d i a z x y o u r m a n - el centro, california · d i a z x y o u r m a n ... associates (dya) ......

D I A Z • Y O U R M A N

& A S S O C I A T E S

1616 EAST 17th STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705-8509 TEL. (714) 245-2920 FAX (714) 245-2950

HP_Administrator

Text Box

HP_Administrator

Text Box

ii K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2008\2008-014\REPORT\REPORT 2008-014.DOC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING..................................................4

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................5

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................7 4.1 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN................................................................................7

4.1.1 New Pavements..........................................................................................................7 4.1.2 Existing Pavements ....................................................................................................8

4.2 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................9 4.3 CONCRETE FLATWORK.............................................................................................10 4.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL..................................................................................11

5.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, AND TESTING.............................13

6.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................................14

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................15

APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................ B-1

APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC INDEX CALCULATIONS ................................................................. C-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP.....................................................................................................1 Figure 2 - SITE PLAN ...................................................................................................................2 Figure 3 - PAVEMENT THICKNESS ............................................................................................8

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - EXISTING PAVEMENT .................................................................................................5 Table 2 - SUBSURFACE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................6 Table 3 - IMPORT FILL CRITERIA.............................................................................................10 Table 4 - CORROSION POTENTIAL..........................................................................................12

1 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2008\2008-014\REPORT\REPORT 2008-014.DOC

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Diaz•Yourman &

Associates (DYA) for the proposed El Dorado Colonia Street Improvement Project in El Centro,

California. DMC Design Group, Inc. (DMC) authorized this work on March 31, 2008.

The El Dorado Colonia Street Improvement Project consists of improvements on 8th Street

between El Dorado Avenue and the North Date Canal in El Centro, California, as shown on the

Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The approximate layout of the proposed project is shown on the Site

Plan, Figure 2. The proposed project will consist of widening the existing street; adding curbs,

gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting; and rehabilitating the existing pavement.

Figure 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP

SITE


The purpose of DYA's investigation was to provide geotechnical input for the design of the

proposed project. The scope of our services consisted of:

• Conducting a subsurface investigation.

• Performing laboratory tests on selected soil samples.

• Performing engineering analyses to develop conclusions and recommendations

regarding site preparation and grading, and pavement thickness for flexible pavements.

• Preparing this report.


2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

The subsurface investigation, conducted on May 22, 2008, consisted of sampling the subgrade

soils at three locations (Borings B-1 through B-3) as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The

borings were drilled using hollow-stem auger techniques to a depth of approximately 11.5 feet.

Details of the field investigation, including sampling procedures and boring logs, are presented

in Appendix A. Borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and the surface was patched with cold

patch asphalt.

Soil samples were re-examined in the laboratory to substantiate field classifications. Selected

soil samples were tested for moisture content, dry density, Atterberg limits, compaction

characteristics, sand equivalent, grain size distribution, corrosion potential CpH, electrical

resistivity, soluble chlorides, soluble sulfates, and pavement-supporting capacity (R-Value). The

soil samples tested are identified on the boring logs. Laboratory test data are summarized on

the boring logs in Appendix A and presented on individual test reports in Appendix B.


3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

The project reach is located within an agricultural and residential zone. There was one lane in

each direction without center turn lanes. Concrete curbs and gutters were not present along the

project reach. The existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement surface condition varied from fair to

poor. The AC surface exhibited signs of various AC distress including block, transverse,

longitudinal, and alligator cracking.

The existing pavement structural section consisted of approximately 5 to 6 inches of AC and 6

to 8 inches of base as shown in Table 1. The subgrade soils varied from silty sand to lean clay

and fat clay. The clayey subsurface soils were considered to have high expansion potential.

Expansive soils will undergo changes in volume with changes in moisture content (expand when

saturated and shrink when dried), which can result in lifting and settling of the subgrade.

Table 1 - EXISTING PAVEMENT PAVEMENT BASE BORING

ID Type Thickness (inches) Description1/Type Thickness

(inches) SUBGRADE

B-1 AC 5.5 Poorly Graded Gravel 6 7 inches Silty Sand above Fat Clay B-2 AC 6 Poorly Graded Gravel 7 11 inches of Silty Sand above Lean Clay B-3 AC 5 Poorly Graded Gravel 8 Silty Sand

Notes: 1. See Plate A-1 in Appendix A for soil classification. • AC = asphalt concrete. • AB = aggregate base. • 25mm = 1 inch.

The R-value was 5. The insitu and optimum moisture contents, insitu and maximum unit

weights, relative compaction1, and R-values of the subsurface materials are summarized in

Table 2. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during the field investigation.

1 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material, as determined by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D1557-91 test method. Optimum moisture content is the moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 test method.


Table 2 - SUBSURFACE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

BORING ID

DEPTH (feet)

SOIL TYPE

INSITU MOISTURE CONTENT

(%)

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT1

(%)

INSITU DRY UNIT WEIGHT

(pcf)

MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT1

(pcf)

RELATIVE COMPACTION1

(%)

B-1 2 CH 25 15 100 115 87 B-1 10 CH 25 15 100 115 87 B-2 2 CL 14 15 100 115 87 B-2 6 SM 12 7 114 135 84 B-3 2 SM 5 7 118 135 87 B-3 10 ML 30 7 84 130 65

Note: 1. Based on ASTM D1557.


4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For new pavements, the primary geotechnical consideration was the presence of fine-grained

silts and clays 10 to 15 percent over optimum moisture content as shown in Table 2 and the

high expansion potential of the fine-grained silts and clays. These fine-grained materials with

moisture contents greater than approximately 2 percent over optimum will likely require moisture

conditioning (drying) prior to compaction. At the same time, the expansion characteristics of the

soils require that soils should remain at or above optimum content, especially under concrete

flatwork. Therefore, precise moisture conditioning of the subgrade soils is the key to a

successful project.

The existing pavement in fair condition can be overlaid with 2-inch asphalt rubber hot mix

(ARHM). Loose and/or spalling pavement, potholes, localized failures, and the existing

pavement in poor condition should be repaired prior to any overlay.

4.1 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN

4.1.1 New Pavements

The following minimum pavement sections were based on an R-value of 5, the Caltrans design

method, and a traffic index (TI) of 8.5 provided by DMC. The recommend minimum pavement

thickness is presented on Figure 3.


Basement Soil - Layer 1

Base Course

Subgrade

Total Pavement Section

ARHM/AC Course

MINIMUM THICKNESS (mm)

COURSE Alternative 1 - ARHM/AC/AB

Alternative 2 - ARHM/AC/AB with

Geogrid6

Alternative 3 - AC/AB

Alternative 4 - AC/AB with Geogrid6

ARHM1 2 2 0 0 AC2 4 4 6 6 Base3 17 11 17 11 Basement Soil4,5 12 12 12 12 Notes:

1. Asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) should satisfy the requirements of Greenbook Sections 203 and 302. 2. Asphalt concrete (AC) should satisfy the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications Sections 39 and

40, respectively; or Greenbook Sections 203, 201, and 302, respectively. 3. Base course = AB or CMB, in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26 or Greenbook

Sections 200-2.2 and 200-2.4, respectively. The minimum relative compaction is 95 percent. 4. Compacted in-place natural basement soil or fill; at least 90 percent relative compaction. 5. Basement soil can be replaced. See Section 4.2. 6. Place geogrid at the bottom of the AB layer; Greenbook Table 213.2.2 (B), Biaxial S2 (Tensar BX1200, or

equivalent). Figure 3 - PAVEMENT THICKNESS

4.1.2 Existing Pavements

Recommendations for three pavement overlays are summarized below:

• Preferred Alternative - a 2-inch-thick ARHM overlay.

• Alternative A - a 2-inch-thick AC overlay with reinforcing material.

• Alternative B - a 2-inch-thick AC overlay with crack seal.

If conventional AC is used instead of ARHM, a reinforcing material should be placed on the

existing pavement to help resist reflective cracking. This reinforcing material can also be placed

at the junction between existing and new AC pavements. Note that Petromat is not considered

a reinforcing material. If reinforcing material is not used, cracks greater than ¼ inch should be

sealed prior to placing the pavement overlay (Caltrans, 2006a); see the crack seal

manufacturer’s recommendations for details. Loose and/or spalling pavement, potholes, and

localized failures should be repaired (Caltrans, 2006a) prior to the overlay.


The following should be considered when using reinforcing materials:

• If installed incorrectly, there can be slippage between the new pavement and the existing

pavement.

• Difficulty in recycling asphalt in the future due to reinforcing material collecting in the

recycling equipment and disposal, depending on the reinforcing material.

• Glassgrid tends to be more effective in reducing reflective cracking than other less stiff

reinforcing materials, but it is more expensive than other products.

4.2 EARTHWORK

Prior to the start of construction, all utilities should be located in the field and rerouted, removed,

abandoned, or protected. The areas should be graded to the planned subgrade elevation.

Reconstructing the road segments may require removing some or all of the existing pavement

and base materials. The excavated AC and base materials should be taken to a recycling plant.

Unpaved areas to be graded and paved areas should initially be stripped of all vegetation and

debris, and the material removed from the site.

Prior to placing fill, the exposed subgrade should be:

• Scarified to a depth of 8 inches.

• Moisture-conditioned to a minimum of 2 percent above-optimum moisture content.

• Compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

Fill should be compacted by:

• Placing in loose layers less than 8 inches thick.

• Moisture-conditioning to a minimum of 2 percent above-optimum moisture content.

• Compacting to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

The basement soil (soils 1 foot below the pavement section [AC and base]) and aggregate base

(AB) should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. As insitu moisture

contents were generally between 10 and 15 percent over optimum moisture content, moisture


conditioning can consist of in-place drying involving scarifying, exposing the soil surface to sun

and wind, and/or mixing wet soils with dry soils.

Where the subgrade soils preclude compaction because combinations of high moisture content

and/or fine-grained silty and clayey soils exist, they should be overexcavated to a sufficient

depth such that a firm and unyielding surface is achieved at the planned bottom of the

excavation. Overexcavation limits, if required, are best and most accurately determined in the

field after the subgrade is exposed and proofrolled. Using geogrids and/or easily compacted

material such as crushed rock can reduce the depth of excavation. The geogrids should satisfy

the requirements of Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook)

Table 213.2.2 (B), Biaxial S1 (Tensar BX1100, or equivalent). The geogrid should be installed

as follows:

• Nail the geogrid with 6-inch-long “U” staples and/or other approved fasteners to the end

edges of the geogrid roll.

• Unroll the geogrid without dragging.

• Pull the geogrid taut to remove any slack.

• Overlap the geogrid by at least 1 foot.

• Push a new layer of AB on top of the geogrid without creating waves in the geogrid and

without the construction equipment contacting the geogrid.

• Compact the new layer of AB without pumping with light compaction equipment.

Import materials, if needed, for fill should meet the criteria in Table 3.

Table 3 - IMPORT FILL CRITERIA CRITERIA IMPORT FILL

Maximum particle size (inches) 2 Maximum liquid limit (%) 30 Maximum plasticity index (%) 10 Maximum percentage passing the #200 sieve (%) 30 R-value 50 Minimum sand equivalent 30

4.3 CONCRETE FLATWORK

Concrete flatwork (i.e., hardscape, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters) can be adversely influenced

when underlain by potentially expansive soils. The onsite soils were classified as highly


expansive. Expansive soils will undergo changes in volume with changes in moisture content

(expand when saturated and shrink when dried), which can result in lifting and cracking of

concrete flatwork. In order to reduce the effects of expansive soils, it is imperative that

expansive clays be maintained at or above optimum moisture content until the concrete is

placed. Once compacted, expansive soils must not be allowed to dry below optimum moisture

content. This can be accomplished by daily watering or soaking and/or the use of plastic

sheeting on the prepared subgrade until the concrete flatwork is poured.

To further limit the effects of expansive soils on concrete flatwork, additional methods to

consider in combination with subgrade presaturation include:

• A sublayer of granular material.

• Reinforcement.

• Moisture barriers and drains.

• Concrete mix design, materials, placement, curing, and finishing in conformance with the

Greenbook and the American Concrete Institute (1996, 1997).

• Frequent expansion joints.

• Frequent cold joints.

4.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL

One test performed during this investigation indicated 1,766 parts per million (ppm) soluble

sulfate concentrations in the near-surface soils. Based on these test results, we recommend

that Type V cement be used with a maximum water/cement materials ratio in accordance with

the CBC standard.

One soil sample was tested for pH, soluble chloride, and electrical resistivity to check for

corrosion potential. The test values are summarized in Table 4. Also presented in Table 4 are

Caltrans (1996) corrosion criteria. The corrosion potential test results are presented in

Appendix B. Based on Caltrans standards and other published correlations and the chemical

test results, the onsite soils are classified as severely corrosive to buried metal pipes. We

recommend that protective coatings on metal pipes be considered and that a corrosion

specialist be contacted for details of corrosion protection.


Table 4 - CORROSION POTENTIAL

CHARACTERISTIC RANGE OF VALUES CALTRANS CRITERIA FOR CORROSIVE MATERIALS

pH 8.3 <5.5 Soluble sulfate content (ppm) 1,766 >2,000 Soluble chloride content (ppm) 460 >500 Electrical resistivity (ohm-cm) 440 <1,000


5.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, AND TESTING

DYA should be retained to review the finished grading earthwork and specifications for

conformance with the intent of our recommendations. The review will enable DYA to modify the

recommendations if final design conditions are different than presently understood.

During construction, DYA should provide field observation and testing to check that the site and

subgrade preparation, base material quality, and compaction conform to the intent of these

recommendations and the job specifications. This would allow DYA to develop supplemental

recommendations as appropriate for the actual soil conditions encountered and the specific

construction techniques used by the contractor.

As needed during construction, DYA should be retained to consult on geotechnical questions,

construction problems, and unanticipated site conditions.


6.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for this project in accordance with generally accepted

geotechnical engineering practices common to the local area. No other warranty, expressed or

implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the field investigation,

and laboratory testing conducted in the area. The results of the field investigation indicate

subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times, and only to the depths

penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect strata variations that may exist between such

locations. Although subsurface conditions have been explored as part of the investigation, we

have not conducted chemical laboratory testing on the samples obtained or evaluated the site

with respect to the presence or potential presence of contaminated soil or groundwater

conditions.

The validity of our recommendations is based in part on assumptions about the stratigraphy.

Observations during construction can help confirm such assumptions. If subsurface conditions

different from those described are noted during construction, recommendations in this report

must be reevaluated. DYA should be retained to observe earthwork construction in order to

help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them

accordingly. In accordance with CBC Appendix J, DYA cannot assume responsibility or liability

for the adequacy of recommendations if we do not observe construction.

This report is intended for use only for the project described. In the event that any changes in

the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and

recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes

are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by DYA.


7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Concrete Institute, 1996, ACI 302.1R-96, Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab

Construction. American Concrete Institute, 1997, ACI 360R-92, Design of Slabs on Grade. American Public Works Association, MicroPaver Distress Identification Manual. American Society of Testing Materials, 2007, Annual Book of Standards, Volumes 4.08 and

4.09, Soil and Rock. Building News, 2007, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. California Department of Transportation, 2006a, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition. California Department of Transportation, 2006b, Standard Specifications.

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2008\2008-014\REPORT\REPORT 2008-014.DOC

APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION

A-1 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2008\2008-014\REPORT\REPORT 2008-014.DOC

APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION

The field investigation for the proposed project consisted of drilling three borings (B-1 through

B-3). The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2.

Borings were drilled by Landmark Consultants, Inc. on May 22, 2008, with a truck-mounted

CME-75 drill rig using hollow-stem auger drilling techniques. Their field engineer observed the

drilling operations and collected drive samples for visual examination and subsequent laboratory

testing. Drive samples were collected with a 2.4-inch-inside-diameter (3.0-inch-outside-

diameter) modified California split-barrel sample lined with brass tubes and a standard split-

spoon penetrometer with dimensions in accordance with ASTM 3550 and 1586, respectively.

Both samplers were driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. An automatic trip

hammer was used. The blows required to drive the modified California sampler were converted

to "equivalent" standard penetration test (SPT) N-values by multiplying by 0.65 (N=0.65 x

modified California blows per foot). Field unconfined compression strengths were obtained

using a pocket penetrometer and/or torvane.

Soils encountered in the borings were classified in general accordance with the ASTM Soil

Classification System (ASTM D2487 and 2488), summarized on Plate A1. Boring logs

presented on Plates A2 through A4 were prepared from visual examination of the samples,

cuttings obtained during drilling operations, and results of laboratory tests.

Borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. The surface was patched with asphalt cold patch.

Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation.

Boring locations were identified in the field by measuring from known locations using a

measuring wheel.

El Dorado Colonia Street Improvements

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

DESCRIPTIONS

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

SW

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER

THAN 50

SP

PT

OH

CH

MH

SC

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF

FINES)

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE

GW

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SM

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

DS = Direct Shear

SPT "N" = Uncorrected equivalent blow count for last foot of driving (set to 100 for driving refusal)= 0.65 x modified California blows per foot

CLEAN GRAVELS

SA = Grain size; HD = Hydrometer

SPT "N" = Uncorrected equivalent blow count for last foot of driving (set to 100 for driving refusal)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF

FINES)

"Push" Sampler

SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM-ASTM D2487

Project No. 2008-014.00

LETTER

OL

CL

A1

GC

CN = Consolidation

TYPICAL

CP = Collapse Potential

HC = Hydraulic Conductivity Test

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

MD = Compaction Test

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE

NP = Nonplastic

SG = Specific GravitySE = Sand EquivalentUC = Unconfined Comp.

UU = Undrained, Unconsol. Triaxial.CU = Consol. Undrained Triaxial.

CA = Chemical Analysis

EI = Expansion Index Test

SILTS AND

CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,

ORGANIC SILTS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GP

ML

RV = R-Value

GRAVELS WITH FINES

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CD = Consol. Drained Triaxial.CU = Consol. Undrained Triaxial.

SAND AND

SANDY

SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GRAPH

Concrete/Rock Core

Bag Sample

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

Split Barrel "Drive" Sampler With Liner

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTS AND

CLAYS

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

Groundwater Surface

CLEAN SANDS

GM

[PID] Reading in ppm above background

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER

THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

LIQUID LIMIT LESS

THAN 50

MAJOR DIVISIONS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

PLATE

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS

FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC

CONTENTS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK

FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

SANDS WITH FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

SYMBOLS

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER

THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

9

BORING DIAMETER (inches):

JGS

DATE STARTED:

LOGGED BY: J. Avalos

7

15

19

CHECKED BY:

BORING LOCATION:

30 inches 140 lbs

LONGITUDE:

Project No. 2008-014.00

LATITUDE:

8-Inches

DATE COMPLETED:

BORING DEPTH (feet): 11.5

ID: 2.4 OD: 3

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem AugerCME-75DRILLING EQUIPMENT:

SAPOORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM): 6inches Aggregate Base

Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Boring backfilled with cuttings.Surface patched with cold patch asphalt.

FAT CLAY (CH): reddish brown, moist, stiff, high plasticity

SANDY SILT (ML): brown, wet, soft to firm, fine-grained sandvery stiff

SILTY SAND (SM): 7 inches Aggregate Subbase

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC): 5.5 inches

25

25RV

COMSE

FAT CLAY (CH): reddish brown, moist, very stiff, high plasticity

7

4764

2

1

3

100

100

5/22/08

3

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Tem

plat

e: D

YLG

1-20

06;

Prj

ID: 2

008-

014.

GP

J

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (%

)

Ele

vatio

n(fe

et)

Page 1 of 1

5/22/08

A2

Sam

pler

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

PLATE


Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

SP

T N

Blo

ws

per F

oot

Fiel

d U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr. (t

sf)

Dep

th(fe

et)

See Figure 2

5/22/08

5

10

15

20

25

LOG OF BORING B-1

32° 48' 17.0" N

Sym

bol

DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

SPT HAMMER DROP: WT:

DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet):

115° 35' 40.8" W

40

35

30

25

20

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

30 inches 140 lbs

45 MSL

DRIVE HAMMER DROP: WT:

CHECKED BY:

8-InchesBORING DIAMETER (inches):

JGS

DATE STARTED:

LOGGED BY:

DRILLING EQUIPMENT:

J. Avalos

3

5

5

10

DATE COMPLETED:

30 inches 140 lbs

LONGITUDE:

Project No. 2008-014.00

5/22/08

BORING DEPTH (feet):

5/22/08

BORING LOCATION:

11.5

ID: 2.4 OD: 3

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem AugerCME-75

CA

soft to firm


SILTY SAND (SM): gray brown, wet, loose, fine-grained sand114

LEAN CLAY (CL): reddish brown, moist, stiff, high plasticitySILTY SAND (SM): 11 inches Aggregate Subbase

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GP): 7 inchesAggregate Base

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC): 6 inches

12

14

LEAN CLAY (CL): reddish brown, moist, soft, high plasticity

0.75

13

31

1024100

0.5

1.5

48

Sam

pler

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (%

)

Ele

vatio

n(fe

et)

LATITUDE:

PLATE


A3

SP

T N

Blo

ws

per F

oot

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

Dep

th(fe

et)


LOG OF BORING B-2

Fiel

d U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr. (t

sf)

32° 48' 25.2" N

See Figure 2

DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches)Tem

plat

e: D

YLG

1-20

06;

Prj

ID: 2

008-

014.

GP

J

115° 33' 40.7" W

Sym

bol

45 MSL

30 inches 140 lbsDRIVE HAMMER DROP: WT:


5/22/08

DESCRIPTION

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

5

10

15

20

25

40

35

30

25

20

Page 1 of 1

8-Inches

DRIVE HAMMER DROP: WT:

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem AugerCME-75DRILLING EQUIPMENT:

11.5BORING DEPTH (feet):

BORING LOCATION:

BORING DIAMETER (inches):

JGS

DATE STARTED:

LOGGED BY:



Project No. 2008-014.00

ID: 2.4 OD: 3

SE

6

LONGITUDE:

5/22/08

LATITUDE:

5/22/08DATE COMPLETED:

SILTY CLAY (CL-ML): brown, moist, stiff, medium plasticity

CHECKED BY:

SANDY SILT (ML): brown, wet, firm, medium plasticity,fine-grained sand

very loose

SILTY SAND (SM): gray brown, wet, loose, fine- tomedium-grained sand

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GP): 8 inchesAggregate Base

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC): 5 inches

30

5


1

4

9 118

84

21

1

J. Avalos

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

30 inches 140 lbs

Sam

pler

30 inches 140 lbs

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (%

)

Ele

vatio

n(fe

et)

PLATE

Dep

th(fe

et)

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

SP

T N

Blo

ws

per F

oot

Fiel

d U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr. (t

sf)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)


Sym

bol

See Figure 2

Page 1 of 1

5

10

15

20

25

40

35

30

25

20

32° 48' 30.0" N

A4

Tem

plat

e: D

YLG

1-20

06;

Prj

ID: 2

008-

014.

GP

J

45 MSL

LOG OF BORING B-3

DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches)

115° 33' 40.7" W

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

5/22/08

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

DESCRIPTION


APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING

B-1 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2008\2008-014\REPORT\REPORT 2008-014.DOC

APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING

Diaz•Yourman & Associates (DYA) selected soil samples to be tested and tests to be performed

on the selected samples. Laboratory testing was performed by Landmark Consultants, Inc.

Laboratory data are summarized on the boring logs and presented on Plates B1 through B5. A

summary of the geotechnical laboratory testing is presented in Table B1. Corrosion potential

test results are summarized in Table B2.

Table B1 - LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

TEST NAME PROCEDURE PURPOSE LOCATION

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve ASTM D1140-92 Classification, index properties Boring Logs

Moisture Content, Dry Density ASTM D2216-92 Classification, index properties Boring Logs

Grain-Size Distribution ASTM D422-63 Classification, index properties Plate B1

Atterberg Limits ASTM D-4318-93 Expansion potential, classification, index properties Plate B2

Compaction ASTM D1557-91 Earthwork Plates B3 through B5

Resistance (R-) Value ASTM D2844-69CTM 301 Pavement thickness design Plate B6

pH CTM 532 Corrosion potential Table B2 and Plate B7

Resistivity CTM 532 Corrosion potential Table B2 and Plate B7

Soluble Sulfates CTM 417-B Corrosion potential Table B2 and Plate B7

Soluble Chlorides CTM 422 Corrosion potential Table B2 and Plate B7 Notes:

• ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials • CTM = Caltrans Test Method

Table B2 - CORROSION POTENTIAL TEST RESULTS Boring No. B-2 Depth (feet) 2-4.5 pH 8.3 Water Soluble Sulfate Content (ppm) 1,766 Water Soluble Chloride Content (ppm) 460 Minimum Resistivity/Moisture Content (ohms-cm / %) 440

PLATEPARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

16

0.005

Project No. 2008-014.00

Coarse

50

0.0010.010.1110

U.S. Standard

100

90

80

60

40

30

20

10

0100

70

Source #200 Sieve% Passing

Symbol M. C. (%)LiquidDepth

(feet)

50

20050

Tem

plat

e: D

Y_S

IEV

E_W

IN


Limit (%)

216.00.5

B-3

B-2

B-1

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GP-GM)

Plasticity

12

Natural

3

137

Classification Index (%)

GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

11

0.05

2

U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers

0.55

100308

Hydrometer

4

Sieve Size (in.)

6.0

3

Fine

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

BY

WEI

GH

T

SILT or CLAY

3

SAND

B1

Laboratory Testing by: LandMark

MediumCoarse

48

FineCOBBLES

100 120

U-LINE

CH or OH

PLASTICITY CHARTEl Dorado Colonia Street Improvements


B2

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX (%

)

ML

16 800

PLATE

40

40

20

70

50

30

20

10

060

60

#200 Sieve

10.0

2.0

2.0

ClassificationLiquid

M. C. (%)

10B-2

B-1

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

FAT CLAY (CH)

14

3117

47

Limit (%)Depth(feet) Limit (%)

25

SymbolPlastic

CL or OL

Project No. 2008-014.00

MH or OH

7

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

ML or OL

Tem

plat

e: D

Y_A

TTE

RB

ER

G_C

HA

RT_

WIN

A-LINE

CL-4

% Passing

14

17

48

24

64

Source

B-2

Index (%)PlasticityNatural

FAT CLAY (CH)

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

130.5

115

LiquidSymbolIndex (%)

% Passing

SILTY SAND (SM)

(pcf)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

Plasticity

2.0

2.0

1.5

110

Dry Density

114

960

108

106

104

102

98

112

100

Maximum

100 % Saturation Curves

64

DepthLimit (%)

Project No. 2008-014.00

PLATE

Specific Gravity = 2.7

Content (%)Source

7

8

16

24

47


MoistureOptimum

10

24


(feet) #200 Sieve

28

135

20161284

B-1

Classification

COMPACTION TEST DATA


MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (p

cf)


Tem

plat

e: D

Y_C

OM

PA

CT_

4_P

LOTS

_WIN

B-2

B-3

B3

HP_Administrator

Text Box

PLATE B4

HP_Administrator

Text Box

PLATE B5


DISTRIBUTION 1 copy: Mr. Dave Cosper DMC Design Group, Inc. 170 North Maple Street Suite 101 Corona, CA 92880 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER Allen M. Yourman, Jr., P.E., G.E. Vice President GKG/AMY:cfp

d i a z x y o u r m a n - el centro, california · d i a z x y o u r m a n ... associates (dya) ......

Documents