795 0.795

1.50 0.722 0.495 0.495

2.00 0.511 0.335 0.335

3.00 0.315 0.190 0.190

4.00 0.213 0.130 0.130

5.00 0.155 0.094 0.094

6.00 0.118 0.069 0.069

7.00 0.094 0.052 0.052

8.00 0.083 0.041 0.041

9.00 0.065 0.033 0.033

10.00 0.053 0.029 0.029

The recommended BSE-2N, BSE-1N, BSE-2E and BSE-1E spectra are presented on Table D-5

and Figure D-15.


TABLE D-5

Recommended MCER, DE, BSE-2E and BSE-1E Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period

(seconds) BSE-2N BSE-1N BSE-2E BSE-1E

0.01 0.885 0.590 0.885 0.590

0.10 1.398 0.932 1.398 0.932

0.20 1.883 1.255 1.883 1.255

0.30 2.139 1.426 2.139 1.413

0.40 2.187 1.458 2.187 1.370

0.50 2.111 1.407 2.111 1.289

0.60 1.909 1.273 1.909 1.140

0.75 1.705 1.137 1.705 0.981

1.00 1.633 1.089 1.433 0.795

1.50 1.084 0.722 0.916 0.495

2.00 0.767 0.511 0.635 0.335

3.00 0.472 0.315 0.377 0.190

4.00 0.319 0.213 0.253 0.130

5.00 0.232 0.155 0.181 0.094

6.00 0.177 0.118 0.136 0.069

7.00 0.141 0.094 0.108 0.052

8.00 0.124 0.083 0.088 0.041

9.00 0.098 0.065 0.072 0.033

10.00 0.079 0.053 0.061 0.029

Because site-specific procedure was used to determine the recommended response spectra,

the corresponding values of SMS, SM1, SDS and SD1 per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16 should be used

as shown in Table D-6.

TABLE D-6

Design Spectral Acceleration Value

Parameter

Spectral Acceleration Value (g’s)

SMS 1.969

SM1 1.633

SDS 1.312

SD1 1.089



3. Average directivity based on Bayless and Somerville (2013)

4. Maximum direction factors from Shahi and Baker (2014)


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan

LANGAN1621 HARRISON STREET RESULTS OF PSHA,

2 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF

EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS D-1





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Abrahamson et al. (2014)

Boore et al. (2014)

Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014)

Chiou and Youngs (2014)

Mean

Mean - Maximum Direction



3. Fault Normal quantification based on Bayless and Somerville (2013)


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan

LANGAN1621 HARRISON STREET

RESULTS OF PSHA,


EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS -

FAULT NORMAL

D-2LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)


Boore et al. (2014)



Mean



3. Average directivity and fault normal based on Bayless and Somerville (2013)



750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


RESULTS OF PSHA,


EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS -

ENVELOPE





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Maximum Direction

Fault Normal

Envelop



3. Average directivity and fault normal based on Bayless and Somerville (2013)



750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


COMPARISON OF PSHA

RESULTS,


EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Mean - UCERF2 Max. Direction

Mean - UCERF3 Max. Direction

(a) PGA

(b) Sa, T = 1.0 second

(c) Sa, T = 4.0 seconds


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan

2% PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS -

MAGNITUDE DISTANCE DEAGGREGATION

PLOTSD-5





i^kd^k1621 HARRISON STREET






750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan








0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)


Boore et al. (2014)



Mean




3. Average directivity based on Bayless and Somerville (2013) and maximum direction factors from Shahi and Baker (2014)

4. Deterministic results are for a Moment Magnitude 7.33 occuring on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek about 5.3 km from the site


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


RESULTS OF DETERMINISTIC

ANALYSIS - 84th

PERCENTILE

SPECTRA - HAYWARD-

RODGERS CREEK





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)


Boore et al. (2014)



Mean




3. Fault Normal quantification based on Bayless and Somerville (2013)

4. Deterministic results are for a Moment Magnitude 7.33 occuring on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek about 5.3 km from the site.


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan

`



ANALYSIS - 84th

PERCENTILE

SPECTRA - FAULT NORMAL -

HAYWARD-RODGERS CREEK





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)


Boore et al. (2014)



Mean - Hayward-Rodgers Creek




4. Deterministic results are for a Moment Magnitude 8.05 occuring on the Northern San Andreas about 24 km from the site.


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan



ANALYSIS - 84th

PERCENTILE

SPECTRA - NORTHERN SAN

ANDREAS





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)


Boore et al. (2014)



Mean






750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan

LANGAN1621 HARRISON STREET RESULTS OF DETERMINISTIC

ANALYSIS - 84th

PERCENTILE

SPECTRA - ENVELOPD-11





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Maximum Direction - Hayward-Rodgers Creek

Mean Fault Normal - Hayward-Rodgers Creek

Maximum Direction - Northern San Andreas

Envelop of DSHA Fault Normal and Maximum Direction






750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


D-12


AMPLIFICATION

CITY OF OAKLANDT: 510.874.7000 F: 510.874.7001 www.langan.com



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

AM

PLIF

ICA

TIO

N F

AC

TO

R (

Sa,s

oil/S

a,r

ock)

PERIOD (seconds)

Probabilistic

Deterministic

Fa and Fv per Chaper 21 Supplement No. 1 ASCE 7-16

Fa and Fv per Chapter 11 ASCE 7-16



3. Includes risk coefficients from USGS

4. Deterministic results are an envelop of a Moment Magnitude 7.33 occuring on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek about 5.2 km from the site and a Moment

Magnitude 8.05 occuring on the Northern San Andreas about 24.0 km from the site, respectively.


750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


COMPARISON OF

PROBABILISTIC,

DETERMINISTIC AND

DETERMINISTIC LOWER LIMIT

SPECTRA





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Envelop of Risk-Targeted PSHA Fault Normal and Maximum Direction

Envelop of DSHA Fault Normal and Maximum Direction

ASCE 7-16 Supplement No. 1 (1.5Fa)

BSE-2N

2/3 BSE-2N

BSE-1N

80% ASCE 41-17 BSE-1N Lower Limit (Fa=1.0, Fv=1.85)






750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


RECOMMENDED BSE-2E

SPECTRA D-14LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Recommended BSE-2N

5% in 50 years - Maximum Direction

Recommended BSE-2E






750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


RECOMMENDED BSE-1E

SPECTRA D-15LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

Recommended BSE-1N

20% in 50 years - Maximum Direction

Recommended BSE-1E




750659601

Date

02-25-2020

Scale

AS SHOWN

Prepared By:


© 2019 Langan


RECOMMENDED

HORIZONTAL SPECTRA D-16LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (

g's

)

PERIOD (seconds)

BSE-2N

BSE-1N

BSE-2E

BSE-1E

DISTRIBUTION

1 Electronic copy: Deni Adaniya [email protected]

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER:

Richard D. Rodgers Senior Consultant

geotechnical investigation...2020/04/08 · geotechnical investigation 8 april 2020 1621 harrison...

Documents