preliminary foundation report hartnell road …

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

HARTNELL ROAD BRIDGE (REPLACE)

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

(BRIDGE NO. 44C0110)

For

TRC

10680 White Rock Road, Suite 100

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. 2360 Qume Drive, Suite A

San Jose, CA 95131

January 29, 2016 Job No. 2015-110-HRT

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

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

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM........................................ 2

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2

5.1 Site Geology ....................................................................................................................2

5.2 Subsurface Conditions.....................................................................................................3

6.0 SCOUR EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 4

7.0 CORROSION EVALUATION ................................................................................... 4

8.0 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 5

8.1 Seismic Sources...............................................................................................................5

8.2 Seismic Design Criteria ...................................................................................................6

8.3 Seismic Hazards ..............................................................................................................7

9.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSIDERATION ........................................... 8

10.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... 9

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No. 1: Project Location Map

Plate No. 2: Site Plan

Plate No. 3: Geologic Map

Plate No. 4: Caltrans ARS Online Map

Plate No. 5A: ARS Comparison Curves

Plate No. 5B: Recommended ARS Curve

Appendix A:

Log of Test Borings

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT



(BRIDGE NO. 44C0110)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This preliminary foundation report presents the preliminary geotechnical information for the

proposed Hartnell Road Bridge (Br. No. 44C0110) replacement project (Project) in Monterey

County, California. The project site is on Hartnell Road over Alisal Creek, approximately 0.15

miles south of Alisal Road southeast of the City of Salinas. The project location is shown on the

Project Location Map, Plate No. 1.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the general soil and groundwater conditions at the

project site, to evaluate their engineering properties, and to provide foundation design

recommendations for the proposed project. The scope of work performed for this investigation

included a review of the readily available geologic literature pertaining to the site, obtaining

representative soil samples and logging materials encountered in the exploratory borings,

laboratory testing of the collected samples, engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data,

and preparation of this report.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The existing Hartnell Road Bridge (Br. No. 44C0110) was built in 1945. The Caltrans Bridge

Inspection Report (2013) has rated the bridge functionally obsolete. The County plans to replace

the existing bridge with a new bridge that will be designed to meet current AASHTO standards.

The replacement structure will be either a 2-cell concrete box culvert or reinforce concrete slab

bridge. The culvert will have cells that are 12 feet wide and a maximum height of 10 feet. The

bridge will have a single span at 40 feet long. The skew angle will be about 45 degrees for either

the box culvert or the slab bridge option.

TRC

Hartnell Road Bridge (Replace)

Job No. 2015-110-HRT

January 29, 2016

Page 2

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

Two borings (R-15-001 and R-15-002), one at each end of the existing bridge, were drilled to a

depth of approximately 81.5 feet below grade with a truck-mounted drill rig on July 24 and 27,

2015. Selected soil samples were obtained from either a 2.5-inch I.D. Modified California (MC)

or 1.4-inch I.D. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler at various depths. The samplers were

driven into subsurface soils under the impact of a 140-pound hammer having a free fall of 30

inches. The blow counts required to drive the sampler for the last 12 inches are presented on the

Log of Test Borings (LOTB) in Appendix A. The drilling subcontractor was Geo-Ex Subsurface

Exploration from Dixon, California. Based on the hammer energy calibration information

provided, the hammer energy of the drill rig (CME 55) used is approx. 84%. Using a method

suggested by Daniel, Howie and Sy (2003), when correlating standard penetration data, the blow

counts for the Modified California Sampler may be converted to equivalent SPT blow counts by

multiplying a conversion factor of 0.65. The soil samples were sealed and transported to our

laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Two bulk soil samples were also collected from the

upper about 5 feet of subgrade for R-value tests for pavement design. The field investigation was

conducted under the supervision of our field engineer who logged the test borings and prepared the

samples for subsequent laboratory testing and evaluation. The approximate locations of boring are

shown on the Site Plan, Plate No. 2.

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Geology

General geologic features pertaining to the bridge site were evaluated by reference to Geologic

Data Map No. 2 of California Geological Survey (CGS 2010). Based on the publication, the

project site and its vicinity is generally underlain by the following Quaternary geologic units:

Q - Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits;

unconsolidated and semi-consolidated.

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 3

Qoa - Older Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits.

A portion of the published Geologic Map covering the project site is attached as Plate No. 3.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface soil conditions are based on the field exploration. Based on Google Earth (2015),

the existing ground surface elevations are around 66 feet at both boring locations, which should be

verified by project survey.

In general, two borings encountered interbedded sand and clay layers to the maximum depth

drilled, approximately 81.5 feet below grade. The apparent densities of sandy soils were mostly

medium dense to dense, except the top about 4 to 8 feet thick of loose sand. The consistencies of

clayey soils vary from medium stiff to hard.

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 9 feet in Boring R-15-002 below the existing

grade during drilling. Groundwater was not measured in Boring R-15-001 due to rotary wash

drilling method. Groundwater may vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater

fluctuation, local irrigation practice, water level in the creeek, surface and subsurface flows,

ground surface run-off, and other factors that may not be present at the time of investigation.

The boring logs presented in Appendix A were prepared from the field logs, which were edited

after visual re-examination of the soil samples in the laboratory and results of classification tests

on selected soil samples as indicated on the logs. The abrupt stratum changes shown on these logs

may be gradual and relatively minor changes in soil types within a stratum may not be noted on the

logs due to field limitations.

Due to limitations inherent in geotechnical investigations, it is neither uncommon to encounter

unforeseen variations in the soil conditions during construction nor is it practical to determine all

such variations during an acceptable program of drilling and sampling for a project of this scope.

Such variations, when encountered, generally require additional engineering services to attain a

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 4

properly constructed project. We, therefore, recommend that a contingency fund be provided to

accommodate any additional charges resulting from technical services that may be required during

construction.

6.0 SCOUR EVALUATION

The Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report (2009) indicates that “the footings at Pier 2 and Abutment

3, in Span2, are vertically exposed 0.6 meters for the full length, the channel appears to have been

graded at that elevation to match the elevation in Span 1. No undermining was observed.” The

hydraulic study should be performed to determine the scour potential at the site. The bridge

abutments should be set back adequate distances to protect from any potential scour along the

creek banks. Creek bank protection measures may be required along the upstream and downstream

ends of the abutments. Ultimate design should be based on the findings of hydraulic study for the

Project.

7.0 CORROSION EVALUATION

The corrosion investigation for this project was performed on selected soil samples in general

accordance with the provisions of California Test Method 643, 417 and 422. A summary of the

corrosion test results is presented in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1 - CORROSION TEST RESULTS

Boring

No.

Depth

(ft) pH

Minimum Resistivity

(ohms-cm)

Chloride

Content (ppm)

Sulfate

Content (ppm)

R-15-001 3 7.25 6,970 5.1 9.5

R-15-002 11 6.49 2,130 12.0 16.0

Caltrans currently considers a site to be corrosive to foundation elements if one or more of the

following conditions exist:

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 5

chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm,

sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2,000 ppm, or

the pH is 5.5 or less.

Based on the test results, the on-site subsurface soils can be considered to be non-corrosive. The

guidelines presented in Caltrans MTD 3-1 (2014) for steel piling and concrete piling, and the

California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) – Sixth

Edition (2012), Article 5.12.3, for the minimum cement factor and cover thickness may be used for

the bridge substructure.

8.0 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Seismic Sources

The project site is located in a seismically active part of northern California. Many faults in the

region are capable of producing earthquakes, which may cause strong ground shaking at the site.

The subject bridge is located at coordinates of approximately 36.6435 degrees north latitude and

121.5784 degrees west longitude (Google Earth, 2015). The Caltrans Fault Database (V2b, 2012)

and Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) Online Report (V2, 2012) contain known active

faults (if there is evidence of surface displacement in the past 700,000 years) in the State.

Information of the faults in the area, based on the Caltrans ARS Online Report (V2, 2012), is

summarized below in Table 8.1. The maximum magnitudes (Mmax) represent the largest

earthquake that a fault is capable of generating and are related to the seismic moment. The

attached Caltrans ARS Online Map, Plate No. 4, presents the location of the fault system relative

to the project site.

TABLE 8.1 – CALTRANS ARS ONLINE DATA

Fault Fault

ID

Maximum

Magnitude,

Mmax

Fault

Type

Approx. Nearest

Distance Rrup/Rx

(miles)

San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM 158 8.0 SS 12.60/12.24

Zayante-Vergeles Lower 2011 CFM 163 7.0 SS 6.95/8.54

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 6

Fault Fault

ID

Maximum

Magnitude,

Mmax

Fault

Type

Approx. Nearest

Distance Rrup/Rx

(miles)

Reliz Fault Zone (Blanco Section) 186 7.0 SS 5.13/5.13

Reliz Fault Zone (Sierra de Salinas Section) 193 7.0 SS 5.27/5.27

Rrup = Closest distance to the fault rupture plane

Rx = Horizontal distance to the fault trace or surface projection of the top of rupture plane

SS = Strike-slip fault

8.2 Seismic Design Criteria

The Caltrans ARS Online program (V2, 2012) was used for producing acceleration response

spectra. Development of the design ARS curve is based on several input parameters, including

site location (longitude/latitude), average shear wave velocity for the top 100 feet of soils (Vs30),

and other site parameters, such as fault characteristics, site-to-fault distances. The design methods

incorporate both deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazards to produce the Design Response

Spectrum. The probabilistic response spectrum to be used for design of structures is based on the

data from the USGS Interactive Deaggregations (Beta) program (2008) for a 5 percent in 50 years

probability of exceedance (975-year return period) or the Caltrans ARS Online program (V2,

2012). The controlling spectrum (upper envelope) is adopted for the design response spectrum.

The shear wave velocities for the top 100 feet of soils at the project site was estimated by using the

established correlations and guidelines in Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response

Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations (2012). An average shear wave velocity

of 240 m/s was adopted. According to the Caltrans guidelines, the USGS Beta program should be

checked and compared with the Caltrans ARS Online program for four spectral probabilistic

values (at periods of 0, 0.3, 1 and 3 sec.). If the discrepancy between the USGS spectral

acceleration values and the Caltrans Online results is less than 10 percent, then the probabilistic

ARS curve generated by Caltrans ARS Online tool is acceptable for design. Otherwise, the

probabilistic curve obtained from the USGS Beta program should be used. For this project, the

probabilistic spectrum generated by the Caltrans ARS program governs. The spectral acceleration

values corresponding to periods of 1 sec. and longer have been increased by 20 percent to

accounted for near fault effect, and linearly tapered to zero at the period of 0.5 sec. No adjustment

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 7

for basin effect is required for this site. The generated Acceleration Response Spectra Comparison

Curves are presented on Plate No. 5A and the Recommended ARS Curve is presented on Plate No.

5B.

8.3 Seismic Hazards

Faulting

The site is located outside the designated State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zones for active faulting and no mapped evidence of active or potentially active faulting was found

for the site. The potential for fault rupture at the site appears to be low.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary but

essentially total loss of shear strength under the reversing, cyclic shear stresses associated with

earthquake shaking. Submerged cohesionless sands and low-plastic silts of low relative density

are the type of soils that usually are susceptible to liquefaction. Clay is generally not susceptible to

liquefaction. The liquefaction potential at the site was evaluated according to the procedure

proposed by Youd et al. (2001). According to the California Amendments to AASHTO BDS

(2012), Section 10.5.4.2, saturated sand and non-plastic silt with corrected SPT blow counts of 25

or less are considered liquefiable.

Using the Caltrans ARS online (V2, 2012) and reference to the USGS Beta online program (2008),

the peak ground acceleration (PGA) was estimated to be 0.54g and the mean moment magnitude

was estimated to be 6.6 at zero period, representing a hazardous level of 5 percent exceedance in

50 years. The above seismic parameters were incorporated into the liquefaction analysis.

Liquefaction potential calculations suggest that the sand layers encountered approximately at

depths from 13 to 18 feet in R-15-001, and from 18 to 23 feet in R-15-002 are potentially

liquefiable. Post-liquefaction settlement is about 1 to 2 inches. According to NAVFAC (1986),

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 8

relative settlement greater than 0.6 inches could create downdrag forces on deep foundations,

which should be accounted for during design.

Ground Subsidence

Ground subsidence can occur as a result of "shakedown" when dry, low cohesion soils are

subjected to earthquake vibration of high amplitude. In general, significant deposits of loose sandy

soils do not exist at the site; therefore, seismically induced ground subsidence is not considered a

geologic hazard on the site.

9.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSIDERATION

As discussed earlier, the subsurface profile at the bridge site consists of interbedded granular and

clayey materials. Caltrans cast-in-place, reinforced double box culvert appears to be workable for

this Project. The on-site native soils generally have required nominal soil bearing capacity of 2.8

ksf. Foundation subgrade over-excavation and replacement is required to provide uniform

support. Post-liquefaction settlement of approximately 2 inches during a seismic event may need

to be considered, but the settlement appears to be tolerable.

If a bridge option is selected, foundation system consisting of Caltrans standard driven concrete

piles or steel pipe piles, such as precast, pre-stressed concrete piles of 14-inch (Alt. “X”) and PP

16x0.5-inch (Alt. “W”) are feasible for this Project. Steel pipe piles are preferred considering

localized very dense sand layers. Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles are technically

feasible as well. Due to the presence of sandy materials and shallow groundwater, Caltrans

standard slurry displacement method or temporary casing should be anticipated at all times during

construction of CIDH piles.

Shallow spread footing foundations are considered not viable for this Project due to relatively low

bearing capacity of the soils, scour consideration, and potential post-liquefaction settlement.

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 9

Both axial and lateral pile capacities should be analyzed during design to determine the controlling

pile tip elevations. A minimum pile spacing of three times the pile diameter/width, center to

center, is recommended. It is our understanding that the foundation design will be using the loads

from LRFD Service, Strength and Extreme Event limit states.

10.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS

Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with

generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices and are based on our site

reconnaissance and the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate from observed

conditions. All work done is in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness, is made

or intended in connection with our work or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the

presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in structures, soil, surface water, groundwater

or air, below or around this site. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and

cannot be fully determined by taking soil samples and excavating test borings; different soil

conditions may require that additional expenditures be made during construction to attain a

properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is thus recommended to accommodate these

possible extra costs.

This report has been prepared for the proposed project as described earlier, to assist the engineer in

the design of this project. In the event any changes in the design or location of the facilities are

planned, or if any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, our

conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless the changes or variations

are reviewed and our recommendations modified or approved by us in writing.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the designer's responsibility to ensure that the

information and recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project and that

necessary steps are also taken to see that the recommendations are carried out in the field.

TRC



January 29, 2016

Page 10

The findings in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the subsurface

conditions can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the

works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate

standards occur, whether they result from legislation or from the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings in this report might be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes

outside of our control.

Respectfully submitted,

PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC.

Peter Wei, PE, GE 2922 Y. David Wang, PhD, PE 52911

Sr. Project Engineer Project Manager

JOB NO.: 2015-110-HRT



PLATE NO.: 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

ApproximateProject Location

JOB NO.: 2015-110-HRT



PLATE NO.: 2

LEGEND:

SITE PLAN

R-15-001

500 FT

Approx. Boring Location

R-15-002

0

JOB NO.: 2015-110-HRT



PLATE NO.: 3

GEOLOGIC MAP


Legend:Q - Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits.Qoa - Older alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits.Source:California Geological Survey (2010), Geologic Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 2, Compilation and Interpretation by Jennings (1977).

JOB NO.: 2015-110-HRT



PLATE NO.: 4

Legend:186 - Reliz fault zone (Blanco section) (MMax=7.0)193 - Reliz fault zone (Sierra de Salinas section) (MMax=7.0)163 - Zayante-Vergeles Lower 2011 CFM (Mmax=7.0)Source:Caltrans ARS Online (V2, 2012)


CALTRANS ARS ONLINE MAP

193

186

163

191

197

162

158

182174

Site Information

Latitude: 36.6435 0.0 0.382 0.308 0.241 0.225 0.537 0.499

Longitude -121.5784 0.1 0.584 0.490 0.389 0.387 0.955 #N/A

VS30 (m/s) = 240 0.2 0.736 0.625 0.509 0.492 1.149 #N/A

Z 1.0 (m) = N/A 0.3 0.749 0.636 0.524 0.481 1.127 1.051

Z 2.5 (km) = N/A 0.5 0.685 0.584 0.492 0.405 0.975 #N/A

1.0 0.562 0.487 0.425 0.242 0.774 0.724

16.7 2.0 0.284 0.274 0.277 0.118 0.453 #N/A

3.0 0.155 0.173 0.186 0.070 0.299 0.297

4.0 0.099 0.121 0.136 0.048 0.216 #N/A

5.0 0.074 0.092 0.108 0.036 0.175 #N/A

Source:

1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php)

2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php)

Plate No.: 5AProject No.: 2015-110-HRT

3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design

Recommendations, November 2012


Monterey, California

Reliz fault

zone (Blanco

section)

Minimum

Deterministic

Final Adjusted Spectral Accelerations (g)

Near Fault Factor,

Derived from USGS

Deagg. Dist (km) =

San Andereas

(Santa Cruz Mts)

2011 CFM

Period

(sec)

Zayante-

Vergeles Lower

2011 CFM

Caltrans

Probabilistic

USGS

Deaggregation

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Sp

ectr

al A

cce

lera

tio

n,

Sa

(g

)

Period (sec)

ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON(Deterministic & Probablistic Curves)

USGS Deaggregation

Caltrans Probabilistic

Zayante-Vergeles Lower 2011 CFM

Reliz fault zone (Blanco section)

San Andereas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM

Minimum Deterministic

8/11/2015 Acceleration_Response_Spectrum_V2.0 Hartnell

T:\Ongoing Projects\2015\2015-110-HRT TRC Hartnell Bridge Monterey County\Analysis Hartnell\

Site Information Recommended Response Spectrum

Latitude: 36.6435

Longitude -121.5784

VS30 (m/s) = 240 0.0 0.537 1 1 0.537

Z 1.0 (m) = N/A 0.1 0.955 1 1 0.955

Z 2.5 (km) = N/A 0.2 1.149 1 1 1.149

0.3 1.127 1 1 1.127

16.7 0.5 0.975 1 1 0.975

1.0 0.664 1.2 1 0.774

2.0 0.389 1.2 1 0.454

Governing Curve: 3.0 0.257 1.2 1 0.300

4.0 0.185 1.2 1 0.216

5.0 0.150 1.2 1 0.175

Source:

1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php)

2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php)

Project No.: 2015-110-HRT Plate No.: 5B

Near Fault Factor,

Derived from USGS

Deagg. Dist (km) =

Caltrans Online Probabilistic ARS

3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design

Recommendations, November 2012


Monterey, California

Period

(sec)

Caltrans Online

Probabilistic

Spectral

Acceleration (g)

Adjusted for Near

Fault Effect

Adjusted For

Basin Effect

Final Adjusted

Spectral

Acceleration (g)

Note:

The curve has been modified to account for the proximity of the site to the fault. The spectral accelerations at

periods of 1.0 sec. and greater have been increased by 20%. A linear interpolation is used between 0.5 and 1 sec.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Spectr

al A

ccele

ration,

Sa (

g)

Period (sec)

RECOMMENDED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUMProbabilistic Approach (5% Damping)

8/11/2015 Acceleration_Response_Spectrum_V2.0 Hartnell

T:\Ongoing Projects\2015\2015-110-HRT TRC Hartnell Bridge Monterey County\Analysis Hartnell\

APPENDIX A

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT



GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES

DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS

Auger Drilling

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS

WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS

Dynamic Coneor Hand Driven Diamond CoreRotary Drilling

Static Water Level Reading (long-term)

Shelby Tube

NX Rock Core

Bulk Sample

Piston Sampler

HQ Rock Core

Other (see remarks)

Static Water Level Reading (short-term)

First Water Level Reading (during drilling)

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL

COBBLES

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND

Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT

Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)

Well-graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)

Poorly graded GRAVEL

Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY(or SILTY CLAY)

Poorly graded SAND with SILT

Poorly graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)

Poorly graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL(or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL)

Lean CLAY

ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND

SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVELGRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT

GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND

GW-GC

GP-GM

GP-GC

GM

SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

OL

OL

CH

MH

OH

OL/OH

ORGANIC SOIL

ORGANIC SOIL with SAND

ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SOIL

SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVELGRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND

OH

SM

SC

GW

GW-GM

CL

CL-ML

ML

COBBLES and BOULDERSBOULDERS

PT

SILTY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY CLAY

SILTY CLAY with SAND

SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY SILTY CLAY

SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVELGRAVELLY SILTY CLAY

GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND

SILT with SAND

SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY SILT

SANDY SILT with GRAVEL

PEAT

Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)

Well-graded SAND

Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL

Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL

Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND

Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)

Poorly graded SAND

Poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL

Poorly graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL

SANDY lean CLAY

GRAVELLY lean CLAY

SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVELGRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY

GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND

Elastic SILT

ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY elastic ELASTIC SILT

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

Group Names

SC-SM

Graphic / Symbol Graphic / Symbol Group Names

GC

GP

GC-GM

SP-SC

SW

SP

SW-SM

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND

SILTY GRAVEL with SAND

Standard California Sampler

Modified California Sampler

Well-graded SAND with SILT

SW-SC

SP-SM

Consolidation (ASTM D 2435-04)

Compaction Curve (CTM 216 - 06)

Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index(AASHTO T 89-02, AASHTO T 90-00)

Collapse Potential (ASTM D 5333-03)

Sand Equivalent (CTM 217 - 99)

Corrosion, Sulfates, Chlorides (CTM 643 - 99; CTM 417- 06; CTM 422 - 06)

GRAVELLY SILT

GRAVELLY SILT with SAND

SILT

ORGANIC SILT with SAND

ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SILT

C

Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 4767-02)

Lean CLAY with SAND

Lean CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL

ORGANIC lean CLAY

GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY

GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND

Fat CLAY

Elastic SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY elastic SILT

SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVELGRAVELLY elastic SILT

GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND

ORGANIC elastic SILT

SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVELGRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT with SAND

ORGANIC SILT

PI

Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63 [2002])

Point Load Index (ASTM D 5731-05)

R-Value (CTM 301 - 00)

Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 100-06)

Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427-04)

Swell Potential (ASTM D 4546-03)

Pocket Torvane

Unconfined Compression - Soil (ASTM D 2166-06)Unconfined Compression - Rock (ASTM D 2938-95)

CL

CU

PL

Pressure MeterPM

Pocket Penetrometer

SG

SW

TV

UC

Well-graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL(or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL)

ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND

ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY

SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL

Fat CLAY with SAND

Fat CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY fat CLAY

SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVELGRAVELLY fat CLAY

GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND

ORGANIC fat CLAY

ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND

ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY

Elastic SILT with SAND

UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial(ASTM D 2850-03)

UW Unit Weight (ASTM D 4767-04)

Vane Shear (AASHTO T 223-96 [2004])VS

CP

PP

R

SL

CR

SE

Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080-04)DS

Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829-03)EI

Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216-05)M

OC Organic Content (ASTM D 2974-07)

Permeability (CTM 220 - 05)P

PA

Well-graded GRAVEL

Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT

GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND

BORING RECORD LEGEND

Date: 7/29/2015

A-i

Plate:This log is part of the report prepared by Parikh Consultants, Inc. for the named project and should be read together with that report for completeinterpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT



2.0 - 4.0

> 4.0

2.0 - 4.0

PocketPenetrometer (tsf)

Soft 0.25 - 0.50 0.25 - 0.50 0.12 - 0.25

< 0.25

0.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.00.50 - 1.0Medium Stiff

Hard

Very Stiff

Low

Very Loose

Loose

SPT N60 - Value (blows / foot)

PLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Cobble

Coarse

Fine No. 4 Sieve to 3/4 inch

Coarse No. 10 Sieve to No. 4 Sieve

No. 40 Sieve to No. 10 SieveMedium

Fine No. 200 Sieve to No. 40 Sieve

0.50 - 1.01.0 - 2.01.0 - 2.0Stiff

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

SizeDescriptor

Silt and Clay Passing No. 200 Sieve

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touchDry

Damp but no visible water

Descriptor

Dense

Medium Dense

5 - 10

11 - 30

0 - 4

31 - 50

Descriptor

Moist

MOISTUREAPPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS

Wet

> 50Very Dense

Criteria

Visible free water, usually soil is belowwater table

Descriptor Field ApproximationUnconfined CompressiveStrength (tsf) Torvane (tsf)

Easily penetrated several inches by thumb

Can be penetrated several inches by thumbwith moderate effort

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated onlywith great effort

PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS

Sand

Boulder

Criteria

Trace

Gravel

Descriptor

> 12 inches

3/4 inch to 3 inches

3 to 12 inches

5 to 10%Few

15 to 25%Little

30 to 45%Some

50 to 100%Mostly

Nonplastic

High

Easily penetrated several inches by fist

Readily indented by thumbnail

Indented by thumbnail with difficulty

Descriptor Criteria

A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled, and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

The thread is easy to roll, and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit; it cannot be rerolled after reaching theplastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

CEMENTATION

Descriptor Criteria

Medium

Strong

Moderate

Weak

Crumbles or breaks with considerablefinger pressure.

Particles are present but estimatedto be less than 5%

Will not crumble or break with fingerpressure.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or littlefinger pressure.

SOIL PARTICLE SIZE

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times afterreaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

Very Soft < 0.25 < 0.12

1.0 - 2.0

> 2.0> 4.0

NOTE: This legend sheet provides descriptors and associatedcriteria for required soil description components only.

REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, andPresentation Manual (2010).

BORING RECORD LEGEND

Date: 7/29/2015

A-ii


4

32

29

14

14

95

93

121

118

1

2

3

4

5

CR

PI

UC

PA

444

333

335

9119

71728

UC =0.85

SILTY SAND (SM); loose; brown; moist; fine SAND.

Lean to fat CLAY with SAND (CL/CH); soft; brown gray;moist; fine SAND; high plasticity fines.

(LL=68, PI=46).

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); medium stiff; brown gray;wet; fine SAND; medium to high plasticity fines.

(UC=0.85 tsf).

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; brown; wet; tracefine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND.

(+#4=2.0%, -#200=24.2%).

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense to dense; yellowishbrown; wet; medium to fine SAND; trace fines.

Poorly graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dense;yellowish brown; wet; coarse to fine SAND; trace fines.

SPT HAMMER TYPE

Auto 140 lb / 30-inch

DRILL RIG

CME 55

BOREHOLE BACKFILL AND COMPLETION

Backfilled with cement grout

DRILLING CONTRACTOR

Geo-Ex Subsurface Exploration

LOGGED BY

J. ZHANGBEGIN DATE

7-24-15COMPLETION DATE

7-24-15

AFTER DRILLING (DATE)

SURFACE ELEVATION

~66.0 ftDRILLING METHOD

Rotary Wash

GROUNDWATERREADINGS

BOREHOLE LOCATION (Lat/Long or North/East and Datum)

WGS84HOLE ID

R-15-001

DURING DRILLING

HAMMER EFFICIENCY, ERi

80%SAMPLER TYPE(S) AND SIZE(S) (ID)

MC (I.D. 2.5") / SPT (I.D.1.4")TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

81.5 ft

BOREHOLE DIAMETER

4 in

BOREHOLE LOCATION (Offset, Station, Line)

.

A-1A

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-001

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

64.00

62.00

60.00

58.00

56.00

54.00

52.00

50.00

48.00

46.00

44.00

42.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

(continued)

8

6

8

20

45

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

22

27

18

21

28

6

7

8

9

10

11

PA

PA

151616

678

51018

271812

181619

17147

Poorly graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dense;yellowish brown; wet; coarse to fine SAND; trace fines.layer description continued from previous pagePoorly graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM) (continued).

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; yellowish brown;wet; trace fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND.

(+#4=6.3%, -#200=20.2%).

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; light grayish brown;wet; few fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND; lowplasticity fines.

(+#4=12.4%, -#200=53.0%).

CLAYEY SAND (SC); dense; brown; wet; medium to fineSAND.

Yellowish brown.

Brown.

Lean CLAY (CL); stiff to very stiff; grayish brown; wet;low to medium plasticity fines.

A-1B

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-001

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

40.00

38.00

36.00

34.00

32.00

30.00

28.00

26.00

24.00

22.00

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

(continued)

32

15

28

30

35

21

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

22

18

29

28

22

93

12

13

14

15

16

17

UC

71016

679

131818

91215

91918

172728

UC =2.65

Lean CLAY (CL) (continued).Lean CLAY (CL); stiff to very stiff; grayish brown; wet;low to medium plasticity fines. layer descriptioncontinued from previous page

Brown; trace fine SAND; medium plasticity fines.

CLAYEY SAND (SC); dense; brown; wet; medium to fineSAND.

Lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; brown; wet; low to mediumplasticity fines.

Low plasticity fines; (UC=2.7 tsf).

CLAYEY SILT (ML/CL); hard; brown; wet; few fineSAND; low plasticity fines.

Poorly graded SAND (SP); very dense; light brown; wet;medium to fine SAND; trace fines.

Bottom of borehole at 81.5 ft bgs/Elev. -15.5 ft

Groundwater was not measured due to rotary washdrilling method

This Boring Record was developed in accordance withthe Caltrans Soil & Rock Logging, Classification, andPresentation Manual (2010) except as noted on the Soilor Rock Legend or below.

A-1C

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-001

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

-2.00

-4.00

-6.00

-8.00

-10.00

-12.00

-14.00

-16.00

-18.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

26

16

36

27

37

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

7

14

26

14

14

118

1

2

3

4

5

CR

UC

PA

566

332

223

71017

121011

UC =1.6

ASPHALT CONCRETE 4", AGGREGATE BASE 4".

SILTY SAND (SM); loose; brown; moist; trace fineGRAVEL; medium to fine SAND.

Dark gray brown.

Lean CLAY (CL); medium stiff; brown; wet; mediumplasticity fines; pockets of Silty Sand.

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; brown; wet; fineSAND; low to medium plasticity fines.

(UC=1.6 tsf).

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown; wet; coarseto fine SAND.

(+#4=4.1%, -#200=19.9%).

Dense; fine SAND.

SPT HAMMER TYPE

Auto 140 lb / 30-inch

DRILL RIG

CME 55

BOREHOLE BACKFILL AND COMPLETION

Backfilled with cement grout

DRILLING CONTRACTOR

Geo-Ex Subsurface Exploration

LOGGED BY

L.S.BhangooBEGIN DATE

7-27-15COMPLETION DATE

7-27-15

AFTER DRILLING (DATE)

SURFACE ELEVATION

~66.0 ftDRILLING METHOD

Rotary Wash

GROUNDWATERREADINGS

BOREHOLE LOCATION (Lat/Long or North/East and Datum)

WGS84HOLE ID

R-15-002

DURING DRILLING

9.0 ft

HAMMER EFFICIENCY, ERi

80%SAMPLER TYPE(S) AND SIZE(S) (ID)

MC (I.D. 2.5") / SPT (I.D.1.4")TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

81.5 ft

BOREHOLE DIAMETER

4 in

BOREHOLE LOCATION (Offset, Station, Line)

.

A-2A

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-002

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

64.00

62.00

60.00

58.00

56.00

54.00

52.00

50.00

48.00

46.00

44.00

42.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

(continued)

12

5

5

27

21

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

19

25

23

24

23

6

7

8

9

10

11

PA

PA

161620

131720

355

51227

112121

122738

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown; wet; coarseto fine SAND. layer description continued from previouspageSILTY SAND (SM) (continued).

Medium SAND.

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC); loose; brown; wet;fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND; low plasticity fines;Mixed Clayey Sand/Sandy Clay (SC/CL).

(+#4=16.2%, -#200=36.4%).

Poorly graded SAND with CLAY (SP-SC); mediumdense; brown; wet; fine SAND.

(+#4=0.2%, -#200=8.5%).

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); hard; brown; wet; fineSAND; low plasticity fines.

Poorly graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dense; brown;wet; coarse to fine SAND.

Lean CLAY (CL); stiff to very stiff; light gray brown; wet;medium plasticity fines.

A-2B

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-002

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

40.00

38.00

36.00

34.00

32.00

30.00

28.00

26.00

24.00

22.00

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

(continued)

36

37

10

39

42

65

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

39

38

14

29

24

19

79

12

13

14

15

16

17

UC

PA

5913

61016

221921

577

121515

162227

UC =1.65

Lean CLAY (CL) (continued).Lean CLAY (CL); stiff to very stiff; light gray brown; wet;medium plasticity fines. layer description continued fromprevious page(UC=1.65 tsf).

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; brown; wet;coarse to fine SAND.

(+#4=0.2%, -#200=27.6%).

Lean CLAY (CL); stiff to very stiff; brown; wet; mediumplasticity fines.

Poorly graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dense; brown;wet; medium to fine SAND.

Bottom of borehole at 81.5 ft bgs/Elev. -15.5 ft

Groundwater was at a depth of 9 feet during drilling

This Boring Record was developed in accordance withthe Caltrans Soil & Rock Logging, Classification, andPresentation Manual (2010) except as noted on the Soilor Rock Legend or below.

A-2C

Dri

lling

Met

hod

RQ

D (

%)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t W

eigh

t(p

cf)

Job No.: 2015-110-HRT

Sam

ple

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Num

ber

LOG OF TEST BORING

Date: 7/29/2015 Boring ID: R-15-002

Remarks

Blo

ws

per

foot

Blo

ws

per

6 in

.

Mat

eria

lG

raph

ics

Cas

ing

Dep

th

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

-2.00

-4.00

-6.00

-8.00

-10.00

-12.00

-14.00

-16.00

-18.00

DE

PT

H (

ft)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(PP

=C

omp.

Str

)(t

sf)

DESCRIPTION




PC

I-C

T 5

BR

201

5-11

0-H

RT

.GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

7-2

2-11

.GD

T 8

/18

/15

22

26

40

14

30

49

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

preliminary foundation report hartnell road …

Documents