Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPENDIX D – Geotechnical Exploration Report GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED FIRE STATION NO. 80 TRAINING CENTER NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHERRY AVENUE AND SOUTH HIGHLAND AVENUE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For PBK ARCHITECTS, INC. 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared By LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. 10532 Acacia Street, Suite B-6 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Project No. 13491.001 May 18, 2022 May 18, 2022 Project No. 13491.001 PBK Architects, Inc. 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Kelley Needham Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Fire Station No. 80 Training Center Southeast of Cherry Avenue and South Highland Avenue City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California In accordance with our March 24, 2022 proposal, and your authorization on the same date, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has completed this geotechnical exploration in support of design of the new Fire Station No. 80 Training Center for the City of Fontana Fire Protection District, to be constructed southeast of Chery Avenue and South Highland Avenue, in the City of Fontana, California. The purpose of our exploration was to evaluate geologic hazards and geotechnical conditions of the site with respect to the proposed improvements and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Fire Station No. 80 Training Center development. This site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone nor a fault zone identified by the County of San Bernardino, and no active faults have been mapped within or trending towards the project site. The site is located about 2.3 miles south of the Cucamonga fault zone and does not require a fault study. However, as is the case for most of southern California, strong ground shaking has and will occur at this site. Based on this investigation, the proposed development of the fire station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Significant geotechnical issues for this project include those related to the potential for strong seismic shaking and potentially compressible soils. Good planning and design of the project can limit the impacts of these constraints. This City of Fontana Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 -2- report presents our findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for the project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of additional service to PBK Architects, Inc. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us at your convenience at 866-LEIGHTON, directly at the phone extensions or e-mail addresses listed below. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Jason D. Hertzberg, GE 2711 Principal Engineer Extension 8772, jhertzberg@leightongroup.com Steven G. Okubo, CEG 2706 Project Geologist Extension 8773, sokubo@leightongroup.com JAT/LP/SGO/JDH/rsm Distribution: (1) addressee (via e-mail PDF) - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1  1.1 Site Location and Description ......................................................................................... 1  1.2 Proposed Fire Station No. 80 Training Center ............................................................... 1  1.3 Purpose and Scope of Exploration ................................................................................. 2  2.0 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 4  2.1 Geologic Hazards Review .............................................................................................. 4  2.2 Regional Geologic Setting .............................................................................................. 4  2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions ............................................................................................ 4  2.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 5  2.5 Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................................................... 6  2.5.1 Surface Faulting ...................................................................................................... 6  2.5.2 Seismicity (Ground Shaking): .................................................................................. 7  2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................... 7  2.6.1 Liquefaction Potential: ............................................................................................. 7  2.6.2 Lateral Spreading: ................................................................................................... 8  2.6.3 Seismically Induced Settlement: ............................................................................. 8  2.6.4 Slope Instability and Landslides: ............................................................................. 8  2.6.5 Earthquake-Induced Seiches and Tsunamis: .......................................................... 8  2.6.6 Earthquake-Induced Inundation: ............................................................................. 9  2.7 Storm-Induced Flood Hazard ......................................................................................... 9  2.8 Infiltration Testing ........................................................................................................... 9  3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 11  3.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 11   3.2 Recommendations Summary ....................................................................................... 11  3.3 Earthwork ..................................................................................................................... 11  3.3.1 Earthwork Observation and Testing: ..................................................................... 11  3.3.2 Surface Drainage: ................................................................................................. 12  3.3.3 Site Preparation: .................................................................................................... 12  3.3.4 Fill Placement and Compaction: ............................................................................ 13  3.3.5 Shrinkage or Bulking: ............................................................................................ 13  3.4 Seismic Design Parameters ......................................................................................... 14  3.5 Foundations .................................................................................................................. 15   3.5.1 Minimum Embedment and Width: ......................................................................... 15  3.5.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity: .................................................................................. 16  3.5.3 Lateral Load Resistance: ....................................................................................... 16  3.5.4 Settlement Estimates: ........................................................................................... 16  3.6 Concrete Slab-On-Grade .............................................................................................. 17  3.7 Sulfate Attack and Ferrous Corrosion Protection ......................................................... 18  3.7.1 Sulfate Exposure: .................................................................................................. 18  3.7.2 Ferrous Corrosivity: ............................................................................................... 18  3.7.3 Corrosivity Test Results: ....................................................................................... 19  City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - ii - 3.8 Pavement Section Design ............................................................................................ 19  3.9 Retaining Wall Recommendations ............................................................................... 22  3.10 Infiltration Recommendations ................................................................................... 23  4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 26  4.1 Trench Excavations ...................................................................................................... 26  4.2 Temporary Shoring ....................................................................................................... 26  4.3 Trench Backfill .............................................................................................................. 26   4.4 Geotechnical Services During Construction ................................................................. 27  5.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 29   REFERENCES Tables Page Table 1. 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters ................................................. 15  Table 2. Sulfate Concentration and Exposure .............................................................. 18  Table 3. Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity ................................................................ 18  Table 4. Results of Corrosivity Testing ......................................................................... 19  Table 5. Hot Mixed Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections ............................................... 20  Table 6. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections ............................................. 20  Table 7. Retaining Wall Design Parameters ................................................................. 22  List of Figures (Behind References) Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map Figure 4 – Regional Faults and Historic Seismicity Map Figure 5 – Dam Inundation Map Figure 6 – Flood Hazard Zone Map Figure 7 – Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Appendices Appendix A - Field Exploration Appendix B - Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Seismic Appendix D - GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report - 1 - 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Location and Description As depicted on Figure 1, Site Location Map, this proposed fire station training center site is located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (latitude 34.1343° and longitude -117.4878°). The existing approximate 2.2-acre undeveloped site is mapped as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 0228-021-46 by the County of San Bernardino. The proposed Fire Station No. 80 and training center buildings are planned to be constructed towards the western portion of the overall site and the proposed training tower is to be constructed towards the northeastern portion of the overall site. The site is bounded to the west by Cherry Avenue, to the south by South Highland Avenue, to the north by the Highland Channel, and the west by the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, which includes overhead transmission lines, a transmission tower, and land previously used for agricultural purposes. Based on our review of historical aerial imagery dating back to 1938 (NETR, 2022), the site has utilized for agricultural purposes up to present day and remained vacant with the exception of The Metropolitan Water District’s 144-inch diameter Etiwanda Pipeline running through the eastern edge of the site, installed around approximately 1992 and the Highland Channel constructed between 1994 and 2002. This site slopes gently towards the southwest to Cherry Avenue, from an approximately elevation of 1403 feet at the northeast most part of the site to approximately 1389 feet in the southwest corner. 1.2 Proposed Fire Station No. 80 Training Center Based on the February 15, 2022, City of Fontana Fire Station No. 80 and Training Center, Proposed Site Plan prepared by PBK Architects Inc., the approximate 2.2-acre site will accommodate an approximate 4,300-square-foot (SF) Training Classroom building, an approximately 3,750-SF, 5-story, Training Tower building, and an approximately 10,400-SF Fire Station building. The site layout also includes associated visitor and secured parking, drives, electrical equipment enclosure, outdoor patio, a monument sign and flag, trash enclosure, a sliding security gate, perimeter walls, confined space training facilities, and landscaping. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 2 - At this time, structural loading of the proposed foundations has not been provided, but we assume the proposed building will be relatively lightly loaded, and we assume that the proposed building will have a concrete slab-on-grade, and will consist of reinforced masonry, wood and/or cold-formed steel stud construction. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Exploration Purpose of our exploration was to: (1) evaluate geotechnical conditions of the site of the proposed Fire Station No. 80 Training Center with respect to the proposed improvements, (2) identify significant geotechnical or geologic issues that would impact this proposed building, and (3) provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of proposed building and associated improvements as currently planned. In accordance with our March 24, 2022 proposal, the scope of our exploration included the following:  Research: We reviewed readily available geotechnical literature, reports and aerial photographs relevant to this site. Pertinent geotechnical documents are referenced at the end of this report text.  Field Exploration: On April 7, 2022, seven (7) hollow-stem auger borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rig, logged and sampled to depths ranging from approximately 11½ feet to 51½ feet below the existing ground surface. Water infiltration testing was performed on two borings (IT-1 and IT-2). After sampling, logging, and testing, all borings were immediately backfilled. Approximate boring locations are depicted on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map. Descriptions of encountered soil conditions are presented in our boring logs in Appendix A, Field Exploration.  Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained during our field exploration. Our laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate engineering characteristics of onsite soils. A description of test procedures and results are presented in Appendix B, Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.  Engineering and Geologic Analysis: Data obtained from field exploration and geotechnical laboratory testing were evaluated and analyzed to develop geotechnical conclusions and provide recommendations in general accordance with the California Geological Survey (CGS) Note 48.  Report Preparation: Results of our geologic hazards review and geotechnical exploration have been summarized in this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary geotechnical design recommendations. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 3 - This report does not address the potential for encountering hazardous materials in site soils or within groundwater. Important information about limitations of geotechnical reports in general, is presented in Appendix D, GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 4 - 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 Geologic Hazards Review We have reviewed pertinent, readily available geologic and geotechnical literature covering the site. Our review included regional geologic maps and reports available from our library and online. Documents reviewed are listed in Appendix A, References. Potential geologic hazards are discussed in the following sections. Our review has considered California Geological Survey’s Note 48, Checklist of the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. 2.2 Regional Geologic Setting The site is located on a gently sloping alluvial plain descending southward from the San Gabriel Mountains. This area is within the Chino Basin in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. Major structural features surrounding the region include the Cucamonga Fault and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the inferred Fontana Seismic Trend to the southeast, and the San Jacinto Fault to the east. The region is an area of large- scale crustal disturbance as the relatively northwestward-migrating Peninsular Ranges Province interacts with the Transverse Ranges Province (which includes the San Gabriel Mountains) to the north. Several active or potentially active faults have been mapped in the region and are believed to accommodate compression and lateral displacement associated with this crustal interaction. The site is located approximately 2.3 miles south of the active Cucamonga Fault Zone, which accommodates uplift that forms the steep escarpment of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north relative to the basin floor to the south. This site region is underlain by a thick accumulation of young alluvial fan deposits (Morton et al., 2001), which have been mapped to consist of gravel and sand deposits (Dibblee and Minch, 2003) eroded and transported from the San Gabriel Mountains and deposited in the site vicinity. 2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions Based upon our review of existing geotechnical literature (References) and our subsurface exploration (Appendix A), undocumented fill (Afu) placed by previous agricultural activities were observed at the site and underlain by Quaternary young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf). City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 5 - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu): Undocumented artificial fill presumably placed during previous agricultural activities was observed at the surface of the site and was encountered to depths of approximately 1 to 2 feet below the current surface overlying alluvium. The undocumented artificial fill encountered in our borings was characterized as relatively dry to slightly moist, loose silty sand with minor gravel. During grading, dry and/ or loose undocumented fill in site vicinity may be uncovered to be locally deeper or shallower than currently estimated. More detailed descriptions of subsurface soils encountered are presented on our boring logs in Appendix A. Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf): Young alluvial fan deposits have been mapped (Morton et al., 2001) underlying undocumented artificial fill in the site vicinity. Alluvium encountered in our exploratory borings was observed to be moist and dense to very dense sand, gravel and cobbles. Boulders were not encountered during our subsurface exploration with small-diameter borings, though give the cobbly nature of the soils, boulders could be present. 2.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings drilled to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) on April 7, 2022. To research groundwater levels at this site, we obtained groundwater level data from the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR, 2022a) Groundwater Management Act Data Viewer website from a Chino Basin Watermaster managed well (Well ID Chino-1223006) located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the site. Well data from this location ranged in date from 2011 through 2021 and indicated the shallowest groundwater measurement to be at an elevation of 723 feet above mean sea level (MSL) that correlates to a depth no shallower than 665 feet below the site’s lowest surface. We also reviewed Geohydrology Maps of the Chino-Riverside Area (CDWR, 1970) dating back to 1933, in which the area site is mapped in an area with closest groundwater elevations contours ranging from 1,000 to 1,100 above mean sea level, that correlates to a depth no shallower than approximately 289 feet below the site’s lowest surface. Based on the data collected, groundwater is not expected to be a significant constraint for development nor is anticipated to be encountered during construction activities for the proposed fire station training center. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 6 - 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity Southern California is a seismically active area. As such, the site will be subject to seismic hazards from numerous sources in the area. The severity of potential seismic hazards is related to site-specific geology, distances from seismic sources, and the magnitude of earthquake events. Principal seismic hazards evaluated on a site-specific basis included: potential for surface rupture along active or potentially active fault traces, magnitude of seismic shaking, and the susceptibility to ground failure (liquefaction, lurching, and seismically induced landslides). The potential for fault rupture and seismic shaking are discussed below. 2.5.1 Surface Faulting Fault classification criteria adopted by the California Geological Survey, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology, defines Earthquake Fault Zones along active or potentially active faults. The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 classification system is used in this report, as follows:  Active: An active fault is one that has ruptured within the Holocene epoch (the last 11,700 years).  Potentially Active: A fault that has ruptured during the last 1.8 million years (Quaternary period), but has not been proven by direct evidence to have not moved within the Holocene epoch is considered to be potentially active.  Inactive: A fault that has not moved during both Pleistocene and Holocene epochs (that is, no movement within the last 1.8 million years) is considered to be inactive. Based on our review of available in-house literature, and as depicted on Figure 4, Regional Faults and Historic Seismicity Map, there are no currently known active surface faults that traverse or trend towards this site. Additionally, this site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2022), or a fault zone delineated by the County (County of San Bernardino, 2007) or City (City of Fontana, 2018). The closest know active or potentially active faults are the Cucamonga fault located approximately 2.3 miles north of the site, and the Fontana fault located 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. The know regional active or potentially active faults that could produce the most significant ground shaking at the site include the San Jacinto (San Bernardino), San Andreas, Cucamonga, San Jacinto (Lytle Creek), and the fault related to the Fontana seismic trend. Nearby faults are depicted in Figure 4 – Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 7 - 2.5.2 Seismicity (Ground Shaking): A principal seismic hazard that could impact this site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults throughout southern California. An evaluation of historical seismicity from significant past earthquakes related to the site was performed. Plotted on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historic Seismicity Map, are epicenters of historic earthquakes (1769 through 2016) in and around Fontana, color coded as a function of magnitude. Based on this map, it appears that the site has been exposed to relatively significant seismic events; however, this site does not appear to have experienced more severe seismicity that compared to much of southern California in general. We are unaware of documentation indicating that past earthquake damage in the site vicinity has been significantly worse than for the majority of southern California. In addition, we are unaware of damage in the site vicinity as the result of liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other related phenomenon. 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards In general, secondary seismic hazards for sites in this region could include soil liquefaction, earthquake-induced settlement, slope instability and landslides, earthquake-induced seiches and tsunamis flooding. Site-specific potential for secondary seismic hazards is discussed in the following subsections: 2.6.1 Liquefaction Potential: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to a buildup of excess pore-water pressure during strong and long-duration ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, relatively uniform fine- to medium-grained, clean cohesionless soils. As shaking action of an earthquake progresses, soil granules are rearranged and the soil densifies within a short period. This rapid densification of soil results in a buildup of pore-water pressure. When the pore-water pressure approaches the total overburden pressure, soil shear strength reduces abruptly and temporarily behaves similar to a fluid. For liquefaction to occur there must be: (1) loose, clean granular soils, (2) shallow groundwater, and (3) strong, long-duration ground shaking The State of California has not prepared a map delineating zones of liquefaction potential for the quadrangle that contains the site. The San Bernardino County Land Use Plan - Geologic Hazards Overlays for the Devore Quadrangle (SBC, 2010) has mapped this area outside a zone of liquefaction potential. No groundwater was encountered during our exploration to explored depths of 51 ½ feet bgs, and collected data indicated City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 8 - that groundwater depths at and near this site have been historically greater than approximately 289 feet deep beneath the site. In addition, encountered alluvial soils onsite were generally medium dense to very dense within our borings. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the dense nature of the onsite soils, liquefaction is unlikely to occur at the site. 2.6.2 Lateral Spreading: Lateral spreading is unlikely to occur at the site due to the lack of liquefaction potential and lack of significant topographic relief at and around this site. 2.6.3 Seismically Induced Settlement: During a strong seismic event, non- liquefaction, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose and dry granular soils. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often unevenly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Fill soils are typically highly susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Undocumented fill soils under the proposed building footprint are recommended (discussed later in this report) to be recompacted to mitigate dynamic settlement concerns. We have performed analyses to estimate the potential for seismically induced settlement using the method of Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), and based on Martin and Lew (1999), considering the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration (PGAM). The results of our analyses suggested that the onsite soils are susceptible to less than 1 inch of seismic settlement based on the MCE. Differential settlement due to seismic loading is assumed to be less than ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet based on the MCE. A summary of seismic settlement analysis is included in Appendix C. 2.6.4 Slope Instability and Landslides: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The State of California has not prepared a map delineating zones of landslide potential for the quadrangle that contains the site. The County of San Bernardino for the Devore Quadrangle have mapped this area to be outside a zone of landslide potential. The site and vicinity are gently sloping. The potential for seismically induced landslide activity is considered negligible for this site due to the lack of significant slopes. 2.6.5 Earthquake-Induced Seiches and Tsunamis: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are predominately ocean waves generated by undersea large magnitude fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on separation of the site from any enclosed body of water, there is no seiche impact at the site. Also, due to average site elevation of -feet above mean sea level and the inland location of this site relative to the Pacific City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 9 - Ocean tsunami risks at this site is nil. 2.6.6 Earthquake-Induced Inundation: This inundation hazard is flooding caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. Figure 5, Dam Inundation Map, shows an area of dam breach inundation approximately 3,500 feet northwest of the site. The subject site is not mapped within a dam breach inundation zone. 2.7 Storm-Induced Flood Hazard As depicted on Figure 6, Flood Hazard Zone Map, this site is not mapped within a “100-year” or “500-year” flood zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 2.8 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was conducted within two of our borings onsite (IT-1 and IT-2) to estimate the infiltration characteristics of the onsite soils at the depths and locations tested. The infiltration testing was conducted at a bottom test zone depth of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface within native soils. Well permeameter tests are useful for field measurements of soil infiltration rates, and are suited for testing when the design depth of the basin or chamber is deeper than current existing grades. It should be noted that this is a clean-water, small-scale test, and that correction factors need to be applied. A test consists of excavating a boring to the depth of the test (or deeper as long as it is partially backfilled with soil and a bentonite plug with a thin soil covering is placed just below the design test elevation). A layer of clean sand or gravel is then placed in the boring bottom to temporarily support a perforated well casing pipe system. Once the well casing pipe has been installed, coarse sand or gravel is poured in the annular space outside of the well casing within the test zone to prevent the boring from caving/collapsing or spalling when water is added. Water is added into the boring to an initial water height, as water within the boring infiltrates into the soil, measurements are taken of the height of the water column within the boring at equally timed intervals (known as a falling head test). The infiltration rate as measured during intervals of the test is defined as the flow rate of water infiltrated, divided by the surface area of the infiltration interface. The test was conducted based on the USBR 7300-89 test method. Raw infiltration rates for the well permeameter test yielded rates of 10 and 6 inches/hour within borings IT-1 and IT-2, respectively within the native soils. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 10 - Results of infiltration testing are provided in Appendix B. Further discussion of infiltration testing and related recommendations are included in Section 3.9. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 11 - 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Conclusions This site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone delineated for surface fault rupture hazards. However, as is the case for most of southern California, strong ground shaking has and will occur at this site. Historical groundwater levels are on the order of approximately 289 feet below the surface or deeper based on available well data. Encountered native site soils were medium dense to very dense sands and gravels. Due to the lack of groundwater and dense condition of native soils, liquefaction is highly unlikely to occur at this site. Near-surface soils have very low expansion potential. 3.2 Recommendations Summary We are unaware of any fill placement documentation for this site. Based upon our geotechnical exploration and analysis, all existing undocumented fill soil and compressible native alluvium soils within the proposed building footprint should be excavated and recompacted to provide more uniform shallow foundation support. In any case, overexcavation should extend at least 3.5 feet below existing grade, or at least 2 feet below proposed footings, whichever is deeper, within building footprints. The proposed fire station can be founded on conventional spread footings bearing solely on a zone of newly excavated and recompacted fill soils derived from onsite soils, overlying solely undisturbed native soils. Geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Fire Station 80 Training Center site are presented in the following subsections. 3.3 Earthwork Project earthwork is expected to include overexcavation and recompaction of undocumented fill soils and onsite alluvium soils below the proposed new building footprint as described in the following subsections: 3.3.1 Earthwork Observation and Testing: Leighton should observe and test all grading and earthwork to check that the site has been properly prepared, to assess that selected fill materials are satisfactory, and to evaluate that placement and compaction of fills has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Any imported soil or aggregate material to be evaluated for its suitability as onsite fill material should be submitted to a Leighton geotechnical laboratory at least two City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 12 - working days in advance of earth material placement and compaction. Project plans and specifications should incorporate recommendations contained in the text of this report. Variations in site conditions are possible and may be encountered during construction. To confirm correlation between soil data obtained during our field and laboratory testing and actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and to observe conformance with approved plans and specifications, we should be retained to perform continuous or intermittent review during earthwork, excavation and foundation construction phases. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon construction geotechnical observation services. 3.3.2 Surface Drainage: Water should not be allowed to pond or accumulate anywhere except in approved drainage areas, which should be set back at least 15 feet from proposed structures. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures to approved drainage facilities. Hardscape drains should be installed and drain to storm water disposal systems. Drainage patterns and drainpipes approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of proposed structures. Percolation or stormwater infiltration should not be allowed within at least horizontal 15 feet of the proposed Fire Station 80 Training Center buildings. 3.3.3 Site Preparation: Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of vegetation, trash and debris, which should be disposed of offsite. Any underground obstructions should be removed. Resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. Efforts should be made to locate existing utility lines. Those lines should be removed or rerouted if they interfere with the proposed construction, and the resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. Based on encountered site conditions, we recommend that all fill and native soils should be excavated from the proposed building footprint, down at least 2 feet below the bottoms of proposed footings or at least 3.5 feet below existing grade, whichever is deeper. Undocumented fill was not encountered deeper than 3 feet in the exploratory borings performed for this study, though should be removed if encountered. Overexcavation bottoms should extend horizontally either the thickness of fill below spread footings or at least 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside edges of proposed building perimeter City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 13 - footings, whichever is greater, encompassing the whole new building footprint, including attached columns. Any underground obstructions encountered should be removed. Efforts should be made to locate any existing utility lines. Those lines should be removed or rerouted where interfering with proposed construction. Areas outside proposed building footprint limits, planned for asphalt and/or concrete pavement, should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 18 inches below existing or finish grade, or 12 inches below proposed pavement sections; whichever is deeper. Resulting removal excavation bottom surfaces should be observed by Leighton prior to placement of any backfill or new construction. It is essential that all existing fill soils be excavated from the proposed building footprints, regardless of depth. After overexcavations are completed and prior to fill placement, exposed surfaces should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 standard test method (modified Proctor compaction curve). 3.3.4 Fill Placement and Compaction: Onsite soils free of organics and debris are suitable for use as compacted structural fill provided it is free of oversized material greater than 8 inches in its largest dimension. However, any soil to be placed as fill, whether onsite or imported material, should be first viewed by Leighton and then tested if and as necessary, prior to approval for use as compacted fill. All structural fill should be free of hazardous materials. All fill soil should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, to within 3 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 standard test method (modified Proctor compaction curve) within the building footprint. Aggregate base for pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. 3.3.5 Shrinkage or Bulking: The change in volume of excavated and recompacted soil varies according to soil type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Subsidence City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 14 - occurs as in-place soil (e.g., natural ground) is moisture-conditioned and densified to receive fill, such as in processing an overexcavation bottom. Subsidence is in addition to shrinkage due to recompaction of fill soil. Field and laboratory data used in our calculations included laboratory-measured maximum dry densities for soil types encountered at the subject site, the measured in-place densities of soils encountered, sampling blow counts, and our experience. We preliminarily estimate the following earth volume changes will occur during grading: Shrinkage and Subsidence Shrinkage Approximately 10 +/- 5 percent Subsidence (overexcavation bottom processing) Approximately 0.1 foot The level of fill compaction, variations in the dry density of the existing soils and other factors influence the amount of volume change. Some adjustments to earthwork volume should be anticipated during grading of the site. 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters The site will experience strong ground shaking after the proposed project is developed resulting from an earthquake occurring along one or more of the major active or potentially active faults in southern California. Accordingly, the project should be designed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117a (CGS, 2008). Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced. The following parameters should be considered for design under the 2019 CBC: City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 15 - Table 1 . 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters 2019 CBC Parameters (CBC or ASCE 7-16 reference) Value 2019 CBC Site Latitude and Longitude: 34.1343, -117.4881 Site Class Definition (1613.2.2, ASCE 7-16 Ch 20) C Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period (1613.2.1), Ss 1.907 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period (1613.2.1), S1 0.625 g Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period (T1613.2.3(1)), Fa 1.2 Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period (T1613.2.3(2)), Fv 1.4 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period (1613.2.3), SMS 2.288 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period (1613.2.3), SM1 0.875 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period (1613.2.4), SDS 1.526 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period (1613.2.4), SD1 0.583 g Mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration (11.8.3.2, Fig 22-9 to 13), PGA 0.775 g Site Coefficient for Mapped MCEG PGA (11.8.3.2), FPGA 1.100 Site-Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (1803.5.12; 11.8.3.2), PGAM 0.93 g Hazard deaggregation was estimated using the USGS Interactive Deaggregations utility. The results of this analysis indicate that the predominant modal earthquake has a magnitude of approximately 7.9 (MW) at a distance on the order of 10.6 kilometers for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. 3.5 Foundations Based on our preliminary exploration and our experience in the region, conventional shallow spread footings may be used to support the proposed buildings. Anticipated foundation loads were not available during preparation of this report. We assumed maximum column dead loads up to (≤) 50 kips and wall loads of 3 kips per lineal foot for our preliminary foundation recommendations. Overexcavation and recompaction of footing subgrade soils should be performed as detailed in Section 3.3 of this report. Specific foundation recommendations are presented below: 3.5.1 Minimum Embedment and Width: Based on our preliminary exploration, footings for this proposed building should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below lowest adjacent exterior grade or interior finished grade; whichever is deeper/lower. Minimum footings widths should be at least 24 City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 16 - inches for isolated rectangular column footings or 12 inches for continuous bearing wall (strip) footings. 3.5.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity: A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design, based on an assumed embedment depth of 18 inches and minimum width described above. This allowable bearing value may be increased by 250 psf per foot increase in embedment depth and/or width to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf, and are for total dead load and sustained live loads, which can be increased by one-third when considering short-duration wind or seismic loads. Footing reinforcement should be designed by the project Structural Engineer. 3.5.3 Lateral Load Resistance: Soil resistance available to withstand lateral loads on a shallow foundation is a function of the frictional resistance along the base of the footing and the passive resistance that may develop as the face of the structure tends to move into the soil. The frictional resistance between the base of the foundation and the subgrade soil may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4. The passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 290 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming there is constant contact between the footing and undisturbed soil. These friction and passive values have already been reduced by a factor of safety of 1.5, and can be increased by one third when considering short-duration wind or seismic loads. For spread footings and slabs-on-grade bearing on properly compacted fill over undisturbed native soils, full friction and passive resistance can be combined to resist lateral loads; although some lateral displacement is required to mobilize full passive resistance. 3.5.4 Settlement Estimates: The above recommended allowable bearing capacity is generally based on a total allowable, post-construction total settlement of 1 inch, for column loads and wall loads not exceeding 50 kips and 3 kips per foot, respectively, for dead plus sustained live loads. Differential settlement due to static loading is generally estimated at ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Once developed by the Structural Engineer, we can review total dead and sustained live loads for each column including plan location and span distance, to evaluate if differential settlements between dissimilarly loaded columns will be tolerable. Excessive differential settlement can be mitigated with the use of reduced bearing pressures, deeper footing embedment, possibly changing overexcavation schemes and using imported base material under spread footings, or possibly other methods. Assuming all City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 17 - existing fill soils are properly recompacted below these buildings, dynamic differential settlement in dense sands is expected to be negligible. 3.6 Concrete Slab-On-Grade Concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with 2019 CBC requirements. More stringent requirements may be required by the structural engineer and/or architect; however, slabs-on-grade should have the following minimum recommended components:  Subgrade: Slab-on-grade subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to or within 2% over optimum moisture content, to a minimum depth of 18 inches within building footprints, and compacted to 95% of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) laboratory maximum density prior to placing either a moisture barrier, steel and/or concrete.  Moisture Barrier: A moisture barrier consisting of 15-mil-thick Stego-wrap vapor barriers (see: http://www.stegoindustries.com/products/stego_wrap_vapor_barrier.php), or equivalent, should be placed below slabs where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment will be placed.  Reinforced Concrete: A conventionally reinforced concrete slab-on-grade with a thickness of at least 4 inches should be placed in pedestrian areas without heavy loads. Reinforcing steel should be designed by the structural engineer, but as a minimum should be No. 4 rebar placed at 18 inches on- center, each direction (perpendicularly), mid-depth in the slab. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) as a linear spring constant, of 175 pounds per square inch per inch deflection (pci) can be used for design of heavily loaded slabs- on-grade, assuming a linear response up to deflections on the order of ¾ inch.  Slab-On-Grade Control Joints: Slab-on-grade crack control joint locations and spacing should be designed by the project Structural Engineer (SE). Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected. However, cracking is often aggravated by a high water-to- cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 18 - 3.7 Sulfate Attack and Ferrous Corrosion Protection 3.7.1 Sulfate Exposure: Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. A potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Section 1904A of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) defers to the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI’s) ACI 318-14 for concrete durability requirements. Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14 lists “Exposure categories and classes,” including sulfate exposure as follows: Table 2. Sulfate Concentration and Exposure Soluble Sulfate in Water (parts-per-million) Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4) in soil (percentage by weight) ACI 318-14 Sulfate Class 0-150 0.00 - 0.10 S0 (negligible) 150-1,500 0.10 - 0.20 S1 (moderate*) 1,500-10,000 0.20 - 2.00 S2 (severe) >10,000 >2.00 S3 (very severe) *or seawater 3.7.2 Ferrous Corrosivity: Many factors can modify corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor. Based on the findings of studies presented in ASTM STP 1013 titled “Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion” (February 1989), the approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as follows: Table 3. Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) Classification of Soil Corrosiveness 0 to 900 Very Severely Corrosive 900 to 2,300 Severely Corrosive 2,300 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive 10,000 to >100,000 Very Mildly Corrosive Acidity is an important factor of soil corrosivity. The lower the pH (the more City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 19 - acidic the environment), the higher the soil corrosivity will be with respect to buried metallic structures and utilities. As soil pH increases above 7 (the neutral value), the soil is increasingly more alkaline and less corrosive to buried steel structures, due to protective surface films, which form on steel in high pH environments. A pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally considered relatively passive from a corrosion standpoint. Chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and pH appear to play secondary roles in modifying corrosion potential. High chloride levels tend to reduce soil resistivity and break down otherwise protective surface deposits, which can result in corrosion of buried steel or reinforced concrete structures. 3.7.3 Corrosivity Test Results: To evaluate corrosion potential of soils sampled from this site, we tested a bulk soil sample for soluble sulfate content, soluble chloride content, pH and resistivity. Results of these tests are summarized below: Table 4. Results of Corrosivity Testing Locations Sample Depth (feet) Sulfate (ppm) Chloride (ppm) pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Boring LB-1 0 - 5 128 80 6.71 4,450 Note: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, or parts-per-million (ppm) These results are discussed as follows:  Sulfate Exposure: Based on Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14, in our opinion, sulfate exposure should be considered “negligible” with an Exposure Class S0 for native soils sampled at the site. Based on Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14, for this Exposure Category S0, there would be no restrictions on cement type (“cementitious material”) nor water/cement ratio, and an ƒc’ (28-day compressive strength) of at least 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) is required at a minimum for structural concrete.  Ferrous Corrosivity: As shown above, minimum soil resistivity of 4,450 ohm-centimeters was measured in our laboratory test. In our opinion, it appears for site soils that corrosion potential to buried steel may be characterized as “moderately corrosive” at the site. Ferrous pipe buried in moist to wet site earth materials should be avoided by using high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or other non-ferrous pipe when possible. Or ferrous pipe can be protected by polyethylene bags, tap or coatings, di-electric fittings or other means to separate the pipe from on-site earth materials. 3.8 Pavement Section Design Based on design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual and a maximum design R-value of 50 for compacted onsite subgrade City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 20 - soils, preliminary flexible pavement sections were calculated for the Traffic Indices (TIs) tabulated, and are listed below: Table 5. Hot Mixed Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections Assumed Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (inches) 5 or less (auto access) 3.0 4.0 7.0 (truck/60-000-lb apparatus access) 4.0 4.0 Undistributed apparatus outrigger loads could cause local asphalt pavement punching damage. When possible, outrigger loads should be distributed over asphalt pavements with planks and plywood. Otherwise, areas where outrigger loads are anticipated could be paved with 8-inch-thick concrete as described below. Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sections were calculated in accordance with procedures developed by the Portland Cement Association. Concrete paving sections for two Traffic Indices (TIs) are presented below: Table 6. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections Assumed Traffic Index PC Concrete (inches) Base Course (inches) 5.0 (automobile parking, driveways) 5 0 7.0 (truck access) 6.5 We have assumed that this Portland cement concrete will have a compressive strength of at least 4,000 psi. Reinforcement should be specified by the structural engineer, but should be a minimum of #3 rebar at 18 inches on center each way. The PCC pavement sections should be provided with crack-control joints spaced no more than 13 feet on center each way. If sawcuts are used, they should have a minimum depth of ¼ of the slab thickness and made within 24 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. PCC sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick over prepared subgrade soil, with construction joints no more than 8 feet on center each way, with sections as nearly square as possible. Use of reinforcing will help reduce severity of cracking. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 21 - All pavement construction should be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Field observations and periodic testing, as needed during placement of the base course materials, should be undertaken to ensure that the requirements of the standard specifications are fulfilled. Prior to placement of aggregate base, the subgrade soil should be processed to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Field observation and periodic testing, as needed during placement of base course materials, should be undertaken to ensure that requirements of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications (2015) and Special Provisions are fulfilled. Consideration should be given to reinforce concrete pavements where large outrigger point loads are anticipated. Recommended structural pavement materials should conform to the specified provisions in the Caltrans Standard Specifications (2015) including grading and quality requirements, shown below:  Asphalt Concrete (Hot Mixed Asphalt) for pavement should be Type A and should conform to Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete specimens should be tested for surface abrasion in accordance with CT-360.  Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement should conform to Section 40 of the Standard Specifications. PCC pavement materials (pavement, structures, minor concrete) should conform to Section 90 of the Standard Specifications.  Class II Aggregate Base (AB) should conform to Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. Traffic Indices (TIs) used in our pavement design are considered reasonable values for typical parking lot areas, and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving, will result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based on engineering judgment and not on information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel-load analysis or a traffic study. The project Civil Engineer should confirm the TI assumptions. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 22 - 3.9 Retaining Wall Recommendations The following retaining wall recommendations are included for design consideration of walls with a height less than 6 feet. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with very low expansive soil and constructed with a backdrain in accordance with the recommendations provided on Figure 7, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail. Using expansive soil as retaining wall backfill will result in higher lateral earth pressures exerted on the wall and are, therefore, not recommended. Retaining wall locations and configurations are unknown at the time of this report. Table 7. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Static Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Condition Level Backfill Active 38 At-Rest (drained, compacted-fill backfill) 59 Passive (allowable) 290 (Max. 3,000 psf) The above values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety (except for the passive pressure value), so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. Cantilever walls that are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the wall height, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid walls and walls braced at the top should be designed using the at-rest condition. Passive pressure is used to compute soil resistance to lateral structural movement. In addition, for sliding resistance, a frictional resistance coefficient of 0.4 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The lateral passive resistance should be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil providing passive resistance, embedded against the foundation elements, will remain intact with time. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of the soil over the wall footing. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharge due to improvements, such as an adjacent structure or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the retaining wall. Loads applied within a 1:1 projection from the surcharging structure on the stem of the wall should be City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 23 - considered in the design. A third of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied at the surface as a horizontal pressure on cantilever (active) retaining walls, while half of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied as a horizontal pressure on braced (at-rest) retaining walls. To account for automobile parking surcharge, we suggest that a uniform horizontal pressure of 100 psf (for restrained walls) or 70 psf (for cantilever walls) be added for design, where autos are parked within a horizontal distance behind the retaining wall less than the height of the retaining wall stem. We recommend that the wall designs for walls 6 feet tall or taller be checked seismically using an additive seismic Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 43 pcf, which is added to the EFP. The additive seismic EFP should be applied at the retained midpoint. Conventional retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for retaining wall footing design, based on the minimum footing width and depth. This bearing value may be increased by 250 psf per foot increase in width or depth to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. 3.10 Infiltration Recommendations We recommend that the onsite artificial fill not be relied upon for infiltration. For underlying alluvial soils that are granular with a low fines content, we recommend an unfactored (small-scale) infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour, for depths of at least 6 feet. The incremental infiltration rate is defined as the incremental flow rate of water infiltrated, divided by the surface area of the infiltration interface. We recommend that a correction factor/safety factor be applied to the infiltration rate in conformance with San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) guidelines, since monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that actual infiltration rates are lower than for small-scale tests. The small-scale infiltration rate should be divided by a correction factor of at least 3 for buried chambers and higher for open basins, but the correction/safety factor may be higher based on project- specific aspects. The infiltration rates described herein are for a clean, unsilted infiltration surface in native, sandy alluvial soil. These values may be reduced over time as silting of the basin or chamber occurs. Furthermore, if the chamber bottom is allowed to City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 24 - be compacted by heavy equipment, this value is expected to be significantly reduced. Infiltration of water through soil is highly dependent on such factors as grain size distribution of the soil particles, particle shape, fines content, clay content, and density. Small changes in soil conditions, including density, can cause large differences in observed infiltration rates. Infiltration is not suitable in compacted fill. It should be noted that during periods of prolonged precipitation, the underlying soils tend to become saturated to greater and greater depths/extents. Therefore, infiltration rates tend to decrease with prolonged rainfall. It is difficult to extrapolate longer-term, full-scale infiltration rates from small-scale tests, and as such, this is a significant source of uncertainty in infiltration rates. General Design Considerations: The periodic flow of water carrying sediments in the basin or chamber, plus the introduction of wind-blown sediments and sediments from erosion of the basin side walls, can eventually cause the bottom of the basin or chamber to accumulate a layer of silt, which has the potential of significantly reducing the overall infiltration rate of the basin or chamber. Therefore, we recommend that significant amounts of silt/sediment not be allowed to flow into the facility within storm water, especially during construction of the project and prior to achieving a mature landscape on site. As it is typically very difficult to remove silt from buried infiltration facilities, we recommend that an easily maintained, robust silt/sediment removal system be installed to pretreat storm water before it enters the infiltration facility. As infiltrating water can seep within the soil strata nearly horizontally for long distances, it is important to consider the impact that infiltration facilities can have on nearby subterranean structures, such as basement walls or open excavations, whether onsite or offsite, and whether existing or planned. Any such nearby features should be identified and evaluated as to whether infiltrating water can impact these. Such features should be brought to Leighton’s attention as they are identified. Infiltration facilities should not be constructed adjacent to or under buildings. Setbacks should be discussed with Leighton during the planning process. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 25 - Infiltration facilities should be constructed with spillways or other appropriate means that would cause overfilling to not be a concern to the facility or nearby improvements. For buried chambers that allow interior standing water, control/access manhole covers should not contain holes or should be screened to prevent mosquitos from entering the cambers. Construction Considerations: We recommend that Leighton evaluate the infiltration facility excavations, to confirm that granular, undisturbed alluvium is exposed in the bottoms and sides. Additional excavation or evaluation may be required if fine grained soils are exposed. It is critical to infiltration that the basin or chamber bottom not be allowed to be compacted during construction or maintenance; rubber-tired equipment and vehicles should not be allowed to operate on the bottom. We recommend that at least the bottom 3 feet of the basins or chambers be excavated with an excavator or similar. If fill material is needed to be placed in the basin, such as due to removal of uncontrolled artificial fill, the fill material should be select and free-draining sand, and should be observed and evaluated by Leighton. Maintenance Considerations: The infiltration facilities should be routinely monitored, especially before and during the rainy season, and corrective measures should be implemented as/when needed. Things to check for include proper upkeep, proper infiltration, absence of accumulated silt, and that de-silting filters/features are clean and functioning. Pretreatment desilting features should be cleaned and maintained per manufacturers’ recommendations. Even with measures to prevent silt from flowing into the infiltration facility, accumulated silt may need to be removed occasionally as part of maintenance. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 26 - 4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Trench Excavations Based on our field observations, caving of cohesionless and loose fill soils will likely be encountered in unshored trench excavations. To protect workers entering excavations, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA and Cal-OSHA requirements, and the current edition of the California Construction Safety Orders, see: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb4a6.html Contractors should be advised that fill soils should initially be considered Type C soils as defined in the California Construction Safety Orders. As indicated in Table B-1 of Article 6, Section 1541.1, Appendix B, of the California Construction Safety Orders, excavations less-than (<) 20 feet deep within Type C soils should be sloped back no steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical), where workers are to enter the excavation. This may be impractical near adjacent existing utilities and structures; so shoring may be required depending on trench locations. Stiff undisturbed native clays will stand steeper. During construction, soil conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor is responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and Leighton Consulting, Inc. should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. 4.2 Temporary Shoring Temporary cantilever shoring can be designed based on the active equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) in alluvium. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific depth intervals, then braced earth pressure may be approximated by a uniform rectangular soil pressure distribution. This uniform pressure expressed in pounds-per-square-foot (psf), may be assumed to be 25 multiplied by H for design, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored, in feet. These recommendations are valid only for trenches not exceeding 15 feet in depth at this site. 4.3 Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC, “Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Utility trenches may be City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 27 - backfilled with onsite material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to 3 inches in largest dimension. Prior to backfilling trenches, pipes should be bedded in and covered with either: (1) Granular Bedding: a uniform sand material with a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater-than-or-equal-to () 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer). (2) CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201-6 of the SPWC. CLSM bedding should be placed to 1-foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and vibrated. Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. The bedding and shading sand is recommended to be densified in place by vibratory, lightweight compaction equipment. Trench backfill over the pipe bedding zone may consist of native and clean fill soils. All backfill should be placed in thin lifts (appropriate for the type of compaction equipment), moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory derived maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. 4.4 Geotechnical Services During Construction Our geotechnical recommendations provided in this report are based on information available at the time the report was prepared and may change as plans are developed. Additional geotechnical exploration, testing and/or analysis may be required based on final plans. Leighton Consulting, Inc. should review site grading, foundation and shoring (if any) plans when available, to comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project and check to see general conformance of final project plans to recommendations presented in this report. Leighton Consulting, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical observation and testing during excavation and all phases of earthwork. Our conclusions and recommendations should be reviewed and verified by us during construction and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided:  During all excavation,  During compaction of all fill materials, City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 28 -  After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete,  During utility trench backfilling and compaction,  During pavement subgrade and base preparation, and/or  If and when any unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 29 - 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This exploration was performed with the understanding that this subject site is proposed for development as described in Section 1.2 of this report. Please also refer to Appendix C, GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report, presenting additional information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports. Until reviewed and accepted by the reviewing government agency, this report may be subject to change. Changes may be required as part of the review process. Leighton Consulting, Inc. assumes no risk or liability for consequential damages that may arise due to design work progressing before this report is reviewed and accepted. This report was prepared for PBK Architects, Inc., based on their needs, directions and requirements at the time of our exploration, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in Fontana for public sites. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by, any party except PBK Architects Inc., and their design and construction management team, with whom Leighton Consulting, Inc. has contracted for this work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, and/or strict liability of Leighton Consulting, Inc. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 30 - REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42. 2007 Interim Revision. California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2018 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2020. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 1970, Meeting Water Demands in Chino-Riverside Area, Bulletin No. 104-3, Appendix A: Water Supply, Plates 12 & 13, dated September 1970. _____, 2022a, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Data Viewer Tool, Website: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels; accessed April 19, 2022. ,2022b, Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher, website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2, accessed April 19, 2022 California Geological Survey (CGS), 1995, State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, Devore Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, effective June 1, 1995, scale 1:24,000. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, Revised and Re- Adopted on September 11, 2008, Laguna Beach, California. Caltrans, 2015, Standard Specifications, see: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/std_specs/2015_StdSpecs/2015_StdSpecs.pdf City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward, General Plan Update 2015-2035, Approved and Adopted November 13, 2018. City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 31 - County of San Bernardino, 2007, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, FH29 C, Fontana, plot datee May 30, 2007, scale 1:14,400. Dibblee, T.W., Minch, J.A., 2003, Geologic Map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-105, scale 1:24,000. Martin, G. R., and Lew, M., ed., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” Southern California Earthquake Center, dated March 1999. Morton, D.M., Matti, J.C., Morton, G., Koukladas, C., Cossette, P.M., 2001, Geologic Map of the Devore 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF-2001-173, scale 1:24,000. Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR), 2022, Historical Aerials by NETROnline, website: https://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed May 10, 2022. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2020, Seismic Design Maps web tool, <https://seismicmaps.org/>, accessed April 20, 2022. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2018, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2018 Edition, published by BNI Building News. Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H. B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878 United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2021a, Earthquake Hazards Program, Unified Hazard Tool, website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive, accessed April 21, 2022. United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2021b, National Seismic Hazard Maps, website: https:// earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm, accessed May 10, 2022. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.C., Marcuson, W.F. III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H. II, 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of City of Fontana, Fire Station No. 80 Training Center 13491.001 - 32 - Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, October 2001. !"a$ !"a$ %&g(%&g( Wilson Ave Be e c h A v e Cherry Ave S Highland Ave HeritageCir WLibertyPkwy EL i be rt y P k w y Summit Ave V i c to r i a St Baseline Ave ³0 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale:1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F01_SLM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:28:48 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) Date: May 2022 SITE LOCATION MAPFontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Cherry Avenue Fontana, California Approximate Site Location FIGURE 1 Reference: Copyright:© 2013 NationalGeographic Society, i-cubed Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F02_ELM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:29:41 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) EXPLORATION LOCATION MAPFontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Cherry Avenue Fontana, California Legend &< Approximate location ofhollow-stem augerboring showing totaldepth (T.D.) andgroundwater condition infeet below existingground surface &( Approximate location ofwell permeameter testshowing total depth(T.D.) in feet belowexisting ground surface Proposed building footprint Approximate site limits³0 80 160 Feet Scale:1 " = 80 ' Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Date: May 2022 LB-5T.D. 26.5No GW FIGURE 2 IT-2T.D. 11.5' Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022TomTom !"a$ !"a$ %&g(%&g( Wilson Ave Be e c h A v e Ch e r r y A v e S Highla nd Ave WLiberty Pkwy HeritageCir E Li b e r ty P k w y Summit Ave V i c to r i a St Baseline Ave Qyf Qy f Qyf Qf Qyf Qyf Qyf Qw Qyf Qyf Qyf Qf Qyf Qyf ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale: Reference: Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30'X60'Quadrangle, California, version 2.0 by Saucedo et.al., 2016 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F03_RGM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:56:50 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) Date: May 2022 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP Approximate Site Location Geologic Units Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Qf, Alluvial Fan Deposits Qw, Alluvial Wash Deposits Fontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Cherry Avenue Fontana, California FIGURE 3 ³0 5 10 Miles Scale:1 " = 5 miles Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F04_RFHSM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:43:22 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) Date: May 2022 REGIONAL FAULTS AND HISTORIC SEISMICITY MAPFontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Ave and Cherry AveFontana, California Approximate Site Location Basemap Reference: © 2022 Microsoft CorporationEarthstar Geographics SIO © 2022 TomTomSeismicity Data Reference: maps.conservation.ca.gov Legend Fault activityRecency of Movement Historic (<200 years) Holocene (<11,700 years) Late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) Quaternary (<1.6M years) His torical Earthquakes (≥M3.5) !3.5 - 3.99 !4.0 - 4.99 !5.0 - 5.99 !6.0 - 6.99 !7+ FIGURE 4 !"a$ !"a$ !"a$ %&g(%&g( Hickory Basin SAN SEVAINE BASIN #5 ETIWANDA DEBRIS BASIN ³ 0 4,000 8,000 Feet Scale: Reference: Office of Emergency Services (2007), Dept of Safety of Dams (2021)National Inventory of Dams, Army Corps of Engrs (2021) 1 " = 4,000 ' Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: CCK/JMP Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F05_DIM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:41:06 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) Date: May 2022 DAM INUNDATION MAP Approximate Site Location Basemap Reference: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China Legend National Inventory ofDams Downstream Hazard Potential(NID, 2021) !High !Significant DSOD (2021) Day Creek Debris Basin Etiwanda Debris Basin Hickory Basin San Sevaine Basin No5 Fontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Cherry Avenue Fontana, California FIGURE 5 !"a$ !"a$ %&g(%&g( ³0 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale:1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 13491.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13491\001\Maps\13491.001_F06_FHM_2022-04-01.mxd on 4/21/2022 2:35:01 PM Author: KVM (kmanchikanti) Date: May 2022 FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAP Approximate Site Location Reference: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENTP, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri(Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunityFEMA (http://www.fema.gov/index.shtm), DWR (http://www.dwr.ca.gov) Legend 100-Year Floodplains 500-Year Floodplains Fontana Fire Station No. 80Northeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Cherry Avenue Fontana, California FIGURE 6 Figure 8 City of Chino Hills Fire Station No. 8 13353.001 A-1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration consisted of geologic reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program consisting of five (5) borings and two (2) infiltration tests. These subsurface exploration locations are plotted on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map, and describe in more detail below: Hollow Stem Auger Borings: On April 7, 2022, seven borings were drilled with a truck rig, logged and sampled to depths ranging from approximately 11½ feet to 51½ feet. After sampling and logging, all borings were immediately backfilled, except for IT-1 and IT-2 where infiltration tests were performed in accordance with the guidelines of San Bernardino County. Encountered soils were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). Near surface bulk soil samples were collected from these borings. Boring logs and infiltration test results are included as part of this appendix. Subsurface Variations and Limitations: These attached subsurface exploration logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the approximate locations indicated and at the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to possible environmental changes. In addition, any stratification lines depicted on these logs represent an approximate boundary between soil types, but these transitions can be gradual. GP SM GP50/6" @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP), cobbles presentUndocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) @5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), dry, grayish brown, fine tocoarse sand, coarse gravel, angular @10': NO RECOVERYGRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, dry, gray, fine to coarsegravel TOTAL DEPTH = 11.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDCONVERTED TO INFILTRATION BORINGSET WELL @ 11.5 FT Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 1355 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG IT-1 GP SM SP-SMS-1 -20014 21 24 @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP), cobbles presentUndocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) @5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), dry, grayish brown, fine tocoarse sand, coarse gravel, angular @10': SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM), dense, slightly moist,gray, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, 7% fines (lab) TOTAL DEPTH = 11.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDCONVERTED TO INFILTRATION BORINGSET WELL @ 11.5 FT Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 1355 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1384' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG IT-2 GP SM SM SP-SM GP GP 118 110 137 3 2 2 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 S-1 -200, MD,EI, CR -200 1517 22 16 22 30 222931 18 50/6" 2050/5.5" @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP)Undocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)@2.5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, dry, grayishbrown, fine to coarse sand, coarse gravel, angular, 29% gravel,21% fines (lab) @5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), dense, dry, grayish brown, fineto coarse sand, coarse gravel, angular, 30% gravel (fieldestimate) @7.5': SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM), dense, slightly moist,gray, medium to coarse sand, coarse gravel, angular, 5% fines(lab) @10': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand @15': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel TOTAL DEPTH = 16 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TO SURFACE Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1386' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1 GP SM SP SP GP GP SP SP 121 130 7 2 R-1 R-2 R-3 S-1 S-2 S-3 68 17 20 21 27 3650/6" 50/2" 104250/6" 21 25 49 2350/6" @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP), cobbles presentUndocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)@2.5': SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, slightly moist, brown,fine to medium sand, 20% gravel, (field estimate), 25% fines(field estimate) @5': SAND with gravel (SP), medium dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 30% gravel (field estimate) @7.5': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 30% gravel (field estimate) @10': NO RECOVERYSoil Cuttings: GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist,brown, medium to coarse sand @15': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand @20': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 30% gravel (field estimate) @25': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 30% gravel (field estimate) Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 1355 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 SP GP GP GP GP S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 254050/1" 41 50/6" 50/4.5" 25 42 50/4.5" 2650/5" 15 50/3" @30': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 30% gravel (field estimate) @35': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand @40': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown,medium to coarse sand, 40% gravel (field estimate) @45': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, grayishbrown, medium to coarse sand, 20% gravel (field estimate) @50': GRAVEL with sand and silt (GP-GM), very dense, moist,brown, 10% fines (field estimate) TOTAL DEPTH = 51.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TO SURFACE Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 2 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1355 1350 1345 1340 1335 1330 1325 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 GP SM SP SP GP SP SP-SM SP 92 114 118 3 1 2 R-1 R-2 R-3 S-1 S-2 S-3 -200 CO -200 610 21 19 24 23 403138 50/5" 253631 15 37 30 1021 50/6" @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP)Undocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)@2.5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, slightlymoist, brown, fine to medium sand, 17% fines (lab) @5': Poorly-graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, slightly moist,gray, fine to coarse gravel, 30% gravel (field estimate) @7.5': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray, fineto medium gravel, 40% gravel (field estimate) @10': NO RECOVERYSoil Cuttings: GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist,grayish brown, fine to medium gravel @15': Fragments of GRAY SANDSTONE@15.5': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray,fine to medium gravel, 30% gravel (field estimate) @20': SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM), very dense, slightlymoist, gray, fine to medium gravel, 6% fines (lab) @25': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray, fineto medium gravel, 30% gravel (field estimate) Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 1355 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 SP SP GP GP GP S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 2450/5.5" 26 40 30 32 30 50/5" 3050/2" 18 50/5" @30': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray, fineto medium gravel, 30% gravel (field estimate) @35': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray, fineto medium gravel, 20% gravel (field estimate) @40': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, gray,fine to medium gravel @45': GRAVEL with sand (GP), dense, slightly moist, gray, fine tomedium gravel @50': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, gray,fine to medium gravel TOTAL DEPTH = 51.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TO SURFACE Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 2 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1355 1350 1345 1340 1335 1330 1325 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 GP SM SM SP GP GP SP SP 105 110 8 2 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 S-1 S-2 S-3 55 6 11 10 20 172030 23 50/6" 1250/6" 34 34 35 3250/6" @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP)Undocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)@2.5': SILTY SAND (SM), loose, slightly moist, fine sand, 40%sand (field estimate) @5': SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, slightly moist, fine sand,30% fines (field estimate), gravel present near 6.5' depth @7.5': SAND with gravel (SP), dense, slightly moist, brown, fine tocoarse sand, 20% gravel (field estimate) @10': PARTIAL RECOVERYGRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown, fine tocoarse sand @15': NO RECOVERYGRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, brown, fine tocoarse sand, granite found- approximately 1-inch in diameter @20': SAND (SP), very dense, slightly moist, brown, fine to coarsesand, pieces of sandstone in upper 2-inches @25': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, gray, fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, 30% (field estimate) Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1386' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 SPS-4 132632 @30': SAND with gravel (SP), dense, slightly moist, gray, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, 30% (field estimate) TOTAL DEPTH = 31.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TO SURFACE Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 2 of 2 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1355 1350 1345 1340 1335 1330 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1386' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 GP SM SM GP GP GP GP SP 116 130 121 3 3 3 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 RV 1120 21 9 10 19 143225 31 50/6" 2050/6" 50/5" 2140 45 @Surface: GRAVEL with sand (GP), cobbles presentUndocumented Artificial Fill (AF) Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)@2.5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), dense, slightly moist, gray,fine to medium gravel, 30% (field estimate) @5': SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, slightly moist,gray, fine to medium gravel, 40% (field estimate) @7.5': GRAVEL with sand (GP), dense, slightly moist, gray, fine tocoarse gravel, 40% (field estimate) @10': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, grayishbrown, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel @15': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, grayishbrown, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel @20': GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, slightly moist, grayishbrown, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel @25': SAND with gravel (SP), very dense, slightly moist, grayishbrown, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, 30% (fieldestimate) TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5 FEETNO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TO SURFACE Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: Martini Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1385 1380 1375 1370 1365 1360 1355 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1385' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Autohammer - 140lb - Hollow Stem Auger - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 4-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2- Geotechnical Exploration Map Fontana Fire Station #80 13491.001 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Results of Falling Head Infiltration Test Project:13491.001 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.): 54 Exploration #/Location:IT-1 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.): 48 Cross‐sectional area for flow calcs based on h Depth Boring drilled, bgs (ft):11.5 approx. h/r: 12.0 Well pack sand porosity 0.3 Tested by:AA Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 95.5 Casing outer diameter, in.2.3 USCS Soil Type in test zone:GP Tu>3h?: yes, OK Casing inner diameter, in.2.1 Weather (start to finish):Sunny, Windy Cross‐sectional area, in.^2 17.3 Water Source/pH:H2O Measured boring diameter:8 in.4 in. Well Radius Depth to GW or aquitard, bgs:100 ft Well Prep:Drilled to 10', collected sample at 10', set sand at bottom, insert 2" Well Pipe through hollow-stem, backfill with sand as augers removed, bottom 5' screened Use of Barrels:Yes ft in.Total (in.)Use of Flow Meter:No Depth to bottom of well measured from top of auger (or gro 9. ft 5. in.113 Depth of well bottom below top of casing (in):124 Test Type:Falling Head Casing stickup measured above top of auger (or ground su 0. ft 11.25 in.11.3 Depth to top of sand from top of casing 3. ft 0. in. Barrel Data: Diameter (in.):22.5 # of Supply barrels:1 Total Area of barrels (in.^2):397 Field Data Calculations Refilled? Start Date Start time:Total 4/8/2022 9:34 ft in. 4/8/22 9:34 16.6 4.7 0 45.2 67.9 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 4/8/22 9:36 14 4.72 2 2 45.4 67.6 -0.24 68 1033 4 1037 519 31122 1753 0.9 2.58 16.37 4/8/22 9:38 11 4.9 2 4 47.6 65.5 -2.16 67 1192 37 1230 615 36887 1722 0.9 3.24 19.74 4/8/22 9:40 94.9 2 6 47.6 65.5 0 65 795 0 795 397 23844 1695 0.9 2.08 12.97 4/8/22 9:42 6.5 4.95 2 8 48.2 64.9 -0.6 65 994 10 1004 502 30117 1688 0.9 2.67 16.45 4/8/22 9:44 4.25 5 2 10 48.8 64.3 -0.6 65 894 10 905 452 27136 1673 0.9 2.45 14.96 4/8/22 9:46 1.9 5.04 2 12 49.2 63.8 -0.48 64 934 8 942 471 28266 1659 0.9 2.58 15.71 4/8/22 9:48 0.3 5.09 2 14 49.8 63.2 -0.6 63 636 10 646 323 19387 1645 0.9 1.80 10.86 4/8/22 switch barrel 14 49.8 63.2 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 4/8/22 9:54 14.9 6.51 20 66.9 46.1 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 4/8/22 9:56 13.25 6.9 adjust flow 2 22 71.6 41.5 -4.68 44 656 81 737 368 22100 1151 0.9 4.11 17.70 4/8/22 9:58 12.1 7.1 2 24 74.0 39.1 -2.4 40 457 42 499 249 14956 1062 0.9 3.02 12.98 4/8/22 10:00 11 7.15 2 26 74.6 38.5 -0.6 39 437 10 448 224 13426 1024 0.9 2.75 12.08 4/8/22 10:02 10 7.15 2 28 74.6 38.5 0 38 397 0 397 199 11922 1017 0.9 2.43 10.81 4/8/22 10:04 97.15 2 30 74.6 38.5 0 38 397 0 397 199 11922 1017 0.9 2.43 10.81 4/8/22 10:06 87.13 2 32 74.3 38.7 0.24 39 397 -4 393 197 11798 1020 0.9 2.38 10.67 4/8/22 10:08 6.9 7.13 2 34 74.3 38.7 0 39 437 0 437 219 13114 1023 0.9 2.65 11.82 4/8/22 10:10 5.7 7.14 2 36 74.4 38.6 -0.12 39 477 2 479 239 14369 1021 0.9 2.92 12.97 4/8/22 10:12 4.7 7.14 2 38 74.4 38.6 0 39 397 0 397 199 11922 1020 0.9 2.42 10.78 4/8/22 10:15 37.17 3 41 74.8 38.2 -0.36 38 676 6 682 227 13636 1015 0.9 2.82 12.38 4/8/22 10:17 2.1 7.2 2 43 75.2 37.9 -0.36 38 358 6 364 182 10917 1006 0.9 2.29 10.00 4/8/22 10:19 1.1 7.2 2 45 75.2 37.9 0 38 397 0 397 199 11922 1002 0.9 2.49 10.97 4/8/22 10:21 07.21 2 47 75.3 37.7 -0.12 38 437 2 439 220 13177 1000 0.9 2.77 12.15 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 47 75.3 37.7 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! Minimum Rate:10.00 Raw Rate for design, prior to application of adjustment factors:10.00 Water Temp (deg F)(or Comments) Date Time Water Level in Supply Barrel (in.) Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of casing) Average Infiltration Surface Area, (in^2) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1) Vol Change (in.^3) from supply from h Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) Δt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min) Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. h Results of Falling Head Infiltration Test Project:13491.001 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.): 59 Exploration #/Location:IT-2 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.): 55 Cross‐sectional area for flow calcs based on h Depth Boring drilled, bgs (ft):11.5 approx. h/r: 13.9 Well pack sand porosity 0.3 Tested by:AA Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 95.1 Casing outer diameter, in.2.3 USCS Soil Type in test zone:SP-SM Tu>3h?: yes, OK Casing inner diameter, in.2.1 Weather (start to finish):Sunny, Windy Cross‐sectional area, in.^2 17.3 Water Source/pH:H2O Measured boring diameter:8 in.4 in. Well Radius Depth to GW or aquitard, bgs:100 ft Well Prep:Drilled to 10', collected sample at 10', set sand at bottom, insert 2" Well Pipe through hollow-stem, backfill with sand as augers removed, bottom 5' screen Use of Barrels:Yes ft in.Total (in.)Use of Flow Meter:No Depth to bottom of well measured from top of auger (or gro 9. ft 11. in.119 Depth of well bottom below top of casing (in):124 Test Type:Falling Head Casing stickup measured above top of auger (or ground su 0. ft 5. in.5 Depth to top of sand from top of casing 2.2 ft 0. in. Barrel Data: Diameter (in.):22.5 # of Supply barrels:1 Total Area of barrels (in.^2):397 Field Data Calculations Refilled? Start Date Start time:Total 4/8/2022 10:52 ft in. 4/8/22 10:52 30.1 4.7 0 51.4 67.6 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 4/8/22 10:55 28.9 4.72 3 3 51.6 67.4 -0.24 67 477 4 481 160 9621 1746 0.9 0.80 5.08 4/8/22 11:00 26.75 4.9 5 8 53.8 65.2 -2.16 66 854 37 892 178 10701 1716 0.9 0.95 5.75 4/8/22 11:05 24.6 4.9 5 13 53.8 65.2 0 65 854 0 854 171 10253 1689 0.9 0.90 5.60 4/8/22 11:10 22.6 4.95 5 18 54.4 64.6 -0.6 65 795 10 805 161 9662 1681 0.9 0.86 5.30 4/8/22 11:15 20.5 6.05 5 23 67.6 51.4 -13.2 58 835 228 1063 213 12754 1508 0.9 1.72 7.80 4/8/22 11:20 18.4 6.05 5 28 67.6 51.4 0 51 835 0 835 167 10015 1342 0.9 1.29 6.88 4/8/22 11:25 16.5 6.06 5 33 67.7 51.3 -0.12 51 755 2 757 151 9086 1341 0.9 1.18 6.25 4/8/22 11:30 14.5 6.08 5 38 68.0 51.0 -0.24 51 795 4 799 160 9588 1336 0.9 1.25 6.62 4/8/22 11:35 12.5 6.1 5 43 68.2 50.8 -0.24 51 795 4 799 160 9588 1330 0.9 1.26 6.65 4/8/22 11:40 10.4 6.13 5 48 68.6 50.4 -0.36 51 835 6 841 168 10089 1322 0.9 1.34 7.03 4/8/22 11:45 8.5 6.17 5 53 69.0 50.0 -0.48 50 755 8 763 153 9160 1312 0.9 1.24 6.44 4/8/22 11:50 6.5 6.19 5 58 69.3 49.7 -0.24 50 795 4 799 160 9588 1303 0.9 1.31 6.78 4/8/22 11:55 4.75 6.2 5 63 69.4 49.6 -0.12 50 695 2 698 140 8370 1298 0.9 1.14 5.94 4/8/22 12:00 2.75 6.21 5 68 69.5 49.5 -0.12 50 795 2 797 159 9563 1295 0.9 1.31 6.81 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 68 69.5 49.5 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! Minimum Rate:5.08 Raw Rate for design, prior to application of adjustment factors:6.00 Water Temp (deg F)(or Comments) Date Time Water Level in Supply Barrel (in.) Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of casing) Average Infiltration Surface Area, (in^2) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1) Vol Change (in.^3) from supply from h Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) Δt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min) Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. h B-1 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Our geotechnical laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of soils underlying proposed improvements, and to aid in verifying soil classification. In-Situ Moisture and Density: As-sampled soil moisture content was measured (ASTM D 2216) on selected samples recovered from our borings. In addition, in place dry density was measured (ASTM D 2937) on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples. Results of these tests are shown on our logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A. Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve: Percent fines (silt and clay) passing the No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieve was determined for soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 1140 Standard Test Method. Samples were dried and passed through a No. 4 sieve, then a No. 200 sieve. Result of this grain size analysis, as percent by dry weight passing the No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieve, is tabulated in this appendix and entered on our test pit logs. Particle Size (Sieve) Analysis: Particle size analysis of bulk soil samples by passing sieves was evaluated using the ASTM D 6913 Standard Test Method. Results of these analysis are presented on the Particle-Size Distribution ASTM D 6913 sheets in this appendix. Modified Proctor Compaction Curve: A laboratory modified Proctor compaction curve (ASTM D1557) was established for bulk soil-sample to evaluate the modified Proctor laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Results of this test are presented on the following Modified Proctor Compaction Test sheet in this appendix. Corrosivity Tests: To evaluate corrosion potential of subsurface soils at the site, we tested a bulk soil sample collected during our subsurface exploration for pH, electrical resistivity (CTM 532/643), soluble sulfate content (CTM 417 Part II) and soluble chloride content (CTM 422) testing. Results of these tests are enclosed at the end of this appendix. Direct Shear Tests (DS): Direct shear tests were performed on a selected remolded Torrance Unified School District, Torrance High School Modernization 10387.001 B-2 sample, with cut specimens soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. Specimens were then transferred to the shear box, reloaded, and pore pressures set up in the sample (due to transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately one-hour. Following pore pressure dissipation, samples were subjected to shearing forces. These specimens were tested under various normal loads by a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.05 inches per minute. Test results are presented on the “Direct Shear Test Results” figures in this appendix. Expansion Index (EI): An Expansion Index (EI) test was performed on a representative shallow bulk soil sample from this site, in general accordance with the ASTM D4829 Standard Test Method. Results of this test are presented on the following “Expansion Index of Soils" table. Swell or Collapse of Soils (CO): Swell or collapse of soil tests were performed on relatively-undisturbed ring-lined drive-sampler soil samples, to measure the magnitude of one-dimensional wetting-induced swell or collapse on unsaturated soils. Results are presented in this appendix on the One-Dimensional Swell or Collapse of Soils (ASTM D 4546) sheets. Resistance Value (R-Value): R-Value for a shallow bulk soil sample was established by California Test Method 301 to assist in preliminary pavement design recommendations. R-Value results are presented in this appendix on the R-Value Test Results sheets. Tested By:J. Gonzalez Date:04/14/22 Checked By: A. Santos Date:04/18/22 LB-1 Depth (ft.):0-5 X Moist Rammer Weight (lb.) =10.0 Dry #3/4 Height of Drop (in.) =18.0 X #3/8 #4 28.7 0.03330 123456 3903 3981 3894 1826 1826 1826 2077 2155 2068 518.3 527.5 461.9 487.5 484.4 416.7 39.3 37.9 38.8 6.87 9.65 11.96 137.5 142.7 136.9 128.7 130.1 122.3 131.0 8.6 139.9 6.4 X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FI Atterberg Limits: LL,PL,PI Corrected Dry Density (pcf) Preparation Method: Dry Density (pcf) Mechanical Ram Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Boring No.: Sample No.: Dark brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Scalp Fraction (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Note: Corrected dry density calculation assumes specific gravity of 2.70 and moisture content of 1.0% for oversize particles Optimum Moisture Content (%) Corrected Moisture Content (%) Mold Volume (ft³) TEST NO. Weight of Container (g) Manual Ram Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Compaction Method MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Weight of Mold (g) Fontana FS No 80 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 Soil Identification: 13491.001 Project Name: Project No.: 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 MX LB-1, B-1 @ 0-5 Project Name: Tested By:J. Domingo Date:04/15/22 Project No.:13491.001 Checked By:A. Santos Date:04/28/22 Boring No.:LB-1 Depth (feet):0-5 Sample No.:B-1 Soil Identification:Dark brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Whole Sample Sample Passing #4 Whole Sample Sample passing #4 P-16 910 Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont.(g) 0.0 0.0 2799.2 530.9 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 0.0 0.0 278.2 74.8 Wt. of Container No._____(g) 1.0 1.0 2521.0 456.1 Moisture Content (%) 0.0 0.0 910 402.6 74.8 327.8 (mm.) 3" 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 GRAVEL:29 % SAND:50 % FINES:21 % GROUP SYMBOL:(SM)g Remarks: Fontana FS No 80 25.0 167.0 93.4 242.4 12.5 432.4 0.150 0.075 563.7 319.4 0.300 39.9 PAN 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 75.9 722.5 113.2 Percent Passing (%) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) 167.7 0.0 Wt. Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) Sample Passing #4 Passing #4 Material After Wet Sieve Wt. of Container (g) Container No. Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Whole Sample Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) 71.3 Cumulative Weight of Dry Soil Retained (g)U. S. Sieve Size 75.0 19.0 233.3 37.5 Moisture ContentsCalculation of Dry Weights 65.1 21.4 100.0 90.7 33.4 59.4 53.6 Cu = D60/D10 = Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = Container No.: 82.8 77.69.5 PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D6913 Wt. of Container (g) 45.1 13491.001Project No.: Fontana FS No 80Project Name: 29 : 50 :Apr-22 Boring No.: Depth (feet): 0-5 Soil Type : PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Dark brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g (SM)g GR:SA:FI : (%) 21 LB-1 Sample No.: B-1 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE - SIZE (mm) " Sieve LB-1, B-1 @ 0-5 Tested By:G. Berdy Date:04/18/22 Checked By:A. Santos Date:04/28/22 Depth (ft.): Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Wt. of Container No. (g) Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h Project No.:13491.001 Boring No.: EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 Project Name: LB-1 Fontana FS No 80 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0-5 Sample No.:B-1 Soil Identification:Dark brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01 100.00 MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 0.9990 Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g)601.60 461.40 Wt. of Mold (g)163.50 0.00 Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70 Container No.OO Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)875.50 624.90 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)820.50 574.09 Wt. of Container (g)0.00 163.50 Moisture Content (%) 6.70 12.37 Wet Density (pcf) 132.1 139.3 Dry Density (pcf) 123.8 124.0 Void Ratio 0.361 0.360 Total Porosity 0.265 0.265 Pore Volume (cc) 54.9 54.7 Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]50.1 92.9 Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 10 04/18/22 9:12 1.0 0 0.5790 0.578504/18/22 9:22 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 04/18/22 9:50 1.0 28 0.5775 1.0 0.5780 04/19/22 7:15 1.0 1313 0.5780 04/19/22 6:01 1.0 1239 Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 0 Project Name:Fontana FS No 80 Tested By :G. Berdy Date:04/18/22 Project No. :13491.001 Checked By:A. Santos Date:04/28/22 Boring No.LB-1 Sample No.B-1 Sample Depth (ft)0-5 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 100.31 2 3 860 7:15/8:00 45 24.5154 24.5123 0.0031 127.56 128 ml of Extract For Titration (B)15 ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)0.6 PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 80 PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 80 6.81 21.2 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II pH TEST, DOT California Test 643 Furnace Temperature (°C) Weight of Container (g) Crucible No. Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Dark brown (SM)g Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Temperature °C pH Value Duration of Combustion (min) Soil Identification: Time In / Time Out Wt. of Residue (g) (A) CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422 Wt. of Crucible (g) PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150 Weight of Soaked Soil (g) Moisture Content (%) Beaker No. Project Name: Tested By : Date: Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date: Boring No.: Depth (ft.) : Sample No. : Soil Identification:* *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials. Wt. of Container (g)23.01 4600 0.00 0.00 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)Specimen No. 1 2 Water Added (ml) (Wa) 30 Adjusted Moisture Content (MC)Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 4600 1.000 Chloride Content (ohm-cm) Moisture Content Sulfate Content 5 Min. Resistivity DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 (%) (ppm) (ppm) DOT CA Test 643 4 40 50 130.403455038.34 4450 4450 31.0 128 80 6.81 21.2 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 643 Temp. (°C)pH Soil pH 4450 4550 0.00 1.00 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 Fontana FS No 80 04/25/22 04/28/22 0-5 13491.001 LB-1 G. Berdy B-1 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) Box Constant Dark brown (SM)g Resistance Reading (ohm) 30.67 Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 So i l R e s i s t i v i t y ( o h m - c m ) Moisture Content (%) Project Name:Fontana FS No 80 Tested By:G. Bathala Date:04/19/22 Project No.:13491.001 Checked By:A. Santos Date:04/28/22 Boring No.: Sample Type:90% Remold Sample No.: Depth (ft.):0-5 Soil Identification: 2.415 2.415 2.415 1.000 1.000 1.000 199.81 200.09 200.43 45.39 45.44 45.61 Before Shearing 162.65 162.65 162.65 154.48 154.48 154.48 56.91 56.91 56.91 0.0000 0.2383 0.2586 -0.0106 0.2516 0.2772 After Shearing 222.40 212.48 224.21 206.55 196.65 208.81 67.11 56.91 69.11 2.70 2.70 2.70 62.43 62.43 62.43 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Water Density(pcf): Specific Gravity (Assumed): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Ring(gm): Weight of Container(gm): Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): LB-5 Olive brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Sample Diameter(in): Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm): Vertical Rdg.(in): Final Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial Sample Thickness(in.): Weight of Sample + ring(gm): B-1 DS LB-5, B-1 @ 0-5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 118.8 1.000 2.415 8.37 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) LB-5 B-1 0-5 53.8 0.9867 11.3 Soil Identification:8.37 118.7 8.37 118.5 1.528 0.0033 4.000 2.666 2.575 0.0033 1.000 0.799 0.795 0.0033 1.000 2.415 1.000 2.415 2.000 1.550 53.5 0.9894 11.4 Fontana FS No 80DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 54.0 0.9814 11.0 04-22 Project No.: 13491.001 Sample Type: 90% Remold Olive brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS LB-5, B-1 @ 0-5 Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Sample Type: 90% Remold Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf) C (psf) (o)Saturation (%) Peak 241 32 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Ultimate 272 30 Final Moisture Content (%) 04-22 Project No.: 13491.001 53.5 0.9894 1.000 11.4 Fontana FS No 80DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 1.000 0.799 0.795 0.0033 8.37 118.5 2.415 Soil Identification: 0.9814 8.37 11.0 1.000 2.415 0.9867 11.3 118.8 1.000 2.415 53.8 8.37 118.7 0.0033 4.000 2.666 2.575 0.0033 54.0 2.000 1.550 1.528 Olive brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) LB-5 B-1 0-5 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) DS LB-5, B-1 @ 0-5 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 13491.001 BORING NUMBER: LB-5 DEPTH (FT.): 0-5 SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g DATE COMPLETED: 4/18/2022 TEST SPECIMEN a b c MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 6.7 7.2 7.6 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.47 2.44 2.43 DRY DENSITY, pcf 135.2 134.1 135.0 COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 320 250 225 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 621 335 193 EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0 STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 16 18 20 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.99 5.50 5.60 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 82 78 76 R-VALUE CORRECTED 82 76 74 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.29 0.38 0.42 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: N/A R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 75 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 75 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS DOT CA Test 301 Fontana FS No 80 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 CO V E R T H I C K N E S S B Y S T A B I L O M E T E R i n f e e t COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500600700800 R- V A L U E EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) Project Name: Tested By:G. Bathala Date:04/26/22 Project No.: Checked By:A. Santos Date:04/28/22 Boring No.:LB-3 Sample Type:Ring Sample No.:R-2 Depth (ft.)5.0 Sample Description:Olive gray poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 122.0 Final Dry Density (pcf): 124.3 Initial Moisture (%): 1.26 Final Moisture (%) : 10.0 Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.3816 Initial Dial Reading: 0.1036 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 8.9 0.100 0.9998 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 0.600 0.9936 0.15 -0.64 -0.49 H2O 0.9832 0.15 -1.68 -1.53 Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation =-1.05 0.3604 0.1038 0.1100 0.1204 Pressure (p) (ksf) 0.3813 0.3748 Final Reading (in)Void Ratio Swell (+) Settlement (-) % of Sample Thickness Load Compliance (%) Apparent Thickness (in) ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS ASTM D 4546 Corrected Deformation (%) Fontana ES No 80 13491.001 0.3550 0.3600 0.3650 0.3700 0.3750 0.3800 0.3850 0.100 1.000 10.000 Vo i d R a t i o Log Pressure (ksf) Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve Inundate with Tap water Swell or Settlement LB-3, R-2 @ 5 LB-1 LB-3 LB-3 IT-2 R-3 R-1 S-2 S-1 7.5 2.5 20.0 10.0 Ring Ring SPT Ring 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 920.60 780.60 812.30 835.50 107.60 110.10 245.50 234.40 813.00 670.50 566.80 601.10 AAAA 878.70 664.40 777.40 792.40 107.60 110.10 245.50 234.40 771.10 554.30 531.90 558.00 5.2 17.3 6.2 7.2 94.8 82.7 93.8 92.8 Project Name:Fontana FS No 80 Project No.:13491.001 Tested By:S. Felter Date:04/27/22 Moisture Content (%) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Weight of Container (g) Container No.: Sample Type Grayish brown (SP-SM)g Weight of Container (g) % Passing No. 200 Sieve Moisture Correction Weight of Dry Sample (g) Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g) After Wash Dry Weight of Sample (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Sample Dry Weight Determination Brown (SM)g Grayish brown (SP-SM)g Gray (SP-SM)g Boring No. Sample No. Soil Identification Depth (ft.) PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 Weight of Sample + Container (g) Method (A or B) Weight of Container (g) % Retained No. 200 Sieve Passing #200 LB-1, LB-3, IT-2 APPENDIX C SEISMIC Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis: SPT Method Leighton Youd and Idriss (2001), Martin and Lew (1999) Description: Fontana Fire Station No. 80; Case 1; PGAm 0.85; design GW 289; No overex 0 Project No.: 13491.001 Apr 2022 General Boring Information: Existing Design Design Overex. Ground design Boring Location General Parameters: Boring GW GW Fill Height depth bgs Surface gw Coordinates amax = 0.85g No. Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) (ft) Elev (ft)elve X (ft) Y (ft)MW = 7.9 LB-1 665 289 0 1393 1104 66.598 -189.1 MSF eq: 1 LB-2 665 289 0 1398 1109 331.77 -31.95 MSF = 0.88 LB-3 665 289 0 1394 1105 96.169 -109.9 Hammer Efficiency =84 LB-4 665 289 0 1397 1108 248.62 -112.8 CE = 1.40 LB-5 665 289 0 1397 1108 139.47 -12.2 CB = 1 0 CS for SPT? TRUE 0 Unlined, but room for liner 0 Rod Stickup (feet) =3 0 Ring sample correction =0.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leighton Page 1 of 1 Summary of Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis: SPT Method Leighton Liquefaction Method: Youd and Idriss (2001). Seismic Settlement Method: Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Martin and Lew (1999). Project: Fontana Fire Station No. 80; Case 1; PGAm 0.85; design GW 289; No overex 0 Project No.: 13491.001 Boring No. Approx. Layer Depth SPT Depth Approx Layer Thick- ness Plasticity ("n"=non susc. to liq.) Estimated Fines Cont t Nm or B Sampler Type (enter 2 if mod CA Ring)Cs Nm (corrected for Cs and ring->SPT) Exist vo'(N1)60 (N1)60CS CRR7.5 Design vo' CSR7.5 CSRM Liquefaction Factor of Safety (N1)60CS (for Settle- ment) Dry Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87) Sat Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87) Seismic Sett. of Layer Cummulative Seismic Settlement (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (pcf)(blows/ft)(blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (blows/ft) (%) (%) (in.) (in.) LB-1 0 to 3.8 2.5 3.8 21 120 39 2 1 25.4 300 45.2 52.9 >Range 300 0.55 0.63 NonLiq 52.9 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-1 3.8 to 6.3 5 2.5 5 120 52 2 1 33.8 600 60.3 60.3 >Range 600 0.55 0.62 NonLiq 60.3 0.07 0.02 0.1 LB-1 6.3 to 8.8 7.5 2.5 5 120 60 2 1 39.0 900 66.5 66.5 >Range 900 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 66.5 0.03 0.01 0.0 LB-1 8.8 to 12.5 10 3.8 5 120 100 2 1 65.0 1200 102.0 102.0 >Range 1200 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 102.0 0.03 0.01 0.0 LB-1 12.5 to 17.0 15 4.5 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 1800 166.6 166.6 >Range 1800 0.53 0.61 NonLiq 166.6 0.02 0.01 0.0 LB-2 0 to 3.8 2.5 3.8 25 120 25 2 1 16.3 300 29.0 36.6 >Range 300 0.55 0.63 NonLiq 36.6 0.08 0.04 0.2 LB-2 3.8 to 6.3 5 2.5 5 120 48 2 1 31.2 600 55.7 55.7 >Range 600 0.55 0.62 NonLiq 55.7 0.08 0.02 0.2 LB-2 6.3 to 8.8 7.5 2.5 5 120 100 2 1 65.0 900 110.9 110.9 >Range 900 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 110.9 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-2 8.8 to 12.5 10 3.8 5 120 100 2 1 65.0 1200 102.0 102.0 >Range 1200 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 102.0 0.03 0.01 0.1 LB-2 12.5 to 17.5 15 5.0 5 120 92 1 1.3 119.6 1800 153.3 153.3 >Range 1800 0.53 0.61 NonLiq 153.3 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-2 17.5 to 22.5 20 5.0 5 120 74 1 1.3 96.2 2400 119.3 119.3 >Range 2400 0.530.60 NonLiq 119.3 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-2 22.5 to 27.5 25 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 3000 144.2 144.2 >Range 3000 0.52 0.59 NonLiq 144.2 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-2 27.5 to 32.5 30 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 3600 138.6 138.6 >Range 3600 0.51 0.59 NonLiq 138.6 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-2 32.5 to 37.5 35 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 4200 128.3 128.3 >Range 4200 0.49 0.56 NonLiq 128.3 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-2 37.5 to 42.5 40 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 4800 120.0 120.0 >Range 4800 0.47 0.54 NonLiq 120.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-2 42.5 to 47.5 45 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 5400 113.2 113.2 >Range 5400 0.45 0.51 NonLiq 113.2 0.03 0.02 0.0 LB-2 47.5 to 52.0 50 4.5 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 6000 107.4 107.4 >Range 6000 0.42 0.48 NonLiq 107.4 0.03 0.02 0.0 LB-3 0 to 3.8 2.5 3.8 17 120 31 2 1 20.2 300 36.0 41.1 >Range 300 0.55 0.63 NonLiq 41.1 0.02 0.01 0.2 LB-3 3.8 to 6.3 5 2.5 5 120 47 2 1 30.6 600 54.5 54.5 >Range 600 0.55 0.62 NonLiq 54.5 0.08 0.02 0.2 LB-3 6.3 to 8.8 7.5 2.5 5 120 69 2 1 44.9 900 76.5 76.5 >Range 900 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 76.5 0.03 0.01 0.2 LB-3 8.8 to 12.5 10 3.8 5 120 100 2 1 65.0 1200 102.0 102.0 >Range 1200 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 102.0 0.03 0.01 0.2 LB-3 12.5 to 17.5 15 5.0 5 120 67 1 1.3 87.1 1800 111.6 111.6 >Range 1800 0.530.61 NonLiq 111.6 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-3 17.5 to 22.5 20 5.0 6 120 67 1 1.3 87.1 2400 108.1 108.6 >Range 2400 0.53 0.60 NonLiq 108.6 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-3 22.5 to 27.5 25 5.0 5 120 71 1 1.3 92.3 3000 102.4 102.4 >Range 3000 0.520.59 NonLiq 102.4 0.04 0.03 0.1 LB-3 27.5 to 32.5 30 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 3600 138.6 138.6 >Range 3600 0.51 0.59 NonLiq 138.6 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-3 32.5 to 37.5 35 5.0 5 120 70 1 1.3 91.0 4200 89.8 89.8 >Range 4200 0.49 0.56 NonLiq 89.8 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-3 37.5 to 42.5 40 5.0 5 120 90 1 1.3 117.0 4800 108.0 108.0 >Range 4800 0.47 0.54 NonLiq 108.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-3 42.5 to 47.5 45 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 5400 113.2 113.2 >Range 5400 0.45 0.51 NonLiq 113.2 0.03 0.02 0.0 LB-3 47.5 to 52.0 50 4.5 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 6000 107.4 107.4 >Range 6000 0.42 0.48 NonLiq 107.4 0.03 0.02 0.0 LB-4 0 to 3.8 2.5 3.8 20 120 11 2 1 7.2 300 12.8 17.4 0.185 300 0.55 0.63 NonLiq 17.4 0.80 0.36 0.6 LB-4 3.8 to 6.3 5 2.5 5 120 30 2 1 19.5 600 34.8 34.8 >Range 600 0.55 0.62 NonLiq 34.8 0.37 0.11 0.2 LB-4 6.3 to 8.8 7.5 2.5 5 120 50 2 1 32.5 900 55.4 55.4 >Range 900 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 55.4 0.04 0.01 0.1 LB-4 8.8 to 12.5 10 3.8 5 120 100 2 1 65.0 1200 102.0 102.0 >Range 1200 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 102.0 0.03 0.01 0.1 LB-4 12.5 to 17.5 15 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 1800 166.6 166.6 >Range 1800 0.53 0.61 NonLiq 166.6 0.02 0.01 0.1 Leighton Page 1 of 2 Boring No. Approx. Layer Depth SPT Depth Approx Layer Thick- ness Plasticity ("n"=non susc. to liq.) Estimated Fines Cont t Nm or B Sampler Type (enter 2 if mod CA Ring)Cs Nm (corrected for Cs and ring->SPT) Exist vo'(N1)60 (N1)60CS CRR7.5 Design vo' CSR7.5 CSRM Liquefaction Factor of Safety (N1)60CS (for Settle- ment) Dry Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87) Sat Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87) Seismic Sett. of Layer Cummulative Seismic Settlement (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (pcf)(blows/ft)(blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (blows/ft) (%) (%) (in.) (in.) LB-4 17.5 to 22.5 20 5.0 5 120 69 1 1.3 89.7 2400 111.3 111.3 >Range 2400 0.530.60 NonLiq 111.3 0.03 0.02 0.1 LB-4 22.5 to 27.5 25 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 3000 144.2 144.2 >Range 3000 0.52 0.59 NonLiq 144.2 0.03 0.02 0.0 LB-4 27.5 to 32.0 30 4.5 5 120 58 1 1.3 75.4 3600 80.4 80.4 >Range 3600 0.51 0.59 NonLiq 80.4 0.04 0.02 0.0 LB-5 0 to 3.8 2.5 3.8 5 120 31 2 1 20.2 300 36.0 36.0 >Range 300 0.55 0.63 NonLiq 36.0 0.08 0.04 0.2 LB-5 3.8 to 6.3 5 2.5 5 120 29 2 1 18.9 600 33.6 33.6 >Range 600 0.55 0.62 NonLiq 33.6 0.39 0.12 0.2 LB-5 6.3 to 8.8 7.5 2.5 5 120 57 2 1 37.1 900 63.2 63.2 >Range 900 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 63.2 0.03 0.01 0.1 LB-5 8.8 to 12.5 10 3.8 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 1200 204.1 204.1 >Range 1200 0.54 0.62 NonLiq 204.1 0.02 0.01 0.1 LB-5 12.5 to 17.5 15 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 1800 166.6 166.6 >Range 1800 0.53 0.61 NonLiq 166.6 0.02 0.01 0.0 LB-5 17.5 to 22.5 20 5.0 5 120 100 1 1.3 130.0 2400 161.3 161.3 >Range 2400 0.53 0.60 NonLiq 161.3 0.02 0.01 0.0 LB-5 22.5 to 27.0 25 4.5 5 120 85 1 1.3 110.5 3000 122.6 122.6 >Range 3000 0.52 0.59 NonLiq 122.6 0.04 0.02 0.0 Leighton Page 2 of 2 Latitude, Longitude: 34.1343, -117.4881 Date 4/20/2022, 9:25:46 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16 Risk Category IV Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 1.907 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.625 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 1.907 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.272 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.775 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.853 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 2.066 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 2.246 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.907 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.798 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.889 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.625 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.775 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.92 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.897 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. Unied Hazard Tool Input U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical.  Edition Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (u… Latitude Decimal degrees 34.1343 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -117.4881 Site Class 259 m/s (Site class D) Spectral Period Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon Return period in years 2475 Hazard Curve View Raw Data Hazard Curves Time Horizon 2475 yearsPeak Ground Acceleration0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 5.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Annual Frequency of Exceedence Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Spectral Period (s) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Ground Motion (g) Spectral Period (s): PGA Ground Motion (g): 0.9134 Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon 2475 years System Grid Interface Fault 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-10 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Annual Frequency of Exceedence Deaggregation Component Total ε = (-∞ .. -2.5) ε = [-2.5 .. -2) ε = [-2 .. -1.5) ε = [-1.5 .. -1) ε = [-1 .. -0.5) ε = [-0.5 .. 0) ε = [0 .. 0.5) ε = [0.5 .. 1) ε = [1 .. 1.5) ε = [1.5 .. 2) ε = [2 .. 2.5) ε = [2.5 .. +∞) 5 15 25 35 Closest Distance, rRup (km) 45 55 65 75 98.5 87.5 M a g n it u d e (M w ) 76.5 65.5 54.5 5 10 % Contribution to Hazard 15 20 25 5 15 25 35 45 Closest Distance, rRup (km)55 65 75 9 8.5 8 7.57 6 .5 M a g n it u d e (M w ) 6 5 .55 4.5 Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Return period:2475 yrs Exceedance rate:0.0004040404 yr⁻¹ PGA ground motion:0.9133858 g Recovered targets Return period:3217.2647 yrs Exceedance rate:0.00031082304 yr⁻¹ Totals Binned:100 % Residual:0 % Trace:0.01 % Mean (over all sources) m:7.18 r:9.92 km ε₀:1.72 σ Mode (largest m-r bin) m:7.9 r:10.62 km ε₀:1.59 σ Contribution:19.61 % Mode (largest m-r-ε₀ bin) m:7.91 r:12.99 km ε₀:1.76 σ Contribution:11.83 % Discretization r:min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km m:min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2 ε:min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ Epsilon keys ε0:[-∞ .. -2.5) ε1:[-2.5 .. -2.0) ε2:[-2.0 .. -1.5) ε3:[-1.5 .. -1.0) ε4:[-1.0 .. -0.5) ε5:[-0.5 .. 0.0) ε6:[0.0 .. 0.5) ε7:[0.5 .. 1.0) ε8:[1.0 .. 1.5) ε9:[1.5 .. 2.0) ε10:[2.0 .. 2.5) ε11:[2.5 .. +∞] Deaggregation Contributors Source Set  Source Type r m ε0 lon lat az % UC33brAvg_FM31 System 37.47 San Andreas (San Bernardino N) [2]14.25 7.80 1.87 117.395°W 34.237°N 36.78 12.01 San Jacinto (San Bernardino) [1]10.66 8.06 1.56 117.421°W 34.212°N 35.59 8.67 Cucamonga [0]5.10 7.56 1.26 117.490°W 34.179°N 357.61 6.36 Fontana (Seismicity) [0]4.59 6.61 1.33 117.455°W 34.107°N 135.17 3.89 San Jacinto (Lytle Creek connector) [1]6.86 8.02 1.32 117.438°W 34.178°N 43.48 3.09 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 36.59 San Andreas (San Bernardino N) [2]14.25 7.80 1.87 117.395°W 34.237°N 36.78 12.19 San Jacinto (San Bernardino) [1]10.66 8.05 1.56 117.421°W 34.212°N 35.59 8.54 Cucamonga [0]5.10 7.59 1.26 117.490°W 34.179°N 357.61 6.35 Fontana (Seismicity) [0]4.59 6.61 1.33 117.455°W 34.107°N 135.17 3.18 San Jacinto (Lytle Creek connector) [1]6.86 8.02 1.33 117.438°W 34.178°N 43.48 3.01 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt)Grid 12.98 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.166 6.28 5.60 1.79 117.488°W 34.166°N 0.00 2.86 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.166 6.28 5.60 1.79 117.488°W 34.166°N 0.00 2.86 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.202 8.81 5.69 2.15 117.488°W 34.202°N 0.00 1.38 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.202 8.81 5.69 2.15 117.488°W 34.202°N 0.00 1.38 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.211 9.48 5.74 2.21 117.488°W 34.211°N 0.00 1.06 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.211 9.48 5.74 2.21 117.488°W 34.211°N 0.00 1.06 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt)Grid 12.96 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.166 6.28 5.60 1.79 117.488°W 34.166°N 0.00 2.86 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.166 6.28 5.60 1.79 117.488°W 34.166°N 0.00 2.86 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.202 8.81 5.69 2.15 117.488°W 34.202°N 0.00 1.38 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.202 8.81 5.69 2.15 117.488°W 34.202°N 0.00 1.38 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.211 9.48 5.74 2.21 117.488°W 34.211°N 0.00 1.06 PointSourceFinite: -117.488, 34.211 9.48 5.74 2.21 117.488°W 34.211°N 0.00 1.06 APPENDIX D GBA’S IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be ReliableDo not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org