A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

A

BC

DE

FG

HI

JK

LMB

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED EYE CLINIC

JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER

LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA VA TASK ORDER NO. 605-334

PREPARED FOR: Leo A. Daly

550 South Hope Street, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071

PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore

Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road

San Diego, California 92123

February 24, 2015 Project No. 107860001

Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334

107860001 R.doc i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................1

4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING....................................2

5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................3 5.1. Regional Geologic Setting............................................................................................3 5.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................4

5.2.1. Fill .......................................................................................................................4 5.2.2. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits..............................................................................4

5.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................4 5.4. Excavatability ...............................................................................................................4 5.5. Flood Hazards...............................................................................................................5 5.6. Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................................................5

5.6.1. Local Faults.........................................................................................................6 5.6.2. Strong Ground Motion ........................................................................................7 5.6.3. Ground Surface Rupture .....................................................................................7 5.6.4. Ground Motion....................................................................................................7 5.6.5. Seismic Design Considerations...........................................................................8 5.6.6. Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis............................................................9 5.6.7. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement............................................10 5.6.8. Tsunamis ...........................................................................................................11

5.7. Landsliding .................................................................................................................11

6. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................11

7. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................12 7.1. Earthwork ...................................................................................................................12

7.1.1. Site Preparation .................................................................................................12 7.1.2. Remedial Grading .............................................................................................13 7.1.3. Materials for Fill ...............................................................................................14 7.1.4. Compacted Fill ..................................................................................................14 7.1.5. Utility Trench Backfill ......................................................................................15 7.1.6. Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................15

7.2. Temporary Shoring.....................................................................................................16 7.3. Foundations.................................................................................................................17

7.3.1. Spread Footings – Proposed Building...............................................................17 7.3.2. Spread Footings - Ancillary Structures .............................................................19

7.4. Slabs-On-Grade ..........................................................................................................20 7.5. Concrete Flatwork ......................................................................................................20 7.6. Pavements ...................................................................................................................21 7.7. Corrosion ....................................................................................................................22


107860001 R.doc ii

7.8. Concrete......................................................................................................................22 7.9. Drainage......................................................................................................................23 7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation ...............................................................24 7.11. Pre-Construction Conference......................................................................................24

8. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................25

9. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................27

Tables Table 1 – Principal Active Faults .....................................................................................................5 Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site ..................................................................7 Table 3 – Seismic Design Factors ....................................................................................................8

Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Figure 3 – Geology Figure 4 – Fault Locations Figure 5 – Cross Sections A-A′ and B-B’ Figure 6 – MCER Design Response Spectrum Figure 7 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Cantilevered Shoring

Appendices Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing


107860001 R.doc 1

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with your request and our proposal dated July 28, 2014, we have performed a geo-

technical evaluation for the Proposed Eye Clinic to be located at the existing Jerry L. Pettis Veteran

Affairs (VA) Medical Center facility in Loma Linda, California. This report presents the results of

our field exploration, geophysical survey, geotechnical laboratory testing, our conclusions regard-

ing the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, and our recommendations for the design and

earthwork construction of this project.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of geotechnical services for this study included the following:

Review of readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature, topographic maps, geologic maps, fault maps, hazard maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs.

Performance of a field reconnaissance to observe site conditions and to locate and mark explora-tory borings.

Notification of Underground Service Alert (USA) and retention of a geophysical subconsul-tant to clear proposed boring locations for the potential presence of underground utilities.

Performance of a subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of three small-diameter borings to depths of up to 81.5 feet.

Performance of geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples to evaluate the subsurface ma-terials’ pertinent engineering characteristics.

Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations re-garding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project.

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located to the northeast of the existing VA Medical Center main hospital

building and primarily consists of relocatable buildings, concrete paved walkways, asphalt

concrete (AC) paved driveways and landscaped areas (Figure 1). The site is terraced with two

relatively level to gently sloping areas that are separated by a south-facing slope up to 10 feet

in height that transects the central portion of the site. The elevation of the subject site is ap-


107860001 R.doc 2

proximately 1,155 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site coordinates are approximately

34.0507 north latitude and 117.2489 west longitude.

Based on our recent communications with Leo A Daly, we understand that the development will

include the construction of a single-story building having an approximate footprint of 15,000

square feet, paved parking and drive areas, underground utilities, and other associated appurte-

nances. We further understand that the proposed building will be supported by conventional

shallow foundations. Anticipated column loads have not been established at this time; however,

based on our communications with Nabih Youssef Associates, we have assumed building column

loads of up to 175 kips.

As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed previous geotechnical reports for the Speech ENT

Clinic Building, Cancer Building, and Behavioral Health Services Building, which are located in

close proximity to the north of the proposed Eye Clinic site (Construction Testing & Engineer-

ing, Inc., 2010; Geotechnologies, Inc., 2011; Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 2012). The

reviewed reports indicate that the portion of the VA Medical Center site that includes the pro-

posed Eye Clinic is underlain by varying amounts of fill materials over young alluvial fan

deposits. Several small, man-made ponds surround the VA Medical Center’s main hospital build-

ing, some of which have been backfilled to accommodate the construction of the Speech ENT

Clinic, Medical Building, and Behavioral Health Services Building projects. According to the

report prepared by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. (2012), fills up to approximately

13 feet in depth are present at the proposed Behavioral Health Sciences building.

4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our subsurface exploration for this study was conducted on December 4, 2014, and consisted of

the excavation, logging, and sampling of three, 8-inch diameter exploratory borings. The borings

were drilled to depths of up to 81.5 feet with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow

stem augers. In-place and bulk soil samples were obtained from the borings. Samples were then

transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the

exploratory borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the borings are included in Appendix A.


107860001 R.doc 3

Geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples included an evaluation of in-situ dry

density and moisture content, gradation analyses, consolidation, shear strength, expansion index, soil

corrosivity (including sulfate and chloride content, pH, and resistivity) and R-value. The results of

the in-situ dry density and moisture content tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The

results of the other geotechnical laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B.

5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting and seismicity, landslides, ex-

cavatability, and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections.

5.1. Regional Geologic Setting

The project area is situated near the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains in the Transverse

Ranges Geomorphic Province (Norris and Webb, 1990). This geomorphic province encom-

passes several east-west trending mountain blocks within Southern California. The site lies

within alluvial fan deposits near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains (Figure 3). Quater-

nary age and younger partially consolidated alluvium is mapped within the city of Loma Linda

(Morton, 1978a; 1978b). The alluvium is expected to be 100 feet or more in thickness.

The Transverse Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault zones trend-

ing roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 4, are considered active

faults. The San Jacinto, Banning, San Timoteo Canyon, and Rialto-Colton Faults are all active

faults in the project area. The San Jacinto Fault Zone, the nearest active fault system, has been

mapped approximately 1 mile southwest of the project site (Figure 4). Major tectonic activity asso-

ciated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of

right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in

the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report.


107860001 R.doc 4

5.2. Site Geology

The earth materials encountered during our subsurface evaluation included fill, and Quater-

nary-age young alluvial fan deposits. Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered

during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent

sections. Additional descriptions of the subsurface units are provided on the boring logs in

Appendix B. The general geology of the site is shown on Figure 2 and geologic cross sec-

tions are presented on Figure 5.

5.2.1. Fill

Fill soils were encountered in our borings to approximate depths of up to 8½ feet. The fill

soils consisted of brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand with scattered gravel.

5.2.2. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits

Quaternary-age young alluvial fan deposits were encountered beneath the fill in each of our

borings to the total depths explored. The young alluvial fan deposits were observed to con-

sist of brown, light brown, and yellowish brown, moist, loose to dense, silty sand. Scattered

interlayers of gravel were encountered in the young alluvial fan deposits.

5.3. Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Fluctuations in the groundwater

level and local perched conditions may occur due to variations in ground surface topography,

subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors.

5.4. Excavatability

Based on our subsurface exploration of the site, the earth materials underlying the site

should be excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition.


107860001 R.doc 5

5.5. Flood Hazards

Based on review of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance

rate map (FIRM), the site is considered to be outside of the 100-year flood zone

(FIRM, 2008). Based on this information, the potential for significant flooding of the site

is considered to be low.

5.6. Faulting and Seismicity

Like most of southern California, the project area is considered to be seismically active.

Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs,

as well as on our geologic field mapping, the subject site is not underlain by known active or

potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last

11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). However, the site is located in a seismically

active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground mo-

tion is considered significant during the design life of the proposed structure.

The nearest known active fault is the San Jacinto fault, located approximately 1 mile south-

west of the site. Table 1 below lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the

subject site and their associated maximum moment magnitudes (MW) as published for the

CGS by Cao et al. (2003). The approximate fault to site distance in the table was calculated

by the National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters program (USGS, 2008).

Table 1 – Principal Active Faults

Fault Approximate Distance

miles (kilometers) Moment Magnitude

(MW)

San Jacinto (San Bernardino) 1 (1.6) 6.7 San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) 2.4 (3.8) 6.9 San Andreas (San Bernardino) 6.9 (11.1) 7.3 San Jacinto (Anza Segment) 13.6 (21.9) 7.2 Cucamonga 14.2 (22.8) 7.0 Cleghorn 15.4 (24.8) 6.5 North Frontal (Western) 18.4 (29.6) 7.0 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) 23.8 (38.3) 6.8 Chino 24.0 (38.6) 6.7 Whittier 24.9 (40.1) 6.8 Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 27.6 (44.4) 6.8


107860001 R.doc 6

Table 1 – Principal Active Faults

Fault Approximate Distance

miles (kilometers) Moment Magnitude

(MW)

Sierra Madre 28.6 (46.0) 7.2 Pinto Mountain 30.2 (48.6) 7.0 North Frontal (Eastern) 32.4 (52.1) 6.7 Clamshell-Sawpit 36.6 (58.9) 6.5 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Springs

40.3 (64.8) 7.3

Raymond 43.2 (69.5) 6.5 Landers 47.6 (76.6) 7.3 Burnt Mountain 47.9 (77.1) 6.4 Elysian Park 48.9 (78.7) 6.7 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 49.0 (78.9) 7.1 Eureka Peak 49.2 (79.2) 6.4 Elsinore (Julian Segment) 50.8 (81.8) 7.1 South Emerson-Copper Mtn 52.1 (83.8) 6.9 Verdugo 52.2 (84.0) 6.7 Hollywood 56.5 (90.9) 6.4 San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 57.1 (91.9) 6.8 Calico-Hidalgo 58.3 (93.8) 7.1 Gravel Hills-Harper Lake 59.7 (96.1) 6.9 Palos Verdes 60.9 (98.0) 7.3 San Gabriel 61.9 (99.6) 7.0 Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 62.0 (99.8) 6.7

In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include strong ground motion, ground

surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis. These hazards

are discussed in the following sections.

5.6.1. Local Faults

As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the Loma Linda area is underlain by several mapped and

named faults (including the San Jacinto, Banning, San Timoteo Canyon, and Rialto-

Colton faults). Several faults have been mapped in the project vicinity including the

northwest-southeast trending San Jacinto fault located approximately 1 mile to the

southwest of the project area. This fault is considered to be inactive or potentially active

(evidence of movement within the last 2,000,000 years).


107860001 R.doc 7

5.6.2. Strong Ground Motion

Based on our review of background information, data pertaining to the historical seis-

micity of the area that includes Loma Linda are summarized in Table 2 below. This

table presents historic earthquakes within a radius of approximately 62 miles (100 kilo-

meters) of the site with a magnitude of 6.5 or greater.

Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site

Date Magnitude

(M) Approximate Epicentral Distance

miles (kilometers) December 8, 1812 7.3 31.8 (51.2) July 22, 1899 6.4 22.4 (36.1) December 25, 1899 6.7 22.4 (36.1) April 21, 1918 6.8 25.2 (40.6) March 11, 1933 6.4 49.4 (79.6) December 4, 1948 6.0 50.5 (81.2) October 1, 1987 6.0 47.6 (76.6) June 28, 1992 7.3 47.4 (76.3) June 28, 1992 6.5 25.3 (40.8)

5.6.3. Ground Surface Rupture

Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, no active

faults are known to cross the project vicinity. Therefore, the potential for ground rup-

ture due to faulting at the site is considered low. However, lurching or cracking of the

ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.

5.6.4. Ground Motion

The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum

Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate

seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion

response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent

damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for

structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-

source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the

MCER for the site was calculated as 0.949g using the United States Geological Survey


107860001 R.doc 8

(USGS, 2013) seismic design tool (web-based). Spectral response acceleration parameters,

consistent with the 2013 CBC, are also provided in Section 5.6.7. for the evaluation of

seismic loads on buildings and other structures.

The 2013 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be

evaluated, where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean

(MCEG) peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance

with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCEG peak

ground acceleration is based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a

2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The MCEG peak ground acceleration

with adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 0.912g using the USGS

(USGS, 2013) seismic design tool that yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground accelera-

tion of 0.912g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.00 for Site Class D.

5.6.5. Seismic Design Considerations

Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the

requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the

seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with the CBC (2013) guidelines and

adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (USGS, 2013).

Table 3 – Seismic Design Factors

Factors Values Site Class D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.50 Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 2.372 g Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 1.086 g Short Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMS 2.372 g One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SM1 1.628 g Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 1.582 g Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SD1 1.086 g


107860001 R.doc 9

5.6.6. Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis

We have performed a site-specific ground response analysis in accordance with Sec-

tion 1614A.1.2 of the California Building Code (CBC, 2013) and Section 21.2 of

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-10 (ASCE, 2010). The analy-

sis consisted of a review of available seismologic information for nearby faults and

performance of probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analyses to provide an

acceleration response spectrum (ARS) to model building response to seismic ground

shaking for design of the proposed structure.

We conducted a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to evaluate the horizontal ground mo-

tion with a recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years or a 2 percent probability of

exceedance in 50 years, also known as the ground motion associated with the Maximum

Considered Earthquake (MCE). We conducted our analysis using the hazard spectrum cal-

culator program OpenSHA (Field, et al., 2003) and the online database of fault locations,

rupture areas, and recurrence intervals (Cao, et al., 2003). We considered several attenua-

tion relationships in our analysis to model spectral response acceleration at the site and

selected the relationships by Chiou & Young (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008), and

Boore & Atkinson (2008) in evaluating the probabilistic MCE ARS. The results of our

probabilistic ground motion analysis for 5 percent damping are presented on Figure 6.

We conducted a deterministic seismic hazard analysis to evaluate ground shaking

wherein we computed the 5 percent damped, median ARS for characteristic earth-

quakes acting individually on known active faults within the region. In our analysis, we

used the National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters tool (USGS, 2008) to

evaluate the fault to site distance for the database of fault locations and magnitude pub-

lished by the USGS/CGS (Cao et al., 2003). We found that the ARS at the site for a

moment magnitude 6.7 earthquake event on the San Jacinto fault (approximately 1 mile

southwest of the site) exceeds the ARS at the site due to seismic events on other re-

gional faults using published estimates of earthquake magnitude (Cao et al., 2003). We

considered several attenuation relationships and modeled the MCE ground motion for a

magnitude 6.7 event on the San Jacinto fault. In accordance with the Section 21.2.2 of


107860001 R.doc 10

ASCE 7-10, we constructed the deterministic MCE ground motion from the largest

scaled median spectral response acceleration at each period evaluated and the lower

limit specified in Section 21.2.2. The deterministic MCE ARS from our analysis is also

presented on Figure 6.

The site-specific design ARS is presented on Figure 6. In accordance with Sec-

tion 21.2.3 of ASCE 7-10, the site-specific design ARS is the lesser of the probabilistic

and deterministic MCE ARS at each period evaluated reduced by a factor of one-third.

The design ARS for a Site Class D computed in accordance with Section 1613A of the

CBC and Section 11.4.5 of ASCE 7-10 is presented on Figure 6 for comparison. The

site-specific design ARS presented on Figure 6 meets or exceeds 80 percent of the de-

sign ARS for a Site Class D in accordance with Section 21.3 of ASCE 7-10. The

spectral ordinates for the site-specific design ARS are tabulated on Figure 6.

5.6.7. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to

earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non-

plastic silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible

to liquefaction. Based on the observed absence of a shallow groundwater table during

our subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that liquefaction at the subject site is not a

design consideration.

The seismically induced settlement potential of the subsurface soils was evaluated using

the soil sampler blow counts recorded at various depths in our exploratory borings and

our laboratory test results. The potential seismically-induced settlement within the upper

soils at the site was estimated using the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Soft-

ware, 2007), which incorporates Tokimatsu and Seed’s procedure (1987). Deaggregation

of the probabilistic ground motion at the site was performed using the USGS interactive

webpage (web address http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/), which estimates the

modal magnitude for a given probabilistic seismic ground motion. Results of our seismic

hazard deaggregation yielded a modal magnitude of 7.0, which is the magnitude used in


107860001 R.doc 11

our analysis. Our analysis also assumed a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.91g based

on the design seismic event. Based on our evaluation, we estimate a total seismic induced

settlement to be on the order of 6 inches. Differential earthquake induced settlements are

estimated to be approximately 3 inches over a 40-foot span.

5.6.8. Tsunamis

Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth)

generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes,

landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on the location and elevation of the site, the po-

tential for a tsunami is not a design consideration.

5.7. Landsliding

Based on our review of the original geotechnical evaluation for the site, other published geo-

logic literature, and aerial photographs and our subsurface evaluation, landslides or related

features do not underlie and are not adjacent to the subject site.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Based on our review of the referenced background data, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory

testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed Eye Clinic to be located at the existing

Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical Center is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recom-

mendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the

project. In general, the following conclusions were made:

The project site is underlain by fill and young alluvial fan deposits. The fill material, due to the lack of documentation of its placement, is not considered suitable for support of the pro-posed building in its current condition.

The earth materials underlying the site should be excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition. However, the fill and upper portions of the young allu-vial fan deposits were observed to be loose and may be prone to caving within unsupported excavations.


107860001 R.doc 12

From a geotechnical standpoint, the on-site soils may generally be re-used for compacted fill material provided they meet the specifications herein.

Groundwater was not encountered to the depths evaluated and is not anticipated to be a de-sign consideration, although seepage may be encountered in some areas. Fluctuations in the groundwater level and local perched conditions may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors.

The active San Jacinto fault zone is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the site. Ac-cordingly, the potential for relatively strong seismic ground motions should be considered in the project design.

Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation, the site is not considered to be susceptible to seismically-induced liquefaction. However, our evalua-tion indicates that portions of the alluvial fan deposits are susceptible to seismically-induced settlement.

Based on the results of our limited soil corrosivity testing as well as testing in nearby soils, and Caltrans corrosion guidelines (2012), the site would not be classified as a corrosive site.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the de-

sign and construction of the proposed structure. The proposed site improvements should be

constructed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governing agencies.

7.1. Earthwork

Earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable gov-

erning agencies and the recommendations presented in the following sections of this report. Ninyo &

Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations presented herein.

7.1.1. Site Preparation

Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements, vegetation, utility

lines (if present), asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded.

Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally

not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation

and fill areas. The debris and unsuitable material (e.g., oversize and organic materials) gen-


107860001 R.doc 13

erated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and dis-

posed of per the local governing jurisdiction.

7.1.2. Remedial Grading

In those areas of the site where slabs-on-grade and shallow foundations are planned, we

recommend that the upper soils be removed and recompacted to a depth of 8 feet below the

existing ground surface, or 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed foundations (whichever

is deeper). In general, remedial grading should extend 5 feet or more beyond the outer edge

of the structure footprint, as practical. Ninyo & Moore should observe the excavations prior

to filling to evaluate the need for deeper removals. Deeper removals may be needed at spe-

cific locations if loose, compressible, or otherwise unsuitable materials are exposed during

grading. The removals should be replaced with compacted fill in accordance with this re-

port. Fill material placed in the upper 3 feet of the structural portion of the pad should

conform to the criteria listed below for import fill material.

As noted above, the young alluvial fan deposits that underlie the subject site are considered

susceptible to seismically-induced settlement, due to a design-level earthquake. To reduce

the differential settlement that could occur as a result of the seismic settlement, we recom-

mend that consideration be given to placing two or more layers of geosynthetic

reinforcement within the fill placed within the building area as part of the remedial earth-

work recommended herein. The geosynthetic reinforcement should consist of Tensar TriAx

TX140 geogrid (or acceptable equivalent), which should be placed with a vertical spacing

of 12 inches or more. The lowermost layer of geosynthetic reinforcement should be placed

on the bottom of the excavation. We recommend that the geosynthetic layers be placed be-

low the bottom of the lowest foundation (if conventional shallow foundations are planned

for building support) and below those underground utilities/conduits that are planned within

the building area. Deep foundations (if planned for building support) can extend through the

geosynthetic layers and into the underlying soils.


107860001 R.doc 14

7.1.3. Materials for Fill

From a geotechnical standpoint, on-site soils with an organic content of less than approxi-

mately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) are suitable for use as fill. In general,

fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 4 inches in diameter, and

not more than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾-inch. Oversize materials should be

separated from material to be used for fill and removed from the site.

Imported fill material should generally be granular soils with a very low to low expansion

potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] of 50 or less as evaluated by ASTM International

[ASTM] D 4829). Import material should also be non-corrosive in accordance with the Cal-

trans (2012) corrosion guidelines. Retaining wall backfill material should further conform

to the specifications presented for Structure Backfill in the “Greenbook” (Public Works

Standards, Inc., 2012). Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s

representative prior to filling or importing.

7.1.4. Compacted Fill

Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the ex-

posed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed

ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or

dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents generally above the optimum moisture con-

tent. The scarified materials should then be compacted to a relative compaction of

90 percent as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of compaction

by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for

observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify

this office and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observa-

tion, and to provide reasonable time for that review.

Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum

moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material

type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent

within the soil mass.


107860001 R.doc 15

Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading

operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive

fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.

Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thick-

ness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a

moisture content generally above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by

mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers or

other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by

ASTM D 1557. Aggregate base, if used as fill beneath pavement, and the upper 12 inches

of subgrade soils, should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. Successive

lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

7.1.5. Utility Trench Backfill

Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site earth materials should be generally suitable

for re-use as trench backfill provided they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris,

and rocks greater than approximately 3 inches in diameter. Larger chunks, if generated dur-

ing excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off site. Soils

classified as silts or clays should not be used for backfill in the pipe zone. Fill should be

moisture-conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum. Trench backfill should be

compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 except for

the upper 12 inches of the backfill below pavements that should be compacted to a relative

compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Lift thickness for backfill will

depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but fill should generally be placed in

lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Special care should be exercised to avoid

damaging the pipe during compaction of the backfill.

7.1.6. Temporary Excavations

For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used:


107860001 R.doc 16

Fill and Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Type C

Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should be

evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA regulations.

Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommendations.

For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met

using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by laying back the slopes to no steeper

than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in fill and young alluvial fan deposits. Temporary excava-

tions that encounter seepage may be shored or stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along

the base of the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-

by-case basis. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.

7.2. Temporary Shoring

Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, the proposed structure will not in-

clude a subterranean level. If deep excavations are planned where temporary sloping of the

walls of the excavation is not feasible, it may be necessary to install a temporary shoring

system. The shoring plans should clearly depict the site constraints and the shoring system.

The shoring plans should be signed and stamped by a professional engineer registered in the

State of California experienced in the design the shoring systems. Ninyo & Moore should be

given the opportunity to review the project plans to check its compliance with design and

construction recommendations presented herein.

A cantilever shoring system consisting of soldier piles and lagging can be utilized to facili-

tate construction staging (Figure 7). The soldier piles may be comprised of structural

concrete below the bottom of the excavation and lean concrete slurry backfill above the bot-

tom. H-piles inserted in the drilled shafts, during the placement of concrete, are to act as

reinforcement below the bottom of the excavation. Lagging spans the distance between the

H-piles, transferring the soil lateral pressure to the H-piles.


107860001 R.doc 17

Lateral earth pressures exerted on cantilever shoring are indicated on Figure 7. These lateral

earth pressures should be evaluated by a structural engineer for the design of the temporary

shoring system. These design earth pressures assume that spoils from the excavations, or other

surcharge loads, will not be placed above the excavations within a 1:1 plane extending up and

back from the base of the excavation. For shoring subjected to surcharge loads, such as soil

stockpiles or construction materials/equipment, an additional horizontal uniform pressure of

0.5q may be applied to the full height of the excavation, where “q” is the surcharge pressure.

Street traffic or construction traffic may be assumed to induce a surcharge pressure “q” of

240 pounds per square foot (psf). If a braced shoring system is planned for the site, we would be

pleased to provide recommendations for their design and construction upon request.

7.3. Foundations

Conventional shallow foundations are feasible for support of structures, provided the rec-

ommended remedial grading is performed as discussed above in Section 7.1.2. The

following foundation design parameters are provided as recommendations based on prelimi-

nary analysis. The foundations are not intended to control differential movement of the soils.

Minor cracking (considered tolerable) of slabs and flatwork may occur, particularly after a

major seismic event. The following preliminary recommendations may be utilized for con-

struction. These recommendations should be reviewed once structural plans are available

and site excavations are finished. In addition, requirements of the appropriate governing juris-

dictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the structures. If

alternative foundation systems (e.g. deep foundations, etc) are proposed, we would be pleased to

provide recommendations for their design/construction upon request.

7.3.1. Spread Footings – Proposed Building

The proposed structure may be supported on shallow footings provided the

recommended remedial earthwork is performed as described in Section 7.1.2. We

estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein,

will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement on the

order of 1/2 inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.


107860001 R.doc 18

Shallow foundations, either spread or continuous, founded on compacted fill may be

designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf),

which incorporates a factor of safety of 3 or more. The allowable bearing capacity value

may be increased by 1/3 when considering loads of short duration such as wind or

seismic forces. Foundations should be founded 24 inches below the adjacent grade.

Continuous footings should have a width of 18 inches or more and isolated footings

should be 48 inches or more in width.

For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pres-

sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used. This

value assumes that the ground surface is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or

three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recom-

mend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be

neglected when calculating passive resistance.

For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35

be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistances are to be used in

combination, we recommend that the passive value not exceed one-half of the total re-

sistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering

loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

We estimate that shallow foundations, designed and constructed as recommended

herein, will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement

on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.

To help resist the effects of seismically-induced settlement of the soils that underlie the

site, we recommend that the foundations supporting the proposed Eye Clinic building

be structurally interconnected through the use of reinforced concrete grade beams.

These grade beams can provide added rigidity to the foundation system and can help the

foundation system to behave as a structural unit to span areas of differential settlement.

As such, we recommend that the grade beams be designed and constructed in accor-

dance with the structural engineer’s requirements.


107860001 R.doc 19

7.3.2. Spread Footings - Ancillary Structures

Ancillary structures such as site walls or shade structures may be supported on shallow,

spread or continuous footings founded on at least 18 inches of compacted fill. Shallow,

spread or continuous footings bearing on recompacted fill may be designed using an allow-

able bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by

one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

Spread footings should be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Con-

tinuous footings should have a width of 15 inches and isolated footings should be

24 inches in width or more. The spread footings should be reinforced in accordance

with the recommendations of the project structural engineer.

For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pres-

sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used. This

value assumes that the ground surface is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or

three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recom-

mend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be

neglected when calculating passive resistance.

For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.30

be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistances are to be used in

combination, we recommend that the passive value not exceed one-half of the total re-

sistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering

loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

We estimate that shallow foundations, designed and constructed as recommended

herein, will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement

on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.


107860001 R.doc 20

7.4. Slabs-On-Grade

We recommend that slab-on-grade floors underlain by compacted fill materials of generally very

low to low expansion potential be 5 inches in thickness, and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing

bars spaced 18 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the middle

of the slab. To help resist the effects of seismic settlement of the soils that underlie the site, the

structural engineer can consider designing the floors as structural slabs. As a means to help re-

duce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with expansion joints at

intervals of approximately 12 feet each way. The required slab thickness, reinforcement, and ex-

pansion joint spacing should be designed by the project structural engineer.

If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a

vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene (or equivalent)

membrane placed over 4 inches of compacted, medium to coarse, clean sand or pea gravel and

overlain by an additional 2 inches of sand to help protect the membrane from puncture during

placement and to aid in concrete curing. The exposed subgrade should be moistened just prior to

the placement of concrete.

7.5. Concrete Flatwork

Exterior concrete flatwork should be 4 inches in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3

reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on-center both ways. A vapor retarder is not needed for exte-

rior flatwork. To reduce the potential manifestation of distress to exterior concrete flatwork due

to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-

control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the structural engineer. Exterior slabs should

be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. Granular subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of

12 inches, moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum moisture content,

and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Positive

drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork.


107860001 R.doc 21

7.6. Pavements

For preliminary design purposes, we have assumed traffic index (TI) values of 5, 6, and 7 for

our initial evaluation of pavement structural sections at the site. If traffic loads are different from

those assumed herein, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. Actual pavement recom-

mendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at

the finished subgrade elevations once grading operations have been performed.

Based on the results of our previous laboratory testing and experience with the on-site soils, we

have used a design R-value of 39 for the preliminary design of flexible pavements at the project

site. As noted above, actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests per-

formed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at the finished subgrade elevations following grading

operations. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re-evaluate the pavement design at the

time of construction. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are as follows:

Table 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections

Traffic Index Design

R-Value Asphalt Concrete

(in)

Class 2 Aggregate Base

(in) 5 39 3.0 4.0 6 39 3.0 6.5 7 39 4.0 7.0

We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade, and aggregate base materials be

compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current

version of ASTM D 1557. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement

design should be re-evaluated.

Where rigid pavement sections are proposed, we recommend a 6-inch thickness of Portland

cement concrete underlain by 4 inches of compacted aggregate base. We recommend that the

Portland cement concrete have a 600 pounds per square inch (psi) flexural strength and that

it be reinforced with No. 3 bars that are placed 18 inches on center (both ways). The rigid

pavement and aggregate base should be placed on compacted subgrade that is prepared in

accordance with the recommendations presented above.


107860001 R.doc 22

7.7. Corrosion

Laboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site earth materials to

evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and

electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) 643 and

the sulfate and chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and

CT 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Corrosivity testing was performed on two samples of the upper soils obtained from our explora-

tory borings B-1 and B-3. The results of the corrosivity testing performed on the sample from

boring B-1 indicated an electrical resistivity of 5,800 ohm-cm, soil pH of 9.6, a chloride con-

tent of 45 parts per million (ppm), and a soluble sulfate content of 0.002 percent

(i.e., 20 ppm). The results of the corrosivity testing conducted on the sample from boring B-3

indicated an electrical resistivity of 2,800 ohm-cm, soil pH of 8.5, a chloride content of

70 parts per million (ppm), and a soluble sulfate content of 0.002 percent (i.e., 20 ppm), re-

spectively. Based on the Caltrans corrosion (2012) criteria, both samples from of the on-site

soils would not be classified as corrosive. Corrosive soils are defined by Caltrans (2012) as

soils with electrical resistivities less than 1,000 ohm-cm, more than 500 ppm chlorides, more

than 0.1 percent sulfates, or a pH less than 5.5.

7.8. Concrete

Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates

can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a soluble sulfate con-

tent of 0.002 percent for the tested samples collected onsite, which is considered to represent

a negligible potential for sulfate attack (ACI, 2011). Based on the results of our laboratory

testing, Type II cement can be used. However, due to the variability in the on-site soils and

the potential future use of reclaimed water at the site, we recommend that Type II/V cement

be considered for concrete structures in contact with soil or the formational materials. In ad-

dition, we recommend a water-to-cement ratio of no more than 0.45. We also recommend

that 3 inches of concrete cover be provided over reinforcing steel for cast-in-place structures

in contact with the on-site earth materials.


107860001 R.doc 23

In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we rec-

ommend that for slabs-on-grade, the concrete be placed with a slump in accordance with

Table 5.2.1 of Section 302.1R of The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Floor and Slab Con-

struction,” or Table 2.2 of Section 332R in The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Guide to

Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction.” If a higher slump is needed for screening

and leveling, a super plasticizer is recommended to achieve the higher slump without chang-

ing the required water-to-cement ratio. The slump should be checked periodically at the site

prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that crack control joints be provided in

slabs in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the poten-

tial for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend

that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs-on-grade and foundations be in accor-

dance with CBC Section 1907.7. The structural engineer should be consulted for additional

concrete specifications.

7.9. Drainage

Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed such that runoff water is diverted away from

slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts,

concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be established and main-

tained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations

of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside the

building perimeter, and further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in

accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect.

Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A

gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns

should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets.


107860001 R.doc 24

Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage

terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to

the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained

for the life of the project. The property owner and the maintenance personnel should be

made aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to slope stability and foun-

dation performance.

7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of ob-

served conditions in widely spaced exploratory borings. If conditions are found to vary from

those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommen-

dations will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project

drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo & Moore

should perform the needed observation and testing services during construction operations to

evaluate the assumptions inherent in the design.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore

will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that

it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that

the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicat-

ing that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full

agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construc-

tion of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing

appropriate techniques and construction materials.

7.11. Pre-Construction Conference

We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading.

The owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer,

Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should attend to discuss the plans, the project, and the

proposed construction schedule.


107860001 R.doc 25

8. LIMITATIONS

The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have been

conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotech-

nical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is

made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no

evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions

not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties rela-

tive to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional

subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was lim-

ited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of

structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is

designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore

should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the

content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an

accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per-

form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent

evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for

the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.

Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site

conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,

our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon

request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of

natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to

the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac-

tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over

time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.


107860001 R.doc 26

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or re-use of the findings, con-

clusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at

said parties’ sole risk.


107860001 R.doc 27

9. REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, 1991a, Guidelines for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, (ACI 302.1R).

American Concrete Institute, 1991b, Guidelines for Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Con-struction, (ACI 332R).

American Concrete Institute, 2011, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Con-crete and Commentary.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 99-138: dated February.

California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 2.0), Divi-sion of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated November.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map of California: Map Sheet 48 (revised).

Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 139-172: dated February.

Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Willis, C. J., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps: California Geological Survey: dated June.

Chiou, B. S.-J., and Youngs, R.R., 2008, An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 173-216: dated February.

CivilTech Software, 2007, LiquefyPro v. 5.5c.

Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., 2010, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Speech ENT Clinic, VA Loma Linda Medical Center, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, Califor-nia, CTE Job No. 40-2654, dated December 30.

Field, E.H., Jordan, T.H., and Cornell, C.A., 2003, OpenSHA: A Developing Community-Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismological Research Letters, 74, no. 4, p. 406-419.


107860001 R.doc 28

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), 2008, San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map No. 06071C8711H, Federal Emergency Management Agency, revised August 28, 2008.

Geotechnologies, Inc., 2011, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Medical Build-ing, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, California, File No. 20245, dated December 12.

Harden, D.R., 1998, California Geology: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Geologi-cal Survey, California Geologic Map Series, Map No. 6.

Morton, D.M., 1978a, Geologic Map of the Redlands Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open File Report: 78-21, Scale 1:24,000.

Morton, D.M., 1978b, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino South Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open File Report: 78-20, Scale 1:24,000.

Mualchin, L., 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map, Based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Ninyo & Moore, In-house Proprietary Data.

Ninyo & Moore, 2014, Revised Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, Proposal No.P-21534: dated July 28.

Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Public Works Standards, Inc., 2012, “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Investigation, Behavioral Health Services Building, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Medical Center, Loma Linda, Cali-fornia, SCS&T No. 12310235F, dated December 11, revised December 13.

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013, Seismic Design Requirements, VA Seismic Design Document H-18-8, dated August.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual.

United States Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/.

United States Geological Survey, 2012a, Redlands Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.


107860001 R.doc 29

United States Geological Survey, 2012b, San Bernardino South Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey, 2013, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

1_10

7860

001_

SL.m

xd

"

SITE

0 2,000 4,0001,000

SCALE IN FEET

PROPOSED EYE CLINICJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER

LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA

SITE LOCATION FIGURE

1PROJECT NO. DATE107860001 2/15

±

SOURCE: USGS, FAO, NPS, EPA, ESRI, DELORME, TANA, OTHER SUPPLIERS.

±

NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

LEGEND

BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

0 30 6015

SCALE IN FEET

GEOTECHNICAL MAP FIGURE

2PROJECT NO. DATE

2_10

7857

001_

BL.m

xd AO

B

SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2014.

@A B-3TD=31.5'


LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA107860001 2/15

B-1TD=21.5'

@AB-3TD=31.5'

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED BUILDING

B

@?BORING (CTE, 2010)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

CTE B-1TD=50.5'

@?CTE B-1

TD=50.5'

A

A'

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONB B'

EXISTING SPEECH CLINIC

@A

B-2TD=81.5' B'

@A

ARTIFICIAL FILLafYOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS(CIRCLED WHERE BURIED)

Qa

af

Qa

af

Qa

NOTES: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 0 1,900 3,800

SCALE IN FEET

GEOLOGY FIGURE

3PROJECT NO. DATE

SITE

3_10

7860

001_

Gl.m

xd AO

B

±

SOURCE: MORTON, D.M., AND MILLER, F.K., 2003, PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN BERNARDINO 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA



UD

FAULT - SOLID WHERE ACCURATELYLOCATED, DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED. ARROW AND NUMBER INDICATE DIRECTION AND ANGLE OF DIP OF FAULT PLANE

LEGEND

65

VERY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITSQfVERY YOUNG ALLUVIAL VALLEY DEPOSITS

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

QaYOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS, UNIT 3Qyf3

YOUNG ALLUVIAL VALLEY DEPOSITS, UNIT 3Qya3

SAN TIMOTEO BEDS OF FRICK (1921)UPPER MEMBER. INCLUDES INFORMALLY NAMED RECHE CANYON MEMBER (QTSTR)

QTstuQTstr

STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDS, INCLINED5

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

M E X I C OU S AP a c i f i c

O c e a n

S A N J A C I N T OE L S I N O R E

I MP ER I A L

W H I T T I E R S A N A N D R EA S

N EW P O R T- I N G L E W O O D

CORONADO BANK

SAN DIEGO TROUGH

SAN CLEMENTE

SANTA CRUZ-SANTA CATALI NA RIDGE

PALOS VERDESOFFSHORE ZONE

OF DEFORMATION

GARLOCKWH IT E W

OLF

CL EA RWAT ERSAN G ABRIEL

SIERRA MADR E

B A N N I N G

M I S S I O N C R E E KBLACKWATERHARPER

LOCKHART

LENWOOD

CAMP ROCKCALICO

LUD LOW

PISGAH

BULLION MOUNTAIN

JOHNSON VALLEY

EMERSON

PINTO MOUNTAIN

MANIX

MIRAGE VALLEY

NORTH

HELENDALE

FRONTAL

CHINO

SAN JOSECUCAMONGA

MALIB U COAST SANTA MONICA

SANCAYETANO

SANTASUSANASIMI- SANTA

ROSA

NORTHRIDGE

CHARNOCK

SAWPITCANYON

SUPERSTITION HILLS

NEVADACAL IFORNIA

RO S E CA NY ON

San Bernardino County

Kern County

Riverside CountySan Diego County Imperial County

Los Angeles County

Ventura County

Orange County

Riverside County

San

Bern

ardi

no C

ount

y

Los Angeles County

Kern

Cou

nty

IndioIrvine

Pomona

Mojave

Anaheim

Barstow

Temecula

Palmdale

El CentroSanDiego

Escondido

Oceanside

SantaAna

Riverside

Tehachapi

Long Beach

Wrightwood

ChulaVista

Los Angeles

Victorville

SanClemente

PalmSprings

Big Bear CityThousandOaks San

Bernardino

LakeArrowhead

Twentynine Palms

Baker

DesertCenter

!

!

CALI FO RNIA

0 30 60

SCALE IN MILES

LEGEND

HOLOCENE ACTIVE

CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY HISTORICALLY ACTIVE

LATE QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)

STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY

QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)

"SITE

!

4_10

7860

001_

F.mxd

AOB

NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE

4PROJECT NO. DATE

±

SOURCE: JENNINGS, C.W., AND BRYANT, W.A., 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.



FIGURE

5

PROPOSED EYE CLINIC



PROJECT NO.

107860001

DATE

2/15

0 40 80

SCALE IN FEET

CROSS SECTIONS A-A' AND B-B'

NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

LEGEND

Qaf FILL

Qa YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS

GEOLOGIC CONTACT,QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN

?

1160

1120

A A'

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

EE

T, M

SL

)

1080

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

EE

T, M

SL

)

B-3

TD=31.5'

BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

5 10

7860

001

cs.d

wg

1160

1120

1080

TD=50.5'

TD=31.5'

TD=81.5'

B-2

1160

1120

B B'

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

EE

T, M

SL

)

1080

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

EE

T, M

SL

)

1160

1120

1080

TD=21.5'

B-1

TD=81.5'

B-2

CTE B-1B-3

(PROJECTED 27'WEST)

PROPOSED

EYE CLINIC

EXISTING SPEECH

CLINIC BUILDING

Qaf

Qa

PROPOSED

EYE CLINIC

??

?

??

?

Qaf

Qa

CTE B-1

TD=50.5'

BORING (CTE, 2010)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

6 107860001 Response Spectrum Using NGA (REV3).xls

NOTES:1

in 50 years using Chiou & Youngs (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008), and Boore & Atkinson (2008) attenuation relationships.

2 Deterministic Spectrum is 84th percentile of the median values from attenuation relationships by Chiou & Youngs (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia

(2008) and Boore & Atkinson (2008) for deep soils considering a MW 6.7 event on the San Jacinto fault 1 mile from the site.It conforms to the lower bound limit per ASCE 7 Section 21.2.2 as modified by 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions.

3 Spectrum is the lesser of spectral ordinates of deterministic and probabilistic spectra at each period per ASCE 7 Section 21.3.

The design spectrum is 80% or more of the General Response Spectrum at all periods per ASCE 7 Section 21.3.

4

SMS = 2.840 g SM1 = 2.151 g

SDS = 1.893 g SD1 = 1.434 g5 General Response Spectrum is computed from mapped spectral ordinates modified for Site Class D (stiff soil profile) per ASCE 7 Section 11.4.

6

107860001

The spectral ordinates represent horizontal ground motion with 5% damping, and do not include response modification factor or importance factor.

6PROPOSED EYE CLINIC



0.0000.0100.0500.075

PERIOD(seconds)

PERIOD(seconds)

MCER RESPONSE

SPECTRUM,Sa (g)

1.1721.378

0.400

MCER RESPONSE

SPECTRUM,Sa (g)

0.1000.1370.1500.200

1.5851.8931.893

0.7700.842 0.500

0.6870.750

1.8931.8931.8931.734

1.000

2.0001.500

1.3000.9420.7170.4550.326

2/15

0.3003.0004.000

1.8931.893

Probabilistic Spectrum is for Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) with ground motions having 2% probability of exceedance

Site Specific Seismic Design Parameters

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N, S

a (

g)

PERIOD, T (seconds)

Deterministic Spectrum

Probabilistic Spectrum

General Response Spectrum

Design Response Spectrum

MCER DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE


107860001 R.doc

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.

Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings and test pits. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetra-tion Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1⅜ inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of pene-tration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140-pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

0

5

10

15

20

XX/XX

SM

CL

Bulk sample.

Modified split-barrel drive sampler.

2-inch inner diameter split-barrel drive sampler.

No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler, or 2-inch inner diameter split-barreldrive sampler.

Sample retained by others.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

No recovery with a SPT.

Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.

No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.

Continuous Push Sample.

Seepage.

Groundwater encountered during drilling.

Groundwater measured after drilling.

MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):Solid line denotes unit change.

Dashed line denotes material change.

Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Beddingc: Contactj: Jointf: FractureF: Faultcs: Clay Seams: Shearbss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracturesz: Shear Zonesbs: Shear Bedding Surface

The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.

BORING LOGExplanation of Boring Log Symbols

PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.

BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PER ASTM D 2488

PRIMARY DIVISIONSSECONDARY DIVISIONS

GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME

COARSE- GRAINED

SOILS more than

50% retained on No. 200

sieve

GRAVEL more than

50% of coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

CLEAN GRAVELless than 5% fines

GW well-graded GRAVEL

GP poorly graded GRAVEL

GRAVEL with DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines

GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt

GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt

GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay

GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with clay

GRAVEL with FINES

more than 12% fines

GM silty GRAVEL

GC clayey GRAVEL

GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL

SAND 50% or more

of coarse fraction passes

No. 4 sieve

CLEAN SAND less than 5% fines

SW well-graded SAND

SP poorly graded SAND

SAND with DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines

SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt

SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt

SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay

SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay

SAND with FINES more than 12% fines

SM silty SAND

SC clayey SAND

SC-SM silty, clayey SAND

FINE- GRAINED

SOILS 50% or

more passes No. 200 sieve

SILT and CLAY

liquid limit less than 50%

INORGANIC

CL lean CLAY

ML SILT

CL-ML silty CLAY

ORGANICOL (PI > 4) organic CLAY

OL (PI < 4) organic SILT

SILT and CLAY

liquid limit 50% or more

INORGANICCH fat CLAY

MH elastic SILT

ORGANIC

OH (plots on or above “A”-line) organic CLAY

OH (plots below “A”-line) organic SILT

Highly Organic Soils PT Peat

USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATIONExplanation of USCS Method of Soil Classification

PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE

APPARENT DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

APPARENT DENSITY

SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER

SPT (blows/foot)

MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL

(blows/foot)SPT

(blows/foot)MODIFIED

SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)

Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5

Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14

Medium Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42

Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70

Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

CONSIS-TENCY

SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER

SPT (blows/foot)

MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL

(blows/foot)SPT

(blows/foot)MODIFIED

SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)

Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2

Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3

Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6

Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13

Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26

Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26

LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %

PLA

STI

CIT

Y IN

DE

X (

PI)

, %

0 10

1074

20

30

40

50

60

70

020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MH or OH

ML or OLCL - ML

PLASTICITY CHART

GRAIN SIZE

DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE

GRAIN SIZE

APPROXIMATE SIZE

Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than basketball-sized

Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to basketball-sized

Gravel

Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to fist-sized

Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to thumb-sized

Sand

Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to pea-sized

Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to rock-salt-sized

Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017”

Flour-sized to sugar-sized

Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and smaller

CH or OH

CL or OL

0

10

20

30

40

9

6

6

8

6.2

10.1

9.1

10.5

106.2

102.0

99.3

103.0

SM

SM

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE:Approximately 5 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered gravel.YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace coarse sand and fine gravel; faint finelaminations.

Massive.

Yellowish brown.

Brown; trace medium sand.

Total Depth = 21.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled and patched with concrete on 12/04/14.

Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higherlevel due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed inthe report.

BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER


PROJECT NO.

107860001DATE

2/15FIGURE

A-1

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-1

GROUND ELEVATION 1,155' (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH

1

0

10

20

30

40

4

8

8

9

12

14

13

9.5

8.9

11.4

8.8

5.6

7.7

98.6

102.2

98.1

100.0

111.0

SM

SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 2 inches thick.BASE:Approximately 6 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine SAND; trace medium sand.

Few gravel up to 1/2-inch in diameter.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; scattered interlayers of fine to medium sand.

Micaceous.

Trace medium and coarse sand.

Scattered interlayers of gravel 1 to 2 inches thick.Medium dense.

Scattered interlayers of silty fine to coarse sand.



PROJECT NO.

107860001DATE

2/15FIGURE

A-2

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.







3

40

50

60

70

80

21

19

33

24

28

5.9

3.6

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS: (Continued)Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand; scatteredinterlayers of gravel and scattered interlayers of fine to coarse sand.

Light brown; dense; silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (gravel up to 1/2-inch indiameter).

Brown; silty fine sand; scattered interlayers of silty fine to coarse sand; trace gravel up to1-inch in diameter.

Scattered layers of gravel.



PROJECT NO.

107860001DATE

2/15FIGURE

A-3

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.







3

80

90

100

110

120

54 4.5Moist; very dense; some fine gravel up to 1/2-inch in diameter.





PROJECT NO.

107860001DATE

2/15FIGURE

A-4

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.







3

0

10

20

30

40

6

5

7

24

13

40

7.7

6.7

9.1

2.0

7.7

3.4

98.3

96.3

103.2

119.9

117.1

SM

SM

DECORATIVE GRAVEL:Approximately 2 to 3 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand.

YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand; laminated.

Trace fine gravel.

Yellowish brown; trace medium sand.

Light brown.Loose to medium dense; silty fine to coarse sand; scattered subrounded gravel up to 1inch in diameter; trace caliche deposits.

Brown; silty fine sand.

Light brown; silty fine to coarse sand. (Disturbed sample)

Scattered gravel up to 1.5-inch in diameter.





PROJECT NO.

107860001DATE

2/15FIGURE

A-5

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (

PC

F)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

U.S

.C.S

.







1


107860001 R.doc

APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings and test pits in Appendix A.

In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex-ploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor-dance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-5. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with USCS.

Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the tests are summarized on Figures B-6 and B-7.

Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures B-8 through B-11.

Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 18-2 (ASTM D 4829). Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-12.

Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general ac-cordance with CT 643. The sulfate and chloride content of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure B-13.


107860001 R.doc 2

R-Value The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils was evaluated in general accordance with CT 301. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equi-librium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure B-14.

Date post:	09-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	11 times
Download:	0 times

A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Documents