Geotechnical Investigation Report - Claremont

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Foothill Boulevard Improvements Towne Avenue to Claremont Boulevard

Claremont, California

Prepared for: KOA Corporation

1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754

August 24, 2016

Project No.: 160514.1

August 24, 2016 Project No.: 160514.1

Mr. Stephen Bise Senior Engineer KOA Corporation 1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Evaluation Foothill Boulevard Improvements from Towne Avenue to Claremont Boulevard Claremont, California Dear Mr. Bise: In accordance with your authorization, Twining, Inc. (Twining) has performed a limited geotechnical investigation and engineering evaluation for the proposed Foothill Boulevard improvements project between Towne Avenue and Claremont Boulevard, Claremont, California. The purpose of our evaluation was to develop engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements to Foothill Boulevard. Our evaluation of the site consisted of soil borings, coring of the existing AC pavement, infiltration testing, collecting samples of the site subgrade, and laboratory testing. Based on the results of our observations and testing, we performed engineering analyses and developed recommendations for the construction of the improvements and the rehabilitation of the subject pavement. Please note that the recommendations presented in this report are based on our limited field work and assumptions stated within. Should conditions exposed during construction be different from those assumed in our analyses or should the development change, our recommendations may need to be modified accordingly. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us at our office. Respectfully submitted, TWINING, INC. Adrian Moreno, EIT Andres Bernal, RCE 62366, GE 2715 Staff Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer Amir Ghavibazoo, PhD, Senior Pavement Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

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

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 1

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 1

4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................... 2

4.1. FIELD SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .............................................................................................. 2 4.2. PERCOLATION TESTS ................................................................................................................... 2 4.3. PAVEMENT SURFACE CONDITION ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 3 4.4. EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONS ................................................................................................... 3 4.5. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................ 3

5. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................. 4

5.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................... 4 5.2. SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 4

5.2.1. Alluvial Deposits (Qa) .......................................................................................................... 4 5.3. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 4 5.4. RIPPABILITY ................................................................................................................................. 4 5.5. CAVING POTENTIAL ...................................................................................................................... 5 5.6. EXPANSIVE SOILS ........................................................................................................................ 5

6. ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY AND DESIGN ...................................................................... 5

6.1. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................... 5 6.2. SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE........................................................................................................... 5 6.3. LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC DRY SAND SETTLEMENT ................................................................. 5 6.4. LANDSLIDES ................................................................................................................................ 6 6.5. FLOODING AND SEICHES .............................................................................................................. 6 6.6. CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................ 6

7. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 7

7.1. EARTHWORK AND SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 7 7.1.1. Site Preparation................................................................................................................... 7 7.1.2. Removals and Overexcavation ........................................................................................... 7 7.1.3. Materials for Fill ................................................................................................................... 7 7.1.4. Compacted Fill .................................................................................................................... 8 7.1.5. Excavations and Shoring ..................................................................................................... 8 7.1.6. Excavation Bottom Stability ................................................................................................. 9

7.2. RETAINING WALLS ....................................................................................................................... 9 7.2.1. Shallow Footings ................................................................................................................. 9 7.2.2. Lateral Earth Pressure ...................................................................................................... 10 7.2.3. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure ......................................................................................... 10 7.2.4. Backfill and Drainage of Walls ........................................................................................... 10

7.3. CORROSION ............................................................................................................................... 11 7.3.1. Reinforced Concrete ......................................................................................................... 11 7.3.2. Metallic .............................................................................................................................. 11

8. PAVEMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSES ........................................................................... 11

iii

9. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 12

9.1. REMOVE-AND-REPLACE RECONSTRUCTION OPTION.................................................................... 12 9.2. ASPHALT OVERLAY ON CEMENT STABILIZED PULVERIZED BASE (400 PSI UCS) .......................... 13 9.3. ASPHALT OVERLAY ON COLD IN-PLACE RECYCLED ASPHALT PAVEMENT (CIR) .......................... 13

10. DESIGN REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 14

10.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 14 10.2. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 14

11. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14

12. SELECTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 16

FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map Figure 4 – Seismic Hazard Map Figure 5 – Fault Location Map APPENDICES Appendix A – Field Exploration Appendix B – Percolation Tests Appendix C – Pavement Surface Condition Assessment Appendix D – Pavement Core Photographs Appendix E – Laboratory Testing

Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the limited geotechnical evaluation performed by Twining, Inc. (Twining) for the proposed Foothill Boulevard improvements project located in the City of Claremont, California. The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations related to the design and construction of the proposed project.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This site consists of an approximate two miles of Foothill Boulevard between Towne Avenue and Claremont Boulevard in the City of Claremont, California, as shown in Figure 1 – Site Location Map. The proposed street improvements include pavement rehabilitation and installation of bioswales, storm drains, bicycle lanes, landscaping, lighting, and signage.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following:

• We reviewed readily available background data including previous geotechnical reports for the site vicinity by others, as well as in-house geotechnical data, geologic maps, topographic maps, and aerial photographs relevant to the subject site.

• We also conducted a pavement surface condition assessment and recorded the existing distress on the pavement.

• We performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe the general surface conditions at the site and select exploratory locations. After the planned locations were delineated, Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified 48 hours prior to excavation.

• We submitted traffic control plans and obtained an encroachment permit from the City of Claremont, California.

• We performed a subsurface evaluation including the excavation, logging, and sampling of three exploratory borings.

• We excavated four borings to perform percolation testing.

• We performed asphalt coring and logged pavement sections at sixteen locations;

• We obtained samples of earth materials from the boring and coring locations and transported them to our in-house laboratory for examination and testing.

• We performed laboratory testing on selected samples of earth materials in order to evaluate the geotechnical engineering properties of the on-site soils.

• We compiled and analyzed the data collected from our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing. Specifically our analyses included the following: o Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types, distribution, and

engineering characteristics of subsurface materials; o Evaluation of geologic hazards and engineering seismology, including evaluation of fault

rupture hazard, seismic shaking hazard, liquefaction and seismic settlement potential; o Evaluation of seismic design parameters in accordance with 2013 California Building Code;

Page 2

o Evaluation of current and historical groundwater conditions at the site and potential impact on design and construction;

o Evaluation of expansion potential of on-site soils; o Evaluation of project feasibility and suitability of on-site soils for foundation support; o Development of general recommendations for earthwork, including requirements for

placement of compacted fill; o Evaluation of foundation design parameters including allowable bearing capacity for shallow

foundations, estimated settlement, and lateral resistance; o Recommendations for temporary excavations; o Recommendations for concrete slab-on-grade support and concrete flatwork; o Recommendations for flexible and rigid pavement design; and, o Evaluation of the potential for the on-site materials to corrode buried concrete and metals.

• We prepared this report to present the work performed and data acquired and summarize our conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements.

4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

4.1. Field Subsurface Exploration

Our subsurface exploration was conducted on July 18 and 19, 2016. The existing asphalt pavement structure was evaluated by performing thirteen 4-inch diameter cores and three borings within the street section. Subgrade samples were obtained using a hand-auger to a depth of approximately 3 feet.

The three deep soil borings labeled B-1, B-8 and B-15 were advanced using a CME-75 truck mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers to approximate depths ranging between 15 feet and 25 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Driven samples of the soils were obtained using standard penetration test (SPT) and modified California split spoon samplers. The samplers were driven using a 140-pound, automatic-drop hammer falling approximately 30 inches. The blow counts were recorded and the materials encountered in the borings were logged by our field personnel. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with cold patch asphalt. Driven and bulk samples were delivered to our lab in Long Beach for testing. The coring and boring locations are presented in Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

4.2. Percolation Tests

Four borings labeled I-1 through I-4 were excavated at the project site to perform percolation tests. Borings I-1, I-2 and I-4 were excavated with a 5.5-inch diameter hand-auger to an approximate depth of 2.5 feet bgs where refusal on cobbles was encountered. The hand-excavated borings caved during drilling/presoaking and the average borehole diameter increased to 8 inches. Boring I-3 was advanced to approximately 25 feet using the truck-mounted drill rig with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Percolation testing was performed to evaluate the infiltration rates of subgrade soils for design of stormwater infiltration systems. A detailed discussion of field testing and infiltration rates at the site is presented in Appendix B of this report.

Page 3

4.3. Pavement Surface Condition Assessment

A pavement surface condition assessment was performed in order to evaluate and document the existing pavement surface distress. Photos of observed distress conditions within the project limits are presented in Appendix C. Based on our observations, the main pavement distress characteristics within the project limits are:

• Low severity fatigue (alligator) cracking on approximately 10 percent of the pavement.

• Low severity block cracking on approximately 15 percent of the pavement.

4.4. Existing Pavement Sections

Coring within the street section was performed approximately every 650 linear feet. The existing pavement section was measured at each coring location. The average asphalt concrete layer thickness observed in the field was approximately 8.5 inches. Aggregate base was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. Our observations at each coring location and subgrade laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1. Photographs of the recovered asphalt pavement cores are presented in Appendix D.

Table 1 Existing Pavement Section and Subgrade Test Results

Coring Location

AC Layer Thickness

(in)

Subgrade Soil Moisture Content

(%)

Subgrade Soil R-Value

C1: 500 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 12.0 5.9 82 C2: 1700 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 6.0 -- -- C3: 2800 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 10.5 -- -- C4: 3150 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 6.0 -- -- C5: 3750 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 6.5 10.6 80 C6: 4500 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 10.5 -- -- C7: 5200 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 8.5 -- -- C8: 5700 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 7.0 -- -- C9: 6250 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 11.0 -- -- C10: 6750 feet west of Towne Avenue – WB 9.5 -- -- C11: 7500 feet west of Towne Avenue – EB 10.5 -- -- C12: 8050 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 10.0 7.2 73 C13: 8550 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 11.5 -- -- C14: 9100 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 6.0 -- -- C15: 9700 feet west of Towne Avenue - EB 5.5 8.9 83 C16: 1100 feet west of Towne Avenue - WB 6.0 -- --

4.5. Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained in order to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the subgrade soils. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ soil moisture, soil classification testing including grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits, and R-value tests. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix E.

Page 4

5. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our discussion of the geologic conditions at the site is based on our current field exploration and review of available geotechnical and geologic literature. Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting, seismicity, and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections.

5.1. Regional Geologic Setting

The project site is located along the western portion of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California consists of east-west oriented mountain ranges composed of sedimentary, plutonic, and metamorphic rocks with volcanic intrusions. Geologic units in the area consist of deep quaternary alluvial deposits and Pleistocene nonmarine sediments that are underlain by crystalline basement complex. The regional geology is shown in Figure 3 - Regional Geologic Map.

Numerous east-west trending faults exist within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. Several active faults are present in the vicinity of the site including the San Jose, Cucamonga, Sierra Madre, Chino, Clamshell-Sawpit, Elsinore, San Antonio, and San Andreas fault zones.

5.2. Site Geology

The site is located in the Foothills area south of the San Gabriel Mountains in northeastern Los Angeles County at an elevation of approximately 1,260 feet above mean sea level (msl). Surficial material consists of Quaternary alluvium derived from the erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Quaternary alluvium is composed mainly of sand, silty sand and gravel with variable cobble content. The following section provides a generalized description of the materials encountered. Detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix A.

5.2.1. Alluvial Deposits (Qa)

Alluvial deposits were encountered in our exploratory borings. The alluvial materials generally consisted of light brown to brown, loose to very dense, dry to moist, sand to silty sand and gravel with variable cobble content.

5.3. Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration. Hydrologic data for Well #6BWM-11 (California Department of Water Resources, 2016) located approximately 0.5 miles south of the site indicates that the historic high groundwater level is at elevation 1070 feet (msl). According to the referenced Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration (County of Los Angeles, 2014), the invert elevation of infiltration systems should be 10 feet or more above the groundwater level. Based on our review, the proposed infiltration systems will be located more than 10 feet above the local groundwater table.

5.4. Rippability

The alluvial deposits encountered onsite should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good working condition.

Page 5

5.5. Caving Potential

Due to the presence of cohesionless granular materials, caving during excavations is anticipated. Shoring in accordance with CalOSHA guidelines is recommended for trench excavations. Drilling mud or casing may be needed to stabilize drilled holes for piers.

5.6. Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. According to our observations, the majority of the surface soils consist of granular materials with low expansion potential.

6. ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY AND DESIGN

The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Hart and Bryant, 2007). However, the site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground motion in the project area is considered high during the design life of the proposed improvements.

Geologic hazards at the site are essentially related to those caused by earthquakes. The major cause of damage from earthquakes is fault rupture and strong shaking from seismic waves. A brief description of these hazards and their potential for occurrence on site are discussed below.

6.1. Faulting and Seismicity

The approximate project location relative to the major faults in the region is presented in Figure 5 – Fault Location Map. The nearest known active fault corresponds to the San Jose fault system, located approximately 400 feet south of Foothill Boulevard.

Principal seismic hazards from a strong earthquake event may include surface fault rupture and ground motion, liquefaction, seiches, and landslides. A brief description of these and other hazards and the potential for their occurrence are discussed below.

6.2. Surface Fault Rupture

Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, no active faults are known to cross the project site. Therefore, the probability of damage from direct fault rupture is considered to be low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.

6.3. Liquefaction and Dynamic Dry Sand Settlement

Based on our review of the City of Claremont 2014 Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (Emergency Planning Consultants, 2014), a portion of the site is located within a liquefaction potential zone as shown in Figure 4 - Seismic Hazard Map. Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than approximately 35 percent and non-plastic silts located below the groundwater table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake-induced ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure, and causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater the liquefaction potential at the site is negligible.

Page 6

Dynamic dry sand settlement may occur in loose, partially-saturated, granular soils (above the groundwater level) subjected to strong seismic shaking. Loose granular shallow soils encountered onsite may be susceptible to settlement under strong seismic shaking. A detailed assessment of dynamic dry sand settlement is beyond the scope of our limited geotechnical evaluation.

6.4. Landslides

Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps, literature, topographic maps, aerial photographs, and our subsurface evaluation, no landslides or related features underlie or are adjacent to the project sites. Due to the flat nature of the project site and surrounding areas, the potential for lateral displacement or landslides at the project site is considered negligible.

6.5. Flooding and Seiches

Based on our review of the FEMA flood maps, the project area does not fall within areas indicated to be vulnerable to the 500-year flood.

Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body after the original driving force has dissipated. The potential for the project to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced seiches is considered significant due to the proximity of Live Oak reservoir to the site.

6.6. CBC Seismic Design Parameters

Our recommendations for seismic design parameters have been developed in accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010) standards. Based on the results of our field investigation the applicable Site Class is D consisting of a stiff soil profile with average SPT blowcount between 15 and 50 blows per foot. Table 2 presents the seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with 2013 CBC and mapped spectral acceleration parameters (United States Geological Survey, 2016).

Table 2 2013 California Building Code Design Parameters

Design Parameters Value Site Class D Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameter at Period of 0.2-Second, Ss 2.701g Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameter at at Period 1-Second, S1 1.013g Site Coefficient, Fa 1.000 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.500 Adjusted MCER1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period, SMS 2.701g 1-Second Period Adjusted MCER1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 1.519g Short Period Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 2/3 SMS = 1.801g 1-Second Period Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 2/3 SM1 = 1.013g Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM2 1.047g Seismic Design Category3 E

Notes: 1 Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake 2 Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for site effects 3 For S1 greater than 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for Risk Categories I, II, and III

Page 7

7. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of our field exploration and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design plans and are implemented during construction. If the design changes substantially, then our geotechnical engineering recommendations would be subject to revision based on our evaluation of the changes. The following sections present our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the engineering design for this project.

7.1. Earthwork and Site Preparation

In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Twining should be contacted with questions regarding the recommendations or guidelines presented herein.

7.1.1. Site Preparation

Site preparation should begin with the removal of utility lines, asphalt, concrete, vegetation, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside edges of the proposed excavation and fill areas. We recommend that unsuitable materials such as debris, organic matter or oversized material be selectively removed and disposed at a legal dump site away from the project area.

7.1.2. Removals and Overexcavation

The upper portion of the alluvial deposit material is considered compressible and not suitable for structural support in its present condition. Therefore, we recommend removal of loose alluvial soils to a depth of 2 feet as measured from bottom of footing elevation and extending at least 2 feet outside the footing envelope. The extent and depths of removal should be evaluated by Twining’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Additional removals may be recommended if loose or soft soils are exposed during grading.

7.1.3. Materials for Fill

On-site soils with “low” expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less) and organic content of less than 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) are suitable for use as fill. Fill soil should not contain contaminated materials, rocks, lumps over 4 inches in largest dimension, or more than 40 percent larger than ¾ inch. Utility trench backfill material should not contain rocks or lumps over 3 inches in largest dimension. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or may be disposed offsite. Any imported fill material should consist of “very low” expansion potential (expansion index of 20 or less) granular soil. Import material should also have low corrosion potential (chloride content less than 500 parts per million [ppm], soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent, and pH of 5.5 or higher). Materials to be used as fill should be evaluated by a Twining representative prior to importing or filling. Cuttings generated from drilling operations will not be suitable as fill below structures, pavements or flatwork and should be exported offsite.

Page 8

7.1.4. Compacted Fill

Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by Twining. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve generally consistent moisture contents at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The evaluation of compaction by Twining should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify Twining and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review.

Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.

Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve near optimum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods using appropriate compacting rollers to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

7.1.5. Excavations and Shoring

CalOSHA regulations provide trench sloping and shoring design parameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep based on a description of the soil types encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the contractor’s engineer based on site-specific geotechnical analyses. For planning purposes, we recommend that OSHA Type C soil classification be used for excavations in alluvial deposits. Upon making the excavations, the soil classification and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by Twining in accordance with OSHA regulations. For trench or other temporary excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met by laying back the slopes to a gradient no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) for fill and alluvial materials.

Where sloped excavations are created, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that vehicles and storage loads do not encroach within 10 feet of the tops of the excavated slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Twining should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended to be graded along the tops of the slopes in order to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. We recommend that excavated areas be backfilled as soon as practicable. The stability of the excavations decreases over time as the soil dries and weathers.

For vertical excavations less than approximately 15 feet in height, cantilevered shoring may be used. For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the drained soils, with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring, will exert an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf.

Page 9

Tied-back or braced shoring should be designed to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure. The recommended pressure distribution, for the case where the grade is level behind the shoring, is illustrated in the following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 22H in psf, where H is the height of the shored wall in feet.

O.2H

0.2H

0.6H H = Height of Shored Wall (feet)

22H (psf)

Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1:1 plane drawn upward and outward from the base of the shored excavation, including adjacent structures, should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the temporary shoring may be calculated by multiplying the vertical surcharge pressure by 0.35. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 300 psf vertical uniform surcharge is recommended to account for nominal construction and/or traffic loads.

7.1.6. Excavation Bottom Stability

We anticipate that excavation bottoms will be stable. If encountered, unstable conditions may be mitigated by overexcavation of the bottom by approximately 10 inches and replacement with crushed aggregate base. Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by Twining at the time of construction.

7.2. Retaining Walls

Retaining walls and other minor structures may be supported on shallow foundation systems consisting of strip footings provided that the foundations are placed on compacted fill materials as described in Section 7.1. Design recommendations for retaining walls are presented in the following sections.

7.2.1. Shallow Footings

Shallow, spread, or continuous footings, bearing on properly compacted subgrade materials should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Spread footings should be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous and isolated footings should be 18-inch and 24-inch wide, respectively. Allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Reinforcement recommendations should be provided by the project structural engineer.

Page 10

For resistance to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pressure of 200 psf of depth be used with a value of up to 2,000 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used between soil and concrete. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance provided the passive resistance does not exceed one-half of the total allowable resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

7.2.2. Lateral Earth Pressure

For the design of retaining walls that are not restrained against movement by rigid corners or structural connections, an active pressure represented by an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf may be assumed. Restrained walls (non-yielding) may be designed for an at-rest pressure represented by an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf. These pressures assume low-expansive, level backfill and free draining conditions. Yielding and restrained walls retaining sloping backfill inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be designed using equivalent fluid weights of 65 pcf and 100 pcf, respectively. A drain should be provided behind the retaining wall and should be connected to an appropriate outlet. Retaining walls may be founded on continuous footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.

Vertical surcharge loads within a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection upward from the bottom of the wall distributed over retained soils should be considered as additional uniform horizontal pressure acting on the wall. The additional horizontal pressure acting on the wall can be estimated as approximately 30% of the magnitude of the vertical surcharge pressure for the “active” condition. All permanent surcharge loading conditions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the geotechnical engineer.

7.2.3. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure

The 2013 CBC requires foundation walls retaining more than 6 feet of soil to be designed for seismic lateral earth pressure. The additional seismic pressure should be modeled as a rectangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure equal to 26H psf where H is the wall height in feet. To evaluate wall design, this pressure should be added to active earth pressure component only and does not need to be added to at-rest pressure.

7.2.4. Backfill and Drainage of Walls

The backfill material behind walls should consist of granular non-expansive material and should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Based on the soil materials encountered during our exploration, the majority of on-site soils should meet this requirement. Retaining walls should be waterproofed and adequately drained in order to limit hydrostatic buildup behind walls. The drain should be placed continuously along the back of the wall and consist of a 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe sloped at least 1% and should be surrounded by 1 cubic foot per foot of ¾-inch

Page 11

crushed rock wrapped in suitable non-woven filter fabric (Mirafi® 140NL or equivalent). The crushed rock should meet the requirements defined in Section 200-1.2 of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Public Works Standards, 2015). The drain should discharge through a solid pipe to an appropriate outlet.

7.3. Corrosion

The potential for the on-site materials to corrode buried steel and concrete improvements was evaluated. Laboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the onsite earth materials to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) 643 and the sulfate and chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix E.

Corrosivity testing on a sample from boring B-8 indicated electrical resistivity value of 10,900 ohm-cm, soil pH value of 7.9, chloride content of 47 parts per million (ppm) and sulfate content of 148 ppm (i.e. 0.015 percent). Based on Caltrans (2012) corrosion criteria, the onsite soils would be classified as non-corrosive, which is defined as soils with less than 500 ppm chlorides, less than 0.2 percent sulfates, and a pH higher than 5.5.

General recommendations to address the corrosion potential of the on-site soils are presented below. Imported fill materials, if used, should be tested to evaluate their corrosion potential prior to transportation to the site.

7.3.1. Reinforced Concrete

Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a sulfate content of 0.015% for the tested sample, which corresponds to sulfate exposure Class S0 – not applicable (sulfate content less than 0.1%) according to ACI 318-11. Although the sulfate content test results were not significantly high, due to the variability in the onsite soils and the potential future use of reclaimed water at the site, we recommend that Type II/V cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil. We also recommend that the concrete mix have a water-cement ratio of 0.5 or less, and a slump of 4 inches or less.

7.3.2. Metallic

Laboratory resistivity testing indicates that on-site soils are mildly corrosive to buried ferrous metals. A corrosion specialist may be consulted regarding suitable types of piping and appropriate protection for underground metal conduits.

8. PAVEMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSES Our recommendations for rehabilitation of the existing pavement are based upon observations made during our field exploration, laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected during our investigation, and engineering analyses. Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans HDM-2012) was used as the basis for structural pavement design. Pavement section design is based on the relationship between gravel equivalent (GE) values of pavement structural materials, traffic index (TI), and R-value of underlying subgrade soil. Laboratory test results indicate that the R-value of the subgrade obtained from various locations within the project limits is well above 50. According to Caltrans Highway Design Manual,

Page 12

the maximum R-value used for the design purposes is 50 for subgrade soils that have higher R-Values unless approved by the Engineer. Based on our engineering judgment, we have used an R-Value of 60 in our calculations for design of the remove-and-replace option and R-Value of 50 for other rehabilitation options. A range of assumed TI’s was utilized in our analyses as shown in Tables 3 and 4 below; we note that the project civil engineer should determine the appropriate TI for use on the project. Twining can provide additional sections for different TI’s if needed.

9. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field observations, within the project limits Claremont Boulevard is in an acceptable condition. It is our engineering opinion that surface treatment of the road (i.e. slurry seal) in addition to minor localized repairs would be the most efficient rehabilitation option at this stage. However, we understand that the city intends to correct the cross slope of the street section which is currently towards the median. Therefore, we are providing recommendations for overlay and reconstruction options in this report.

9.1. Remove-and-Replace Reconstruction Option

Conventional reconstruction involves removal of the existing AC and base material and construction of a new structural pavement section. Table 3 presents the required structural layer thicknesses for a range of TI’s, using an R-value of 60. For this option we assumed that the subgrade will be scarified and compacted as recommended below, therefore we used a higher R-value than recommended by Caltrans in our design calculations. For the reconstructed pavement section to be valid, the recommendations for subgrade preparation presented in this section must be followed. Upon demolition and removal of the existing pavement section, the subgrade soil should be excavated to the bottom of the new aggregate base layer. The exposed bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned to approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The aggregate base course layer should then be placed and compacted to minimum 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557.

Table 3

Structural Pavement Thickness (Remove and Replace, R-Value = 60)

For the AC layers, it is our recommendation that the top 2 inches of the AC layer to be constructed with asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) class GG-C in accordance with Section 203-11 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook 2015). The remaining of the AC layer thickness shall be constructed using HMA class B-PG64-16 in accordance with Section 206-06 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook 2015).

Traffic Index (TI) 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (in) 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 Crushed Aggregate Base (in) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5

Page 13

9.2. Asphalt Overlay on Cement Stabilized Pulverized Base (400 psi UCS)

This option involves cold planning the asphalt surface to correct the pavement profile and grade and open space for new asphalt pavement construction. After cold planning the asphalt layer, the remaining existing asphalt layer and subgrade material should be pulverized to the required depth and re-graded. The pulverized material is stabilized using Portland cement to obtain 400 psi unconfined compressive strength (UCS). We anticipate that approximately 3 to 5 percent of Portland cement, by dry weight of aggregate, will be required to obtain the required strength. Based on our laboratory test results and the limitations in this construction method, we used an R-value of 50 for the subgrade soil in our engineering analysis. The required structural layer thicknesses for a range of TI’s are presented in Table 4. This option includes the following steps: - Cold plane the existing asphalt layer to open room for new asphalt material; - Pulverize the remaining asphalt concrete pavement with subgrade soil to appropriate depth; - Re-grade pulverized material as necessary; - Cement stabilize and compact the pulverized base material to at least 92 percent of the maximum

dry density (ASTM D 1557) to obtain cement-treated mix with minimum 400 psi unconfined compressive strength;

- Perform micro-cracking on the cement-treated base prior to AC paving; and - Construct new asphalt layer as recommended in Table 4.

Table 4

Structural Pavement Thickness (AC/Pulverized Base, R-value = 50)

For the AC layers, it is our recommendation that the top 2 inches of the AC layer to be constructed with asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) class GG-C in accordance with Section 203-11 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook 2015). The remaining of the AC layer shall be constructed using HMA class B-PG64-16 in accordance with Section 206-06 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook 2015).

9.3. Asphalt Overlay on Cold In-Place Recycled Asphalt Pavement (CIR) This rehabilitation option involves cold planning the existing asphalt concrete (AC) surface layer to correct its profile and open room for new asphalt layer. After cold planning, the remaining AC layer will be pulverized to the required depth and mixed properly with emulsion to create a homogenous mix which will be placed on top of the existing surface and compacted. In this option we have assumed that the structural capacity of the road is adequate for the future traffic load on the pavement. The purpose of this rehabilitation option is correcting the profile of the road and removing minor distresses that are not load related. For this option we recommend placing a new 2-inch asphalt layer over a 2-inch recycled asphalt layer.

Traffic Index (TI) 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (in) 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5

Cement Stabilized Pulverized Base (in) 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5

Page 14

For the new AC layer, it is our recommendation to use asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) class GG-C in accordance with Section 203-11 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook 2015). A CIR job mix formula should be developed before starting of the construction.

10. DESIGN REVIEW

Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performance of many structures has been attributed to inadequate geotechnical review of construction documents. Additionally, observation of excavations will be important to the performance of the proposed development. The following sections present our recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of construction activities.

10.1. Plans and Specifications

The design plans and specifications should be reviewed by Twining prior to bidding and construction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be reevaluated in the light of the actual design configuration and loads. This review is necessary to evaluate whether the recommendations contained in this report and future reports have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Based on the work already performed, this office is best qualified to provide such review.

10.2. Construction Monitoring

Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, assessment of imported fill materials, fill placement, foundation installation, and other site grading operations should be observed and tested. The substrata exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the test excavations. Continuous observation by a representative of Twining during construction allows for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered, and allows the opportunity to recommend appropriate revisions where necessary.

The project geologist should be notified prior to exposure of subgrades. It is critically important that the geologist be provided with an opportunity to observe and/or map all exposed subgrades prior to burial or covering.

11. LIMITATIONS

The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on information obtained from our field exploration for the entire site. In the event that any of our recommendations conflict with recommendations provided by other design professionals, we should be contacted to aid in resolving the discrepancy. Due to the limited nature of our field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during excavation operations, for example, the presence of unsuitable soil, and that additional effort may be required to mitigate them.

Site conditions, including groundwater elevation, can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Twining has no control.

Page 15

Twining’s recommendations are, to a high degree, dependent upon appropriate quality control of foundation construction. Accordingly, the recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for Twining to observe foundation excavations for the proposed construction. If parties other than Twining are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or by providing alternative recommendations.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Twining should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by the client and its agents for specific application to the proposed design and construction of the project described herein. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report for an adjacent or nearby project, shall notify Twining of such intended use. Land use, site conditions, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the project, Twining may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or any other party will release Twining from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.

Twining has endeavored to perform its evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.

Page 16

12. SELECTED REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318 11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management.

ASTM International, 2010a, ASTM Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D 420 – D 5876: dated March, 1830 pp.

ASTM International, 2010b, ASTM Volume 04.09, Soil and Rock (II): D 5877 – latest: dated March, 1532 pp.

California Buildings Standards Commission, 2013, 2013 California Building Code: California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.

California Department of Transportation, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines Version 2.0, California Department of Transportation Division of Engineering Services, Materials and Testing Services Corrosion Technology, dated November, 2012.

California Department of Water Resources, 2016, Water Data Library, Groundwater Levels for Station 341006N1177096W001, Local Well ID: 6BWM-11.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, 98 pp.

County of Los Angeles, 2014, Administrative Manual, Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, Policy Memo GS200.1, dated June 30.

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2002, Geologic map of the San Dimas and Ontario quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California.

Emergency Planning Consultants, 2014, City of Claremont 2014 Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Draft dated June 30, 2014.

Hart, E.W., & Bryant W.A., 2007 (Interim Revision), Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, with Supplement No. 1 dated September 21, 2012.

Public Works Standards, Inc., 2015, The “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

United States Geological Survey, 2008, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/.

United States Geological Survey, 2016, U.S. Seismic Design Maps: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/�

FIGURES

SITE

FIGURE 1

REPORT DATE

August 2016

PROJECT NO.

160514.1

SITE LOCATION MAP

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

REFERENCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (2015)

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET

SITE COORDINATES

LATITUDE: 34.107°N

LONGITUDE: 117.720°W

FIGURE 2

REPORT DATE

August 2016

PROJECT NO.

160514.1

NOTE: All dimensions, locations, and directions are approximate.

Reference: Google Earth (2016)

EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT


0 700 1400

SCALE IN FEET

B-15

I-4

LEGEND

BORING OR CORING LOCATION

INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION

C-4

I-1

C-3

C-5C-6

C-7

C-9 C-10

C-13

C-12

C-16

B-15

C-11 C-14

B-8

C-2B-1

I-2

I-3

I-4

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

CORING LOCATION

C-16

TO

WN

E A

VE

NU

E

MO

UN

TA

IN

A

VE

NU

E

IN

DIA

NH

IL

L B

OU

LE

VA

RD

CL

AR

EM

ON

T B

OU

LE

VA

RD

FIGURE 3

REPORT DATE

August 2016

PROJECT NO.

160514.1

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

REFERENCE: DIBBLEE (2002)

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET

T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\Projects\2015 Projects\150500.3 -SBCUSD - Cajon HS Theatre Geotechnical Investigation (PLA)\Figures\Geologic Maps\127gSBNorthSBSouthDiblee.jpg

T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\Projects\2015 Projects\150500.3 -SBCUSD - Cajon HS Theatre Geotechnical Investigation (PLA)\Figures\Geologic Maps\127gSBNorthSBSouthDiblee.jpg



SITE

LEGEND

Qa

FIGURE 4

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP

REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (2000)

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE

August 2016

PROJECT NO.

160514.1



SITE

LEGEND

FIGURE 5

FAULT LOCATION MAP

REFERENCE: USGS, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA (2010)

0 5 10

SCALE IN MILES

FAULT ALONG WHICH HISTORIC DISPLACEMENT HAS OCCURRED

HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT

LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

PRE-QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

REPORT DATE

August 2016

PROJECT NO.

160514.1



LEGEND

SITE

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

Appendix A Field Exploration

General

The subsurface exploration program for the proposed project consisted of drilling and logging three 8-inch diameter exploratory borings. The 8-inch diameter exploratory borings were advanced using a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers. Drilling was performed by Cascade Drilling of Upland, California. The borings reached approximate depths ranging between 15 feet and 25 feet below existing ground surface. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with cold patch asphalt.

Drilling and Sampling

The boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-4. An explanation of these logs is presented in Figure A-1. The boring logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and show the field and laboratory tests performed. The log also shows the boring number, drilling date, and the name of the logger and drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by a Twining engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Drive and bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings.

A California modified sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 2.4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split barrel shaft that is driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in brass rings for laboratory testing. Additional soil from each drive remaining in the cutting shoe was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is presented on the boring logs.

Disturbed samples were obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). This sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the soil at the bottom of the drilled hole a total of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is presented on the boring logs. Soil samples obtained by the SPT were retained in plastic bags.

Both the California modified and the SPT sampler were driven by blows of an automatic-trip hammer weighing 140 pounds at a drop height of approximately 30 inches.

Very Soft

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Very Loose

SPT(blows/ft)

Dense

>50

35 - 6510 - 30

Loose

<2

Medium Dense

0 - 15<4

Very Dense

SampleSymbol

4 - 10

PROJECT NO.160514.1

RelativeDensity

FIGURE A-1

2 - 4Soft15 - 35

Sample Type Description

Very Stiff

NOTE: SPT blow counts based on 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches

Atterberg LimitsConsolidationCorrosivity SeriesDirect ShearExpansion IndexGrain Size DistributionPermeabilityMoisture/Density(Modified Proctor)Organic ContentResistance ValueSand EquivalentSpecific GravityTriaxial CompressionUnconfined Compression

ATTCCORRDSEIGSKMAX

ORVSESGTXUC

SPT(blows/ft)

ConsistencyRelativeDensity (%)

Hard

1.4 in I.D., 2.0 in. O.D. driven sampler

2.4 in. I.D., 3.0 in. O.D. driven sampler

Retrieved from soil cuttings

Pitcher or Shelby Tube

15 - 30

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

85 - 100

8 - 15Stiff65 - 8530 - 50

4 - 8Medium Stiff

Foothill Boulevard ImprovementsCity of Claremont, California

REPORT DATEAugust 2016

>30

EXPLANATION FOR LOG OF BORINGS

SPT

California Modified

Bulk

Thin-Walled Tube

LABORATORY TESTINGABBREVIATIONS

GRAPH

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEANCLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLEOR NO FINES

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

MORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE

SYMBOLS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCKFLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLEOR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

MAJOR DIVISIONS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHORGANIC CONTENTS

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SANDMIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SANDMIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELS WITHFINES

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN

50

MORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE

SILTSAND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50% OFMATERIAL IS LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

SANDS WITHFINES

SAND ANDSANDYSOILS

CLEAN SANDS

CLEAN GRAVELSGRAVEL ANDGRAVELLY

SOILS

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OFMATERIAL IS SMALLER

THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OFFINES)

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN

50

LETTERS

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

EX

PLA

NA

TIO

N

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6

50/4"

65

90

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BO

RIN

G L

OG

16

0514

.1 -

FO

OT

HIL

L B

LVD

.GP

J T

WIN

ING

LA

BS

.GD

T

8/24

/16

1201

1196

1191

1186

1181

1176

1171

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

feet

)

GS

Total Depth = 16.5 feetGroundwater not encountered during drilling.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings, patched with cold patchasphalt.

Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium brown, verydense, medium to coarse gravel, medium- to coarse-grainedsand

Silty SAND with gravel, medium brown, damp, very dense,medium to coarse gravel, medium to coarse-grained sand

-- very dense, no recovery

ASPHALT CONCRETE: 12 inches

Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, dark brown, damp,coarse gravel, difficult drilling

SM

ATT, GS

SP-SM

GW-GM

FIGURE A - 2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

LOG OF BORING


DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) NE

U.S

.C.S

.C

LAS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N

AD

DIT

ION

AL

TE

ST

S

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

DROP 30 inches

DATE DRILLED 7/18/16

BLO

WS

/ F

OO

T

BORING NO. B-1

DRILLER Cascade DrillingDRILLING METHOD 8" Hollow Stem

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

PROJECT NO.160514.1

SA

MP

LES

Bul

kD

riven

LOGGED BY AM

DESCRIPTION

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 1206 +(MSL)


63

47

50/1"

BO

RIN

G L

OG

16

0514

.1 -

FO

OT

HIL

L B

LVD

.GP

J T

WIN

ING

LA

BS

.GD

T

8/24

/16

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G1313

1308

1303

1298

1293

1288

1283

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

feet

)

ATT, GS

-- no sample, cobble at tip of sampler

-- 3" rock in sampler

Silty SAND with gravel, medium brown, dense, mostly mediumgravel

Poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium brown, dense, damp,coarse gravel, few cobble, difficult drilling

ASPHALT CONCRETE: 5.5 inchesWell graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, medium brown, dry

GW-GM

Total Depth = 15.1 feetGroundwater not encountered during drilling.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings, patched with rapid setconcrete.

GP

GS

SM

AD

DIT

ION

AL

TE

ST

S

U.S

.C.S

.C

LAS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N


BLO

WS

/ F

OO

T

LOG OF BORING

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DE

PT

H (

feet

)


DROP 30 inches

DATE DRILLED 7/18/16 BORING NO. B-15

DRILLER Cascade DrilingDRILLING METHOD 8" Hollow Stem


FIGURE A - 4

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

LOGGED BY AM

SA

MP

LES

Bul

kD

riven

PROJECT NO.160514.1

DESCRIPTION



DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

feet

)

1264

1259

1254

1249

1244

1239

1234

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BO

RIN

G L

OG

16

0514

.1 -

FO

OT

HIL

L B

LVD

.GP

J T

WIN

ING

LA

BS

.GD

T

8/24

/16

Total Depth = 25.0 feetGroundwater not encountered during drilling.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings, patched with rapid set concrete.

ASPHALT CONCRETE: 7 inchesBASE: 5 inchesWell graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, dark brown, dry, coarse gravel,few cobble, difficult drilling

Poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium brown, damp, difficult drilling

GW-GM

SM

GP

Silty SAND with gravel, medium brown, damp

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

LOG OF BORING



U.S

.C.S

.C

LAS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N

BLO

WS

/ F

OO

T

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

FIGURE A - 3


DRILLING METHOD 8" Hollow Stem DRILLER Cascade Drilling

DROP 30 inches

BORING NO. B-8

MO

IST

UR

E (

%)

DATE DRILLED 7/18/16

PROJECT NO.160514.1

SA

MP

LES

LOGGED BY AM

Bul

kD

riven

DESCRIPTION

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)



APPENDIX B PERCOLATION TESTS

Project No. 160514.1 August 18, 2016

Mr. Stephen Bise Senior Engineer KOA Corporation 1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Subject: Preliminary Percolation Test Report Improvement of Foothill Boulevard from Town Avenue to Claremont Boulevard

City of Claremont, California Reference: County of Los Angeles, 2014, Administrative Manual, Guidelines for Design,

Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, Policy Memo GS200.1, dated June 30, 2014.

Dear Mr. Bise: Twining, Inc., is pleased to present the preliminary results of percolation testing for the subject project. Percolation testing was performed at four locations along Foothill Boulevard from Town Avenue to Claremont Boulevard in the City of Claremont, California. Percolation testing locations and depths were provided to us by KOA Corporation. The purpose of our testing was to determine the feasibility of implementing infiltration systems associated with the proposed street improvements and to evaluate subgrade soil infiltration rates. Field Exploration Four percolation test borings were excavated at the project site. On July 18, 2016 boring I-3 was advanced to approximately 25 feet below the surface using a truck-mounted CME-95 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem-augers. On July 19, 2016, the remaining three borings were excavated with a 5.5-inch diameter hand-auger to approximately 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface where we encountered refusal on cobbles. The hand-excavated borings caved during drilling and presoaking and the average borehole diameter increased to 8 inches. The borings exposed damp to moist, medium brown, gravelly sand with cobbles and sandy gravel with cobbles. The test locations are shown on Figure 1 - Exploration Location Map. Based on our review the regional geologic map for the site, surficial material consists of Quaternary alluvium derived from the erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Quaternary alluvium is composed mainly of cobbles within a matrix of fine sand, silty sand and silt (California Department of Conservation [CDC], 1967). Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration. Hydrologic data for Well #4499 located approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the site indicates depth to water at approximately 418 feet bgs as presented in a subsurface investigation report by EnvironStrategy, Inc (2001). It is important to note that according to the referenced Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration (County of Los Angeles, 2014), the invert of the infiltration system should be 10 feet or greater above the groundwater elevation. Based on our review, the proposed infiltration systems will be located more than 10 feet above the local groundwater table.

Percolation Testing Percolation testing was performed in the four 8-inch diameter soil borings on July 18 and July 19, 2016 in general conformance with the referenced County of Los Angeles guidelines. The purpose of the tests was to evaluate the infiltration rate of the subgrade soil for the proposed infiltration facilities. As indicated above, three borings were excavated to approximate depth of 2.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) and one boring was excavated to approximate depth of 25 feet bgs. At the completion of excavation, approximately 6 inches of coarse gravel was placed at the bottom of the 2.5 feet deep boreholes to prevent scouring during testing. Ten foot sections of perforated PVC pipe were inserted in the 25-foot borehole and coarse gravel was used as backfill around the pipe. The boreholes were presoaked prior to testing during two 25-minute intervals. After the completion of presoaking, the 2.5-foot borings were filled with water to approximately 1 foot bgs. Measurements were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 6 readings. The 25-foot borehole was filled to variable depths ranging from 3½ to 12 feet bgs. The infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the percolation rate by a reduction factor which accounts for the discharge of water from both the sides and bottom of the boring (i.e., non-vertical flow) as described in the referenced manual. The following formulas were used:

Percolation Rate (P) = ∆d / [Time Interval / 60 minutes]

Reduction Factor (Rf) = [(2d1 - ∆d) / D ] + 1

Infiltration Rate (I) = P / Rf

Time Interval = 10 minutes between readings

d1 = initial water depth (inch)

∆d = water level drop (inch)

D = diameter of boring (inch) The average of the final three infiltration rates at each test location was calculated and is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Summary of Percolation Testing

Test Location

Depth of Test Hole (in.)

Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

I-1 30 14.6

I-2 32 15.9

I-3 294 22.8

I-4 26 7.4

Recommendations Based on the results of our testing and analyses, the installation of the proposed infiltration systems is feasible. We recommend that the infiltration rates shown in Table 1 be used for each individual location. Infiltration rates are highly variable and will be affected by changes in site soils, pretreatment and expected influent sediment loads, and the level of compaction used during construction among other factors. The proposed infiltration systems must comply with the setback requirements presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Recommended Infiltration Facility Setback Requirements

Setback from Distance

Property lines and public right of way 5 feet

Any foundation 15 feet or within 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom

of foundation, whichever is greater

Face of any slope H/2, 5 feet minimum (H is height of slope)

Water wells used for drinking water 100 feet

Limitations Due to the limited nature of our field exploration, conditions not observed and described in this report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during construction. Site conditions, including groundwater elevation, can change with time as a result of natural processes or that activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Twining, Inc. has no control. We have endeavored to perform our evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by engineering professionals with experience in this area. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions contained in this report. Closure We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, TWINING, INC. Andres Bernal, RCE 62366, GE 2715 Adrian Moreno, EIT Senior Geotechnical Engineer Staff Engineer Attached: Figure 1 - Test Location Map Percolation Test Data

PERCOLATION TEST DATA

Project No.: 160514.1Project Name: Foothill Blvd Improvements

Test Date: July 19, 2016Test Boring No.: I-1

Diameter of Boring (D): 8.0 inchDepth of Boring (db): 30.0 inchDepth of Gravel (dG): 6.0 inch

Performed by: AM

Sandy Soil Criteria Test

Start Time Stop Time Time Interval (min)

Initial depth to water

Final depth to water

Drop of water column (inch)

T i T f T di df d = di - df (Yes/No)9:27 AM 9:34 AM 7 10.00 24.00 14.00 No9:34 AM 9:48 AM 14 12.00 24.00 12.00 No

Time of Testing Water Level Measurements Water remaining in

hole?

D

db

dG

Start Time Stop Time Time Interval Initial depth to water


Initial height of water column

Final height of water column

Water level drop

Percolation Rate

Reduction Factor

Infiltration Rate

T i T f T di df d1 d2 d = d1 - d2 P Rf I

(min) (inch) (inch) (inch) (inch) (inches) (inch/hr) (inch/hr)Percolation Test

9:51 AM 10:01 AM 10 12.00 22.00 18.00 8.00 10.00 60.00 4.25 14.1210:06 AM 10:16 AM 10 12.00 24.00 18.00 6.00 12.00 72.00 4.00 18.0010:18 AM 10:28 AM 10 12.00 24.00 18.00 6.00 12.00 72.00 4.00 18.0010:28 AM 10:38 AM 10 13.00 24.00 17.00 6.00 11.00 66.00 3.88 17.0310:39 AM 10:49 AM 10 14.00 22.50 16.00 7.50 8.50 51.00 3.94 12.9510:50 AM 11:00 AM 10 10.50 21.00 19.50 9.00 10.50 63.00 4.56 13.81

Infiltration Rate (inch/hr)*: 14.6

Infiltration Rate Calculations

Reference: Los Angeles County Administrative Manual (2014), Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration.*Average of final three infiltration rates.

Time of Testing Water Level Measurements Water Column Calculations





Performed by: AM






T i T f T di df d = di - df (Yes/No)1:57 PM 2:04 PM 7 10.00 26.00 16.00 No2:05 PM 2:14 PM 9 9.00 26.00 17.00 No


hole?

D

db

dG





Water level drop

Percolation Rate

Reduction Factor

Infiltration Rate



2:16 PM 2:26 PM 10 13.00 26.00 19.00 6.00 13.00 78.00 4.13 18.912:28 PM 2:38 PM 10 14.00 26.00 18.00 6.00 12.00 72.00 4.00 18.002:38 PM 2:48 PM 10 13.50 25.00 18.50 7.00 11.50 69.00 4.19 16.482:48 PM 2:58 PM 10 12.50 25.50 19.50 6.50 13.00 78.00 4.25 18.352:59 PM 3:09 PM 10 12.00 23.00 20.00 9.00 11.00 66.00 4.63 14.273:10 PM 3:20 PM 10 12.00 23.50 20.00 8.50 11.50 69.00 4.56 15.12









Performed by: AM






T i T f T di df d = di - df (Yes/No)1:32 PM 1:50 PM 18 42.00 294.00 252.00 No1:55 PM 2:14 PM 19 48.00 294.00 246.00 No


hole?

D

db

dG





Water level drop

Percolation Rate

Reduction Factor

Infiltration Rate












Performed by: AM





Water level drop

T i T f T di df d = di - df (Yes/No)11:59 AM 12:03 PM 4 14.00 24.00 10.00 No12:05 PM 12:13 PM 8 10.00 24.00 14.00 No

Time of Testing Water Level Measurements (inch) Water remaining in

hole?

D

db

dG





Water level drop

Percolation Rate

Reduction Factor

Infiltration Rate

T i T f T di df d1 d2 d = d1 - d2 P R f I = P / R f







APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SURFACE CONDITION

ASSESSMENT

Photo No: 1

Description: Most of the sections within the project limit were in relatively good condition

Photo No: 2

Description: Block cracking with medium severity

Photo No: 3

Description: Transverse and longitudinal cracking with low severity

Inspection date: Project No. Page

7/7/2016 160514.1 1

City of Claremont-Foothill Blvd Improvement

Photo No: 4


Photo No: 5

Description: Localized fatigue cracking

Photo No: 6

Description: Block cracking with low severity


160514.1 2


7/7/2016

Photo No: 7


Photo No: 8

Description: Transverse and longitudinal cracking with low severity

Photo No: 9

Description: Localized reflective cracking


7/7/2016 160514.1 3


Photo No: 10

Description: Transverse and longitudinal cracking with medium severity

Photo No: 11

Description: Localized fatigue cracking with low severity

Photo No: 12



7/7/2016 160514.1 4


APPENDIX D PAVEMENT CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

Description: C-1

Description: C-2

Description: C-3


7/18/2016 160514.1 1

Not Available


Description: C-4

Description: C-5

Description: C-6


160514.1 2


7/18/2016

Description: C-7

Description: C-8

Description: C-9


7/18/2016 160514.1 3


Not Available

Description: C-10

Description: C-11

Description: C-12


7/18/2016 160514.1 4


Description: C-13

Description: C-14

Description: C-15


7/18/2016 160514.1 5

Not Available


Photo No: 16

Description: C-16


7/18/2016 160514.1 6


aghavibazoo

Text Box

APPENDIX E LABORATORY TESTING

Appendix E Laboratory Testing

In-situ Moisture Content The moisture content of selected samples obtained from the coring locations were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 2216. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A and are also summarized in Table E-1.

Table E-1 In-situ Moisture Content

Core Location No.

Depth (feet)

Moisture Content (%)

C-1 1.0 - 5.0 5.9 C-5 1.0 - 5.0 10.6

C-12 1.0 - 5.0 7.2 C-15 1.0 - 5.0 8.9

Atterberg Limits Atterberg limits tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate plasticity characteristics and to aid in the classification of the soil. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318. The results are presented in Figure E-1.

Grain-Size Distribution The grain-size distribution of selected soil samples was evaluated by sieving. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The results are presented on Figures E-2 through E-8.

Resistance Value (R-Value) R-value testing was performed on select bulk samples of the subgrade soils encountered at the site. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844. Test results are summarized in Table E-2.

Table E-2 R-Value Test Results

Core Location No.

Depth (feet) R – Value

C-1 1.0 - 5.0 82 C-5 1.0 - 5.0 80

C-12 1.0 - 5.0 73 C-15 1.0 - 5.0 83

Corrosivity Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed by Anaheim Test Laboratories on representative soil samples in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The chloride content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with California Test Method 422. The sulfate content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with California Test Method 417. The test results are presented on Table E-3.

Table E-3 Corrosivity Test Results

Boring No.

Depth (feet) pH

Water Soluble Sulfate (ppm)

Water Soluble Chloride

(ppm)

Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)

B-8 10.0 7.9 148 47 10,900

ML

CL

MH

CH

LIQUID LIMIT

Sample Location

0

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 40 60 100

60

80

NP NP

NPNPNPB-15 at ft

Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM)

Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM)

Silty SAND with gravel (SM)

FIGURE E-1

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6


PROJECT NO.160514.1

C-12 at ft


NP

U.S.C.S. ClassificationPIPLLL

NP

Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM)

ATTERBERG LIMITS

B-1 at ft

PLASTICITY

INDEX

CL-ML

C-5 at ft

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

Cc Cu

45

D60

81.351.21Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM)

70

0.0010.010.1110

2016

100

95

90

85

35

75

0

65

60

55

50

40

100

30

25

20

15

10

5

80

3/86

9.0

200

D30 D10D50

40.0

%Clay%Silt%Sand%Gravel

51.0

D100

6 810 14

0.089

503/4 1/2

FIGURE E- 2

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

50

Sample Location U.S.C.S. Classification

40

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

4.936 0.8837.255

60

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

301.53 1

fine fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

42

coarseSILT OR CLAY

4 100 140

B-1 at 0-5 ft

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

D100

Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 0.96 12.22

50

0

CuCc

D60

80

0.0010.010.1110100

20100

95

40

85

5

75

70

65

60

55

45

35

30

25

20

15

10

90

25 5.3

200

D30 D10D50

72.5


16

0.156

Sample Location

3/81/23/4 50141086

22.1

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

U.S.C.S. Classification

40


B-1 at 10 ft

coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

1.188 0.536

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND


1.91

1.5

fine

302

FIGURE E- 3

1 60

coarse

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

fineSILT OR CLAY

4 100 14036 4

Cc Cu

0

45

D100 D60

79.411.10Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM)

75

0.0010.010.1110

100

95

90

35

80

5

70

65

60

55

50

40

100

30

25

20

15

10

85

3/86

8.2

200

D30 D10D50

39.8


52.0

166 810 14

0.104

503/4 1/2

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

C-3 at 0-3 ft

50


40


coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

5.21 0.9738.27

60

FIGURE E- 4

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND


301.53 1

fine fine


42

coarseSILT OR CLAY

4 100 14020

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

Cu

50

Cc

D60D100

70

Silty SAND with gravel (SM)

0.01

60

100 10 0.1 0.001

100

95

90

85

80

75

1

10

20

55

45

40

35

30

25

15

65

5

0

20

3/8

37.5 19.0

200

D30 D10D50

60.0


6

Sample Location

1/23/4 50141086 16

21.0

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



C-5 at 0-3 ft

PROJECT NO.160514.1


40


coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0.392 0.157

fine

1.5 30


SANDGRAVELCOBBLES

0.697

3 1 60

fine

FIGURE E- 5


42

coarseSILT OR CLAY

4 100 140

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

D100

Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM) 5.37

75

10

D60

0.001

70

65

0.99

100 1 0.1 0.01

85

0

5

CuCc

45

100

95

90

20

80

60

50

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

55

25 8.0

200

D30 D10D50

83.0


16

0.084

Sample Location

3/81/23/4 50141086

9.0

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

C-12 at 0-3 ft


40


coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0.33 0.194

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND


0.452

1.5

fine

302

FIGURE E- 6

1 60

coarse

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

fineSILT OR CLAY

4 100 14036 4

1.38

D60

57.34Well graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM)

CuCc

20

15

10

5

0100

35

80

10

20

1 0.1 0.01 0.001

100

95

25

85

30

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

90

3/8

D100

6.0

200

D30 D10D50

38.0


56.0

6 810 14

0.172

503/4 1/2

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

B-15 at 0-5 ft

63


40


1

coarse

1.5 3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

6.268 1.539.88

6 30

FIGURE E- 7

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND


23 164

fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60

fine coarseSILT OR CLAY

4 100 140

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

Cc Cu

45

D60

31.110.93Poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

70

0.0010.010.1110

2016

100

95

90

85

35

75

0

65

60

55

50

40

100

30

25

20

15

10

5

80

3/86

3.0

200

D30 D10D50

38.4


58.6

D100

6 810 14

0.346

503/4 1/2

GR

AIN

SIZ

E

1605

14.1

- F

OO

TH

ILL

BLV

D.G

PJ

TW

ININ

G L

AB

S.G

DT

8/

24/1

6



PROJECT NO.160514.1

50


40


B-15 at 5 ft

coarse

3

medium

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

6.977 1.85510.751

60

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND


301.53 1

fine fine


42

coarseSILT OR CLAY

4 100 140

FIGURE E- 8

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

Documents

Geotechnical Investigation Report - Claremont