vain beveren &b 8c butelo, -...

11 on^t

&B

VAINBEVEREN8c BUTELO,INC.

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED AMMONIA TANK PADS

SAN JOSE CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANTWEST AND EAST SITES

WfflTTIER, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OFLOS ANGELES COUNTY

Whittier, California

July 19,2002

Van Beveren & Butelo Project No. 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

mqadri

DISCALMER

nJuly 19, 2002

VANBEVEREN8c BUTELO,INC.

Mr. Paul StoppelmannCounty Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County1955 Workman Mill RoadWhittier, California 90607

Subject: Report of Geotechnical InvestigationProposed Ammonia Tank PadsSan Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant,East and West SitesWhittier, Californiafor County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles CountyVan Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

Dear Mr. Stoppelmann:

We are pleased to submit our report of geotechnical investigation for the two proposed AmmoniaTank Pads to be constructed at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant. This investigation wasconducted in general accordance with our proposal dated April 26, 2002, as authorized by theCounty Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County on May 2, 2002.

The scope of this investigation was planned with you. We were advised of the structural features ofthe project by you and by Mr. Phil Wong of the Districts. Our preliminary recommendations werepresented in design memoranda dated June 3, 2002.

The findings of this investigation are described in the report and data is presented for foundationdesign.

Sincerely,Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc.

Victor LanghaarProject Engineer

John Jeffrey ButeloPrincipal Engineering Geologist/Vice President

James L. Van BeverenPrincipal Engineer/President

02026 rO2/VL:ay

(6 copies submitted)

/OS W. BROADWAY • SUITE ,iO1 • CL.EJNOAL.E, QAMFORNI A 91 2O4 • TEUEPHONE (81 8) 543-45GO • FAX (818) 543-4565

mi VAINBEVEREN8c BUTELO,INC.

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED AMMONIA TANK PADS

SAN JOSE CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANTWEST AND EAST SITES

WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OFLOS ANGELES COUNTY

Whittier, California

ByVan Beveren & Butelo, Inc.

July 19,2002

Van Beveren & Butelo Project No. 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY ivSCOPE 1PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 2PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2SITE CONDITIONS 3SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3SOIL CONDITIONS 4

San Jose Creek West 4San Jose Creek East 4Soil Corrosivity 5

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 5LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 7

Liquefaction Potential 7Seismic Settlement 8

RECOMMENDATIONS 9General 9Drilled Pile Foundations 9Mat Foundations 12Excavation and Shoring 14Site Coefficient and Seismic Zonation 17Grading 17Geotechnical Observation 19

BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 20REFERENCES 21APPENDIX A: EXPLORATORY BORINGS A-lAPPENDIX B: CONE PENETRATION TESTS B-lAPPENDIX C: LABORATORY TESTS C-lAPPENDIX D: CORROSIVITY STUDIES D-lAPPENDIX E: GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES E-l

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant—Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1, Groundwater Depths and Elevations Page 6

Table 2, Drilled Pile Capacities, 42-inch-diameter Pile Page 10

Table 3, Parameters for Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis Page 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Site Vicinity Map Figure 1

Plot Plans Figures 2.1 and 2.2

Geologic Cross Sections Figures 3.1 and 3.2

in


SUMMARY

We have completed our report for the two proposed ammonia tank pads at the San Jose Creek

Water Reclamation Plant. Our subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation

design recommendations are summarized below.

Fill soils were encountered at both the San Jose Creek West and East sites (SJCW and SJCE) up to

a depth of 26 feet below the existing grade. The fill, which consists of silty sand and sand and

contains some gravel, is likely a result of the adjacent construction.

The fill was found to be underlain by alluvial deposits consisting primarily of silty sand and sand at

both sites and containing varying amounts of gravel. At the SJCW site, the alluvial deposits were

very dense; at SJCE, the alluvial deposits were loose to a depth of about 20 feet, medium dense to a

depth of 27 feet, and very dense below 27 feet.

We were informed that the walls of adjacent existing structures at SJCW and SJCE are not capable

of accepting any additional surcharge pressure, and foundation support will have to be carried

below the existing walls. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the existing fill at either site is

uniformly well compacted, and we do not recommend that the existing fill be used for foundation

support. At each site, we recommend that the proposed ammonia tanks be supported in the natural

soils below the level of the existing adjacent structures. The ammonia tanks could be supported on

drilled cast-in-place concrete piles extending through the fill and into the natural soils, or on a mat

foundation at or below the level of the existing structures. If drilled piles are used, the piles will be

close to the existing walls, and lateral loads should be transferred to the natural soils below the

level of the existing structures. If a mat is used at either site, a relatively deep excavation and

possibly some remedial grading will be needed.

IV

SCOPE

This report provides foundation design information for the two proposed ammonia tank pads at the

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant. The plant is situated just north of the Pomona (60)

Freeway, and on either side of the San Gabriel (605) Freeway. The San Gabriel Freeway separates

the plant into the San Jose Creek West (SJCW) and San Jose Creek East (SJCE) sites, and one

ammonia tank pad is planned within each site. The locations of the proposed ammonia tanks are

shown in Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map. The locations of the proposed tank pads, existing plant

structures, and our field explorations are shown on Figures 2.1 and 2.2, Plot Plan.

This investigation was authorized to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils at the

SJCW and SJCE ammonia tank sites, and to provide recommendations for foundation design and

grading for the project. We were to evaluate the existing soil and groundwater conditions at each

site, including the liquefaction and corrosion potential of the soils, and develop recommendations

for the following:

• Feasible foundation system alternatives, along with the necessary designparameters, including the estimated settlement due to the expected loadings,and criteria for resisting lateral loads.

• Grading, including site preparation, excavation and slopes, the placing ofcompacted fill, and quality control measures relating to earthwork.

The assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of contaminants in the

soils and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this investigation. Our recommendations

are based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, and appropriate engineering

analyses. The results of the field explorations and laboratory tests are presented in Appendices A,

B, and C. Corrosion studies for each site are presented in Appendix D. The results of the

geophysical survey is presented in Appendix E.

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 report. This report has been prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Los


Angeles County (Districts) to be used solely in the design of the two proposed ammonia tank pads.

The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient

information for purposes of other parties or other uses.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Previous investigations were performed at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant site, the

results of which are presented in the following three reports:

• LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Report of Foundation Investigation, ProposedSan Jose Creek Water Renovation Plant, report dated August 1968

• Dale Hinkle, P.E. Inc., Report of Geotechnical Investigation, San Jose CreekWater Reclamation Plant, Stage III, report dated December 1987.

• Geologic Associates, Seismic Assessment Evaluation, Chloronation andChemical Buildings, San Jose Creek and Los Coyotes Water ReclamationPlants, report dated March 2001.

We reviewed these reports, and, where appropriate, used exploration data by others for comparison

purposes. The prior reports, along with other referenced material, are also listed in the Reference

Section at the end of this report.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Each of the proposed ammonia tank pads will be 47 feet long and 17 feet wide and will support

three, 8-foot-diameter steel ammonia tanks. Each tank will be approximately 16 feet tall and will

rest directly on a concrete pad. The tanks will be constructed adjacent to existing aeration basins,

and we have been advised that the walls of these existing structures are not capable of supporting

additional lateral loading. The base of the existing structures are about 20 feet below the existing

grade.


SITE CONDITIONS

The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant occupies 39 acres just north of the Pomona (60)

Freeway and is separated by the San Gabriel (605) Freeway into the San Jose Creek West and San

Jose Creek East sites. The plant serves a population of approximately one million people. The

ground surface of the site is relatively level. Many buried utility lines and structures are located in

the site area as evidenced by access covers and as detected by our geophysical survey.

The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant is located within a liquefaction hazard study zone as

defined by the State Geologist' The liquefaction potential and resulting seismic settlement of the

on-site soils are discussed in a following section.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS

The soil conditions beneath each proposed ammonia tank pad were explored by drilling one boring

and performing one Cone Penetration Test (CPT). The borings were drilled to depths of 50 and

5Wi feet using hollow-stem auger equipment and were logged by our geologist, who also obtained

undisturbed and bulk samples for laboratory inspection and testing. Standard Penetration Tests

(SPTs) were performed in the borings. Details of the drilling and logs of the borings are presented

in Appendix A. The CPTs were advanced to depths of 32'/2 and 36¥z feet, where they each met

refusal. Detailed logs of these CPTs and a summary of the equipment used are presented in

Appendix B.

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the

classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation

soils at each ammonia tank pad site. The following tests were performed:

• Moisture content and dry density determinations

• Direct shear

• Consolidation


• Grain Size Distribution

• Percent Fines Determinations

• Compaction

• Corrosivity

All testing was done in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. Details of the

laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix C. Soil corrosivity studies

were performed by M.J. Schiff & Associates for each site; their reports are presented in

Appendix D.

SOIL CONDITIONS

SAN JOSE CREEK WEST

Fill soils were encountered in Boring SJC-1 to a depth of 26 feet below the existing grade. We

believe that this fill is a result of the adjacent construction. The fill consists of silty sand and sand

and contains some gravel and miscellaneous debris. Although medium dense to dense at the boring

location, there is no evidence that the fill has been uniformly well compacted. Deeper fill than

encountered in our explorations could occur at other locations at the site.

The fill was found to be underlain by alluvial deposits to the 51Vi-foot depth explored. From 26 to

approximately 48 feet, the soils consist of very dense silty sand and sand and contain varying

amounts of gravel. From 48 feet to the depth explored of 51Vi feet, the soils consist of medium

dense silty sand. Interpreted subsurface conditions in profile view are depicted in Figure 3.1.

SAN JOSE CREEK EAST

Fill soils were encountered in Boring SJC-2 to a depth of 15 feet below the existing grade. As with

Boring SJC-1, we believe that this fill is also a result of the adjacent construction. The fill consists

of silty sand and sand and contains some gravel. There is no evidence that the fill has been


uniformly well compacted, and the fill is loose to medium dense at the boring location. Deeper fill

could occur at other locations at the site.

The fill was found to be underlain by alluvial deposits to the 50-foot depth explored. From 15 to 43

feet, the soils consist primarily of silty sand and sand, which is loose to a depth of about 20 feet,

medium dense to a depth of 27 feet, and very dense below 27 feet. Below a depth of 43 feet, the

soils consist of very stiff clayey silt and hard sandy silt to the 50-foot depth explored. Interpreted

subsurface conditions in profile view are depicted in Figure 3.2.

SOIL CORROSIVITY

The corrosion studies indicate that the on-site soils at each proposed ammonia tank pad location are

moderately corrosive to ferrous metals, aggressive to copper, and chemical attack on portland

cement concrete is negligible. The reports of soil corrosivity studies at each location is presented in

Appendix D should be referred to for a discussion of the corrosion potential of the soils, and for

potential mitigation measures.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was encountered in our boring at San Jose Creek West at a depth of 49 feet.

Groundwater was not encountered in our boring at San Jose Creek East.

We reviewed historic groundwater information provided by California Division of Mines and

Geology (CDMG, 1998) and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). We

also reviewed historic groundwater information reported by other consultants.

Summaries of the groundwater data available for the proposed tank pad areas are presented in

Table 1, Groundwater Depths and Elevations.

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant—Geotechnical InvestigationVan Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

July 19, 2002

Table 1, Groundwater Depths and Elevations

San Jose Creek West

Source

CDMG Open File Report,El Monte Quadrangle**

LACDPW Records***

Dale Hinkle, P.E., Inc. Report

Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc.

Source

Well/BoringDesignation*

(Historic High GroundwaterDepth Contours)

2975Q(Approx. 2,000ft from SCJW)

B-8

SJC-1

San Jose Creek

Well/BoringDesignation*

Depth(feet)

4

0

22

49

East

Depth(feet)

Elevation(feet MSL)

(Approx 24 1 )

248

220

199

Elevation(feet MSL)

Date

06/19/69

11/12/87

05/17/02

Date

CDMG Open File Report,El Monte Quadrangle**

LACDPW Records***

(Historic High GroundwaterDepth Contours)

2986H(Approx. 2,000ft from SCJE)

5

21

(Approx. 247)

245 06/23/69

LeRoy Crandall & AssociatesReport

Geologic Associates Report

Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc.

B-ll

SJC-B-2

SJC-2

23

44

NotEncountered

227

212

N/A

07/22/68

09/25/00

05/17/02

* Boring or CPT with highest groundwater from a particular investigation reported.

** From 1904 through 1997 well data.

*** From 1957 through 2001 well data.

Dale Hinkle, P.E. Inc. (1987) also reported that two nearby wells owned by Los Angeles County

Flood Control District had high groundwater elevations of 226.5 and 229.1 feet in November 1969

and April 1983, respectively. These wells, designated 29-66S and 29-76Q, were reportedly within

200 feet of SJCW.

The CDMG (1998) Open File Report also states that "groundwater levels from the 1960-1997

geotechincal borehole logs generally are 5-10 feet deeper than the earlier measurements in Whittier

Narrows and southward."

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant— Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and02-026.2

Based on the above information, we anticipate that groundwater levels will rise periodically to

near-historic levels reported by CDMG (1998), and we have assumed a depth of 10 feet in our

liquefaction analyses, described in the next section.

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

General

Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and loose, fine sands or

silts occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and

clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an

earthquake, liquefaction potential increases.

Evaluation of the liquefaction potential at the proposed ammonia tank locations was performed

using both CPT and SPT data, as well as the blow count data obtained during sampling which was

converted to approximate SPT N-values. The liquefaction potential was determined for the ground

motion with a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years, designated the design basis earthquake.

This ground motion corresponds to a predominant earthquake magnitude of 6.8 and a peak ground

acceleration (PGA) of 0.51, as determined by the State Geologist (CDMG, 1998) for alluvium

conditions.

As previously discussed, groundwater was encountered at a depth of 49 feet within San Jose Creek

West, and groundwater was not encountered to the depth explored of 50 feet within San Jose Creek

East. Based on historic groundwater information, we have assumed the groundwater at each tank

pad location could rise to a depth of 10 feet.

The liquefaction potential of the sandy and silty soils was computed as given in the Youd and Idriss

(1997) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation. Based on the CPT and boring data, it is

our opinion that a portion of the soils at each site could be subject to liquefaction in the event of the


design basis earthquake ground motion, and if the groundwater levels rise. At SJCW, the

potentially liquefiable soils occur within the fill between depths of approximately 13 and 26 feet.

At SJCE, the potentially liquefiable soils occur between depths of approximately 10 and 27 feet.

SEISMIC SETTLEMENT

Seismically-induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium-dense granular soils densified

during ground shaking. Uniform settlement beneath a given structure may cause only minimal

damage; however, because of variations in distribution, density, and confining conditions of the

soils, seismic settlement is generally non-uniform and can cause serious structural damage. Dry and

partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically-induced

settlement.

We reviewed the boring and CPT data presented by other consultants. In general, the prior data

correlates well with ours, suggesting that the soil conditions are relatively uniform at SJCW and

SJCE. However, relatively deep fill was encountered in our borings, which we attribute to the

adjacent below-grade construction. As a result of the possibility of varying conditions of the upper

soils, differential seismic settlement could be on the order of two-thirds the total seismic

settlement.

San Jose Creek West

For the design basis earthquake, the seismic (liquefaction) settlement of the soils above a depth of

approximately 26 feet could be on the order of 1 inch. Differential seismic settlement could be as

much as Vi to % inch.

San Jose Creek East

For the design basis earthquake, the seismic (liquefaction) settlement of the soils above a depth of

approximately 27 feet could be on the order of 4 inches during high groundwater conditions. As the

soils between depths of about 8 to 20 feet are loose to medium dense, some seismic settlement also


could occur in a dry or partially-saturated state; the total seismic settlement for this condition could

be up to 2 inches. Differential seismic settlement within the proposed tank area could be up to two-

thirds the total seismic settlement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL

We were informed that the walls of the existing adjacent structures at each proposed ammonia tank

pad location are not capable of accepting any additional surcharge pressure, and foundation support

at each location will have to be carried below the existing walls. Furthermore, there is no evidence

that the existing fill at either site is uniformly well compacted, and we do not recommend that

existing fill be used for foundation support. At each site, we recommend that the proposed

ammonia tanks be supported in the natural soils below the level of the existing adjacent structures.

The ammonia tanks could be supported on drilled cast-in-place concrete piles extending through

the fill and into the natural soils, or on mat foundations at or below the level of existing structures.

If drilled piles are used, the piles will be close to the existing walls, and lateral loads should be

transferred to the natural soils below the level of the existing structures. If a mat is used at either

site, a relatively deep excavation and possibly some remedial grading will be needed. The sides of

the excavation away from the existing structures should either be shored of sloped back for

stability.

DRILLED PILE FOUNDATIONS

Vertical Capacities

We understand that 42-inch-diameter, drilled cast-in-place concrete piles are being considered for

foundation support, and that steel casing, 48 inches in diameter, would be used to transfer lateral

loads below adjacent structures. As previously mentioned, liquefiable layers were encountered to

depths of 26 and 27 feet at SJCW and SJCE, respectively, and we therefore recommend that the


July 19, 2002

casing be installed to these depths also to mitigate the potential for downdrag on the piles. We

understand that these depths are slightly greater than the depth of existing structures at the sites.

The downward capacities of a 42-inch-diameter pile are presented for each proposed ammonia tank

pad location in Table 2, Vertical Pile Capacities. The capacities of other sizes would be

proportional to the pile diameter. Dead-plus-live load capacities are shown; a one-third increase in

the capacities may be used for wind or seismic loads. Piles in groups should be spaced at least 1l/i

diameters on centers.

Table 2, Vertical Pile Capacities, 42-inch-diameter Pile

Penetration Into Natural Soils,Below Casing, and

Below Adjacent Structures(feet)

5

10

15

20

25

Downward Capacity(kips)

SJCW

12

29

48

71

97

SJCE

21

36

60

89

120

Settlement

The settlement of the proposed ammonia tank pads, supported on drilled piles is anticipated to be

less than l/i inch. Differential settlement between adjacent piles is anticipated to be less than 1A

inch.

Lateral Resistance

The lateral capacity of a drilled pile may be determined using an acceptable pole formula. When

using a pole formula, for piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the passive resistance of

the natural soils may be assumed to be equal to 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A

one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads.

10


July 19, 2002

The soil parameters presented in Table 3, can be used to analyze the piles under lateral loads, when

using a program such as LPILE. We can perform such analyses, if requested.

Table 3, Parameters for Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis

San Jose Creek West

Depth Below GroundSurface and Soil

Type (feet)

0 - 26** (Fill: SM)

26-48(SM)

Total UnitWeight

(per)

120

120

Constant "k"(pci)

0

125

UndrainedShear Strength

(psf)

N/A

N/A

InternalFriction

(degrees)

0

39

Strain at50% Max.

Stress

N/A

N/A

San Jose Creek East

Depth Below GroundSurface and Soil

Type (feet)

0 - 15** (Fill: SM)

15-27**(SM)

27-43(SM)

43 -47 (ML)

47 - 50 (ML)

Total UnitWeight*

(pcf)

120

100

120

120

120

Constant "k"(pci)

0

0

125

500

1,000

UndrainedShear Strength

(psf)

N/A

N/A

N/A

2,400

3,200

InternalFriction(degrees)

0

0

39

0

0

Strain at50% Max.

Stress

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.01

0.005

* Effective unit weights should be used based on a groundwater depth of 10 feet.

** Lateral capacities of fill soils, soils above casing, and soils above the level of adjacent structures should be taken as zero.

Installation

At the SJCW tank location, fill soils to a depth of 26 feet were encountered in the exploration

boring. The fill consists of silty sand and sand and contains some gravel and debris. The natural

soils consist primarily of very dense silty sand and sand and contain varying amounts of gravel.

Groundwater was encountered in our exploration boring at a depth of 49 feet. At the SJCE tank

location, fill soils to a depth of 15 feet were encountered in the exploration boring. The fill consists

of silty sand and sand and contains some gravel. Below a depth of 27 feet, the natural soils consist

primarily of very dense silty sand and sand. Groundwater was not encountered at this location

within the 50-foot depth explored.

11


Based on the historic groundwater information, it is possible that ground water levels could rise

above the bottoms of pile foundations during construction. Also, some caving should be anticipated

during drilling of the shafts for foundation piles.

Piles spaced less than five diameters apart should be drilled and filled alternately, allowing the

concrete to set at least 8 hours before drilling an adjacent hole. Each pile should be completed the

same day that the pile drilling is performed. A collar should be placed around the top of the pile to

prevent soils from entering the drilled excavation and the excavated shafts should be covered until

concrete is placed.

Concrete should be pumped from the bottom of the pile shaft through a rigid pipe extending to the

bottom of the pile excavation, with the pipe being slowly withdrawn as the concrete level rises. The

discharge end of the pipe should be maintained at least 5 feet below the surface of the concrete at

all times during concrete placement.

The drilling of the pile excavations and the placing of the concrete should be performed under the

continuous observation of qualified personnel to verify that the desired diameters and depths are

achieved.

MAT FOUNDATIONS

Bearing Value

There is no evidence that the existing fill at either site is uniformly well compacted and we do not

recommend that the existing fill be used for foundation support. Furthermore, the upper alluvial

soils encountered are loose to only medium dense at San Jose Creek East to a depth of

approximately 27 feet. The soils are not suitable for direct support of the proposed ammonia tanks.

Instead, we recommend that all of the existing fill soils and natural soils be excavated and

recompacted and that a mat, underlain by at least 3 feet of properly compacted fill, be used to

support the ammonia tanks. The depth of either mat should be chosen such that adjacent structures

are not surcharged; we understand that this depth is approximately 20 feet.

12


At either site, a mat foundation, supported in properly compacted fill soils and below the level of

the adjacent structure, can be designed to impose a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 4,000pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value 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. The recommended bearing value for the mat applies to both the

natural soils and properly compacted fill.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

A vertical unit modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch may be used for mat

design at each site. The 200 pci value is a unit value for use with a one-foot square foundation. For

design of the proposed mat, a reduced modulus of subgrade reaction of 50 pounds per cubic inch

should be used.

Settlement

We estimate that the static settlement of the ammonia tank pads supported on mat foundations in

the manner recommended, will be approximately Vi to 1 inch assuming an average bearing pressure

of 2,000 pounds per square foot. Differential settlement is anticipated to be less than V* inch. We

can provide more details on the anticipated static settlements when the actual pressure distributions

beneath the proposed tank pads are known.

As previously discussed, the estimated total seismic settlements for the proposed ammonia tank

pads are 1 inch for SJCW and 2 to 4 inches at SJCE. Differential seismic settlements could

approach total seismic settlements at SJCW, and could be up to 2l/i inches at SJCE. However,

because these settlements mostly correspond to the soils above the level of adjacent exising

structures, the construction of mat foundations, as recommended, would mitigate most of any

seismic settlement. If adjacent structures dictate that the base of a mat could be above a depth of 20

feet, we should be notified, as this could increase the opportunity of seismic settlement, particulaly

at SJCE. Some remedial grading or mat design changes could be necessary.

13

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant—Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and02-026.2

We recommend that the tank pads, supported by 20-foot-deep mats, be designed to accept a total

differential settlement of 2 inches along the length of the foundation.

Lateral Resistance

Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient

of friction of 0.4 can be used between the mat and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of

the 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.

EXCAVATION AND SHORING

Temporary Excavations

Excavation up to about 30 feet deep will be required for the mat foundation option. Where

excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at

11A :1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a

plane drawn at \Vr.l extending downward from any 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. One method

of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes, backfilled with concrete, and

braced across the excavation.

14


Lateral Pressures

Either cantilevered or braced shoring may be used. Cantilevered shoring should be limited to about

15 feet in height; greater retained heights may require the use of internal bracing.

For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used.

We recommend the use of a pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 25 pounds

per cubic foot.

For the design of braced shoring, we recommend the used of a trapezoidal distribution of earth

pressure. The maximum pressure would be equal to 22H, where H is the height of the shoring in

feet.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to access

roads 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 may be

neglected.

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 level of excavation in the bedrock may be

assumed to be equal to 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, 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 materials. 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 planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to

adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils.

15


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. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full

bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean-mix concrete and between

the lean-mix concrete and the retained earth.) 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. The frictional resistance between the

concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 400 pounds

per square foot.

Lagging

Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles and anchors should

be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be

less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended

earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot.

Deflection

It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be

realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the

order of 1 inch at the top of a 30-foot high shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during

construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the adjacent structures

and of the utilities in the adjacent streets and alley. If desired to reduce the deflection of the

shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.

Monitoring

Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The

monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of

all the soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the

contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized.

16

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant— Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

SITE COEFFICIENT AND SEISMIC ZONATION

The structures can be designed to resist earthquake forces in accordance with the 1997 Uniform

Building Code (UBC). Based on Figure 16-2 of the 1997 UBC, the ammonia tank sites are located

within Seismic Zone 4. The Soil Profile Type, as defined in Section 1636 and shown in Table 16-J

of the 1997 UBC, may be assumed to be Type SD (Stiff Soil Profile) for both SJCW and SJCE.

The closest active fault to the sites is the Whittier fault, a Type B seismic source, as shown on Map

M-32 of the International Conference of Building Officials publication dated February 1998,

"Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada"

to be used in conjunction with the 1997 UBC. The sites are approximately 5.5 kilometers from the

Whittier Fault.

For either site, near-source factors, Na and Nv, should be taken as 1.0 and 1.2, respectively,

according to Tables 16-S and 16-T from the 1997 UBC. The seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, may

be determined for these near-source factors and for the Soil Profile Type SD.

GRADING

The existing fill soils are not uniformly well compacted and are not considered suitable for support

of foundations. If mat foundations are used, the existing fill soils should be excavated and replaced

as properly compacted fill. 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.

Site Preparation

After the site is cleared all existing fill soils should be excavated. The exposed natural 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 rolled with heavy

compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least

17


90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of

compaction.

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 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 or jetting 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. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of

the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The

on-site soils can be used in the compacted backfill. The exterior grades should be sloped to drain

away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water.

Some settlement of the backfill should be expected, and any utilities supported therein should be

designed to accept differential settlement, particularly at the points of entry to the building. Also,

provisions should be made for some settlement of concrete walks supported on backfill.

18


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.

GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION

The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be observed and

tested during placement by a competent professional. This representative should perform at least

the following duties:

• Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill to check that the desiredexcavation has been achieved and that suitable soils are exposed.

• Observe the fill for uniformity during placement.

• Test the compacted fill for field density and compaction to determine thepercentage of compaction achieved during backfill placement.

• Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm that suitable bearingmaterials are present at the design foundation depths.

The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to

commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and arrangements

can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar with the inspection

requirements of the reviewing agencies and the content of this report.

19


BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described

project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our subsurface

explorations. Our recommendations are based upon experience with similar subsurface conditions

under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in

this report; therefore, any change in the structure configurations, loads, locations, or the site grades

should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make

any necessary modifications.

The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon the assumption that the necessary

geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by a competent

professional. The field observation services are considered a continuation of the geotechnical

investigation and essential to check that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also

provides for the procedure whereby the Districts can be advised of unexpected or changed

conditions that would require modifications of our original recommendations.

20


REFERENCES

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Open File Report No. 98-15, SeismicHazard Evaluation of the El Monte 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California,California Department of Conservation.

California Division of Mines & Geology (CDMG), 1999, State of California Seismic HazardsZones, El Monte Quadrangle Map, 1:24,000 scale, California Department of Conservation.

Dale Hinkle, P.E. Inc., 1987, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, San Jose Creek WaterReclamation Plant, Stage III.

Geologic Associates, 2001, Seismic Assessment Evaluation, Chlorination and Chemical Buildings,San Jose Creek and Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plants, Los Angeles.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1968, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed San JoseCreek Renovation Plant, Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW): Nearby Historical WellInformation, Web Page (http://ladpw.org/wrd/wellinfo/well.cfm).

Martin, G.R., and Lew, M., eds., 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMGSpecial Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards inCalifornia, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, LosAngeles.

Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation ofLiquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY.

21

CS

o.

-oc\CN

CREEK

n PROPOSEDL-AMMONIA TANKS

CREEKSAN JOSEWEST,^

PROPOSEDAMMONIA TANKS

SITE VICINITY MAP1"=300'

nREFERENCE: OVERALL KEY PLAN (DATED: MAY 2002) BY HDR ENGINEERING Ri BEVEREN

& BUTELO,IMC.

FIGURE 1

CO

roQ

CO

NCO

8

13o>"2"a.

SAN JOSE CREEK WESTPLOT PLAN

Scale: 1"=20'

Reference: Grading and Paving Plan (Dated June 2002) by HDR Engineering. Km

VANBEVEREN

& BUTELO,INC.

FIGURE 2.1

3.ffi

CO

m

I8I•5.»sQ.

SAN JOSE CREEK EASTPLOT PLAN

Scale: 1"=20'

Reference: Grading and Paving Plan (Dated June 2002) by HDR Engineering.

FIGURE 2.2

CMO

CM

COQ

CD

CD

CDCMOCMO

Oz0>

(|S«f) 133d HI NOUVA3-I3P . !

0}

\

CO

SAN JOSE CREEK WESTGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'

Scale: 1" = 10'

R«f*ronee: LACSD Conceptual drawingundated. See Figure 2.1

VANBEVEREIM& BUTELO,INC.

FIGURE 3.1

CM9

3is(0Q

CD

>.CQ

CDCN

9CNO

•5<0'

133J Nl NOUVA313

CQ

C4

I °

IN*

CD

\

~ro

SAN JOSE CREEK EASTGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'

Scale: 1" = 10'

R«lar»nce: LACSD Conceptual drawingUndated. See Figure 2.2

VANBEVEREN

FIGURE 3.2

APPENDICES


APPENDIX A

EXPLORATORY BORINGS

The soil conditions beneath each proposed ammonia tank pad were explored by drilling one boring

at each site. The borings were drilled to depths of 51'/2 and 50 feet using hollow-stem auger drilling

equipment. The boring locations are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. The soils encountered were

logged by our geologist, and undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory inspection

and testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-1.1 and A-1.2; the depths at which

undisturbed samples were obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The number of

blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches and the hammer weight and drop are indicated on the

logs. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System presented

in Figure A-2.

A-l

ijo2

ffi11.OoS

1Q.

i

z(0

3

i

Date Drilled:

Equipment Used:

/.

s

I»

11

-1

|o

Jl

P

0?

11

245 -

240 -

235-

230-

225-

220-

215-

210-

BORING SJC-1 SAN JOSE CREEK WEST

May 1 7, 2002 Depth to Water: 49 feet bgsHollow-Stem Auger Riq (8-inch-dia. auqer) Driving Weight & Drop: 140 Ibs / 30 inches

/ / / / / / / SURFACE ELEVATION: 248.3 feet MSL

5 _

25

oO

13.2

9.5

7.1

12.7

9.8

8.5

5.9

2.8

4.0

6.4

122

118

115

115

120

118

98

116

46

56A>"

30

26

39

41

46

25

29

50/8'

**

«

X

f^

Q

iq

c

«

.'0

JC

.£

a

•o

•6

•q

t

'O

£

'c

e.

:c

it

•t

:C

•£

\C

6

•'i

(C

'I

:4

-.4

•X

I

(

LO(

fJLLSM • SILTY SAND - fine, some gravel (up to 1/2 inch), abundant rootlets, brown

Few organics

Some gravel (up to 1-1/2 inches)

[19% Passing No. 200 Sieve)

[Nail encountered in sample]ALLUVIUMSM - SILTY SAND - fine, some gravel (up to 1-1/2 inches), very dense, brown

Continued on next page)

3 OF BORING ,™ ,

HlfeVANBEVCREN

Or BUTE LO.INC.

FIGURE A-1.1 a

Q.O

z«e

iIu.O

8d

fi

Q.

31

sto*

u!

I

f

I

s.to

3

oz

11

BORING SJC-1 SAN JOSE CREEK WEST(Continued)

Date Drilled: May 1 7, 2002 Depth to Water 49 feet bqs

Equipment Used: Hollow-Stem Auger Rig (8-inch-dia. auqer) Driving Weight & Drop: 140 Ibs / 30 inches

/ / / / / / / / SURFACE ELEVATION: 248.3 feet MSL

1

|•o

«

IIn

fl"Ifa1°

1a 2

of1115

---

205 -

-

200-

195-

-

-

-

-

190-

;.

185-

-

180-

-

175-

170 -

.dC

cr»

-

ccDO

-

ccDO

-

-

-

7C— /o -

-

on

4.7

4.3

11.6

105

50/6"

29

50/9"

C><3

63

X

?'•'. •:•• '*:'•'•

•o • ' •';

: '.'•'.

-'o ' • . •

• • ' * ' : ' :

m

SM - SILTY SAND - fine, some gravel, very dense, brown (continued)Fine to medium sand

Trace clay, medium dense

[22% Passing No. 200 Sieve]

END OF BORING AT 51-1/2 feet

Notes:

1 ) Groundwater encountered at a depth of 49 feet at completion of drilling.

2) Boring backfilled with drill cuttings and tamped.

OU "" .-

LOG OF BORING^vyv^J v^ 1 L^NM/I xi I ii v^ wij|^

IfK •.B^B

VANBEVEREN

ftBLTTELjO.INC.

FIGURE A-1.15

I11o

om

i

**

MJ

4S

S

£

8

'4.

*

Date Drilled:Equipment Used:

1I•a

fl

-1H!JI'B

Sfi

•&i||

/'255 -

250 -

245 -

240-

235-

230 —

225-

220 -

BORING SJC-2 SAN JOSE CREEK EASTMay 1 7. 2002 Depth to Water Not encountered

Hollow-Stem Auqer Riq (8-inch-dia. auqer) Drivinq Weight & Drop: 140 Ibs / 30 inches


8.8

110

7.7

10.8

9.1

7.7

4.1

5.8

5.8

2.0

120

117

120

120

106

86

109

110

27

72

36

2V

30

8

9

9

>0/10

50/7"

'

-i

«:

^«

N;

-

3 - '

) • - .

0 •_"•

-•'.t;

6' '

ti .'• .t

o-;.

P '. "

• \c

o • - .

i

'• :f

• :.c

o . -

4

;«

^

•X

(

LO(

ELLSM • SILTY SAND • fine, some gravel (up to 2 inches), abundant rootlets, brown

ALLUVIUMSM - SILTY SAND - fine, some iron oxide stains, loose to medium dense, brown

Some gravel (up to 1-1/2 inches)

Fine to medium sand, very dense

Light brown

Continued on next page)

3 OF BORING ™^

Ms;

VANSEVEREN

OcBUTELO.INC.

FIGURE A-1.2a

I1

1i'Eiu.o

1

IK

6

3

sS

sto

m

1

1-»

BORING SJC-2 SAN JOSE CREEK EAST(Continued)

Date Drilled: May 17, 2002 Depth to Water: Not encounteredEquipment Used: Hollow-Stem Auger Riq (8- ncrnjia. auqer) Driving Weight & Drop: 1 40 Ibs/ 30 inches

/'

Ii«liii

I*It-1If

I'S

fi1s

if51I=B

215 -

910

205 -

200-

195-

190^

185 -

180-


6.0

23.5

22.9

102

45

31

35

N

x

q\ - -

ID ' '

LO

SM - SILTY SAND - fine to medium, some gravel, very dense, light brown(continued)

ML - CLAYEY SILT - very stiff, light brown

ML - SANDY SILT - hard, brown

[79% Passing No. 200 Sieve]

END OF BORING AT 50 feet

Notes:

1 ) Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling.

2) Boring backfilled with drill cuttings and tamped.

G OF BORING ««-,\J\ LJV_/I XI 1 N VJ VJtf-

HfeVANSEVEREN

OtBUTELjO.INC.

FIGURE A-1.2b

MAJOR DIVISIONS

COARSEGRAINED SOILS(More than 50% ofmaterial is LARGERthan No. 200 sieve

size)

FINE GRAINEDSOILS

(More than 50% ofmaterial is

SMALLER thanNo. 200 sieve size)

GRAVELS(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction isLARGER than theNo. 4 sieve size)

SANDS(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction is

SMALLER than theNo. 4 Sieve Size)

CLEAN GRAVELS(Little or no fines)

GRAVELS WITHFINES

(Appreciableamount of fines)

CLEAN SANDS(Little or no fines)

SANDS WITHFINES

(Appreciableamount of fines)

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid limit LESS than 50)

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid limit GREATER than 50)

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GROUPSYMBOLS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

TYPICAL NAMES

Well graded gravels, gravel - sandmixtures, little or no fines.

Poorly graded gravels or gravel - sandmixtures, little or no fines.

Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures.

Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - day mixtures.

Well graded sands or gravelly sands,little or no fines.

Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,little or no fines.

Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures.

Clayey sands, sand - day mixtures.

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rockflour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayeysilts with slight plasticity.Inorganic days of low to medium plasticity,gravelly days, sandy days, silty days, leandays.

Organic silts and organic silty days of lowplasticity.

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceousfine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

Inorganic days of high plasticity, fat days.

Organic days of medium to high plasticity,organic silts.

Peat and other highly organic soils.

BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols.

SILT OR CLAYSAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL

Fine CoarseCobbles Boulders

No.200 No.40 No.10 No.4 3/4 in.

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3m. 12 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. ArmyTechnical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960)

, BEVEREN

8: Bl/TELO.iNc.

FIGURE A-2

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant—Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Bevere/i & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

APPENDIX B

CONE PENETRATION TESTS

In addition to the borings, two Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were performed at each ammonia

tank pad location by Gregg In Situ, Inc. in accordance with ASTM D5778-95. The CPTs were

advanced to depths of 321/2 and 36Yi feet and were terminated due to refusal. The CPT locations are

shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.

A 20-ton capacity cone was used for the CPTs, which has a tip area of 15 square centimeters and

friction sleeve area of 225 square centimeters. The cone recorded tip resistance, sleeve friction, and

dynamic pore pressure at 5-centimeter intervals. The data provided by the cone provides essentially

continuous stratigraphic information.

The friction ratio (sleeve friction divided by cone bearing) is a calculated parameter which is used

for stratigraphic interpretation. In general, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone

bearing, and large excess pore water pressures; cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios,

high cone bearing, and generate little pore water pressures. It should be noted that interpreted soil

types and soil classifications based on visual classification and laboratory testing can vary slightly

for the same soils; however, when used together, CPT and boring data provide a better description

of the subsurface conditions than either exploratory method by itself. The logs of the CPTs are

presented in Figures B-l.l and B-1.2 and include the recorded data as well as interpreted soil types.

B-l

CRT SJC-1 SAN JOSE CREEK WEST

Date Performed: May 21,2002

Contractor Gregg In Situ, Inc.Surface Elevation: 248.1 feel MSL

FRICTION CONE RESISTANCE FRICTION RATIO

(tsf) (tsf) (percent)10 7.5 5 2.5 0 0 200 400 600 800 0 1.5 3 4.5 6

INTERPRETEDSOIL DESCRIPTION

220--

210--

SP/SM - SAND to SILTY SAND - dense

Medium dense to very dense

SP - SAND - very dense

Layer of SANDY SILT - very stiff to hard

SP/SW - GRAVELLY SAND to SAND - verydense

Layer of SILTY SAND - very dense

REFUSAL AT 32-1/2 feet

LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TEST VANBEVEREIM

FIGURE B-1.1

CRT SJC-2 SAN JOSE CREEK EAST

Date Performed: May 21,2002

Contractor Gregg In Situ, Inc.Surface Elevation: 257.3 feel MSL

250-

II

240-

230-

220-

CONE RESISTANCE FRICTION RATIO(tsf) (percent)

200 400 600 800 0 1.5 3 4.5 6

INTERPRETEDSOIL DESCRIPTION

FRICTION(tsf)

0 7.5 5 2.5 0 0ML - SANDY SILT - soft to medium stiff

SP - SAND - dense to very dense

SM - SILTY SAND - dense

Layer of SANDY SILT - medium dense

SP - SAND - medium dense to dense

Dense to very dense

ML - SANDY SILT - very stiff

ML - CLAYEY SILT - very stiff

SP/SW - GRAVELLY SAND to SAND - verydense

REFUSAL AT 36-1/2 feet

-35-

LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TESTft BEVEREN

flcBUTEUO.INC.

FIGURE B-1.2


APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTS

In-Place Moisture Content and Dry Density

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 shown to the left of the boring logs.

Shear Strength

Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the

soils. The tests were performed at field moisture content and after soaking to a near-saturated

moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The yield-point values determined from the

direct shear tests are presented on Figures C-l.l and C-1.2, Direct Shear Test Data.

Consolidation

Confined consolidation tests were performed on four undisturbed samples to determine the

compressibility of the soils. Water was added to two of the samples during the tests to illustrate the

effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented on Figures C-2.1

and C-2.2, Consolidation Test Data.

Grain Size Distribution

To determine the particle size distribution of the soils and to aid in classifying the soils, a

mechanical analysis was performed on one sample. The results of the mechanical analysis is

presented in Figure C-3, Grain Size Distribution Test Data. The percentage of fines from this test

(material passing through a No. 200 sieve) is also presented on Log of Boring SJC-1.

C-l

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant—Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026. J and 02-026.2

Percent Fines

In addition to the full mechanical analyses, tests only to determine the percentage of fines (material

passing through a No. 200 sieve) in selected samples were performed. The results of the tests are

presented on the boring logs.

Optimum Moisture and Maximum Dry Density

The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of the materials were determined by

performing compaction tests on three samples of existing fill material. The tests were performed in

accordance with the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The results of the tests are

presented on Figures C-4.1 through C-4.3, Compaction Test Data.

C-2

I><

8cu

eCD

m>a!<ixz4

3

4

ID

Kn(0h-OUa

NO

RM

AL P

RE

SS

UR

E,

psf

n J>

co

_r

o _->

•5

O

O

O

O3

O

O

O

O3

0

0

0

0

0,-,

vJ.UULI

6,000

SHEAR STRENGTH, psf

1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000

\XI

\K

/

\

\

VALUES USE:STABILITY AN

c = 0 psf<|> = 390

*

©

\

\ A

IN SLOPE\LYSES

,

\

6.000

| The shear strengths used in analyses were based on both the direct shear tests and SPT-N values. |

NOTE: " * " indicates sample was soaked to near saturation prior to testing.

Specimen Identification Classification c §

• Boring SJC-1 at 1.5 ft FILL - SILTY SAND 478 42

B Boring SJC-1 at 9.5 ft FILL - SILTY SAND

A Boring SJC-1 at 25.5 ft FILL - SILTY SAND 9 40

* Boring SJC-1 at 35.5 ft SILTY SAND

© Boring SJC-1 at 45.5 ft SILTY SAND

DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATASJCW

II

*

jal B\NEVEREN

S • a BUTELJO.ll INC

FIGURE C-1.1

1v

!

Io

1,000

2,000

UJccV)V)111

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1.000

SHEAR STRENGTH, psf

2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 _&QOO

•

c D

Hie shear strengths used in analysebased both on the direct shear testsSPT-N values. The following values

Depth (feet) phi (deg)15 to 20 2920 to 27 3427 to 43 39

•A

© A

swereand onwere used:

C(PSf)o00

*

NOTE: " *" indicates sample was soaked to near saturation prior to testing.

Specimen Identification Classification

Boring SJC-2 at 3 ft





FILL-SILTY SAND

FILL-SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SILT

300

2218

43

25

a.S

DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATASJCE

IVAN' BEVEREN

». A BUTELO.9. INC.

FIGURE C-1.2

HJ!

n

«C

$

j

1£<D

§

a

>

CO

NS

OL10 A

MM

OTA

NK

.GP

.0.0

1

2

ss2

W

3

4

5

1 1

gi

I

^

fc

s

•— - --— *

STRESS, ksf

10

^sX:

^^

S

=^\• .—• — .

^~~—

^

100

NOTE: " * " indicates water was added to the sample after consolidation under specified load.

•CD

Specimen Identification

Boring SJC-1 at 3.5 ftBoring SJC-1 at 45.5 ft

Classification

FILL -SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

* 1.38 ksf

CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

SJCWP2I5'MB

VANBEVEREEN

aBLTTELO.INC.

FIGURE C-2.1

0.0

1

2

ssz1w

3

4

5

1 1

c

<

D

4

^-

k.

k-

-•«,

—

-

STRESS, ksf

10

^

-.

X.

\

s- — •

\' — - —

\\

s\

— —

^

*

100

NOTE: " * " indicates water was added to the sample after consolidation under specified load.

•II

Specimen Identification



Classification

FILL -SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SILT

* 1.38 ksf

CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

SJCE?4I8Kf5

VANBEVEREN

a BUTELO.INC.

FIGURE C-2.2

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65I-

0 60LLI

> 5503

S 50LLH 45LU

g"o.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

U.S. SIEVE OPENING

6 4 3 2 1I

100

COBBLES

IN INCHES

^ 1 3/4 1/23/8

\I

\!

I I

\,'

10

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

3 4 6 810141620 30 4Q 50 eg 100140200

T

SNI

I

\

I

\

I I I

I

\

\

s

\

•\

I

\

1 1

\\\

1 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELcoarse fine

SANDcoarse medium fine

i; \

x ->

\N

^*~1>

0.01

^

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

Specimen Identification Classification

• Boring SJC-1 at 50 ft SILTY SAND

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA

SJCWmi ,l*9i». t

/AN3EVEREN

kBUTELO,NC.

FIGURE C-3

135

130

125

120

115

110

R

1 105a£a

100

95

90

85

80

75

t

\

f\

*

\ \\

V

L \\ \\}\l\m\

\\

1

\\\\

\

\\

\\

\

\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\

\

\

\

^\

^\

Source of MaterialDescription of Materi

Test Method

\\\

\

\

\

v\\ \\\

v\\\\

\\\\

\\

\>\\

\

Maximurr

Opti

\\\\

\\

\

\V

•y\s\

N

\\\

^

Boring SJC-1 at 0.5-3 ftal FILL - SILTY SAND

ASTM D1557

TEST RESULTS

i Dry Density 132 PCFmi ifn \A/*itor f*nntont oaD in

^ Curves of 100% Saturation-\ for Specific Gravity Equal to'\ \N A 2.80. s;\\ v V 2.70s; \\

v SA 2.60^ X^v^ v^\ \^v^s\XxS,

^ V V^ vS,s^C^\N^k

X^XX^JKX^Xx^X

u x^!VXXJ^3s

D 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

WATER CONTENT, %

COMPACTION TEST DATA

SJCWl^fljj BEVEREN

I'd''. atBUTEljO.l%i . INC,

FIGURE C-4.1

CO

MP

AC

TIO

N A

MM

OT

AN

K.G

PJ

VB

B

.GD

T 6/2

1/0

2 M

fCH

JS

t ft

?//lftX

-

135

130

125

120

115

110

2105Q

&0

100

95

90

85

80

75(

^

^

^

\

\

s*

\\

\

\

\

\\

\

\

\\

\

\(

^\\

>

\

\

\

\\'v

v\\

\y

\\\\

\\

v\\\

\

\

\\

\

y

\

^\

Source of Material

Description of Materi

Test Method

\\

\*

s

\

V\

\'

\

\

v\\\\

V\

\\\

v

V*

\\

\

MaximurrOpti

'\

N

\

\

\

\

\^

\\

^\

K

\\Ns

^

Boring SJC-2 at 1-4 ftal FILL - SILTY SAND

ASTM D1557

TEST RESULTS

i Dry Density 128 PCFmum Water Pnntont 10-0 %

^ Curves of 1 00% Saturation\ for Specific Gravity Equal to'

\\ 2.80V"\

\ VV 2.70^ \ v

V \ 2'60

\ \\ \ ^

\ ~\\ \.

s. \ Xx \

S v^.\(, V V

\ \ "\y

\ ^ IV\ \ \,

\ ^ TV\ iV

v ^ IVx^X/S

^3\j) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

WATER CONTENT, %


SJCE»>•• VANyai§' BEVEREN

IWSjj' SBUTCUO.

FIGURE C-4.2

135

130

125

120

115

110

I

1 105o£Q

100

95

90

85

80

75(

4

/

^

\

^

\\

*—

\\

\\^

\

\\\

\\\

h

\\

\\

\

\v\•

\\

\

\\

V\\\>

\\\\\\

v\\\

\

\

\

\\

\\\

\'

\

\

Source of MaterialDescription of Materi

Test Method

\\

\^

\

\

\\

>

\

\

\\\\\

\^\\\

\

\\\

\

Maximurr

Opti

^\

\^\\\

\*s

fv\s\

\

\

\

\.vj

Boring SJC-2 at 10-12 ftal FILL -SILTY SAND

ASTM D1557

TEST RESULTS

i Dry Density 129 PCF

*S. Curves of 1 00% Saturation-\ for Specific Gravity Equal to:x_\\A 2.80v.s;\\ VV 2.70s; \ ^

V S \ 2.60^ x\

S AA\^ \\S\^^\^,^\X

S vK^ C^\^^s,\XX\^X

x^XX^X

\^vK\^j^3^3 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

WATER CONTENT, %


SJCETTnkm. VANI^Hfc BEVEREN

Ij Ss' * BUTEUO.

FIGURE C-4.3


APPENDIX D

CORROSIVITY STUDIES

The soil corrosion characteristics for each ammonia tank pad location were determined by M.J.

Schiff and Associates. Their results are presented in two reports dated June 10, 2002, which are

attached as Figures D-l and D-2.

D-l

M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.Consulting Corrosion Engineers • Since 19591308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6Upland, CA 91786

Phone: (909)931-1360/Fax: (909)931-1361E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.mjs-a.com

June 10, 2002

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.706 West Broadway, Suite # 201Glendale,CA91201

Attention: Mr. Victor Langhaar

Re: Soil Corrosivity StudyAmmonia Tank SitesSan Jose Creek WestSan Jose, CaliforniaYour # 02-026.1, MJS&A #02-0534HQ-Phase 1

INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests have been completed 'on two soil samples you provided for the referenced project.The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have deleterious effects on undergroundutility piping and concrete structures. We assume that the samples provided are representative ofthe most corrosive soils at the site.

The proposed project is construction of ammonia tank pads. Each pad will be 47 feet long and 17feet wide and will support three, 8-foot diameter ammonia tanks. The groundwater wasencountered at 49' below grade.

The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion controlrecommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. Our recommendations do notconstitute, and are not meant as a substitute for, design documents for the purpose of construction.If the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or reviewof design, we will be happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project.

TEST PROCEDURES

The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as-received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about theirlowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1watensoil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major soluble salts commonlyfound in soils and for ammonium and nitrate. Test results are shown on Table 1.

CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICESPLANS & SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS

FIGURE D-1.1

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC. June 10, 2002MJS&A #02-0534HQ- Phase 1 Page 2

SOIL CORROSIVITY

A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of asoil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is anelectrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportionalto the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, followingOhm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result fromhigher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil.

A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is:

Soil Resistivityin ohm-centimeters Corrosivity Category

over 10,000 mildly corrosive2,000 to 10,000 moderately corrosive1,000 to 2,000 corrosive

below 1,000 severely corrosive

Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content,soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.

Laboratory resistivities were in moderately corrosive category with as-received moisture and whensaturated.

Soil pH values were 7.6 and 7.7. These values are mildly alkaline.

The soluble salt content of the samples was low.

The ammonium concentration in shallow areas was high enough to be deleterious to copper.

Tests were not made for sulfide and negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potential because thesesamples did not exhibit characteristics typically associated with anaerobic conditions.

This soil is classified as moderately corrosive to ferrous metals and aggressive to copper.

FIGURE D-1.2

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC. June 10, 2002MJS&A #02-0534HQ- Phase 1 Page 3

CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS

The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture,etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value arecorrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significantcorrosion.

Steel PipeAbrasive blast underground steel piping and apply a dielectric coating such as polyurethane,extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxyintended for underground use.

Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or othernonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosionmonitoring and cathodic protection.

Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals and metals with dissimilarcoatings (cement-mortar vs. dielectric), and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metalcorrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.

Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.

Iron PipeEncase cast iron drain piping in 8-mil thick linear, low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) plastic tubesor wraps per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with coal tar epoxy or polyurethane intended forunderground use. Coat ductile iron water lines with coal tar epoxy or polyurethane intended forunderground use. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrically insulateunderground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and from above ground iron pipe with insulatingjoints.

Apply cathodic protection to ductile iron water piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.

Copper TubeBed and backfill bare copper tubing for cold water in sand at least two inches thick around thetubing. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. Protect hot copper by applyingcathodic protection or preventing soil contact. Soil contact may be prevented by placing the tubingabove ground or inside a plastic pipe or inside closed cell foam tubes for thermal insulation. Thetubes must have sealed longitudinal and end joints, and be encased in 0.010-inch thick polyethylenesleeve. The amount of cathodic protection current needed can be minimized by coating the tubing.

Plastic and Vitrified Clay PipeNo special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from acorrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron fittings same as iron pipe or protect all fittings and valveswith wax tape per AWWA C217-99 or epoxy.

FIGURE D-1.3

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.MJS&A#02-0534HQ- Phase 1

June 10,2002Page 4

Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe

No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from acorrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron fittings same as iron pipe or protect all fittings and valveswith wax tape per AWWA C2 17-99 or epoxy.

All PipeOn all pipes, appurtenances, and fittings not protected by cathodic protection, coat bare metal suchas valves, bolts, flange joints, joint harnesses, and flexible couplings with wax tape per AWWAC2 17-99 after assembly.

Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors, vault walls, andthrust blocks use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contactwith the concrete and reinforcing steel.

ConcreteAny type of cement may be used for concrete structures and pipe because the sulfate concentrationis negligible, 0 to 0.1 percent, per 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4 and AmericanConcrete Institute (ACI-3 1 8) Table 4.3. 1 .

Concrete PilesWe assumed that prestressed concrete piles will contain about 8 sacks of type 2 prestress cement percubic yard of concrete, a water/cement ratio not exceeding 0.45, and 2 inches of concrete cover. Nofurther corrosion control measures are required for such piles. If ground water is present, solid steellifting lugs are recommended to prevent ground water from wicking into the pile interior. If wirerope lifting lugs are used, they should be carefully drilled out 1.5 inches deep and the hole filledwith epoxy.

CLOSURE

Our services have been performed with the usual thoroughness and competence of theengineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, isincluded or intended.

Please call if you have any questions.

Respectfully Submitted,M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Reviewed by,

Adrineh A. Avakian

Enc: Table 1job folders\02-0534 Phase I-hq

Graham E.G. Bell, Ph.D., P.E.

FIGURE D-1.4

M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6

Upland, C A 91786-8224Phone: 909/931-1360

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

San Jose Creek WestYour #02-026.1, MJS&A W2'0534HQ-Phasel

3-Jun-02

Sample ID SJCW@ 0.5'-3'Fill-SM

SJCW@20'

Fill-SM

Resistivityas-receivedsaturated

PH

Electrical

Conductivity

Unitsohm-cmohm-cm

mS/cm

6,4003,550

7.7

0.10

6,5002,550

7.6

0.11

Chemical Analyses

Cations

calcium

magnesium

sodium

Anions

carbonate

bicarbonate

chloride

sulfate

Ca2+

Mg2+

Na l +

CO32'

HCO3'-

ci'-SO4

2'

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

Other Testsammonium NH4

1+ mg/kg

nitrate NO3'" mg/kg

sulfide S2" qual

Redox mv

64

7

69

ND

220

35

106

144

1217

ND162

40247

11.4

1.8

na

na

2.6

5.1

na

na

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract,mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Page 1 of 1

FIGURE D-1.5

M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 19591308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6Upland, CA 91786

Phone: (909)931-1360/Fax: (909)931-1361E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.mjs-a.com

June 10,2002

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.706 West Broadway, Suite # 201Glendale, CA 91201

Attention: Mr. Victor Langhaar

Re: Soil Corrosivity StudyAmmonia Tank SitesSan Jose Creek EastSan Jose, CaliforniaYour # 02-026.2, MJS&A #02-0534HQ-Phase 2

INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests have been completed on two soil samples you provided for the referenced project.The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have deleterious effects on undergroundutility piping and concrete structures. We assume that the samples provided are representative ofthe most corrosive soils at the site.

The proposed project is construction of ammonia tank pads. Each pad will be 47 feet long and 17feet wide and will support three, 8-foot diameter ammonia tanks. The water table at this site wasmore than 50 feet deep.

The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion controlrecommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. Our recommendations do notconstitute, and are not meant as a substitute for, design documents for the purpose of construction.If the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or reviewof design, we will be happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project.

TEST PROCEDURES

The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as-received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about theirlowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1water: soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major soluble salts commonlyfound in soils and for ammonium and nitrate. Test results are shown on Table 1.

CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICESPLANS & SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS

FIGURE D-2.1

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC. June 10, 2002MJS&A #02-0534HQ Phase 2 Page 2

SOIL CORROSIVITY

A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of asoil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is anelectrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportionalto the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, followingOhm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result fromhigher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil.

A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is:

Soil Resistivityin ohm-centimeters Corrosivity Category

over 10,000 mildly corrosive2,000 to 10,000 moderately corrosive1,000 to 2,000 corrosive

below 1,000 severely corrosive

Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content,soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.

Laboratory resistivities were in mildly and moderately corrosive categories with as-receivedmoisture. When saturated, the resistivities were in the moderately corrosive category.

Soil pH values were 7.2 and 7.6. These values are neutral and mildly alkaline.

The soluble salt content of the samples was low.

The ammonium concentration in shallow soils was high enough to be deleterious to copper.

Tests were not made for sulfide and negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potential because thesesamples did not exhibit characteristics typically associated with anaerobic conditions.

This soil is classified as moderately corrosive to ferrous metals and aggressive to copper.

FIGURE D-2.2

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC. June 10, 2002MJS&A #02-0534HQ Phase 2 Page 3

CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS

The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture,etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value arecorrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significantcorrosion.

Steel PipeAbrasive blast underground steel piping and apply a dielectric coating such as polyurethane,extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxyintended for underground use.

Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or othernonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosionmonitoring and cathodic protection.

Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals and metals with dissimilarcoatings (cement-mortar vs. dielectric), and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metalcorrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.

Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.

Iron PipeEncase cast iron drain piping in 8-mil thick linear, low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) plastic tubesor wraps per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with coal tar epoxy or polyurethane intended forunderground use. Coat ductile iron water lines with coal tar epoxy or polyurethane intended forunderground use. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrically insulateunderground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and from above ground iron pipe with insulatingjoints.

Apply cathodic protection to ductile iron water piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.

Copper TubeBed and backfill bare copper tubing for cold water in sand at least two inches thick around thetubing. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. Protect hot copper by applyingcathodic protection or preventing soil contact. Soil contact may be prevented by placing the tubingabove ground or inside a plastic pipe or inside closed cell foam tubes for thermal insulation. Thetubes must have sealed longitudinal and end joints, and be encased in 0.010-inch thick polyethylenesleeve. The amount of cathodic protection current needed can be minimized by coating the tubing.

Plastic and Vitrified Clay PipeNo special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from acorrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron fittings same as iron pipe or protect all fittings and valveswith wax tape per AWWA C217-99 or epoxy.

FIGURE D-2.3

VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.MJS&A #02-0534HQ Phase 2

June 10,2002Page 4

All Pipe

On all pipes, appurtenances, and fittings not protected by cathodic protection, coat bare metal suchas valves, bolts, flange joints, joint harnesses, and flexible couplings with wax tape per AWWAC217-99 after assembly.

Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors, vault walls, andthrust blocks use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contactwith the concrete and reinforcing steel.

ConcreteAny type of cement may be used for concrete structures and pipe because the sulfate concentrationis negligible, 0 to 0.1 percent, per 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4 and AmericanConcrete Institute (ACI-318) Table 4.3.1.

Concrete PilesWe assumed that prestressed concrete piles will contain about 8 sacks of type 2 prestress cement percubic yard of concrete, a water/cement ratio not exceeding 0.45, and 2 inches of concrete cover. Nofurther corrosion control measures are required for such piles. If ground water is present, solid steellifting lugs are recommended to prevent ground water from wicking into the pile interior. If wirerope lifting lugs are used, they should be carefully drilled out 1.5 inches deep and the hole filledwith epoxy.

CLOSURE

Our services have been performed with the usual thoroughness and competence of theengineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, isincluded or intended.

Please call if you have any questions.

Respectfully Submitted,M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.

lyiewed by.

Adrineh A. Avakian

Enc: Table 1

job folders\02-0534-Phase2 hq

Graham B.C. Bell, Ph.D., P.E.

FIGURE D-2.4

M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6

Upland, CA 91786-8224Phone: 909/931-1360

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

San Jose Creek EastYour #02-026.2, MJS&A W2-0534HQ-Phase2

3-Jun-02

Sample ID SJCE@l-4'

Fill-SM

SJCE@18'

SM

Resistivityas-receivedsaturated

pH

Electrical

Conductivity

Unitsohm-cmohm-cm

mS/cm

3,8003,200

7.2

0.12

19,0005,600

7.6

0.05

Chemical AnalysesCations

calcium

magnesium

sodiumAnionscarbonatebicarbonate

chloridesulfate

Ca2+

Mg2+

Nal+

CO32'

HCOj1'

ci1-SO4

2'

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kgmg/kg

mg/kgmg/kg

Other Testsammonium NH4

+ mg/kg

nitrate NO3'~ mg/kg

sulfideRedox

qual

mv

100

7

45

ND

189

55139

14.0

2.0

na

na

16

7

ND

ND

21

ND33

4.2

1.6

na

na

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract,mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Page 1 of 1

FIGURE D-2.5

San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant— Geotechnical Investigation July 19, 2002Van Beveren & Butelo Projects 02-026.1 and 02-026.2

APPENDIX E

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

E-l

geophysical serviceso division ofBlackhawk GeoServices

July 18,2002

Project No. 2419

Mr. Jeff ButeloVan Beveren & Butelo, Inc.706 W. Broadway, Suite 201Glendale, CA91204

Geophysical ClearanceSan Jose Creek Reclamation Plant

City of Industry, California

Dear Mr. Butelo:

A geophysical survey was conducted on May 9, 2002 at the above-mentioned site to clear 2 smallareas for subsurface utilities. These areas are referred to as San Jose Creek East and West,respectively.

FIELD PROCEDURESGeophysical instruments used during this investigation includes a GSSI SIR2000 groundpenetrating radar (GPR) system with a 400-MHz antenna, a Metrotech 810 and Radiodetection RD-400 electromagnetic utility locator and a Fisher TW6 metal detector.

Field procedures used for the geophysical clearance are summarized below.

• Trace any utilities evident from field observations (cracks in asphalt, manholes, valve boxes,etc.) that are in the vicinity of each site.

• Scan each site with the Fisher TW6.

• Scan each site with the EM utility locator in passive 50/60 Hz mode to locate any activeelectrical lines not already located by other means.

• Use the EM utility locator to locate utilities parallel and perpendicular to each site.

1151 Pomona Road, Unit P • Corona, California 92882 • Tel: (909) 549-1234 • Fax: (909) 549-1236www.geovision.com

FIGURE E-1.1

Mr. Butelo Page 2 July 18, 2002

• Conduct perpendicular GPR traverses through the proposed boreholes in each area tracing anyadditional pipes/cables encountered.

All pipes and utilities located were marked on the ground with surveyor's paint and recorded on asite map.

RESULTSMaps showing utilities located in each area are presented in Figure 1. Electrical lines, a water lineand a potential line of unknown type were found in the San Jose Creek East area. An electrical lineand water line were found in the San Jose Creek West area.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 549-1234 or by FAX at (909) 549-1236 should youhave any questions regarding this report or require additional information.

Sincerely,GEOVision Geophysical Services

Antony J. Martin, R.GP.Technical Director

FIGURE E-1.2

vain beveren &b 8c butelo, -...

Documents