No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix F-1_Geotech Report 2-15-17 February 15, 2017 J.N.: 2581.00 Mr. John Reischl The Olson Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740 Subject: Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation for Proposed Multi-Family and Single- Family Residential Development, 17 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California. Dear Mr. Reischl, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. is pleased to present to you our geotechnical due-diligence report for the proposed residential development at the subject site. This report presents the results of our aerial photo and literature review, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Conclusions relevant to the feasibility of the proposed site development are also presented herein based on the findings of our work. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Patrick M. Keefe Principal Engineering Geologist The Olson Company February 15, 2017 J.N.: 2581.00 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 3 2.0 INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 4 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 4 3.2 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 FAULTING ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.0 ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 5 5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 5 5.2.1 Ground Rupture ................................................................................................................ 5 5.2.2 Ground Shaking ................................................................................................................ 6 5.2.3 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 6 5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 6 5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................. 7 5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ....................................................................................... 7 5.6 SOIL EXPANSION ................................................................................................................. 8 5.7 FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 8 5.8 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN .................................................................................................... 8 5.9 CORROSION POTINTIAL .................................................................................................... 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURES AND PLATES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Exploratory Logs Boring Logs - Plates A-1 through A-9 APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Program Table B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Plate B-1– Grain-Size Distribution Plots Plate B-2 – Direct Shear Plot Plates B-3 through B-6 – Consolidation Plots The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 1 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our work was to evaluate the feasibility of proposed site development in order to assist you in your land acquisition evaluation and due-diligence review. The scope of our work for this investigation was focused primarily on the geotechnical issues that we expect to have significant fiscal impacts on future site development. While this report is comprehensive for the intended purpose, it is not intended for final design purposes. As such, additional geotechnical studies may be warranted based on our review of future rough grading plans and foundation plans. The scope of our geotechnical due-diligence work included the following: • Review of published geologic and seismic data for the site and surrounding area • Review of historical aerial photographs of the site and nearby vicinity • Exploratory drilling and soil sampling • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples • Engineering analyses of data obtained from exploration and laboratory testing • Evaluation of site seismicity, liquefaction potential, settlement potential • Preparation of this report 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is located north of the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and W. Live Oak Avenue within the city of Arcadia, California. The site is bordered by Mokyang Presbyterian Church to the north, S. Santa Anita Avenue to the east, a retail building and parking lot currently occupied by Starbucks to the southeast, Las Tunas Drive to the south, a commercial/office building and parking lot to the southwest, and by single-family residential homes to the northwest. The location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The irregular-shaped site is comprised of approximately 5.0 acres of land and is currently occupied by a retail shopping center. Improvements within the shopping center include retail buildings, asphalt-paved parking areas and driveways, concrete sidewalks, scattered landscape islands, and various underground utility lines. A depressed loading dock is also located in the north-central portion of the site. The north and northwest property lines are bordered by masonry block walls. The remaining property lines are locally bordered by decorative block walls ranging from 2 feet to 4 feet in height. The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 2 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. © 2017 Google SITE LOCATION MAP N The Olson Company Proposed Residential Development 15-39 Las Tunas Drive and 2617 S. Santa Anita Avenue Arcadia, California NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 SITE The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 3 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Topographically, the property is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 360 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along the north property line to approximately 355 feet above MSL along the south property line. Drainage within the property is directed via concrete gutters to two storm drain catch basins located on the southeast and east property lines. Vegetation on site consists small shrubs and trees within various landscape islands and a turf-covered area with multiple medium-sized trees in the northwest corner of the site. 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand the site will be developed for up to 48, two-story, multi-family townhome units and 27, two-story, single-family residences. Associated interior driveways, decorative hardscape, common open space areas, parking areas, and underground utilities are also anticipated. No grading or structural plans were available in preparing of this report. However, we anticipate that minor rough grading of the site will be required to achieve future surface configurations and we expect the proposed residential dwellings will be 2- story, wood-framed structures with concrete slabs on grade yielding relatively light foundation loads. 2.0 INVESTIGATION 2.1 RESEARCH We have reviewed the referenced geologic publications and maps (see references). Data from these sources were utilized to develop some of the findings and conclusions presented herein. We have also reviewed internet sources and our in-house aerial photographs. Based on our review, the site was initially used for agricultural purposes (orchards) since at least 1948. By 1952, the site was vacant and cleared of all vegetation. The site remained vacant until sometime between 1964 and 1970 when it was developed into a shopping center. The site has remained relatively unchanged since its development. 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on January 31, 2017. Our exploration consisted of drilling five (5) exploratory borings to depths of about 16.0 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface utilizing a truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory excavation. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations completed by this firm are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Upon completion of sampling, boring B-3 and an additional boring (not logged) were used for subsequent percolation testing. The locations of these two borings, B-3/P-1 and P-2, are depicted on Plate 1. Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths within the exploratory borings for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 4 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained from the boring using a standard, unlined SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sampler was driven 12 or 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log. Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of sampling and capped with cold patch asphaltic-concrete. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples of representative earth materials from the borings excavated at the site were tested in the laboratory. Tests consisted of in-situ moisture content and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, soluble sulfate, consolidation, direct shear, grain-size analysis, sand equivalent, and corrosivity. Descriptions of laboratory test criteria and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS Soil materials encountered on site generally consisted of alluvial deposits to the maximum depth explored (51.5 feet) although some minor fills up to about 2.0 feet thick were encountered in borings B-3 and B-4. The fill materials consisted of silty sand that was damp and loose to medium dense. Thicker deposits of artificial fill are likely present locally due to utility trenches. The alluvium typically consisted of silty sand and sands to a depth of about 40 feet. Below 40 feet, the alluvium becomes finer-grained consisting primarily of silts with some sands. The alluvium was typically damp to moist and loose to dense and was visibly porous to a depth of at least 6 feet. A more detailed description of the interpreted soil profile at each of the boring locations, based upon the borehole cuttings and soil samples, are presented in Appendix A. The stratigraphic descriptions in the logs represent the predominant materials encountered and relatively thin, often discontinuous layers of different material may occur within the major divisions. 3.2 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during this firm’s subsurface exploration to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. A review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024 indicates that historical high groundwater level for the general site area is approximately 40 feet to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 5 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3.3 FAULTING Based on our review of the referenced publications and seismic data, no faults are known to project through or immediately adjacent the site and the site does not lie within an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 4.0 ANALYSES 4.1 SEISMICITY We have performed probabilistic seismic analyses utilizing the web-based U.S. Seismic Design Maps web application by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), we obtain a PGA of 0.797 in accordance with Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10. The FPGA factor for site class D is 1.0. Therefore, the PGAM = 1.0 x 0.797 = 0.797g. The mean event associated with a probability of exceedance equal to 2% over 50 years to have a moment magnitude of 6.67 and the mean distance to the seismic source of 4.1 miles 4.2 SETTLEMENT Analyses were performed to evaluate potential for static settlement. Our analyses were based on the results of consolidation tests performed on selected samples from our borings. Results of our testing indicate the alluvial soils are prone to significant collapse upon wetting (hydrocollapse). We estimate that footings would undergo a total settlement of up to about 4 to 6 inches if underlain by onsite soils that became wetted after construction. If existing soils are removed and recompacted to a depth of 6 feet below the bottom of footings, we estimate the total settlement will be less than 1 inch. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site development is considered feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Furthermore, it is also our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely impact the stability of adjoining properties. Key issues that could have significant fiscal impacts on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development are discussed in the following sections of this report. 5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.2.1 Ground Rupture No active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 6 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Fault Zoning Act. The closest known active fault is the Raymond fault located about 2.5 miles from the site. Therefore, potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the site is considered very low. 5.2.2 Ground Shaking The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in relative close proximity to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed structures, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Potential ground accelerations have been estimated for the site and are presented in Section 4.1 of this report. Design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (C.B.C.) requirements is anticipated to address the issues related to potential ground shaking at the site. 5.2.3 Liquefaction Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential (Youd, et al., 2001) indicates that generally three basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur. These factors include: • A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass distortions. • A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil. • A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore pressure generation. The liquefaction susceptibility of the onsite subsurface soils was evaluated by analyzing the potential concurrent occurrence of the above-mentioned three basic factors. The liquefaction evaluation for the site was completed under the guidance of Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CDMG, 2008). Historical high groundwater level is anticipated at a depth greater than 40 feet below the ground surface of the site and materials below this depth are very dense. Therefore, liquefaction is unlikely to occur at the site. In addition, the site is not located within a mapped California Geologic Survey liquefaction hazard zone. 5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT Our exploration and laboratory testing indicated the alluvial soils are porous and prone to significant hydrocollapse. These materials are likely to cause settlements beyond the tolerances of proposed site development in their current state. If these soils are removed and replaced as compacted fill to a depth of 6 feet below bottoms of foundations, total and differential static settlements are anticipated to be less than 1 inch and ½-inch over 30 feet, respectively. These estimated magnitudes of static settlements are considered within tolerable limits for the proposed foundation loads. The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 7 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS In general, the existing near-surface soils are considered unsuitable in their existing condition to support proposed structural fills and site development. This condition can be mitigated by removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils. The anticipated depth of removal to mitigate structural load- induced settlement below the proposed residential buildings, retaining walls, and pavement is on the order of 7 feet below existing ground surface. Temporary construction slopes and trench excavations can likely be cut vertically up to a height of 4 feet within the onsite materials provided that no surcharging of the excavations is present. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height will likely require side laybacks to 1:1 (H:V) or flatter to mitigate the potential for sloughing. Due to the need for deep removals, residential structures will generally require a setback of at least 7 feet beyond property lines or other factors that would limit lateral removal of soils. Even at this setback, removals along the property lines adjacent residential buildings will likely require slot cutting techniques to provide a suitable projection to competent soils. Demolition of the existing site improvements will generate a considerable amount of concrete and asphaltic concrete debris. Significant portions of concrete and asphaltic concrete debris can likely be reduced in size to less than 4 inches and incorporated within fill soils during earthwork operations. Onsite disposal systems, clarifiers and other underground improvements may be present beneath the site. If encountered during future rough grading, these improvements will require proper abandonment or removal. Off-site improvements exist near the property lines. The presence of the existing offsite improvements may limit removals of unsuitable materials adjacent the property lines. Therefore, construction of perimeter site walls may require deepened footings and/or additional reinforcement and additional control joints, where removals are restricted by property boundaries. Subsurface soils are anticipated to be relatively easy to excavate with conventional heavy earthmoving equipment. Removal and recompaction of the site materials will result in some moderate shrinkage and subsidence. Design of site grading will require consideration of this loss when evaluating earthwork balance issues. The site soils encountered during our investigation were generally below optimum moisture content and will require the addition of water to achieve proper compaction. 5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. We estimate the existing surficial soils will shrink approximately 15 to 21 percent within the upper 6 feet. Reprocessing of removal bottoms are anticipated to result in a general subsidence of approximately 0.15 feet. The estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 8 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during the grading process. 5.6 SOIL EXPANSION Based on laboratory test results and the USCS visual manual classification, the near-surface soils within the site are generally anticipated to possess a Very Low expansion potential. Additional testing for soil expansion will be required subsequent to rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete work to confirm these conditions. 5.7 FOUNDATIONS Considering the very low expansion potential of site soils, conventional shallow foundations may be used to support habitable structures and miscellaneous structures at the site. 5.8 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN Laboratory testing of onsite soil indicates Negligible soluble sulfate content. Concrete designed to follow the procedures provided in ACI 318, Section 4.3, Table 4.3.1 for negligible sulfate exposure are anticipated to be adequate for mitigation of sulfate attack on concrete. Upon completion of rough grading, an evaluation of as-graded conditions and further laboratory testing will be required for the site to confirm or modify the conclusions provided in this section. 5.9 CORROSION POTINTIAL Laboratory testing of onsite soil indicates indicate a minimum resistivity of approximately 5,000 ohm-cm, pH of 7.7 and a soluble chloride content of 7.7 ppm. Based on laboratory test results, site soils are Corrosive to Moderately corrosive to metals. Structures fabricated from metals should have appropriate corrosion protection if they will be in direct contact with site soils. Under such conditions, a corrosion specialist should provide specific recommendations. The chloride content is relatively low and as such, no special requirements are anticipated for protection against chlorides in the site soils. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered on the project site, described in other literature, and utilized in our laboratory testing for this investigation are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 9 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. This report summarizes several geotechnical topics that should be beneficial for project planning and budgetary evaluations. The information presented herein is intended only for a preliminary feasibility evaluation and is not intended to satisfy the requirements of a site specific and detailed geotechnical investigation required for further planning and permitting. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered as a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Olson Company to assist the project consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. Respectfully submitted, ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Reviewed by: Andrew J. Atry Patrick M. Keefe Project Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist P.E. C 84728 CEG 2022 The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 Page 10 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. REFERENCES Publications Abrahamson, N.A., and W.J. Silva, “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.24, No.1, 2008. Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgnia, “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 10s”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.24, No.1, 2008. California Geologic Survey, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 2008. CDMG, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024, 1998. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California”, March 1999. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, 2001. Aerial Photographs Photo Source Date Flown Flight No. Photo No. Continental Aerial Photo, Inc. 8-31-54 AXJ-19K 63 & 64 Continental Aerial Photo, Inc. 1-30-70 60-3 70 Continental Aerial Photo, Inc. 11-7-76 76162 153 & 154 Continental Aerial Photo, Inc. 1-27-86 F 404 Continental Aerial Photo, Inc. 5-25-90 C81-9 37 PROJECT LIMITB-3/P-2B-1B-2B-4B-5LAS TUNAS DRW. LIVE OAK AVEE. LIVE OAK AVES. SANTA ANITA AVEP-1ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTSGEOTECHNICAL MAPPlate:1Job No.: 2581.00 Date: 02/15/17APPROX. SCALE 1" = 100'‹Google 2017EXPLANATION(Locations Approximate)- Exploratory BoringB-5- Exploratory & Percolation Test BoringB-3/P-2P-1- Percolation Test Boring ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY LOGS Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G WaterCoreBulk5 10 15 20 EXPLANATION Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types. Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change. Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD). Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler. Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample. Other Laboratory Tests: Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content EI = Expansion Index SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve) Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer) 200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve Consol = Consolidation SE = Sand Equivalent Rval = R-Value ATT = Atterberg Limits Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-1 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 20 Asphalt Concrete : 3 inches ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, loose, fine grained sand, trace fine gravel @ 2 ft, porous @ 4.5 ft, Pale brown, increase fines @ 8 ft, Medium dense @ 10 ft, Loose, trace carbonates present @ 15 ft, Medium dense 11 16 3 17 7 9 15 3.7 3.9 8.5 8.2 4.3 3 90.3 96.8 99.9 92.8 84.7 100.5 Max EI SO4 DS pH Resist Ch Consol Consol Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-2 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 30 35 40 45 Sand (SP): Light grayish brown, dry, medium dense, fine grained sand, trace silt Silty Sand (SM): Pale brown, dry, medium dense, fine grained sand @ 27 ft, Gravel layer encountered @ 30 ft, Trace fine gravel @ 35 ft, Very dense, trace fine to coarse gravel, decrease fines @ 40 ft, Medium dense Silt with Sand (ML): Light brown, dry, very stiff, fine grained sand @ 45 ft, Hard, decrease fines Silty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, very dense, fine grained sand, trace cobbles present 13 21 66/ 11" 15 58 1.7 92.4 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-3 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in End of boring at 51.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. Percolation test well (P-1) installed 5 feet to the southwest. 71 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-4 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-2 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 Asphalt Concrete (AC): 4 inches ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Reddish brown, dry, very loose, fine grained sand, trace fine gravel @ 4 ft, loose Sand (SP): Light brown, dry, loose, fine to medium grained sand, trace fine gravel @ 10 ft, Increase fines @ 15 ft, Medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand End of boring at 16 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. 10 13 4 7 8 7 3.2 3.9 12.8 11.7 2.7 4 100.7 101.5 100.3 97.9 101.8 96.4 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-5 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-3 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 20 Asphalt Concrete (AC): 4 inches ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, loose, fine grained sand, trace fine gravel, trace clay ALLUVIUM (Qal) Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, medium stiff, fine grained sand @ 4 ft, Trace fine gravel, decrease fines Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, loose, fine grained sand @ 10 ft, Increase fines @ 15 ft, Medium dense @ 20 ft, Decrease fines 8 12 9 10 7 6 7 6.6 7.4 11.3 9.5 10 7.3 92 103.3 92.9 91.7 84.5 89 Consol SA Hydro Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-6 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-3 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 30 @ 28.5 ft, Trace fine gravel, increase fines End of boring at 30 feet. No groundwater encountered. Converted to percolation test well (P-2). Backfilled with soil cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. 14 22 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-7 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-4 357.0 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 Asphalt Concrete (AC): 5 inches Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB): 2 inches ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, trace fine to coarse gravel ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, trace fine to coarse gravel Sand (SP): Brown, dry, loose, fine to medium grained sand, trace silt Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, loose, fine grained sand End of boring at 16 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. 10 8 9 7 14 10 3.2 9.7 11.3 12.1 9.1 3.4 Dist. 102.1 109.5 106.6 108.7 Dist. Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-8 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G 17 Las Tunas Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 2581.00 1/30/2017 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-5 357.2 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 Asphalt Concrete (AC): 3 inches Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB): 3 inches ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Medium brown, dry, loose, fine grained sand, carbonates present @ 2 ft, pores @ 4 ft, Brown, fine to medium grained sand, trace fine gravel @ 5 ft, Medium brown Sand (SP): Light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, trace silt End of boring at 16 feet. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. 9 12 7 6.7 7.6 102.7 86.1 Consol Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-10 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM The Olson Company February 15, 2015 J.N.: 2581.00 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Soil Classification Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (Test Method ASTM D 2488-93). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriate. The assigned group symbols are presented in the Boring Logs, Appendix A. In Situ Moisture and Density Moisture content and unit dry density of in-place soil materials were determined in representative strata. Test data are summarized in the Boring Logs, Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of onsite soils were determined for selected samples in general accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557-91. Pertinent test values are given on Table B-1. Grain-Size/Hydrometer Analysis Grain-size/hydrometer analyses were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications performed in the field. Tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D422. Test results are graphically presented on Plates B-1 and B-2. Expansion Potential An Expansion Index test was performed on a selected sample in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The test result and expansion potential are presented on Table B. Soluble Sulfate Analysis Chemical analysis was performed on selected samples to determine soluble sulfate content. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. The test results are included on Table B. Direct Shear The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for selected bulk samples obtained from our borings. Our laboratory performed these tests in general conformance with Test Method ASTM D 3080. The samples were remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density and 2 percentage points over optimum. Three specimens were prepared for each test, artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied loads at an appropriate constant rate of strain. Results are graphically presented on Plates B-3 and B-4. ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Corrosion Select samples were tested for minimum resistivity and pH in accordance with California Test Method 643. Results of these tests are provided in Table B-1. Chloride Content A Selected sample was tested for Chloride content in accordance with California Test Method 422. Results of these tests are provided in Table B-1. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Boring No. Sample Depth (ft) Soil Description Test Results B-1 0-5 Silty Sand (SM) Max. Dry Density (pcf): Opt. Moisture Content (%): Expansion Index : Expansion Potential: Soluble Sulfate Content (%): Sulfate Exposure: pH: Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm): Soluble Chloride (ppm): 129.5 11.0 9 Very Low 0.003 Negligible 7.1 5,000 7.7 Note: Additional laboratory test results are provided on the boring logs provided in Appendix A. 6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES2345678923456789234567892345678923456789234567892Plate No: B-1 Job No:GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONGRAVEL SANDSILT AND CLAYCOARSE FINEMEDIUMUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONCOARSEFINECOBBLESCLASSIFICATIONPILLSYMBOLSAMPLELOCATION0.00010.0010.010.1110100GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS1009080706050403020100PERCENT RETAINED 0102030405060708090100PERCENT PASSING Job No: Plate No: B-2DIRECT SHEAR SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION B-1 @ 0-5 feet @ 90% of 130 pcf @ 11%Silty Sand (SM) Strain Rate (in/min)0.01 Initial Moisture Content (%)11 11 11 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 117 117 120.8 Ultimate Displacement (in)0.25 0.25 0.25 Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf)0.672 1.272 2.16 Peak Displacement (in)0.01 0.005 0.013 Peak Shear Stress (ksf)0.864 1.368 2.16 Normal Stress (ksf)1 2 4 1 2 3Specimen No. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 SHEAR STRESS (ksf)0246810 Axial Strain (%) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Shear Stress (ksf)0246810 Axial Strain (%) -0.025 0.000 0.025 Vertical Displacement (in.)1 2 4 Strain Legend Peak Strength Legend Ultimate Sample Location: CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Sample Depth: Classification: Initial Dry Density (pcf): Initial Moisure Content (%): Final Moisture Content (%): Job No: Plate No: B-3 100 1000 10000 100000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CONSOLIDATION (%)4 ft B-1 SM 92.9 8.9 17.3 2581.00 Sample Location: CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Sample Depth: Classification: Initial Dry Density (pcf): Initial Moisure Content (%): Final Moisture Content (%): Job No: Plate No: B-4 100 1000 10000 100000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CONSOLIDATION (%)6 ft B-1 SM 85 7.1 23.1 2581.00 Sample Location: CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Sample Depth: Classification: Initial Dry Density (pcf): Initial Moisure Content (%): Final Moisture Content (%): Job No: Plate No: B-5 100 1000 10000 100000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CONSOLIDATION (%)6 ft B-3 ML 85.5 10.4 23.9 2581.00 Sample Location: CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Sample Depth: Classification: Initial Dry Density (pcf): Initial Moisure Content (%): Final Moisture Content (%): Job No: Plate No: B-6 100 1000 10000 100000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CONSOLIDATION (%)5 ft B-5 SM 92.1 8.1 18 2581.00