Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> � ZZ� Proposed Immanuel Ludieran Church Addidon <br /> � ��,y�•�w 1-1788-3 <br /> � February 23, 2005 <br /> s�� Page 3 <br /> � <br /> 5.4 Scismicity <br /> � Our recommendations tor IQC scismic dcsign parametcrs for tlic subject site are presentcd <br /> bclo�t�. <br /> � [BC Dcsi�;n Paramcters: Gcoteclmical earthquake engincering input to devclopment of thc <br /> gencral dcsign responsc spectrum of the International Building Code 2003 requires a site <br /> class definition and short period (SS) and I-second period (Si) spectral lcceleration values. <br /> ;i TaUle 1 presents thc 2002 spcctral ordinatcs (5 perccnt damping) at Uuilding periods of 0.2 <br /> (SS) and IA (Si) seconds for ground motions at the project site with a Z percent probnUility of <br /> excecdancc in 50 ycars, U�scd on thc USGS Nntionn( Scisrnic IIn_nrd A4npping Projecl <br /> � (httn://eyhazmans.usr�s.y!ov/). [3ased on the subsur(:�ce conditions encountered at tl�e site vid <br /> published geologic litcraturc, tvic estimate that thc avcrage propertics of thc upper 100 fect of <br /> thc site profile corecspond to thc IBC Sitc Classitication C (Chapter ]6, Tablc 1(15.1.1). Sitc <br /> Class C applies to an average soil profile within thc top 100 feet consisiing predominantly of <br /> vcry dense soil char�cicrized by Standard Pcnetration Test blow counts grcatcr than 50, a <br /> shear wavc vclocity oC I.200 l0 2.�00 tect per sccond, and an undr.iincd shcar s�rcngth grcatcr <br /> � than 2,000 p,f. <br /> --------� -�- -=•-:1':U3L!? t — . <br /> � 20U3 IBC Sb:IS�llC 1)GSIGN PAiLU1I�"1'RRS <br /> Scismic I':u�an�Mcr Rccommcnded Valuc <br /> Spcclnl Acccler,uion,S, 1.17g <br /> '. Spcclral Acccicralion,Si OAIg <br /> Sitc Classification C <br /> ' S.5 Liqttefactimi <br /> 13ascd on thc results of our subsur�acc cxplorations, thc soils underl}�ing thc proposed <br /> structurc have a high silt contcnt and/or thc in-situ dcnsity is in a densc to vcry densc statc; <br /> Uicrcl'orq in our opinion, liqucfuctiun ❑n�l sci,mic rclatcd sctUcntcttt is not considcrcd a <br /> potential l�azard to titc sitc <br /> ' (.0 CONCLUSIONSANURI?CO�I�iF.;�DA'1'101'S <br /> In our opinion, the proposed church ndditiun appcairs Icasible fi�om a gcoteclmical eneineering <br /> perspcctive utilizin� conventional, shallo���, spread and contiuuous footings and slab-on-grade <br /> flours. Tlic dcsign mcommcndations prescntcd in this report are based on thc oUserved soil <br /> conditions and on the assumption that eartli���ork for site grading, utilities, foundations, floor <br /> � slabs, and pa��ements will be monitored by a yu.ilified Geotechnical [ngineer. The following <br /> ic.�t sections of this rcport present our gcotechnical conclusians mid recommcndations <br /> conccming sitc prep:�ration. structural till. tiiundations, slab-on-gradc tloors. tcmporary and <br /> �icnn.�ncnt slopcs and drainagc svstcros. <br /> .I-Zu-ll. u�_?l�± <br />