Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED LOADING DOCKOMACTEC • ,engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 27, 2008 Mr. Cary Brooks Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Supplementary Recommendations Proposed Loading Dock Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-2451 Dear Mr. Brooks: This letter presents supplementary recommendations to our letter dated October 20, 2008. The recommendations are to respond to comments prepared to Mr. Ken Bagahi of Bagahi Engineering, Inc. regarding the October 20 letter and forwarded to us by Mr. Howell Gutierrez of WBSA via email. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. SETTLEMENT In our October 20 letter, we estimated that the differential settlement would be less than '/4 inch. IVIr. Bagahi has asked over what distance the settlement takes place. The estimated differential settlement of less than ''A inch is between adjacent columns or wall lines. For the project, the column/wall spacing ranges from approximately 14 feet to 22 feet. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 5628 East Slauson Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90040-2922 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.889.5398 www.mactec.com Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian --Supplementary Recommendations October 27, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 RETAINING WALLS Mr. Bagahi has requested clarification as to soils that are to be used in the backfill for retaining walls. The lateral earth pressures for drained soils recommended for design of cantilevered retaining wall are based on the soils in the active wedge consisting of either imported or on -site granular soils. The soils in the active wedge should be relatively non -expansive and have an expansion index of less than 20. Organic matter and cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. The active wedge is between the back of the wall and a plane extending upward from the bottom of the retaining wall footing at an angle of 35 degrees from the vertical. Where the retaining wall backfill soils will be exposed to weather, the upper 2 feet of the wall backfill soils should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a cap when compacted in order to minimize infiltration of water into the wall backfill. The on -site soils and imported soils with an expansion index of less than 35 may be used in the cap. All proposed import materials, including retaining wall backfill, should be approved by our personnel prior to being placed at the site. We look forward to continuing to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consultin .0„ofESSio4,, Boris O. Kori Senior Engineer ti,c C- t ro.<. Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Chief Engineer P:14953 Geotech12005 proj152451-Hoag- Propose. ouch BuildinglDeliverables14953-05-2451ADD15r 10-27-08.doc/ MBH/BOK tm (2 copies submitted) 2 • OMACTEC engineering and constructing a better tomorrow October 20, 2008 Mr. Cary Brooks Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive; P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Revised Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Loading Dock Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive Newport Beach, California MACTEC Project 4953-05-2451 Dear Mr. Brooks: This letter presents revised geotechnical recommendations for the proposed renovation of the loading dock adjacent to the existing original hospital building at the campus of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. Our predecessor firm of LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LCA) previously performed geotechnical investigations adjacent to the site of the proposed loading dock in reports dated February 27, 1989 (LCA Project No. 089008.A), July 6, 1984 (LCA Project No. A-84159) and August 15, 1969 (LCA Project No. A-69080). In addition, we previously performed a geotechnical investigation for a proposed new South Building at a site adjacent to the proposed site of the loading dock, and we presented the results of that investigation in a report dated February 20, 2006 (our Job No. 4953-05-2451); the proposed South Building was not constructed. This revised consultation letter supersedes our letter dated October 17, 2008, and includes seismic parameters for the 2001 edition of the California Building code. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 5628 East Slauson Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90040-2922 • Phone: 323.889.5300 • Fax: 323.889.5398 www mactec. cam Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 The scope of this consultation did not include geologic or seismic studies for the site. Accordingly, our conclusions and recommendations are for static loading conditions only; however, this does not imply that there is a geologic or seismic hazard affecting the site. Also, the assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of contaminants in the soils and ground water of the site was beyond the scope of this consultation. It is planned to renovate the existing loading dock west of the existing main hospital building at the campus of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian at the location shown on Figure 1, Plot Plan to accommodate a new sanitation compaction system. The new sanitation compaction system consists of three masonry structures. Data from the prior pertinent subsurface explorations adjacent to the proposed loading dock as presented in the prior reports referenced above are considered applicable for the proposed project. SOIL. CONDITIONS Our prior pertinent borings show fill soils, 0 to 13 feet in thickness, were found in some of the borings previously drilled adjacent to the proposed loading dock. Deeper fill may be encountered at locations not previously explored. The fill soils consist predominantly of silty sand, sandy silt, clay and clayey silt. The natural soils beneath the fill or beneath the ground surface consist of silty sand, silt and clay, and sand. The upper natural soils are moderately firm.. Ground water was measured in the previous boring (Boring 19) adjacent to the site as shallow as 14 feet below the ground surface. Caving and raveling in the sandy materials. The logs of selected borings adjacent to the proposed loading dock are attached in the Appendix. The prior corrosion studies indicate that the on -site soils are severely corrosive to ferrous metals, aggressive to copper,- and detrimental to portland cement concrete. The prior reports of corrosion studies and test results are presented in the Appendix and should be referred to for a discussion of the corrosion potential of the soils, and for potential mitigation measures. 2 I• • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc, Project 4953-05-2451 RECOMMENDATIONS The existing fill soils are not considered to be suitable for the support of the proposed loading dock and where encountered, should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill below proposed foundations and slabs. The sanitary compaction system structures and the proposed slabs may be supported on properly compacted fill soils a minimum of 2 feet in thickness. Shoring will be required to provide for excavation of the existing fill soils. Bearing Value Spread footings established on a 2-foot-thick layer of properly compacted fill and carried at least " 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level may be designed to impose a net dead -plus - live load pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The excavations should be deepened as necessary to extend into -satisfactory soils. A one-third increase can be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads. Footings for minor structures (bollards, minor retaining walls, and free-standing walls) that are structurally separate from the other structures can be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot at a depth of 1'A feet below the lowest adjacent grade. Such footings can be established in either properly compacted fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. Please note that where adjacent footings are required at different elevations, the higher footing should be located below a 1:1 plane extending upward from the bottom of the lower footing to avoid imposing surcharge loads or undermining existing foundations. Settlement We estimate the settlement of the proposed structures, supported in the manner recommended, will be less than 'A inch. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 Lateral Resistance Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the natural or compacted fill soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be used between the proposed footings and the slabs and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted fill soils can be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot A one-third { increase in the passive value can be used for wind or seismic loads_ • • The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Foundation Inspection To assure that the soils at the design foundation level will provide satisfactory support, foundation excavations should be cleaned of loose soils and subsequently inspected by personnel of our fine prior to placing concrete. Site Coefficient and Seismic Zonation The site coefficient, S, may be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1629A of the California Building Code (CBC), 2001 edition, for seismic design of the hospital buildings. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site may be classified as Soil Profile Type SD, as specified in the 2001 code. The site is located within CBC Seismic Zone 4. The site is near the Newport -Inglewood fault, which has been determined to be a Type B seismic source by the California Division of Mines and Geology. According to Map N-33 in the 1998 publication from the International Conference of Building Officials entitled "Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," the site of the proposed building is located within 2 kilometers from the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a Type B seismic source, the near source factors, Na and N„ are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC. 4 i • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 Retaining Walls Lateral Earth Pressure For design of cantilevered retaining walls, where the surface of the backliill is level, it can be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Where retained soils are sloped at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) above the retaining wall; it may be assumed that the soils will exert lateral pressures equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 53 pounds per cubic foot. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, wall adjacent to areas subject to vehicular traffic should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal vehicular traffic. Drainage Retaining walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures or be provided with a drain pipe or weepholes. The drain could consist of a 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe placed with perforations down at the base of the wall. The pipe should be sloped at least 2 inches in 100 feet and surrounded by filter gravel. The filter gravel should meet the requirements of Class 2 Permeable Material as defined in the current State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. If Class 2 Permeable Material is not available, 3/4-inch crushed rock or gravel separated from the on -site soils by an appropriate filter fabric can be used. The crushed rock or gravel should have less than 5% passing a No. 200 sieve. Grading Existing fill soil should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. The excavation should be deepened as necessary to provide at least 2 feet of properly compacted fill beneath spread footings. All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and observed and tested during placement. The on -site soils can be used in any required fill. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 Site Preparation After excavating as recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near -optimum moisture content, and compacted with appropriate. At least the upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-07 method of compaction. Excavations and Temporary Slopes Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 1'/2:1(horizontal to vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments, shoring will be required. Compaction Any required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8-inches-thick and compacted. The fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-07 method of compaction. The moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of compaction should vary no more than 2% below or above optimum moisture content. Backfill All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to reduce settlement of the backfill and to reduce settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backf ll should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-07 method of compaction. The on -site soils can be used in the compacted backfill. 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,. Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, can be used in required fills. Cobbles larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. Any required import material should consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an expansion index of less than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. All proposed import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to being placed at the site. Shoring • Shoring will be required to excavate to a depth that is the larger of the depth to natural soil or 2 feet below the bottom of footings. The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. We can furnish any additional required data as the design progresses. Also, we suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot. Where retained soils are sloped at 1:1 above the shoring, it may be assumed that the soils will exert lateral pressures equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pounds per cubic foot. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge maybe neglected. Furthermore, adjacent to existing structures, the shoring system should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned. Any lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the relative locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. Furthermore, the shoring system should be designed to support the lateral surcharge pressures imposed by concrete trucks and other heavy construction equipment placed near the shoring system. 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc_, Project 4953-05-2451 Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the Ievel of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth at the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed natural soils_ The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planed excavated level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.4. In addition, provided that the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. For resisting the downward loads, the frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken equal to- 300 pounds per square foot. Lagging Lagging, if required, may be designed for the recommended earth pressure in a semi -circular distribution limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot at the mid -line between the soldier piles, and 0 pounds per square foot at the edge. 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTECEngineeringand Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 We look forward to continuing to be of professional service to you. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. LGan-Anh Tran Project Engineer Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D. Chief Engineer //UQ9 QUO •F w NO.2570 P_ 14953 Geotech12005 proj152451 Hoag- Proposed South BuildinglDeliverables14953-05-2451ADD14r doc/LT It (2 copies submitted) Attachment: Figure 1 Plot Plan Appendix • 9 .12-31-©9 rm Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC,E'ngineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 FIGURES • • PROPOSED LOADING DOCK CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM HELIPORT EMERGENCY CARE UNIT B.M. FOR BOR. ELEVS. F.F.E. OF EXIST. HOSPITAL ELEV. 65.0 (AE-84159) CARDIAC SERVIC OUTPATIENTB B.M. FOR BOR. TOP OF MANHOLE ASSUMED ELEV. =1 (L89008A0) INPATIENT TOWER HOSPITAL ROAD FOUR STORY COURTYARD SOUTH HOAG DRIVE CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY ORIGINAL HOSPITAL EAST TOWER PARKING STRUCTURE REFERENCE: OVERALL CAMPUS PLAN, SHEET A100 (REV. DATE OCT. 1, 2007) BY WOOD BURGHARD SWAIN ARCHITECTS. LEGEND: 2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (L89008.AO) 2 ® PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-84159) 460 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080) L BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER 0 50 100 200 Scale in Feet I MACTEC 5628 E. SLAUSON AVENUE LOSANGFI FS, CALIFORNIA 90040 (323) 889-5300 FAX (323) 889-5398 • FIGURE 1 PLOT PLAN HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ONE HOAG DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4953-05-2451 REVISION: 10-06-08 DATE4/09/08 SCALE ?100' DWG BY: T.T. P CHECKED BY: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc_, Project 4953-05-2451 APPENDIX • • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05 2451 PRIOR PERTINENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were previously explored are shown on Figure 1. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 16 to 50 feet below the existing grade using bucket -auger drilling equipment. The soils encountered were logged by our field technician, and undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the prior pertinent borings are presented on Figures A-1.1 through A-1.8. The depths at which undisturbed samples were obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches is indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figures A-2.1, A-2.2, and A-2.3 for the borings from our Job Nos. 089008.A, A-84159 and A-69080, respectively. PRIOR PERTINENT LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Laboratory tests were previously performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to evaluate their engineering properties. The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are presented to the left of the boring logs. Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the sti - ngth of the soils in the borings. The tests were performed after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The maximum values determined from the direct shear tests are presented on Figures A-3.1 through 3.3 Direct Shear Test Data. Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are presented on Figures A-4.1 and A-4.2, Consolidation Test Data. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of the upper soils were determined by performing a compaction test on a sample obtained from borings 2 from our Project No. A-84159 and Borings 1 and 4 from Project No. 69080. The test was performed in accordance with the A-1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Consultation October 20, 2008 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Project 4953-05-2451 ASTM Designation D 1 557 method of compaction at that time. The results of the test are presented on Figures A-5.1 and A-5.2, Compaction Test Data. A-2 , z 0 w -J w -o 111 a"- 95 -- m irs 0 m t4 -13 m m c E O IP icU G v O (0 —(n O) C O U 2 U m- O -C O. O (A m U - N O o C C 11: 80--20 CD O C m 0) C 03 m C o a_ z 0 13 c� U m O m 70 — 30 7 a_ CO L 0 3 — m s F CC cn-- wrz-- J u • w Q DATE DRILLED: February 1, 1989 o w 2Q EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket >-2 > M o ' ¢ `� ran fl BORING 1 ELEVATION 100.0 * Previous Investigation 089008.A 7" Concrete Slab FILL - SAND, SILT and CLAY - few Gravel, pieces of concrete, asphaltic paving and wire, greyish brown Brown Grey and brown SURFACE OF NATURAL SOIL CLAYEY SAND - fine, brown SILTY SAND - fine, some Clay, brown Greyish brown SAND - fine, some Silt, light yellowish brown Layer of Sandy Silt Few Gravel CLAYEY SILT - grey with reddish brown Lens of Sand NOTE: Water at bottom of boring at completion of drilling. No caving. Elevations refer to assumed datum; see Plate 1 for location and elevation of bench mark. LOG OF BORING LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.1 ELEVATION (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (lbs./cu. ft.) DRIVE ENERGY (ft.-kips/ft,) SAMPLE LOC. I BORING 2 DATE DRILLED: January 31, 1989 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 99.3 Previous Investigation 089008.A 95- 90 - 85 - 80 - 75- 70 - 65 60 - 14.9 17.1 108 107 < < 1 II6:,. >i: 9 % ' 9" Concrete Slab 1 `+: -• 'ice ' is SP ML CL FILL - SAND, SILT and CLAY - pieces of plaster, brown and grey Greyish. brown i SURFACE OF NATURAL SOIL - 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 AA . 9.8 10.5 111 107 - SM' SILTY SAND - fine, some. Clay, brown 10.5 33.2 114 90 2 6 ►.''' , ML CLAYEY SILT - grey and brown Lens of Silty Sand 30.6 93 6 • 4.6 100 10 - • sp SAND - fine, Tight grey 6.4 102 16 gi = NOTE: Slight water seepage encountered at a depth of 35'. Water at bottom of boring 15 minutes after completion of drilling. No caving. • 31.5 92 14 = = • Lens of Clayey Sift . CL SILTY CLAY - grey with brown LOG OF BORING • LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES F. FIGURE A=1.2 o' w a flL w �F- z oa zm az z0 ,= -U0 O zi 'moo mQ U • Mtn U•O ,- CD0 wz $ *-0 c . .(Otn O. zFt wI.- Z Cr w.y .za- 3W om taw :cf.) o0 � -aw U � W w :0 • tto = tn -0 20 W JQ U -=0 }- z 0 z A. J4. Q4?A. Jac �?,, ; O O c, . �` O\ v -� , .4 o 4 F..- ,Q A BORING 2 DATE DRILLED: June 4, 1984 EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket / 'v / / / Vv �/v`l 7 ELEVA 1' t SM '1 r k SM 60- ,//,h 15.4 110 1 I:1f11 _ 11'i 5 17.4 102 1 /:f l:i 1: 55- 11i l 14.1: - 17.3 111 <1 ir,4I 10 / CL 9 50- 17.8 111 3 / • IUSM - / CL 15 26.9 96 2 / 45 - 28.1 94 5 !(/ 20 3 !r 40- ::::: °'?SP /s 11 •-;: TION 62.6 Previous Investigation A-84159 SILTY SAND - fine, brown FILL - CLAY and SILTY SAND - fine, mottled brown Lenses of Sandy Silt Some concrete chunks SANDY CLAY - light brown SILTY SAND - fine, light brown SILTY CLAY (POSSIBLE WEATHERED SHALE) - light brown and light grey Some cementations SAND (POSSIBLE WEAKLY CEMENTED SANDSTONE) - fine, light brown (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PLATE) LOG OF BORING LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.3 W 1 A. 41 °, "N 1, 4- 2 ` • Qv Q.4.Oj t.• �ki\'` v Off' g,40 ..� Za �.1*tip gQ BORING 2 (CONTINUED) DATE DRILLED: June 4, 1984 EQUIPMENT USED: IV -Diameter Bucket f' / 35- , 30 18_0 86 6 la•c ..i - , .r 30- -,.... , to-.4 4... .,o.. — 35 15:.. 25- 20.1 ' 106 10 1P; -J 40 20- d,,., •L' is, ,.. ,'.i 11 - 22.1 101 10 c'._, 45 15- qn NOTE: Previous Investigation A-84159 Some gravel Some medium Sand (BORING TERMINATED DUE TO HEAVY CAVING, SLOUGHING, AND LACK OF PROGRESS) Water seepage encountered at a depth of 32'. Water level measured at 34' 20 minutes after completion of drilling. Heavy caving and sloughing below 32'. LOG OF BOR I N G LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.4 • c-,' k's,e,,:-.C.ct,."‘"O"./..t>,,,,,i'fi/\\c'tv...k//,, f BORING 2 DATE DRILLED : April 28, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 55 12.2 84 : ;.. �� r ' : ` SW ML FILL - SILTY SAND end SANDY SILT MIXTURE - about 20% debris of wood, wire, rootlets, dark brown and grey - 5 10.31 117 s �! 50- 10 19.7j105• Clayey ' SW SILTY SAND - fine, brown 45 -f 9, 7 l 02 c - 15 CL SILTY CLAY - jointed, mottled grey and brown 29.2 95 I. :.. SP 40Lenses SAND - fine, brown _ 20 of Silt 4.9 99 I::*-: • NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. Previous Investigation A-69080 LOG OF BOR I N G LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.S 1 ��O :0J btu 4.�P q4Q� 0 Qi BORING 3 DATE DRILLED : April 28, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED : 18't-Diameter Bucket Previous Investigation A-69080 / `v f / ELEVATION OZ.0 60 -, - 5 8.5 113 '" C L FILL - CLAYEY SAND and SILTY CLAY MIXTURE — brown 16.4 113 55 1 10 8.5 113 ' P SAND - fine, some Clay, brown 50 - 6.7 4.5 101 109 .._: '• �. Coarse, few gravel L SILTY CLAY - mottled grey and brown - • I- 15 NOTE: Water encountered a depth of 39'; water 45 4 30.7 91 - .at level at a depth of 40' 15 minutes after corn- pletion of drilling. No caving. 20 30.0 94 40-1 r !- 25 7.8 88 : ... SP SAND - fine, light grey 35 30 17.6 101 - ;ts:41‘i � "_ Cemented layer . I111 Layer of SILTY SAND 30 1 _ 35 4.2 HI U :; , Few grave! 25 •Layer SILTY SAND of 40 19.5 106 U::':. 20- Clayey, mottled dory grey and brown 45 38.1 83 aI_ N.4 SANDY SILT - mottled grey and brown CRAItiU4LL AND ASSOLIATES FIGURE A-1.6 Previous Investigation A-69080 1 0 V w 0 a 7u 13.7: 115' 5---- 3.6 102 - 10- 65- 24.3 IC3 I 18.5 1E14 3.6 99 • 20 2.0: 100 55-( 1 .6• 102 25-7-...-.-1-- 50 • 1.3-'. 106 30__ 1.6; 103 45 - _35• 46 f:9 40 1_ 40 4.41 94 35 _i - 454-7.9* •93 30- 50 2,0 1^5 BORING 4 DATE DRILLED May 2, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED 18"-Diameter Bucket ELEVATION 76.0 h L SP CL 4 I 6 J 11 1.5 ASPHALTIC PAVING CLAYEY SILT - some Sand, brown SAND - fine, light brown SILTY CLAY - jointed, mottled grey and brown CLAYEY SILT - brownish -grey SAND - fine, light grey Coarse Few shells Layer of CLAYEY SAND - few grcvel, cemented, brown Lenses of Silt Cemented layer Layer of CLAYEY SAND - mottled brown and grey NOTE: Water not encountered. Raveling from 7' to 10' (to 24" in diameter). FIGURE A-1.7 ti p)\a _` act (, /\7a'` Oy1 Previous Investigation A-69080 BORING 19 DATE DRILLED . May 5, 1969 EQUIPMENT USED - 18"-Diameter Bucket L- JJ / / 7GC V.I ? V.N ,7. ( 35-I / f ;. S1+/1 ML FILL - SILTY SAND and SANDY SILT MIXTURE - about 40% debris of concrete, wood, metal any :s! glass, brown and grey 14.7 108 . 30 -.. 5 s .. . SANDY CLAY - dark brown CL 14.6 116 Very sandy 25-'- 10 16.4 113 24- ✓ % re Grey - 15 24.3 101 NOTE: Water encounterd at a .depth of 14.51; water level a depth of 13.5' 15 minutes after completion of dr :.,„ Cnvinn_ from 0' to 5' (to 36" in diameter). at } LOG OF BORING LE ROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-1.8 MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYP I CAL NAMES GRAVELS:°° (More than 50 % of CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines ) ':/'9� "iSov.°e ;Oe o. GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, Lithe or no fines. - • v -- . tepee:; o GP - Poorly graded gravels or grovel -sand mixtures, Tittle or no fines. • COARSE GRAINED coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amt. of fines) - Pq e e ' •� 4 fi GM Silty gravels, gravel- sand - silt mixtures. Eb = 4,.1 , GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No.200 sieve size) SANDS (More than 50 % CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) • - = '• SW Well graded sands, gravelly sends, little or no fines. _ -: 1. %;: ti• SP Poorl Y graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines . of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No. 4 sieve size) ' SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amt. of fines) , SM Silty sands , sand -sift mixtures. A SC Clayey Bonds, sand -clay mixtures. FINE GRAINED • SI LTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) ML Inorganic sifts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. y/�/ 1 CL inorganic cloys of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity . • OL ! ► \• k MH SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No.200 sieve • size) • S I LTS AND CLAYS •(Liquid limit GREATER than 50) Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. 00 ei 00 00 CH inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts . OH Peal and other highly organic soils. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS pi BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characterist'cs of two groups ore designated by combinations of group symbols. P A RTICLE SIZE LIMITS SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL I COBBLES! I 1 BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE NO.200 NO.40 NO.1O NO.4 hi in. 3 in. U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE t12in.) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM i Reference - The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol. 1, March, 1953. (Revised April, 1960) FIGURE A-2.1 MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No.200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More than 50 % of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) p0i..Oo GW Well graded gravels, grovel -sand mixtures, lithe or no fines. op.a% :e'uo °-noo r o.a a ` ;b GP Poorly graded grovels or grovel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES' (Appreciable amt. of fines) r s. ..: GM Silly grovels, gravel- sand - silt mixtures. • ,,p' , GC Clayey grovels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) , - • _] __ =-1 SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. _ - SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. - SANDS WITH FINESj� (Appreciable amt. of fines) SM Silty sands , sand -silt mixtures. I SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures. FINE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No.200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) .14 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. l CL Inorganic stays of tow to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity . ; SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. y 00 pf CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, " organic silts. /t • HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt • Peat and other highly organic soils. :.‘..cd.4 BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. PA RTICLE SIZE L 1 MIT S SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL 1 COBBLES, 1 I BOULDERS FINE MEOIUU COARSE FINE COARSE N0.200 NO.40 NO.10 N0.4 3/4 in. 3 in. U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0210 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Reference - The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol 1, March, 1953. (Revised April, 1960) LEROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES I7TCT IRE A-2.2 • 1 • MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES • GRAIN SED SOILS (More than 50% of material is LARGER than No.200 sieve size) GRAVELS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is LARGER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN GRAVELS (Little or no fines) r- pQ .•Oa O;,u. GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. ap.;oQ . a as d b ° GP Poorly graded gravels or grovel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINESCOARSE (Appreciable amt. of fines) . e e GM Silty gravels, gravel- sand - silt mixtures. i► GC Clayey gravels, grovel- sand -clay mixtures. SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the No. 4 sieve size) CLEAN SANDS (Little or no fines) '-• . SW Well graded sands, gravelly •sands, little or no fines. - ) SrPoorly graded sands or gravelly sands , little or no fines. SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amt. of fines) '�'}i SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures. FINE GRAI NED SOILS (More than 50% of material is SMALLER than No.200 sieve • size) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) - ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. •CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean cloys_ OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity .• , 4. ; ; k - SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. / t��//� /// / CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays_ O HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS pf Peat and other highly organic soils. BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS SILT OR CLAY SAND GRAVEL 1 COBBLESI I 1 BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE NO. 200 NO 40 NO.10 NO.4 3/4in. 3 in. U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE (12in.) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Reference The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of ' Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol. 1, March, 1953. (Revised April, 1960) LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-2.3 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 O 0 0 m 1000 L a Q L 2000 to C 0 0 c ._ 3000 it1 CC N L.1 a 4000 \•i020 20Q 19 �2024 1 (125• o ta6 BORING NUMBER 8 207 SAMPLE DEPTH (FT; 1 as 80 6000 tli Q O 5000 Cr N 0 20 10 •1no11 2014 1015 6000 \ •• 2024 VALUES USED IN ,I0a30 \2 a019• 2G 34 • 2an24• 106 a • l 25 `0 on ANALYSES Shoring __ Piles •1f@ 35 10 KEY • Tests at field moisture content a. o Tests at increased moisture content ---Natural soils Fits soils . Previous Investigation 089008.A D L R-ECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL a ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-3.1 • • 0 0 Q c 0 a c 3 w U) (/) a 4000 w 0 0 5000 Cr cn 6000 SHEAR STRENGTH in. Pounds per Square Foot 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 ~/'2a /s/b 3ar/2 30/8 •. 200 000 • 2.ra • • 2dv/5 /9/4 3c.•9 Q ) BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH & (FT) /i20 - d4Pi/ •gyp/2 w�2i2 t2P/5 /o/¢ 1 •..7e2P/B 0309 • VALUES IN ANALYSES USED \ • . . KEY: • Tests at field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content Previous Investigation A-84159 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-3.2 0 0 IL a) 1000 0 U7 L Q 2000 -o c 0 a_ C 3000 w d 4000 tit Cr U 5000 CC cn 6000 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 4000 5r)00 600C pro\ IWV - \ • -' '- A z e 0 /270 c_vvv • 07@/¢. k a•• •20„6 zze 6 23a. 9 ---- I I PROPOSED POWER PLANT AND PARKING AREAS `' 2G t� •=-3 �l 2�¢ /9 my i% • 2� , .S@// • area e.,/ \\\ 0 JS!$ /o 0 //@/fC BORING SAMPLE �/ cD// NUMBER DEPTH & (F T.) F /sue t2 / Z 0 ea e /g.C/1 • 23M 26 • 23� -..a/606 o2¢-/3 • 21 ¢ 2c'C� /B@6 AR-5- 2@/‘ @ 2 32 •S@¢ • VALUES IN USED ••/5@ze" 0 /5@ /O o/2e /¢ ANALYSES 2¢cae¢` e-�@ea . • �e6 KEY: • Tests at field moisture content o Tests at increased moisture content Previous Investigation A-69080 DIRECT SHEAR • TEST DATA LEROY CRANDALL a ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-3.3 U 0 0.01 U Z 0.02 CC W. n. N = 0.fl3 z Z 0.04 z. O .N 0.05 Z 0.06 - 0.07 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT .7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 = Boring 1 at 20' SAND — SILTY -- Boring SAND 2 at 29` �. . • • NOTE Samples tested at field moisture content. Previous Investigation 089008.A CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-4.1 111 111 0.0'!i JII U Z 0.0!Iill 2 or a u) w = 0.03 U #1 Z 0.04 I. c) Q 0 II J O Z 0.05 (D C) 0.06 0.07 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 II II Boring 1 S I LT`I WEATHERED at 35' CLAY SHALE) (POSSIBLE II ill : Boring-2 at SILTY CLAY WEATHERED-SHALE) 15' • •111111 NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content. Previous investigation A-84159 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-4.2 1 oe BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH : Boring 2 at 0to 7' SOIL TYPE : FILL - CLAY and SILTY SAND MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 127 ( LBS. /CU. FT. ) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT : 10 I%OF DRYWT.) TEST METHOD: ASTM DESIGNATION D155T-70. Previous Investigation A-84159 COMPACTION TEST DATA LeROY CRANDALL. AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE A-5.1 BORING NUMBER AND SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY*: (Lbs ./Cu . Ft . ) 1 at .0'-5' 4 at 01.-7' FILL - . CLAYEY SILT • SILTY SAND and SILTY SAND 129 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT*: 8.5 (% of Dry Wt.) 126 10.0 * TEST METHOD: ASTM Designation D1557-66T modified to use three layers. Previous Investigation A-69080 COMPACTION TEST DATA LE ROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCtATEF. FIGURE A-5.2