The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About000-000-011• • �MWallacel<uhl • 6 A S S O C I A T E S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ll Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 PERMIT # 1 J 2 ®C BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED FOR CQPE COMPLIANC DATE 2- BY BUTTE COUNTY FEB 0 6 2012 DEVELOPMENT C1P.RVICES • Prepared For: SunWest Milling Company, Inc. • 507 Bannock Street • Biggs, California 95917 • 9= I L cf-- C<D V-*" Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANIONS Biggs, California WKA No. 9153.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................:.:..................................................1 WorkScope...........................................................................................................................1 Previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigations...............................................................2 ProposedDevelopment..........................................................................................................2 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................ 3 SiteDescription............:........................................................................................................ 3 SubsurfaceSoil Conditions................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater ................................... 4 SeismicCode Parameters......................................................................................................5 Soil Expansion Potential.................................................................................... 6 BearingCapacity ...................................................................................................................7 Soil Suitability for Reuse as Engineered Fill........................................................................7 PavementSubgrade Quality .................................................................................................. 8 ExcavationConditions.......................................................................................................... 8 Seasonal Water .......................... 10 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................:........................................................................................10 SiteClearing............................................................................. ..........10 ................................... SubgradePreparation............................................................................................................12 Engineered Fill Construction Utility Trench Backfill..............................15 FoundationDesign................................:...............................................................................16 Lateral Foundation Resistance..............................................................................................17 FoundationSettlement...........................................................................................................17 Foundations Adjacent to Existing Improvements.................................................................17 InteriorGrade Slab Support ..................................................................................................19 Floor Slab Moisture Penetration Resistance......................................................................... 20 TruckDock Walls.................................................................................................................21 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork...................................................................................................22 SiteDrainage......................................................................................................................... 23 PavementDesign...................................................................................................................23 Observation and Testing of Earthwork Construction............................................................25 PlanReview............................................................................................................................26 LIMITATIONS,,-, :......... ..................... .,:.............:..:...:........,;:..::..:.:.::....::::...:..............................:..26 Page ii Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANIONS Biggs, California WKA No. 9153.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) APPENDIX A —1999 Vicinity Map, Site Plan, and Boring Logs D1 through D6 APPENDIX B =1999 Laboratory Test Results NM ln�Wallace Kuhl 6 A S S O C I A T E S I N C Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS 507 Bannock Street Biggs, California W -A No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 INTRODUCTION CORPORATE OFFICE 30SO Industrial Boulevard West Sacramento, CA 95691 916_.372.1434 phone 916.372.2565 tax STOCKTON OFFICE 3422 West Hammer lane, Suite 0 Stockton, CA 95219 209.234.7722 phone 309.234.7727 tax RENO OFFICE 9670 North Virginia Street Reno. NV 89506 775.626.0300 phone 775.626.0309 rax We have completed a geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed expansions to the existing SunWest Milling facility located at 507 Bannock Street in Biggs, California. Our work has been performed in conformance with the conditions of our proposal to SunWest Milling Company dated May 25, 2011. The purposes of our work have been to: review our previous geotechnical engineering reports performed at the site and in the vicinity of the site; perform two double -ring infiltrometer tests within proposed detention basin areas; and, to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. This report represents the results of our work. Work Scone Our scope of work has included the following tasks: 1. site reconnaissance; 2. review of previous geotechnical reports prepared by our firm at the site and in the vicinity of the site; 3. performance of two double ring infiltrometer tests within proposed detention basin areas at the west end of the site; 4. engineering analyses; and, 5. preparation of this report. w,w,W.wa_Lace:kuhl.com Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 2 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigations Wallace -Kuhl & Associates (WKA) previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report (WKA No. 4222.02; dated July 30, 1999) for the site. Our field investigation for the 1999 Geotechnical Engineering Report included drilling and sampling of six borings to a maximum depth of about 20 feet below existing site grades. The site plan showing the approximate locations of the previous boring and the results of the previous borings used in preparation of this report and are included in Appendix A. The results of the previous. laboratory testing performed at the site is included in Appendix B. WKA also previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report (WKA No. 4222.05; dated November 13, 200 1) and a Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum for the SunWest Milling Plan Additions projects west and south of the existing SunWest Milling facility. The investigation for the 2001 Geotechnical Engineering Report including the drilling and sampling of six borings to a maximum depth of about 20 feet below existing site grades west of the existing SunWest Milling facility. Our investigation for the 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum included the drilling and sampling of five test borings to a maximum depth of about 25 feet below existing site grades south of the existing SunWest Milling facility. Information obtained during our 2001 and 2004 investigations was used in preparation of this report. Proposed Development We understand the project will consist of the design and construction of a new parking and drive area, a 5,000 square foot, slab -on -grade metal building, a new scale, a scale house, utility relocation, and a new detention basin at the existing SunWest Milling Plant facility. The new detention basin is expected to extend about 1 %2 to three feet below the existing ground surface. rOt Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 FINDINGS Site Description Page 3 The SunWest Milling Plant is located at 507 Bannock Street in Biggs, California. The milling plant is bounded to the north by Bannock Street; to the east by Southern Pacific railroads tracks; and to the south and west by vacant undeveloped land. The areas for the proposed expansion are located on the western portions of the site. Based on our observations of the site, the expansion areas are currently covered in asphalt concrete and concrete pavements, several storage bins, miscellaneous equipment and debris, a gravel covered storage area, and existing structures, including a storage building that appears to be a single -story, slab -on -grade metal -sided structure. The area of the proposed detention basin is currently a vacant farm field that appeared to have recently been plowed. Topography of the site is essentially flat. Topographic information provided on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map of the Biggs Quadrangle, California. (1970) indicates the site is approximately +90 feet relative to mean sea level (1927 North American Datum). Subsurface Soil Conditions Our review of the borings performed for the 1999 Geotechnical Engineering Report indicate subsurface soil conditions. generally consist of silty sand and sandy gravel fill within the upper two feet of ground surface. Below the surface fills, our test borings encountered brown to dark brown, medium stiff to stiff, silty clays to depths ranging from 3%2 to seven feet below existing site grades underlain by brown to gray, dense to very dense, variably cemented, sandy silts to depths varying from 8% to 14% feet below existing site grades. Below the sandy silts, our borings encountered brown, silty sands to the maximum depth explored of about 20 feet below existing site grades. For soil conditions at a particular location, please refer to the Logs of Test Borings, presented as Plates No. 3 through 8, provided in Appendix A. ��t Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 4 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Groundwater. Groundwater was encountered, on June 21, 1999, at approximate depths ranging from approximately seven to 10 feet below existing site grades. It should be noted that the test borings may not have been left open long enough to allow groundwater to reach equilibrium. Groundwater elevations can vary due to changing subsurface soil conditions; local irrigation practices, seasonal variations in precipitation, and the water level in the nearby Hamilton Slough. To supplement the. groundwater level information from our test borings, we have reviewed the Spring 1993 Elevation of Ground Water in Wells - Sacramento Valley and Redding Basin, prepared by the Central and Northern Districts - Department of Water Resources. Regional groundwater beneath the site is shown at an elevation of about +80 feet msl, or approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface. This correlates well with the groundwater levels recorded in our test borings. Detention Basin Infiltration Rate On June 1, 2011, an engineer from our office performed two double -ring infiltrometer tests within the approximate detention basin footprint. One test was located at the south end of the proposed detention basin and one test was performed at the north end of the proposed detention basin. Both tests were performed approximately 18 inches below the existing ground surface. The double=ring infiltrometer tests were performed in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-3385-03 to determine the infiltration rate of the subgrade soils. Based on the infiltration testing, our experience, and the soil conditions encountered at the existing ground surface, a maximum allowable infiltration rate of 0.003 inches per minute (-300 minutes per inch) is considered appropriate for design of the detention basin at the site. rpt Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 CONCLUSIONS Seismic Code Parameters Page 5 We understand the design of the expansion improvements will be performed using the 2010 edition of the California Building Code (CBC). Based on the 2010 CBC and Chapter 1 I of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-05, Seismic Design Criteria, the site parameters may be determined based on the site latitude and longitude using the public domain computer program developed by the USGS. The following parameters may be used for seismic design of the expansion improvements using the 2010 CBC. ASCE?-05 Sectinn 11 / 701a rnr rAAy-rTi D to< evrenard" 'VQT ly',. ,n Latitude: 39.4099 ° N Longitude: 121.7131 ° W ASC -E-77"05 Table/Equatron .2010 CBC Table/Equatioh Factor/ Coefficient Value Short -Period MCE at 0.2s N/A' N/A' Ss 0.537 g 1.Os Period MCE N/Al N/Al S! 0.224 g Site Class Table 20.3-1 Table 1613.5.2 D Site Coefficient Table 11.4-1 Table 1613.5.3(1) F. 1.371 Site Coefficient Table 11.4-2 Table 1613.5.3(2) F„ 1.952 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Parameters Equation 111.4-1 Equation 16-36 SMs 0.736 g Equation 11.4-2 Equation 16-37 Sul 0.437 g Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation 11.4-3 Equation 16-38 SDs 0.491 g Equation 11.4-4 Equation 16-39 SDi 0.292 g Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Table 1613.5.6(1) Occupancy I to III C Table 11.6-1 Table 1613.5.6(1) Occupancy IV D Table 11.6-2 Table 1613.5.6(2) Occupancy Ito IV D : u6lrb seismic Hazard Calculator version 5. 1.0 Our previous subsurface exploration performed at the site revealed the site to be underlain by relatively dense silty sands and relatively stiff silty clays, which generally are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Based on our previous subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that loose cohesionless soils likely do not exist in significant thickness beneath the water table at the �\t Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 6 site, and the potential for liquefaction of the soils beneath the site is considered to be very low. For these reasons, a full analysis of liquefaction potential was not performed for this project. Soil Expansion Potential The Expansion Index test performed on a bulk soil sample obtained within the upper three feet of soil for the 1999, 2001 and 2004 investigations, indicates the near -surface soils encountered at the site, and within the vicinity of the site, possess a medium expansion potential. The clayey subgrade soils are expected to experience volume changes with increasing or decreasing soil moisture contents, and are considered capable of exerting moderate expansion pressures upon foundations, concrete slabs -on -grade, and pavements. This report contains recommendations to mitigate that impact of potentially expansive soils on the planned improvements including removal and replacement of near surface soils and amendment of subgrade soils with lime. Special reinforcement of foundations and floor slabs are Lot considered necessary, provided the site is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Chemical Amendment of Soil Chemical amendment of soil (i.e., lime -treatment) can be a very effective and economical method to increase the subgrade quality of clayey subgrades to support pavements; to reduce. the moisture content of near -saturated soils, enabling construction to proceed during or shortly after the rainy season; and, to reduce the expansive characteristics of clayey subgrades. Proper chemical amendment of the near -surface soils in the building pad and pavement areas would substantially reduce the potential for post -construction differential movement of the subgrade soils. The performance of chemically amended soils is critically dependent on uniform mixing of the chemicals into the subgrade and providing for a proper curing period following amendment. An experienced stabilization contractor, coupled with a comprehensive quality control program, is generally required to achieve the best possible stabilized subgrade. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 7 The major disadvantage of chemically amended subgrades supporting pavements results from shrinkage of the treated material, similar to shrinkage of structural concrete, and reflective cracking through the asphalt concrete surface. Using a "buffer" layer of aggregate base and/or geogrids or geotextiles can reduce the impact of this effect. . Dynamic Soil Properties The following soil properties are considered to be appropriate for dynamic analyses of foundations bearing upon native silty clays, or upon engineered fills composed of native materials, located within the upper five feet of the existing ground surface. Poisson's ratio (g) 0.20 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (ks) 100 kips per square foot, per foot (kcf) Shear Modulus (G) 125 kips per square foot (ksf) Elastic Modulus (ES) 300 ksf These values have been selected from published textbooks of soil dynamics and foundation engineering by comparing the published values with the index properties and measured densities of the subsurface soils. Geophysical testing to verify the dynamic properties of the on-site soils was beyond the scope of this investigation and previous investigations at the site. Bearing Cayacity , Based upon our field and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that undisturbed native soils are capable of supporting the planned buildings, building expansions, and associated improvements. Our work also indicates engineered fills composed of native soils or approved imported soils constructed in accordance with our recommendations also will be capable of supporting foundations and slab -on -grade concrete for the planned buildings and building expansions. Soil Suitability for Reuse as Engineered Fill The near -surface fill soils encountered in the borings at the site are considered suitable for use in engineered fill construction provided they are thoroughly cleaned of debris and organics and are at a moisture content suitable for compaction. Existing native soils free of deleterious debris �`� Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 8 below the near -surface fill encountered at the borings are considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill. However, expansive clay soils are not suitable for the upper foot of final building pad and exterior flatwork subgrades, unless amended with lime. Inorganic debris materials resulting from the clearing operations (i.e., concrete fragments, asphalt concrete fragments, etc.) are considered suitable for use in engineered fill material, if they are less than three inches in diameter in their largest dimension and thoroughly mixed with soils prior to fill compaction. Pavement Subprade Quality Previous laboratory testing of the near -surface soils indicates the native soils are relatively poor quality materials for support of asphalt concrete pavements. A Resistance value (R -value) of five was obtained on bulk soil samples obtained within the upper three feet at the bulk sample locations for the 1999 and 2001 geotechnical investigations. Based on the clayey nature of the on-site soils, we anticipate chemical amendment of the clay soils can significantly improve the support quality of the soils and reduce the required thickness of the base materials within the site. Based upon laboratory testing and our experience with similar soil types, it is our opinion that pavements supported on at least 12 inches of native clay soils treated with at least four percent (by dry weight of soil) high -calcium or dolomitic quicklime can be improved to an R -value greater than 50. However, the actual type and amount of chemical amendment required at the site will depend on the soil conditions' encountered at the subgrade level. Excavation Conditions Based on the information obtained during the field exploration and our local experience, we anticipate the soils at the site will be readily excavatable with conventional earthmoving and trenching equipment. However, larger equipment may be required to remove existing below - grade structures and debris at the site from previous developments (e.g., previous foundations, concrete slabs, etc.). r1t Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS W -A No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 9 In general, we anticipate soil sidewalls within the upper five feet of excavations will be saturated and/or disturbed. Additionally, perched water may be encountered which may increase the potential for caving or sloughing of excavation sidewalls. Therefore, sloped excavations or bracing and/or shoring could be required within the near -surface soils at the site. Excavations deeper than five feet should be sloped or braced in accordance with current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The contractor must provide a safely sloped excavation or an adequately constructed and braced shoring system in accordance with federal, state and local safety regulations for individuals working in an excavation that may expose them to the danger of moving ground. If material is stored or heavy equipment is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring must be used to resist the extra pressure due to the superimposed loads. Groundwater Based upon the groundwater depths encountered during our 1999, 2001, and 2004 field explorations, we conclude that a permanent groundwater level should not be a significant factor in design, construction or performance of the planned improvements provided excavations are less than about five feet below the existing ground surface. However, due to the presence of shallow groundwater about'seven feet below existing site grades, it is likely that groundwater will be encountered during construction of underground utility trenches or other below grade construction. If groundwater is encountered, dewatering or localized pumping may become necessary to complete construction and should be designed to lower the groundwater at least two feet below the bottom of the excavations. The dewatering system, if necessary, should be designed and constructed by a dewatering contractor with local experience in the immediate vicinity of the site. Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year based on variations in precipitation, temperature, evaporation, run-off, and other factors. The groundwater levels discussed herein, and indicated on the boring logs, represent the conditions at the time the measurements were obtained. The actual groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary. 1� Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 10 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS • WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Seasonal Water Infiltrating surface run-off water from seasonal moisture during the winter and spring months will create saturated surface soil conditions. It is probable that grading operations attempted following the onset of winter rains and prior to prolonged drying periods will be hampered by • high soil moisture contents. Such soils, intended for use as engineered fill, will require a • prolonged period of dry weather. and aeration or chemical treatment to reach a moisture content suitable for proper compaction. Soils located beneath existing pavements, slabs, and flatwork, will likely be at elevated moisture contents regardless of the time of year of construction and also require drying. Wet soils should be anticipated and considered in the construction schedule for this project. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are appropriate for typical construction in the late spring through fall months. The on-site soils likely will be saturated by rainfall in the winter and early spring months, and will not be compactable without aeration or chemical treatment to dry the soils. Should the construction schedule require work during wet conditions, additional . recommendations can be provided, as conditions warrant. • Site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this report.. Our representative should be present during site grading and foundation construction to evaluate compliance with the above recommendations and the guide specifications. Site Clearing Soils beneath existing flatwork and pavements will be at an elevated moisture content regardless of the time of year of construction and will require drying before compaction can be achieved. Therefore, the contractor should anticipate relatively wet soil conditions and include drying of soils or removal and replacement of saturated soils in their bid (including the construction schedule) for the project. rpt Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 11 • SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 New structural areas of the site should be cleared of existing structures (including foundations • and utilities), pavements, flatwork, below -grade structures, vegetation, debris, and other . deleterious materials to expose undisturbed native soils. Where practical, the clearing should extend a minimum of five feet beyond the limits of the structural areas of the site. The existing pavements and flatwork (asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete) may be broken up and pulverized for use as fill, although pulverized asphalt concrete should not be reused as fill within the building pads without specific authorization from the owner, as its presence within a site could have negative consequences in the future if the property is subjected to an environmental study. Asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete rubble may be used as fill provided it is processed into fragments less than three inches in largest dimension and is mixed with soil to form a compactable mixture. Surface vegetation should be removed from the construction areas by stripping. Strippings should be hauled off-site or placed in landscape areas a minimum of five feet from proposed structural areas of the site (e.g., buildings, pavements, sidewalks, etc.). Diking of organics into the surface soils may be a suitable alternate to stripping depending on the condition and quantity • of organics at the time of grading. The decision to utilize discing in lieu of stripping should be • made by our representative at the time of earthwork construction. Discing operations, if • approved, should be observed by our representative and must be continuous until the organics are adequately mixed into the soil to provide a compactable mixture of soil containing insignificant amounts of organic matter. Pockets or significant concentrations of organics will not be allowed. Existing underground utilities within the proposed structural areas should be completely removed and/or relocated as necessary. Utilities to be abandoned outside the new structural areas should be removed or filled with grout (i.e., fully grouted provided the abandoned utility is situated at least 2%z feet below the final pavement or flatwork subgrade level to reduce the potential for localized "hard spots"). Removal of trees and large brush should include the rootballs and all roots %2 inch or larger in diameter. Hand picking may be necessary to adequately remove root fragments. Depressions resulting from removal of underground utilities and trees should be cleaned of loose soil and roots, and properly backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of this report. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 12 Existing fill was encountered at the borings below the pavement sections at Borings D2 and D4 through D6 during the 1999 investigation. We anticipate most of the existing fill will be removed during the site grading operations to establish final subgrade levels. However, where the existing fill is not removed during the site grading operations, the existing fill should be removed to expose undisturbed native soils and replaced with properly placed and compacted engineered fill as noted in the Engineered Fill Construction section of this report Subgrade Preparation Following clearing and stripping operations, areas to receive fill and at -grade areas should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Debris and deleterious materials encountered within the structural areas during the scarification operations should be removed. Relative compaction should be based on the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 test method. Depressions resulting from the clearing operations, as well as loose, soft, disturbed or saturated soils, as identified by our representative in the field, should be cleaned out to firm, undisturbed soil, as determined by our representative, scarified and compacted as noted above, and should be restored to grade with engineered fill compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Compaction operations should be performed in the presence of our representative who will evaluate the performance of the subgrade under compactive load and identify loose or unstable soils that could require excavation and replacement. Compaction operations should be accomplished with a heavy, self-propelled, sheepsfoot compactor. If construction begins during the summer or fall, there is a potential that the surface clay soils may be desiccated deeper than the recommended depth of scarification. Should this condition exist, the site should be continuously watered for a sufficient period of time (at least three days) to close the desiccation cracks to within 12 inches of the surface. rit Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 13 Excavations within construction areas of the site should be restored to grade in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Engineered Fill Construction section of this report. Due to the expansion characteristics of the native soils, the upper 12 inches of the final subgrade below floor slabs and exterior flatwork should consist of select, imported, granular, compactable, non - expansive engineered fill or chemically amended soil. If the upper 12 inches of the final subgrade will be chemically amended, compaction of the upper 12 inches of the untreated subgrade is not required until the subgrade has been chemically amended. Eneineered Fill Construction Any fill placed within the construction area should be an approved material, free of significant quantities of organics, oversized rubble, or other deleterious materials. The fill should be spread in level layers not exceeding nine inches in loose thickness. Native clayey soils should be thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least two percent above the optimum moisture content and imported granular fill soils should be thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content. Engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density within five feet of the final subgrade level and to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density at depths greater than five feet below the final subgrade level. Maximum drydensities shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction operations should be accomplished with a heavy, self-propelled, sheepsfoot compactor. The on-site soils encountered at the boring locations are considered suitable for use as engineered fill provided they are free of rubble and significant organic concentrations and are at a compactable.moisture content. Imported fill should be an approved compactable granular material, have an Expansion Index of 20 or less, and be free of particles larger than three inches in maximum dimension. The contractor also should supply appropriate documentation for imported fill materials indicating the materials are free of known contamination and have corrosion characteristics within acceptable limits. Our firm must approve import material before being transported to the project site. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No: 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 14 The upper 12 inches of final building pad subgrades, including exterior flatwork areas, should consist of granular import soils compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density to minimize the problems associated with constructing on expansive clay soils. Alternatively, the upper 12 inches may consist of lime -treated native clays compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density at not less than two percent over the optimum moisture content. The upper six inches of untreated pavement subgrades, whether achieved by excavation, filling, or left at -grade, should be processed and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Permanent excavation or engineered fill slopes, including detention basin sidewalls, should not be constructed steeper than two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Lime -Treated Soils If existing clay soils are left in place within the upper 12 inches of the building pad or clayey engineered fill is used to raise site grades, the building pad subgrade should be lime -treated. The lime should be added at a rate of at least 4% pounds per cubic foot (pcf) of treated soil (about four percent by dry weight of soil). The lime treatment of building pads should extend beyond the outside edge of the building foundation, and should include the adjacent concrete flatwork areas. If lime is to be specified for amendment of pavement subgrades, we recommend that at least four percent (4%) high calcium or dolomiticquicklime by dry weight of soil treated be used in the upper 12 inches of pavement areas. Not less than 4% pounds of lime should be used to achieve a four percent mix. Where lime -treatment of soils is used strictly to dry the soils to a workable moisture content, the stabilization contractor should determine the amount of lime, but should not be less than three pounds of lime per cubic foot of soil treated. Lime -treated soils should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry unit weight at not less than two percent over the optimum moisture content. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 15 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Utility Trench Backfill • We recommend only native soils (in lieu of select sand backfill) be used as backfill for utility • trenches located within the building footprint and extending at least five feet beyond to perimeter • foundation to minimize water transmission beneath the structure. Clayey trench backfill should be thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least two percent above the optimum moisture content and mechanically compacted as noted below. Backfill within the upper 12 inches of trenches should be similar to surrounding materials to provide a uniform subgrade. Specifically, if the upper 12 inches of the building pad consists of granular fill materials, the top 12 inches of trench backfill should consist of granular fill or Class 2 aggregate base compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. If the top 12 inches of the building pad or pavement areas consist of lime -treated soils, the upper foot of trench backfill should consist of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Bedding and initial backfill for utility construction should conform to the pipe manufacturers • recommendations and applicable sections of the governing agency standards. General trench backfill should consist of engineered fill backfilled in maximum nine -inch thick loose lifts with each compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density within five feet of the final • subgrade and to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density for any fills placed below • five feet of the final subgrade. Maximum densities shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Utility trench backfill within the upper six inches of the final subgrade within pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. We recommend that all underground utility trenches aligned nearly parallel with existing or near foundations be at least five feet from the foundations, wherever possible.. If this is not practical, the trenches should not encroach on a zone extending at a one horizontal to one vertical (1:1) inclination below the foundations. Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 16 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Foundation Desigg Spread Foundations The proposed buildings and building additions may be supported upon a continuous perimeter foundation with continuous or isolated interior spread foundations. Foundations should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Lowest adjacent soil grade is defined as the compacted soil surface (excluding capillary break gravel), or the exterior compacted soil grade, whichever is. lower. Continuous foundations should maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated spread foundations should be at least 24 inches in plan dimension. Foundations so established may be sized for maximum allowable soil bearing pressures of 3500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads, with a 1/3 increase for total loads including the short-term effects of wind or seismic forces. The weight of the foundation concrete extending below lowest adjacent soil grade may be disregarded in sizing computations. Increased bearing capacity can be achieved by increasing the embedment depth of the . foundations to bear directly on the stiffer/denser sandy silt layer below the near -surface clays. For bid purposes, the dense sandy silts should be assumed to exist at and below a depth of about five feet below existing grades. The allowable dead plus live load capacity may be increased to a maximum of 5000 psf at an embedment depth of approximately five feet provided the foundations bear directly on relatively firm/dense, undisturbed native sandy silts. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased 1/3 for short-term effects of wind or seismic forces. New foundations within building expansions should be constructed on the same bearing stratum (i.e., the near -surface clays or the underlying native silts) using the same allowable bearing capacity to reduce the potential for differential settlements. Continuous foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars, placed one each near the top and bottom, to provide structural continuity and to allow the foundations the ability to span isolated soil irregularities. The structural engineer should evaluate the need for additional reinforcement based on anticipated structural loads. `\t Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 17 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Lateral Foundation Resistance Lateral resistance of foundations maybe computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.30, which may be multiplied by the vertical load on the foundation. Additional lateral resistance may be assumed to develop against the vertical face of the foundations and may be computed using a "passive" lateral earth pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth. These two modes of resistance should not be added unless the frictional component is reduced by 50 percent, since full mobilization of the passive resistance requires some horizontal movement, which significantly diminishes the frictional resistance. Foundation Settlement We estimate total settlement for shallow footing foundations using the recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressures presented above, should be less than one inch. Differential settlements are estimated to be about one-half the total settlement, except at the connections between the building additions and existing buildings. At these locations, the differential settlement between the addition and existing building could be as much as the total settlement. The settlement estimates provided are based on the available soil boring information, our experience with similar structures and soil conditions, and field verification of suitable bearing soils by WKA. Differential settlement could be manifested where grade slabs of the proposed building additions abut the existing buildings. Hard -finish flooring surfaces, such as decorative concrete, stone, or ceramic tile should not span across the interface between the existing buildings and the proposed buildings, as minor cracking and/or minor settlement at the interface between the two structures is likely to occur Foundations Adjacent to Existing Improvements New foundations constructed near or adjacent to existing foundations will increase stresses under the existing foundation soils, possibly inducing some additional vertical movements under existing foundations. The movement will be caused by elastic compression of the foundation soils and should be of similar magnitude as experienced by new foundations (less than one inch total and inch differential settlement). wit Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS W -A No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 18 Care should be taken to avoid undermining existing foundations or utilities during excavation for the new foundations. Where new footings will be extended deeper than the bearing level of the existing footings, the project structural engineer should evaluate the design and make appropriate modifications to the new footings. Where new foundations abut existing foundations, the new foundations should not extend below the level of the existing footing without further evaluation of the existing footing, which may require underpinning or an alternative foundation design. We recommend that all foundation excavations be observed by our representative prior to placement of reinforcement and concrete to verify firm bearing materials are exposed. Mat Foundation Design - Truck Scale Consideration may be given to supporting the proposed truck scale on a mat foundation. Provided the subgrade is prepared as noted in this report, we anticipate the mat foundations will be situated on undisturbed native soils or properly placed and compacted engineered fill. The mat foundation "should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. The mat slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to not less than the optimum moisture content and uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The moisture content of the mat slab subgrade must be maintained until covered by the slab concrete. Subgrades that are allowed to desiccate must be moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placement of slab concrete. A mat foundation so established may be sized for a maximum allowable vertical bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live load, with a one-third increase available for total load, including wind or seismic forces. The deflection of the slab can be evaluated using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per square inch per inch (pci). The weight of foundation concrete extending below adjacent soil grade may be disregarded in bearing computations. The mat foundation should be reinforced to provide continuity and to allow the foundation the ability to span isolated soil irregularities. The project structural engineer should determine foundation reinforcement. ��t Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 19 Provided the mat foundations are constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the expected settlement of the structures should be less than one inch, with less than %2 -inch of differential settlement in 40 feet, or the least dimension of the structure, whichever is less: Resistance to lateral foundation displacement may be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.30, which may be multiplied by the effective vertical load on each foundation. The contribution of passive resistance against the vertical face of the foundation is considered to be negligible. Interior Grade Slab Support The interior concrete slabs -on -grade can be supported upon the soil subgrade prepared in accordance with the recommendations in this report and maintained at the optimum moisture content or wetter, and at the required compaction, until covered by the slab concrete. Subgrades that are allowed to desiccate must be moisture conditioned and recompacted, if necessary, prior to placement of slab concrete. Interior slab -on -grade concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick and, as a minimum, contain chaired No. 3 reinforcing bars on 18 -inch center -on -center spacing, located at mid -slab depths. All reinforcing should be located at mid -slab depth. This slab reinforcement is suggested as a guide "minimum" only for crack control; the civil engineer, structural engineer or architect should determine final reinforcement and joint spacing. Wheel loads from forklifts, storage of palletized materials, cranes, etc., anticipated during construction should be considered in the design thickness and reinforcing of the slab -on -grade floors. Conventional floor slabs may be underlain by a layer of free -draining gravel serving as a deterrent to migration of capillary moisture. If used, the gravel layer should be at least four inches thick and graded such that 100 percent passes a one -inch sieve and none passes a No. 4 sieve. Additional moisture protection may be provided by placing a water vapor retarder (at least 10 -mils thick) directly over the gravel. If used, the water vapor retarder membrane should meet or exceed that standard specification as outlined in ASTM E1745, and must be installed in strict accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. `\t Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 20 Floor slab construction practice over the past 25 years or more has included placement of a thin layer of sand over the vapor retarder membrane. The intent of the sand is to aid in the proper curing of the slab concrete. However, recent debate over excessive moisture vapor emissions from floor slabs includes concern of water trapped within the sand. As a consequence, we consider use of the sand layer as optional. The concrete curing benefits should be weighed against efforts to reduce slab moisture vapor transmission. The recommendations presented above should reduce significant soils -related cracking of slab - on -grade floors. Also important to the performance and appearance of a Portland cement concrete slab is the quality of the concrete, the workmanship of the concrete contractor, the curing techniques utilized and spacing of control joints. Floor Slab Moisture Penetration Resistance It is likely the floor slab subgrade soils will become saturated at some time during the life of the structure, especially when slabs are constructed during the wet season and when constantly wet ground or poor drainage conditions exist adjacent to structures. For this reason, it should be assumed that all interior slabs, particularly those intended for moisture -sensitive floor coverings or materials, require protection against moisture or moisture vapor penetration. Standard practice includes placing a layer of rock and a vapor retarder membrane (and possibly a layer of sand) as discussed above. Recommendations contained in this report concerning foundation and floor slab design are presented as minimum requirements only from the geotechnical engineering standpoint. Use of sub -slab gravel and a vapor retarder membrane will not "moisture proof' the slab, nor does it assure that slab moisture vapor transmission levels will below enough to prevent damage to floor coverings or other building components. It is emphasized that we are not slab moisture proofing or moisture protection experts. The sub -slab gravel'and vapor retarder membrane simply offer a first line of defense against soil -related moisture. If increased protection against moisture vapor penetration of the slab is desired, a concrete moisture protection specialist should be consulted. It is commonly accepted that maintaining the lowest practical water -cement ratio in the slab concrete is one of the most effective ways to,reduce future moisture vapor penetration of the completed slab. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 21' SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Truck Dock Walls Foundations for new truck dock walls may be designed and constructed as noted in the Foundations section of this report. The walls may be designed for an "active" earth pressure of 40 psf per foot of wall height, assuming level backfill and the wall is free to rotate. If the wall is restrained at the top, or is rigid enough so that it does not rotate sufficiently to reach the active earth pressure condition, a higher lateral "at rest" earth pressure should be used for design. We recommend an "at -rest' equivalent fluid pressure of 60 psf per foot of wall height be used in design of rigid,walls. These values do not include the effect of hydrostatic forces and assume the wall backfill is fully drained`or that free water cannot collect behind the walls. In addition to the lateral earth pressure provided above, the surcharge effect of vehicles (i.e., forklifts) or other surcharge loading also must be included in the wall design. Backfill behind retaining walls should be fully drained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage blanket (Class 2 permeable material, Caltrans Specification Section 68-1.025) at least one foot wide extending from the base of wall to within one foot of the top of the wall. The top foot above the drainage layer should consist of compacted on-site materials, unless covered by a slab or pavement. Weep holes or perforated PVC pipe should be provided at the base of the wall to collect accumulated water. Drain pipes, if used, should slope to discharge at no,less than a one percent fall to suitable drainage facilities. Open -graded ''/z- to'/ -inch crushed rock may be used in lieu of the Class 2 permeable material, if the rock and drain pipe are completely. enveloped in an approved non- woven geotextile filter fabric. We anticipate the excavations behind the retaining walls will be backfilled with native soils generated during the excavation of the below grade structures. Structural backfill materials for retaining walls should be placed and compacted as noted in the Engineered Fill Construction section of this report. Granular retaining wall backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 ,inches in compacted thickness, and should be mechanically compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Clays must not be used for structural backfill of retaining walls. The upper six inches of retaining wall backfill supporting pavements or slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 22 If efflorescence (crystal growth and discoloration on the wall face) and moisture penetration of the wall are not acceptable, waterproofing should be applied to the back side of the wall. A specialist in protection against moisture penetration should be consulted to determine specific waterproofing measures. Exterior Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork may be constructed directly on the prepared soil subgrade prepared and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report (i.e. the upper 12 inches of the flatwork subgrade should consist of non -expansive engineered fill or lime -treated subgrade). A four -inch layer of aggregate base could be used as a leveling course under flatwork if necessary, compacted to not less than 95 percent relative compaction. Flatwork should be at least five inches thick and reinforced for crack control. Reinforcement should include, as a minimum, chaired No. 3 rebar located on maximum 24 -inch centers, both ways, throughout slabs. Accurate and consistent location of the reinforcement at mid -slab is essential to its performance and the risk of uncontrolled drying shrinkage slab cracking is increased if the reinforcement is not properly located within the slab. Exterior flatwork should be constructed independent of the building foundations, and isolated column foundations should be structurally isolated from adjacent flatwork by the placement of a separating layer of felt or other appropriate material between the flatwork and foundations. Practices recommended by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) for proper placement and curing of concrete should be followed during exterior concrete flatwork construction. Exterior flatwork that will be traversed by relatively heavy equipment should be designed and constructed as noted in the Pavement Design section of this report. Portland cement concrete should achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Concrete curing and joint spacing and details should conform to current PCA and American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Site a Drainaue Page 23 Site drainage should be accomplished to provide positive drainage of surface water away from structures and prevent ponding of water adjacent to foundations. The subgrade adjacent to the building should be sloped away from foundations at a minimum two percent gradient for at least 10 feet, where possible. We recommend consideration be given to connecting all roof drains to non -perforated rigid pipes which are connected to available drainage features to convey water away from the structure, or discharging the drains onto paved surfaces that slope away from the foundations. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed adjacent to the building or pavements. Pavement Desien The following pavement design recommendations are based upon the results of R -value testing and using design traffic indices considered appropriate for the proposed construction. The procedures used to design the pavement sections are in general conformance with the "Flexible Pavement Structural Design Guide for California Cities and Counties" dated January 1979, and the California Highway Design Manual, dated September 1, 2006. Laboratory testing of the on-site soils results in an R -value of five, which was used in our pavement design. However, if the soils are lime treated, an R -value of 50 is considered suitable for design. PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (Untreated Subgrade) R -value = 5 Traffic Traffic Type B Class 2 Portland Index Condition Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Cement (TI) (inches) (inches) Concrete _ (inches) 3 18 - 0 7.Traffic Lesser Truck - 4 16 -- -- 6 6 8 0 Moderate 4 20 - Truck Traffic 5* 18 -- 6 �T- 11/2 NM Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 24 PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (Untreated Subgrade) R value = 5 Traffic Traffic Type B Class 2 Portland Cement Index Condition Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Concrete (TI) Condition (inches) (inches) Concrete (inches): (inches) _ Heavy Truck 4 23 - 9.0 Traffic - 3 77. 0 Lesser Truck * Entry/Exit 5Y2* 21 -- 5 Drives 8 8 - - = Aspnan t►uckness includes Caltrans Factor of Safety. PAVEMENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (Treated Subgrade)** R -value = 50 Traffic Type BPortland Class 2 Index Traffic Asphalt Aggregate Base Cement (T� Condition Concrete (inches) Concrete (inches): (inches) 3 77. 0 Lesser Truck * Traffic 4 5 - -- 4 4 4 7 — g 0 Moderate Truck . Traffic 5* - 6 '-- - 4 5 Heavy Truck 4 9 9.0 Traffic - 1 5 /2* 7 Entry/Exit Drives -- 4 6 = Asphalt thickness includes Caltrans Factor of Safety. ** = Lime -treated subgrade should be at least 12 inches thick and possess a minimum R - value of 50 when tested in accordance with California Test 301. We emphasize that the performance of the pavements is critically dependent upon adequate and uniform compaction of the subgrade soils, including utility trench backfill within the limits of the pavements. The upper six inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Aggregate base materials also should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, and conform to Section 26 of the rpt Geotechnical Engineering Report SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Page 25 Caltrans Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density. It has been our experience that pavement failures may occur where a non-uniform or disturbed subgrade soil condition is created. Subgrade disturbances can result if pavement subgrade preparation is performed prior to underground utility construction and/or if a significant time period passes between subgrade preparation and placement of aggregate base. Therefore, we recommend that final pavement subgrade preparation (i.e. scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction) be performed just prior to aggregate base placement. We recommend consideration be given to using the Portland cement concrete pavement presented above in areas subjected to concentrated heavy wheel loading, such as in front of trash enclosures or truck turning areas. We suggest that concrete slabs be constructed with thickened edges at least two inches plus the slab thickness and 36 inches wide in accordance with ACI design standards. Reinforcing for crack control, if desired, should consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18 -inch centers each way throughout the slab. Reinforcement must be located at mid -slab depth to be effective. Portland cement concrete should achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3500 psi at 28 days. Concrete curing and joint spacing and details should conform to current PCA and ACI guidelines. We suggest considering the use of full depth curbs where pavements abut landscaping. The curbs should extend to at least the surface of the soil subgrade. Weep holes also could be provided at storm drain drop inlets, located at the subgrade-base interface, to allow water to drain from beneath the pavements. Observation and Testing of Earthwork Construction Site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Representatives of WKA should be present during site preparation and all grading operations to observe and test the fill to verify compliance with our recommendations and the job specifications. NM Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 26 SUNWEST MILLING EXPANSIONS WKA No. 9153.01 June 21, 2011 Plan Review We recommend that our firm be retained to review the final plans and specifications to determine if the intent of our recommendations has been implemented in those documents. LUMTATIONS Our recommendations are based upon the information provided regarding the proposed project, combined with our analysis of site conditions revealed by the previous field exploration and laboratory testing programs performed by our firm. We have used prudent engineering judgment based upon the information provided and the data generated from our investigation. This report has been prepared in substantial compliance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the area of the project at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, either express or implied, is provided. If the proposed construction is modified or re-sited; or, if it is found during construction that subsurface conditions differ from those we encountered at our boring locations, we should be afforded the opportunity to review the new information or changed conditions to determine if our conclusions and recommendations must be modified. We emphasize that this report is applicable only to the proposed construction and the investigated site, and should not be utilized for construction on any other site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered valid for a period of two years. If design is not completed and construction has not started within two years of the date of this report, the report must be reviewed and updated if necessary Wallace - Kuhl & Associates pvt� � �'p Matthew S. Moyneur Project Engineer David R. Gius, Jr. Senior Engineer ,-ILI IL3 APPENDIX A 1999 Vicinity Map, Site Plan, and Boring Logs D1 through D6 r!t 1 ❑: I f ❑ ❑ i BUILDI�I6 i 0 ❑; I CI 13 ' 1 D4 I r 0. trn 1j app�natc II "'C'd _ D3;"9,:� p DI ,F O?OSFDdIEW MILL v.we Legend: -approximate soil boring location WALLACE KUHL ET ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D6 Note: Adapted from a CAD Schematic Design prepared by Comstock Johnson Architects, dated 6/15/99. DRAWN BY: HLA SUNWEST HULLING PLANT CHECKED BY: 1v1 MW 1, 507 Bannock Street Biggs, California 0 .40 80 Scale in Feet WKA NO: 4222.02 DATE: 7/99 PLATE NO: 2 E5 w BORING NUMBER: 01 ' QRILL R_IGIMETHOD: " " ILI y_ a j H-' w u, z U, °� DATE DRILLED: 6121199 0 " 4' INCH . ? J Z o � O o LOGGED BY: MMW SOLID'FLIGHT AUGERS SOIL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS to v SM/ Dark brown, dry, loose, fine to medium sandy silt/silty fine to .medium sand CL Brown, slightly moist, stiff, silty clay DI -1I 15 105 19.0 Brown, slightly moist, very hard, slightly cemented, very fine MI' sandy silt 5 D1-21 48 102 22.6 less cementation at 5 feet a grayish brown color change, moist 10 D1-31 33 - A small siltstones 1.5 D1-41 70 s;vi Brown, moist, very dense; silty very 5ne sand / '20 .:D1-51 •504" — 25� Notcs:. 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. 30 I — SUNWEST AULLING PLANT WKA NO: 4222.02 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99 WALLACE • KUHL & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECIMCAL E. GDMEMG Biggs, California PLATE NO: 3 GEOLOGIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES w w z U m = BORING NUMBER: D2 t DRILL RIG/METHOD: DATE DRILLED: 5141/99 CME-45/4 INCH IL 2 2 3 } °% rn w w F w ? rad O LOGGED BY: MMW SOLID FLIGHT AUGERS Lj <:) i 5� O(0 f- d SOIL DESCRIRfION AND REMARKS o" z m V 0 4" asphalt concrete SM ' Red, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse sand (FILL) CL Dark brown, moist, stiff, silty clay D24I 14 91 j 20.3 N� Brown, slightly moist, dense, very fine sandy silt 5 D2-2I 46 101 19.0 weakly cemented Vi .132-3I 68gM Brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine to coarse sandy silt 10 I , decrease in medium to coarse sand small siltstones 15 D2-4I 59 saturated 20 D2-5I 41 25— , Notes: 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. — 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. 30 SUNWLST MILLING PLANT WKA NO: 4222.02 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99 WALIac •'XLg1L& ASSOCIATES, INC. 41CALENGG&TILL2rG. Biggs, California PLATE NO: 4 GEOTEOD GF61-06IC &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o a O. 4Ln O" anO tit DEPTH o�� Imn (i O �c1 KIJ �. D O SAMPLER C7 O a�a 3 SAMPLE NUMBER BLOWS/FT. DRY UNIT W7 (P.6F) H c1 MOISTURE CONTENT•(%) .. 05 "' OTHER TESTS . USCS IN . ' . " ... GRAPHIC LOG I .. - V] N 0 Z 0q D' ° o m c m-3 C)Ems' w o rl o o ° y p� v w 0 G Iy pq'I C7' P° a to, aq �+ E3:) n ty 1 ►� �'�w n CDs n• ' v' 5. 0T AE. P� �. G. p� (CSpL 'd Sp . �A d a. m Z� 'o W �y'' CI � cCn 2 N m v �j �C O : R aIP ap rT'A O (D y A z O w O In N N R a O N _ a: W - LL �� v BORING NUMBER: D4 DRILLRIG/METHOD; �,a t rn U = m DATE DRILLED: 6/21/99 CME -45/4 INCH LOGGED BY: MMW SOLID FUGHTAUGERS t]" urZ 0 O 'OJ. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS N V 0_ asp t concrete GP Brownslightly , moist, dense, sandy gravel (FML) CL Dark brown, slightly moist, stiff, silty clay 5= poor samplesrecovery, D4 -1I: 1S iv>Z Brown, slightly moist, very dense, very fine sandy silt gray color change with rust mottling 10 D4 -2I 8.t _ i 15 D4-31' 46 `aseams of very fine sand, saturated 20 D4 -4I 37 25 Notes: 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. 30 - SUNWEST MILLING PLAINT WKA NO: 4222.02 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99 WALLACE • KUHL & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHMCALENGWEERING Biggs, California PLATE NO: 6 GEOLOGIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES _.. tC W W� 1_ -LL ZU LU* ae 5,t— it. V1, U. BORING NUMBER: D5 DRILL RIG/METHOD:. 1. .. . a _3W a m rn r Z w t _ C9 DATE DRILLED: 6/21199 CME -45/4 INCH W " y Z O O z O to ? LOGGED BY: MMW SOLID FLIGHT AUGERS, SOIL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS y mJ U 0 5" asphalt concrete over 8" aggregate base CL: Dark brown, slightly moist, stiff,, silty clay DS -11 10 107 20.2 1.8 (TSF) UCC 5 D5 -2I 13 102 19.9 ' Brown, slightly moist, very dense, very fine sandy silt ML drills hard 10 D5-31 60 with rust mottling, slightly cemented �Y g► � Y small siltstones, medium dense, saturated 15 D541 2.5 � silty very fine sand, saturated 20 ' DS -SI 23 i 25 Notes: 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. 80 SLWWEST MILLING PLANT WKA NO: 4222.02 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99 WALLACE • KUHL & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Biggs, California PLATE NO: 7 GEOLOGIC & ENVIRONWNTAL SERVICES • 2^ m W CL am m Ma juo z • _o w m M 3. ' W 1— W to > O • O" y V)Z m a �z O F C2'� � 0 • GM CL AA6- l t 7 103 22.9 0.57. ML UCC 5 UWRnvv ViUMOCR: uo DRILL RIG/METHOD: DATE DRILLED, 6/21/99 CME -45/4 INCH LOGGED BY: MMW I SOLID FLIGHT AUGERS SOIL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS of Portland Cement concrete Brown,. moist, dense,, s Brown, moist, medium Q rim dense, very fine san drills Bard af 6%:.feet; gray. With hist mottling, very dense, small siltstones brown, sati tdted,,tiedium°dense, silty very fine.sand Notes: 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. SUNWEST MULLING PLANT 507 Bannock Street Biggs, California WKA NO: 4222.02 DATE: 7/99 PLATE NO: 8 • 10 D6 -2I 54 82 37.7 15 D6 -3I 20 20 D64I 31 25 • � 30 • WALLACE • KUHL & GEOTECHN[CALENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOLOGIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • • UWRnvv ViUMOCR: uo DRILL RIG/METHOD: DATE DRILLED, 6/21/99 CME -45/4 INCH LOGGED BY: MMW I SOLID FLIGHT AUGERS SOIL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS of Portland Cement concrete Brown,. moist, dense,, s Brown, moist, medium Q rim dense, very fine san drills Bard af 6%:.feet; gray. With hist mottling, very dense, small siltstones brown, sati tdted,,tiedium°dense, silty very fine.sand Notes: 1. This log depicts conditions only at the boring location, see Plate No. 2, and only on the date of field exploration. 2. For an explanation of the symbols used in the boring log, see Plate No. 9. SUNWEST MULLING PLANT 507 Bannock Street Biggs, California WKA NO: 4222.02 DATE: 7/99 PLATE NO: 8 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYS' r . •M MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL CODE TYPICAL NAMES Grain Size = Drive Sample: no recovery GW �o�p o o n Well graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures, little or no fines = Final Water Level GRAVELS = Estimated or gradational 12' to 3' material change line GP = Observed material change line Poorly graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures, little or no fines coarse (c) (More than 1/2 of 76.2 to 19.1 coarse fraction > GM $ 0 o II Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures rp H a 0 a@ no. 4 sieve size) No. 4 to No. 10 4.75 to 2.00 medium (m) No. 10 b No. 40 GC o o o v Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day mixhlres _z `; m SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 O $ NSW :: ;: °::. a: ° Well graded sends or gravelly sands, little or no fines uj O SANDS "- SP ,t s :,f- s-: ,.:;�;;; - Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines a Z A 0 (More than 1/2 of coarse fraction <SM Silty sands, sand - silt matures no. 4 sieve size) SCClayey sands, sand - day mixtures ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or Clayey fine sands or clayey silts SILTS &CLAYS with slight plasticity CL Inorganic claysof low to medium plasity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty day s,e, O LL < 50 lean Clays"° OL Organic silts and organic silly clays of low plasticity O `L- 0 Z C y Qoo 2w c (f/II-I IiP�'IIYl.tll i I I I I I i Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts o SILTS & CLAYS ZX. v CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays LL > 50 OH ::::::: Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt - - - ' - Peat and other highly organic soils OTHER SYMBOLS Laboratory Tests PI = Plasticity Index EI = Expansion Index UCC = Unconfined Compression Test TR = Triaxial Compression Test GR = Gradational Analysis (Sieve) CON = Consolidation Test CV = Compaction Test GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION = Drive Sample: 2-1/2" O.D. Blows/ft! Description California sampler Grain Size = Drive Sample: no recovery Sieve Sire = Initial Water Level BOULDERS = Final Water Level — — — = Estimated or gradational 12' to 3' material change line GRAVEL = Observed material change line Laboratory Tests PI = Plasticity Index EI = Expansion Index UCC = Unconfined Compression Test TR = Triaxial Compression Test GR = Gradational Analysis (Sieve) CON = Consolidation Test CV = Compaction Test GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES Blows/ft! Description U.S. Standard Grain Size < 3 Very Loose Sieve Sire in Millimeters BOULDERS Above 12' Above 305 COBBLES 12' to 3' 305 to 762 ' GRAVEL 3'toNo.4 76.2to4.76 coarse (c) 3'to 3/4' 76.2 to 19.1 line (t) 314' to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 SAND No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074 coarse (c) No. 4 to No. 10 4.75 to 2.00 medium (m) No. 10 b No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 fine (r) No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION COHESIVE SOILS GRANULAR SOILS Description Blows/ft! Description Blowsm, Very Soft < 3 Very Loose < 5 Soft 3-5 Loose 5-15 Medium (firm) 6.10 Medium Dense 16-40 Stiff 11-20 Dense 41-65 Very Stitt 21-40 Very Dense >65 Hard >40 'SPT SUNWEST MILLING PLANT WKA NO: 4222.02 NN#1i 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99. WALLACE - KUHL cit ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICALENGWEERING Biggs, California PLATE NO: 9 GEOLOGIC & MMMONMENfAL SERVICES APPENDIX B 1999 Laboratory Test Results 4�t EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS UBC Standard No. 29-2 ASTM D4829-88 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Brown, silty cloy with some fine sand (CL) LOCATION: R1 (See Plate No. 2) DRY SAMPLE PRE-TEST POST-TEST DENSITY EXPANSION DEPTH MOISTURE(%) MOISTURE(%) (pcf) INDEX* 1' - 3' 12.4 23.1 108 62 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL** EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION, 0 - 20 Very low 21 - 50 Low 51 - 90 Medium 91 - 130 High Above 130 Very high * Corrected to 50% Saturation "From UBC Table 29-C SUNWEST MILLING PLANT WKA NO: 4222.02 507 Bannock Street DATE: 7/99 WALLACE • KUHL A ASSOCIATES, INC. GBOTBCHNICAL ENGINEERING Biggs, California PLATE NO: Al 060LOGIC k ENVIEONUENTAL SERVICES