575-1038-2 (Perf Foods - Gilroy - Geo)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT for the PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY 5480 Monterey Road Gilroy, California Prepared for Performance Food Group 12500 West Creek Parkway Richmond, Virginia 23235 Prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. 4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite B Oakland, California 94601 Telephone (510) 434-9200 PSI PROJECT NO. 575-1038-2 December 6, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ............................................................................................ 1

1.3.1 Previous Feasibility Studies ...................................................................................... 1 1.3.2 PSI Preliminary Study - 2016 .................................................................................... 2

1.4 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................. 2

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 4

2.1 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES.......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................................................. 4 2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 2.5 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................... 5 2.6 LABORATORY EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 5

3.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 6

3.1 REGIONAL SEISMICITY .......................................................................................................... 6 3.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 6 3.3 HAZARD ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 7

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 9

4.1 SITE PREPARATION .............................................................................................................. 9 4.2 ENGINEERED FILL .............................................................................................................. 10 4.3 EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Excavations/Slopes ................................................................................................. 11 4.3.2 Trench Backfill ......................................................................................................... 11

4.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT AND SETTLEMENT .......................................................................... 12 4.5 CORROSIVITY .................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 13 4.7 CONVENTIONAL (NON-FREEZER) FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT .................................................... 14 4.8 FREEZER SLABS AND FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................... 14 4.9 BELOW GRADE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS ................................................................... 16 4.10 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 17 4.11 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ........................................................................................... 18

5.0 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 USE OF REPORT ................................................................................................................ 19 5.2 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 19

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 20

Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map

Figure 2: Site Plan and Exploration Location Map

Appendixes A – Data From Previous Studies B – Exploration Logs

C – Laboratory Test Results

Proposed Distribution Facility– Gilroy, California PSI Project No. 575-1038-2

December 6, 2016 Page 1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 Project Authorization Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) is pleased to submit our geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the proposed distribution facility in Gilroy, California. Our work was performed in general accordance with PSI’s Proposal Number 575-151252 dated February 4, 2016, as modified by e-mail on May 31, 2016. Written authorization, in the form of a signed copy of our proposal, was provided by Mr. Dave Reichel of Performance Food Group (PFG) on May 9, 2016, with e-mailed authorization of change in scope on June 2, 2016. 1.2 Site Location and Description The subject site is located on the east side of Monterey/Bolsa Road approximately ¼-mile south of the Monterey Road exit off US Route 101, with a street address of 5480 Monterey Road in Gilroy, California (see Figure 1 – Site Location Map). The site consists of 2 parcels measuring a total of about 29.3 acres in plan area and is bounded by existing structures and farmland to the north and south, railroad tracks to the east, and Monterey/Bolsa Road to the west. At the time of our field exploration, the site consisted of active agricultural land with a single-family residence on the west side, near Monterey/Bolsa Road. The site slopes gently downward to the east, with site elevations obtained from Google Earth of between approximately 178 and 188 feet above mean sea level (msl). This corresponds well with the Chittenden, California topographic map (USGS, 1993) which indicates elevations between about 175 and 185 feet msl.

1.3 Review of Previous Studies 1.3.1 Previous Feasibility Studies

PSI was provided with a previous geotechnical report for our review; a feasibility-level study performed for a proposed technology business park at the subject site (ESCNC, 2002). The study included 3 soil borings, drilled to between 16 and 45 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and limited soils testing, including moisture and density tests, Atterberg Limits testing, direct shear testing and a compaction curve. The report is a supplement to a 1992 feasibility study, also by ESCNC, that included 6 soil borings drilled to between 16 and 41 feet bgs. The 1992 boring logs and lab test results were included in an appendix of the report. The report indicates that, beneath a surficial layer of loose, disked soil of about 1-foot in thickness, the near surface soils generally consist of clay, silt and clayey and silty sand to depths of between about 9 to 15 feet bgs, which were hard and medium dense. These soil units were found to be underlain by stiff lean clay, medium dense to dense poorly graded sand, and medium dense clayey sand to the depths explored. The stabilized groundwater level was at a depth of about 32 feet. The report indicates a moderately low to moderate expansion potential and a relatively low resistance to traffic loads (R-Values of 9 and 10). The report characterizes the site as geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, states that conventional spread and pad



footings will probably be appropriate for the improvements, and makes recommendations for general business park improvements, including site preparation, grading, pavements and utility trenches, with a requirement for additional geotechnical study for the proposed structures. Due to the nature of the soils at the site, the report recommends;

overexcavation of soils in improvement areas to a depth of 2 feet below surface grades and scarification and recompaction of the base of the excavation;

use of select, non-expansive import fill soil for the building pads, and;

lime treatment of wet near-surface soils, for grading during inclement weather. Pertinent data, including both logs and lab test results from this feasibility study are included in Appendix A. 1.3.2 PSI Preliminary Study - 2016

PSI Performed a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed distribution facility (PSI, 2016) that included 5 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) probes pushed to depths of between 50 and 100 feet bgs, limited testing of near-surface bulk soil samples, geologic and seismic research and a detailed liquefaction analysis. The preliminary study was performed to avoid damaging the agricultural row crops that were still in the field, while still providing the design team with a general evaluation of the site and an idea of the foundation types and recommendations expected for the project. The CPT probes indicate that the western portion of the site is underlain by medium stiff clays and silty clays to depths of approximately 24 to 34 feet bgs, underlain by 6 to 14-feet of medium dense to very dense sands, which are generally underlain by medium stiff to stiff clays and silty clays to the total depth explored of between 50 and 100 feet bgs. The eastern portion of the site is underlain by medium stiff clays and silty clays to depths of approximately 10 to 18 feet bgs, which are underlain by medium dense to very dense sands to the total depth explored of 50 feet bgs. The groundwater level was calculated to be at a depth of about 31 feet bgs. The report indicated a relatively low plasticity index (PI=13) and a low expansion potential (EI=34). The report characterizes the site as geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, states that conventional continuous and isolated spread footings will likely be appropriate for the improvements, and makes preliminary recommendations for general improvements, including site preparation, grading, pavements and utility trenches, with a requirement for confirmation soil borings later when the crop has been harvested. Pertinent data, including both logs and lab test results from this preliminary study are included in Appendix A. 1.4 Project Understanding A request for proposal (RFP) and a site plan of the proposed improvements (ESI, 2015) was provided for our use in preparing this report. From the information provided, PSI understands that it is proposed to build a food distribution center at the subject site. The proposed new facility will consist of refrigerated and dry storage areas, two story offices, a truck maintenance building, truck docks and paved truck and auto driveways and parking lots. The construction is proposed to be structural steel frame with lightweight insulated wall panels. Dock and exterior office walls are



concrete and exterior warehouse walls are insulated metal panels. In storage areas, there will be free-standing product storage racks bearing on the floor slab. Under the freezer floor slab will be floor insulation and a heating grid to prevent the subsoil from freezing and heaving. Finished floor elevation is 52” higher than adjacent dock aprons. A detention basin is to be located on the southeast portion of the site. Other improvements are likely to include utilities and concrete flatwork. The proposed improvements are depicted on Figure 2. Structural loading information provided in the RFP indicates maximum column loads of 120 kips, maximum wall loads of 6 kips per lineal foot, and floor slab point loads of 12 kips with stationary live loads of 400 pounds per square foot. We assume that final grades will be close to existing site elevations and that cuts and fills will be limited to a maximum of five feet. Should any of the above information or assumptions made by PSI be inconsistent with the planned construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us to make any necessary modifications to our recommendations.



2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 2.1 Site Geology The subject site is located within a large region known as the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. This province is characterized by extensively folded, faulted, and fractured earth materials. These structural features trend in a northwesterly direction and make up the prominent system of northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by straight-sided sediment-filled valleys (CGS, 2002). The site is situated within the Santa Clara Valley, about 1 mile east of the foothills of the northwest-trending Santa Cruz Mountains and 800 feet east of Uvas Creek. Our observations and analysis of readily available, pertinent geologic literature (Dibblee, 1978) indicate that the subject site is underlain by Holocene-aged (Quaternary) alluvium (Qal). 2.2 Pre-Field Activities Prior to initiation of field drilling activities, PSI outlined the site in white paint, staked the boring locations and contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) a minimum of 48 hours prior to beginning work to locate any potential buried utilities. The USA inquiry identification number (or “Ticket Number”) for the utility locate request was # W629201309. 2.3 Subsurface Exploration To evaluate soil conditions at the site, PSI advanced fifteen SPT soil borings (B-1 through B-15) using a track-mounted drill rig operated by Britton Exploration of Los Gatos, California. The borings were advanced to depths of between about 11 and 31 feet bgs. Additionally, six Cone Penetration Test probes (CPT-6 through CPT-11) were advanced to depths of between 25 and 32 feet bgs using a track-mounted, 20-ton CPT rig operated by Gregg Drilling of Martinez, California. During the field operations, PSI Staff Engineer, Mr. Manuel Uribe was on-site to guide the field exploration and collect soil samples from the soil borings. During the sampling procedure, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586 and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D3550. The SPT for soil borings is performed by driving a 2-inch diameter split-spoon sampler into the undisturbed formation located at the bottom of the advanced borehole with repeated blows of a 140-pound hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration depth is a measure of the soil consistency. For ASTM D3550 (California Modified Sampler) the split barrel sampler possesses a 3-inch O.D. and is driven in the same manner as the SPT. The field blow counts obtained from the California Modified sampler, as indicated in the boring logs, were multiplied by a factor of 0.65 to obtain an approximate correlation to SPT blow counts (SPT-N value). Samples were identified in the field, placed in sealed containers and transported to the laboratory for further classification and testing.



At the completion of the drilling operations, all boreholes were backfilled with soil to match the ground surface. The locations of the borings and CPT probes, as well as the proposed improvements, are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the borings and CPT probes are presented in Appendix B. 2.4 Subsurface Conditions The site has historically been used as agricultural land for irrigated row crops. In the areas explored, soft to stiff lean clay, silt and sandy silt and very loose to medium dense sand were encountered to depths of approximately 25 feet bgs. Below 25 feet, the fine soils encountered were generally stiff and the sands were medium dense to dense, in terms of the standard penetration tests performed. Bedrock was not encountered in the soil borings within the total depth explored (to approximately 100 feet bgs in our preliminary study). The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. Logs of the borings and CPT probes, included in Appendix A and B, should be reviewed for specific information at individual exploration locations. These records include soil descriptions, stratification and penetration resistance. The stratification shown on the boring logs represents the conditions only at the actual boring locations at the time of our exploration. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratification that represents the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be gradual. The samples that were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 30 days from the date of this report and will then be discarded. 2.5 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings during this phase of the geotechnical study to the total depth explored of 30 feet below grade. During the preliminary geotechnical study (PSI, 2016) a pore pressure dissipation test was performed at CPT-1 and groundwater was calculated to be at approximately 31 feet bgs. Based on current groundwater levels, excavations shallower than 10 feet are not expected to encounter groundwater. Groundwater is not expected to significantly affect the proposed construction. It is possible that transient, saturated ground conditions at shallower depths could develop at a later time due to periods of heavy precipitation, landscape watering, leaking water lines, or other unforeseen causes. Variations in groundwater levels should be expected seasonally, annually, and from location to location. 2.6 Laboratory Evaluation Selected samples of the subsurface soils were returned to our laboratory for further evaluation to aid in classification of the materials, and to help assess their strength, expansive nature, plasticity and compressibility characteristics. The laboratory evaluation consisted of visual and textural examinations, Atterberg Limits testing and expansion index testing. Sulfate, chloride, pH and resistivity testing were also performed to evaluate the corrosive potential of the site soils. A brief discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a portion of the test results are presented in Appendix B.



3.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Regional Seismicity Generally, seismicity within California can be attributed to faulting due to regional tectonic movement. This includes the Calaveras Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and most parallel and subparallel faulting within the State. The portion of California which includes the subject site is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to potential groundshaking resulting from earthquake events along nearby or more distant faults. According to regional geologic literature (Blake, 2000), the closest known late Quaternary fault is the Calaveras Fault, located approximately 4.8 miles (7.7 km) northeast of the site. Several potentially active and pre-Quaternary faults also occur within the regional vicinity. The site is subject to a Maximum Magnitude Event of 7.9 Magnitude along the San Andreas Fault. The Maximum Magnitude Event is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework. 3.2 Seismic Analysis According to the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 (revised 1994) active faults are those that have shown movement during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). This site is not currently situated within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 1982). The site will be affected by seismic shaking as a result of earthquakes on major active faults located throughout the northern California area. As part of the current, 2013 California Building Code (CBC), the design of structures must consider dynamic forces resulting from seismic events. These forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake event as well as the properties of the soils that underlie the site. As part of the procedure to evaluate seismic forces, the code requires the evaluation of the Seismic Site Class, which categorizes the site based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface. To define the Site Class for this project, we interpreted the results of the CPT probes advanced within the project site during our preliminary study to a depth of up to 100 feet bgs (PSI, 2016). Shear wave velocity measurements were performed at approximately 5-foot intervals in the 100-foot deep probe (CPT-1). The average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet of the soil column was determined to be about 848 feet per second. The data and calculations are presented after the CPT logs in Appendix A. To evaluate the Site Class, we also took into account data available in published geologic reports as well as our experience with subsurface conditions in the general site area. Based upon this, the subsurface conditions within the site are consistent within the characteristics of Site Class D (stiff soil profile).



In accordance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBSC), The USGS probabilistic ground acceleration values (2009 NEHRP) for latitude 36.9812° and longitude -121.5539° obtained from the USGS Seismic Design Maps web page (USGS, 2015) are presented in the following table.

Ground Motion Values*

Period (sec)

Mapped MCE Spectral

Response Acceleration**(g

)

Site Coefficients

Adjusted MCE Spectral

Response Acceleration (g)

Design Spectral Response

Acceleration (g)

0.2 Ss 1.503 Fa 1.000 SMs 1.503 SDs 1.002

1.0 S1 0.652 Fv 1.500 SM1 0.979 SD1 0.652

*2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years **At B-C interface (i.e. top of bedrock) MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake

The Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv presented in the above table were also obtained from the noted USGS webpage, as a function of the site classification and mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (Ss) and 1-second (S1) periods, but can also be interpolated from CBC Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2). 3.3 Hazard Assessment Seismically-Induced Dry Settlement of Soils – Within the depths of our exploration, the materials comprising the subsurface soils were observed to consist of medium stiff to very stiff silty clays and loose to very dense sands. Based on the anticipated earthquake effect and the stratigraphy of the site, only relatively minor seismically-induced dry settlement is likely to occur. Such settlement will probably affect relatively large areas so that differential settlements over short distances are likely to be small. Liquefaction-Induced Settlement – PSI’s evaluation of soil liquefaction potential was performed as part of our preliminary geotechnical study (PSI, 2016) and included the advancement of 5 CPT probes to depths between approximately 50 and 100 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered in CPTs at depths of about 31 feet bgs. PSI evaluated soil liquefaction potential in saturated silts and sands in general accordance procedures outlined by NCEER (1998). The procedure compares earthquake-induced cyclic shear stresses within a soil profile to the ability of the soils to resist these stresses. The stresses induced within the profile are estimated based on the earthquake magnitude and the horizontal accelerations within the profile. The ability of the soils to resist these stresses are based on their strength characterized by cone tip resistance normalized for overburden pressures and corrected for factors such as fines content. Soil liquefaction potential and seismically-induced settlement was estimated using computer program CLiq (version 1.7.6.34), developed by GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Software. The



program estimates the extent and depth of liquefaction within the CPT subsurface profile using the method developed by Robertson (2009), corresponding to input ground surface acceleration and earthquake magnitudes consistent with a design-level earthquake event. A magnitude 6.5 earthquake and peak ground acceleration of 0.93g were used for this analysis based on the Maximum Considered Earthquake as determined from the USGS Interactive Deaggregations program. The results of the liquefaction analyses indicate that the liquefaction potential of this site is negligible (0.2 to 0.4 inches), in the locations tested. Most of the calculated liquefaction is anticipated to be at depths between the water table at 31 feet and sandy soils to a depth of 40 feet. Due to the relative thicknesses of non-liquefiable soils over potentially liquefiable soils, and the minor amounts of anticipated settlement, it is PSI’s opinion that the chances of surface manifestations in terms of sand boils and loss of bearing, etc. are low. Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture – Evidence of active fault rupture was not observed within the explored areas of the site at the time of our subsurface exploration and no faults are mapped as crossing the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that a low potential exists for lurching and ground rupture at this site. Landsliding - Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a hazard on, or adjacent to the project site due to the absence of significant steep slopes in the project area. Tsunamis and Seiches - Inundation by tsunamis (seismic or "tidal waves") or seiches ("tidal waves" in confined bodies of water) are not considered to be a significant threat to the subject site due to the absence of proximal large bodies of water.



4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Based on the results obtained from our exploration and analysis, the primary geotechnical considerations to the proposed site development are as follows:

1. Freezer slabs 2. Non-Expansive Engineered Fill beneath floor slabs 3. Moisture sensitive near surface soils

It is our opinion that the hazards identified should not preclude the development of the proposed structures and that the site is suitable to receive the proposed improvements as long as the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and construction. It is our opinion that the existing near-surface soil conditions at the site are considered suitable for the use of shallow foundations for the support of the proposed improvements, provided that the recommendations in this report are followed. The proposed construction at the site should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the current edition of the California Building Code and local governmental standards which have jurisdiction over this project. Our recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered. If there are any changes in these project criteria, including project location on the site, a review should be made by PSI to determine if modifications to the recommendations are warranted. Once final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by PSI is recommended as a means to check that the evaluations made in preparation of this report are correct and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. 4.1 Site Preparation Clearing and grubbing operations should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed building and surface improvement limits. Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be established. Provisions should be made to relocate any interfering utility lines within the construction area to appropriate locations. To reduce the effects of volume change of the near surface soils due to changes in moisture content, PSI recommends that soil-supported concrete slabs be constructed on a minimum thickness of at least 12 inches of non-expansive or very low expansive potential (EI of less than 20) engineered fill. In proposed structural slab or pavement areas, after site cleaning and excavating to allow the minimum thickness of non-expansive or very low expansive potential engineered fill, PSI recommends the exposed subgrade soils be proof rolled with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment approved by and in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Soils that excessively deflect or rut during proof rolling should be removed as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Following proof rolling and any needed over-excavation, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above or below



optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90% of the soil’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. However, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath the building slabs and pavements should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. Wet Weather Grading Considerations - The near surface lean clay and sandy silt soils are moisture sensitive and subgrade stability problems (pumping) are expected to occur during wet and cool weather conditions, which typically occur between November and April. If grading occurs during these climatic conditions, subgrade stability problems are expected and it may be necessary to stabilize the subgrade with a coarse aggregate material, possibly with a geogrid or geotextile. Typically, a coarse aggregate thickness of about 12 to 18 inches is sufficient to stabilize a pumping subgrade. It may also be desired/beneficial to stabilize the subgrade with hydrated lime or cement, dependent upon the soil types and conditions encountered. Specific subgrade stabilization recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical engineer based on the conditions encountered at the time of grading. 4.2 Engineered Fill Fill materials, including both native and import soil, should be free of organic or other deleterious materials and have a maximum particle size of three inches or less. Engineered Fill should be low expansive (Expansion Index; (EI) < 50) and moisture conditioned to about 2 percent above or below optimum moisture content prior to compaction. Based on laboratory testing performed the near surface clays (EI=34 at CPT-1 from 1 to 3 feet bgs) encountered are suitable as Engineered Fill, placed below depths of 12-inches within the building pads and adjoining sidewalks. The upper 12 inches of soil directly beneath the slabs and adjoining sidewalks should be Engineered Fill that is non-expansive or has a very low expansive potential. This type of Engineered Fill should be predominantly granular, such as Caltrans Class II Aggregate Base, and have an expansion index less than 20. The capillary break associated with the building slabs may be counted towards the 12 inches of non-expansive engineered fill. Engineered Fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the soil’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. The subgrade soils in areas to receive fill or support surface improvements should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to about 2 percent above or below optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of the soil’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts not exceeding eight inches and should be moisture conditioned and compacted at 2 percent above or below the optimum moisture content. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted, engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend laterally at least a distance equal to the height of the fill next to any site improvements. We recommend at the time of initial site stripping and grading, that PSI be retained to observe and document the subgrade conditions to evaluate placement and compaction of engineer fill.



4.3 Excavations Excavation and construction operations may expose the on-site soils to inclement weather conditions. The stability of exposed soils will rapidly deteriorate due to precipitation or the action of heavy or repeated construction traffic. Accordingly, foundation area excavations and pavement subgrade areas should be adequately protected from the elements, and from the action of repetitive or heavy construction loading. 4.3.1 Excavations/Slopes

Excavations extending below a 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) plane extending down from any adjacent footings should be shored for safety. Excavations should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer during construction to allow any modifications to be made due to variation in the soil types. The work should be performed in accordance with Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Job site safety is the responsibility of the project contractor. In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, subpart P”. This document was issued to better insure the safety of personnel entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations, or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s “responsible person”, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal state regulations. We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s or other parties’ compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations. 4.3.2 Trench Backfill

Except where extending perpendicular under proposed foundations, utility trenches should be constructed outside a 1:1 projection from the base-of-foundations. Trench excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot above the pipe. This backfill should be compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. Trench backfill should be mechanically compacted as engineered fill accordance with section 4.2 of this report. Flooding should not be permitted.



Some settlement of the backfill may be expected and any utilities within the trenches or concrete walks supported on the trench backfill should be designed to accept these differential movements. 4.4 Foundation Support and Settlement Following site preparation, as recommended in Section 4.1, PSI recommends that the proposed structures be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. Footing subgrade should be over-excavated at least 12 inches and then have the exposed soils compacted to a firm and unyielding state. The over-excavated areas should then be fill with at least 12 inches of engineered fill. Over-excavated and backfill areas below footings should extend laterally at least a distance equivalent to the depth of the engineered fill placed. Continuous footings should be founded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade and have a minimum width of 24 inches. Isolated spread footings should be at least 48 inches wide and supported at a depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Footings with the above recommended minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind and seismic forces. Appropriate foundation reinforcement and foundation dimensions should be provided in accordance with the Structural Engineer’s design and in consideration of the low expansion potential of the site soils. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction and/or passive earth pressure. The design may incorporate an allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot below grade, provided that the footing concrete is poured tightly against firm native soil or properly compacted fill materials; however, the upper 1 foot should be excluded unless concrete or asphalt surfaces are planned immediately next to the footing or wall. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used at the concrete-soil interface. The foundation subgrade should be observed by a representative of PSI prior to steel or concrete placement. Soft or loose soil zones encountered at the bottom of the foundation excavations should be removed as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, the foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the excavation is made. If it is required that foundation excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of moisture. Based on the anticipated maximum column load of 120 kips and a maximum wall loads of 6 kips per lineal foot, we estimate that foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above recommendations will experience a total static settlement of less than 1-inch with a differential settlement of ½-inch within the building area.



4.5 Corrosivity Testing was performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the on-site soils and the potential for attack on concrete and subsurface utility pipes, specifically cast iron and ductile iron. The testing included pH, sulfate, chloride and electrical resistivity. The results of the chemical analysis are as follows:

Boring Number

Sample Depth (feet)

pH Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Water Soluble Sulfates (ppm)

Water Soluble Chlorides (ppm)

CPT-1 (preliminary

study) 1 to 3 6.2 1,100 70.3 15.1

B-15 1 to 3 7.2 2,250 47.4 ND<10

ND = Not Detected above the reported detection level ppm = parts per million

Concrete mix designs should follow the minimum requirements of the California Building Code. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples indicates that the on-site soils possess a negligible sulfate exposure, indicating a low degree of corrosivity with respect to concrete. Based on this result, it is our opinion that special sulfate-resistant concrete mix designs are not warranted and that the use of Type I or II cement is suitable for concrete in contact with on-site soils. Final concrete mix designs should be evaluated after sulfate tests have been performed on the actual subgrade material. Corrosivity testing was also performed to determine whether the on-site soils have the potential to attack subsurface utility pipes, specifically cast iron and ductile iron. Based on the resistivity test results, the soils are characterized as being highly corrosive to cast iron or ductile iron piping (Roberge, 2000). PSI does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted to determine if special corrosion protection is warranted for this site. Testing for corrosivity of any fill soils should be conducted during site grading. 4.6 Drainage Considerations Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavations or on prepared subgrades of the construction area during construction. Following construction, water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the building foundations or adjacent to concrete flatwork. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, or positive runoff. The on-site soils are susceptible to erosion. The contractor should exercise care in creating drainage paths for water during the construction phase of the project. Curbing adjacent to landscaped areas should be designed deep enough to act as a barrier between the landscape irrigation and the subgrade soil. Surface run-off from roofs, parking areas, etc., should be tightlined to the storm sewer or other approved disposal areas.



4.7 Conventional (Non-Freezer) Floor Slab Support Based on the results obtained from our exploration and analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed floor slab can consist of a conventional slab-on-grade supported on a properly prepared subgrade as described in the site preparation and engineered fill section. The slab may be designed by the structural engineer using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci. Based on geotechnical considerations, it is recommended that the interior slabs be at least 5 inches in thickness, and reinforced as specified by the structural engineer based on the assumed low expansive soil conditions. Final slab design may need to be revised based on the expansive potential of the as-graded soil conditions. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab mid-height. Floor slabs should be suitably reinforced and jointed so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage. If moisture sensitive materials are to be placed directly on the floor, we recommend the slab-on-grade be underlain by at least 8 inches of clean granular material to provide uniform support and minimize the risk of capillary rise of moisture. Granular material, such as ¾- to ¼-inch crushed rock having less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve would be suitable for this purpose. The crushed rock should be compacted until it is well keyed. In our opinion, the coefficient of subgrade reaction, k, may be increased to 175 pci with a minimum thickness of eight inches of crushed rock. In addition, it may be appropriate to install a durable vapor-retarding membrane beneath the slab-on-grade to limit the risk of damp floors in areas that will have moisture-sensitive materials placed directly on the floor. The vapor-retarding membrane should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 4.8 Freezer Slabs and Foundations Where foundations and slab-on-grade structures are used to support freezers or areas that sustain temperatures below freezing, the impact of that internal environment can impact both the foundations and the grade supported slab. In the presence of water, ice lenses can develop that can result in heaving of the soils below the slab and the foundations. Therefore, it is important that protection of the subgrade soils be included in the design of these types of structures. Actual structural design of the slab and foundation wall systems is outside the scope of work for this project. However, PSI recommends that the following information be considered in the structural slab and foundation design. Chapter 12 of ACI 360R-06, “Design of Slabs-On-Ground,” describes the special considerations for slab-on-ground floors in refrigerated facilities. When the final operating temperature in the refrigerated room is 32 °F (0 °C) or lower, a layer (or layers) of rigid insulation is typically placed beneath the floor slab, as shown in the typical floor section as shown below. The insulation only slows heat transfer, so the subgrade will eventually fall below freezing, possibly leading to frost heaving. Therefore, slab design for freezers often includes a heating system within the subslab to prevent the development of frost and minimize the risk of slab heaving. The slip sheet located on top of the insulation is typically a polyethylene film at least 6 mil (0.15 mm) thick that acts as a bond breaker between the floor slab and insulation. A second polyethylene film at least 15 mil (0.38 mm) thick, a 10 mil (0.25 mm) thick polyolefin, or a 45 mil (1.14 mm) thick ethylene



propylene diene monomer (EPDM) membrane is placed on the warm (bottom) side of the insulation to act as a vapor retarder that slows the transmission of moisture migrating up through the slab and freezing on the floor surface. Depending on the specific application and site conditions, some of the layers shown below may not be used.

Typical section through a slab-on-ground floor for a freezer facility

Many of the special considerations specific to slab-on-ground floors for freezers are related to the insulation layer. For thickness design of the floor slab, the insulation stiffness should be evaluated on the proposed subgrade using the procedures for determining the modulus of subgrade reaction of soil given in ASTM D 1196.2. Insulation manufacturers will often report foundation modulus data found using the procedures in ASTM D 1621, but the results of these tests can be significantly higher than tests performed per ASTM D 1196 and should not be used for design of the slab. Compressive creep due to sustained loads on the insulation should also be considered. Limiting the live and dead loads to 1/5 and 1/3 the compressive strength of the insulation, respectively, is recommended to limit long-term creep to 2% of the insulation thickness over a 20-year period. The presence of the insulation layer also affects the tolerances for the subgrade and the slab formwork. To allow the insulation to lay flat with uniform bearing, a tolerance of +0/–1/2 in (+0/–13 mm) from the specified elevation should be maintained for the base or subslab layer directly below the insulation. Formwork can’t be staked to the subgrade because the stakes would perforate the insulation and vapor retarder, so forms for freezer floors are typically attached to a horizontal base, such as a sheet of plywood that is weighted down with sandbags to hold the formwork in place. PSI recommends that the base material, as shown above, be a crushed granular material that provides both strength and sufficient porosity to provide a capillary break to potential moisture that could be drawn to the bottom of the slab. It is also important that the base material be both graded and drained in a manner that reduces the potential for the pooling of water under the slab. PSI recommends that the gradation and type of base material be submitted for review by



the geotechnical engineer of record as a material meeting these requirements prior to use under the freezer slab and foundations. 4.9 Below Grade Walls and Retaining Walls

Retaining walls may be supported by conventional shallow continuous (strip) footings bearing in structural fill placed in accordance with the recommendations of this report or suitable bearing engineered fill soils. A net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for the design, provided the retaining wall footings extend to a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade and are placed on at least 12 inches of compacted engineered fill. The project structural engineer should determine minimum footing widths, depth and reinforcements requirements. The following lateral earth pressures should be used for the design of retaining walls and below grade walls backfilled with suitable granular soils.

Table of Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)

Wall Type Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill (Ascending)

Active 35 60

At-Rest (fixed at top) 45 70

Passive 250 175 The above values assume backfill soils within 5 feet of the walls will have a very low expansion potential (EI<20) and free-draining condition. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the geotechnical engineer should provide the equivalent fluid pressures on an individual basis. Below-grade walls and retaining walls should include a positive foundation drainage system. A typical wall drain consists of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid perforated pipe surrounded by ¾-inch crushed rock and wrapped in a non-woven geotextile fabric (consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). This system typically is installed directly on top of the retaining wall footing on the retained soil side of the wall. Perforations in the drain pipe should be placed facing down. The gravel pack around the pipe should be brought up to within one foot of the soil surface. The subsurface drainage system should be tied to the storm drainage system, allowed to daylight down slope, or collected in a sump and pumped out. Cleanouts should be installed at regular intervals and each bend of the drainage pipe. Retaining wall backfill should consist of approved granular material. This fill material should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D1557). Flooding or jetting of the backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and reduce the potential for saturation. Cantilever or restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half the surcharge load. The intensity of the surcharge load acting over the entire height of the wall. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures (within 5 feet of the back of the



wall) can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater than normally associated with the development of active conditions. In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement should be estimated in accordance with the recommendations in the shallow foundations section above. 4.10 Pavement Recommendations While specific traffic loads and volumes for the project have not been provided, we are providing recommended light-duty, and heavy-duty pavement sections, which have been successfully utilized for this type of development in the project area with similar traffic loading. For these pavement sections, we have used the tested R-value of 18 for the site subgrade soils and a Traffic Index of 5 and 8 for the light-duty and heavy-duty, respectively. Confirmation R-value testing should be performed on the actual pavement subgrade material at the time of site grading. Asphaltic Concrete (AC): Light Duty (Automobile Parking; TI=5)

3 inches Asphalt Concrete (Caltrans Standard Specs. Section 39) 8 inches Class II Aggregate Base (Caltrans Standard Specs. Section 26)

Heavy Duty (Entrance and Drive Lanes; TI=8)

4 inches Asphalt Concrete (Caltrans Standard Specs. Section 39) 17 inches Class II Aggregate Base (Caltrans Standard Specs. Section 26)

Once site grading has been completed, we recommend that supplemental R-value testing be performed to confirm that the design R-value is consistent with the as-graded subgrade soil conditions and/or to provide final pavement section recommendations. Aggregate base and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, per ASTM D1557. As an alternate, concrete pavements could also be used at the site. Based on the near surface soil encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pci is suitable for all the concrete pavement sections, given the presence of the underlying base course. Based on this, we offer the following concrete pavement recommendations: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC):

Light Duty Section (TI=5)

5-½ Inches Portland Cement Concrete 6 inches Class II Aggregate Base

Heavy Duty Section (TI=8)

7 Inches Portland Cement Concrete 6 inches Class II Aggregate Base



Based on our local experience, rigid concrete pavements are considered to be a part of the civil site work package and the concrete mix design specifications and rebar reinforcement detailing is developed as part of the project specifications, typically by the Civil Engineer. Minimum cement contents and cementitious material replacement specifications should consider the time of year for concrete placement for optimal material performance. The design project engineer of record is best qualified to be familiar with the project schedule and to establish those parameters. Based on our previous experience with similar projects, PSI provides the following recommendations. PSI recommends that the concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The aggregate base course and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. The concrete pavements should be properly reinforced and jointed (per ACI requirements). Saw cut control joints should be placed at maximum 15 foot intervals and should be cut at a depth of at least one-quarter of the pavement thickness. Saw cut control joints spaced at 10 feet usually control cracking better than the 15-foot interval. Joints should be sawed within 12 hours of concrete placement and preferably sooner. All joint spacing in large pavement areas should not exceed a distance of 60 feet. Expansion joints should be used wherever the pavement will abut a structural element subject to a different magnitude of movement, such as: light poles, retaining walls, or manholes. Expansion joints should be sealed with a polyurethane sealant so that moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils and resultant concrete deterioration at the joints is minimized. Where pavement areas are adjacent to heavily landscaping areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing adjacent to the landscape areas extend into the prepared subgrade to reduce the potential for irrigation water to saturate the subgrade soils. The above recommended pavement sections represent minimum design thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Also, these recommended pavement sections should be confirmed or modified by your Civil Engineer, based on actual traffic and the owner’s requirements. The pavement section materials and construction should comply with the Caltrans Standard Specifications and local municipality requirements. 4.11 Construction Monitoring It is recommended that PSI be retained to examine and identify soil exposures created during project construction in order to document that soil conditions are as anticipated. We further recommend that any engineered fills be continuously observed and tested by our representative in order to evaluate the thoroughness and uniformity of their compaction. If possible, samples of fill materials should be submitted to our laboratory for evaluation at least 2 working days prior to placement of fills on site. Costs for the recommended observations during construction are beyond the scope of this current consultation.



5.0 GENERAL Our conclusions and recommendations described in this report are subject to the following general conditions: 5.1 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of Performance Food Group and their representatives to use for the design of the proposed project described herein and preparation of construction documents. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. 5.2 Limitations Please note that the recommendations in this are preliminary and that additional investigation will be required prior to construction on this site. The preliminary recommendations contained in this report are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI, and design details furnished for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project, or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the project. PSI did not provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold or other biological contaminants in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of PSI’s control, and that mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture. As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification. Services performed by PSI for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.



6.0 REFERENCES

1. Blake, T.F., 1989-2000, Eqfault Version 3.00b Update, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Thousand Oaks, California.

2. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013 California Building Code (CBC),

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. 3. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), January 1, 1982, “State of California

Special Studies Zones, Chittenden Quadrangle, Revised Official Map,” Scale: 1:24,000. 4. California Geological Survey (CGS), April, 2002, “California Geomorphic Provinces”

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/note_36.pdf. 5. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic

Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117 (SP-117), 102 pp. 6. Dibblee, T.W., and Brabb, E.E., 1978, Preliminary geologic map of the Chittenden,

quadrangle, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: USGS Open File Report OF-78-453, scale 1:24,000.

7. Earth Systems Consultants – Northern California (ESCNC), August 28, 2002, “Feasibility

Soils Engineering Report - Silicon Valley South Technology Park (13 Parcels), 35-Acres East of Bolsa Road, Gilroy, California,” File No.: H0-07794-01.

8. ESI Design Services, August 12, 2015, “New Distribution Center for PFG Greenfield, Overall

Site Plan Option 1,” Sheet A1.1, scaled.

9. Professional Service Industries (PSI), August 16, 2016, “Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the Proposed Distribution Facility, 5480 Monterey Road, Gilroy, California,” PSI Project No. 575-1038-1.

10. Roberge, Pierre R., “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering,” 1st Ed., McGraw Hill, 2000. 11. US Geological Survey (USGS), 1993, Chittenden Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series

(topographic), United States Department of the Interior, Scale: 1:24,000. 12. USGS, October 28, 2013, U.S. Quaternary Faults Web Mapping Application (web page),

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/#qfaults.

13. USGS, June 12, 2014, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Application (web page), http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

14. USGS, 2008, Interactive Deaggregations Application (web page),

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

DATA FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES

Earth Systems Consultants Feasibility Study - 2002

Professional Service Industries Preliminary Geotechnical Study - 2016

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

Time (ms)

Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-1

Geophone Offset: 0.66 FeetSource Offset: 1.67 Feet 07/01/16

Test Depth (Feet)

Geophone Depth (Feet)

Waveform Ray Path

(Feet)

Incremental Distance

(Feet)

Characteristic Arrival Time

(ms)

Incremental Time Interval

(ms)

Interval Velocity (Ft/Sec)

Interval Depth (Feet)

5.25 4.59 4.88 4.88 10.850010.50 9.84 9.98 5.10 17.3500 6.5000 783.9 7.2115.42 14.76 14.85 4.87 23.5500 6.2000 786.2 12.3020.34 19.68 19.75 4.90 31.4500 7.9000 620.0 17.2225.26 24.60 24.66 4.91 39.9500 8.5000 577.3 22.1430.18 29.52 29.57 4.91 45.0000 5.0500 972.6 27.0635.27 34.61 34.65 5.08 50.4000 5.4000 940.4 32.0740.19 39.53 39.57 4.92 54.0500 3.6500 1346.9 37.0745.44 44.78 44.81 5.25 61.4000 7.3500 713.6 42.1550.36 49.70 49.73 4.92 68.2000 6.8000 723.3 47.2455.28 54.62 54.65 4.92 73.8500 5.6500 870.6 52.1660.37 59.71 59.73 5.08 78.3500 4.5000 1129.6 57.1665.45 64.79 64.81 5.08 82.8500 4.5000 1129.7 62.2570.37 69.71 69.73 4.92 87.9500 5.1000 964.7 67.2575.30 74.64 74.65 4.92 94.3000 6.3500 774.8 72.1780.38 79.72 79.74 5.08 99.7000 5.4000 941.5 77.1885.47 84.81 84.82 5.08 105.6000 5.9000 861.7 82.2690.39 89.73 89.74 4.92 111.4000 5.8000 848.3 87.2795.31 94.65 94.66 4.92 116.9000 5.5000 894.6 92.19

100.56 99.90 99.91 5.25 122.8500 5.9500 882.1 97.27

SCPT-1

Shear Wave Velocity CalculationsAgricultutal Land

EXPANSION INDEX - UBC 18-2 & ASTM D 4829-88

PROJECT PSI # 575-1038 JOB NO. 2015-0152

Sample CPT-1 @ 1' - 3' By LD Sample By

Sta. No. Sta. No.

Soil Type Brown, F. Sandy Clay Soil Type

Date Time Dial Reading Wet+Tare 608.4 Date Time Dial Reading Wet+Tare

7/11/2016 13:00 0.4097 Tare 221 Tare

H2O Net Weight 387.4 Net Weight

7/12/2016 14:00 0.3759 % Water 11 % Water

Dry Dens. 105.7 Dry Dens.

% Max % Max

Wet+Tare 648 Wet+Tare

Tare 221 Tare

Net Weight 427 Net Weight

INDEX 34 3.4% % Water 22.3 INDEX % Water

Sample By Sample By

Sta. No. Sta. No.

Soil Type Soil Type

Date Time Dial Reading Wet+Tare Date Time Dial Reading Wet+Tare

Tare Tare

Net Weight Net Weight

% Water % Water

Dry Dens. Dry Dens.

% Max % Max

Wet+Tare Wet+Tare

Tare Tare

Net Weight Net Weight

INDEX % Water INDEX % Water

PLASTICITY INDEX _ ASTM D4318

Sample Depth LL PL PI USCS Material Description

CPT-1 1' - 3' 30 17 13 CL

Job Name: PSI # 575-1038 Date: 7/12/16

Job No.: 2015-0152

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex

Liquid Limit

CPT-1

CH

OH and MH

CL

ML and OL

CL-ML

"A" line

Determining MinimumLaboratory Soil Resistivity

(AASHTO T 288-91)

Project Name: Project Number:

Laboratory Number: 0575 Date Tested:

Sample Description: Tested By:

Meter:Scale:

B.B. / M.M.

Performance Foods - Gilroy 575-1038

7/7/16

1,200

Lowest Reading

Test Data

1548 g

150 mL

18 hours

Reading on Resistivity Meter (Ω)

1,400

1,200

1,100

800 mL of Water

100 mL of Water

900 mL of Water

200 mL of Water

300 mL of Water

1000 mL of Water

Final Test Results

400 mL of Water

500 mL of Water

600 mL of Water

700 mL of Water

Initial Data

Air Dried Mass of Sample

Mass of Water Added

Amount of Time Hydrated

Initial

1,100

Equipment ListH-4385

01PS575/02PS575

25712 Commercentre Drive

Lake Forest, California 92630

949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

PSI -- Oakland

RE: PFG-Gilroy

Oakland, CA 94601

4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B

Brand Burfield

Rose Fasheh

Project Manager Assistant

Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 07/08/16 09:20. If you have

any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

12 July 2016

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland

4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-1038

Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES

Date Received

CPT-1 (1'-3') T161504-01 Soil 07/01/16 00:00 07/08/16 09:20

Rose Fasheh, Project Manager Assistant

SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of

custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 1 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

DETECTIONS SUMMARY

Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method

T161504-01CPT-1 (1'-3')

Notes

Reporting

Sample ID:

pH 6.2 0.1 pH Units EPA 9045B

Chloride 15.1 10.0 mg/kg EPA 300.0

Sulfate as SO4 70.3 10.0 mg/kg EPA 300.0




Page 2 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

ResultAnalyte Limit Batch

Reporting

Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits

CPT-1 (1'-3')

T161504-01 (Soil)

SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods

EPA 9045B6.2 6070822 07/08/16 07/08/16 pH Units 1pH 0.1

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0

EPA 300.015.1 6070820 07/08/16 07/11/16 mg/kg 1Chloride 10.0

"70.3 " " "" "Sulfate as SO4 10.0




Page 3 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods - Quality Control


Batch 6070822 - General Preparation

Duplicate (6070822-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 07/08/16 Source: T161461-01

pH pH Units6.71 0.1 6.73 200.298




Page 4 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0 - Quality Control



Blank (6070820-BLK1) Prepared: 07/08/16 Analyzed: 07/11/16

Chloride mg/kgND 10.0

Sulfate as SO4 "ND 10.0

LCS (6070820-BS1) Prepared: 07/08/16 Analyzed: 07/11/16

Chloride mg/kg75.3 10.0 100 70-13075.3

Sulfate as SO4 "74.5 10.0 100 70-13074.5

LCS Dup (6070820-BSD1) Prepared: 07/08/16 Analyzed: 07/11/16

Chloride mg/kg76.1 10.0 100 2070-13076.1 1.07

Sulfate as SO4 "76.7 10.0 100 2070-13076.7 2.92




Page 5 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

PFG-Gilroy

07/12/16 16:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Notes and Definitions

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

dry

Not ReportedNR

Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND

Analyte DETECTEDDET




Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX B

EXPLORATION LOGS

GENERAL NOTES

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

Page 1 of 2

The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO 1988 and ASTM designations D2487 and D-2488 areused to identify the encountered materials unless otherwise noted. Coarse-grained soils are defined as havingmore than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve (0.075mm); they are described as: boulders,cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine-grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve;they are defined as silts or clay depending on their Atterberg Limit attributes. Major constituents may be addedas modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size.

DescriptionFlat:

Elongated:Flat & Elongated:

DescriptionAngular:

Subangular:

Subrounded:

Rounded:

Criteria Particles with width/thickness ratio > 3Particles with length/width ratio > 3Particles meet criteria for both flat andelongated

Descriptive TermTrace:

With:Modifier:

Size Range Over 300 mm (>12 in.)75 mm to 300 mm (3 in. to 12 in.)19 mm to 75 mm (¾ in. to 3 in.)4.75 mm to 19 mm (No.4 to ¾ in.)2 mm to 4.75 mm (No.10 to No.4)0.42 mm to 2 mm (No.40 to No.10)0.075 mm to 0.42 mm (No. 200 to No.40)0.005 mm to 0.075 mm<0.005 mm

Component Boulders:Cobbles:

Coarse-Grained Gravel:Fine-Grained Gravel:

Coarse-Grained Sand:Medium-Grained Sand:

Fine-Grained Sand:Silt:

Clay:

ANGULARITY OF COARSE-GRAINED PARTICLESRELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

N - Blows/foot

0 - 44 - 1010 - 3030 - 5050 - 80

80+

Relative Density

Very LooseLoose

Medium DenseDense

Very DenseExtremely Dense

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

% Dry Weight< 5%

5% to 12%>12%

Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.Split-Spoon.A "N" penetration value corrected to an equivalent 60% hammer energy transfer efficiency (ETR)Unconfined compressive strength, TSFPocket penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, TSFMoisture/water content, %Liquid Limit, %Plastic Limit, %Plasticity Index = (LL-PL),%Dry unit weight, pcfApparent groundwater level at time noted

Criteria Particles have sharp edges and relatively planesides with unpolished surfacesParticles are similar to angular description, but haverounded edgesParticles have nearly plane sides, but havewell-rounded corners and edgesParticles have smoothly curved sides and no edges

N:

N60:Qu:Qp:

w%:LL:PL:PI:

DD:, ,

GRAIN-SIZE TERMINOLOGY PARTICLE SHAPE

SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS

Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.

Rock Core

Texas Cone

Bulk Sample

Pressuremeter

Cone Penetrometer Testing withPore-Pressure Readings

DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS

Solid Flight Auger - typically 4" diameterflights, except where noted.Hollow Stem Auger - typically 3¼" or 4¼ I.D.openings, except where noted.Mud Rotary - Uses a rotary head withBentonite or Polymer SlurryDiamond Bit Core SamplerHand AugerPower Auger - Handheld motorized auger

Split-Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., exceptwhere noted.

SFA:

HSA:

M.R.:

R.C.:H.A.:P.A.:

SS:

ST:

RC:

TC:

BS:

PM:

CPT-U:

GENERAL NOTES

QU - TSF N - Blows/foot Consistency

0 - 22 - 44 - 8

8 - 1515 - 3030 - 50

50+

Criteria Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touchDamp but no visible waterVisible free water, usually soil is below water table

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL % Dry Weight < 15%15% to 30%>30%

Descriptive TermTrace:With:

Modifier:

0 - 0.250.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.001.00 - 2.002.00 - 4.004.00 - 8.00

8.00+

MOISTURE CONDITION DESCRIPTIONCONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

DescriptionBlocky:

Lensed:Layer:Seam:

Parting:

DescriptionStratified:

Laminated:

Fissured:

Slickensided:

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

QU - TSF

Extremely SoftVery Soft

SoftMedium Hard

Moderately HardHard

Very Hard

SCALE OF RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS ROCK BEDDING THICKNESSES

Consistency

Criteria Alternating layers of varying material or color withlayers at least ¼-inch (6 mm) thickAlternating layers of varying material or color withlayers less than ¼-inch (6 mm) thickBreaks along definite planes of fracture with littleresistance to fracturingFracture planes appear polished or glossy,sometimes striated

Criteria Greater than 3-foot (>1.0 m)1-foot to 3-foot (0.3 m to 1.0 m)4-inch to 1-foot (0.1 m to 0.3 m)1¼-inch to 4-inch (30 mm to 100 mm)½-inch to 1¼-inch (10 mm to 30 mm)1/8-inch to ½-inch (3 mm to 10 mm)1/8-inch or less "paper thin" (<3 mm)

DescriptionDry:

Moist:Wet:

DescriptionVery Thick Bedded

Thick BeddedMedium Bedded

Thin BeddedVery Thin BeddedThickly LaminatedThinly Laminated

2.5 - 1010 - 50

50 - 250250 - 525

525 - 1,0501,050 - 2,600

>2,600

(Continued)

Component Very Coarse Grained

Coarse GrainedMedium Grained

Fine GrainedVery Fine Grained

GRAIN-SIZED TERMINOLOGY(Typically Sedimentary Rock)

ROCK VOIDS

VoidsPit

VugCavityCave

Void Diameter <6 mm (<0.25 in)6 mm to 50 mm (0.25 in to 2 in)50 mm to 600 mm (2 in to 24 in)>600 mm (>24 in)

ROCK QUALITY DESCRIPTION

RQD Value90 -10075 - 9050 - 7525 -50

Less than 25

Size Range >4.76 mm2.0 mm - 4.76 mm0.42 mm - 2.0 mm0.075 mm - 0.42 mm<0.075 mm

Rock generally fresh, joints stained and discolorationextends into rock up to 25 mm (1 in), open joints maycontain clay, core rings under hammer impact.

Rock mass is decomposed 50% or less, significantportions of the rock show discoloration andweathering effects, cores cannot be broken by handor scraped by knife.

Rock mass is more than 50% decomposed, completediscoloration of rock fabric, core may be extremelybroken and gives clunk sound when struck byhammer, may be shaved with a knife.

Rock Mass DescriptionExcellent

GoodFairPoor

Very Poor

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Slightly Weathered:

Weathered:

Highly Weathered:

Criteria Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smallangular lumps which resist further breakdownInclusion of small pockets of different soilsInclusion greater than 3 inches thick (75 mm)Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3 inches (3 to 75 mm) thickextending through the sampleInclusion less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick

Very SoftSoft

Firm (Medium Stiff)Stiff

Very StiffHard

Very Hard

Page 2 of 2

OH

CH

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

SM

SP

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

SW

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

LETTERGRAPH

SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

PT

GC

GM

GP

GW

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTYSOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

CLEANGRAVELS

GRAVELS WITHFINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITHFINES

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-4-4N=6

2-2-2N=4

3-3-4N=5

1-2-3N=5

1-2-3N=5

Lean CLAY, dark brown, moist, medium stiff

becomes soft, medium olive-gray

Sandy SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, mediumstiff, fine to medium sand

End of boring at 11.5 feet below grade.Groundwater was not encountered.Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings.Calif. sampler N Values converted toSPT-equivalent (Calif. * 0.65).

CL

ML

17

17

17

20

DD = 111 pcf

DD = 103 pcf

PROJECT NO.: 575-1038PROJECT: Performance Food Group

Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %

MoistureMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATIONTEST DATA

N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)

LATITUDE: 36.98124°LONGITUDE: -121.55619°

LOCATION: 5480 Monterey Road

Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton

Professional Service Industries, Inc.4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite BOakland, CA 94601Telephone: (510) 434-9200 Gilroy, California

SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon and Mod Cal

DATE STARTED: 10/26/16

BENCHMARK: N/A

The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DRILL COMPANY: Britton Exploration

STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A

LOGGED BY: M. UribeCOMPLETION DEPTH 11.5 ft DRILL RIG: CME 55

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem AugerELEVATION: N/A

REVIEWED BY: N. Haddad

EFFICIENCY N/AHAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:

0

5

10

DATE COMPLETED: 10/26/16 BORING B-1

1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-1-2N=3

1-1-2N=2

2-2-2N=4

3-4-7N=8

2-4-5N=9

Lean CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft

Silty SAND, olive-gray, moist, very loose, fine tocoarse sand

Sandy SILT, olive-gray, moist, soft

becomes stiff


CL

SM

ML

12

12 DD = 112 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-3-3N=4

2-2-2N=4

2-2-3N=3

2-2-3N=5

1-2-3N=5


Sandy SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, soft, fineto medium sand

becomes medium stiff, light olive-gray

sand fraction becomes coarser


CL

ML

16

19 DD = 111 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-3-2N=5

3-4-6N=7

3-2-2N=4

1-2-3N=5

2-1-1N=2


becomes medium olive-gray

becomes soft, moist, trace fine sand

Sandy SILT, olive-gray, moist, medium stiff, fineto coarse sand, few fine gravel

SILT, medium olive, moist, soft


CL

ML

ML

15

18

24

20

DD = 113 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

3-4-3N=5

1-2-4N=6

5-5-7N=8

2-2-3N=5

1-2-2N=4

1-2-5N=7

8-10-12N=22

Lean CLAY, dark brown, moist, medium stiff,few coarse sand

becomes medium olive-gray, decrease in sandfraction

SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, medium stiff

Silty SAND, medium olive-gray, moist, loose, fewfine to coarse gravel

SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, soft

Silty SAND, medium olive-gray, moist to verymoist, loose, few fine to coarse gravel

Poorly graded SAND with gravel, mediumolive-gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse gravel


CL

ML

SM

ML

SM

SP

22

22 DD = 104 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

1-2-2N=4

3-4-5N=6

4-4-7N=11

2-3-4N=5

1-3-3N=6

8-8-10N=18

10-11-10N=21


becomes medium stiff

becomes stiff, light brown

Sandy SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, mediumstiff

Poorly graded SAND with gravel, mediumolive-gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse gravel


Cl

ML

SP

16

24

5

DD = 97 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-3-4N=5

2-2-3N=5

4-4-5N=6

2-2-3N=5

2-2-1N=3


SILT, dark brown, moist, medium stiff



becomes soft, fine to coarse sand, few fine tocoarse gravelEnd of boring at 11.5 feet below grade.Groundwater was not encountered.Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings.Calif. sampler N Values converted toSPT-equivalent (Calif. * 0.65).

CL

ML

ML

17

23

DD = 98 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

1-1-1N=2

1-4-6N=7

3-4-5N=9

3-4-3N=5

2-2-3N=5

2-3-2N=5

2-3-3N=6



Sandy SILT, light olive-gray, moist, stiff, fine tomedium sand

Silty SAND, light olive-gray, moist, loose, fine tomedium sand

fine to coarse sand

SILT, light olive-gray, moist, medium stiff, tracefine sand

Sandy SILT, light olive-gray with red streaks,moist to very moist, medium stiff, fine to coarsesand


CL

ML

SM

ML

ML

19

26

23

19

25

DD = 96 pcf

DD = 108 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-5-5N=7

1-3-4N=7

4-6-6N=8

2-2-3N=5

2-3-5N=8



becomes light olive-gray


CL

ML

18

17

DD = 110 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

1-1-1N=2

1-2-3N=3

1-1-2N=3

4-10-13N=15

4-5-6N=11

Sandy SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, soft, fineto medium sand

fine to coarse sand

becomes stiff

few fine to medium gravel


ML 17

12 DD = 113 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

18

18

18

18

18

3-3-5N=5

1-1-1N=2

3-5-7N=8

2-3-4N=7

1-3-4N=7


becomes soft, medium olive-gray

Silty SAND, medium olive-gray, moist, loose,fine to medium sand, few fine to medium gravel

Lean CLAY, medium olive-gray, moist, mediumstiffEnd of boring at 11.5 feet below grade.Groundwater was not encountered.Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings.Calif. sampler N Values converted toSPT-equivalent (Calif. * 0.65).

CL

SM

CL

18

24

22

DD = 111 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

1-2-2N=4

2-3-4N=5

1-2-3N=5

3-4-5N=6

1-3-4N=7

2-2-3N=5

3-3-5N=8

1-2-3N=5

4-5-6N=11

Sandy Lean CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft



Silty SAND, medium olive-gray, moist, loose,fine to coarse sand

Lean CLAY, medium olive-gray, moist to verymoist, medium stiff

Silty SAND, medium olive-gray, very moist,loose, fine to medium sand

Poorly graded SAND, medium olive-gray, moist,medium dense, fine to medium sandEnd of boring at 31.5 feet below grade.Groundwater was not encountered.Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings.Calif. sampler N Values converted toSPT-equivalent (Calif. * 0.65).

CL

SM

CL

SM

SP

19

25

19

19

31

30

14

DD = 101 pcf% passing #200=77

LL = 28PL = 17

DD = 88 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20

25

30


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

3-5-4N=6

1-2-2N=4

4-5-7N=8

2-2-2N=4

1-2-3N=5

1-2-3N=5

1-3-3N=6

6-7-8N=15

14-14-17N=31

SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, medium stiff

becomes soft

becomes medium stiff, light olive-gray

Sandy SILT, light olive, moist, soft, fine tomedium sand


Lean CLAY, light brown, moist, medium stiff

becomes light olive

Silty SAND, light olive, moist, medium dense,fine to coarse sand, many fine to coarse gravel

Poorly graded SAND with gravel, light olive,moist, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel,dense


ML

ML

CL

SM

SP

20

19

30

10

DD = 108 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20

25

30


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

1-1-2N=3

3-5-6N=7

2-4-5N=9

3-4-5N=6

2-3-3N=6

1-2-3N=5

1-1-2N=3

3-4-4N=8

8-9-12N=21



Sandy SILT, medium olive-gray, moist, stiff, fineto medium sand


few fine to medium gravel

Lean CLAY, light olive-gray, moist, medium stiff

becomes soft

becomes medium stiff, trace fine to coarse sand

Poorly graded SAND with gravel, mediumolive-gray, moist to very moist, medium dense,fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel


CL

ML

CL

SP

23

21

21

18

14

26

12

DD = 108 pcf

% passing #200=72

DD = 117 pcf

LL = 21PL = 19


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20

25

30


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

4-3-4N=5

1-1-2N=3

2-3-4N=5

1-1-2N=3

4-5-8N=13

2-2-6N=8

3-2-1N=3

3-4-5N=9

3-4-6N=10

Lean CLAY, dark brown, moist to wet, mediumstiff

becomes soft

Poorly graded SAND with gravel, light olive-gray,moist, loose, fine to coarse sand, fine to mediumgravel

becomes very loose

becomes medium dense

SILT, light olive-gray, moist, medium stiff

becomes soft

Lean CLAY, light olive-gray, moist, stiff

SILT, light brown with red streaks, moist, stiff


CL

SP

ML

CL

ML

21

15

12

18

23

20

25

22

DD = 110 pcf

DD = 129 pcf


Dep

th, (

feet

)

STRENGTH, tsf

AdditionalRemarks

US

CS

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

0

Qp

Sam

ple

Typ

e

2.0

0

Moi

stur

e, %



N in blows/ft

Qu

Sam

ple

No.

Gra

phic

Log

50

PL

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

LL

4.0

25

Rec

over

y (in

ches

)



Wat

er

REMARKS:

DRILLER: P. Britton




BENCHMARK: N/A








0

5

10

15

20

25

30


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


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


Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) can be conducted at various intervals during the Cone

Penetration Test. Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A

small interval for seismic testing, such as 1‐1.5m (3‐5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile

with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3‐6m (10‐20ft) allows for a more average shear wave

velocity to be calculated. Gregg’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft) behind

the tip.

To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled

from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the

source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance

between the source and the cone. To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be

performed at two different

depths. The arrival times

between the two wave traces

are compared to obtain the

difference in time (∆t). The

difference in depth is

calculated (∆d) and velocity

can be determined using the

simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t

Multiple wave traces can be

recorded at the same depth

to improve quality of the

data.

A complete reference on

seismic cone penetration

tests is presented by

Robertson et al. 1986 and

Lunne et al. 1997.

A summary the shear wave velocities, arrival times and wave traces are provided with the report.

Figure SCPT

(S)

1

2

t 1

2

1 2

12

12

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification - Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. In-Situ Moisture / Density - The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the linear rings of a 2.38 inch I.D. modified California Sampler. The moisture content of representative SPT samples was also determined. The dry unit weight and moisture contents are shown on the Boring Logs. Atterberg Limits – The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected representative samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D4318. The liquid limit and plastic limit are shown on the Boring Logs. Resistance R-Value – R-Value testing was performed on representative soils anticipated to be exposed at subgrade level in parking areas in accordance with California Test Method 301. The results of the tests are presented in this appendix. Material Finer than #200 – Select samples from the borings were analyzed for grain size in general conformance with ASTM C 117. In general, oven dried samples are passed through a 0.75 µm (#200) sieve by adding water and washing fine grained material through the screen then drying back the retained material and comparing it to the total sample mass to find the percent retain and passing the #200 sieve. The percent passing the #200 sieve is shown on the Boring Logs. Soil Sulfate / Chloride Test – In order to estimate the concrete degradation potential of soils, the soluble sulfate and chloride content of a representative sample of the on-site soil, provided in the text of this report, was determined in accordance with EPA Test Method 300.0. pH (Potential of Hydrogen) – The measure of acidity or alkalinity of a material is referred to as the pH factor, which increases with alkalinity and decreases with acidity. The corrosivity potential of iron increases with low pH (4-5), while the corrosivity potential of copper increases with high pH (10-11). The pH value of a representative sample of the on-site soil, provided in the text of this report, was determined in accordance with EPA Test Method 9045B. Resistivity – The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to electrical current flow. Corrosion of buried ferrous metals is an electrochemical process which is related to the flow of electrical current from the metal to the soil. Lower electrical resistivity (higher currents) result from higher moisture and chemical contents in the soil. Resistivity is minimal when the soil is saturated. The resistivity of a representative sample of the on-site soil, provided in the text of this report, was determined in accordance with AASHTO Test Method T 288-91.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

LL

PSI Job No.:Project:Location:

575-1038Performance Food Group5480 Monterey RoadGilroy, California

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

CL

PI

B-12

B-14

5.5

10.5

CH

CL-ML

Classification (*Visual)

ML

Boring Depth (ft) PL

LIQUID LIMIT

MH

Professional Service Industries, Inc.

4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite B

Oakland, CA 94601

Telephone: (510) 434-9200

Fax: (510) 434-7676

ATTERBERG LIMIT RESULTS

28

21

17

19

11

2

Job No.: Date: 11/10/16 11.4Client: Tested PJProject: Reduced RUSample Checked DCSoil Type:

A B C D

395 144 3201200 1200 1200

29 42 353221 3226 31692099 2106 20832.59 2.58 2.4814.1 15.3 14.6

115.1 114.2 115.890 52 65

118 130 1223.00 3.54 3.34

24 15 19Turns Displacement

Olive Brown Sandy CLAY

Weight of Mold, grams

Exudation Pressure, psi

Initial Moisture, 781-029PSI0575-1038

Moisture Content, %

Specimen Number

Prepaired Weight, gramsFinal Water Added, grams/ccWeight of Soil & Mold, grams

Height After Compaction, in.

psfExpansion Pressure

R-value 18

60

Remarks:

B-8;Bulk @ 0-3'

Dry Density, pcf

R-value

Stabilometer @ 2000

Expansion Pressure, psfStabilometer @ 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Exp

ansi

on

Pre

ssu

re,

psf

R-v

alu

e

Exudation Pressure, psi

R-value

Expansion Pressure, psf

R-value Test Report (Caltrans 301)

Determining MinimumLaboratory Soil Resistivity

(AASHTO T 288-91)

Project Name: Performance Food Group - Gilroy Project Number: Laboratory Number: 0575 Date Tested:Sample Description: B-15 (0-3')

Meter:Scale:

Tested By: M.U. Reviewed By: B.B.Date: 7-Nov Date: 11-Nov

0575-103811/7/2016

Lowest Reading

Test Data

1,108

110

72 Hours

Reading on Resistivity Meter (Ω)

6,300

2,250

2,250

800 mL of Water

200 mL of Water

300 mL of Water

Final Test Results

400 mL of Water

500 mL of Water

600 mL of Water

700 mL of Water

Initial Data

Air Dried Mass of Sample

Mass of Water Added (150 mL)

Amount of Time Hydrated

Initial

100 mL of Water

Equipment ListH-4385

01PS587



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

PSI -- Oakland

RE: Performance Food's-Gilroy

Oakland, CA 94601

4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B

Brand Burfield

Rose Fasheh

Project Manager

Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 11/04/16 14:44. If you have

any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

08 November 2016

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield

Performance Food's-Gilroy

11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES

Date Received

B-15 (0-3)' T162808-01 Soil 11/01/16 00:00 11/04/16 14:44

Rose Fasheh, Project Manager



Page 1 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield


11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

DETECTIONS SUMMARY

Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method

T162808-01B-15 (0-3)'

Notes

Reporting

Sample ID:

pH 7.2 0.1 pH Units EPA 9045B

Sulfate as SO4 47.4 10.0 mg/kg EPA 300.0




Page 2 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield


11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

ResultAnalyte Limit Batch

Reporting

Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits

B-15 (0-3)'

T162808-01 (Soil)


Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods

EPA 9045B7.2 6110414 11/04/16 11/04/16 pH Units 1pH 0.1

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0

ND EPA 300.011/07/16 11/08/16 mg/kg 61107121Chloride 10.0

"47.4 " " "" "Sulfate as SO4 10.0




Page 3 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield


11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods - Quality Control



Duplicate (6110414-DUP1) Prepared & Analyzed: 11/04/16 Source: T162799-02

pH pH Units8.35 0.1 8.34 200.120




Page 4 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield


11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Result Limit

Reporting

Units Level

Spike

Result

Source

%REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

Anion Scan by EPA Method 300.0 - Quality Control



Blank (6110712-BLK1) Prepared: 11/07/16 Analyzed: 11/08/16

Fluoride mg/kgND 2.00

Chloride "ND 10.0

Sulfate as SO4 "ND 10.0

Bromide "ND 2.00

LCS (6110712-BS1) Prepared: 11/07/16 Analyzed: 11/08/16

Chloride mg/kg85.8 10.0 100 70-13085.8

Sulfate as SO4 "82.8 10.0 100 70-13082.8

Matrix Spike (6110712-MS1) Prepared: 11/07/16 Analyzed: 11/08/16 Source: T162784-01

Chloride mg/kg81.5 10.0 98.0 ND 70-13083.1

Sulfate as SO4 "81.6 10.0 98.0 ND 70-13083.2

Matrix Spike Dup (6110712-MSD1) Prepared: 11/07/16 Analyzed: 11/08/16 Source: T162784-01

Chloride mg/kg83.6 10.0 100 ND 2070-13083.6 2.62

Sulfate as SO4 "81.8 10.0 100 ND 2070-13081.8 0.186




Page 5 of 6

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland


Brand Burfield


11/08/16 15:37Oakland CA, 94601



949.297.5020 Phone

949.297.5027 Fax

Notes and Definitions

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

dry

Not ReportedNR

Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND

Analyte DETECTEDDET




Page 6 of 6

Date post:	20-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

575-1038-2 (Perf Foods - Gilroy - Geo)

Documents