parking lots 4, 7, and 8 reconstruction … laboratory test results ... 7, and 8 reconstruction...

PARKING LOTS 4, 7, AND 8 RECONSTRUCTION REPORT

Fullerton College Campus 321 East Chapman Avenue

City of Fullerton, Orange County, California Converse Project No. 15-81-177-01

April 20, 2016

Prepared For:

David Evans and Associates, Inc. 17782 17th Street, Suite 200

Tustin, California 92780

Prepared By:

Converse Consultants 10391 Corporate Drive

Redlands, California 92374

Parking Lots 4, 7, and 8 Reconstruction Report Fullerton College Campus

321 East Chapman Avenue City of Fullerton, Orange County, California

April 20, 2016 Page ii

Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2015\81\15-81-177 H&F Fullerton College Parking Lot Replacement\Report\GIR\15-81-177_gir

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

3.1 PROJECT SETUP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 3.2 EXPLORATORY BORINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 3.3 LABORATORY TESTING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 3.4 ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION -------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.1 SUBSURFACE MATERIALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 4.2 GROUNDWATER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 4.3 EXCAVATABILITY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 4.4 SUBSURFACE VARIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

6.0 PAVEMENT DISTRESS SUMMARY & RECONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS -- 8

6.1 PAVEMENT DISTRESS SUMMARY ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8 6.2 PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ---------------------------------------- 9 6.3 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ---------------------------------- 11 6.4 SITE DRAINAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION ----------------------------------- 12

8.0 CLOSURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

9.0 REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

TABLES Page No.

Table No. 1, Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................ 6 Table No. 2, Recommended Flexible Pavement Recommendations ......................................... 11

FIGURES

Figure No. 1, Site Location Map ................................................................................................. 1 Figure No. 2, Approximate Boring Location Map .............................................................................5

APPENDICES

Appendix A ............................................................................................................. .Field Exploration Appendix B. ........................................................................................... Laboratory Testing Program



April 20, 2016 Page 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION This report contains the findings of a geotechnical investigation performed by Converse for reconstruction of parking lots 4, 7, and 8 at the Fullerton College Campus located at 321 East Chapman Avenue in the City of Fullerton, Orange County, California. Approximate location of the project area is presented in Figure No.1, Site Location Map. This report is prepared for the project described herein and is intended for use solely by David Evans and Associates, Inc. and its authorized agents for design purposes. It should not be used as a bidding document but may be made available to the potential contractors for information on factual data only. For bidding purposes, the contractors should be responsible for making their own interpretation of the data contained in this report. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Parking lots 4, 7, and 8 are located northwest of the intersection of East Chapman Avenue and North Berkeley Avenue. The subject lots exhibited numerous signs of distress including longitudinal cracks, transverse cracks, fatigue cracks, and depressions, as shown on Photographs 1 through 6 on the following pages. The lots have been trenched for the installation of utilities and the backfill may have settled resulting in surface depressions and cracks. Fullerton College intends to reconstruct lots 4, 7, and 8. We understand that the presence of a toxic fabric within parking lot 5 prevented a grind and pave repair. The same fabric was found at depths ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 inches in all 3 of the subject lots, ruling out the option of a grind and overlay repair. We understand that the project requires that existing elevations remain intact after the lots have been resurfaced. The design traffic index for the new pavement was not specified at the time of this report so a range of traffic indices was used in presenting new pavement structural sections.

Converse Consultants

Project No.

Drawing No.

15-81-277-01

1

Approximate Site Location MapProject: Parking Lots 4, 7, and 8 Reconstruction Report

Fullerton College CampusLocation: 321 East Chapman Avenue

City of Fullerton, Orange County, CaliforniaFor: David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Approximate Site Location

Parking Lot 4

Parking Lot 7

Parking Lot 8





Photograph 1 – Lot 4, longitudinal, transverse, and block cracks.

Photograph 2 – Lot 4, depression.





Photograph 3 – Lot 7, block and fatigue cracks, potholes.

Photograph 4 – Lot 7, fatigue cracks and potholes.





Photograph 5 – Lot 7, fatigue, block, and transverse cracks.

Photograph 6 – Lot 8, longitudinal, transverse, and block cracks.





3.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this investigation included the following tasks: 3.1 Project Setup The project setup included the following:

• Conducted a field reconnaissance to verify site access and marked the boring locations.

• Notified Dig Alert at least 48 hours prior to drilling to clear the boring locations of any conflict with existing underground utilities.

• Retained a licensed drilling subcontractor. 3.2 Exploratory Borings Nine exploratory borings (BH-1 through BH-9) were drilled on April 8, 2016 to their maximum planned depths of 5.0 feet bgs. A Converse geologist visually logged the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings at the time of drilling and collected soil samples. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure No. 2, Approximate Boring Location Map. For a description of the field exploration and sampling program, see Appendix A, Field Exploration. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Representative samples of the site soils were tested in the laboratory to aid in the soils classification and to evaluate the relevant engineering properties of the site soils. These tests included: • In situ moisture contents and dry densities (ASTM Standard D2216) • R-Value (ASTM D2844) • Grain size analysis (ASTM Standard D422) • Maximum dry density and optimum-moisture content relationship (ASTM D1557) For in-situ moisture and dry density data, see the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration. For a description of the laboratory test methods and test results, see Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program.


Project No

FIGURE NO.

15-81-177-01

2

Approximate Boring Location Map

BH-8

Number and Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring

BH-9

40' 0' 40' 80'

BH-9BH-7

BH-6

BH-5

BH-1

BH-2

BH-3

BH-4

Project: Parking Lots 4, 7, and 8 Reconstruction ReportFullerton College Campus

Location: 321 East Chapman AvenueCity of Fullerton, Orange County, California

For: David Evans and Associates, Inc.





3.4 Analysis and Report Preparation Data obtained from the field exploration and laboratory testing program were compiled and evaluated. Geotechnical analyses of the compiled data were performed and this report was prepared to present our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the proposed pavement rehabilitation project. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITION Data obtained during subsurface exploration on the project site are presented in this section. 4.1 Subsurface Materials Based on the exploratory borings, in general, the material encountered at the project site consisted of asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base laid on top of native subgrade consisting primarily of loose mixtures of silt, sand, and clay to 5.0 feet bgs. The existing pavement sections range from approximately 2.5 to 5.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 0.0 to 7.5 inches of aggregate base. Based on our observation and test results, the site subgrade soils consist predominantly of fine-grained sand, silt, and clay particles with approximately 90 percent fine-grained sand with silt and clay, and 10 percent medium to coarse-grained soils. The moisture contents of the upper five feet of the subgrade soil samples were highly variable and ranged from 3 to 31 percent. The high moisture is likely due to variation in composition and proximity to irrigation lines. Relative compactions of the upper five feet of the subgrade soils were 78 to 82 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. R-values of two representative soil samples (R-values of 10 and 13) indicated poor subgrade strength. The subsurface conditions at each boring location are summarized in the following table. Table No.1, Subsurface Conditions

Boring No.

Parking Lot Number and Approximate

Boring Location

Asphalt Concrete Thickness (inches)

Aggregate Base

Thickness (inches)

Depth of Fabric below

Surface (inches)

Subgrade Soils Description (top 5

feet)

BH-1 Lot 4, northwest 3.0 3.0 1.0 Sandy Silt with Clay

BH-2 Lot 4, northeast 3.5 5.0 1.0 Sandy Clay / Silty Sand





Boring No.

Parking Lot Number and Approximate

Boring Location

Asphalt Concrete Thickness (inches)

Aggregate Base

Thickness (inches)

Depth of Fabric below

Surface (inches)

Subgrade Soils Description (top 5

feet)

BH-3 Lot 4, center 3.5 5.5 None Clayey Sand / Sand

BH-4 Lot 4, southeast 2.5 7.5 None Silty Sand / Clayey Sand

BH-5 Lot 7, west 5.0 2.5 None Silty Sand with Clay

BH-6 Lot 7, center 4.0 0.0 0.5 Silty Sand / Sand

BH-7 Lot 7, east 4.5 2.0 0.5 Clayey Sand / Sand

BH-8 Lot 8, north 4.0 3.0 0.5 Clayey Sand with Silt

BH-9 Lot 8, south 3.5 4.0 1.0 Clayey Sand / Sand

4.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any borings drilled to the maximum depth of 5.0 feet below ground surface. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during the proposed pavement reconstruction; however, soft/wet soils will be encountered in areas adjacent to existing irrigation. 4.3 Excavatability Pavement sections and subgrade soils should be excavatable by conventional pavement grinding, earth moving and trenching equipments. 4.4 Subsurface Variations Based on results of the subsurface exploration and our experience, some variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Because of the uncertainties involved in the nature and depositional characteristics of the earth material at the site, care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the boring locations.





5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Laboratory testing was performed to determine the physical characteristics and engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Discussion of the various test results are presented below. • In-situ Moisture and Dry Density: In-situ dry density and moisture content of

representative samples were tested in accordance to ASTM Standard D2216. In-situ dry density and moisture content of representative samples ranged from 81 to 117 pounds per cubic feet (pcf) and 3 to 31 percent, respectively. Based on the laboratory test results, the subgrade soil at upper five feet below the pavement surface has an average relative compaction of approximately 80 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Results of in-situ moisture and dry density tests are presented on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

• R-value – Two R-value tests were performed on representative bulk soil samples in accordance ASTM Standard D2844. Based on the test results, the R-values were 10 and 13.

• Grain Size Analysis – Three representative bulk samples were tested to determine the relative grain size distribution according to ASTM Standard D422. Test results indicated that the subgrade soils are primarily fine-grained Silty Sand with Clay and Sandy Silt with Clay. Test results are graphically presented in Drawing No. B-1, Grain Size Distribution Results.

• Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content – Results of 3 typical moisture-density relationships of representative soil samples tested according to ASTM Standard D1557 are presented in Drawing No. B-2, Moisture-Density Relationship Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The laboratory maximum dry densities ranged from 114.0 to 117.0 pounds per cubic feet (pcf) with optimum moisture contents ranging from 9.7 to 12.7 percent.

6.0 PAVEMENT DISTRESS SUMMARY AND RECONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of pavement distress and rehabilitation recommendations are presented in the following section. 6.1 Pavement Distress Summary Deterioration of the pavement is likely due the combination of age of pavement, inadequate pavement section thicknesses, presence of moist, soft, fine-grained subgrade soils, and poor drainage. Distresses in pavement such as fatigue cracking, raveling, and longitudinal cracks are associated with soft and moist subgrade soils. Fine-grained soils hold up the infiltrated water, which increases the moisture content and reduces the





effective strength. Asphalt pavements on such subgrade are prone to distresses when truck traffic passes over them. 6.2 Pavement Reconstruction Recommendations Pavement repair recommendations are provided in the following subsections. 6.2.1 General As the pavement distresses are likely due to weak subgrade, the repair will consist of removal of the existing asphalt concrete, stabilizing the subgrade soils and reconstruction of the asphalt concrete pavement. Prior to the start of pavement repairs, all existing underground utilities if impacted should be located. Shallow utilities should either be protected in-place or relocated during construction as required by the project specifications. Earthwork for the project is expected to include removal of existing pavement and subgrade stabilization. Deleterious material, including organics and debris generated during excavation should be removed. The soils consultant should provide continuous observation and testing services during subgrade preparation in order to ensure compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations presented in this report and to allow revision in the event the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The sections below present different options for stabilizing the subgrade soils for reconstruction. Existing asphalt concrete pavement should be removed and subgrade stabilized as recommended in any one of these options. 6.2.2 Mix Subgrade Soils with Aggregate Base The soft moist fine-grained soils can be stabilized by mixing with Class II Aggregate Base. A minimum of 24 inches of fine-grained soils should be excavated and mixed thoroughly on site with aggregate base in equal parts. The addition of aggregate base is expected to reduce the existing moisture content and improve the shear strength of the subgrade soils. The resulting mix should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density (of the mix) as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method. At least the upper 1 foot underlying pavement should be compacted to not less than 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method.





If the method described in this section does not create a firm and unyielding soils layer, the volume of aggregate base should be increased. Alternatively, the clayey subgrade soils can be replaced with select backfill, or stabilized using cement or lime as described in the following sections. 6.2.3 Replacement with Select Backfill The subgrade can be stabilized by replacing the moist fine-grained soils to a minimum of 2 feet below the pavement subgrade level with imported fill. The imported fill should have the following properties. • Expansion Index of 20 or less • Free of all deleterious materials, including debris and organic matter • Contain no particles larger than 3 inches in the largest dimension • Contain less than 30 percent by weight retained on ¾-inch sieve • Contain at least 15 percent fines passing the #200 sieve • Plasticity Index of 10 or less • Corrosion potential similar or better than onsite soils Imported select backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods, such as sheepsfoot, vibrating or pneumatic rollers, or mechanical tampers, to achieve the density specified herein. The backfill materials should be brought to ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content then placed in horizontal layers. The thickness of uncompacted layers should not exceed 8 inches. Each layer should be evenly spread, moistened or dried as necessary, and then tamped or rolled until the specified density has been achieved. Select backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method. At least the upper 1 foot of backfill underlying pavement should be compacted to not less than 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method. If the bottom of excavation is soft and yielding, we recommend placing a layer of commercial geogrid (biaxial or triaxial) before placing the select fill material. 6.2.4 R-value Improvement The R-value of the supgrade soils can be improved by blending with cement or lime. Additional physical and chemical testing is required to determine the proper additive and mix design and is beyond the scope of this report.





6.3 Pavement Recommendations - Flexible Pavement Two R-value tests were performed on representative bulk samples collected during site exploration, as described in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. The test results indicated R-values of 10 and 13. If the subgrade soils in the parking lots are moved, blended, stabilized, or replaced, samples of the subgrade soils should be tested to evaluate the actual subgrade R-value for final pavement design, which may result in significantly thinner pavement structural sections. The minimum recommended flexible pavement sections based on our test results were determined in accordance with the method contained in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and are presented in the following table. Table No. 2, Recommended Flexible Pavement Structural Sections

Lot No. Traffic Index Design R-Value

Minimum Pavement Structural Sections Asphalt Concrete

(inches) Aggregate Base

(inches)

4

4

10

3.5 4.0 5 3.5 8.0 6 3.5 12.0 7 4.0 15.0 8 5.0 17.0

7

4

13

3.5 4.0 5 3.5 8.0 6 3.5 12.0 7 4.0 14.5 8 5.0 16.0

8

4 3.5 4.0 5 3.5 8.0 6 3.5 12.0 7 4.0 14.5 8 5.0 16.0

Prior to placement of aggregate base, at least the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned if necessary, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as defined by ASTM Standard D1557 test method.





Base materials should conform with Section 200-2.2,"Crushed Aggregate Base," of the current Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC, 2015) and should be placed in accordance with Section 301.2 of the SSPWC. Asphaltic concrete materials should conform to Section 203 of the SSPWC and should be placed in accordance with Section 302.5 of the SSPWC. 6.4 Site Drainage Adequate positive drainage should be provided away from subgrade soils to prevent ponding and to reduce infiltration of water into the soils. Paved areas should have a drainage gradient of at least 1 percent towards drainage facilities. Surface drainage should be directed to suitable non-erosive devices. 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION During excavations and subgrade preparation, a geotechnical representative should be present to observe soil conditions and test the density and moisture content for conformance with the project specifications. The project geotechnical consultant will observe the subgrade preparation and conduct in-place field density tests on the subgrade, aggregate base, and asphalt concrete to check for adequate moisture content and relative compaction as required by the project specifications. Where less than the required relative compaction is indicated, additional compactive efforts should be applied and the soil moisture-conditioned as necessary until the required relative compaction is attained. The contractor should provide level testing pads upon which the soils engineer may conduct field density tests. The contractor should provide safe and timely access for the geotechnical consultant's personnel throughout the earthwork operation to allow continuous monitoring and testing. Wherever, in the opinion of the owner's or the geotechnical consultant's representatives, an unstable condition is being created, the work should not proceed in that area until an investigation has been made, if necessary. Materials should not be placed, spread, or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain and/or ponding of water, fill operations should not be resumed until field tests by the geotechnical consultant indicate that the moisture content and density are as previously specified.





8.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of David Evans and Associates, Inc. to assist in the design and construction of the proposed project. Any reliance on this report by third parties should be at third party’s sole risk. Our services have been performed in accordance with applicable state and local ordinances, and generally accepted practices within our profession. Converse Consultants is not responsible or liable for any claims or damages associated with interpretation of available information provided by others. Site exploration identifies actual soil conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and laboratory testing is extrapolated by Converse employees who render an opinion about the overall soil conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ. In the event that changes to the project occur, or additional, relevant information about the project is brought to our attention, the recommendations contained in this report may not be valid unless these changes and additional relevant information are reviewed and the recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing. In addition, the recommendations can only be finalized by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Converse cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations if we are not afforded the opportunity to perform construction observation. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted professional principles practiced in geotechnical engineering. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the results of the field investigations and laboratory tests, combined with interpolation and extrapolation of soil conditions between and beyond the boring locations.





9.0 REFERENCES CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Caltrans), 2009, Highway

Design Manual, dated July 24, 2009. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS, INC., 2015, Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction (“Greenbook”), 2015.

Appendix AField Exploration



April 20, 2016 Page A-1


APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION Our field investigation included a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program consisting drilling soil borings. During the site reconnaissance, the surface conditions were noted and the locations of the borings were determined. The location of the borings were established by visual reference to existing site features and boundaries. The indicated locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate them in the field. The field investigation consisted of drilling nine exploratory borings (BH-1 through BH-9) on April 8, 2016 to their maximum planned depths of 5.0 feet bgs. The borings were advanced using a truck mount drill rig equipped with eight-inch diameter hollow-stem augers for soil sampling. Encountered earth materials were continuously logged by a Converse geologist and classified in the field by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Where appropriate, field descriptions and classifications have been modified to reflect laboratory test results.

The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using California Modified Samplers (2.4 inches inside diameter and 3.0 inches outside diameter) lined with thin sample rings. The steel ring sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound driving weight falling 30 inches. Blow counts at each sample interval are presented on the boring logs. Samples were retained in brass rings (2.4-inches inside diameter and 1.0-inch in height) and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the Converse laboratory. Bulk samples of typical soil types were also obtained.

It should be noted that the exact depths at which material changes occur cannot always be established accurately. Unless a more precise depth can be established by other means, changes in material conditions that occur between driven samples are indicated in the log at the top of the next drive sample.

For a key to soil symbols and terminology used in the boring logs, refer to Drawing No. A-1, Unified Soil Classification and Key to Boring Log Symbols. For logs of borings, see Drawings No. A-2 through A-10, Log of Borings.

1

A-1Drawing No.Project No.

15-81-177-01

Parking Lots 4, 7, and 8 Reconstruction Report

Fullerton College Campus

321 East Chapman Avenue

City of Fullerton, Orange County, California

For: David Evans and Associates, Inc.Project ID: 15-81-177-01.GPJ; Template: KEY

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERYFINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINESANDS OR CLAYEY SILTSWITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

LIQUID LIMIT LESS

THAN 50

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND- SILT MIXTURES

OH

SC

SILTS AND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4

SIEVE

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN NO.

200 SIEVE SIZE

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE ORNO FINES

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

OL

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITHFINES

CL

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN NO.

200 SIEVE SIZE

SM

WELL-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLEOR NO FINES

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

SP

26-50

SW

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

SAMPLE TYPE

LETTER

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEANCLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TOHIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANICSILTS

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUSOR DIATOMACEOUS FINESAND OR SILTY SOILS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO. 4

SIEVE

PlasticityGrain Size AnalysisPassing No. 200 SieveSand EquivalentExpansion IndexCompaction CurveHydrometerDisturb

CLASSIFICATIONpimawaseeimaxhDist.

ConsolidationCollapse TestResistance (R) ValueChemical AnalysisElectrical ResistivityPermeabilitySoil Cement

Pocket PenetrometerDirect ShearDirect Shear (single point)Unconfined CompressionTriaxial CompressionVane Shear

STRENGTH

pdsds*uctxvs

ccolrcaerpermsc

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

GC

DESCRIPTIONS

BORING LOG SYMBOLS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

LABORATORY TESTING ABBREVIATIONS

TEST TYPE

(Results shown in Appendix B)

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANICSILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

SILTS AND

CLAYS

ML

TYPICAL

Split barrel sampler in accordance withASTM D-1586-84 Standard Test Method

SPT (N)

No recovery

BULK SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER WHILE DRILLING

GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING

40 - 60 60 - 80< 20

4 - 11 11 - 30 31 - 50 > 50< 5 5 - 12 13 - 35 36 - 60 > 60

RelativeDensity (%)

Very LooseConsistency

2-4 9-15 16-30CA Sampler

> 30> 503-6 7-12 13-25

MH

GM

GW

SYMBOLS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILSWITH HIGH ORGANICCONTENTS

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

MAJOR DIVISIONS

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Dense

< 4SPT (N)CA Sampler

Very DenseLoose Medium

20 - 40

Apparant Density

5-8< 2< 3> 80

CH

GRAVELSWITHFINES

Soft Medium Stiff Very StiffVery Soft Hard

DRIVE SAMPLE 2.42" I.D. sampler (CMS).

DRIVE SAMPLE

CLEANSANDS

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS

CLEANGRAVELS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

GP

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

GRAPH


3.0" ASPHALT CONCRETE / 3.0" AGGREGATE BASE

ALLUVIUM:SANDY SILT with CLAY (ML): fine-grained sand, olive.

End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 1" bgs.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 4.

14

8

99

92

2/4/5

1/1/1

r, ma,max

Equipment:

Project No.

Ground Surface Elevation (ft):G

raph

icLo

gSUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this projectand should be read together with the report. This summary appliesonly at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may changeat this location with the passage of time. The data presented is asimplification of actual conditions encountered.D

epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED

Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs / 30 in

Depth to Water (ft):

BU

LK

Jay Burnham Scot Mathis

BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)

Parking Lots 4, 7, and 8 Reconstruction ReportFullerton College Campus321 East Chapman AvenueCity of Fullerton, Orange County, CaliforniaFor: David Evans and Associates, Inc.

OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-2

Drawing No.

Log of Boring No. BH-1

178


Project ID: 15-81-177-01.GPJ; Template: LOG


ALLUVIUM:SANDY CLAY (CL): fine-grained sand, olive brown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine-grained, yellow brown.

End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 1" bgs.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 4.

21

9

100

91

2/2/4

1/1/1

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-3

Drawing No.


178




ALLUVIUM:CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine-grained, olive brown.

SAND (SP): fine-grained, yellow brown.

End of boring at 5 feet bgs.No fabric encountered.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 4.

10

3

117

105

10/21/25

6/7/8

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-4

Drawing No.


177




ALLUVIUM:SILTY SAND (SM): fine-grained, yellow brown.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine-grained, olive brown.


8

12

111

95

12/18/21

3/5/5

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-5

Drawing No.


176




ALLUVIUM:SILTY SAND with CLAY (SM): fine-grained, olive brown.


15

7

89

92

7/5/6

7/5/6

r, ma

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-6

Drawing No.


171



4.0" ASPHALT CONCRETE / NO AGGREGATE BASE

ALLUVIUM:SILTY SAND with CLAY (SM): fine-grained, olive brown.


End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 0.5" bgs.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 7.

6

5

96

91

2/4/4

3/3/3

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-7

Drawing No.


170






End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 0.5" bgs.High moisture contents likely due to close proximity toirrigation.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 7.

31

20

81

94

3/3/3

1/1/1

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-8

Drawing No.


170




ALLUVIUM:CLAYEY SAND with SILT (SC): fine-grained, olive

brown.

End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 0.5" bgs.High moisture contents likely due to close proximity toirrigation.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 8.

16

27

95

90

5/4/6

1/2/2

r, ma,max

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-9

Drawing No.


170





SILTY SAND (SM): fine-grained, yellow brown.

End of boring at 5 feet bgs.Fabric encountered at approximately 1" bgs.High moisture contents likely due to close proximity toirrigation.No groundwater encountered.Borehole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and surfacepatched with cold asphalt concrete on 4/8/16.Boring located in Parking Lot 8.

22

13

97

95

1/1/3

3/3/4

Equipment:

Project No.


raph

icLo



epth

(ft)

SAMPLES

Gra

phic

Log

Dates Drilled:

CME 75/ 8" HSA

NOT ENCOUNTERED



BU

LK


BLO

WS

MO

IST

UR

E

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


Checked By:

DR

IVE

4/8/2016 Logged by:

Dep

th (

ft)


OT

HE

R

5

15-81-177-01 A-10

Drawing No.


170



Appendix BLaboratory Testing Program



April 20, 2016 Page B-1


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Tests were conducted in our laboratory on representative soil samples for the purpose of classification and evaluation of their physical properties and engineering characteristics. The amount and selection of tests were based on the geotechnical parameters required for this project. Test results are presented herein and on the Logs of Borings, in Appendix A, Field Exploration. The following is a summary of the various laboratory tests conducted for this project. Moisture Content and Dry Density Results of these tests performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples were used to aid in the classification and to provide quantitative measure of the in-situ dry density strength and compressibility characteristics of the site soils. For test results, see the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration. R-Value Test

Two representative bulk soil samples were tested for resistance value (R-value) in accordance with ASTM D2844. This test is designed to provide a relative measure of soil strength for use in pavement design. For test result, see the following table. Table No. B-1, R-value Test Results

Boring No. Depth (feet)

Soil Description R-value

BH-1 0.0-5.0 Sandy Silt with Clay (ML) 10

BH-8 0.0-5.0 Clayey Sand with Silt (SC) 13

Grain-Size Analysis To assist in classification of soils, mechanical grain-size analyses were performed on three selected samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with the ASTM Standard D422 test method. Grain-size curves are shown in Drawing Nos. B-1, Grain Size Distribution Result.



April 20, 2016 Page B-2


Laboratory Maximum Density Tests Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationship tests were performed on 3 representative bulk samples in accordance with ASTM Standard D1557 test method. The test results are presented on Drawing No. B-2, Moisture-Density Relationship Results, and in the following table. Table No. B-2, Laboratory Maximum Density Test Result

Boring No. Depth (feet) Soil Classification

Maximum Dry Density, pcf

Optimum Moisture, %

BH-1 1.0-5.0 Sandy Silt with Clay (ML), Yellow Brown 117.0 9.7

BH-5 1.0-5.0 Silty Sand with Clay (SM), Yellow Brown 116.5 10.5

BH-8 1.0-5.0 Clayey Sand with Silt (ML), Olive Brown 114.0 12.7

Sample Storage Soil samples currently stored in our laboratory will be discarded 30 days after the date of the final report, unless this office receives a specific request to retain the samples for a longer period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

4 200

Drawing No.

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS

coarse

6 5020

%Gravel

Description PI Cc

medium

SAND

4.75

9.5

4.75

Boring No. D60

LL

0.0

4.0

0.0

1683/4

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

1.5 1/2

fine

60

fine

0.077

Depth (ft) D100 %Sand %Clay

4

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

coarse

2

Sandy Silt with Clay (ML)

Silty Sand with Clay (SM)

Clayey Sand with Silt (SC)

Depth (ft) Cu

141 3

SILT OR CLAY

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

3/8

GRAVEL

140

COBBLES

Project No.

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0

D10 %Silt

Boring No. PL

15-81-177-01 B-1

10

BH-1

BH-5

BH-8

BH-1

BH-5

BH-8

41.0

66.9

51.2

0.079

0.189

0.102

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0





For: David Evans and Associates, Inc.

6 30 403

HYDROMETER

59.0

29.1

48.8

D30


Project ID: 15-81-177-01.GPJ; Template: GRAIN SIZE

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y,

pcf

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS

B-2Drawing No.

2.802.702.60

9.7

10.5

12.7

WATER CONTENT, %

DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTIONASTM

TEST METHODOPTIMUMWATER, %

MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY, pcf

BH-1

BH-5

BH-8

117.0

116.5

114.0

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0

1.0-5.0

Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:

Project No.15-81-177-01

SYMBOL BORING NO.

Sandy Silt with Clay (ML); Yellow Brown

Silty Sand with Clay (SM); Yellow Brown

Clayey Sand with Silt (SC); Olive Brown

D1557 - B

D1557 - B

D1557 - B





For: David Evans and Associates, Inc.Project ID: 15-81-177-01.GPJ; Template: COMPACTION


parking lots 4, 7, and 8 reconstruction … laboratory test results ... 7, and 8 reconstruction...

Documents