HomeMy WebLinkAbout030-011-0021
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GEOTECHN.13, MEE.
INVESTIGATION REPORT
for
LUNDBERG FAMILY FARMS
VISITORCENTER, OFFICES
AND WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
5370 Church Street
Richvale, Butte County, California
Prepared for:
Lundberg Farms
5370 Church Street
Richvale, California 95974
Phone (530) 882-4551
Prepared bv:
Holdrege & Kull
2550 Floral Avenue, Suite 10
Chico, Butte County, California 95973
Phone: (530) 894-2487
Fax:. (530) 894-243.7
Project No. 70304-03
February 23, 2010
G[0-047-3
BUTTE CGUNrw
BIJILDING DISVISMOR,
P15 / "" PROVM.�
HOLDREGE & KULL Nevada City e TrucKee • Chico. Yuba City • JacKson www.HoldregeandKull.com
r,
1M.HOL-D-RE6E & KULL,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS
February 23, 2010
Project No.: 70304-03
Dave Postema
Lundberg Farms
5370 Church Street
P.O. Box 369
Richvale, California, 95974
Phone: 530-882-4551, Fax: 530-882-4500
Email: dpostema@lundberg.com
Reference: Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices
And Warehouse Expansion
5370 Church Street,
Richvale, Butte County, California
' Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Dear Dave,
' In accordance with your request as a representative of Lundberg Family Farms
(LFF), Holdrege & Kull (H&K) performed a geotechnical engineering investigation of
the above referenced property for development of a visitor center, office and
warehouse expansion. The property is also identified as Butte County Tax Assessor's
Parcel Numbers (APN) 030-011-002, -003, -004, -023 through -029, and
029-110-027. Our geotechnical engineering investigation of the site was performed
consistent with the scope of services presented in our December 16, 2008 proposal
(PC08.065) and March 24, 2009 proposal (PCd09-020) which are both included in
Appendix A of this report. This report supersedes our previous geotechnical
engineering report dated February 19, 2009.
' The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based
on the following relevant information collected and evaluated by H&K: literature
review, surface observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory test results, and our
experience with similar projects and sites and conditions in the area. It is our opinion
that the site is suitable for the proposed construction provided the geotechnical
engineering recommendations presented 'in this report are incorporated into the
' earthwork and structural improvements. This report should not be relied upon
without review by H&K if a period of 24 months elapses between the issuance report
date shown above and the date when construction commences.
' Our experience, and that of the civil engineering profession, clearly indicates that
during the construction phase of a project the risks of costly design, construction, and
' 70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
HOLDREGE & KULL Nevada City * Truckee • Chico . Yuba City • Jackson WWW.HoldregeandKull.com
1
1
7
1
n
1
1
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page iii
maintenance problems can be significantly reduced by retaining the geotechnical
engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and to provide
geotechnical engineering construction quality assurance (CQA) observation and
testing services. Upon your request we will prepare a CQA geotechnical engineering
services proposal that will present a work scope, tentative schedule, and fee estimate
for your consideration and authorization. If H&K is not retained to provide
geotechnical engineering CQA services during the construction phase of the project,
then H&K will not be responsible for geotechnical engineering CQA services provided
by others nor any aspect of the project that fails to meet your or a third party's
expectations in the future.
H&K appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services for this
important project. Please call the undersigned at 530-894-2487 if you have
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
HOLDREGE & KULL
Shane D. Cummi
Project Engineering Geologist
Donald M. Olsen, P.E. 49514
Principal Engineer
Copies To: Addressee (4 bound copies and one electronic PDF formatted copy)
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRE6E & KULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Page
ag
r
Title Sheet.....................................:........................................................................
i
Transmittal Letter with Engineer's Signature and Seal ..............................
Tableof Contents..........................................................:...........................................
r1
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
r
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.......................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................1
1
1.3 INVESTIGATION PURPOSE......................................................................2
1.4 SCOPE-OF-SERVICES...
2
r
2 SITE INVESTIGATION.........................................................................................3
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................3
'
2.1A Site Improvement Plan Review.........................................................3
2.1.2 Geologic Setting and Regional Faulting ......
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION...................:.....:...................................................4
2.2.1 Surface Conditions .........
2.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions...............................................................4
2.2.3 Groundwater a er Conditions...................................................................6
3 LABORATORY TESTING....................................................................................6
4 LIQUEFACTION Q ON ANALYSIS...:............................................................................9
5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................11
6 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................13
6.1 EARTHWORK GRADING........:................................................................13
6.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing...................................................................13
6.1.2 Native Soil Preparation For Engineered Fill Placement..................14
6.1.3 Engineered Fill Construction...........................................................
6.1.3.1 Engineered Fill Construction With Non-Expansive Soil.. 15
6.1.3.2 Engineered Fill Construction With Lime Treated
1
Expansive Soil................................................................................
17
6.1.4 Engineered Fill Construction With Non-Testable Earth Materials...
18
r
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRECE & KULL
E,
7
1
1
1]
w
1
. I
1
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTINUED
6.1.5
Cut -Fill Transitions..........................................................................20
6.1.6
Cut and Fill Slope Grading..............................................................20
6.1.7
Erosion Controls.............................................................................20
6.1.8
Soil Corrosion Potential..................................................................21
6.1.9
Subsurface Ground Water Drainage..........................................:...21
6. 1.10 Surface Water Drainage.................................................................21
6. 1.11
Grading Plan Review And Construction Monitoring ........................21
6.2 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS............................................................
23
6.2.1
Seismic Design Parameters...........................................................23
6.2.2
Shallow Continuous Strip And Stepped Foundations .....................24
6.2.3
Shallow Isolated Spread Foundations............................................25
6.2.4
Retaining Wall Design Parameters.................................................28
6.2.5
Retaining Wall Backfill....................................................................29
6.2.6
Concrete Slab -On -Grade Floors.....................................................31
6.2.6.1 Visitor Center And Office Interior Floors .........................
32
6.2.6.2 Exterior Sidewalks And Patios ........................................
35
6.2.6.3 . Warehouse Floors..........................................................
37.
6.2.6.4 Warehouse Loading Docks ............................................
40
6.2.7
Pavement Design and Construction...............................................42
6.2.7.1 Portland Cement Pavement Design ...............................
42
6.2.7.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design ...............................
43
6.2.7.3 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Construction ......................45
7 REFERENCES: ...................................................................................................
49
8 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................5Q
Figures:
Figure 1, Site Location Map
Figure 2, Exploratory Boring And Trench Location Map
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
r
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTINUED
Appendices: .
Appendix A, Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services, Lundberg
Farms Commercial Office and Visitor Center (PC08-065)
(excluding fee and contract sections). Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation Proposal for Warehouse Expansion, (PCd10-020)
(excluding fee and contract sections).
Appendix B, Important Information About Your Geotechnical Investigation
Report (Included with permission of ASFE, Copyright 2004).
Appendix C, Exploratory Boring and Trench Logs.
Appendix D, Soil Laboratory Test Sheets.
Appendix E, Soil Liquefaction Analyses
70304-03_022310A.doc = HOLDREGE & KULL
' Project No.:70304-03
I February 23, 2010
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1 INTRODUCTION
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 1
Holdrege & Kull (H&K) performed a geotechnical engineering investigation of the
proposed Lundberg Family Farms property for development of a proposed visitor
center, offices and warehouse expansion. Our geotechnical engineering investigation
of the site was performed consistent with the scope of services presented in our
December 16, 2008 proposal (PC08.065) and March 24, 2009 proposal
(PCd09-020).. Copies of proposals, excluding the fee and contract sections, are
included in Appendix A. Appendix B presents a document prepared by ASFE entitled
`Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" This document
summarizes project specific factors, limitations, content interpretation,
responsibilities, and other pertinent information. Please read this document carefully.
This report supersedes our geotechnical engineering investigation report dated
February 19, 2009. The information presented in this report is organized into the
following sections: introduction, site investigation, laboratory testing, conclusions,
recommendations, limitations, figures, and appendices. This introduction report
section presents the following information: site location description, investigation
purpose, and scope -of -services.
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The property is located at 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California. The property is
also identified as Butte County Tax Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 030-011-002,
-003, -004, -023 through -029, and 029-110-027. The property encompasses
relatively flat lying, former rice field and vacant land. The project site is located at an
approximate elevation of 99 feet above mean sea level. Figure 1 shows the site
location and surrounding property.
1.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Although final improvement plans were not available at the time this report was
prepared, H&K understands that the proposed improvements will entail construction
of a new 27,000 square foot commercial office and visitor center and a
37,175 square foot warehouse expansion. The visitor center and office building will
consisting of the following: one to two story, steel frame, concrete slab -on -grade first
floor, continuous spread and isolated shallow foundations, sidewalk areas, asphalt
concrete (AC) paved roads ways and parking lots, and landscaped areas. The
warehouse expansion will consist of concrete. tilt -up walls, concrete slab -on -grade
floor, continuous spread and isolated shallow foundations, loading docks, and AC
paved road ways.
Earthwork grading may include general site preparation and moderate cuts and fills
required to balance the site to meet the proposed building grades. The highly
expansive soil exposed at the surface will require treatment with lime*to a minimum
depth of 24 inches below the existing ground surface prior to constructing any of the
proposed building improvements.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRE6E & KULL
7
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
r
r
1
1
r
` Project No.: 70304-03
• I February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 2
1.3 INVESTIGATION PURPOSE
Based on our knowledge of the area and our experience with similar projects in the
area, H&.K anticipates the following geotechnical concerns to be present at the site:
potential expansive soil near the surface; shallow groundwater; and loose sediments
and non -cohesive soil that will be prone to liquefaction during a design based
earthquake event. With those concerns in mind, H&K focused the investigation to
obtain sufficient onsite information about the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions at
the site for preparation of geotechnical engineering design recommendations for
construction of the proposed earthwork and structural improvements. H&K did not
evaluate the site for the presence of hazardous waste, mold, asbestos, or radon gas.
Therefore, the potential presence and removal of these materials are not discussed
in this report.
1.4 SCOPE -OF -SERVICES
H&K performed a specific scope -of -services to develop geotechnical engineering
recommendations for the proposed earthwork and structural improvements. A brief
description of each work scope task is presented below. A detailed description of
each work scope task is presented in Section 2 (Site Investigation) of this report.
• Task 1, Site Investigation: H&K performed a site investigation to characterize
the existing surface and subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions
encountered to the maximum depth excavated. H&K's field engineer/geologist
made observations, collected representative soil samples, and performed field
tests at a limited number of subsurface exploratory locations. H&K performed
laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate their geotechnical
engineering material properties.
• Task 2, Data Analysis and Engineering Design: H&K evaluated the field and
laboratory site data, proposed site improvements, and used this information to
develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for earthwork and structural
improvements. Engineering judgment was .used to extrapolate our observations .
and conclusions regarding the field and laboratory data to other areas located
between and beyond the locations of our subsurface exploratory excavations.
• Task 3, Report Preparation: H&K prepared this report to present our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRE6E & KULL
1.
C
1
r
1
1
r
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
. Page 3
2 SITE INVESTIGATION
H&K performed a site investigation to characterize the existing site conditions and to
develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for earthwork and structural
improvements. Each component of our site investigation is presented below.
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
H&K performed a limited review of available literature that was pertinent to the project
site. The following summarizes our findings.
2.1.1 Site Improvement Plan Review
No design or improvement plans were available for review at the time this report was
prepared.
2.1.2 Geologic Setting and Regional Faulting
The geology of the Lundberg Farms property and surrounding area is comprised of
Quaternary Basin Deposits laid down during the Holocene Epoch (11,000 Years to
present). According to the Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle (California
Division of Mines and Geology, 1992) the basin deposits are alluvium and fluvial
sediments comprised of fine grained silt and clay deposited in low lying overflow flood
basins between modern river and stream channels.
Regional faulting is associated with the northern extent of the Foothill Fault System
which includes the Chico Monocline, Cohasset Ridge Fault, Paradise Fault, Magalia
Fault, and the Cleveland Hill Fault. The Foothill Fault System is a broad zone of
northwest trending east dipping normal faults formed along the margin of the Great
Valley and the Sierra Nevada geologic provinces on the western flanks of the Sierra
Nevada and southern Cascade mountain ranges. The northern part of the fault zone
is split in three branches: the Melones fault zone to the east, the Cleveland Hill fault
to the south, and Chico Monocline to the north and northeast.
The Based on review of the California Geological Survey Open File Report 96-08,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, and the 2002
update entitled California Fault Parameters, no known active, potentially active or
inactive faults traces have been identified on the project site. The closest fault
identified on the Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle (California Division of Mines
and Geology), is the Thermalito Fault. The Thermalito Fault is located approximately
2 miles northeast of subject site and is a northwest trending, inferred fault, underlying
the Basin Deposits and older Pleistocene Epoch Modesto Formation and Riverbank
Formation (1.5 Million Years to 11,000 before present). This fault has not shown
evidence of surface rupture or earthquakes within the last 11,000 years and is
therefore not considered active.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 4
The 1997 edition of California Geological Survey Special Publication 43, Fault
Rupture Hazard Zones in California, describes active faults and fault zones (activity
within the last 11,000 years), as part of the .Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act. The map and document indicate the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
active fault zone. According to the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent
Areas (Jennings, 1994), the closest known active fault which has surface
displacement (rupture) within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) is the
Cleveland Hill Fault. The Cleveland Hills Fault is believed to be a normal fault type
with predominantly west side downward vertical movement. The Cleveland Hill Fault
is located approximately 15 miles east of the subject site and is associated with the
ground rupture that occurred during the Oroville earthquakes of 1975.
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION
H&K performed field investigations of the site on January 6, 2009 and on January 28,
2010. H&K's Field Engineer/Geologist described the surface and subsurface soil,
rock, and groundwater conditions observed at the site using the procedures cited in
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08, "Soil and
Rock; Dimension Stone; and Geosynthetics" as general guidelines for our field and
laboratory procedures. The Field Engineer/Geologist described the soil color using
the general guideline procedures presented in the Munsel Soil Color Chart.
Engineering judgment was used to extrapolate the observed surface and subsurface
soil, rock, and groundwater conditions to areas located between and beyond the
subsurface exploratory locations. The surface, subsurface, and groundwater
conditions observed during our field investigation are summarized as follows.
2.2.1 Surface Conditions
H&K observed the following surface conditions during our field investigation of the
property. At the time of our site investigations the proposed visitor center and office
building area consisted of a former rice fields and vacant unimproved field and the
proposed warehouse expansion area consisted of a gravel covered truck route and
former rice field. Site vegetation included Oleander bushes, tall grass and weeds.
An abandoned sewer line is located in the central -east area of the project site. An
irrigation canal is located along the northeastern property boundary. Surrounding
land use includes: medium density residential homes to the south and west;
agriculture processing facilities to the northwest and north; Midway Road is located
along the east property boundary with agriculture processing facility located east of
Midway. The soil exposed at the surface generally consists of a dark brown (Munsel
color designation 10YR, 3/3), high plasticity, clay soil with a Unified Soil Classificafion
System designation of CH.
2.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The subsurface soil conditions at the site were investigated by excavating two
exploratory borings on January 6, 2009 and four exploratory trenches on January 28,
2010. The subsurface information obtained from these investigation methods are
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & Kull
' Project No.: 70304-03
' I February 23, 2010
Cl
1
u
1
1
1
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 5
described herein. Figure 2 shows the proposed building layout and our subsurface
exploration boring locations (1309-1 and B09-2) and exploratory trench locations
(T10-1 through T10-4).
H&K provided engineering oversight for the excavation of the two exploratory borings
with a track mounted CME 850 drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers and the
four exploratory trenches with a Case 580 backhoe. Figure 2 shows the approximate
locations of the subsurface exploratory excavations. The exploratory borings were
advanced to depths ranging from 15 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface.
The exploratory trenches were advanced to depths ranging from 4 to 5 feet below the
existing ground surface. Refusal within cemented, hard -consolidated soil or rock did
not occur in the subsurface exploratory excavations. The soil, rock, and groundwater
conditions below these depths are unknown. Engineering judgment was used to
extrapolate the observed soil, rock, and groundwater conditions to areas located
between and beyond the subsurface exploratory excavations.
Representative relatively undisturbed soil samples were generally collected from the
exploratory borings from following depth intervals: 2 -feet, 5 -feet, 10 -feet below the
ground surface (bgs) and every 5 -feet thereafter to the total depth explored in each
exploratory boring. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected with 2.5 inch
inside -diameter, split -spoon, sampler equipped with brass liner sample tubes and
with a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split barrel sampler. The samplers were
driven into the soil using a 140 pound automatic trip hammer with a 30 inch free fall.
The brass liner tube samples were sealed with end -caps, labeled, and transported to
our soil laboratory facility. Representative disturbed bulk soil samples were also
collected from the upper two feet of drill cuttings from boring B09-1. The bulk soil
sample was placed in a plastic sack container, labeled, and transport to our soil
laboratory facility. Selected soil samples were tested in our laboratory to determine
their engineering material properties which included: natural moisture content,
density, shear strength, particle size gradation, plasticity, and volume change
potential. These soils engineering material properties were used to develop
geotechnical engineering recommendations for: earthwork grading, foundations,
retaining walls, concrete slab -on -grade floors, and asphalt concrete pavement
designs.
The H&K geologist/engineer described the soil materials encountered in each
exploratory boring consistent with the ASTM D2487 Unified Soils Classification
System (USCS) and the ASTM D2488 Visual -Manual Field Method guideline
procedures. Detailed descriptions of the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions that
were encountered in each subsurface exploratory location are presented on the
exploratory boring and trench logs that are included in Appendix C. The generalized
soil and rock conditions underlying the property are described below. The particle
size percentages listed are based on visual field estimates of each material's dry
weight. The soil units encountered in the subsurface exploratory excavations were
generally stratigraphically continuous or successive across the site; however, the
70304-03_,02231OA. doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
IProject No.: 70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 6
units varied in thickness. The soil units encountered during our investigation were
divided into five distinguishable units.
• CH, High Plasticity Clay: This soil consists of the following field estimated
particle size percentages: 100 percent high plasticity silt and clay size particles.
This soil is predominantly dark brown with a Munsel Color Chart designation of
(10YR 3/3). This soil was soft and moist to wet at the time of our subsurface
investigation.
• SM, Silty Sand: This soil consists of the following field estimated particle size
percentages: 70 percent fine sand and 30 percent low plasticity silt and clay size
particles. This soil is predominantly yellowish brown with a Munsel Color Chart
designation of (10YR 5/6). This soil was very dense and saturated at the time of
our subsurface investigation.
• ML, Low Plasticity Silt: This soil consists of the following field estimated particle
size percentages: 65 percent low plasticity silt and clay size particles and
35 percent fine sand. This soil is predominantly yellowish brown with a Munsel.
Color Chart designation of (10YR 5/6). This soil was hard and saturated at the
time of our subsurface investigation.
• SM, Silty Sand: This soil consists of the following field estimated particle size
percentages: 70 percent fine to coarse sand, 15 percent fine gravel, and
15 percent low plasticity silt and clay size particles. This soil is predominantly
grayish brown with a Munsel Color Chart designation of (10YR 5/2). This soil was
dense, saturated, and strongly cemented at the time of our subsurface
investigation.
• CL, Low Plasticity Clay: This soil consists of the following field estimated particle
size percentages: 90 percent low plastic silt and clay size particles and 10 percent
fine sand. This soil is predominantly light brownish grey with a Munsel Color
Chart designation of (10YR 6/2). This soil was hard, and saturated to damp at the
time of our subsurface investigation.
2.2.3 Groundwater Conditions
Shallow groundwater was encountered in each exploratory boring at depths of about
5 -feet bgs and in each exploratory trench at depths of about 2 feet bgs. The
groundwater elevation is subject to season fluctuations, however, based on our
experience with projects in the area; groundwater elevations are typically within 10
feet of the ground surface and can rise to the surface during the rainy winter months
and/or during periods of flood irrigation of surrounding agricultural,larid.
3 LABORATORY TESTING
H&K performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples taken from the subsurface
exploratory excavations to determine their engineering material properties. These
engineering material properties were used to develop geotechnical engineering
70304-03 022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 201.0 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 7
recommendations
for earthwork and structural improvements. The following
laboratory tests were performed using the cited American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM),
Caltrans Test Method (CTM), or California Building Code (CBC)
guideline procedures:
• ASTM D1557,
Compaction Curve
• ASTM D2166,
Unconfined Compression
• ASTM D2216,
Moisture Content
• ASTM D2487,
Soil Classification by the USCS
• ASTM D2488,
Soil Description (Visual Manual Method)
• ASTM D2937,
Density
• ASTM D3080,
Direct Shear Strength
• ASTM D4318,
Atterberg Plasticity Indices
• ASTM D4829,
Expansion Index/Swell
• ASTM D2844 (CMT -301), Resistance Value (R -Value)
Table 3.1 presents a summary of the laboratory test results. Appendix D presents
the laboratory test data sheets.
70304-03 022310A.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
17...:.. _a n�_ �nnnw nn •
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
6
t
s
1
1
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 9
4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
H&K performed a liquefaction analysis of the site using the guideline procedures
presented in the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special
Publication 117 and the Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in
California prepared by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). H&K used
the "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential" developed by
Seed and Idriss (1971) and revised by Seed and Idriss in 1982 to perform the
liquefaction analysis of the site soils. This procedure computes a liquefaction safety
factor (SFl from the ratio of the capacity of the soil to resist liquefactionv_h_ is
express as the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the seismic demand on the soil which
is expressed as the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). The CRR of the soil is estimated from
the penetration resistance (blow count data) required to drive a standard penetration
test (SPT) sampler into the soil at various depth intervals. The CSR of the soil is
estimated from the seismically induced ground accelerations expected at the site.
H&K used the United States Geological Survey's Interactive Deaggregation Software
(2002), which uses probabilistic methods to estimate the seismic ground motions for
the site. A peak ground acceleration (PGA) with a 10 percent probability of being
exceeded in 50 years, which corresponds to a 475 year return period, was estimated
for the site from known earthquake faults located within a 100 kilometer radial
distance from the site. H&K estimated a peak ground acceleration of 12.4 percent of
gravitation acceleration (0.124g) for the liquefaction analyses of the site. A
representative earthquake with a moment magnitude of 6.4 was also estimated for
use in the liquefaction analysis by performing a deaggregation of the probabilistic
seismologic data.
A computed SF that is greater than or equal to unity (SF=1), indicates that the soil
interval will theoretically not liquefy during the design earthquake (seismic) event.
Acceptable factors of safety for liquefaction have not been strictly defined for
structures. CDMG Special Publication 117 suggests a SF of 1.3 when using their
ground motion maps and the SCEC publication suggests a SF ranging from 1.1 to
1.3. The selection of an acceptable SF for a given project needs to consider the type
of structure, its vulnerability to damage, the acceptable level of risk associated with
the proposed use of the structure, and the relative accuracy and precision or
limitations of the analysis method. Furthermore, an acceptable .SF also varies
depending on the nature of the proposed hazard. H&K considered a computed SF of
less than 1.3 to indicate the occurrence of liquefaction at the site.
A SF of 1.23 was computed for the soil conditions encountered in exploratory boring
B09-1— 1 between approximately 30.5 and 35 feet bgs, when subjected to the design
earthquake motions. This FS is less than 1.3 and therefore, this soil interval is
considered to be susceptible to liquefaction when subject to the design earthquake
motions. This analysis also indicates that liquefaction induced differential settlement
will not occur at the surface of the site. H&K believes that the potential for damage to
on-site structures resulting from seismically induced liquefaction differential
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLbREGE & KULL
1
LI
F
70304-03 022310A.doc HOLDRECE & MULL
1 1
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
' Page 11
5 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusionsresented below are based on information developed from our field
P p
and laboratory investigations.
1. It is our opinion that the site is suit -.able for the proposed improvements provided
that the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into the earthwork and structural improvements.
2. At the time of our investigation the project area consisted of former rice fields and
vacant unimproved field. Site vegetation included Oleander bushes, tall grass
and weeds. An abandoned sewer line is located in the central -east area of the
project site. An irrigation canal is located along the northeastern property
boundary. Surrounding land use includes: medium density residential homes to
the south and west; agriculture processing facilities to the northwest and north;
Midway Road is located along the east property boundary with agriculture
' processing .facility located east of Midway.
3. The soil conditions observed to a maximum depth of 50.5 feet below the existing
ground surface in the subsurface exploratory excavations generally consisted of
the following soil materials (described from top to bottom): 5.5 feet of soft to hard
high plasticity CLAY (CH), underlain by 12.5 feet of very dense SILTY SAND
' (SM); underlain by 12.5 feet of hard, low plasticity, SILT (ML); underlain by
4.5 feet of dense SILTY SAND (SM); underlain to the maximum depth excavated
to by 16.5 feet of hard, low plasticity, CLAY (CL).
' 4. H&K observe shallow groundwater in exploratory borings B09-1 and B09-2 at a
depth of approximately 5 -feet bgs and in exploratory trenches at a depth of about
2 -feet bgs. The groundwater elevation is subject to season fluctuations, however,
based on our experience with projects in the area; groundwater elevations are
typically within 10 feet of the ground surface and can rise to the surface during the
rainy winter months and/or during periods of flood irrigation of surrounding
agricultural land.
5. Based on the site geology, the soil conditions encountered in the exploratory
borings and trenches, and ourexperience with subsurface soil and rock
conditions in the area, H&K believes that the site soil profile can be modeled.,
according to the 2007 California Building (2007 CBC) Code Table 1613.5.2, as a
Site Class D (Stiff Soil Profile) designation for the purposes of establishing
seismic design loads for the proposed improvements.
6. H&K believes that the potential for damage to on-site structures resulting. from
seismically induced liquefaction differential settlement is very low.
7. The exploratory boring and laboratory test data indicate that the upper 5.5 feet of
' soil is comprised of a high plasticity CLAY (CH). This soil has the following
general engineering material properties: cohesive, high plasticity, medium to high
expansive potential and a low R -Value. The Plasticity Index (PI) of 45 and Liquid
Limit (LL) of 61 indicate the soil may have a high potential for volume change
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & HULL
Project. No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 12
(consolidation or heaving) during the transition between wet and dry seasons.
Recommendations for mitigating this expansive soil are provided in the
following section.
8. Prior to construction, H&K should be allowed to review the proposed earthwork
grading plan and structural improvement plans to confirm that our geotechnical
engineering recommendations have been incorporated.
0
70304-03 022310A.doc
HOLDRECE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 13
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
H&K developed geotechnical engineering recommendations for earthwork and
structural improvements from our field and laboratory investigation data. . Our
recommendations are presented hereafter.
6.1 EARTHWORK GRADING
The earthwork grading recommendations include: stripping and grubbing, native soil
preparation, fill construction, erosion controls, construction de -watering, soil corrosion
potential, subsurface drainage, surface water drainage, review of construction plans,
and construction quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) monitoring. Our
earthwork grading recommendations are presented below.
6.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing
The site should be stripped and grubbed of vegetation and other deleterious
materials as described below.
1. Strip and remove the top 2 to 4 inches of soil containing shallow vegetation roots
and other deleterious materials. This highly organic topsoil can be stockpiled
onsite and used for surface landscaping, but should not be used for constructing
compacted engineered fills. Grub the underlying 6 to 8 inches of soil to remove
any large vegetation roots or other deleterious material while leaving the soil in
place. The project geotechnical engineer, or their representative, should approve
the use of any soil materials generated from clearing and grubbing activities.
2. Remove all large roots and tree stumps. Excavate the remaining cavities or holes
to a sufficient width so that an approved backfill soil can be placed and
compacted in the cavity or holes. Sufficient backfill soil should be placed and
compacted in order to match the surrounding elevations and grades. The project
geotechnical engineer, or their representative, should observe and approve the
preparation of the cavities and holes prior to placing and compacting fill in the
cavities or holes.
3. Remove all rocks greater than 3 inches in greatest dimension from the top 12
inches of the soil: Rocks with a greatest dimension larger than 3 inches will be
referred to in this report as `over sized" rock materials. Over sized rock materials
can be stockpiled onsite and used to construct engineered fills; however they
must be placed at or near the bottom of deep fills, but not shallower than 3 feet.
from the finished subgrade surface. The oversized rock should be placed with
enough space between them to avoid clustering and the creation of void space.
The project engineer or his/her representative should approve the use and
placement of all over sized rock materials prior to constructing compacted fills.
4. Vegetation, other deleterious materials, and over sized rock materials should be
removed from the site.
70304-03- 022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
�I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 14
6.1.2. Native Soil. Preparation For Engineered Fill Placement
After completing site clearing and grubbing activities, the exposed native soil should
be prepared for placement and compaction of engineered fills as described below.
1. The native soil should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches below the
existing land surface or cleared and grubbed surface, and then uniformly moisture
conditioned. If the soil is classified as a fine grained soil by the USCS (i.e., CL;
CH, ML, MH) then it should be moisture conditioned between 2 to 4 percentage
points greater than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. If the soil is
classified as a coarse-grained soil by the USCS (i.e., GP, .GW, GC, GM, SP, SW,
SC or SM) then it should be moisture conditioned to within ± 3 percentage points
of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
2. The native soil should then be compacted to achieve a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry unit weight (density).
The moisture content, density, and relative percent compaction should be tested
by the project engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's field representative
to evaluate whether the compacted soil meets or exceeds this minimum percent
compaction and moisture content recommendations. The earthwork contractor
shall assist the project engineer or the project geotechnical en.gineer's field
representative by excavating test pads with the onsite earth moving equipment.
Native soil preparation beneath concrete slab -on -grade structures (i.e., floors,
sidewalks, patios, etc.), asphalt concrete (AC) pavement should be prepared as
specified in Section 6.2 (Structural Improvements).
3. The prepared native soil surface should be proof rolled with a fully loaded
4,000 gallon capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a
double-axel, tandem -wheel, undercarriage or approved equivalent. The minimum
tire pressure should be 65 pounds per square inch (psi). The proof rolled surface
should be visually observed by the project engineer or the project geotechnical
engineer's field representative to be firm, competent, and relatively unyielding.
The project engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's field representative
may also evaluate the surface material by hand probing with a 1/4 -inch -diameter
steel probe; however, this evaluation method should not be performed in place of
proof rolling.
4. Construction quality assurance tests should be performed using the minimum
testing frequencies presented in Table 6.1.2 or as modified by the project
geotechnical engineer to suit the site conditions.
70304-03_022310A,doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
L
r
r
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 15
Table 6.1.2, Minimum Testing Frequencies
ASTM No.
Test Description
Minimum Test Frequency(')
D1557
Modified Proctor Compaction Curve
1 per 10,000 SF tit
or Material Change (Z)
D2922
Nuclear Moisture Content
1 per 5,000 SF
D3017
Nuclear Density
1 per 5,000 SF
Notes: (1) SF _ square feet.
(2) Whichever criteria provide the greatest number of tests.
(3) These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or decreased at the project geotechnical
en ineer's discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered Burin radin .
5. The native soil surface should be graded to minimize ponding of water and to
drain surface water away from the building foundations and associated structures.
Where possible, surface water should be collected, conveyed, and discharged
into natural drainage courses, storm sewer inlet structures, permanent engineered
storm water runoff percolation/evaporation basins, or engineered infiltration
subdrain systems.
6.1.3 Engineered Fill Construction
Engineered fills are constructed to support structural improvements. H&K did
encounter moderately to highly expansive soil at the site during our surface and
subsurface investigations. The presence of potentially expansive soil in the
proposed building footprint significantly increases the likelihood of foundation and
slab distress. Thus, H&K recommends that engineered fills should be constructed
using predominantly granular, non -expansive, imported soil as described in
Section 6.1.3.1. If possible, the use of expansive soil for constructing engineered fills
should be avoided. If the use of expansive soil cannot be avoided then engineered
fills should be constructed as described in Section 6.1.3.2 or as modified by the
project geotechnical engineer. If soil is to be imported to the site for constructing
engineered fills, then H&K should be allowed to evaluate the suitability of the borrow
soil source by taking representative soil samples for laboratory testing. Construction
of engineered fills with non -expansive and expansive soils are described below.
6.1.3.1 Engineered Fill Construction With Non -Expansive Soil
Construction of engineered fills with non -expansive soil should be performed as
described below.
1. Non -expansive soil used to construct engineered fills should consist
predominantly of materials less than 3 inches in greatest dimension and should
not contain rocks greater than '3 inches-':in'
nches -in greatest dimension (over sized
material): Non -expansive soil should have a plasticity index (PI) of less than or
equal to PIs 15 and a liquid limit (LL) of less than or equal to LL <_ 50 as
determined by ASTM D4318 Atterberg Indices test. Over sized materials can be
placed at or near the bottom of deep fills, but not within 3.0 feet of the finished
subgrade surface or within 2.0 feet of the foundation bottom. Deep fills are
defined as fills that are greater than 10 feet in vertical thickness. Over sized
70304-03 022310A.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 16
materials should be spread apart to prevent clustering so that void spaces are not
created. The project geotechnical engineer or project geotechnical engineer's
field representative should approve the use ' of over sized materials for
constructing fills and observe placement.
2. Non -expansive soil used to construct engineered fills should be uniformly
moisture conditioned. If the soil is classified by the USCS as coarse grained (i.e.,
GP, GW, GC, GM, SP, SW, SC or SM), then it should be moisture conditioned to
within ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. If the
soil is classified by the USCS as fine grained (i.e., CL, or ML), then it should be
moisture conditioned to between 2 to 4 percentage points greater than the ASTM
D1557 optimum moisture content.
3. Engineered fills should be constructed by placing uniformly moisture -conditioned
soil in maximum 8 -inch -thick loose lifts (layers) prior to compacting.
4. The soil should then be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.
5. The earthwork contractor should compact each loose soil lift with a tamping foot
compactor such as a Caterpillar (CAT) 815 Compactor or equivalent as approved
by our project geotechnical engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's field
representative. A smooth steel drum roller compactor should not be used to
compact loose soil lifts for construction of engineered fills.
6. The field and laboratory CPA tests should be performed consistent. with the
testing frequencies presented in Table 6.1.3.1, or as modified by the project
geotechnical engineer, to better suit the site conditions.
Table 6.1.3.1, Minimum Testing Frequencies For Non -Expansive Soil
ASTM No.
Test Description
Minimum Test Fre uenc (')
D1557
Modified Proctor Compaction Curve
1 per 1,500 CY (')
or Material Change (Z)
D2922
Nuclear Moisture Content
1 per 250 CY = 8 -In. Loose Lift By 100 -Ft. x 100 -Ft.
D3017
Nuclear Density
1 per 250 CY = 8 -In. Loose Lift B� 100 -Ft. x 100 -Ft.
Notes: (1)
CY = cubic yards.
(2)
Whichever criteria provide the greatest number of tests.
(3)
These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or decreased at the project geotechnical
engineer's discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered during grading.
7. The moisture content, density, and relative percent compaction of all engineered
fills should be tested by the project geotechnical engineer's field representative.
during construction to evaluate whether the compacted soil meets or exceeds the
minimum compaction and moisture content recommendations. The earthwork
contractor shall assist the project geotechnical engineer's field representative by
excavating test pads with the onsite earth moving equipment.
8. The prepared finished grade or finished subgrade soil surface should be proof
rolled with a fully loaded 4,000 gallon capacity water truck with the rear of the
truck supported on a double-axel, tandem -wheel, undercarriage or approved
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 17
equivalent. The min.imum tire pressure should be 65 pounds per square inch (psi).
The proof rolled surface should be visually observed by the project engineer or
the project geotechnical engineer's field representative to be firm, competent, and
relatively unyielding. The project engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's
' field representative may also evaluate the surface material by hand probing with a
'/4 -inch -diameter steel probe; however, this evaluation method should not be
performed in place of proof rolling as described in the preceding.
M6.1.3.2 Engineered Fill Construction With Lime Treated Expansive Soil
H&K did encounter moderately to highly expansive, high plasticity clay (CH) soil
at the site during our subsurface investigations. If expansive soils are encountered
during grading of the site, and if the property owner desires to use them to construct
engineered fills, then these soils should be treated as described below to improve
their engineering material properties.
This option consists of mixing non -hydrated high calcium lime (commonly referred to
as quick -lime) with the onsite expansive soil to reduce the expansive shrink -swell
behavior of the soil. H&K recommends the following lime treatment means and
methods for mitigating the moderate to high expansive soil observed at the site:
• Lime treatment should be performed beneath all structural improvements
including building, exterior sidewalks and patios, and asphalt concrete paved
driveways and parking areas. The treated soil should extend laterally to a
minimum distance of 5 feet beyond all building areas.
• Apply non -hydrated, high calcium, lime treatment to the top 24 inches of the high
plasticity CLAY (CH) soil observed at the site.
• The maximum thickness of all lime treated layers shall not exceed 12 inches
vertical. Therefore, the top 12 inches of the CH soil will need to be removed and
stockpiled on site to provide access to the underlying 12 inches of CH soil. After
lime treating and compacting the underlying 12 inches of CH soil, then the
stockpiled soil can be placed, treated and compacted over the treated soil to
achieve the design finished subgrade surface.
• The lime treatment application rate for each 12 inch thick soil layer should be
6 percent by dry weight of the soil to be treated. We assumed that the dry unit
weight of the untreated CH soil is about 110 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); therefore
the application rate of 6 percent by dry weight will require about 6:6 pounds per
square foot of lime to be applied to each 12 inch thick layer of soil to be treated.
Each application of lime should be checked prior to mixing by measuring the
weight of lime applied to a pan that is placed in line with the direction of the
applicator truck.
• Each 12 inch thick soil layer and applied lime should be uniformly mixed together
using a rototiller type mixer and then allowed -to cure for a minimum of 16 hours.
Following the 16 hour curing period the treated soil should be uniformly mixed
again and then compacted.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLOnEGE & KULL
1
1
C'
1
1
11
r
r
. Project No.: 70304-03
I February 23, 2010 .
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 18
• Each lime treated 12'inch thick soil layer should be compacted using a kneading
foot compactor. A smooth drum roller. compactor shall not be used to compact
the lime treated soil.
• Each 12 inch thick lime treated soil layer should be compacted to achieve a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry
density with the moisture content between 0 and 4 percentage points of the ASTM
D1557 optimum moisture content:
• Field and laboratory CQA tests should be performed consistent with the testing
frequencies presented in Table 6.1.3.2.A or as modified by the project engineer to
better suit the site conditions. ,
Table 6.1.3.2.A, Minimum Testing Frequencies For Expansive Soil
ASTM No. Test Description Minimum Test Fre uenc (3)
D1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Curve 1 per 1,000 CY
or Material Change (Z)
D2922 Nuclear Moisture Content 1 per 100 CY = 8 -In. Loose Lift By 60 -Ft. x 60 -Ft.
D3017 Nuclear Density 1 per 100 CY = 8 -In. Loose Lift By 60 -Ft. x 60 -Ft.
Notes: (1) CY = cubic yards.
(2) Whichever criteria provide the greatest number of tests.
(3) These are minimum testing frequencies that may be increased or. decreased at the project geotechnical
engineer's discretion on the basis of the site conditions encountered during grading.
• The prepared finished grade or finished subgrade soil surface constructed with
lime treated earth materials should be proof rolled with a fully loaded 4,000 gallon
capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a double-axel,
tandem -wheel, undercarriage or approved equivalent. The minimum tire pressure
should be 65 pounds per square inch (psi). The proof rolled surface should be
visually observed by the project engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's
field representative to be firm, competent, and relatively unyielding. The project
engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's field representative may also
evaluate the surface material by hand probing with a '/4 -inch -diameter steel probe;
however, this. evaluation method should not be performed in place of proof rolling
as described in the preceding.
• Lime treatment of the onsite moderately to highly expansive CH soil should be
performed by a qualified contractor that has a minimum of 5 years of experience
with similar lime treatment projects. H&K can provide consultation for preparation
of bid documents and for selecting a qualified contractor.
u
6.1.4 Engineered Fill Construction With Non -Testable Earth Materials
If non -testable earth materials are encountered at the site during grading, and if
these materials are used to construct engineered aerial fills and/or engineered utility
trench backfills, then a performance based (procedural) construction quality
assurance (CQA) method shall be used to evaluate the compaction work performed
by the earthwork contractor. Non -testable earth materials generally consist of
mixtures of gravels and/or cobbles with a matrix of sand, silty and/or clay materials.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
f]
1
r
r�
1
1
t
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 19
The gravel and larger particle size material content (materials retained above the
No. 4 mesh sieve) generally is greater than 30 percent by dry weight of the total
mass of the material. Use of non -testable earth materials for constructing engineered
aerial fills and engineered utility trench backfills should be approved by the project
geotechnical engineering consultant on a case-by-case basis. The performance
based compaction method and criteria to be used during large scale grading should
be determined by constructing a small test fill area for engineered aerial fills and a
small test trench section for engineered utility trench backfills. The compaction
method and CQA criteria should include the following site specific criteria:
1. Specified Compaction Equipment: We. recommend that the contractor use a
CAT815 Compactor equipped with kneading -foot wheels or an approved
equivalent for construction of engineered aerial fills and a CAT245D Excavator
equipped with a kneading -foot compactor wheel or an approved equivalent for
construction of utility trench backfills. A smooth steel drum roller compactor
should not be used to compact loose soil lifts for construction of engineered fills
with non -testable earth materials.
2. Maximum Loose Lift: We recommend that the maximum loose lift (layer)
thickness prior to compaction for both aerial fills and utility trench backfills should
-not exceed 12 -inches.
3. Moisture Content Range: We recommend that the fill material be moisture
conditioned such that the moisture content range of the matrix soil materials is
between 0 to 4 percentage points greater than. the ASTM D1557 optimum
moisture content for a compaction curve performed only on the matrix soil
material.
4. Minimum Number of Compactor Passes: We recommend that the minimum
number of specified compactor equipment passes for each loose lift coverage of
earth materials used for construction of aerial fills and utility trench backfills be 8
and 20 passes, respectively. The actual number of compactor passes should be
approved by the project geotechnical engineer or his/her representative from the
results of constructing aerial test fills and/or utility trench test fills.
5. Test Pits: At the direction of the CQA field technician, the earthwork contractor
shall periodically use his onsite' equipment to excavate test pits into the
compacted non -testable engineered fill materials. The CQA field technician will
evaluate the competency and stability of the compacted engineered fill material by
making the following observations:
• The relative difficulty of the contractor's equipment to excavate the compacted
engineered fill materials. In other words, the relative competency of the
compacted engineered fill materials to resist excavation by the contractor's
equipment.
• The presence or lack of presence and quality of imprints left in the matrix soil
materials. by the gravels, cobbles and/or rocks that were removed by the
contractor's equipment during excavation of the test trench.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
r-
1
1
1
1
r
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 20
• The presence, or lack of presence, of newly broken gravel, cobble and/or rock
materials that were sheared by the contractor's equipment during excavation
of the test trench.
• The moisture content of the matrix soil materials exposed in the test trench is
relatively uniform and is between 0 to 4 percentage points greater than the
ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
6. Proof Rolling: The prepared finished grade or finished subgrade soil surface
constructed with non -testable earth materials should be proof rolled with a fully
loaded 4,000 gallon capacity water truck with the rear of the truck supported on a
double-axel, tandem -wheel, undercarriage or approved equivalent. The minimum
tire pressure should be 65 pounds per square inch (psi). The proof rolled surface
should be visually observed by the project engineer or the project geotechnical
engineer's field representative to be firm, competent, and relatively unyielding.
The project engineer or the project geotechnical engineer's field representative
may also evaluate the surface material by hand probing with a '/4 -inch -diameter
steel probe; however, this evaluation method should not be performed in place of
proof rolling as described in the preceding.
6.1.5 Cut -Fill Transitions
H&K has not reviewed the final grading plan, however, we don't anticipate that site
conditions during construction will generate a cut -fill transition with fills greater than 1
to 2 feet thick. If this condition does occur, H&K will provide additional
recommendations to properly construct the fill pad beneath the building location so
that a cut -fill transition is not constructed that my be subject to differential settlement
in the future.
6.1.6 Cut and Fill Slope Grading
We don't anticipate that grading of cut and fill slopes will be greater than 3 feet at the
site. In general, both cut and fill slopes should be graded at a maximum slope
gradient of 2H:1 V (horizontal to vertical slope ratio). Surface water should not be
allowed to flow over the cut and fill slopes graded at the site.
6.1.7 Erosion Controls
Erosion controls should be installed as described below.
1. Erosion controls should be installed on all cut and fill slopes to minimize erosion
caused by surface water run off.
2. Install on all slopes either an appropriate hydroseed mixture compatible with the
soil and climate conditions of the site as determined by the local U.S. Soil
Conservation District or apply an appropriate manufactured erosion control mat.
3. Install surface water drainage ditches at the top of all cut and fill slopes to collect
and convey both sheet flow and concentrated flow away from the slope face.
70304-03 022310A.doc HOLDRECE & KULL
1
IProject No.: 70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion .
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 21
4. Install surface water drainage ditches on the inside of all cut and fill slope
benches to collect and convey both sheet flow and concentrated flow away from
the slopes and to designed over side drain structures.
5. The drainage swales and over side drain structures should be lined with a
minimum 2 -inch -thick gunite concrete surface, erosion mats, or other suitable
materials. Over side drains can also be designed with corrugated metal pipe that
are anchored to the slope. If over side drains are deemed necessary, then H&K
should be allowed to perform both hydraulic and structural analyses for design of
these surface water drainage control structures.
6. The intercepted surface water should be discharged into natural drainage course
or into other collection and disposal structures.
6.1.8 Soil Corrosion Potential
The selected materials used for constructing underground utilities should be
evaluated by a corrosion engineer for compatibility with the onsite soil and
groundwater conditions. H&K did not perform a corrosion potential evaluation of the
on site soil and ground water as part of our scope -of -services.
6.1.9 Subsurface Ground Water Drainage
H&K does anticipate encountering perched groundwater or the local groundwater
table during the wet weather seasons. If groundwater is encountered during grading,
then H&K should be, allowed to observe the conditions and provide site-specific
de -watering recommendations.
6.1.10 Surface Water Drainage
H&K recommends the following surface water drainage mitigation- measures:
1. Construct the portion of each building pad to a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond
the building foot print area to an elevation that is a minimum of 6 inches above the
surrounding building pad area.
2. Grade all slopes to drain away from building areas with a minimum 2 percent
slope for a distance of not less than 10 feet from the building foundations. An
increased slope gradient of 4 percent from slab subgrade should be used where
interior slab -on -grade floors are proposed.
3. Grade all landscape areas near and adjacent to buildings to prevent ponding of
water.
4. Direct all building downspouts to solid (non -perforated) pipe collectors which
discharge to natural drainage . courses, storm sewers, catchment basins,
infiltration subdrains, or other drainage facilities.
6.1.11 Grading Plan Review And Construction Monitoring
Construction quality assurance includes review of plans and specifications and
performing construction monitoring as described below.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRECE & KULL
' Project No.:70304-03
I February 23, 2010
11
e
e
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 22
1: HAK should be allowed to review the final earthwork grading improvement plans
prior to commencement of construction to determine whether our
recommendations have been implemented, and if necessary, to provide additional
and/or modified recommendations.
2. H&K should be allowed to perform construction quality assurance (CQA)
monitoring of all earthwork grading performed by the contractor to determine
whether our recommendations have been implemented, and if necessary, to
provide additional and/or modified recommendations.
3. Our experience, and that of our profession, clearly indicates that during the
construction phase of a project the risks of costly design, construction and
maintenance problems can be significantly reduced by retaining the design
geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and to
provide geotechnical engineering construction quality assurance (CQA)
observation and testing services. Upon your request, we will prepare a CQA
geotechnical engineering services proposal that will present a work scope,
tentative schedule, and fee estimate for your consideration and authorization. If
H&K is not retained to provide geotechnical engineering CQA services during the
construction phase of the project, then H&K will not be responsible for
geotechnical engineering CQA services provided by others nor any aspect of the
project that fails to meet your or a third party's expectations in the future.
70304-03 022310A.doc - HOLDREGE & KULL
t
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 23
6.2 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
Our recommended structural improvement design criteria -include: seismic design
parameters, shallow continuous strip and isolated foundations, retaining walls,
concrete slab -on -grade floors, and patios and sidewalks and asphalt concrete. These
recommendations are presented below.
6.2.1 Seismic Design Parameters
H&K used Section 1613 of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and the United
States Geological Survey (USGS), Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator,
Earthquake Ground Motion Tools, Version 5.0.9, to develop the code -based seismic
design parameters presented in Table 6.2.1:
Table 6.2.1, 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Description
Value
Reference
Latitude
39.4991 deg
USGS 7.5 minute Biggs Quadrangle Map, 1970
Longitude
121.7457 deg
USGS 7.5 minute Biggs Quadrangle Map, 1970
Site Coefficient, FA
1.355
2007 CBC, Table 1613.5.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv
1.95
2007 CBC, Table 1613.5.3(2)
Site Class (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock)
D
2007 CBC, Section 1613.5.2, Table 1613.5.2
Short (0.2 sec) Spectral Response, Ss
0.556 g
2007 CBC, Figure 1613.5(3), USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
Long (1.0 sec) Spectral Response, S,
0.225 g
2007 CBC, Figure 1613.5(4), USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
Short (0.2 sec ) MCE Spectral Response, SMs
0.754 g
2007 CBC, Section 1613.5.3, USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
Long (1.0 sec) MCE Spectral Response, SM,
0.439 g
2007 CBC, Section 1613.5.3, USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
Short (0.2 sec ) Design Spectral Response, SDs
0.503 g
2007 CBC, Section 1613.5.4, USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
Long (1.0 sec) Design Spectral Response, SD,
0.293 g
2007 CBC, Section 1613.5.4, USGS, UHRS, v 5.0.8,
2007
PGA, 10% in 50 years 475 year return period
0.124 g
USGS Interactive Deaggregation, 2002
PGA, 2% in 50 years, 2475 year return period
0.237 g
USGS Interactive Deaggregation, 2002
Notes: UHRS- Uniform Hazard Response Spectra
MCE: - Maximum Considered Earthquake
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
_X_
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 24
6.2.2 Shallow Continuous Strip And Stepped Foundations
Shallow continuous strip and stepped foundations for load bearing walls should be
designed as follows -
1. The base of all shallow foundations should bear on firm competent non -expansive
native soil, non -expansive engineered fill, or expansive engineered fill compacted
consistent with the earthwork recommendations of Section 6.1. .
2. Continuous strip foundations should be constructed with the following dimensions:
a. Minimum Width = 12 inches
b. Minimum Embedment Depth: below the lowest adjacent exterior surface grade
as shown in Table 6.2.2.
3. The allowable bearing capacities to be used for structural design of all shallow
foundations founded in either non -expansive native soil or non -expansive
engineered fill are presented in Table 6.2.2.
Table 6.2.2, Continuous Strip Foundation Maximum Bearing Pressures
Minimum Foundation
Embedment Depth
(inches)
Maximum Bearing Pressures For
Live + Dead Loads
(psf)
Maximum Bearing Pressures For
Live + Dead + Wind or Seismic Loads
(psf)
12
2,000
2,660
18
2,500
3,325
24
3,000
3,990
4. Foundation lateral resistance may be computed from passive pressure along the
side of the foundation and sliding friction resistance along the foundation base;
however, the larger of the two resistance forces should be reduced by 50 percent
when combining these two forces. The passive pressure can be assumed to be
equal to an equivalent fluid pressure per foot of depth. The passive pressure force
and sliding friction coefficient for computing lateral resistance are as follows:
a. Passive pressure = 250 (H), where H = foundation depth in feet below lowest
adjacent soil surfaces.
b. Foundation bottom sliding friction coefficient = 0.35 (dimensionless).
5. Minimum steel reinforcement for continuous strip foundations should consist of
four No. 4 bars with two bar placed near the top and two bar placed near the
bottom of each foundation or as designated by a California licensed structural
engineer.
6. The concrete should have a minimum 2,500 pounds per square inch compressive
break strength after 28 -days of curing and have a water to cement ratio from 0.40
to 0.45, and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
6 inches, respectively. Since, water is often added to 'uncured concrete to
increase workability, it is important that strict quality control measures be
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 25
employed during .placement of the foundation concrete to insure that the water to
cement ratio is not altered prior to or during placement.
7. Concrete coverage over steel reinforcements should be a minimum of 3 inches as
recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
8. Prior to placing concrete in any foundation excavations the contractor shall
remove all loose soil, rock, wood, and debris, or other deleterious materials from
the foundation excavations.
9. Foundation excavations should be saturated prior to placing concrete to aid in the
concrete curing process; however, concrete should not be placed in standing
water.
10.Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the plan
dimensions of the foundation and actual structural loading. Based on the
anticipated foundation dimensions and loads, we estimate that the total
post -construction settlement of foundations designed and constructed in
accordance with our recommendations will be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential
settlement between similarly loaded, adjacent foundations is expected to be about
1/4 inch, provided the foundations are founded into similar materials (e.g., all on
competent and firm engineered fill, native soil, or rock). Differential settlement
between adjacent foundations founded on dissimilar materials (e.g., one
foundation on soil and one on rock) may approach the maximum estimated total
settlement of 1/2 inch. Settlement of all foundations are expected to occur rapidly
and should be essentially complete shortly after the total design load has been
applied.
11. Prior to placing concrete in any foundation excavation, the project geotechnical
engineer or his/her field representative should observe the excavations to
document that the following recommendations have been achieved: minimum
foundation dimensions, minimum .reinforcement steel placement and dimensions,
removal of all loose soil, rock, wood, and debris, or other deleterious materials,
and that firm and competent native soil or engineered fill soil is exposed along the
entire foundation excavation bottom. Strict adherence to these recommendations
is paramount to the satisfactory behavior of a building foundation. Minor
deviations of these recommendations can cause the foundations to undergo
minor to severe amounts of settlement which can result in cracks developing in
the foundation and adjacent structural members such as concrete slab -on -grade
floors.
6.2.3 Shallow Isolated Spread Foundations
Shallow isolated spread foundations (i.e., square, rectangular, or circular) for column
loads should be designed as follows:
1. The base of all shallow foundations should bear on firm competent non -expansive
native soil, or either non -expansive engineered fill, or expansive engineered fill
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
L
I
ri
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 26
compacted consistent with the earthwork recommendations . presented in
Section 6.1.
2. Shallow isolated square, rectangular, or circular spread foundations should be
designed by a California licensed civil engineer with the following dimensions:
a. Minimum Width and Length or Radius:, Dimensions should be determined such
that the allowable bearing capacities presented herein are not exceeded.
b. Minimum Embedment Depth: below the lowest adjacent exterior surface grade
as shown in Table 6.2.3.
3. The allowable bearing capacities to be used for structural design of all shallow
isolated square, rectangular, or circular foundations founded in either
non -expansive native soil or non -expansive engineered fill are presented in Table
6.2.3.
Table 6.2.3, Isolated Foundation Maximum Bearing Pressures
Minimum Foundation
Embedment Depth
(inches)
Maximum Bearing Pressures For
Live + Dead Loads
(psf)
Maximum Bearing Pressures For
Live + Dead + Wind or Seismic Loads
(psf)
12
2,000
_ 2,660
18
2,500
3,325
24
3,000
3,990
4. Foundation lateral resistance may be computed from passive pressure along the
side of the foundation and sliding friction resistance along the foundation base;
however, the larger of the two resistance forces should be reduced by 50 percent
when combining these two forces. The passive pressure can be assumed to be
equal to an equivalent fluid pressure per foot of depth. The passive pressure force
and sliding friction coefficient for computing lateral resistance are as follows:
• Foundation bottom sliding friction coefficient = 0.35 (dimensionless).
• Passive pressure = 250 (H), where H = foundation depth in feet below lowest
adjacent soil surfaces.
5. Minimum steel reinforcement of all isolated square, rectangular, or circular
foundations should be designed by a California licensed structural engineer using
ASTM A615 Grade 60 billet steel.
6. The concrete should have a minimum 2,500 pounds per square inch compressive
break strength after 28 -days of curing and -have a water to cement -ration from . -
0.40 to 0.45, and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
6 inches, respectively. Since, water is often added to uncured concrete *to
increase workability, it is important that strict quality control measures be
employed during placement of the foundation concrete to insure that the water to
cement ratio is not altered prior to or during placement.
.70304-03 022310A.doc HOLDREGE & DULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 27
7. Concrete coverage over steel reinforcements should be a minimum of 3 inches as
recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
8. Prior to placing concrete in any foundation excavations, the contractor shall
remove all loose soil, rock, wood, and debris, or other deleterious materials from
the foundation excavations.
9. Foundation excavations should be saturated prior to placing concrete to aid in the
concrete curing process; however, concrete should be not placed in standing
water.
10.Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the plan
dimensions of the foundation and actual structural loading. Based on the
anticipated foundation dimensions and loads, we estimate that the total
post -construction settlement of foundations designed and constructed in
accordance with our recommendations will be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential
settlement between similarly loaded, adjacent foundations is expected to be about
1/4 inch, provided the foundations are founded into similar materials (e.g., all on
competent and firm engineered fill, native soil, or rock). Differential settlement
between adjacent foundations founded on dissimilar materials (e.g., one
foundation on soil and one on rock) may approach the maximum estimated total
settlement of 1/2 inch. Settlement of the all foundations are expected to occur
rapidly and should be essentially complete shortly after the total design load has
been applied.
11. Prior to placing concrete in any foundation excavation the project geotechnical
engineer or his/her field representative should observe the excavations to
document that the following recommendations have been achieved: minimum
foundation dimensions, minimum reinforcement steel placement and dimensions,
removal of all loose soil, rock, wood, and debris, or other deleterious materials,
and that firm and competent native soil or engineered fill soil is exposed along the
entire foundation excavation bottom. Strict adherence to these recommendations
is paramount to the satisfactory behavior of a building foundation. Minor
deviations of these recommendations can cause the foundations to undergo
minor to severe amounts of settlement which can result in cracks developing in
the'foundation and adjacent structural members such as concrete slab -on -grade
floors.
12. We do not recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be placed in direct
contact with the top surface of isolated column concrete foundations. Our
experience is that during the curing period of the concrete slab -on -grade floors, a..
significant thermal gradient may develop between the portions of the slab placed
directly on the typically more massive isolated column concrete foundations and
the portions of the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand, vapor -moisture
retarder membrane and crushed rock of the slab support layers. Additionally,
during the curing period a source of water for the bottom of the concrete
slab -on -grade floors will not be present for the portions of slab that are placed in
direct contact with the top surface of the isolated column concrete foundations,
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
—1I
L
1
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 28
unlike the portions of the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand layer. The
development of adverse thermal gradients and lack of curing water beneath
portions of the slab may cause the. development of significant orthogonal
and/or circular shrinkage cracks in the floor slab around the' isolated
column foundations.
Not Recommended
I Isolated
Slab -On -G
—u Rock Layer And
Moisture Inhibitor Layers
6.2.4 Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Recommended
A California licensed civil engineer should design all retaining walls with the following
geotechnical engineering design criteria -
1 .
riteria:
1. Retaining walls should be founded on firm competent native soil or engineered fill
soil consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.1.
2. The retaining wall should be designed by a California licensed civil engineer using
.the geotechnical engineering design parameters presented in Table 6.2.4.
3. The retaining wall backfill soil should be free draining material that meets or
exceeds the material recommendations of Section 6.2.5 and is placed and
compacted consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.2.5.
4. The static lateral earth pressures exerted on the retaining walls may be assumed
to be equal to an equivalent fluid pressure per foot of depth below the top of the
wall. The lateral pressures presented below do not include a safety factor, and
assumes a free draining backfill (no hydrostatic forces acting on the wall) and no
surcharge loads applied within a distance of 0.50H, where H equals the total
vertical wall height.
' 70304-03_022310A.doc
HOLDRECE & KULL
1
Ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 29
5. The retaining wall backfill slope shall have a slope gradient no steeper than 2HAV
(horizontal to vertical slope ratio). If a steeper backfill slope ratio is desired then
Holdrege & Kull should be notified and contracted to perform additional retaining
wall designs.
6. The retaining wall foundation excavations should be saturated prior to placing
concrete to aid in the concrete curing process. However, concrete should not be
placed in standing water.
Table 6.2.4, Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Loading Retaining Wall With
Retaining Wall With
Conditions Horizontal
Maximum 2HAV
Backfill Slope
Backfill Slope
Wall Active Pressures (pso (1) 35 H (6)
50 H
Wall Passive Pressures (pso (2) 300 H
300 H
Wall At -Rest Pressure (pso (3) 50 H)
65 H
Maximum Foundation Bearing Capacity (psf) 2,500
2,500
Live + Dead Loads
Maximum Foundation Bearing Capacity (psf) 3,325
3,325
Live + Dead + Wind or Seismic Loads
Minimum Foundation Embedment Depth in 18
18
Foundation Bottom Friction Coefficient dim. (4) 0.35
0.35
Lateral Sliding Resistance (pso (s) 130
130
Notes:
(1) The active pressure condition applies to a retaining wall with an unrestrained top (deflection allowed).
(2) The passive condition applies to a retaining wall with soil resistance at the base. If passive pressures
are used then H&K recommends that the top 1.0 feet of soil weight be ignored.
(3) The At -Rest pressure condition applies to a retaining wall with the top restrained (no deflection
allowed).
(4) Use bottom friction coefficient for granular soils (SW, SP, SM, SC, GM, and GC). If the design
horizontal resistance force acting on the wall foundation is computed by combining both the sliding
friction force and passive soil pressure force, then the larger of the two forces should be reduced by
50 percent.
(5) Use lateral sliding resistance for cohesive soils (CL, ML, MH, and CH).
(6) H = the distance to a point in the backfill soil where the pressure is desired. The H distance is
measured from the top of the wall for active and at -rest conditions and from one foot below the soil
height at the toe of the wall (See Note 2 for passive condition).
6.2.5 Retaining Wall Backfill
Place and compact all retaining wall backfill and drainage layer materials as
described below. Sub -structure retaining walls for below grade rooms, basements,
garages, elevator shafts, etc. should also incorporate a water proofing sealant as
described below. The water proofing sealant products should be installed by a
qualified waterproofing contractor. according to the manufacturer's directions. A
typical retaining wall with backfill material zones is shown below.
1. Water Proofing: Water proofing materials should be installed behind retaining
. walls prior to backfilling if retaining walls will be constructed for below grade
I70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRECE & KULL
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 30
rooms, basements, garages, elevator shafts, etc. The water proofing materials
should be installed by a qualified waterproofing contractor according to the
manufacturer's directions.
Drainage Layer: A drainage layer should be placed between the wall and backfill
material in order to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall.
Additionally, care should be taken during placement of the drainage layer
materials so as not to crush, tear, or damage the water proofing materials. The
drainage layer can be constructed from drain rock, geosynthetic drain nets or a
combination of both as described below.
• Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material Method: Place a minimum
12 -inch -thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material directly against the
wall or water proofing system (as described below) without a geotextile
wrapping to separate the backfill soil from the wall. The drainage material
should extend from the wall bottom to within 12 inches of the wall top.
• Geotextile Wrapped Drain Rock Method: Place a minimum 12 -inch -thick
layer of drain rock wrapped in a geotextile filter fabric directly against the wall
or water proofing system (as described below) to separate the backfill soil from
the wall. The drain rock should extend from the wall bottom to within 12 inches
of the wall top. A minimum 6 -ounce per square yard (oz/sy) non -woven
geotextile fabric such as GEOTEX 651 manufactured. by Propex
Geosynthetics Company, or equivalent, should be used.
' 70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
w
F
L_
1
1
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, '2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 31
• Geosynthetic Composite Drainnet (Geonet) Method: Place a geosynthetic
composite drain -net (geonet) directly against the wall or water proofing system
(as described below) to separate the backfill soil from the wall. The composite
geonet should extend from the wall bottom to within 12 inches of the wall top.
A geosynthetic composite drainnet, such a Hydroduct 200 or Hydroduct 220
distributed by Grace Construction Products or equivalent should be used.
3. Drainage Layer Collection And Discharge Pipes: A minimum 4 -inch -diameter
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) perforated drainpipe should be placed at the wall base
inside the geotextile wrapped drain rock or wrapped by the composite geonet.
Four 1/4—inch-diameter perforations should be drilled into the pipe. The
perforations should be orientated, in cross section view, at 90 degrees to one
another and along the pipe length on 6 -inch -centers. A minimum of 3 inches of
drain rock should be placed below the perforated PVC pipe. The pipe should
direct water away from the wall by gravity with a minimum 1 percent slope. The
pipe should move the groundwater collected by the drainage layer and discharge
to the surface at the end of the wall or through weep -hole penetrations through
the wall.
4. General . Backfill Placement Equipment: Heavy conventional motorized
compaction equipment should not be used .directly adjacent to the retaining walls
unless the wall is designed with sufficient steel reinforcements and/or bracing to
resist the additional lateral pressures. Compaction of backfill materials within
5 feet of the retaining wall should be accomplished by light -weight hand operated,
walk behind, and vibratory equipment. Additionally, care should be taken during
placement of the general backfill materials so as not to crush, tear, or damage -the
water proofing and/or drainage layer materials.
5. General Backfill Compaction: The retaining wall backfill material placed
between the drainage layer and temporary cut -slope should be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent and a maximum of '95 percent of the ASTM D1557
maximum dry density. If the backfill material is classified by the USCS as a
coarse-grained material (i.e., GP, GW, GC, GM, SP, SW, SC, and SM) then it
should be moisture conditioned to between ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM
D1557 optimum moisture content. If the backfill material is classified by the USCS
as a fine-grained material (i.e., CL, CH, ML, or MH) then it should be moisture
conditioned to between 0 to 4 percentage points greater than the ASTM D1557
optimum moisture content.
6.2.6 Concrete Slab -On -Grade Floors
In general, H&K recommends that subgrade elevations on which the concrete
slab -on -grade floors are constructed be a minimum of 6 inches above the elevation of
the surrounding parking driveway and landscaped areas. Elevating the building will
reduce the potential for subsurface water to enter beneath the concrete
slab -on -grade floors and exterior surfaces and underground utility trenches.
I70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
' Page 32
The concrete slab-on-grade building floors, patios and sidewalks, and driveway areas
should be evaluated by a California licensed civil engineer for expected live and dead
loads to determine if the minimum slab thickness and steel reinforcement
recommendations presented in this report should be increased or redesigned.
H&K recommends using the guideline procedures, methods and material properties
that are presented in the following ASTM and ACI documents for construction of
concrete slab-on-grade floors:
• ACI 302.1 R-04, Guide For Concrete Floor And Slab Construction, reported by ACI
Committee 302.
• ASTM E1643-98 (Reapproved 2005), Standard Practice For Installation Of Water
Vapor Retarders Used In Contact With Earth Or Granular Fill Under Concrete
Slabs.
C ASTM E1745-97 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Specifications For Plastic Water
Vapor Retarders Used In Contact With Soil Or Granular Fill Under Concrete
Slabs.
• ASTM F710-5, Standard Practice For Preparing Concrete Floors To Receive
Resilient Flooring.
6.2.6.1 Visitor Center And Office Interior Floors
' The interior office concrete slab-on-grade floor components are described below from
top to bottom. If static or intermittent live floor loads greater than 250 psf are
anticipated, then a California licensed structural engineer should design the
necessary concrete slab-on-grade floor thickness and steel reinforcements.
1. Minimum 4-Inch-Thick Concrete Slab: should be installed with a minimum 2,500
pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength after 28 days of curing. H&K
recommends that the concrete design uses a water to cement ratio between 0.40
and 0.45 and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
6 inches, respectively. The concrete mix design is the responsibility of the
concrete supplier.
2. Prior to applying construction loads, all exposed concrete slab-on-grade floors
should be moisture cured for a minimum of 7 days following placement of the
concrete. If concrete is placed during the hot summer months when the ambient
fair temperatures may be as low as 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the early
morning and in excess of 90 degrees F in the afternoon, then the contractor may
need to implement special curing measures to reduce the development of
shrinkage cracks. The concrete contractor is responsible for determining the
appropriate curing process to be applied to the slab-on-grade floor.
' Concrete Slabs In Contact With Isolated Concrete Foundations: We do not
recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be placed in direct contact with the
70304-03_022310A.dac HOLDRECE & KULL
IProject No.: 70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 33
top surface of isolated column concrete foundations. Our experience is that during
the curing period of the concrete slab -on -grade floors, a significant thermal
gradient may deve.lop between the portions of the slab placed directly on the
typically more massive isolated column concrete foundations and the portions of
the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand, vapor -moisture retarder
membrane, and crushed rock of the slab support layers. Additionally, during the
curing period a source of water for the bottom of the concrete slab -on -grade floors
will not be present for the portions of slab that are placed in direct contact with the
top surface of the isolated column concrete foundations, unlike the portions of the
slab placed over the wetted cushion sand layer. The development of adverse
thermal gradients and lack of curing water beneath portions of the slab may
cause the development of significant orthogonal and/or circular shrinkage
cracks around the isolated column foundations.
3. Steel Reinforcement: should be used to improve the load carrying capacity and to
reduce cracking caused by shrinkage during curing and from both differential and
repeated loadings. It should be understood that it is nearly impossible to prevent
all cracks from development in concrete slabs; in other words it should be
expected that some cracking will occur in all concrete slabs no matter how well
they are reinforced. Concrete slabs that will be subjected to heavy loads should
be designed with steel reinforcements by a California licensed structural engineer.
Steel Rebar: As a minimum, use No. 3 ribbed steel rebar (ASTM A615/A 615M-04
Grade 60 deformed for reinforcement in concrete), tied and placed with 18 -inch
centers in both directions (perpendicular) and supported on concrete "dobies" to
position the rebar in the center of the slab during concrete pouring. We do not
recommend that the steel reinforcements of the concrete slab -on -grade
floor be tied into the perimeter or interior continuous strip foundations or
interior isolated column foundations. In other words, we recommend that the
concrete slab -'on -grade floors be constructed as independent structural members
so that they can move (float) independently from the foundation structures.
4. Underslab Vapor -Moisture Retarder Membrane: should be placed as a floor
component that will minimize transmission of both liquid water and water vapor
transmission through the concrete slab -on -grade floor. H&K recommends using at
a minimum a Class A (ASTM E1745-97 [Reapproved 2004]), minimum
10 -mil -thick, plastic, vapor -moisture, retarder membrane material such as: Stego
Wrap® underslab vapor retarder membranes or equivalents. Additionally, the
following. materials are recommended: Stego® Tape and Stego®- Mastic or- -
equivalents to seal membrane joints and any utility penetrations.
Regardless of the type of moisture -vapor retarder membrane used, moisture can
wick up through a concrete slab -on -grade floor. Excessive moisture transmission
through a concrete slab floor can cause adhesion loss, warping, and peeling of
resilient floor coverings, deterioration of adhesive, seam separation, formation of
air pockets, mineral deposition beneath flooring, odor and both fungi and mold
I
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & MULL
I .
` Project No.: 70304-03
I February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 34
growth. Slabs can be tested for water transmissivity in areas that are moisture
sensitive. Commercial sealants, polymer additives to the concrete at the batch
plant, entrained air, flyash, and a reduced water to content ratio can be
incorporated into the concrete slab -on -grade floor mix design to reduce its
permeability and water -vapor transmissivity properties. A waterproofing consultant
should be contacted to provide detailed recommendations if moisture sensitive
flooring materials will be installed on the concrete slab -on -grade floors.
5. Minimum 6 -Inch -Thick Crushed Rock Layer: should be placed and compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with a moisture content
of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The
crushed rock should be washed to produce an ASTM D422 test particle size
distribution of 100 percent (by dry weight) passing the 3/4 inch sieve and 0 to
5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
This relatively clean (washed) crushed rock will act as a capillary break for free
water moisture transmission, as well as, provide a uniform bearing surface for the
concrete slab -on -grade floor.
6. Subgrade Soil Preparation: The subgrade soil should be prepared and compacted
consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.1. The top 12 inches of the
non -expansive soil should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percerit-of the ASTM
D1557 dry density with a relatively uniform moisture content within ± 3 percentage
points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
Prior to placing concrete and the moisture barrier membrane, but after placing the
overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade soil must be moisture conditioned to
achieve a uniform moisture content of between 2 and 6 percentage points greater
than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below
the finished subgrade surface. Moisture conditioning should be performed for a
minimum of 24 hours prior to concrete placement. If the soil is not moisture
conditioned prior to placing concrete, moisture could be wicked (transmitted) out
of the concrete by the underlying potentially dryer soil, which could cause
shrinkage cracks to develop in the concrete slab during the curing period.
Additionally, our opinion is that moisture conditioning the subgrade soil will reduce
the swell (heave) potential of fine-grained soil with moderate to high expansion
properties. Typically, concrete slabs impart relatively small loads on the order of
about 50 pounds per square foot (psf) on the underlying subgrade soil. Therefore,
some vertical movement of the concrete slab should be anticipated from possible
expansion of the underlying subgrade soil, regardless of subgrade preparation.
7. Crack Control Grooves: should be installed during placement or saw cuts should
be made in accordance with the ACI and Portland Cement Association (PCA)
specifications. Generally, H&K recommends that expansion joints be provided
between the slab and perimeter footings, and that crack control groves or saw
cuts are installed on maximum 10 -foot -centers in both directions (perpendicular).
70304-037
022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
i IProject No.: 70304-03
February 23, 2010
1
1
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 35
8. Field Observations: should be made by an H&K construction monitor of all
concrete slab -on -grade subgrade surfaces and installed steel reinforcements prior
to placing concrete.
6.2.6.2 Exterior Sidewalks And Patios
The exterior concrete slab -on -grade surface components are described below from
top to bottom. If static or intermittent live loads greater than 250 psf are anticipated,
or if heavy traffic loads are anticipated, then a California licensed structural engineer
should design the necessary concrete slab -on -grade floor thickness and steel
reinforcements.
1. Minimum 4 -Inch -Thick Concrete Slab: should be installed with a minimum
2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength after 28 days of curing.
H&K recommends that the concrete design uses a water to cement ratio between
0.40 and 0.45 and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
6 inches, respectively. The concrete mix design is the responsibility of the
concrete supplier.
2. Prior to applying construction loads, all exposed concrete slab -on -grade floors
should be moisture cured for a minimum of .7 days following placement of the
concrete. If concrete is placed during the hot summer months when the ambient
air temperatures may be as low as 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the early
morning and in excess of 90 degrees F in the afternoon,, then the contractor may
need to implement special curing measures to minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks. The concrete contractor is responsible for determining the
appropriate curing process to be applied to the slab -on -grade floors.
Concrete Slabs In Contact With Isolated Concrete Foundations: We do not
recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be placed in direct contact with the
top surface of isolated column concrete foundations. Our experience is that during
the curing period of the concrete slab -on -grade floor, a significant thermal
gradient may develop between the portions of the slab placed directly on the
typically more massive isolated column concrete foundations and the portions of
the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand, vapor -moisture retarder membrane
and crushed rock layers. Additionally, during the curing period, a source of water
for the bottom of the concrete slab=on-grade floor will not be present for the
portions of slab that are placed in direct contact with the top surface of the
isolated column concrete foundations, unlike the portions of the slab placed over
the wetted cushion sand layer. Thedevelopmerit-of adverse -thermal gradients
and lack of curing water beneath portions of the slab may cause the
development of significant orthogonal and/or circular shrinkage cracks
around the isolated column foundations.
3. Steel Reinforcement: should be used to improve the load carrying capacity and to
reduce cracking caused by shrinkage during curing and from both differential and
repeated loadings. It should be understood that it is nearly impossible to prevent
70304-03_022310A.doc = HOLDREGE & KULL
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 36
all cracks from development in concrete slabs; in other words it should be
expected that some cracking will occur in all concrete slabs no matter how well
they are reinforced. Concrete slabs that will be subjected to heavy loads should
be designed with steel reinforcements by a California licensed structural engineer.
If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the steel
reinforcements from the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons,
then there will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the
development of both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated
slabs.
Steel Rebar: As a minimum, use No. 3 ribbed steel rebar (ASTM A615/A 615M-04
Grade 60 deformed for reinforcement in concrete), tied and placed with 24 -inch
centers in both directions (perpendicular) and supported on concrete "dobies" to
position the rebar in the center of the slab during concrete pouring. We do not
recommend that the steel reinforcements of the concrete slab -on -grade
floor be tied into adjacent building perimeter or isolated column
foundations. In other words, we recommend that the concrete slab -on -grade
floors be constructed as independent structural members so that they can move
(float) independently from the foundation structures.
4. Minimum 4 -Inch -Thick Crushed Rock Laver: should be placed and compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with a moisture content
of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The
crushed rock should be washed to produce a particle size distribution of
100 percent (by dry weight) passing the 3/4 inch sieve and 5 percent passing the
No. 4 sieve and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This relatively clean
(washed) crushed rock will act as a capillary break for free water moisture
transmission, as well as, provide a uniform bearing surface for the concrete
slab -on -grade floor. However, just prior to pouring the concrete slab, the crushed
rock layer should be moistened to a saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. This
measure will reduce the potential for water to be withdrawn from the bottom of the
concrete slab while it is curing and will help minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks.
If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the crushed rock layer
beneath the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons, then there
will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the development of
both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated slabs.
5. Subgrade Soil Preparation: The subgrade soil should be prepared and compacted
consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.1. The top 12 inches of the
non -expansive soil should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the ASTM
D1557 dry density with a moisture content within ± 3 percentage points of the
ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KUL[
' Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 37
Prior to placing concrete and the moisture barrier membrane, but after placing the .
overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade soil must be moisture conditioned to
achieve a uniform moisture content of between 2 and 6 percentage points greater
than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below
the finished subgrade surface. Moisture conditioning should be performed for a
minimum of 24 hours prior to concrete placement. If the soil is not moisture
conditioned prior to placing concrete, moisture could be wicked (transmitted) out
of the concrete by the underlying potentially dryer soil, which could cause
shrinkage cracks to develop in the concrete slab during the curing period. Prior to
placing concrete, but after placing the overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade
soil must be moisture conditioned to achieve a saturation of
Additionally, our opinion is that moisture conditioning the subgrade soil will reduce
' the swell (heave) potential of fine-grained soil with moderate to high expansion
properties. Typically, concrete slabs impart relatively small loads on the order of
about 50 pounds per square foot (psf) on the underlying subgrade soil. Therefore,
' some vertical movement of the concrete slab should be anticipated from possible
expansion of the underlying subgrade soil, regardless of subgrade preparation.
' 6. Crack Control Grooves: should be installed during placement or saw cuts should
be made in accordance with the ACI and Portland Cement Association (PCA)
specifications. Generally, H&K recommends that expansion joints be provided
' between the slab and perimeter footings, and that crack control groves or saw
cuts are installed on 10-foot-centers in both directions (perpendicular).
' 7. Field Observations: should be made by an H&K construction monitor of all
concrete slab-on-grade surfaces and installed steel reinforcements prior to
pouring concrete.
6.2.6.3 Warehouse Floors
The warehouse concrete slab-on-grade surface components are described below
' from top to bottom. If static or intermittent live loads greater than 250 psf are
anticipated, or if heavy traffic loads are anticipated, then a California licensed
structural engineer should design the necessary concrete slab-on-grade floor
thickness and steel reinforcements.
1. Minimum 6-Inch-Thick Concrete Slab: should be installed with a minimum
2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength after 28 days of curing.
H&K recommends that the concrete design uses a water to cement ratio between
0.40 and 0.45 and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
' 6 inches, respectively. The concrete mix design is the responsibility of the
concrete supplier.
2. Prior to applying construction loads, all exposed concrete slab-on-grade floors
should be moisture cured for a minimum of 7 days following placement of the
concrete. If concrete is placed during the hot summer months when the ambient
air temperatures may be as low as 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the early
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
1
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms -Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 38
morning and in excess of 90 degrees F in the afternoon, then the contractor may
need to implement special curing measures to minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks. The concrete contractor is responsible for determining the
appropriate curing process to be applied to the slab -on -grade floors.
Concrete Slabs In Contact With Isolated Concrete Foundations: We do not
recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be placed in direct contact with the
top surface of isolated column concrete foundations. Our experience is that during
the curing period of the concrete slab -on -grade floor, a significant thermal
gradient may develop between the portions of the slab placed directly on the
typically more massive isolated column concrete foundations and the portions of
the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand, vapor -moisture retarder membrane
and crushed rock layers. Additionally, during the curing period, a source of water
for the bottom of the concrete slab -on -grade floor will not be present for the
portions of slab that are placed in direct contact with the top surface of the
isolated column concrete foundations, unlike the portions of the slab placed over
the wetted cushion sand layer. The development of adverse thermal gradients
and lack of curing water beneath portions of the slab may cause the
development of significant orthogonal and/or circular shrinkage cracks
around the isolated column foundations. -
3. Steel Reinforcement: should be used to improve the load carrying capacity and. to
reduce cracking caused by shrinkage during curing and from both differential and
repeated loadings. It should be understood that it is nearly impossible to prevent
all cracks from development in concrete slabs; in other words it should be
expected that some cracking will occur in all concrete slabs no matter how well
they are reinforced. Concrete slabs that will be subjected to heavy loads should
be designed with steel reinforcements by a California licensed structural engineer.
If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the steel
reinforcements from the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons,
then there will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the
development of both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated
slabs.
Steel Rebar: As a minimum, use No. 3 ribbed steel rebar (ASTM A615/A 615M-04
Grade 60 deformed for reinforcement in concrete), tied and placed with 18 -inch
centers in both directions (perpendicular) and supported on concrete "dobies" to
position the rebar in the center of the slab during concrete pouring. We do not
recommend that the steel reinforcements of the concrete slab -on -grade
floor be tied into adjacent building perimeter or isolated column
foundations. In other words, we recommend that the concrete slab -on -grade
floors be constructed as independent structural members so that they can move
(float) independently from the foundation structures.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & MULL
r
rProject No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 39
4. Minimum 6 -Inch -Thick Crushed Rock Laver: should be placed and compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with a moisture content
of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The
crushed rock should be washed to produce a particle size distribution of
100 percent (by dry weight) passing the 3/4 inch sieve and 5 percent passing the
No. 4 sieve and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This relatively clean
(washed) crushed rock will act as a capillary break for free water moisture
transmission, as well as, provide a uniform bearing surface for the concrete
slab -on -grade floor. However, just prior to pouring the concrete slab, the crushed
rock layer should be moistened to a saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. This
measure will reduce the potential for water to be withdrawn from the bottom of the
concrete slab while it is curing and will help minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks.
' If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the crushed rock layer
beneath the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons, then there
will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the development of
both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated slabs.
5. Subgrade ' Soil Preparation: The subgrade soil should be prepared and compacted consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.1. The top 12 inches of the
non -expansive soil should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the ASTM
D1557 dry density with a moisture content within ± 3 percentage points of the
ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
Prior to placing concrete and the moisture barrier membrane, but after placing the
overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade soil must be moisture conditioned to
achieve a uniform moisture content of between 2 and 6 percentage points greater
than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below
rthe finished subgrade surface. Moisture conditioning should be performed for a
minimum of 24 hours prior to concrete placement. If the soil is not moisture
conditioned prior to placing concrete, moisture could be wicked (transmitted) out
of the concrete by the underlying potentially dryer soil, which could cause
shrinkage cracks to develop in the concrete slab during the curing period.Prior to
placing concrete, but after placing the overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade
soil must be moisture conditioned to achieve a saturation of
Additionally, our opinion is that moisture conditioning the subgrade soil will reduce
the swell (heave) potential of fine-grained soil with moderate to high expansion
properties. Typically, concrete slabs impart relatively' small' loads on the order of
about 50 pounds per square foot (psf) on the underlying subgrade soil. Therefore,
some vertical movement of the concrete slab should be anticipated from possible
expansion of the underlying subgrade soil, regardless of subgrade preparation.
6. Crack Control Grooves: should be installed during placement or saw cuts should
be made in accordance with the ACI and Portland Cement Association (PCA)
1
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
t
' Project No.:70304-03
I February 23, 2010
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
bundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 40
specifications. Generally, H&K recommends that expansion joints be provided
between the slab and perimeter footings, and that crack control groves or saw
cuts be installed on 10 -foot -centers in both directions (perpendicular).
7. Field Observations: should be made by an H&K construction monitor of all
concrete slab -on -grade surfaces and installed steel reinforcements prior to
pouring concrete.
6.2.6.4 Warehouse Loading Docks
The warehouse loading docks concrete slab -on -grade surface components are
described below from top to bottom. If static or intermittent live loads greater than
250 psf are anticipated, or if heavy traffic loads are anticipated, then a California
licensed structural engineer should design the necessary concrete slab -on -grade
floor thickness and steel reinforcements.
1. Minimum 8 -Inch -Thick Concrete Slab: should be installed with a minimum
2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength after 28 days of curing.
H&K recommends that the concrete design uses a water to cement ratio between
0.40 and 0.45 and should be placed with minimum and maximum slumps of 4 and
6 inches, respectively. The concrete mix design is the responsibility of the
concrete supplier. - -
2. Prior to applying. construction loads, all exposed concrete slab -on -grade floors
should be moisture cured for a minimum of 7 days following placement of the
concrete. If concrete is placed during the hot summer months when the ambient
air temperatures may be as low as 50 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the early
morning and in excess of 90 degrees F in the afternoon, then the contractor may
need to implement special curing measures to minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks. The concrete contractor is responsible for determining the
appropriate curing process to be applied to the slab=on-grade floors.
Concrete Slabs In Contact With Isolated Concrete Foundations: We do not
recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be placed in direct contact with the
top surface of isolated column concrete foundations. Our experience is that during
the curing period of the concrete slab -on -grade floor, a significant thermal
gradient may develop between the portions of the slab placed directly on the
typically more massive isolated column concrete foundations and the portions of
the slab placed over the wetted cushion sand, vapor -moisture retarder membrane
and crushed rock layers. Additionally, during the curing period, a source of water
for the bottom of the concrete slab -on -grade floor will not be present for the
portions of slab that are placed in direct contact with the top surface of the
isolated column concrete foundations, unlike the portions of the slab placed over
the wetted cushion sand layer. The development of adverse thermal gradients
and lack of curing water beneath portions of the slab may cause the
development of significant orthogonal and/or circular shrinkage cracks
around the isolated column foundations.
70304-03_022310A.,doc HOLDREGE & KULL
r
1
A
1
1
1
r
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 41
3. Steel Reinforcement: should be used to improve the load carrying capacity and to
reduce cracking caused by shrinkage during curing and from both differential and
repeated loadings. It should be understood that it is nearly impossible to prevent
all cracks from development in concrete slabs; in other words it should be
expected that some cracking will occur in all concrete slabs no matter how well
they are reinforced. Concrete slabs that will be subjected to heavy loads should
be designed with steel reinforcements by a California licensed structural engineer.
If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the steel
reinforcements from the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons,
then there will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the
development of both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated
slabs.
Steel Rebar: As a minimum, use No. 4 ribbed steel rebar (ASTM A615/A 615M-04
Grade 60 deformed for reinforcement in concrete), tied and placed with 12 -inch
centers in both directions (perpendicular) and supported on concrete "dobies" to
position the rebar in the center of the slab during concrete pouring. We do not
recommend that the steel reinforcements of the concrete slab -on -grade
floor be tied into adjacent building perimeter or isolated column
foundations. In other words, we recommend that the concrete slab -on -grade
floors be constructed as independent structural members so that they can move
(float) independently from the foundation structures.
4. Minimum 10 -Inch -Thick Crushed Rock Layer: should be placed and compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 dry density with a moisture content
of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The
crushed rock should be washed to produce , a particle size distribution of
100 percent (by dry weight) passing the 3/4 inch sieve and 5 percent passing the
No. 4 sieve and 0 to 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This relatively clean
(washed) crushed rock will act as a capillary break for free water moisture.
transmission, as well as, provide a uniform bearing surface for the concrete
slab -on -grade floor. However, just prior to pouring the concrete slab, the crushed
rock layer should be moistened to a saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. This
measure will reduce the potential for water to be withdrawn from the bottom of the
concrete slab while it is curing and will help minimize the development of
shrinkage cracks.
If the current property owner (developer) elects to eliminate the crushed rock layer
beneath the exterior concrete slabs -on -grade for economic reasons, then there
will be an inherent greater risk assumed by the developer for the development of
both shrinkage and bearing related cracks in the associated slabs.
5. Subgrade Soil Preparation: The subgrade soil should be prepared and compacted
consistent with the recommendations of Section 6.1. The top 12 inches of the
I70304-03_022310A.doc ' HOLDRECE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 42
non -expansive soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the ASTM
D1557 dry density with a moisture content within ± 3 percentage points of the
ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
Prior to placing concrete and the moisture barrier membrane, but after placing the
overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade soil must be moisture conditioned to
achieve a uniform moisture content of between 2 and 6 percentage points greater
than the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below
the finished subgrade surface. Moisture conditioning should be performed for a
minimum of 24 hours prior to concrete placement. If the soil is not moisture
conditioned prior to placing concrete, moisture could be wicked (transmitted) out
of the concrete by the underlying potentially dryer soil, which could cause
shrinkage cracks to develop in the concrete slab during the curing period.Prior to
placing concrete, but after placing the overlying crushed rock layer, the subgrade
soil must be moisture conditioned to achieve a saturation of
Additionally, our opinion is that moisture conditioning the subgrade soil will reduce
the swell (heave) potential of fine-grained soil with moderate to high expansion
properties. Typically, concrete slabs impart relatively small loads on the order of
about 50 pounds per square foot (psf) on the underlying subgrade soil. Therefore,
some vertical movement of the concrete slab should be anticipated from possible
expansion of the underlying subgrade soil, regardless of subgrade preparation.
6. Crack Control Grooves: should be installed during placement or saw cuts should
be made in accordance with the ACI and Portland Cement Association (PCA)
specifications. Generally, H&K recommends that expansion joints be provided
between the slab and perimeter footings, and that crack control groves or saw
cuts are installed on 10 -foot -centers in both directions (perpendicular).
7. Field Observations: should be made by an H&K construction monitor of all
concrete slab -on -grade surfaces and installed steel reinforcements prior to
pouring concrete.
6.2.7 Pavement Design and Construction
Recommendations for the design and construction of Portland cement and asphalt
concrete (AC) pavements for the project site are discussed below.
6.2.7.1 Portland Cement Pavement Design
This Portland cement concrete pavement design that is based on the existing
structural section at the site which we understand has performed satisfactorily for
Lundberg Family Farm. The pavement design consists of the following components
(generally described from top to bottom):
1. 7 inch thick Portland cement concrete slab -on -grade with minimum 3,000 pounds
per square' inch (psi) concrete. Crack control grooves (saw cut or formed) should
be installed on 10 foot centers (both directions).
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
r
I
w
Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 43
2. No. 3 rebar steel reinforcements on 12 inch centers (both directions). The rebar
should be placed on 3 inch concrete dobies and centered within the middle of the
slab.
3. 12 inch thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base (AB) rock. The AB rock
should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557 maximum dry
density with a moisture content of from 0 to 3 percentage points greater than the
ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content.
4. 12 inch thick layer of compacted non -expansive subgrade soil. The
non -expansive subgrade soil should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative
compaction of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density with a
moisture content of from 0 to 3 percentage points greater than the ASTM D1557
optimum moisture content.
6.2.7.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design
H&K used the Caltrans Design Method D301 to develop several asphalt concrete
(AC) pavement and aggregate base (AB) rock design alternatives to allow for
different traffic loading conditions. H&K used a Traffic Index (TI) of from 4 to 8 which
represents typical vehicle traffic for parking lots, residential streets, collector streets,
industrial/commercial streets, minor arterial streets, major arterial streets, and truck
route arterial streets. The actual TI for the project pavement areas should be
determined in accordance with Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
H&K obtained one sample of the on-site soil and rock during our field investigation
that we anticipate will be representative of the subgrade soil for the roads, driveways
and parking areas. The R -Value test results are .included in Appendix D. Laboratory
test results indicate an R -Value of 11 for the on-site materials tested. The actual
subsurface soil conditions exposed at the finished subgrade surface of the roadways
may be different from this R -Value: Please note that the Caltrans design method
requires that the maximum R -Value of the subgrade soil not exceed 50.
H&K assumed that the pavement layers will be constructed with Class 2 Aggregate
Base Rock (Minimum R -Value = 78) and Type A Asphalt Concrete in accordance
with the requirements of Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
Table 6.2.7.2 presents the road, driveway, and parking pavement design section.
H&K recommends that the AB rock layer be constructed. with a.minimum..thickness.of.
6 -inches for constructability issues and to achieve a higher level of confidence that
the road will achieve the expected service life.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREZE & KULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
r Page 44
Table 6.2.7..2, Flexible Pavement Design
Parameters
Design Values
Traffic Description
Light
Light to Medium
Medium to
Heavy
Very Heavy
(approximate)
Automobiles
Autos and
Heavy Trucks
Trucks
Trucks
Trucks
Traffic Index TI
4
5
6
7
8
Design R -Values
Class II AB Rock
78
78
78
78
78
Subgrade Soil
11
11
11
11
11
AC Thickness (inch)(')
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
5.0
AB Rock Thickness
7.5
10.0
12.0
14.5
17.0.
(inch)(2)
(95% Relative
Compaction
Subgrade Soil
12.0
12.0.
12.0
12.0
12.0
Thickness (inch)
(95% Relative
Compaction
Notes:
(1) The asphalt concrete thickness includes the Caltrans safety factor.
(2) H&K recommends that the minimum thickness of AB rock should be 6 inches regardless of what the Caltrans design
method indicates. This minimum thickness is necessary for constructability issues and will increase the level of
confidence that the roads will achieve the expected service life
The subgrade soil and AB rock should be placed and compacted as described below
1. The subgrade soil to a depth of 12 inches from the finished grade surface should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the ASTM
D1557 maximum dry density with a moisture content of ± 3 percentage points of
the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture content. The compacted sub -grade soil shall
be graded to achieve the design grades and tolerances. The native sub -grade
shall be graded to within +0.00 -feet higher and -0.10-feet lower than the design
grade.
2. The stability of the compacted subgrade soil should be evaluated by wheel rolling
prior to placing the overlying AB rock layer. Wheel rolling should be performed
with a fully loaded water truck with tire pressures between 60 and 95 psi. The
subgrade soil surface should exhibit only minor deflections as the wheel load
passes by. Any unstable areas should be reworked and then retested for percent
relative compaction and percent moisture content and then proof rolled again.
This process should be repeated until the area appears to be relatively stable.
3. The Caltrans Class II AB rock should be compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density with a
moisture content of ± 3 percentage points of the ASTM D1557 optimum moisture
content. The aggregate base rock sub -grade surface shall be graded to within
+0.00 -feet higher and -0.05-feet lower than the design grade surface.
4. The stability of the compacted AB rock should be evaluated by wheel rolling prior
to placing the overlying AC layer. Wheel rolling should be performed with a fully
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
L
fl
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 45
loaded water truck with tire pressures between 60 and 95 psi. The AB rock
surface should exhibit only minor deflections as the wheel load passes by. Any
unstable areas should be reworked and then retested for percent relative
compaction and percent moisture content and then proof rolled again. This
process should be repeated until the area appears to be relatively stable.
5. Concrete cut-off curbs should be constructed around all landscaped areas that
are adjacent to AC paved driveways and parking areas. The curbs should extend
to a minimum depth of 8 inches into the underlying subgrade soil. The extended
curbs will reduce migration of irrigation and rain waters originating in the
landscaped areas form entering the AB rock materials underlying the AC
pavement material. This design is intended to minimize failures of the paved
areas due to saturation of the underlying AB rock and subgrade soils.
6.2.7.3 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Construction
1. Asphalt concrete (AC) pavement should be constructed as required in Section 39
of the Caltrans. Standard Specifications and these requirements.
2. Asphalt Concrete Materials: Asphalt concrete should comply with the following
criteria:
• An asphalt concrete mix design should be submitted for review and approval
by the project geotechnical engineering prior to placement of the asphalt
concrete at the site. The mix design should include the following information at
a minimum: asphalt viscosity AR grade designation, aggregate particle size
gradation (CTM202), percentage crushed particles (CTM205), LA abrasion
(CTM211), Kc, Kf and surface area (CTM303), coarse aggregate specific
gravity (CTM206) fine aggregate specific gravity (CTM208), fine aggregate
sand equivalent (CTM217), optimum asphalt content (CTM367), percent air
voids (CTM 367), stabilometer value (CTM366 and 308/309), swell (CTM305),
unit weight (CTM308), and maximum theoretical density (CTM309).
• Asphalt concrete should be'a Type "A" Medium gradation. The maximum
nominal aggregate size should be 1/2 inch for residential collector and 3/4 inch
for arterial streets. Streets that will allow speed limits greater than 45 MPH
should have a surface course with a maximum nominal aggregate size of
3/4 -inch unless otherwise directed by the project engineer. Asphalt concrete
base courses that are in excess of 2.25 -inches -thick may use a maximum
nominal aggregate size of 3/4 inches.
• Asphalt concrete samples should be taken for mixture ..verifi.cation..te.sting in
accordance with CTM 125. The location of each sample should be noted on
the test report.
• Asphalt concrete mixture verification tests should be performed at the rate of
one set of tests per each 250 -tons of AC placed and compacted. A minimum
of one test should be performed for each day of paving.
-70304-03 022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
' Project No.: 10304-03
I February 23, 2010
u
7
L
n
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 46
• The mixture tests presented in Table 6.2.7.3A should be performed on each
AC bulk sample:
3. Minimum Thickness And Grade Tolerances: The minimum AC grade thickness
and grade tolerances are described below.
• The minimum AC construction placement lift thickness should be 1'/z -inch for
'/2 -inch material and 2 -inches for 3/4 -inch material. The average finished AC
pavement thickness should be equal to or greater than the design thickness.
• Layer thickness should be verified either by continuous inspection or by
coring. If continuous visual inspection is used, a minimum lay -down thickness
of 1.25 times the design layer thickness should be used. If the thickness is
verified by coring, then randomly selected core sample will be required as
described in "Compaction Testing" below.
• The AC finished grade surface should be graded within a tolerance of
±0.25 inches.
4. Compaction Method And Criteria: The provisions in Caltrans Section 39-5.02,
"Compacting Equipment", of the Standard Specifications should apply. The
compaction method and criteria are summarized below.
• After roller compacting, the finished AC surface should.be free of coarse and
fine pockets (clusters) of voids. The handwork laid and compacted . areas
should closely match the texture of the machine laid and compacted areas. All
handwork areas should be compacted concurrently with breakdown rolling.
• No prime coat should be required. Tack coat should be applied between each
lift. All vertical edges of the asphalt concrete and adjacent concrete facilities
such as gutters, cross gutters, swales, etc. should be tack coated. If the tack
coat is scraped off or contaminated, it should be reapplied.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Table 6.2.7.3A, Asphalt Concrete Testing
Test
Method
Description
Requirement
CTM202
Sieve Analysis Of Fine And Coarse Aggregates
Operating Range And
Contract Compliance Range
CTfM304
Preparation Of Bituminous Mixtures For Testing
Not Applicable
CTM308
Bulk Specific Gravity And Density
Maximum Values
CTM309
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity And Density
Maximum Values
CTM310
Asphalt And Moisture Content')
±0.5 percent of design mix
CTM366
Stabilometer Value
Minimum = 35
CTM367
Optimum Bitumen Content
Mix Voids = 3 to 5 percent
CTM375
In -Place Density And Relative Compaction
Field Test Values
CTM382
Asphalt Binder Content0)
±0.5 percent of design mix
Note:
(1) Asphalt content may be determined by test methods CTM310 or CTM382.
3. Minimum Thickness And Grade Tolerances: The minimum AC grade thickness
and grade tolerances are described below.
• The minimum AC construction placement lift thickness should be 1'/z -inch for
'/2 -inch material and 2 -inches for 3/4 -inch material. The average finished AC
pavement thickness should be equal to or greater than the design thickness.
• Layer thickness should be verified either by continuous inspection or by
coring. If continuous visual inspection is used, a minimum lay -down thickness
of 1.25 times the design layer thickness should be used. If the thickness is
verified by coring, then randomly selected core sample will be required as
described in "Compaction Testing" below.
• The AC finished grade surface should be graded within a tolerance of
±0.25 inches.
4. Compaction Method And Criteria: The provisions in Caltrans Section 39-5.02,
"Compacting Equipment", of the Standard Specifications should apply. The
compaction method and criteria are summarized below.
• After roller compacting, the finished AC surface should.be free of coarse and
fine pockets (clusters) of voids. The handwork laid and compacted . areas
should closely match the texture of the machine laid and compacted areas. All
handwork areas should be compacted concurrently with breakdown rolling.
• No prime coat should be required. Tack coat should be applied between each
lift. All vertical edges of the asphalt concrete and adjacent concrete facilities
such as gutters, cross gutters, swales, etc. should be tack coated. If the tack
coat is scraped off or contaminated, it should be reapplied.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
I .
1
{I
1
I .
IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 47
• The temperature of the asphalt concrete when placed and ready for
compaction should not be less than 250 -degrees Fahrenheit and all
breakdown compaction should be completed before the temperature drops to
95 -degrees Fahrenheit. The atmospheric temperature should be at least 50
degrees Fahrenheit to place asphalt concrete. If asphalt concrete base is
shown on the plans, the atmospheric temperature should. be at least 40 -
degrees Fahrenheit to begin placement. Placement of asphalt concrete
materials should not commence during fog, rain, or other unsuitable conditions
as determined by the project engineer.
• The existing pavement at all cold joints should be heated with a torch prior to
placing new asphalt concrete. Joints on new pavement placed after 3 hours
should also be heated with a torch prior to placement of the adjacent
pavement.
• Areas of coarse handwork or unacceptable joints should be reheated using an
infrared heater and reworked until the work complies with these requirements.
Skin (thin) patching will not be allowed.
• Existing AC, surfaces should be cut to a neat, straight line parallel with the
street centerline and the exposed edge should be tack coated with emulsion
prior to paving. The exposed base material .should be graded and
re -compacted prior to paving.
5. Compaction Testing: Compaction testing of asphalt concrete should be
performed using both field and laboratory test methods as described below.
• Compaction testing of asphalt concrete should be performed consistent with
CTM 375 using a both a nuclear gauge and core samples. Core sample
density should be taken consistent with CTM308. If a core correlation
correction factor is applied to the nuclear test method compaction test results,
then core sample correlation test results should be provided with each set of
test material results.
• Compaction of asphalt concrete should comply with the criteria presented in
Table 6.2.7.36:
Table 6.2.7.36, Asphalt Concrete Relative Compaction Criteria
Street Area Description
CTM 309
CTM 308
Percent Compaction
Percent Compaction
Residential, Collector Or Arterial Roads
93.0%
91.5%HAverage
95.0%
Average
MinimumMinimum
Shoulders, Non -Traffic Areas And Trench
91.5%
90.0%93.5%
Patches Less Than 5 -Feet -Wide
Average
MinimumMinimum
• Asphalt concretecores should be collected at the rate of one test per
2,500 -square feet of pavement area with a minimum of 3 core samples for any
street segment or cul-de-sac. The location of each sample should be noted on
the test report. Sample location should include at a minimum the following
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDRE6E & KULL
. Project No.:70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 48
locations: 1 -foot from left lip of gutter, 1 -foot from crown (either side), and
1 -foot from right lip of gutter.
• One density test should be taken for each 2,500 -square feet of pavement area
with a minimum of 3 tests per street segment. Each street segment may be
averaged if the minimum number of tests per pavement area shown in
Table 6.2.7.3C are met.
Table 6.2.7.3C, Asphalt Concrete Pavement Testing Criteria
Pavement Area
Minimum Number Of Density Tests
0 to 5,000 -square feet so
3
>5,000-sf to 10,000-sf
5
>10,000-sf to 15,000-sf
g
Over 15,0007sf
10 or 1 per 2,500-sf (whichever is greater)
• If the average pavement compaction test results, obtained by the nuclear
gauge method, fail to meet the requirements of presented in the above, then
cores samples of the AC should be taken approximately 10 -feet away from the
original failing test location. If the average of these three tests fail to meet the
minimum compaction requirements, then the pavement area should be cold -
planed (grind) to the depth of the underlying pavement course layer or
aggregate base layer and replaced with new asphalt concrete.
• The core test results should govern when compaction is being determined.by
both core samples and nuclear gauge tests. If the average test results
obtained from. the cores fail to meet the minimum average compaction
requirement, because one specific area has low test results, then the asphalt
concrete pavement in the area of low test results should be removed and
replaced. If no one distinct area can be identified, then the entire pavement
layer should be removed and replaced for the full width. of the pavement and to
the limits of the failing areas.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 49
7 REFERENCES:
California Geological Survey (CGS) Open File Report 96-08, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, 1996.
California Geological Survey, Special Publication 43, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, 1997.
Jennings, C.W., Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages
of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology, 1994.
Saucedo, G.J., and Wagner, C.L., Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle, California,
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1992.
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
I IProject No.:70304-03
February 23, 2010
1
11
1
1
8 LIMITATIONS
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 50
The following limitations apply to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
presented in this report:
1. Our professional services were performed consistent with the generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices employed in northern California.
This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
2. H&K provided engineering services for the site project consistent with the work
scope and contract agreement presented in our proposal and agreed to by our
client. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report
apply to the conditions existing when H&K performed our services and are
intended only for our client, purposes, locations, time frames, and project
parameters described herein. H&K is not responsible for the impacts of any
changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to
completing our services. H&K does not warrant the accuracy of information
supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this report. This report is
solely for the use of our client unless noted otherwise. Any reliance on this report
by a third party is at the party's sole risk.
3. If changes are made to the nature or design of the project'as described in this
report, then the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should
be considered invalid by all parties. The validity of the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report can only be made by. our firm;
therefore, H&K should be allowed to review all project changes and prepare
written responses with regards to their impacts on our conclusions and
recommendations. However, additional fieldwork and laboratory testing may be
required for us to develop any modifications to our recommendations. The cost to
review project changes and perform additional fieldwork and laboratory testing
necessary to modify our recommendations is beyond the scope -of -services
presented in this report. Any additional work will be performed only after receipt of
an approved scope -of -work, budget, and written authorization to proceed.
4. The analyses, conclusions, an recommendations presented in this report are
based on the site conditions as they existed at the time 1-18t1< performed the
surface and subsurface field investigations. H&K has assumed that the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the location of the
exploratory trenches are generally representative of the subsurface conditions
throughout the entire project site. However,. if the actual subsurface conditions
encountered during construction are different than those described in this report,
then H&K should be notified immediately so that we can review these differences
and, if necessary, modify our recommendations.
5. The elevation or depth to the groundwater table underlying the project site may
differ with time and location. Therefore, the depth to the groundwater table
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
J
�j
F
IProject No.:70304-03
'February 23, 2010
Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Page 51
encountered in our exploratory trenches is only representative of the specific time
and location where it was observed.
6. The project site map shows approximate exploratory subsurface excavation
.locations as determined by pacing distances from identifiable site features;
therefore, their locations should not be relied upon as being exact nor located with
the accuracy of a California licensed land surveyor.
7. Our geotechnical investigation scope -of -services did not include an evaluation of
the project site for the presence of hazardous materials. Although H&K did not
observe the presence of hazardous materials at the time of our field investigation,
all project personnel should be careful and take the necessary precautions should
hazardous materials be encountered during construction.
8. Our geotechnical investigation scope -of -services did not include an evaluation of
the project site for the presence of mold or for the future potential development of
mold at the project site. If an evaluation of the presence of mold and/or for the
future potential development of mold at the site is desired, then the property
owner should contact a consulting firm specializing in these types of
investigations. Holdrege & Kull does not perform mold evaluation investigations.
9. Our experience and that of the civil engineering profession, clearly indicates that
during the construction phase of a project the risks of costly design, construction
and maintenance problems can be significantly reduced by retaining the design
geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and to
provide geotechnical engineering construction quality assurance (CQA)
observation and testing services. Upon your request, we will prepare a CQA
geotechnical engineering services proposal that will present a work scope,
tentative schedule, and fee estimate for your consideration and authorization. If
H&K is not retained to provide geotechnical engineering CQA services during the
construction phase of the project, then H&K will not be responsible for
geotechnical engineering CQA services provided by others nor any aspect of the
project that fails to meet your or a third party's expectations in the future.
70304-03_022310A.doc = HOLDREGE & KULL
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & K&LL
1
1
i�
1
1
F
u
F
LEGEND
B09-1 EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER 100 0 100 200
T10-1 EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOCATION AND NUMBER SCALE IN FEET
70304-03_FIG— 2-032310A. D WF
®HOLDREGE & KULL EXPLORATORY BORING AND TRENCH LOCATION MAP DRAWN BY: DMO FIGURE NO.:
Coh'mrm ZNCJNEM- Qmz*w= Visitor Center, Offices And Warehouse Expansion CHECKED BY: DMO
2550 FLORAL AVE., 73 Family to
Chico, California, 95973 LundbergFarms PROJ. NO.: 70304-03 2
Chic
`Phone 530-894-2487, F°' 530-894-24" 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California DATE: 2-23-10 /
I e.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Project No.: 70304-03 Lundberg Family Farms Visitor Center, Offices, And Warehouse Expansion
February 23, 1010 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
APPENDIX A:
Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services, Lundberg Farms
Commercial Office and Visitor Center (PC08.065) dated
December 16, 2008. (fee and contract agreement sections excluded),
6 pages.
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal, Lundberg Family
Farms Warehouse Expansion (PCd09-020), dated March 9, 2009 (fee and
contract agreement sections excluded), 7 pages.
70304-03 022310A.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
HOLDRE6E & KULL
(ONSULT.I.NG ENGINEERS < GEOLOGISTS
December 16, 2008
Proposal No.: PC08.065
Mr. Dave Postema
Lundberg Farms
PO Box 369
Richvale, California 95974
Phone (530) 882-4551
REFERENCE: Lundberg Farms Commercial Office and Visitors Center
Midway Avenue
Richvale, Butte County, California
SUBJECT: Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
Dear Mr. Postema,
In accordance with your request, Holdrege & Kull (H&K) prepared this proposal to
provide geotechnical engineering services for development of the above referenced
commercial office building and visitors center project. As part of our geotechnical
engineering services, H&K will prepare a geotechnical engineering investigation report
addressing the development and improvements to present our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for earthwork grading and structural improvements. The
following presents our understanding of the project and our proposed engineering
services.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located along Midway Avenue, south of the intersection with Fruitvale
Avenue, in Richvale, California. The development project will require the consolidation
of Butte County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 030-011-002, -003, -004, -023
through -029, and 029-110-027. Although, final improvement plans are not available for
review for preparation . of this proposal, H&K .understands that the proposed
improvement will entail construction of a new 27,000 square foot commercial office and
visitors center development consisting of the following: one to two story, steel frame,
concrete slab -on -grade floors, continuous spread and isolated foundations, sidewalk
areas, asphalt concrete (AC) paved roads ways and parking lots, and landscaped
areas. Earthwork grading may include general site preparation and moderate cuts and
fills required to balance the site to meet the proposed building grades.
t
Proposal No.: PC08.065 Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Service
December 16, 2008 Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on our knowledge of the area and our direct experience with similar projects
in the area, H&K anticipates the following geotechnical concerns to be present at
the site: potential expansive soil near the surface; shallow groundwater; and loose
sediments and non cohesive soil that will be prone to liquefaction during a design
based earthquake event. With those concerns in mind, H&K proposes to perform
the following tasks as basic services with no other additional services included:
Task 1 Site Investigation and Laboratory Testing, Task 2 Data Analysis and
Engineering Design, and Task 3 Report Preparation. Each task is described in the
following:
2.1 Task 1 Site Investigation
H&K will perform a site investigation to characterize the soil, rock and groundwater
conditions encountered at the surface and beneath the site to the maximum depth
explored. The site investigation information will be used to prepare geotechnical
engineering design recommendations for earthwork and structural improvements.
Our site investigation includes the following components, which are described
below: Surface Reconnaissance Investigation, Subsurface
Investigation, and
Laboratory Testing. Our surface and subsurface investigations do not include the
evaluation of the site for the presence of hazardous waste materials, groundwater
'
pollutants nor the presence of hazards included in a geologic hazards investigation
(i.e., hazards from earthquake induced faulting, shaking, landslides, settlement,
tsunamis, and sieches, nor hazards from flooding, volcanic activity, naturally
occurring asbestos, past and present mining activities, and compressive
and
expansive soils). If a complete geologic hazards evaluation is needed, H&K can
revise our proposal to include the hazards listed above.
'
2.1.1 Surface Reconnaissance Investigation
H&K will perform a surface reconnaissance of the project site to identify surface
conditions that may impact the proposed site development In H&K's
plans. general,
field engineer/geologist will observe and describe surface exposures of the following .
'
existing site conditions:
• Site and surrounding land uses.
• Surface soil conditions..
• Existing site improvements including earthwork grading and structures.
• Site topography and drainage.
• Vegetation.
2.1.2 Subsurface Investigation
A minimum of 48 hours prior to performing the subsurface investigation H&K will
mark the proposed subsurface exploratory locations with white paint and notify
Underground Services Alert (USA) as required by California state law. USA
Imembers
will inspect each proposed subsurface exploratory location to determine if
any underground utilities are present at these locations. The property owner is
'
Z:IPROPOSALILundberg FarmsIPC08.065_121608.doc H O L D R E G E& KU L L
t
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
Proposal No.: PC08.065 Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
December 16, 2008 Page 3
responsible for marking all known utilities inside the subject property. If USA
identifies the presence of underground utilities at any of the proposed exploratory
locations then we will move the excavation location to an area that is clear of
underground utilities.
H&K will perform a subsurface investigation to obtain an understanding of the soil,
rock and groundwater conditions underlying the project site to the maximum depth
excavated. Up to a maximum of 4 exploratory borings will be advanced using a
hollow stem auger drill rig, capable of converting to mud rotary drilling if loose,
flowing sands are encountered. Each boring will be excavated to a depth of 20 to
40 feet below the existing surface or until refusal is encountered, which ever occurs
first. H&K will attempt to locate the exploratory borings'at the approximate location
of the proposed building corners, heavy column loads, and parking lot and roadway
areas. Each exploratory boring will be backfilled immediately after logging and
sampling activities are completed using drill cuttings.
H&K' field engineer/geologist will collect both relatively undisturbed and disturbed
soil samples from each exploratory boring. Relatively undisturbed soil samples will
be collected with a 2.5 -inch -diameter (inside diameter) split -spoon barrel sampler
equipped with brass liner tubes. In addition, Standard Penetration Testing will be
performed using the appropriate size sampler driven into the ground using a. 140 -
pound drill hammer with a 30 -inch drop. Blow counts per ever 6 -inch intervals
driven will be recorded. Generally, soil samples and SPT sampling will be
performed at 5 -foot interval depths below the existing ground surface until the
boring is terminated. Additional soil samples may be collected and/or the sample
intervals may be changed depending upon the soil conditions encountered. The
soil samples will be labeled, sealed, and transported to our laboratory facility where
selected samples will be tested to determine their engineering material properties.
If the groundwater table is encountered, the depth to groundwater below the
existing ground surface will be measured.
2.1.3 Laboratory Testing Investigation
H&K will perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples to determine their
engineering material properties. All laboratory tests will be performed consistent
with the guidelines of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The
ASTM soil characterization tests may include:
• D2487, Unified Soil Classification System
• D2488, Soil Description Visual Manual Method
• D2937 & D2216, Density and Moisture Content
• D422, Particle Size Distribution, Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
• D3080, Direct Shear Strength
• D4767, Consolidated -undrained triaxial shear strength
• D4318, Atterberg Plasticity Indices
• D2435, One-dimensional consolidation
Z:IPROPOSALILundberg FarmsIPC08.065-121608.doc
HOLDRECE & KULL
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
Proposal No.: PC08.065 Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
December 16, 2008 Page 4
• D4546, One-dimensional swell
• D4829, Expansion Index
• D2844, Resistance Value (R -Value)
2.2 Task 2, Data Analysis and Engineering Design
H&K will use the state -of -the practice geotechnical engineering analyses methods
to evaluate the on-site soil properties. These analyses methods may include but
will not be limited to the following:
2.2.1 Data Analysis Methods
• Soil and rock stratigraphy.
• Liquefaction in accordance with California Special Publication 117 and
ASCE 31-03.
• Soil bearing capacity for shallow and deep foundations.
• Lateral earth pressures.
• Soil -Concrete friction coefficients.
• Soil shear strength.
• Soil plasticity indices.
• Soil expansion potential.
• Building and surcharge loads.
• Groundwater seepage and drainage controls
• Pavement design for driveway and parking areas
H&K will develop geotechnical engineering design recommendations for earthwork
and structural improvements and provide applicable recommendations. The
geotechnical engineering design recommendations may include but not be limited to
the following:
2.2.2 Earthwork Improvement Recommendations
• Site clearing and soil subgrade preparation.
• Cut slope and fill slope geometries.
• Exclusion of over size fill soil materials.
• Aerial fill moisture conditioning and compaction requirements.
• Fill soil loose lift (layer) thickness requirements.
• Utility trench backfill material placement and compaction requirements.
• Retaining wall backfill material specifications.
• Retaining wall drainage.
• Surface water drainage.
• Expansive soil mitigation (not including lime, flyash or cement treatment details).
• Temporary construction de -watering methods.
Z:IPROPOSALILundberg FarmsIPC08.065-121608.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
6
Proposal No.: PC08.065 Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
December 16, 2008 Page 5
• Subdrain systems (if necessary).
2.2.3 Structural Improvements
• Shallow foundation types, dimensions and embedment depths.
• Shallow foundation soil bearing capacity pressures.
• Foundation -soil sliding friction coefficients.
• Concrete slab -on -grade floors.
• Cantilever retaining wall lateral earth pressure coefficients.
• Cantilever retaining wall foundation dimensions and embedment depths.
• Design criteria for roads and parking lot area asphalt concrete pavement.
• Seismic (earthquake shaking) design parameters.
2.3 Task 3 Report Preparation
H&K will prepare a geotechnical engineering report that will present our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations. Our geotechnical engineering investigation
report will meet or exceed the requirements of the 2007 California Building Code
and the accepted geotechnical engineering principals and practices performed in
northern California. This report will include descriptions of the site conditions, field
investigation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering design
recommendations for the proposed earthwork and structural improvements. The
report will also include a site plan showing the approximate locations of the
exploratory borings, proposed building, parking lot areas, and property boundaries.
The report appendices will present the exploratory boring logs and laboratory test
data.
H&K will deliver four bound copies of the final report to the address shown on page
one of this proposal. The report will be signed and stamped a responsible
California licensed civil engineer for this project.
3.0 SCHEDULE
Our proposed work schedule is based on our present and expected workload. H&K
is prepared to commence work on this project following receipt of a sign contract
and notice to proceed. H&K understands that time is of the essence in the
performance of this work; therefore, we will perform our field investigation within two
weeks of receiving authorization to proceed, weather and subcontractor availability
permitting. H&K can provide verbal preliminary design recommendations
immediately following the site investigation based on the field investigation data;
however, the final recommendations will be developed -from .both the field and
laboratory data. Therefore, the final recommendations will govern the design. The
final report will be submitted within three weeks following completion of our field
investigation.
The time required to complete our geotechnical investigation field work may be
increased as a result of encountering unforeseen subsurface conditions, adverse
ZVROPOSALILundberg FarmsIPC08.065_121608.doc H O L D R E G E& K U L L
4
1.
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
r
Proposal No.: PC08.065 Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
December 16, 2008 Page 6
weather conditions, soil stability, property access agreement delays or issues, or
scheduling of exploratory equipment.
4.0 COST ESTIMATE
H&K proposes to perform the geotechnical investigation for a lump sum cost of
$ , in accordance with the attached 2008 fee schedule and contract
agreement terms and conditions. This fee includes the cost of an excavator and
operator. A retainer of approximately 50% is required prior to initiating work. Full
payment is due upon completion of the work and issuance of the report.
This cost estimate may require modification if unusual or unexpected site conditions
are encountered which significantly change the work scope and increase the
associated costs, if the client requests an expansion of the work scope, or if Butte
County requires the purchase of any permits. H&K will not perform additional work
outside the scope of services presented above until a written authorization to
proceed and an approved budget augmentation is received.
4.0 CLOSING
Please sign two copies of the attached contract agreement form to indicate your
acceptance of this proposed work scope, schedule and fee estimate. Return the
original signature copies to H&K along with the retainer in the amount of
$ . Your signature indicates that you accept the terms and conditions of this
contract agreement and is a written authorization for us to proceed with the work
scope presented in this proposal. Please mail or email the signed contract
agreement form to our office. After receiving the signed agreement form, H&K will
sign and issue the fully executed contract agreement.
Holdrege & Kull appreciates the opportunity to provide you with a proposal on this
important project. If you should have questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned at (530) 894-2487.
Sincerely,
Holdrege & Kull
Shane D. Cummins PG CHG
Cummings, ,CEG
Operations Manager/Engineering Geologist
.Attachments:
Attachment 1, Holdrege & Kull 2008 Fee Schedule
Attachment 2, Terms & Conditions Contract Agreement Form
ZAPROPOSAOLundberg FarmsWC08.065_121608.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
1
March 24, 2009
Proposal No. PCd09-020
HOL®RECH & KULL
fONSULTING ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS
• The proposed warehouse expansion will consist of a new 37,175 square foot area
building that will be added onto the south side of the existing warehouse and a
7,200 square foot truck loading dock area.
• The new warehouse expansion area will be a single story structure that will be
constructed with concrete tilt -up walls and a concrete slab -on -grade floor and the
new loading dock will have a concrete slab -on -grade floor:-
• The compacted aggregate base (AB) rock and underlying soil fill pad that is si-
tuated on the south side and outside of the existing warehouse "footprint' for a
Phone: 530-894-2487 a Fax: 530-894-2437 a 2550 Floral Avenue, Suite 10 o Chico, CA.; 95973 e A California Corporation
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN-032409A.DOC Holdrege & Kull
1
i
Dave Postema
Lundberg Farms
"
5370 Church Street
P.O. Box 369
Richvale, California, 9597470369
Phone. 530-882-4551, Fax: 530-882-4500
Email: dpostema@lundberg.com
REFERENCE: Warehouse Expansion
5370 Church Street, Richvale, California
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal
Dear Dave,
In accordance with your request as a representative of Lundberg Farms (LF), Hol-
drege & Kull
(H&K) prepared this proposal to provide geotechnical engineering ser-
vices for expansion of the existing warehouse at the above referenced property. As
part of our geotechnical engineering services we will prepare an addendum report to
our February 19, 2009 "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report" to supple-
ment our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical engineering recommendations for
general earthwork grading, and structural improvements. The following presents our
understanding of the project and our proposed work scope, schedule, fee, profes-
sional service agreement and closing statement:
1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Based on our March 19, 2009 site meeting to discuss the proposed warehouse ex-
pansion and a review of the preliminary expansion plans, we understand that the
project will consist of the following:
• The proposed warehouse expansion will consist of a new 37,175 square foot area
building that will be added onto the south side of the existing warehouse and a
7,200 square foot truck loading dock area.
• The new warehouse expansion area will be a single story structure that will be
constructed with concrete tilt -up walls and a concrete slab -on -grade floor and the
new loading dock will have a concrete slab -on -grade floor:-
• The compacted aggregate base (AB) rock and underlying soil fill pad that is si-
tuated on the south side and outside of the existing warehouse "footprint' for a
Phone: 530-894-2487 a Fax: 530-894-2437 a 2550 Floral Avenue, Suite 10 o Chico, CA.; 95973 e A California Corporation
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN-032409A.DOC Holdrege & Kull
1
i
1
1
n
1
r
1
I
11
Proposal No. PCd09.020
March 24, 2009
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal.
Warehouse Expansion,5370 Church Street, Richvale, Ca.
Prepared For Lundberg Farms
Page 2 of 6
distance of about 80 feet will be evaluated to determine whether it is suitable for
supporting the proposed warehouse expansion building.
• H&K will develop supplemental foundation and concrete slab -on -grade geotech-
nical engineering recommendations for the entire 200 foot expansion area to the
south of the existing building, which includes the existing compacted aggregate
base (AB) rock and underlying soil.
The following presents our proposed work scope, schedule, fee, professional servic-
es agreement, and closing statement:
2, = WORK SCOPE
We propose to perform the following tasks as basic services with no other additional
services included: Task 1 Geotechnical Engineering Site Investigation, Task 2 Data
Analysis and Engineering Design, and Task 3 Report Preparation. Our work scope is
intended for purely engineering purposes and does not address the following issues:
mold, fungi, hazardous waste, radon gas, and asbestos. If any of these issues are
encountered at the site, then you should contract separately for these services with a
firm or firms that specialize with these issues. Our work scope also does not address
ground water pollutants nor the presence of hazards that are normally addressed in a
geologic hazards investigation report (i.e., earthquake induced fault ruptures, shak-
ing, liquefactions, tsunamis and seiches; landslides; settlement; volcanic activity; and
highly compressible and expansive soil). If the site conditions warrant the need to
perform a geologic hazards investigation, then we will prepare a geologic hazards
investigation proposal for your review. We will not perform a geologic hazards inves-
tigation until we receive your written authorization to proceed with our separate pro-
posed work scope consistent with our schedule and fee estimate.
Prior to conducting our site investigation, we will need detailed copies of the site par-
cel map showing the property boundaries, County parcel number(s) and a copy of the
conceptual development and grading plans showing proposed grades and topogra-
phy, and improvements including roads, drive way and building foundation floor plans
(if available). If available we would like to have the electronic AutoCAD (ACAD) files
for the site so that we can prepare a site investigation map that shows our subsurface
exploratory locations. With the preceding in mind, we prepared the following work
scope task descriptions for development of the above referenced project site:
Task 1 Geotechnical Engineering Site Investigation
We will perform a geotechnical engineering site investigation -to characterize the soil, - - - - -
rock and ground water conditions encountered at the surface and beneath the site to
the maximum depth excavated. The site investigation information will be used to
prepare geotechnical engineering design recommendations for earthwork and struc-
tural improvements. Our site investigation includes the following components which
are described below: surface reconnaissance investigation, subsurface soil investiga-
tion, and laboratory testing.
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN_032409A.DOC Holdrege & Kull
Proposal No. PCd09-020
March 24, 2009
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal.
Warehouse Expansion,5370 Church Street Richvale, Ca.
Prepared For Lundberg Farms
Page 3 of 6
t
Subtask 1.1 Surface
Reconnaissance Site Investigation
We will perform a surface reconnaissance of the project site to identify surface condi-
tions that may impact the proposed site development plans. In general, we will ob-
serve and describe surface exposures of the following existing site conditions:
• Site and surrounding land uses.
• Surface soil conditions.
• Existing site improvements including earthwork grading and structures.
• Site topography and drainage.
• Vegetation.
Subtask 1.2 Subsurface Site Investigation
We will perform a subsurface investigation to obtain an understanding of the soil,
rock and ground water conditions underlying the project site to the maximum depth
excavated. Our subsurface investigation will include the following:
tSubsurface
Soil Investigation: We will perform geotechnical engineering oversight
for excavating a maximum of six exploratory trenches at the site. We understand
that Lundberg Farms will provide a backhoe and operator at no cost to H&K to
excavate the exploratory trenches. The exploratory trenches will be excavated as
follows:
• We anticipate that three exploratory trenches will be excavated to a maximum
depth of about 10 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) on the east, west
and south sides of the proposed warehouse, but outside the proposed warehouse
footprint area.
• The other three exploratory trenches will be excavated through the existing com-
pacted fill soil situated inside the proposed warehouse footprint area to a distance
of about 80 feet south of the existing warehouse building. The relative percent
compaction of the existing compacted soil will be measure with a portable nuclear
moisture -density gauge to a maximum depth of about 2 feet bgs.
An H&K geologist or engineer will prepare field logs that describe the soil, rock and
ground water conditions encountered at each subsurface exploratory location. The
H&K geologist or engineer will take disturbed bulk soil samples from the exploratory
trenches. The soil samples.will be labeled, sealed and transported to.our.laboratory
facility where selected samples will be tested to determine their engineering material
properties. If the ground water table is encountered, then we will measure its depth
below the existing ground surface.
Each exploratory boring will be backfilled after logging and sampling activities are
completed with the excavated soil in a loose and uncompacted state. It should be
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN_032409A.DOC Holdrege 8 Kull
t
Proposal No. PCd09-020
March 14, 2009
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal.
Warehouse Expansion,5370 Church Street Richvale, Ca.
Prepared For Lundberg Farms
Page 4 of 6
u
I "I
noted that the uncompacted exploratory trenches backfill will be susceptible to set-
tlements on the order of several inches to a few feet. We will also show the approx-
imate locations of the exploratory trenches on our report site plan figure so that the
earthwork contractor can remove the uncompacted trench backfill material and then
place and compact it back into the trench.
Subtask 1.3 Laboratory Testinq Investigation
We will perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples to determine their geotech-
nical engineering material properties for earthwork and structural improvements. All
laboratory tests will be performed consistent with the guideline procedures of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The ASTM soil characterization
tests may include:
• D1557, Modified Proctor Compaction Curve
• D2487, Unified Soil Classification System
• D2488, Soil Description Visual Manual Method
r `
Task 2 Data Analyses and Engineering Design -
We will use the state -of -the -practice geotechnical engineering analyses and design
methods to evaluate the on-site soil properties. The geotechnical engineering design
recommendations may include but will not be limited to the following:
• Evaluate the relative compaction of the existing compacted fill pad area.
• Compare field and laboratory test data with those of the February 19, 2009 "Geo-
technical Engineering Investigation Report" prepared by H&K for the proposed
commercial office and visitor center buildings.
• Prepare supplemental design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls,
and concrete stab -on -grade floors.
Task 3 Supplemental Report Preparation
We will prepare a supplemental geotechnical engineering report that will present our
findings, conclusions and recommendations. This report will include descriptions of
the site conditions, field investigation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineer-
ing design recommendations for the proposed earthwork and structural improve-
ments. The report will also include a site plan showing property boundaries, approx-
imate locations, subsurface exploratory locations, and proposed building- The report
appendices will present the subsurface exploratory logs, and both laboratory and
field test data.
We will deliver four bound copies of the final report to the address shown on page
one of this proposal and will also email a secured PDF formatted copy. The report
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN_032409A.DOC Holdrege & Kull
u
I "I
Ll
s
11
1
t
E
1
Ll
t
Ll
Proposal No. PCd09-020
March 14, 2009
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal.
Warehouse Expansion,5370 Church Street, Richvale, Ca.
Prepared For Lundberg Farms
Page 5 of 6
will .be signed and stamped by the responsible California licensed civil engineer for
this project.
3 - SCHEDULE
Our proposed work schedule is based on our present and expected workload. Pre-
sently, we are prepared to commence work on this project with five working days
from receipt of a copy of our signed professional services agreement and retainer
fee. Our proposed schedule is summarized below using normal 8 hours per day
workdays from Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. We estimate that our
geotechnical engineering report will be completed about 5 working days after start of
the site investigation fieldwork.
Proposed Work Schedule Estimate
Task No.
Description
Duration
(working days)
1
Geotechnical Engineering Site Investigation
Includes Field And Laboratory Work
2
2
Data Analysis
2
3
Supplemental Report Preparation
1
TOTAL
5
We can provide verbal preliminary design recommendations immediately following
the site investigation on the basis of the field investigation data; however, the final
recommendations will be developed from both the field and laboratory data. There-
fore, the final recommendations will govern the design.
The time required to complete our geotechnical investigation fieldwork may be in-
creased as a result of encountering unforeseen subsurface conditions, adverse
weather conditions, property access problems, and scheduling of exploratory equip-
ment (i.e., exploratory excavating equipment and operators).
4 -FEE
We will perform the work scope presented in the preceding consistent with our 2009
Fee Schedule or fee schedule applicable at the time the work is performed for a
lump sum (fixed -fee) amount of $XXXX. Our 2009 Fee Schedule is included as
Attachment No. 1. The costs to perform the work scope described in this proposal
are summarized below and are itemized in Attachment 2 (Project Cost Summary).
We reserve the right to move funds between tasks provided that we do not exceed
the total fee estimate for the project. We will make every reasonable effort to keep
our costs to a minimum.
PCD09-020_RPTVRSN_032409A.DOC Holdrege & Kull
L,
t
'I
11
e
e
r
Proposal No. PCd09.020
March 24, 2009
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposal.
Warehouse Expansion,5370 Church Street, Richvale, Ca.
Prepared For Lundberg Farms
Page 6of6
Cost Estimate Summary
Task
No.
Description
Estimated Cost
Without Backhoe And Operator
1
Site Investigation
$XXXX
2
Data Analysis
$XXXX
3
Supplemental Report Preparation
$XXXX
TOTAL
$x)(XX
This' fee estimate may require modification if unusual or unexpected site conditions
are encountered which significantly change the work scope and increase the asso-
ciated costs, if the client requests an expansion of the work scope, or if the County
and/or City require the purchase of other unforeseen permits. We will not perform
any additional work until we receive a written authorization to proceed and an ap-
proved budget augmentation.
5 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FORM
Please sign the first page of the professional services agreement form (PSAF) in-
cluded as Attachment 3 to indicate -your acceptance .of this proposed work scope,
schedule, and lump sum fixed fee. Your signature indicates that you accept the
terms and conditions of this professional services agreement and is a written authori-
zation for us to proceed with the work scope presented in this proposal. Please fax
and mail a signed copy of the entire PSAF to:
Office Fax: 530-894-2487
Office Address: 2550 Floral Avenue, Suite 10, Chico, California, 95973
Upon receipt of the signed PSAF and retainer fee we will mail you a counter signed
copy of the entire PSAF.
6 - CLOSING STATEMENT
Please call me at 530-362-2761 if you have any questions or need additional infor-
mation. Thank you for selecting Holdrege & Kull to prepare a proposal to provide
geotechnical engineering services for this important project.
Sincerely,
Holdrege & Kull
Donald M. Olsen, R.C.E. 49514
Principal
PCD09-020-RPTVRSN_032409A. DOC
Holdrege & Kull
F'GD09-020_RPTVRSN_031409A.DOC Holdrege 8 Kull
r
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & KULL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4r Y; c Rewill
M rj
1
4: ::(r „ :.:d= J d r tic o-1;,
=> F :ti
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geoleehnial enaine-ers structure gleir :FiCss to m:, l the so—ii
ie nu ds Of
i . neif cl i nes. ; geolerhniai engine=fang s lid;' Cor1ou. ari r i0f 2 GI'Jll e:l0i
netir fray riot fulfill the naeds of a consirudion contractor or even anolhe,
rl'Vil enolneef. Bec--aFJse each geotechnical engin- fingstudy Is unieue, each
g=oiechnial engin:—wing report is uniQUe, prepared Sole/!'for the client. NO
one except you should rely on your o8olfechnicaal engineering feporl %vilh€iut
iirst coftiefrin0'l;itn the geotechnical engineer viho .prep?re.1 it. tJ?d no one
—not civil you —should apply iii° report for an1,1 purpose car proiel
cxceol the One originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious prcibl ams have Occurred Gi-cause those relying on a Oc:?lnChni':ci
ef!g(i!=_ring ienori did not fe d it ?i!. Do not rely Fon aft exec ii'.'e sUmiTa r.
Do no! feed SOI €:ie0 elaiinents Only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
deo`, lini= i1-5lain==9fs cOnsidef a number Or unique, pr01"ccf-spzciiic i; -IC
iofs ell estal lishinca iii', scope Oi a stud"ivoii,31 f .ri0fs inciu de: the
�.
r..iieni's Hals, oi;i=_lives. ,rid ri 1, rnafimprnent crefe:renFc s: lite genef31
naillfe Of the sifuF_lufv i ;:dol ed, its siZe. cfFd conii u iioii; s e toCalion Cr,
the- :viiuclufe On tiie site; and Olti_r 913nn_d Or existit g sit= 1tTtpfOir.=1i'nts:
Urn a..-Cr,ESs ro?di 03rki;0 lot=. cid UFit"sarFdfO!!fFd Ufili Jrll= s the
"i vi -
ge0tcciini[., ..rlO cOndUtacO ifi3 si ! ;r C'1-" :,r i :r ;- _: - -
10 � ;;
7 ..L.>z F
�i � ,
vin
c. !J—`a. 0o not rt; i'tr 0n a � sate£nni� °riO±P: reit f pc£fi ti -1,:t vs:
° not piep fled lair - 1_t;ir profit. -c'•.
not. Preoarzd, for the sat. ,i lc s!tc "nolofed, Ofi
° ornpletvd Cnlofe iflip01131rit oroieti cliang-es i'f3re fji Fd'e.
1y'Dic-1 chang°'s that e{cc'a the f -r;_. F . .
.r„Oiairf Oran ..:�:istiFg 0c:01�.lte,al
cft"u- fFe'-°firiF3 i=pori inclUdt Iftse that at"i ct:
° til- .U{icti0n Of fileor000s_:d slruc ue_ as t, ;done
p-3{":lFlg garage tl ? % oi!iCm building, or from a light induciriai plcrit
to 3 r rftU'ra,ed.,lei:-.n
° el '-:?lion; coniiOUration, lonation. Orientation, Or ,v ighi of the
proposed strucluie,
• c ,nlp sition of the cdeSion taarn. or
° ,j ro;ac* o.1.1 ers,t!p.
tis a general rule, "l;i jrS 10 Orm yO±ur g,W.E hnical anairiner of oroiect
changesven minor cries —and rauF_st an %ssessmef t Of their impzci.
- L f ??
�;;:U?� i7?11C1(5±7lR:,•.fS!=liift0! 2ly,ejJi r"-pt71SiLli11'Of ii3L771%±j,1Ti PicL7iv;7?S
r3% off-tfi F e,:,ayS? ii7;tf fe.Do s 0 riot considEi OS: e-1Gpinc-nis of i{ Wen,
not 11110117760'
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
H OHieiitfiiCsl engineerinF7 report is based on conditions tial a%istcd at
the iinle the study vias perionll d. Do not fel,- on a y r :: r±ziz; ! evoinc= -
in, ;r7(?rt .vhose adequacy rnaV have b;z n elle-ied h4' llh assace Oi
lime: by Fran-1113de -- rents; sucil a's contz4uclOn On Oi 'dif vfit t0 ti't±e sit?;
Of b.1 _
nattrt3l e�=eni:. such as ii0ods. ;:3i h1U3keS. Of gf0UndY,3t=f flUctLi?-
tri" 0eoiechn;rai engifFs_r 0?'i!?R': a 1c=is�(ng ItFa fe 10
^l
It; deierTifie if it is S511 reliable. ft IiFill'Ji .a' OUnt of 3d=diti3rF:tt istifi0 Of
af±akisis could ofe ant major pfobl_ms.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Sil-3 i;xVorafion!d haites Sub_Ji ;•r -e =€nc ili.ons only at 'h_s pnin`i
s �-lhere:
sll is1inace i is ai C d._ ?r i ?'•. . G_ .^hnii 1 _tial
es c OR 'C e:j drip.---:� 2{ t.: en "r;' 2
nr—crs f— :ev,,
!v'id and .i'.
lab-maloiry daLa and . r.,.i �_�"� p1;' their prtJiis5it]
�.,.i
IUdom 7i to rants;.,, 3n, oo,nion about sflbsu 3c3 conditions flnroughout file
sit_. , ciU,a1 sUb_t!ii=Ce S_ EdiJons tilc`r' a ``{—s;trFit _:`ir -; g n itiy—
�'{l� IiF• H1�3i
from the:=e ifidicaied in Your rcporl. Retaining iter icot=Mils-±1 3i anJifiHI
.,`h0 r e. toned y ur r r; � provide is t
` y vpo. -t., prJ.l,:�• c"nsiri1c1101 OO=i={ 1atlOri !s the
triose -ii ctiv {neth+ d Of 1 >an331nO the risks ass&dated rr ilh 1 nti'
condili ins.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do Plot overrely On rnv Fi o-ni-s!fuctifn f iFfal " 5: dad :n F'uf
C 1J :IS !f _
f?Co1i. l P S� lr cin iP.:i1:d=°'o is aria noi f?Pal: b= 'use O Oteci iinl 1 -fiJi
neers O-'.•'e10P fh .rl r!nclp3lly Irofll OOgff± "t and Fl. i- rel .&c
- F R , i � _u.ni_F . Geut__trn:i
enaine=.rs can iinak, :11heir :heironly. by OC-1_cf ;lulu -ciLa
Ll
1
1
n
subsurface conditions fe ealvd during conSlructi
dn. >nC g,.otechn!
;agincz r t"'ho dC^ t'c1ooU-? Ilour'cot ' i t��TrnO? a"SSU'?i° i ESr OnSl�i)1!�� Or
1'iabilil't' for the repolt S rt comm- nd tions .: ihai en i:� r Gu S nJt �Gr
ri
C.riliShUGtion oLlseprVion.
A Geotechnical Engineeping Report is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Gt
s. _ " r ds-sion team members' €Ttisinit- r i i!C+n or CeOt ?lniCa) Fng!i1Li!nU"
"oGrts iss fe culled in Cosli , blc:11S. L + . ti++ v'
p'" c.' �f et nS Gr ilZirin_ �L?!i g o
=finical n0in_vr cGnier vtith aopfopri=;c :;t na,,s ,# the desion fc:gym alter
5U lli lino the
report. 1s0 (;Toth your OE+;Iet fi iLa# ; rlV. He 40 iCViEtt' i
perf-
ncnf elements 07 the desion ic?m's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also :itlslnterpiel a ycoi lnicc'I v1Uin fine, report. Reduce ih3l nisi; by
tlu:iny t,+ouf oeotncfinical engin tar parficipale in pietlid and pr• construction
Oili'cr,;iCls. and Oy providing conslfuCdOn O'r.-c: 'atlon.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's logs
C=G'` rniingin='rs preU. ?fe iial Lfinpa
and i.-. #=lnd IGgs sawd upn
their intefpreiation Of li-ld IGgs and la0of ator, daia. To prevent "rf0, of
OfTtiSSiOriS, llle logs inCtUdEd In a yEOte,_ilnica_.l engineering ring report Should
in
t: i'Cr fa radra`�ln for inclUziGn arCftlt,? 1f 1 Of Gihei r +
dE_ion dra"sinys.
Cilli0holoofaphic Or _ie-dranic reo rod ciirn .s acc2piable ^u'ecc ze
f r>i=t7;r2r`fl!g ions irori the rE.aori c2n7 ?l
t cic" ri keit.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some ovmers and desion proff:1-3sionals mist-Genl;r belir:vp They Carl ,Ef };e
cOfRraCtsrS liable for
cft^de fOf Old Dulenoanticipa,=d Ucondi`io s by linlifn ,-,'hat
they praralidn.
l0 h -1p prsvent costly prOhfe4m,s:glee COn-
ifaciors the COmplete geo'fechnical enginee rfno fepori, but pret_ce it'ailh a
Wer Of iramriliiial. In that la -r. advse ConlfaL#ors t,- #!le
(_-pori ,leas not. prepared for purpos;:s of hid de':2loprrrant and that the
reporf'c accum j is limiled;,nCOurage Ihnnl to confer tYifh the olmi=Ch, ilial
dr gine r .,ho ? e„ J y
'^ may be required) and/or io
Conduct additional study fo o0taih 12he sonlific types of inforr}atiG l "
ila.til or :lrefar.:; pieuid conference Cc<i also ?t valuable. °' %Lire coll1rco
holy arae Sfirrlrior:`.+,•• lime 410 Pludorm additional study. Only filen amight ;'Ou
be in ' position io E71vC contractors J. L=Sf inioml lion available'to you:
;''tile f quiring them io at leasi Snare SOT, Of if}' ::nane!cl f
es;0G;1SibiliiteS
Sfa:ttrhifig iron Lnanlfcipa"d condiiioils.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Soil= clierlis. d SIOn orrJiessi 3n81$, avid coniraclorS do not racoc.nize it, a#
OEC:IcC!Mi %f zil0ineerina ;IS far fess0: lilt r
. Enylnefing dict?-
plinES. This Zack of Und'af-Sind!; ha-,
:o cr_. red ii,<r•_-at!sfic expE+:tahenS that
have led to disappoint mei!ls. clairls, and {1<Spu!Ea. TO help ieoUC2 !he rlSc:
of such outcomes. geotechnical engin tiers commonly include a varlet',' of
vYplarlaiorr provisions in their reports. Sometimes !_holed `limitations°
mart+ 0f tiles$ prOYISIOhS IndlCat� tYn°r£ ge0tc^�ifrliCal EnglneerS fespCz�si
t) Citi: btidln arld end, t0 h;fp i}is'!, .ELdCti i th j Seth fcspOi,Si�i #'
Eli=:
and ris.,s. -_'gid J;: s°Nro fSlcrrs clots : 'Ns" oUEStions. Your caal dlnkcal
angnlpar should respond fully and fran by
Geoenuiponmental Concepns Are Not Covered
The equ!pme_nf, techniques, and personnel used i0 p ffOrm a CBo 'ntrir�3;l-
Tnt`ZjSiUdt+ d!!ief S40ni#iCanfly from :hese u+sc-d to perforin a g6olFChniCli
study. For tical reason, a geotechnic-al enoih,ering report do S not Usually
alae iv t :
r. -r yr.per;vino:imenta'findings, conclusions of =n
' recon}rrl_. dations,
about the likelihood of encounferino undergfound sloragE tanks or
r="ulated coniarhinams. L!fPafitl ;'P%.c"d i!:'irontTlEr7tat prob/�,??5 r? :':s !e
i 1 ne3t'i'4ru(IS i3rof C' i3ilur�.5. if V u, have not "ia l' t r v - -
• � €'J#a!nEd dour 0 X71 Guit�(i-
rifor!nlEntal information, aS your oaofa :finical ctlnSUltanf to,, risk tTtan-
ayEmem puidar!c.e. Do!fot rel" n 7^ r
_ o c"!1 r=ir.1 "c : n; ^r7:Gi rc"ut�r i prc'i?ared fCi
Obtain Ppofessional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Dive,Se Sita%gi= s can be applied during building desion, construction,
0(craiion, and maintenan_e 10 prevenl. ignlilLcnf amounts of mold from
groping on indoor surfaces. 10 (,e cif motive, all such sirafegfas should be
det+iS$d for the ay.oreSS purpo5n Of mold prevention, ininfain' ifif0 a COm
prehansive plan, and exaculed v ifh diligent oversight b.,, a profassion-_I
rnoid prevention consultant. Because just a w'''all amount of ttcler or
MO;SlufLe call Iced t0 the development 0; S--vnre mold inf�.SlationS. a
nu.?—of mole prievention s#fateoieS focus OF, i,capino building surilace,3 dry.
t':thile gfound -eier• v Iter infiltration, and similar issues may have bee n
addressed as part of the geo#echnica# engine find sludy ,;hose findings
F'r'ee Coflvey ed in alis reoml. the QeOf;chnical engin-f fn charge of this
oroject is nota mold prevention consullanl; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engineer, fop Additionai Assistance
i+.+ilrberfiio in ASFE[! he B-s.t Feoply ctrl Lash e;gip ;sys C, -C :cal
nnainerrs to a ,.vide arta„ of risk -^�
iiic'. g-tT.er!i I1„ hniGuvS that Gan be 0i
genu<r!e b,h 'fit fol ve " , involved
v it t;orf ; f
cry.:)ane .(i -pit -d Lt!h b C•OnsifU�' ': O v!. COsilcf
with j�,.
you SFt f7;Erlb_f 0eotecr!nical Engincler for more';niormation.
AIMIN
The Best People or, fia71h
Si i L_l-_':IIG fE;jl 5 t1_
10, `if f(rt1, ;'t#J 2i'li1
?h,Q-%?.
u- -- -- - - -
_,'i?.'s-C[_„ r,;'65iC;i. ' _• SCC::G T='tile r. ;;Y: C;'9G ,.. 'rTr"ci:5 :...-SGS:'=-'_ - _..N?i93. cx 4.
_r" - e - nil.. i'`�
___.. __r::�:�irl�irC ii?if!7%..5 r,'{. _.. c.rSC•?:T a."'. _ _ __ __ _
_ - :...r t)!-_ _!tl �C_J Sof::!=:� e.,r..ir"! lel S�_. <if�� t5. jai
c'_r.,r.....-<.,-:'I?i.,...:r=_,.:_;tet'9i vi7.�1 — J' J
.... =It' _ ---::T.t:i .J Gi ... c� _ .--t.t_:.. _. P. ',i Z:1. _e'.- -=i7 :: �- -
r�:l... _. t.tr _, _ --- -: (:fF '. r ( - -= _. f. t= r=Jvi i.
. ,..:'ii2:'..
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
70304-03_022310A.doc HOLDREGE & Kl1LL
M M M M m s M M M. m MM M M m m M. r.
Z
00
o
O
co
r
r
N
(0
�,
o
m
o
Time
c„
rn
"
owo
Aa
(H:M)
_
0
o
N
A
A
Pocket Penetrometer
CD
n
p'
rp'
.n-.
C"
(TSF)
2
d
CoR
z
N
W : A
�o "
_
Uncorrected
3
o
=
z
c.
2
v
m
w
Blow Counts
C)
C
(Blows 16 -inch)
m
C
C
aiv
Drilling Method
00C7
z
z
=
D:
N
n:
D
cN„
x
y
and/or
C/)I
C
O
�'
o
Sampler Type
C
P.
M
r-
;_
Sample Recovery
v
N
o
N
(FLIFt.)
C
r Nb
�'<
:r
N;
N
: r
N F3:
N;
: r
N;
Sample No.
>
(n
-
[�
Depth B.G.S.<0
o
r
O
OD
,
WN
W
O
CJ
.iJ
OLa
LO
l
Sample Interval
ro
-
I
And SymbolS
0
_
il��
�Ilu
Well Construction
0
D
r'
I�
Detail
m
r-
2
�
Graphic
Log
r
m
o
O
. . . . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
0
a
�.
c
rX-
v=
N
W
O
00 CnA y
pp N
(7
to
-o
O
>�
m
�
0 rn � OC r
D
S
�
m
m
D
O
T
O
Z
Ln
G
O
0
C
z
r
O
T
O
o
oz
o
s_
N
CD
m
to
o
r
X -n
m
n
x
N
°.
o
—
n
r
m
m
p
�m
=
N r
rn�
o
?e
A
.�
A
O
fu
0
Cf)m
D -�
m
�
'�
_ m
m Cn
O
_
O
o
o
oo
rn
D
•�
N
o\ Ao
o a
o<
r
o
G1
'i0
0 o
x
�c>
m
�c
a
S
0
Z
M
ZT
N z
= a
O
m
�_
D
!T� N
C
D
VV
=
n
Z
---Imy
C�
Z
yD
�Z
C)
_� Z)
M=` O
*
m
+n
jm
x
O
TI
.Ni
A C C
C>
Z
u� x,
O
Q
T
o
m o
cn
-= O
o ro
o
to
m
3
in'
m
n
W 2
T
O
O r
o
a
C)
3
—CI
V n
m
v
n
A
cr
o
C:>
O
(n
W
r
y
n
r
T
m
o o'
_
O
3
0
r
m
0
(MM
o
D
o
V70
�
y
CO
Du
O
—
'O
_
Ti
z
D
C)
C.0
co
o
Z
z
z
C7
C
w
/1
M
j
O
{� /
Cl)
U)
N
>
r
CA
N
W
N
2
>
W
O
m
0
G)
M
m
rn
p
O
r
O
n
3
CP
7
to
E75 I
o—i
m
S
o
z
x
M
w
M s M M� m M M M m m m m m M= r Mm
Z
o
0
0:
o
Time
W
0
r
r
' A
A
?
Pocket Penetrometer
L
o
.n-.
v+
Ln
(TSF)
�
�
W
�
oZi
Uncorrected
z
2MOM
W
Blow Counts
O
C
r
(Blows 16 -inch)
frt
'G
C
x :
cn
_
_
Drilling Method
CO
C7
Z
c=
�
CD :
C
y
rn
D
�N
cn
D
"
and/or
O
-i
^ ` d
:N
Sampler Type
O
P.
Z7
►—
Ln
Sample Recovery
z
„
;C7
-n
�
CO
:pp
:M
'�
N:
:
7
N
iZ3 :
Sample No.
<
D
"i lTt
m
rr-i
O c0 OD N
Depth B.G.S.
V m (.J1 A W N O (D W V 01 (n A W N
(Ft.)
v:3Sample
LT
Interval
CD
n
n
o
And Symbolm
_
C
Well Construction
C
<
>
- [r
Detail
ITI
r
. . . . . . . . . .
0
v
O
n
Graphic Log
X
=
O
cn
O
�.
..........
r
0
O
W
A
r
OZ
X
N
O
0 cn
a
v
77
m
D
M<
m D
�
Fr
m
m
OZ
r
I
m -n p
O
C
W
nz
m
wo
�o
M m
C X o
ti
co
En
O
NN
�
17
S o
1 p0
m r z
a
n
cn
a
p
o
o
N
O
D
m
o�cn -�
o
m
`O
�•
D
D
771
:E0
0
7 c
<
m
0
m
_
m
=
0
C r
Z
' G
O
°
mCn
�>
n
'.�
CL
O
--I Z
z '.^c. 0
obi
1
x
O
m
o m
m
in
W 2
M
ti
MM
o ci 0
c
rD
o
M
N
_
o
O
C=)
O
z
G7 c
m�
a o
o
m
o
zt
o
D
O
_
En
r
CO
rn
rn
_
W
N Z
M: 0cc
D
o
c(D
C.0
o
z
W
v
C
--1o
^Z
Y J
�O
O
D
s
=
n
ZO
z
=
D
C7
�
O
CO
C,X
W
W o
0
CO
A.
m
M
O
O
E.
Z
U)
N Z
—I
T
O
T
Z
_
w
0
1
1
1
H O L D R E G E& K U L L
i 0&> U I I I f 6 1 N G 1 3 1 1 i i • G 1 0 1 6 6 11 i i
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
2550 FLORAL AVE., SUITE 10, CH ICO. CA 95973
(530) 894-2487 FAX 894-2437
Boring No.
Project Name: LUNDBURG FARMS
Project No.: 70304-01
Task: 1
Start: 01/06/09
B09-1
Location: CHURCH ST & FRUITVALE RD, RICHVALE
Ground Elev. (Ft. MSL):Finish:
01/06/09
Sheet: 3 of 3
Logged By: OLSEN, DON
Drilling Cm n : PC EXPLORATION
Drill Rig Type: CME -180 TRUCK MOUNTED
Driller: JOHN/ ERIC
Drilling Method: HOLLOW STEM AUGERS, MUD RT
Hammer Type: 140 LB AUTO HAMMER
Boring Diam In.: 8
Total Depth Ft.: 51.5
Backfill or Well Casing:
a�
d
E
�LL
Y
0
CL
o „ t
a0-
0 o o
�mm
o a
L G
Zo�
E; E
o y
v
>
d=
2-
E
N
a
E
in
fA
m
Q—
D
—
_E
a
EQ
"
o
—
.-.
=_
o
-
3
O
-
t7
Ground Water Information
Date 116/09
Time 14:08
Depth (ft) 5.41
Soil and/or Rock Descriptions
(USCS Symbol: Partical Size (%); Color: Density/Consistency: Moisture; Gradation; Dilatancy: Plasticity; Structure; Cementation;
Organics, Fill Material; Other
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
.........
.........
.........
.........
........
.........
.........
(CL) CLAY (CONTINUED)
BOTTOM @ 51.5 FT, BORING TERMINATED AT TARGET DEPTH
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
.
..........
.............
I .....
... ..
..........
......
12:37
........................32..................................
11
17
SPT
....................................HSA
..................
............................................................
............................................................
13:00
.............................................................
15
21
SPT
35
.........
..........
.....................
I ....
..........
......
.............................................................
..................................................................
.............................................................
.............................................................
..............
.........
......
NOTES:
o
N
A
:A
Time
W
17
r
r
N
cn
oA
N
(H:M)
O
=
O
O
n
O
3
.-.
0
Pocket Penetrometer
CL
o
S
O
`O
Co
Z
Uncorrected
�
z
O
2
Oo
OD :
V V
A
W W
Blow Counts
O
C
(Blows 16 -inch)
rn
N
'�
C
C)
x:
cn
Drilling Method
CO
C7
z
I =
D:
-a1
D
x
yandlor
D
-1
C
Sampler Typet—
T
Sample Recovery
X
T
`, Q
(Ft./Ft.)
C
>
.
r
Sample No.
D
CO
N ,rn v, A w N
O O W V N A co OD V
Depth B.G.S.
m
W N
(Ft.)
;,j
LO
LO
;0
Sample Interval
m
�)
And Symbol
_
<
�; C
iIIN
Well Construction
il
O
O
>
►—
Detail
m
r-
O
0
0
Graphic
Logrr-
rn
o
0
O
-
=
*
r
a
CD
ti
v
C
v
0
D
<
Ca > W
3
Er
3.
z
O
O p n
o � T
z
$
's
o
D
C
O
Z
w
o
z
-i cn z Cn -
z.
G)
-r
A {moo
rn
to
r
o
o
�„ �T
cn
m
rn rn
o
V
_
Q'
ai
X
-Dj
o
0
o
0
o
D
vmi «
m� m� a
�
0
o U)
"
t
0
o
w
?
O
N o a e G)
-n0
o �' m
G')
c
7c
m m
'
T
iv
zm_
o
n
„� n
[n m
O
a
D D n
d
x
O
-TI
x Cl) (= �l
� 0
_{
-i
-+L) �o Mv
`° ro
3
fD
3
m
cn
W 2
0 --1�T o n
S N
o�
rp
=
S
v
T
m
n
O
O
T
d
-,
O
Tom.
-
x
p
m
O)
O)
t
w
cn D O
Er N
�W
r
C.0
(.0
o
D
o
Z
-n 0 Z
w
/1
Z<
{J /
M
O
DCn
i
r„
s
W
z z W
2
n
O
O N w
a
K?
M
Q
G
M M
O
m
..
0
rn
O
C
M M
0 0 -�
-3
C
z
0
o
N
Z
_ _
o
1
1
1
1
I�
t
HOLDREGE & KULL
______.___....__......_._..._...._........_
Exploratory
Trench No.
'CF.IFI lilt! Xs111E!:• 616E6p1!I1
2550 FLORAL AVE., SUITE 10
� CHIGO, CA 95973
530 894-2487 FAX 894-2437
Trench Log
T10-1
Field Location Sketch (Not to Scale)
Project Name: Lundber Farms Wharehouse Expansion
Project No.: 70304-03 Task No.: 1
Location: 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California
Logged By: Don Olsen Date Logged: 1-28-10
Backhoe Company: Lundber Farms
Backhoe Type: Case 580
Backfill Description: Native soil in an uncompacted condition.
Ground Water Information
Date: 1-28-10
Time: 10:30
.Depth (ft): 2.0
Scale: 1 In. = 5 FT. Trench Bearing: N 5° E
Elev.: Ft. MSL Elev. Source:
NORTH SOUTH
A
B:
Unit
Sample
Material Description—
Depth (ft)l
No.
No.
(USCS Symbol; Particle Sizes Est. %; Munsel Color; Density or Consistency; Moisture; Etc.)
A
(CH) CLAY, FLD EST: 90% High Plasticity Fines, 10% Fine Sand; Dark Brown (10YR,
3/3); soft to firm, wet.
B
(SM) SILTY SAND, FLD EST: 30% Low Plasticity Fines, 70% Fine Sand; Yellowish
Brown (10YR, 5/6); loose to medium dense; saturated.
I -
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
HOLDREGE & KULL
_ _ ._ . _
Exploratory
Trench Nd.
2550 FLORAL AVE., SUITE 10
CHICO, CA 95973
530 894-2487 FAX 894-2437
Trench Log
T10-2
Field Location Sketch (Not to Scale)
Project Name: Lundber Farms Wharehouse Expansion
Project No.: 70304-03 Task No.: 1
Location: 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California
Logged By: Don Olsen Date Logged: 1-28-10
Backhoe Company: Lundber Farms
Backhoe Type: Case 580
Backfill Description: Native soil in an uncompacted condition.
Ground Water Information
Date: 1-28-10
Time: 10:30
Depth (ft): None
Scale: 1 In. = 5 FT. Trench Bearing: N 5° E
Elev.: Ft. MSL Elev. Source:
WEST EAST
C
Non woven A
GeotextIIe ..............
B
............................................................
Unit
Sample
Material Description
Depth (ft)
No.
No.
(USCS Symbol; Particle Sizes Est. %; Munsel Color; Density or Consistency; Moisture; Etc.)
A
(CH) CLAY, FLD EST: 90% High Plasticity Fines, 10% Fine Sand; Dark Brown (10YR,
3/3); soft to firm, wet.
B
(SM) SILTY SAND, FLD EST: 30% Low Plasticity Fines, 70% Fine Sand; Yellowish
Brown (10YR, 5/6); loose to medium dense; saturated.
C
(GM) FILL,SILTY GRAVEL, FLD EST: 20% Low Plasticity Fines, 30% Fine to Coarse
Sand, 50% Fine Gravel; Grayish Brown (10YR, 5/2); loose to medium dense;
damp to moist.
1
1
71
L
r
i 17
i
El
HOLDREGE & KULL
_ __...___
Exploratory
Trench No.
l4le�lilla '. SL?6iE31 bii?citi!
2550 FLORAL AVE., SUITE 10
CHICO, CA 95973
530 894-2487 FAX 894-2437
Trench Log
T10.-3
Field Location Sketch (Not to Scale)
Project Name: Lundber Farms Wharehouse Expansion
Project No.: 70304-03 Task No.: 1
Location: 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California
Logged By: Don Olsen Date Logged: 1-28-10
Backhoe Company: Lundber Farms
Backhoe Type: Case_580----_ .
Backfillackfill p ion: Native soil in an uncompacted condition.
Ground Water Information
Date: 1-28-10
Time: 10:30
Depth (ft): 2,0
Scale: 1 In. = 5 FT. Trench Bearing: N 5° E
Elev.: Ft. MSL Elev. Source:
WEST EAST
A:
............................. .... .....................
B:
Unit
Sample
Material'Description
Depth (ft)l
No.
No.
I (USCS Symbol; Particle Sizes Est. %; Munsel Color; Density or Consistency; Moisture; Etc.)
A
(CH) CLAY, FLD EST: 90% High Plasticity Fines, 10% Fine Sand; Dark Brown (10YR,
3/3); soft to firm; wet.
B
(SM) SILTY SAND, FLD EST: 30% Low Plasticity Fines, 70% Fine Sand; Yellowish
Brown (10YR, 5/6); loose to medium dense; saturated.
u
1
A
HOLDREGE & KULL
---- -----..---__. !
2550 FLORAL AVE., SUITE 10
CHICO, CA 95973
530 894-2487 FAX 894-2437
Exploratory
Trench LogTI
Trench No.
0-4
Field Location Sketch (Not to Scale)
Project Name: Lundber Farms Wharehouse Expansion
Project No.: 70304-03 Task No.: 1
Location: 5370 Church Street, Richvale, California .
Logged By: Don Olsen Date Logged: 1-28-10
Backhoe Company: Lundber Farms
Backhoe Type: Case 580
Backfill Description: Native soil in an uncompacted condition.
Ground Water Information
Date: 1-28-10
Time: 10:30
Depth (ft): 2.0
Scale: 1 In. = 5 FT. Trench Bearing: N 5° E
Elev.: Ft. MSL Elev. Source:
WEST EAST
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .
A
B `
Unit
No.
Sample
Material Description
I (USCS Symbol; Particle Sizes Est. %; Munsel Color; Density or Consistency; Moisture; Etc.)
Depth (ft)l
No.
A
(CH) CLAY, FLD EST: 90% High Plasticity Fines, 10% Fine Sand; Dark Brown (10YR,
3/3); soft to firm; wet.
B
(SM) SILTY SAND, FLD EST: 30% Low Plasticity Fines, 70% Fine Sand; Yellowish
Brown (10YR, 5/6); loose to medium dense; saturated.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
70304-03022310A.doc HOLDRECE & KULL
Project No.:
Sample No.:
Soil Description:
Sample Location:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
70304-01 Project Name: Lundberg Farms
L1-112 Boring/Trench No.: B09-1 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Dark Brown (7.5YR 312) Silty Sand
Date: 112012009
Tested By: BLP
Checked By: MLHF
Lab. No.: 9-006
Specimen Type:
Undisturbed:
x Disturbed:
Remolded to:
Tube Dia. In. =
I
Ring Dia. In. =
2.43
king Hei ht i In. =
1.00
FIELD DATA
Tube Sample Moisture & De sit y
LAB DATA
Test No.
1
inal
Test No.
Initial
2
Final
Test No.
Initial
3
I Final
Tare Tube Number
Tare Number
ST'
MG
KG
Tare Weight
r
are Ring Weight r
36.10
36.10
35.36
35.36
46.35
46.35
Wet Soil + Tare
r
Tare Pan Wei ht r
50.82
50.82
50.52
50.52
50.38
50.38
Dry Soil + Tare
r
Wet Soil + Tare r
221.06
223.42
220.93
221.54
231.40
232.54-
32.54Wei
Weight
ht of Water
r
0.00
Dry Soil + Tare r
191.79
191.79
188.97
188.97
199.30
199.30
Dry Soil Weight
r
0.00
Weight of Water r
29.27
31.63
31.96
32.57
32.10
33.24
Moisture Content
%
Dry Soil Weight r
104.87
104.87
103.09
103.09
102.57
1 102.57
Soil Height
In.
Moisture Content %
27.91
30.16
31.00
31.59
31.30
32.41
Wet Unit Weight
(pco
Wet Unit Weight cf)
110.20
114.54
110.95
113.84
110.64
113.97
Dry Unit Wei ht
c
Dry Unit Wei ht( pcf)
86.15
88.00
84.69
86.51
84.26
1 86.07
Normal
psf
500
1000
2000 3000
4000
5000
Other Test Parameters
Loading
Le end
2.0"
2.5"
10.26T21134
16.1064.41
41.05 61.58
96.62
82.11
128.82
102.64
161.03
Test No. 1
N. LoadTest
No. 2
N. Load
2000
Test No.
3
N. Load
4000
SATURATION & CONSOLIDASATURATION
& CONSOLIDATION
SATURATION & CONSOLIDATION
Time Deflect.
m:s Inch
Time.
m:sm:s
Time Deflect.
Inch
Time
m:s
Deflect.
Inch
Time
m:s
Deflect.
Inch
Time
m:s
Deflect.
Inch
0:00 0.008
4
0:00 0.025
4
0.066
0:00
0.005
4
0.130
1 0.027
5
1 0.061
5
0.067
1
0.128
5
0.130
2 0.0282
0.063
2
0.129
3 0.0293
0.064
3
0.130
Total Deflection
=
Total Deflection =
0.042
Total Deflection =
0.125
SHEAR DATASHEAR
DATA
SHEAR DATA
Elapsed Shear
Time Strain
Ws) Inches
Normal
Strain
Inches
Load
lbs.
Elapsed Shear
Time Strain
m:s Inches
Normal
Strain
Inches
Shear
Load
lbs.
Elapsed
Time
Ws)
Shear
Strain
Inches
Normal
Strain
Inches
Shear
Load
Obs
10:29:17 0.001
0.028
19
10:54:44 0.004
0.067
16
11:51:44
0.022
0.005
19
10:29:52 0.002
0.028
19
10:55:19 0.006
0.071
18
11:52:19
0.022
0.126
19
10:30:27 0.001
0.029
19
10:55:54 0.008
0.073
18 1
11:52:54
0.022
1 0.128
20
10:31:02 0.001
0.029
19
10:56:29 0.01
0.075
19
11:53:29
0.022
0.129
20
10:31:37 0.001
0.029
19
10:57:04 0.012
0.077
19
11:54:04
0.022
0.129
21
10:32:12 0.001
0.029
19
10:57:39 0.014
0.078
19
11:54:39
0.022
0.13
22
10:32:47 0.001
0.029
19
10:58:14 0.015
0.08
20
11:55:14
0.022
0.13
24
10:33:22 0.002
0.029
19
10:58:49 0.017
0.082
21
11:55:49
0.023
0.13
32
10:33:57 0.002
0.029
19
10:59:24 0.019
0.083
21
11:56:24
0.029
0.132
39
10:34:32 0.002
0.03
20
10:59:59 0.021
0.085
22
11:56:59
0.041
0.135
55
10:35:07 0.002
0.03
20
11:00:34 0.023
0.085
23
11:57:34
0.057
0.14
64
10:36:17 0.009
0.03
21
11:01:09 0.027
0.087
24
11:58:09
0.074
0.143
68
10:37:27 0.017
0.03
22
11:01:44 0.032
0.088
26
11:58:44
0.089
0.146
72
10:38:37 0.025
0.031
26
11:02:19 0.049
0.09
31
11:59:19
0.104
1 0.149
78
10:39:47 0.054
0.035
35
11:02:54 0.06
0.091
34
11:59:54
0.119
0.152
80
10:40:57 0.077
0.036
43
11:03:29 0.067
0.092
37
12:00:29
0.135
0.153
80
10:42:07 0.108
0.037
49
11:04:04 0.082
0.094
42
12:01:04
0.149
0.154
85
10:43:17 0.139
0.035
53
11:05:14 0.113
0.098
52
12:01:39
0.164
0.155
87
10:44:27 0.17
0.032
55
11:06:24 0.143
0.102
58
12:02:14
0.179
0.156
86
10:45:37 0.2
0.03
56
11:07:34 0.173
0.105
59
12:02:49
0.193
0.157
86
10:46:47 0.232
0.027
54
11:08:44 0.203
0.106
60
12:03:24
0.208
0.157
87
10:48:02 0.239
0.027
48
11:09:54 0.234
0.106
61
12:04:34
0.238
0.158
88
10:4912 0.268
0.025 1
52
11:11:04 0.264
0.107
60
12:05:44
0.268
0.159
88
HOLDREGE &
KULL
(530) 478-1305 - Fax (530) 478-1019 - 792 Searls Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 -A California Corporation
U304-01 Lab r-9-00a..xhl)S
3000.0
2500.0
2000.0
n
m
d
r
rn
10000
sao.o
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
Shear Strain vs. Normal Strain
V. IOU
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
—0 1000 --Ilr- 2000 64000
Normal Load (psf)
y = 0.4147x + 1071 y = 0.3438x + 1319.6
R20.9999 = Mohr -Coulomb Fai0ft'rlvelope
Shear Strain vs. Shear Stress
3000.0 .... ._.- ......... .... ......... _,_.._..__....._..__.._-.._.-_......... ... — 1
2500.0
}
O
2000.0 ... ............ ___—__....._...._.
1500.0
a
a
1000.0 —.� .. ............. _......
n 500.0
0.0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
inches
t 1000 ---&— 2000 6 4000
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 7000 3500 4000 4500
Normal Loads (W)
Normal Load (psf)
♦ Peak Strengths
Residual Strengths
Linear (Peak Strengths)
— — Linear (Residual Strengths)
SHEAR
STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
PARAMETERS
PEAK STRENGTH:
RESIDUAL STRENGTH:
FRICTION ANGLE, (Degree)
19.0
22.5
CO—HES ION, (psQ
1320.0
1071.0
®HOLD R E G E& K U L L PROJECT NAME: Lundberg Farms
PROJECT NO.: 70304-01 DATE: 1/20/2009
[OX!Ul IIN4 ENGINE [RS 0EO1061315
792 SEARLS AVENUE BORING I TRENCH NO.: B09-1 LAB NO.:9-006
NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 SAMPLE NO.: L1-1/2 SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.): 2.5
(530) 478.1305 FAX 478.1019 DESCRIPTION: Dark Brown (7.5YR 3/2) Silty Sand
(530) 478-1305 - Fax (530) 478-1019 - 792 Searls Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 -A California Corporation
-0.04-ill L:ibr-9-}i06..�1;t.)S
1
f]
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
Moisture & Density
ASTM D2216 & D2937
Project No.: 70304-01 Project Name: Lundberg Farms - Date: 1/2012009
Lab No.: 9-006 Performed By: MLHF Checked By: MLHF
SAMPLE LOCATION DATA
Boring/Trench No.
Units
B09-1
Sample No.
B-3
Depth Interval
(ft.)
35
Sample Description
<n
co
N
d'
Cr
Lqi
C
m
USCS Symbol
SAMPLE
DIMENSION AND WEIGHT
DATA
Sample Length (in) 2.890
Sample Diameter (in) 1.450
Sample Volume (co 0.0028
Wet Soil + Tube Wt. (gr) 137.70
Tube Wt. (gr) 0.00
Wet Soil Wt. (gr) 137.70
MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
Tare No. PO
Tare Wt. (gr) 50.50
Wet Soil + Tare Wt. (gr) 58.50
Dry Soil + Tare Wt. (gr) 56.36
Water Wt. (gr) 2.14
Dry Soil Wt. (gr) 5.86
Moisture Content (%) 36.5
TEST RESULTS
Wet Unit Wt. (pcf) 1 109.9
Moisture Content (%) 36.5
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) 80.5
MOISTURE CORRECTION DATA
Gauge Moisture (%)
K Value Correction Factor
COMPACTION CURVE DATA (ASTM D698, ASTM D1557, or CAL216)
Test Method
Curve No.
Max Wet Unit Wt. (pcf)
Max Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)
Optimum Moisture (%)
Wet Relative Comp. (%)
Dry Relative Comp. (%)
HOLDREGE & KULL
tjav/ 4,o- ,)uo - rax to,su/ 4 t u- iu i y - ia[ beans Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 -A California Corporation
;0304-01 lab a9-006-\1s�1r>
1
i
t
•
-_ - -1 k -I V 17 - /7L 3t:di15 MVC.- NeVaGa Uly, (-A - A C-alifornia Corporation
70304-01 L_ab=9-OOG.cI<auerbcr�
Atterberg Indices
ASTM D4318
Project No.:
70304-01
Project Name: Lundberg Farms
Date:
1/20/2009
Sample No.:
B-3
Boring/Trench: 35 Depth, (ft.): B09-1
Tested By:
MLHF
Description:
Brown (7.5YR 4/2) Sandy Silty Clay
Checked By:
MLHF
Sample Location:
Lab. No.:
9-006
Estimated % of Sample Retained on
No. 40 Sieve: Sample Air Dried: yes
Test Method A or B:
A
LIQUID LIMIT:
PLASTIC LIMIT:
Sample No.:
1
2 3 4 5
1
2
3
Pan ID:
LD
Al LB
Q
LA
Wt. Pan (gr)
15.20
15.30 15.31
11.08
11.07
Wt. Wet Soil +Pan (gr)
25.98
25.55 23.58
16.10
15.77
Wt. Dry Soil +Pan (gr)
23.55
23.26 21.75
15.13
14.85
Wt. Water (gr)
2.43
2.29 1.83
0.97
0.92
Wt. Dry Soil (gr)
8.35
7.96 6.44
4.05
3.78
Water Content (%)
29.1
28.8 28.4
24.0
24.3
Number of Blows, N 1
19
24 35
LIQUID LIMIT = 29
PLASTIC LIMIT =
24
Flow Curve
0 40.0
j I I _ j i
Plasticity Index =
5
30.0
20.0
Group Symbol =
CL/ML
10.0
r '
0.0
1
10 100
Number of Blows (N)
Atterberg Classification Chart
I
80
_
j
70
0 80
" CH or
OH - -
50
40
30 .................. ......
.._ ....... ......_..._.... __..........
_. _.. CL or OL
_..._..._.__............... --....--.......__... - -
...........
--.�....._.._
a20 _.. ..... .........
__. ...... _...
- - - ._........_. ._..._.
__ ...._...:...
10 ...... ._.._......._....
-- -... -
- - -
MH r
o OH
0r
ML or OL
0
10
20 30 40 50 60
70 80
90
100
Liquid Limit (%)
HOLDREGE & KULL
-_ - -1 k -I V 17 - /7L 3t:di15 MVC.- NeVaGa Uly, (-A - A C-alifornia Corporation
70304-01 L_ab=9-OOG.cI<auerbcr�
1
1
1
1
F
i
1
M
Project No.:
Sample No.:
Soil Description:
Sample Location:
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
ASTM D2166
70304.01 Project Name: Lundberg Farms Date:
B3 Boring/Trench No.: B09-1 Depth (K.) 35 Tested By:
Brown (7.5YR 412) Sandy Silty Clay Check By:
Lab No.:
112012009
BLP
MLHF
9.006
Sample Data
Sample Sketch Al Failure
Tare Tube Number
I.D.
G
y
;. .
#,
>
s'
Tare Weight (gm) 0.00
Wet Soil +Tare (gm) 137.70
Dry Soil +Tare (gm) 100.88
Weight of Water (gm) 36.82
Dry Soil Weight (gm) 100.88
Moisture Content N 36.50
Soil Height (cm) 7.34
Sample Diameter (cm) 3.68
Wet Unit Weight Oct) 110.12
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 80.67
Specific Gravity (dim) 2.70
Saturation
N
90.54
Unconfined Shear Strength = 331.7
psf
Strain Rate N 0.01
Proving Ring Constant (lbs/unit) 1.108
Elapsed
Time
(Minutes)
Strain
Units
(0.001inlunit)
Percent
N
Area Load Deviator
Dial Force Stress
(cmA2) (units) (lbs) (pso
---
-�
I
Ir
2o0
1
1 600
i
I
5oo
1
= 400
N
0
300
cl
200
100
I
I
0
Deviator Stress vs. Strain
...._..-._..__ .... _.... ..__.,._......... .................... _.._.,............... ___._.........__.._..
1
I
'
i
i
:.
_ .. .
i ._..... _ . _.. .
f
10 0.35 10.67 1 1.11 96.44
20 0.69 10.71 2 2.22 192.221
30 1.04 10.75 3 3.32 287.32
40 1.38 10.79 5 5.54 477.20
50 1.73 10.821 6 6.65 570.63
60 2.08 10.86 7 7.76 663.39
70 2A21 0.90 71 7.761 661,051--
80 2.77 10.941 5 5.541 470.50
0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Axial Strain (%)
0.00
0.00
HOLDREGE &
KULL
tb.su) 4 its -1 sub - rax (b S(J) 416-1U19 - 192 Searls Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 - A California Corporation
70304-01 Lab = 9-006.�kuncunlincil
Sample No.:
Htteraerg inaices
2
3 4
5 1
ASTM D4318
Pan ID:
AN
Project No.:
70304-01 Project Name: Lundberg Farms
Date:
2/12/2009
Sample No.:
020909A Boring/Trench: N/I Depth, (ft.): N/I
Tested By:
MLHF
Description:
Dark Brown (7.5YR 3/2), High Plasticity Clay (CH)
Checked By:
JHA
Sample Location:
not indicated
Lab. No.:
9-021
Wt. Dry Soil +Pan (gr)
15.05
19.96
18.69
Estimated % of Sample
Retained on No. 40 Sieve: <10% Sample Air Dried: yes
Wt. Water (gr)
2.65
Test Method A or B:
A
0.53
0.61
Sample No.:
1
2
3 4
5 1
2 3
Pan ID:
AN
Al
25
Q
BB
Wt. Pan (gr)
11.00
15.06
15.31
11.06
11.12
Wt. Wet Soil + Pan (gr)
17.70
22.94
20.65
14.85
15.64
Wt. Dry Soil +Pan (gr)
15.05
19.96
18.69
14.32
15.03
Wt. Water (gr)
2.65
2.98
1.96
0.53
0.61
Wt. Dry Soil (gr)
4.05
4.90
3.38
3.26
3.91
Water Content (%)
65.4
60.8
58.0
16.3
15.6
Number of Blows, N
16
26
38
LIQUID LIMIT = 61
PLASTIC LIMIT = 16
....... ............ _
Flow Curve
I
70.0 -
60.0:--
Plasticity Index = 45
--
I
i
40.0 ....
30.0 .:._
.. _.....__:.
_ _ _...... . ........ .....- .! -_+. _:_ ! --.._.... . _... _ _ ........
1
; Group Symbol = CH
- ' -
20.0
I
10.0
.. ...._. .._i._.._
...: ...... I ... ..__..,. ........ .... . ...... .......... ...
i.- ...
0.0 '.
1
1n
Number J Blows (N)
100
Atterberg Classification Chart
I I
1
50
Liquid Limit (%)
60 70 80 90 100
HOLDREGE & KULL
(530) 478-1305 -f=ax (530) 475-1019 - 792 Searls Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 - A California Corporation
' 70.04-01 I_ab-9-02I...1�anerbeiu,
1
1
r
1 ,0104-01 Lab=:9-021..xIscinnp
COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D698•F` ASTM D1557
Project No.: 70304-01
Project Name: Lundberg Farms
Date:
2/12/2009
Sample No.: 020909A
Boring/Trench: N/I Depth, ft): N/1
Tested By:
MLHF
Description: Dark Brown (7.5YR 3/2), High Plasticity Clay (CH)
Checked By:
JHA
Sample notes:
Lab. No.:
9-021
Vol., Mold, (cf.):
0.033 No. of Layers: 5
Hammer Drop:
18
Method:
b Blows/Layer: 25
Hammer Weight:
10
rial Number
-
+ +
Container Number
F JA2
EZ B2
Wet Soil + Container
(gms.) 679.23 662.57
672.28 816.30
Dry Soil + Container
(gms.) 627.03 598.50
599.60 716.00
Container Weight
(gms.) 152.62 155.91
156.40 152.11
Weight of Water
(gms.) 52.20 1 64.07
1 72.68 _11-0-0.3-0-1
0.00
Weight of Dry Soil
(gms.) 474.41 442.59
443.20 563.89
1 0.00
Moisture Content
M 11.0 14.5
16.4 17.8
1 0.0
Wet Soil + Mold
(gms.) 3795 3899
3961 3932
Weight of Mold
(gms.) 1992 1992
1992 1992
1992
Wet Weight of Soil
(lbs.) 3.97 4.20
4.34 4.28
Wet Unit Weight
(pcf.) 119.4 126.3
130.4 128.4
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf.) 107.5 110.3
112.0 109.0
% Rock Retained
Maximum Dry Density, pcf.: 112.0
Max. w/ Rock Correction
112.0
3/8"Sieve 3/4"Sieve
Optimum Moisture Content: 16.5
Adj. Optimum Moisture %
16.5
0.0 0.0
Est. Specific Gravity: 2.70
Est. Specific Gravity:
2.70
140.0
135.0 i.
..:.:....................
1 i t
Dry Density
130.0
.._ ... '.
...... . ' .. .. .. - -
7_ero Air Voidss
125.0
.....
.. . .. . .. . .
120.0 .. . . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .
. . . .. .. _. ..
---+(--Rock
C
C d Dn-
onecte .
... ..; ... .. .. ..... .._: _.. .
Density
115.0
• _... ...: ..,... :._......_. .._. _
O Check Point
110.0
Zero Air to ids
105.0
I rendline
_:___.._..._..
_..... _
100.0
4.......__..__.;...._
.
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
40.0
N'l0isture Content; N.)
HOLDREGE & KULL
(530) 478-1305 -
Fax (530) 478-1019 - 792 Searls Ave.- Nevada City, CA 95959 - A California Corporation
1 ,0104-01 Lab=:9-021..xIscinnp
Expansion Index Values and Descriptions
Expansion Index
Potential Expansion
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51-90
Medium
jExpansion
High
Above 130
Very High
0.04 :...... __. .
Index/Swell
_.
0.02 � - ..
.._
ASTM D4829/11,113C
18.2
Project o.:
70304-01
Project Name: Lundberg Farms
Date: 211212009
Sample No.:
020909A Boring/Trench No.: NII
Depth (ft.) NII
Tested By: MLHF
..... ...... ........ ...._ _ ............._._.... .... .. _ ....._.......
�-144-•-1�--
_ _.
Soil Description:
Dark Brown (7.5YR 312),
High Plasticity Clay (CH)
(530) 478-1305
Checked By: JFIA -
- A California
Corporatioi
Estimated % of sample retained on
10:04-01 Labh=9-o2i...Ni:i-.-.i
Lab No.: 9-o21
pecimen ype:
n istur e :
istur e :
I Remoldedto:
ASTM Guidelines
u e ia.(inch) =
I
Ring Dia.(Inch) =
mg Height
(Inch)=1.00
est wt.
144
Test wt.
I est wt.
Tube Sample Moisture & Density
Initial
I FinalInitial
maInitialma
Tare Tube Number
Tare Number
B-10
Tare Weight
(gr)
Tare Ring Weight (gr)
200.51
0.00
Wet Soil + Tare
(gr)
Tare Pan Weight (gr)
0.00
280.17
Dry Soil + Tare
Weight of Water
(gr)
Wet Soil + Tare (gr)
526.43
669.95
(gr) 0.00
Dry Soil + Tare (gr)
485.10
564.76
0.00
0.00
Dry Soil Weight
(gr) 0.00
Weight of Water (gr)
41.33
105.19
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Moisture Content
(%) 0.00
Dry Soil Weight (gr)
284.59
284.59
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Soil Height
(In.)
Moisture Content (%)
14.52
36.96
0.00
0.00
1 0.00 0.00
Wet Unit Weight
(pcf)
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
98.82
109.63
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
86.28
80.04
Sample Height(Inches)
1.00
1.078
Specific Gravity
2.7
jPercentSaturation
41.16
9U.32
Elapsed
Change
Elapsed
Change
Elapsed Change
Expansion Index
Number
Time
in Height
Time
in Height
Time in Height
Corrected to 50%
(m:s)
(Inches)
(m:s)
(Inches)
(m:s) (Inches)
Surcharge (psf)
Uncorrected
Saturation
1.0
0.0211
Test wt. 144
78
71
16.0
0.0673
Test wt.
37.0
0.0730
Test wt.
54.0
0.0743
124.0
0.0763
153.0
0.0768
Expansion Index Values and Descriptions
Expansion Index
Potential Expansion
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51-90
Medium
91-130
High
Above 130
Very High
285.0 0.0779
327.0 0.0780
IExpansion Versus Time
0.10
0.08 ..........
0.06 .'_... - . .. .....
t
0.04 :...... __. .
_.
0.02 � - ..
.._
0.00 ..._._... ..._....... -_
Minutes
..... ...... ........ ...._ _ ............._._.... .... .. _ ....._.......
�-144-•-1�--
_ _.
(530) 478-1305
- Fax 5 4-78-1019 - 792 Searls Ave.Nevada ity,A 5 5
- A California
Corporatioi
10:04-01 Labh=9-o2i...Ni:i-.-.i
w��l • • ��� �� l���r ��-.v i v - r a4 0c011c rive.- iNtvdud -ity, uH -doaoy - H uainornla t;orporatlor
70704-01 I_:di=9-0'1. 1;Sllcll-Cousilid:uiuu
Swell/Consolidation
ro)ect o----,
70304-01
ProjectName:
Lundberg Farms
Date: 211212009
Sample No.:
020909A
--Boring/Trench No.: Nn
Depth (ft.) Nn
Tested By: MLHF
Soil Description:
Dark Brown (7.5YR 312),
High Plasticity Clay (CH)
Checked By: JHA
Estimated % of sample retained on
.
Lab. No.: 9.021
peclmen ype:
n Istur e :
lRemoll ed to:
° at ° wet o optimum
Tube Dia.(Inch) =
Ing Dia.(Inch) =
2.36
Ring Height (Inch)=1.00
FIELD A
Tube Sample Moisture & Density
LAB DATA
I est wt.
varies
I est wt.est
wt.
Initial
FinalInitial
InaInitial
Ina
Tare Tube Number
Tare Number
ML
Tare Weight
(gr)
Tare Ring Weight (gr)
0.00
0.00
Wet Soil +Tare
(gr)
Tare Pan Weight (gr)
157.23
157.23
Dry Soil +Tare
(gr)
jWet Soil -Tare (gr)
299.12
300.88
Weight of Water
(gr)
0.00
jDry Soil + Tare (gr)
279.20
279.20.
0.00
0.00
Dry Soil Weight
(gr)
0.00
eight of Water (gr)
19.92
21.68
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Moisture Content
(%)
0.00
jDry Soil Weight (gr)
121.97
121.97
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Soil Height
(In.)
Moisture Content (%)
16.33
17.77PElaed
0.00
0.00 0.00
Wet Unit Weight
(pcf)
et Unit Weight (pcf)
123.58
125.12
Dry Unit Weight
(pco
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
106.23
106.23
Sample Height (inches)
1.00
1.000
Specific Gravity
7
Percent Saturation
Elapsed Change
Elapsed
Change
Elapsed Change
Elapsed
Change
Change
Elapsed Change
Time in Height
Time
in Height
Time in Height
Time
in Heightin
Height
Time in Height
(m:s) (Inches)
(m:s)
(Inches)
(m:s) (Inches)
(m:s)
(Inches)
(Inches)
(m:s) (Inches)
free swell
100 psf bad
144 psf bad
200 psf bad
300 psf bad
400 psf bad
0.0 0.0000
37.0 0.0060
1260.0 0.0480
1385.0 0.0480
1385.0
0.0290
1395.0
1395.0
0.0290
1398.0
1398.0
0.0130
1398.0 0.0120
1409.0
1409.0 0.0120
1409.0
0.0110
1418.0
1418.0
0.0100
1425.0
1425.0
0.0100
1425.0
0.0100
1439.0
1439.0
0.0090
1465.0
1465.0
0.0070
1491.0
1491.0
0.0060
1491.0 0.0060
1624.0
1624.0 0.0030
1702.0
1702.0 0.0020
1850.0
1850.0 0.0020
0.06
Expansion/Consolidation Versus Time
0.05 .. ._. ._ .. .. .:
0.04 .. ...__ .-_._ ....___.
.. ..........._
__ ....
.
N
L 0.03 .. ..... .. ..........
f.T
C
0.02 ......_ ... ...... _....._
. _._.... .....
_._._..__._.M........ _.__
....
-
i
0.01 ... .__.._ ._.._. ............
0.00 ... ... ....
0 0 0
o
. ._. ..
0 0
v
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
a
N N
Minutes
tD t0
U7
^
�
M In
w��l • • ��� �� l���r ��-.v i v - r a4 0c011c rive.- iNtvdud -ity, uH -doaoy - H uainornla t;orporatlor
70704-01 I_:di=9-0'1. 1;Sllcll-Cousilid:uiuu
70304-03 022310A.doc
HOLDREGE & KULL
�■ ■r �r �r r rr rr r r rr rr r� rr r r r� rr rr r
} I-
Date: 2/18/2009 Jc
Liquefaction Analysis By: SDC
11997 NCEER Procedures) efeencea
I- Idris, I.M. and Besting r R.W., 1004,'Sani-erre erial Pm celltes to Evaluating Ligeefictioa
aerlial DuringEanhgmkes,'
Project: Lundberg Farms, Riehvale, CA 2 Sc0. H.B, Tokmasu,K.aul Hardc,LF.,'Influenceof SPT ProcMoa in Soil Ligeefictiot
Project Number: 70304-01 Resislartee E�aleation s.'Jalmal of Ceaccln;cal Erginecirr„ :vl. I11,pp. 14251445,
3- Toaarnauo. I:. and Seed, H.B.,'Evaluation of Setderrrcas in Samek Due to Eaelquake Shaking'
oaanal of deaedlao Engreaing vol. 113, pp. 8dl 578.
Boring: i 809-1 M= 6.4 FS(req'd)= 1.3 Robertson, P.K. and Wride,C,E.,'Cydic Liquefaction andirs Evaluation Based of SPTard
PT' Evaluation and Mitigation ofEarthquake Incl.eed Liquefaction Hazards. Procadinp,March 13.
Depth to Historic GW = 0.5 (t MSF= 1.34 1.34 14, 1997, San Farcisco.
a_, = 0.124 g
Ftnlel �nA I �ti n�.�
Layer
Top
Layer
Bottom
Layer
unit wei ht
fines
N
Ce
Cb
Cr
CI
Cs
overburden
eff.
overburden
Coarse or Fine? Density/
C or F Consistent
No Liner
(1]
[fil
fpco%s
SPT
1.0
California
0.7
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
s
1
2
3
4
5
6,
7
8
9
10
1 t
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
0
5.5
10
15
18
25
30.5
35
40
45
50
5.5
10
15
18
25
30.5
35
40
45
50
51.5
105
115
115
115
110
110
115
105
105
105
105
100
30
30
65
65
65
15
90
90
90
90
11
36
24
20
41
50
37
34
34
49
56
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
288.8
836.3
1382.5
1842.5
2400.0
3087.5
3648.8
4170.0
4695.0
5220.0
5561.3
148.4
383.9
633.7
844.1
1089.6
1387.1
1636.4
1861.2
2074.2
2287.2
2425.7
f Soft
c Medium Dense
c Medium Dense
c Medium Dense
f Stiff
f Hard
c Dense
f Hard
f Hard
f Hard
f Hard
0.00
Liquefaction Potential
Reviewed By: DMO
Cr
Blow Count Correction Factors:
0.75
Energy Correction
Ce
Rope and Cathead
1.0
Automatic Hammer
1.2
Winch System'
0.7
2.5 to 4.5 inches 1.00
6 inches 1.05
8 inches
"Incida diamaler of Rnrinn/G,incr
Rod Length Correction
Cr
< 10 feet
0.75
10 to 20 feet
0.85
20 to 30 feet
0.95
>30 feet
1.00
Liner Correction
Cl
Liner/Rings/Tubes
1.0
No Liner
1.2
Sampler Correction
Cs
SPT
1.0
California
0.7
Layer
Top
Layer
Depth
to M.P.
Layer
Thickness
N60
C.
(Nao),
fines
Strength
CRR,.s CRR.
r,
Induced
CSRc
LIQUEFY?
FS (SPT)
Notes
In]
ft
in
blows
2:75 -.;
blows
15
na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
2
1
2
3
4
5
6,
7
8
9
10
1 t
_ 0;> �'
'r5.5,+i'.
' •.:101'".:,
i :115 "`-j;.
.18 .'"
•25';. -
"•30.5--,
- ,35 •iA
X4.40'r'
:45''.'
750
2.75
7.75
12.5
16.5
21.5
27.75
32.75
37.5
42.5
47.5
50.75
66
54
-60
36
84
66
54
60
60
60
18
7
24
16
13
27
33
42
39
39
56
64
1.00
2.28
1.78
1.54
1.35
1.20
1.11
1.04
0.98...,
0.94
0.91
7
2E:
_.
..
.1:?
..
;z2.
100'
30
-5
65
65
:,, -65
90
90. _,.,
90
90
na
na
na
na
0.50
0.11
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.15
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.97
0.91
0.85
0.80
0.74
0.67
0.67
0.55
0.49
0.43
0.39
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.14.
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
6.59 NO
6.28 NO
6.69 NO
7.09 NO
5.07 NO
YES
6.12 NO
6.72 NO
7.47 NO
8.44 NO
9.24 NO
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
4
16.5,
0.5
41
na'
0.00
NO-
0.00
cep= -i -n,. L,.a. --_-
Layer
Depth
to M.P.
fines correction
(Nw),. cs
k,,, (fines)
CSRa
CSR,,s
LIQUEFY?
volumetric
Strain
Settlement
1f1]
[%I
[in]
1
2:75 -.;
0.5
15
na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
2
, 7.75 ..'�
0.4
93
na-
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
3
12.5
0.4
48
ria
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
4
16.5,
0.5
41
na'
0.00
NO-
0.00
0.00
5
., 21.5-.
0.5
73
- na "
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
• 6
'27.75
0.5
79
0.12
0.09
YES
0.00
0.00
7
'32.75.
0.2
56
na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
8
_ 37.51
0.5
80
na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
9
42.5 t
0.5
76
na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
10
47.5
0.5
104
.. na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
11
50.75:
0.5
115
- na
0.00
NO
0.00
0.00
sum=L 0.00 [in)
Liquefaction Potential Eqn's:
C,v :
[Eqn 18, ref 11
MSF:
[Eqn 8, ref 1]
CRR, J:
jFigure 6, Ref 2]
CRI, =MS'F-CRR,
0.65 • a • i;r • a,.
CS7z �
s
Settlement Egn's:
k,,,, : [Eqn 6, ref 4]
11ohuncirir Snvbr, c,.: [Figure 9, Ref. 31
(IU,.J.(fines)=
scrrlenren/ = c',..r h,Vcr dair'kncss