Geotechnical Design Report Temescal Canyon Rd …€¦ · The Project reach consists of the approximately 0.6-mile-long segment of ... Laboratory test data are summarized on the

Temescal Canyon Road Widening Projects Dawson Canyon Road to 0.7 Mile North

Dos Lagos Drive to Leroy Road, and Temescal Canyon Road Slurry Seal Project

0.7 Miles North of Dawson Canyon Road to Leroy Road Project No. C5-0072, C6-0066,

State Project No. LPPSB1L-5956(267); and Temescal Canyon Road Drainage Improvement Project

At Coldwater Creek Project No. B9-0988

In the Community of Temescal Valley

Geotechnical Design Report Temescal Canyon Rd Widening – Dos Lagos Segment Dated September 23, 2016 (minor revisions April 13, 2018) Notice regarding this Report: This report is provided for reference only.

Although this information represents the latest information available, the County of Riverside Transportation Department does not guarantee the accuracy of this data.

A Report Prepared for: NCM Engineering Corp. 4740 Green River Road, Suite 218 Corona, CA 92880 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD WIDENING DOS LAGOS SEGMENT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Project No. 2016-016 by Thiyagarajah Sutharsan, PhD, Civil Engineer 86768 by Clint Isa Civil Engineer 76470

DiazYourman & Associates 1616 East 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705-8509 (714) 245-2920 September 23 2016 (minor revisions April 13, 2018)

D I A Z Y O U R M A N& A S S O C I AT E S

1616 EAST 17th STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705-8509 TEL. (714) 245-2920 FAX (714) 245-2950

SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT INFORMATION, GEOTECH REPORT, DOS LAGOS SEGMENT, SHEET 1 of 41

i

K:\datafls\PROJECTS\2016\2016-016\Report\2016-016 Dos Lagos Segment v2.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2 DATA REVIEW, FIELD EXPLORATION, AND LABORATORY TESTING ......................... 4

3 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 5

SURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 5 3.1

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 6 3.2

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 7

PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN ............................................................................. 7 4.1

EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................. 9 4.2

UTILITY TRENCHES..................................................................................................11 4.3

CORROSION POTENTIAL .........................................................................................12 4.4

5 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, AND TESTING ..............................14

6 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................15

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - SUBSURFACE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 6 Table 2 - IMPORT FILL CRITERIA ...........................................................................................10 Table 3 - CORROSION POTENTIAL ........................................................................................13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 - SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3 - PAVEMENT THICKNESS .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 - PIPELINE BACKFILL SCHEMATIC ..........................................................................12

LIST OF APPENDICES

FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX A -

LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B -


1


1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical services performed by DiazYourman &

Associates (DYA) for the Dos Lagos Segment of the proposed Temescal Canyon Road

Widening in Corona, County of Riverside, California (Project). NCM Engineering Corporation

authorized this work with a written contract on April 22, 2016.

The Project reach consists of the approximately 0.6-mile-long segment of Temescal Canyon

Road located between Dos Lagos Drive and Leroy Road, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure

1. Along the Project reach, Temescal Canyon Road provides one lane of traffic in each

direction; we understand that the County of Riverside proposes to widen and slightly realign

Temescal Canyon Road at the site to provide two travel lanes in each direction to match the

four-lane roadway facilities north and south of the Project. The approximate layout of the

proposed Project is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP


Foster Road

Leroy Road

Dial Way Ct

Dos Lagos Drive

15

DYB16-01

DYB16-04A

DYB16-02

DYB16-03

DYB16-04

DYHA16-01

DYHA16-02

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, andthe GIS User Community

Figure 2 - SITE PLANDocu

ment

Path:

K:\da

tafls\

PROJ

ECTS

\2016

\2016

-016\F

igures

\GIS\

Site P

lan.m

xdLegend

DYA Boring LocationsDYA Hand Auger LocationsProposed Improvements

0 200100Feet

DYB16-01 Not Performed due tounderground utility conflicts.


deanna

Typewritten Text

2

3


The proposed improvements will include two 12-foot-wide lanes and an 8-foot-wide bike lane in

each direction, along with a center 12-foot two-way left-turn lane (painted median). The Project

will also consist of constructing new concrete curbs and gutters; reconstructing driveway and

street tie-ins; constructing ADA-compliant curb ramps; and relocating existing utilities. In

addition, a 6-foot-wide curb-adjacent sidewalk might be constructed on one or both sides of the

street.

The purpose of DYA's investigation was to provide geotechnical input for the design of the

proposed Project. The scope of our services consisted of the following:

Reviewing existing data.

Conducting a subsurface investigation.

Performing laboratory tests on selected soil samples.

Performing engineering analyses to develop conclusions and recommendations

regarding the following:

o Subsurface conditions

o Site preparation and grading

o Pavement thickness for new pavements

o Soil corrosion potential

Preparing this report.

Performing non-destructive testing, such as falling-weight deflectometer testing, for evaluation

of pavement rehabilitation options was outside DYA’s scope of services.


4


2 DATA REVIEW, FIELD EXPLORATION, AND LABORATORY TESTING

Subsurface data from the Project vicinity presented in previous reports by others were reviewed

to supplement site data collected during this exploration. A list of the documents reviewed is

presented in the bibliography (Section 7).

The field exploration, which was conducted on July 18 and August 10, 2016, consisted of drilling

six soil borings using hollow-stem-auger and hand-auger drilling techniques at the locations

shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were chosen to provide areal coverage of the Project

site for grading and pavement design based on site access restrictions. The boring depths

ranged from approximately 1 to 6.5 feet below the ground surface. Details of the field

exploration, including sampling procedures and boring logs, are presented in Appendix A.

Soil samples collected from the borings were re-examined in the laboratory to substantiate field

classifications. Selected soil samples were tested for moisture content, dry density, grain-size

distribution, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics,

sand equivalent, pavement-supporting capacity (R-value), and corrosion potential (pH, electrical

resistivity, soluble chlorides, and soluble sulfates). The soil samples tested are identified on the

boring logs. Laboratory test data are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A and

presented on individual test reports in Appendix B.


5


3 SITE CONDITIONS

SURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1

Along the Project reach, Temescal Canyon Road consisted of an asphalt concrete- (AC-) paved

roadway providing one lane of traffic in each direction. A left-turn lane from the northbound

direction was observed at the intersection of Temescal Canyon with Dos Lagos Drive. Left-turn

lanes from the northbound and southbound directions were also observed at the intersection

located approximately 600 feet south of Dos Lagos Drive.

The condition of the existing AC pavement surface generally varied from poor to fair and

exhibited some signs of distress, including transverse, longitudinal, and alligator cracking and

patching. The thickness of the existing pavement structural section consisted of approximately

6 inches of AC underlain by approximately 7 inches of base; however, it should be noted that

the pavement section thickness was evaluated only near the northern terminus of the Project

reach because of site access restrictions. See Section 3.2 regarding possibility of abandoned

concrete pavement beneath the existing AC pavement surface.

At the time of our field exploration, topography along Temescal Canyon Road was generally flat

and sloped for drainage. Elevations ranged from a maximum of 913 feet near the intersection of

Temescal Canyon Road and Leroy Road to a minimum of 881 feet near the intersection of

Temescal Canyon Road and Dos Lagos Drive.

AC-paved shoulders of varying width were present along most of the Project reach; concrete

sidewalks, curbs, and gutters were partially present east and west of Temescal Canyon Road

along the northern ⅓ of the Project reach. Adjacent land usage to the east and west consisted

primarily of commercial and some residential properties along the middle ½ of the Project reach.

An existing nursery was present to the east and west of Temescal Canyon Road along the

northern ¼ of the Project reach, with generally undeveloped properties along the southern ¼ of

the Project reach. Embankments of varying height and inclination ascended from Temescal

Canyon Road to the west along portions of the Project reach. Numerous large trees were

observed along the east and west shoulders of Temescal Canyon Road along the entire Project

reach.


6


SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2

The subgrade soils consisted primarily of loose to medium-dense silty and clayey sands along

the entire Project reach. The in situ and optimum moisture contents, in situ and maximum unit

weights, relative compaction1, and R-values of the subsurface materials are summarized in

Table 1. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling operations.

Table 1 - SUBSURFACE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

BORING ID DEPTH (feet)

SOIL TYPE

IN SITU MOISTURE CONTENT

1

(%)

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT

1

(%)

IN SITU DRY UNIT WEIGHT

1

(pcf)

MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT

1

(pcf)

RELATIVE COMPACTION

(%) R-

VALUE

DYB16-02 2 SM 3 6 102 135 76 NP

DYB16-02 5 SM 3 6 107 135 79

DYB16-03 1 SM 2 6 116 135 86 38

DYB16-03 4 SM 4 6 113 135 84

DYHA16-02 3.25 SC 8.3 NP 122 NP -- 49

Note(s):

1. Based on results of laboratory testing presented on boring logs in Appendix A and individual laboratory test results presented in Appendix B.

SM = silty sand; SC = clayey sand

NP = not performed

pcf = pounds per cubic foot

As discussed in Appendix A, a concrete obstruction was encountered directly below the existing

pavement section in borings DYB16-04 and DYB16-04A. DYA was not able to identify the

obstruction in the field, nor could we evaluate its thickness or lateral extents. Based on the

findings of the rest of our field exploration, we judge that the obstruction can likely be attributed

to abandoned pavements that are likely associated with a former state highway with an

alignment similar to that of the current Temescal Canyon Road. The County of Riverside

Transportation and Land Management Department (County) published a materials report (2012)

documenting the findings of pavement corings and ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys

performed along the northern 1/3 of the Project reach. The findings of the corings and GPR

surveys indicated that alignment of the former state highway likely coincided with the existing

southbound lane of Temescal Canyon Road and was likely 18 to 20 feet wide and composed of

Portland cement concrete (PCC).

1 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same

material, as determined by the ASTM International (ASTM) D1557 test method. Optimum moisture content is the moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method.


7


4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on geotechnical considerations, the on-site soils can support the proposed

improvements. The primary construction consideration is the potential presence of old concrete

pavements beneath some to all of the existing AC pavements along the Project reach. The

potential presence of the old concrete pavements could result in changed conditions during

construction because the lateral extents and thickness of the old concrete pavements are not

well defined at this time. We recommend that additional evaluations be performed to better

identify the footprint and thickness of the old concrete pavements. In addition, the contract

documents should alert the contractor to the potential presence of old concrete pavements

underneath the existing pavements.

PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN 4.1

Recommended minimum dense-graded hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and PCC pavement sections are

presented on Figure 3. The recommended minimum pavement sections are based on the

following:

R-value of 38.

Caltrans design method.

Traffic index (TI) of 10.5, based on information provided by NCM Engineering

Corporation (2016) for Temescal Canyon Road.

The minimum thickness of compacted basement soil and aggregate base (AB) are outlined on

Figure 3. Prior to placing the AB, the basement soils should be firm, hard, and unyielding, and

should not “pump” under the loads of the construction and paving equipment. The basement

soil (subgrade) and AB should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. The AB

requirements and specifications are outlined on Figure 3.


8


Subgrade

Total Pavement Section

ARHM/HMA/PCC Course

Base Course

Basement Soil

COURSE

MINIMUM THICKNESS (inches)

ARHM/HMA/AB HMA/AB Full-Depth HMA PCC/AB

ARHM1 2 -- -- --

HMA2 6 8 14 --

PCC2

-- -- -- 12

Base3

10 10 -- 16

Basement Soil4

12 12 12 12

Note(s):

1. Asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) should satisfy the requirements of Greenbook Sections 203 or Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39. Please note that Caltrans refers to ARHM as rubber hot mix asphalt (RHMA).

2. Dense-graded HMA and PCC should satisfy the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications Sections 39 and 40, respectively, or Greenbook Sections 203, and 201 and 302, respectively. Thickness shown for PCC is for doweled pavement.

3. Base course = AB or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26 or Greenbook Section 200, respectively. The minimum relative compaction is 95%.

4. Compacted in-place natural basement soil or fill; at least 95% relative compaction.

Figure 3 - PAVEMENT THICKNESS

Generally, rigid PCC pavement costs more for initial construction but requires less maintenance

than flexible HMA pavement. For heavy wheel loads along limited alignments, queuing areas,

turning areas, dolly pads, bus stops, and refuse pickup areas, PCC pavement is preferred. For

PCC pavements, the following should be considered:

Construct pavements in a 15-foot square grid or smaller (20 foot rectangular areas if a

square is not practical).

Expansion joints should extend the full depth of the pavement.

Potential joints depth of ¼ of the pavement thickness.

Cure for a minimum of 7 days.

No traffic until the compressive strength exceeds 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi).


9


Minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi.

Dowels to strengthen joints.

Minimum slope of 1%.

The dense-graded HMA and PCC layers should not be replaced with open-graded asphalt

concrete (OGAC) and pervious PCC, respectively, to provide a fully permeable pavement. A

separate design is recommended for fully permeable pavements.

EARTHWORK 4.2

Prior to the start of construction, the following should be performed:

All utilities should be located in the field and rerouted, removed, abandoned, or

protected.

Areas should be graded to the planned subgrade elevation.

Reconstructing the road segments may require removing some or all of the existing

pavements and base materials.

The excavated AC and base materials should be taken to a recycling plant.

Unpaved areas to be graded and paved should initially be stripped of all vegetation and

debris, and the material should be removed from the site. Stripping should include root

bulbs associated with existing trees and other landscaping that will be removed to

accommodate the proposed improvements. Clearing of such bulbs and portions thereof

should include roots larger than ½ inch in diameter.

The lateral extents and thickness of the old concrete pavements discussed in Section

3.2 should be further evaluated as-needed.

Prior to placing fill, the exposed subgrade should be:

Scarified to a depth of 8 inches.

Moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content.

Compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (or to 90% as indicated elsewhere in the

report).


10


Fill should be compacted by:

Placing in loose layers less than 8 inches thick.

Moisture-conditioning to above optimum moisture content.

Compacting to at least 95% relative compaction (or to 90% as indicated elsewhere in the

report).

The compacted subgrade soils should be firm, hard, and unyielding.

Import materials (if required) for fill should meet the criteria in Table 2.

Table 2 - IMPORT FILL CRITERIA

CRITERIA IMPORT FILL

Caltrans Specification Section1 19-6.02

Maximum particle size (inches) 3

Maximum liquid limit (%) 30

Maximum plasticity index (%) 10

Maximum percentage passing the #200 sieve (%) 30

R-value 38

1. The fills and backfill shall meet the specified Caltrans (Caltrans, 2015a)/Greenbook (Building News, 2015) criteria and the additional recommendations provided in this table.

Concrete flatwork (i.e., slabs-on-grade, sidewalks, hardscape, curbs, and gutters) should be

underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of compacted engineered soil. The recommended

minimum compaction is 95% but can be reduced to 90% underneath the non-load bearing

elements such as sidewalks in accordance with County of Riverside guidelines (NCM, 2018).

Site grading may be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. The

fill should be compacted using soil compactors designed for compaction as defined by the

Caterpillar Performance Handbook (2016), or equivalent. However, to avoid overstressing

existing buildings, culvert, or other structures backfill adjacent to these existing structures may

need to be compacted using lightweight compaction equipment.

The stability of temporary excavations is a function of several factors, including the total time the

excavation is exposed, moisture condition, soil type and consistency, and contractor's

operations. The contractor is responsible for excavation safety. As a guideline, temporary

construction excavations greater than 3 feet but less than 10 feet deep should be planned with

slopes no steeper than 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical). For steeper temporary construction


11


slopes or deeper excavations, shoring should be provided for stability and protection. The

contractor should strictly adhere to grading requirements of County of Riverside and applicable

health and safety regulations, including those of the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA, 2016).

UTILITY TRENCHES 4.3

Utility trenches (either open or backfilled) that parallel structures, pavement, or flatwork should

be planned so that they do not extend below a plane with a downward slope of 1.5H:1V from the

bottom edge of footings, pavement, or flatwork. Temporary shoring to provide footing,

pavement, flatwork, or utility support is recommended unless localized settlements on the order

of 1% of the trench depth can be tolerated.

All excavations should comply with appropriate safety standards outlined in Section 4.2.

Utility pipes should be placed on the bottom of a neatly cut trench on a layer of bedding as

outlined on Figure 4 or according to the manufacturer's recommendations, whichever is more

stringent. Jetting should not be allowed for compaction purposes. The materials encountered

in the field should be checked for suitability as bedding material in accordance with the Caltrans

(2015a) and Greenbook (Building News, 2015) specifications shown on Figure 4. Based on the

laboratory test results presented in Appendix B, we anticipate that the near-surface sandy soils

will be suitable for reuse as trench backfill. The near-surface sandy soils should be tested to

check whether they meet the criteria for bedding soils.

To expedite construction, import materials or controlled low-strength material (CLSM, i.e.,

“slurry”) can be used as trench zone backfill. Where used, import fills should satisfy the criteria

in Table 2. In general, CLSM should satisfy the criteria of Section 201-6 of the Greenbook

(Building News, 2015) or Caltrans Specification Section 19-3.02G (Caltrans, 2015a); however,

when used within the upper 2 feet of trench zone backfill (dimension E on Figure 4) CLSM

should consist of a minimum of 100 pounds of cement per cubic yard (approximate equivalent of

1-sack slurry). Where approved by the manufacturer, CLSM can also be used as bedding or

within pipe zone.


12


Trench Zone Backfill

Not to Scale

PAVEMENT SECTION

Trench Zone Backfill

A

Pipe Bedding

D

E

See Figure 3 for Pavement Section Details

C

B

F

MATERIAL

MINIMUM THICKNESS

(feet)

MIIMUM RELATIVE COMPACTION

1

(%)

BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS

Caltrans Specifications Greenbook Specifications

Pipe Bedding A = 0.33 for B<4.5’ and 0.5’ for B>4.5

-- 19-3.02F 306-6

Pipe Zone C = 1 -- 19-3.02F 306-6

Trench Zone D varies 902 -- --

Trench Zone3 E = 2 95 -- --

Note(s):

1. Based on ASTM International (ASTM) D1557.

2. To reduce settlement, use 95% relative compaction.

3. E = 0 if no pavement or settlement-sensitive structures at surface.

Minimum values; use manufacturer’s recommendations if greater.

See Figure 3 for pavement section details.

Figure 4 - PIPELINE BACKFILL SCHEMATIC

CORROSION POTENTIAL 4.4

Two soil samples were tested for pH, soluble chloride and soluble sulfate, and soil electrical

resistivity for corrosion potential. The range of test values is summarized in Table 3. Also

presented in Table 3 are Caltrans ( 2014, 2015c) corrosion criteria. The corrosion potential test

results are presented in Appendix B. Based on these test results and the Caltrans corrosion

criteria, the near-surface soils at the site are considered non-corrosive to buried features. We

recommend that the concrete be designed for exposure class S0 from American Concrete

Institute (ACI) 318 (ACI, 2011).


13


Table 3 - CORROSION POTENTIAL

CONSTITUENT CRITERIA FOR CORROSIVE MATERIALS1

RANGE OF VALUES

pH

<5.5 7 to 7.8

Soluble sulfate content (ppm)

>2,000 32 to 57

Soluble chloride content (ppm)

>500 0 to 2.8

Electrical resistivity (ohm-cm)

<1000 2,080 to 2,560

Note(s):

1. Caltrans (2014, 2015c).

ppm = parts per million.

In addition to the soil characteristics, external factors such as nearby active corrosion systems

will greatly affect the need for an active corrosion protection system. The test data provided

herein can be used by others to develop details of corrosion protection. Borrow soils imported

to the Project site should be tested for corrosion potential.


14


5 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, AND TESTING

DYA should be retained to review the final grading and construction plans and specifications for

conformance with the intent of our recommendations. The review will enable DYA to modify the

recommendations if final design conditions are different than presently understood.

During construction, DYA should provide field observation and testing to check that the site

preparation, excavation, and finished grading conform to the intent of these recommendations,

project plans, and specifications. This would allow DYA to develop supplemental

recommendations as appropriate for the actual soil conditions encountered and the specific

construction techniques used by the contractor.

As needed during construction, DYA should be retained to consult on geotechnical questions,

construction problems, and unanticipated site conditions.


15


6 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for this project in accordance with generally accepted

geotechnical engineering practices common to the local area. No other warranty, expressed or

implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the literature review,

field exploration, and laboratory testing conducted in the area. The results of the field

exploration indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times, and only to

the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect strata variations that may exist between

such locations. Although subsurface conditions have been explored as part of the exploration,

we have not conducted chemical laboratory testing on samples obtained or evaluated the site

with respect to the presence or potential presence of contaminated soil or groundwater

conditions, for mold, or methane gas.

The validity of our recommendations is based in part on assumptions about the stratigraphy.

Observations during construction can help confirm such assumptions. If subsurface conditions

different from those described are noted during construction, recommendations in this report

must be re-evaluated. DYA should be retained to observe earthwork construction in order to

help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them

accordingly. In accordance with California Building Code Chapter 17 Section 1704A, DYA

cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of recommendations if we do not

observe construction.

This report is intended for use only for the project described. In the event that any changes in

the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and

recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes

are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by DYA. We are

not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with the interpretation of

subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without our express

written authorization.


16


7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Concrete Institute, 2011, ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.

ASTM International, 2010, Annual Book of Standards, Volumes 4.08 and 4.09, Soil and Rock.

Building News, 2015, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Caltrans, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Materials Engineering and Testing Service, Corrosion Technology Branch, November 2012.

Caltrans 2014, Memo to Designers 3-1, June 2014.

Caltrans, 2015a, Standard Specifications.

Caltrans, 2015b, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition, Published 2006 and Updated.

Caltrans, 2015c, Corrosion Guidelines, Materials Engineering and Testing Service, Corrosion Technology Branch, Version 2.1, July 2015.

Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 2016, Caterpillar, Inc., Edition 46.

California Building Code, 2013, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.

County of Riverside, 2012, Materials Report for Dos Lagos Drive and Temescal Canyon Road, W.O. No. C2-0154, Material Laboratory, Transportation Department.

NCM Engineering Corporation, 2016, Personal Communication.

NCM Engineering Corporation, 2018, Email dated April 11, 2018 that contained County of Riverside guidelines for compaction underneath sidewalks and project plans.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2016, OSHA Standards For The Construction Industry, 29 CFR Part 1926 With Amendments as of January 2016.



APPENDIX A -FIELD EXPLORATION


A-1


APPENDIX A - FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration for the proposed Project consisted of drilling four borings (DYB16-02

through DYB16-04, and DYB16-04A) to depths ranging from approximately 1 to 6.5 feet below

the ground surface (bgs). Boring DYB16-01 was abandoned because of underground utility

conflict. An unidentified concrete obstruction was encountered directly below the existing

pavement section in the initial attempt for boring DYB16-04. The location of boring DYB16-04

was moved approximately 8 feet to the north (DYB16-04A) and redrilled; however, an

unidentified concrete obstruction was encountered at a similar depth in boring DYB16-04A and

the boring was subsequently abandoned. Because alternative locations could not be

reasonably identified along Temescal Canyon Road near the locations of borings DYB16-01

and DYB16-04, two hand-auger borings (DYHA16-01 and DYHA16-02) were performed in the

unpaved adjacent shoulder areas to check that the subsurface conditions in these areas of the

Project reach were consistent with the soil conditions encountered in borings DYB16-02 and

DYB16-03. The depths of the hand-auger borings ranged from approximately 5 to 5.5 feet bgs.

The approximate boring and hand-auger boring locations are shown on Figure 2.

Prior to drilling the borings, the field exploration locations were marked in the field and

Underground Service Alert was notified. The field exploration locations were subsequently

checked for underground utilities using geophysical techniques. The geophysical survey was

performed by Southwest Geophysics, Inc. The boring and hand-auger location coordinates

shown on the boring logs presented herein were identified in the field using a hand-held global

positioning system unit with an estimated 6-foot horizontal accuracy.

Borings DYB16-02 through DYB16-04A were drilled by 2R drilling Inc. on July 18, 2016, with a

truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig using hollow-stem-auger drilling techniques. Our field engineer

observed the drilling operations and collected bulk and drive samples for visual examination and

subsequent laboratory testing. Drive samples were collected with a 2.4-inch-inside-diameter

(3.0-inch-outside-diameter) modified California split-barrel sampler lined with stainless-steel

tubes with dimensions in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D3550. The sampler

was driven with a 140-pound automatic trip hammer falling 30 inches. Based on communication

with the drilling company, the hammer used during the field exploration was last calculated on

January 18, 2016; the efficiency rating (ER) was 74.2%.

The hammer blows required to drive the modified California sampler were converted to

equivalent standard penetration test (SPT) N-values by multiplying by 0.65 (N = 0.65 x modified


A-2


California blows per foot). A sampler driving refusal criteria of 50 hammer blows for less than

6 inches of penetration for the modified California or SPT samplers was used. An equivalent

SPT blow count was then calculated by multiplying the sampler blow count (usually 50 blows)

by the ratio of 6 inches divided by the actual sampler penetration in inches.

Hand-auger borings DYHA16-01 and DYHA16-02 were performed by DiazYourman &

Associates on August 31, 2016, using a 3.25-inch-diameter stainless steel hand-auger. While

performing the hand augers, our field engineer collected bulk and drive samples for visual

examination and subsequent laboratory testing. Drive samples were collected using a manually

driven 2-inch-inside-diameter (2.5-inch-outside-diameter) hand sampler lined with stainless steel

tubes. Blow counts were not recorded for the drive samples collected from the hand-auger

borings.

Soils encountered in the borings were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487,

which is summarized on Plate A1, and ASTM D2488. Boring logs presented on Plates A2

through A6 were prepared from visual examination of the samples, cuttings obtained during

drilling operations, and results of laboratory tests. The equivalent SPT N-values presented on

the boring logs were derived from the equivalent SPT blow counts recorded in the field, which

were modified by multiplying by the ratio of ER/60 to obtain the equivalent SPT N60-value for

each sample. Surface elevations of the boring locations were interpreted from topographic

maps provided by NCM Engineering Corporation (2016).

Groundwater was not encountered during the field exploration to the maximum depth explored,

approximately 6.5 feet bgs. Borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. Paved surfaces were

patched with cold-patch asphalt.


Temescal Canyon Road - Dos Lagos Segment

Project No. 2016-016

OL

CLEAN GRAVELS

SW

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

Bag Sample

Concrete/Rock Core

GRAPH

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)

CU = Consol. Undrained Comp.CU = Consol. Undrained Comp.CU = Consol. Undrained Comp.

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

LETTER

TYPICAL

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE GC

A1

CL

CA = Corrosion Analysis

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler

SAND AND

SANDY

SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER

THAN 50

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)

SA = Grain size; HYD = Hydrometer

CBR = California Bearing Ratio

SG = Specific Gravity

[PID] Reading in ppm above background

CLEAN SANDS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

Groundwater Surface

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

SILTS AND

CLAYS

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

Split Barrel "Drive" Sampler With Liner

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

CON = Consolidation

CU = Consol. Undrained Comp.

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

DESCRIPTIONS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GW

GP

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,

ORGANIC SILTS

SILTS AND

CLAYSFINE-GRAINED

SOILS

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK

FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

GM

UU = Undrained, Unconsol. Comp.

RV = R-Value

SYMBOLS

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURESSANDS WITH FINES

PLATE

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC

CONTENTS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS

FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GRAVELS WITH FINES

MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM-ASTM D2487

NP = Nonplastic

CU = Consol. Undrained Comp.

CD = Consol. Drained Comp.

SE = Sand Equivalent

DS = Direct Shear

SPT "N" = Uncorrected equivalent blow count for last foot of driving (set to 100 for driving refusal)

KEY TO LOG OF BORINGS

EIT = Expansion Index Test

SPT "N" = Uncorrected equivalent blow count for last foot of driving (set to 100 for driving refusal) = 0.5 x modified California blows per foot

SM

SC

MH

CH

OH

PT

SP

ML

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

LIQUID LIMIT LESS

THAN 50

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER

THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

Hand Auger Sampler

CO = Compaction Test


19

102

107

3

3

SILTY SAND (SM): pale brown; dry; medium dense; coarseto fine SAND; calcium carbonate stringers; unpavedsurface

medium to fine SAND; trace fine GRAVEL

Bottom of boring at 6.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.

SEMD

23

27

221812

141519

CHECKED BY:

BORING DIAMETER (inches): BORING DEPTH (feet):

DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CME-75 Hollow Stem AugerDRILLING METHOD:

ID: 2.4 OD: 3

7-18-16DATE STARTED: COMPLETED:7-18-16

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: 2R Drilling, Inc. HAMMER DROP: 30 inches

74.2%

140 lbsWEIGHT:

6.5

BORING LOCATION:

LATITUDE:

LOGGED BY: SC

904 NAVD

DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches)TS

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic EFFICIENCY:

8

LONGITUDE:

ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet):

-117.5040833.80225

See Figure 2

PLATE

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

Sam

pler

900

895

890

885

880

875

5

10

15

20

25


LOG OF BORING DYB16-02

A2

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1

Sym

bol

Libr

ary:

DY

LIB

.GLB

; T

em

plat

e: D

YLG

; P

rj ID

: 201

6-0

16.G

PJ

SP

T N

60B

low

s pe

r F

oot

Dep

th(f

eet)



15116

113

2

4

SILTY SAND (SM): dark yellowish brown; moist; mediumdense; coarse to fine SAND; trace fine GRAVEL; calciumcarbonate stringers; unpaved surface

loose; trace coarse to fine GRAVEL

Bottom of boring at 6.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.

SA

CARV

27

10

221915

676

CHECKED BY:



ID: 2.4 OD: 3



74.2%

140 lbsWEIGHT:

6.5

BORING LOCATION:

LATITUDE:

LOGGED BY: SC

889 NAVD



8

LONGITUDE:


-117.5043033.80426

See Figure 2

PLATE

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

Sam

pler

885

880

875

870

865

860

5

10

15

20

25



A3

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1

Sym

bol

Libr

ary:

DY

LIB

.GLB

; T

em

plat

e: D

YLG

; P

rj ID

: 201

6-0

16.G

PJ

SP

T N

60B

low

s pe

r F

oot

Dep

th(f

eet)



ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC): 6 inchesSILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM): very dark brown; moist;

dense; coarse to fine SAND; coarse to fine GRAVEL;BASE - 7 inches

Bottom of boring at 1.08 feet.Boring abandoned due to concrete encounterd at bottom of

base material.Boring was attempted at a different location, but concrete

was still present.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with soil cuttings.Surface patched with cold patch asphalt.

CHECKED BY:



ID: 2.4 OD: 3



74.2%

140 lbsWEIGHT:

1.08

BORING LOCATION:

LATITUDE:

LOGGED BY: SC

881 NAVD



8

LONGITUDE:


-117.5048933.80618

See Figure 2

PLATE

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

Sam

pler

880

875

870

865

860

855

5

10

15

20

25



A4

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1

Sym

bol

Libr

ary:

DY

LIB

.GLB

; T

em

plat

e: D

YLG

; P

rj ID

: 201

6-0

16.G

PJ

SP

T N

60B

low

s pe

r F

oot

Dep

th(f

eet)



ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC): 6 inchesSILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM): very dark brown; moist;

dense; coarse to fine SAND; coarse to fine GRAVEL;BASE - 7 inches

Bottom of boring at 1.08 feet.Boring abandoned due to concrete encounterd at bottom of

base material.Boring was attempted at a different location, but concrete

was still present.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with soil cuttings.Surface patched with cold patch asphalt.

CHECKED BY:



ID: 2.4 OD: 3



74.2%

140 lbsWEIGHT:

1.08

BORING LOCATION:

LATITUDE:

LOGGED BY: SC

881 NAVD



8

LONGITUDE:


-117.5049033.80622

See Figure 2

PLATE

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)

Blo

ws

per

6 In

ches

Sam

pler

880

875

870

865

860

855

5

10

15

20

25


LOG OF BORING DYB16-04A

A5

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1

Sym

bol

Libr

ary:

DY

LIB

.GLB

; T

em

plat

e: D

YLG

; P

rj ID

: 201

6-0

16.G

PJ

SP

T N

60B

low

s pe

r F

oot

Dep

th(f

eet)



6

SILTY SAND (SM): pale brown; moist; medium dense;coarse to fine SAND; trace coarse to fine GRAVEL; traceCOBBLES; trace artificial debris includingglass/paper/plastic;

yellowish brown; no COBBLES; no artificial debris

decreased fines

Bottom of boring at 5.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Boring backfilled with cuttings.

LOGGED BY:

BORING DIAMETER (inches):

8/10/16

LONGITUDE:


8/10/16

EMV

DATE COMPLETED: 8/10/16

Hand Auger

LATITUDE: 33.80093 -117.50334

DATE STARTED:

CHECKED BY:

3

Hand Auger

5.5

DRILLING METHOD:

BORING DEPTH (feet):

TS

See Figure 2

DRILLING EQUIPMENT:

BORING LOCATION: 913 NAVDE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Sam

pler

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)Tem

plat

e: D

YLG

HA

ND

AU

GE

R;

Prj

ID: 2

016-

016.

GP

J

A6Page 1 of 1

Dep

th(f

eet)


PLATE


DESCRIPTION

Sym

bol

910

905

900

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

5

10

LOG OF BORING DYHA16-01


122

28 16 23

RV,CA

4

8

8

SILTY SAND (SM): pale brown; moist; medium dense;coarse to fine SAND; trace coarse to fine GRAVEL; traceCOBBLES; micaceous

CLAYEY SAND (SC): dark yellowish brown; moist; mediumdense; medium to fine SAND; trace fine GRAVEL

few fine GRAVEL; few coarse SAND

fine SAND; increased fines; no fine GRAVEL; no medium tocoarse SAND

trace medium SANDBottom of boring at 5.25 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Boring backfilled with cuttings.

LOGGED BY:

BORING DIAMETER (inches):

8/10/16

LONGITUDE:


8/10/16

EMV

DATE COMPLETED: 8/10/16

Hand Auger

LATITUDE: 33.8062 -117.50495

DATE STARTED:

CHECKED BY:

3

Hand Auger

5.25

DRILLING METHOD:

BORING DEPTH (feet):

TS

See Figure 2

DRILLING EQUIPMENT:

BORING LOCATION: 881 NAVDE

leva

tion

(fee

t)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Liqu

idLi

mit

(%)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

(%)

Sam

pler

Oth

er T

ests

[PID

]

Fie

ld U

nc.

Com

p. S

tr.

(tsf

)Tem

plat

e: D

YLG

HA

ND

AU

GE

R;

Prj

ID: 2

016-

016.

GP

J

A7Page 1 of 1

Dep

th(f

eet)


PLATE


DESCRIPTION

Sym

bol

880

875

870

Per

cent

Pas

sing

#200

Sie

ve

Dry

Den

sity

(pc

f)

5

10

LOG OF BORING DYHA16-02



APPENDIX B -LABORATORY TESTING


B-1 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\2016\2016-016\Report\2016-016 Dos Lagos Segment v2.docx

APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING

DiazYourman & Associates selected soil samples to be tested and the tests to be performed

on the selected samples. Laboratory testing was performed by Hushmand Associates, Inc.

Laboratory data are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A and presented on Plates B1

through B10. A summary of the geotechnical laboratory testing is presented in Table B1. A

summary of the corrosion test results is presented in Table B2.

Table B1 - LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

TEST NAME PROCEDURE PURPOSE LOCATION

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve ASTM D1140 Classification, index properties Boring Logs

Moisture Content, Dry Density ASTM D2216 Classification, index properties Boring Logs

Grain-Size Distribution ASTM D422 Classification, index properties Plate B1

Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318 Expansion potential,

classification, index properties Plate B2

Compaction ASTM D1557 Earthwork Plate B3

Sand Equivalent ASTM D2419 Pipe trench backfill Plate B4

Resistance (R-) Value ASTM D2844

CTM 301 Pavement thickness design Plates B5 to B8

pH CTM 532 Corrosion potential Table B2,

Plate B9 and B10

Resistivity CTM 532 Corrosion potential Table B2,

Plate B9 and B10

Soluble Sulfates CTM 417-B Corrosion potential Table B2,

Plate B9 and B10

Soluble Chlorides CTM 422 Corrosion potential Table B2,

Plate B9 and B10

Note(s):

ASTM = ASTM International

CTM = Caltrans Test Method

Table B2 - CORROSION POTENTIAL TEST RESULTS

Boring No. DYB16-03 DYHA16-02

Depth (feet) 0-5 0-5

pH 7 7.8

Water Soluble Sulfate Content (ppm) 32 57

Water Soluble Chloride Content (ppm) 2.8 ND

Minimum Resistivity/Moisture Content (ohms-cm / %) 2,080 2,560

Note(s):

ND = Not Detected

ppm = parts per million


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

SILT or CLAY

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

Fine

3



PLATEPARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

16

COBBLES

30

GRAVEL

5 0.5

U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers

50

2

0.05

11

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

3 50 200

0.005

Fine

8 4

Coarse Medium

Laboratory Testing by: Hushmand Associates, Incorporated

B1

3

Coarse

SAND

U.S. StandardSieve Size (in.)

4

Hydrometer

8 100

Tem

plat

e: D

Y_S

IEV

E_W

IN

28

19

15

23

NaturalIndex (%)Symbol Source

Depth(feet)

5.0

1.0

4.0

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC) 16

% Passing#200 Sieve

Plasticity

DYB16-02

DYB16-03

DYHA16-02

3

2

ClassificationLiquid

Limit (%)M. C. (%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 12016

ML

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

(%

)

B2PLATE

Laboratory Testing by: Hushmand Associates, Incorporated


PLASTICITY CHART

CH or OH

U-LINE

ML or OL

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

74

MH or OH

CL or OL

CL-

A-LINE

Tem

plat

e: D

Y_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

_CH

AR

T_W

IN

Test Method: ASTM D4318


PlasticNatural PlasticityIndex (%)

% PassingSource

2312

Symbol M. C. (%)ClassificationLiquid

Limit (%)Depth(feet) Limit (%)

16DYHA16-02 284.0

#200 Sieve

CLAYEY SAND (SC)


Client : Diaz Yourman & Associates, Inc. DYAL-16-019Project Name: Temescal Canyon - Dos Lagos Tested by: AH/KLProject No.: 2016-016 MZBoring No: DYB16-02 Date: 7/26/2016Sample No.: Bulk @ 0-5' Mold size: 4"Soil Description: Brown, Silty Sand (SM) Procedure: B

8.7

COMPACTION CURVE(ASTM D1557)

HAI Project No.:

% Ret. On 3/8 "

Checked by:

110

120

130

140

150

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

Moisture Content (%)

Gs= 2.70

Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 133.3Optimum Moisture Content (%): 6.6

Gs= 2.60

Corrected Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 135.0Corrected Optimum Moisture Content (%): 6.0


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B3

Client: Diaz Yourman & Associates, Inc. HAI Project No.: DYAL-16-019Project Name: Temescal Canyon - Dos Lagos Tested by: KLProject No.: 2016-016 Checked by: MZBoring No.: DYB16-02 Date: 07/28/16Sample ID: 1 @ 2'Soil Description: Brown, Silty Sand (SM)

8:30 8:40 8:42 9:02 11.9 2.6 228:31 8:41 8:44 9:04 12.2 2.5 218:32 8:42 8:46 9:06 12.6 2.5 20

T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting TimeT2 = ( T1 + 10 min ) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min ) Take Clay Reading (R1)(100 cycles in 30 sec) and Sand Reading (R2)

SAND EQUIVALENT TEST(DOT CA Test 217)

Record SE as Next Higher Integer

21

T1 T2 T3 T4 R1 R2 SE Average SE

Project Specifications Section 02223-3 SE Requirement for Import Sand = 30 Minimum

Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B4


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B5

Kelly

Text Box

Silty Sand


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B6


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B7

Kelly

Text Box

Clayey Sand

Kelly

Text Box

DYHA16-02 @0' -5'


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B8

Kelly

Text Box

deanna

Rectangle

deanna

Typewritten Text

DYHA16-02@0'-5'

deanna

Typewritten Text

deanna

Typewritten Text

deanna

Typewritten Text

431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1

Sample ID DYB16-03 BULK

@ 0-5'

Resistivity Unitsas-received ohm-cm 25,200minimum ohm-cm 2,080

pH 7.0

ElectricalConductivity mS/cm 0.11

Chemical AnalysesCationscalcium Ca2+ mg/kg 14magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 10sodium Na1+ mg/kg 20potassium K1+ mg/kg 37Anionscarbonate CO3

2- mg/kg NDbicarbonate HCO3

1- mg/kg 98fluoride F1- mg/kg 9.5chloride Cl1- mg/kg 2.8sulfate SO4

2- mg/kg 32phosphate PO4

3- mg/kg ND

Other Testsammonium NH4

1+ mg/kg NDnitrate NO3

1- mg/kg 213sulfide S2- qual naRedox mV na

Minimum resistivity per CTM 643, Chlorides per CTM 422, Sulfates per CTM 417Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

Temescal Canyon - Dos LagosYour #DYAL-16-019, HDR Lab #16-0546LAB

22-Jul-16

Hushmand Associates


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B9

431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1

Sample IDDYHA16-02

B @ 0-5'

Resistivity Unitsas-received ohm-cm 11,200minimum ohm-cm 2,560

pH 7.8

ElectricalConductivity mS/cm 0.08

Chemical AnalysesCationscalcium Ca2+ mg/kg 22magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 8.7sodium Na1+ mg/kg 50potassium K1+ mg/kg 15Anionscarbonate CO3

2- mg/kg NDbicarbonate HCO3

1- mg/kg 73fluoride F1- mg/kg 0.8chloride Cl1- mg/kg NDsulfate SO4

2- mg/kg 57phosphate PO4

3- mg/kg 5.7

Other Testsammonium NH4

1+ mg/kg NDnitrate NO3

1- mg/kg 23sulfide S2- qual naRedox mV na

Minimum resistivity per CTM 643, Chlorides per CTM 422, Sulfates per CTM 417Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

Temescal Canyon - Dos LagosYour #DYAL-16-023, HDR Lab #16-0616LAB

15-Aug-16

Hushmand Associates


Kelly

Text Box

PLATE B10

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2016\2016-016\REPORT\2016-016 DOS LAGOS SEGMENT V2.DOCX

DISTRIBUTION

Email pdf link: Mr. Edward Ng, PE

NCM Engineering Corp. 4740 Green River Road, Suite 218 Corona, CA 92880

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER Vallipuram R. Nadeswaran, PE, GE Principal TS/CI:dr

REVISION NO. DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION

V1 09/23/2016 Draft

V2 4/13/2018 Final


deanna

Typewritten Text

Documents

Geotechnical Design Report Temescal Canyon Rd …€¦ · The Project reach consists of the approximately 0.6-mile-long segment of ... Laboratory test data are summarized on the