PROJECT MANUAL V1.pdf

7601 Jefferson NE, Suite 100 - Albuquerque, NM 87109 www.dpsdesign.org

PROJECT

MANUAL

Fort Yuma Health Care Center US Department of Health and Human Services / Indian Health Service IHS Project IHS Project PH1FY107C7

Project Number: 08-0110.001

Volume 1

06.25.15

SUBMITTAL 1

Fort Yuma Health Care Center /IHS Project PH1FY107C7 Final Construction Documents

*LEED Submittal required

DPS Project 08-0110.001

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 1

SECTION 00 01 00 - PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

DIVISION 0 – GENERAL INFORMATION AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

00 01 00 PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 22 00 UNIT PRICES

01 32 00 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 32 33 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 35 20 LEED REQUIREMENTS

01 36 00 SPECIAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION OF CONCRETE SLABS

01 40 00 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 60 00 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

01 73 29 CUTTING AND PATCHING

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 77 00 CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 39 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS

01 79 00 DEMONSTRATION AND TRAINING

01 91 13 GENERAL COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS / PREFUNCTIONAL CHECKLISTS

DIVISION 3 – CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE*

DIVISION 4 – MASONRY

04 22 00 CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY *

04 25 05 STABILIZED RAMMED EARTH *

DIVISION 5 – METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL*

05 21 00 STEEL JOISTS*

05 31 00 STEEL DECK*

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING *

05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS*

DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS

06 06 60 PLASTIC FABRICATIONS- TRANSLUCENT RESIN PANEL SYSTEM*

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY*

06 16 43 GYPSUM SHEATHING*

06 40 23 INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK*

06 44 00 ORNAMENTAL WOODWORK*

Submittal 1 06.25.15

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 2

DIVISION 7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 21 00 BUILDING INSULATION*

07 24 00 EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEM (EIFS)

07 26 00 UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDER

07 27 26 FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIER

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS*

07 42 43 COMPOSITE WALL PANELS*

07 54 23 THERMOPLASTIC POLYOLEFIN (TPO) ROOFING*

07 62 00 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM*

07 71 13 MANUFACTURED COPINGS*

07 84 13 THROUGH-PENETRATION FIRESTOP SYSTEMS*

07 84 43 FIRE RESISTANT JOINT SEALANTS*

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS*

07 95 00 EXPANSION CONTROL*

DIVISION 8 - DOORS AND WINDOWS

08 11 13 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES*

08 14 16 FLUSH WOOD DOORS*

08 31 13 ACCESS DOORS AND FRAMES

08 33 00 OVERHEAD COILING DOORS*

08 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS*

08 42 29 AUTOMATIC ENTRANCE DOORS*

08 44 23 STRUCTURAL-SEALANT-GLAZED CURTAIN WALLS*

08 62 00 UNIT SKYLIGHTS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 80 00 GLAZING*

08 81 13 DECORATIVE GLASS GLAZING

08 83 00 MIRRORS*

08 90 00 LOUVERS AND VENTS

DIVISION 9 – FINISHES

09 22 16 NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING*

09 25 13 ACRYLIC PLASTER*

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD*

09 30 13 CERAMIC TILING*

09 51 23 ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILINGS*

09 54 36 LINEAR SUSPENDED WOOD CEILING SYSTEM

09 65 13 RESILIENT WALL BASE AND ACCESSORIES*

09 65 16 RESILIENT SHEET FLOORING*

09 65 16.13 LINOLEUM FLOORING*

09 65 66 RESILIENT ATHLETIC FLOORING*

09 68 13 TILE CARPETING*

09 84 13 FIXED SOUND-ABSORPTIVE PANELS*

09 91 13 EXTERIOR PAINTING

09 91 23 INTERIOR PAINTING*

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 3

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS*

10 21 23 CUBICLE CURTAINS AND TRACKS

10 22 26 OPERABLE PANEL PARTITIONS*

10 26 00 IMPACT-RESISTANT WALL PROTECTION*

10 28 13 TOILET AND BATH ACCESSORIES

10 44 13 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETS

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 51 13 METAL LOCKERS

10 55 00 POSTAL SPECIALTIES

10 71 13 EXTERIOR SUN CONTROL DEVICES*

10 75 00 FLAGPOLES

10 83 00 FLAGS AND BANNERS

DIVISION 11 – EQUIPMENT

11 52 13 PROJECTION SCREENS

11 68 13 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

11 70 00 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 12 – FURNISHINGS

12 21 23 ROLLER SHADES

12 48 00 FLOOR MATS AND FRAMES*

12 93 00 SITE FURNISHINGS

12 93 53 PRE-ENGINEERED SHADE STRUCTURES

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 49 00 RADIATION PROTECTION*

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 4

VOLUME 2

DIVISION 21 – FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR FIRE-SUPPRESSION PIPING AND

EQUIPMENT

21 13 13 WET-PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 01 00 BASIC PLUMBING REQUIREMENTS

22 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR PLUMBING

22 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR PLUMBING EQUIPMENT

22 05 16 EXPANSION FITTINGS AND LOOPS FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 05 19 METERS AND GAGES FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 05 23 GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR PLUMBING PIPING

22 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 07 00 PLUMBING INSULATION

22 11 16 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING

22 11 19 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALTIES

22 11 23 DOMESTIC WATER PUMPS

22 11 23.13 DOMESTIC-WATER PACKAGED BOOSTER PUMPS

22 11 26 FACILITY LIQUEFIED-PETROLEUM GAS PIPING

22 13 16 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING

22 13 19 SANITARY WASTE PIPING SPECIALTIES

22 14 13 FACILITY STORM DRAINAGE PIPING.

22 14 23 STORM DRAINAGE PIPING SPECIALTIES

22 31 00 DOMESTIC WATER SOFTENERS

22 40 00 PLUMBING FIXTURES

22 47 00 DRINKING FOUNTAINS AND WATER COOLERS

22 61 13 COMPRESSED-AIR PIPING FOR LABORATORY AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

22 61 19 COMPRESSED-AIR EQUIPMENT FOR LABORATORY AND HEALTHCARE

FACILITIES.

22 62 13 VACUUM PIPING FOR LABORATORY AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

22 62 19 VACUUM EQUIPMENT FOR LABORATORY AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

22 63 13 GAS PIPING FOR LABORATORY AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

22 70 00 SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS

22 81 46 WATER SOURCE UNITARY HEAT PUMPS

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 01 00 BASIC HVAC REQUIREMENTS

23 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR HVAC

23 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 05 16 EXPANSION FITTINGS AND LOOPS FOR HVAC PIPING

23 05 19 METERS AND GAGES FOR HVAC PIPING

23 05 23 GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR HVAC PIPING

23 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 5

23 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC.

23 07 00 HVAC INSULATION

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 21 13 HYDRONIC PIPING

23 21 23 HYDRONIC PUMPS

23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 25 00 HVAC WATER TREATMENT

23 31 13 METAL DUCTS

23 33 00 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

23 34 23 HVAC POWER VENTILATORS

23 36 00 AIR TERMINAL UNITS

23 37 13 DIFFUSERS, REGISTERS, AND GRILLES

23 41 00 PARTICULATE AIR FILTRATION

23 52 16 CONDENSING BOILERS

23 65 00 COOLING TOWERS

23 74 14 WATER COOLED PACKAGED OUTDOOR CENTRAL-STATION AIR HANDLING

UNITS

23 81 23 COMPUTER-ROOM AIRCONDITIONERS

23 81 46 WATER-SOURCE UNITARY HEAT PUMPS

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 01 00 BASIC ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

26 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 19 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 05 26 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 33 RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 43 UNDERGROUND DUCTS AND RACEWAYS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 48 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 73 OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE STUDIES

26 09 13 ELECTRICAL POWER MONITORING AND CONTROL

26 09 23 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 22 00 LOW-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS

26 24 16 PANELBOARDS

26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES

26 28 13 FUSES

26 28 16 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS

26 29 13 ENCLOSED CONTROLLERS

26 31 01 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC CARPORTS

26 32 13 PACKAGED ENGINE GENERATOR SYSTEMS

26 36 23 TRANSFER SWITCHES

26 41 13 LIGHTNING PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES

26 43 13 TVSS

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 56 00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

PROJECT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 6

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 00 00 COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

27 05 28 PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

27 11 00 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ROOM FITTINGS

27 13 00 COMMUNICATIONS BACKBONE CABLING

27 15 00 COMMUNICATIONS HORIZONTAL CABLING

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 28 PATHWAYS FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 13 11 PACS PHYISCAL HARDWARE

28 16 11 INTRUSION DETECTION

28 23 00 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

28 31 11 DIGITAL ADDRESSABLE FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 23 00 EXCAVATION AND FILL

31 25 13 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

31 31 16 TERMITE CONTROL

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 11 26 BASE COURSE

32 12 16 HOT MIX BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT*

32 12 17 CONCRETE PAVEMENT*

32 13 16 DECORATIVE CEMENT CONCRETE PAVING

32 16 00 CURBS AND GUTTERS*

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 18 16 PLAY GROUND SURFACE

32 31 13 CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

32 84 00 UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

32 84 01 TECHNICAL PUMPING SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS

32 92 19 TURF AND GRASSES

32 93 00 PLANTS*

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER DISTRIBUTION

33 16 13 CISTERN SYSTEM

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERS

33 30 10 STORM DRAIN PIPE

END OF SECTION 00 01 00

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 00 31 32 -1

SECTION 00 31 32 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 INVESTIGATION

A. A geotechnical investigation was conducted at the site, the results of which are to be found in the report entitled, numbered, dated, and issued by the following:

1. NEI GEOTECHNICAL MAY 2015

B. A copy of each of the reports is appended hereto for information only.

1.2 INTERPRETATION

A. These data are for information only and not intended as representations or warranties of continuity of conditions at the site.

B. The Owner and Architect do not warrant these data and interpretations of the data for accuracy, true location, and extent.

C. Bidders and the Contractor are required to interpret these data, and make additional geotechnical investigations as they determine necessary, for the proper execution of the work.

PART 2 - PRODUCTS (Not Used)

PART 3 - EXECUTION (Not Used)

END OF SECTION 00 31 32

Prepared for:

DEKKER/PERICH/SABATINI

7601 JEFFERSON NE, SUITE 100

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109

Prepared by:

NICKLAUS ENGINEERING, INC.

1851 W. 24TH STREET, SUITE 101

YUMA, AZ 85364

June 2015

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Nicklaus Engineering, Inc. 1851 W. 24th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 I Ph: 928.344.8374 I Fax: 928.726.6994

Fort Yuma Health Care Center Geotechnical Report (Draft) NEI Job No. 015‐0098

June 23, 2015

Dekker/Perich/Sabatini 7601 Jefferson NE, Suite 100 Albuquerque, NM 87109

Attention: Mr. Chuck Hanson, P.E.

Reference: Fort Yuma Health Care Center – Geotechnical Investigation NEI Job No. 015‐0098

Dear Mr. Hanson, As discussed in our proposal dated May 11, 2015, we reviewed the original geotechnical investigation report titled, “Soils Investigation for Fort Yuma Health Care Center in Imperial County, California,” dated April 2008. Based on our review of the April 2008 report and our proposal, please accept the following report as an updated report to the aforementioned geotechnical investigation. The 2008 report is considered preliminary for purposes of this updated report, and its field and laboratory results are used as a reference.

In order to evaluate the proposed site layout and the revised building code, NEI performed additional field explorations and laboratory testing as part of the updated geotechnical investigation; which included mud rotary drilling within the proposed building limits and testing below the groundwater table. The engineering analyses in this report includes an evaluation of the site liquefaction potential and possible site improvement recommendations, including geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for both design and construction.

It is our recommendation that a copy of this report be given to the Structural Engineer and Earthwork Contractor.

Sincerely, Nicklaus Engineering, Inc.

Antonio Alvarez, P.E.

Vice President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL

1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION

3. LABORATORY TESTING

4. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

4.1. GEOLOGIC SETTING

4.2. SEISMIC SETTING

5. SURFACE CONDITIONS

6. SUBSURFACE CONDTIONS

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7.1. FAULT GROUND RUPTURE

7.2. STRONG GROUND SHAKING

7.3. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

7.3.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

7.3.2. EVALUATION RESULTS

7.3.3. LIQUEFACTION IMPACTS

7.4. EXPANSIVE SOIL

7.5. FLOODING

7.6. HYDROCONSOLIDATION

7.7. OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

8. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. EARTHWORK

8.2. SITE CLEARING AND DEMOLITION

8.3. REMEDIAL GRADING AND SITE PREPARATION

8.4. FILL MATERIALS

8.5. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

8.6. SUBDRAINS

8.7. SURFACE DRAINAGE

8.8. CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

8.9. SOIL LIQUEFACTION/GROUND IMPROVEMENT

8.10. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

8.11. DEEP FOUNDATIONS

8.12. MAT FOUNDATIONS

NEI Job No. 015-0098

PI

8.13. ALLOWABLE LATERAL RESISTANCE

8.14. CONCRETE SLABS AND HARDSCAPE

8.15. UTILITY TRENCHES

8.16. PAVEMENTS

8.17. CORROSION POTENTIAL

8.18. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

9.RISK, LIMITATIONS AND OTHER CONSiDERATIONS

REFERENCES

ATTACHMENTS

BORING PLATES:

PLATE A - VICINITY MAP

PLATE B - LOCATION MAP

PLATE C - BORING LOCATION MAP

BORING LOGS

KEY TO SYMBOLS

LABORATORY REPORTS:

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORTS

ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORTS

STANDARD PROCTOR / MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP REPORT

R-VALUE REPORT

LAB SUMMARY

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

---------------- Page 2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL

Contained within this report are the results of our geotechnical study for the Fort Yuma Health Care

Center project in Winterhaven, California. The purpose of our study was to investigate the underlying soil conditions at the site and provide engineering recommendations for foundations, earthwork, asphaltic concrete pavement and other related activities. Our field efforts included exploratory borings at select locations within the proposed building footprint. The exploratory borings were conducted to acquire information on the subsurface conditions. Field data collected, along with laboratory test results, were analyzed to develop design recommendations for the project.

1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Fort Yuma Health Care Center will be located in Winterhaven, California on an approximately 13 acre site. The site is bordered to the north by Highway S24 (Picacho Road), to the south and west by

Agnes Road and to the east by Quechan Drive. Proposed construction will consist of an approximately 70,000 square foot, single story, steel frame building with additional improvements including an asphaltic concrete paved parking area along with associated utilities.

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION

A total of three (3) test borings were advanced across the proposed site for this update. Two (2) hollow stem auger borings were advanced to fifteen and a half (15½) feet below ground surface and one (1) mud rotary boring using hollow stem augers was advanced to fifty‐one and a half (51½) feet below ground surface. All boreholes were advanced utilizing a truck mounted Diedrich D‐50 drill rig. Standard penetration tests were made at selected intervals employing a Modified California Sampler which was driven by a free‐fall 140‐pound hammer with a fall distance of thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler twelve (12) inches, after initial six (6) inch seating, was noted and was designated as the standard penetration value. The standard penetration value at each borehole location is shown on the attached detailed boring logs.

TABLE 1: SCHEDULE OF BOREHOLES

LOCATION

DESIGNATION

BOREHOLE

NUMBER

BOREHOLE

DEPTH (FT)

Fort Yuma Health Care Center

BH‐1 15½

BH‐2 15½

BH‐3 51½

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Samples were recovered from a Modified California Sampler for laboratory analysis as described in

Section 2 of this report. Dry preparation of soil samples were conducted in accordance with ASTM D421.

The laboratory testing program consisted of the following:

TABLE 2: SCHEDULE OF LABORATORY TESTS

TEST NUMBER OF TESTS ASTM STANDARD

Particle Size Analysis 19 ASTM D422

Atterberg Limits 19 ASTM D4318

Moisture Content of Soil 19 ASTM D2216

Standard Proctor 1 ASTM D698 pH 1 Caltrans Method 643

Soluble Sulfates & Chlorides 1 Caltrans Method 417 & 422

R‐Value 1 ASTM D2844 / CAL 301

Soil classification was conducted in accordance with ASTM D2487.

4. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

4.1. Geologic Setting

The project site is situated in the Lower Colorado River geographic sub‐region within the Sonoran

Desert of the Basin and Range geomorphic province. This province is characterized by broad desert alluvial basins separated by barren rugged mountains [Radtke, 1988]. Landforms within the southern portion of this subregion are dominated by the fluvial geomorphology of the Colorado River drainage.

The Project area is situated on a relatively flat, fluvial terraced surface at an approximate elevation of 130 feet, Mean Sea Level (MSL) underlain by several thousand feet of alluvial, fluvial, and sedimentary deposits [Eberley et al., 1978].

4.2. Seismic Setting

The tectonic setting of the Winterhaven, California area is influenced by the transition zone between the crustal spreading centers in the Gulf and the right‐lateral transform boundary between the North

American and Pacific Plates. Although the San Andreas Fault zone is the primary element in this transform boundary, the total plate motion is distributed across a broad zone of deformation that extends from the San Andreas Fault on the east to offshore faults to the west. Primary seismic sources in the vicinity are the right slip faults associated with the transform boundary that include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore fault systems. Within the Salton Trough to the west of the site, the Imperial, Cerro Prieto, and Brawley faults represent relatively short but active seismic components of the San Andreas Fault system. Other distant active faults include the San Miguel, and the Calabasas faults in northwestern Baja California, and the extensional faults of the Basin and

Range province to the northeast.

The closest active fault (exhibiting evidence of displacement in the last 11,000 years) to the site is the Imperial fault which exhibited surface rupture most recently during seismic events in 1940 (M

6.9) and 1979 (M 6.4) [SCEC, 2014]. The Imperial fault is mapped approximately 40 miles (64 km) west‐southwest of the site [Jennings, 1994]. The nearest potentially active fault (exhibiting evidence of displacement between 11,000 and 1.6 million years) is the Algodones fault zone, approximately

7.5 miles (12 km) southwest of the site [Scarborough et al., 1986]. The Algonones fault zone is comprised of a series of two northwest‐southeast trending Quaternary‐age faults that exhibit a northeast dip‐slip component. The fault zone is predominantly concealed by windblown sand and young alluvial deposits but exhibits displacement of alluvial material with the latest Pleistocene

(11,000 to 30,000 years).

5. SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site was most recently used as a tribal mobile home park and is currently vacant. The approximately

13‐acre site is relatively flat and is sparsely vegetated. See attached photos for general surface conditions at time of drilling operations.

6. SUBSURFACE CONDTIONS

The site is underlain by recent alluvium. These deposits, as encountered during part of the 2008 field investigation, as well as, the current field investigation, generally consist of interbedded silts, lean clays, silty sands, and poorly graded sands (Unified Soil Classification System [USCS] classification ML, CL, SM, and SP, respectively). Raw sampler blow counts for SPT and split‐spoon samplers ranged from 2 to 52 in the current and previous 2008 field investigations for the project. Groundwater was encountered between 13 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface during these field investigations.

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

The conclusions and discussions below are based on the current and 2008 field explorations performed for this project, laboratory testing, and geologic interpretation of the site‐specific subsurface information.

7.1. Fault Ground Rupture

The potential for fault surface rupture is generally considered to be significant along “active” faults and to a lesser degree along “potentially active” faults. A review of published geologic maps indicates that there are no known (mapped) active or potentially active faults which project toward, across, or are located within the immediate vicinity of the project Site. Furthermore, the site is not within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as delineated by the State of California. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for fault surface rupture at the project site is low.

7.2. Strong Ground Shaking

The project site is situated within a seismically‐active region and will likely experience moderate to severe ground shaking in response to a large magnitude earthquake occurring on a local or more distant active fault during the expected lifespan of the project. As a result, seismically‐induced ground shaking in response to an earthquake occurring on a nearby active fault, such as the Imperial

Fault, or a regional fault, such as the San Andreas fault zone, is considered to be the major geologic hazard affecting the project. Site‐specific seismic design recommendations are presented in later sections of this report.

7.3. Liquefaction Potential

Seismically‐induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated soils lose a significant portion of their strength and acquire some mobility from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. The material types considered most susceptible to liquefaction are granular and low‐plasticity fine grained soils which are saturated and loose to medium dense. A rapid increase in groundwater pressures (excess pore water pressures) causes the loss of soil strength.

Manifestations of soil liquefaction can include sand boils, surface settlements and tilting in level ground, lateral spreading, and global instability (flow slides) in areas of sloping ground. The impact of liquefaction on structures can include loss of bearing capacity, drag loads on deep foundations, liquefaction‐induced total and differential settlement, and increased lateral and uplift pressures on buried structures.

A summary of the liquefaction potential evaluation methodology, evaluation results, and potential impacts to the project are presented in the following subsections.

7.3.1. Evaluation Methodology

For the current study, a detailed evaluation of soil liquefaction potential was performed using the available SPT blow count data, considering the corrections for the split‐spoon sampler blow count data. Liquefaction potential was evaluated using the Idriss‐Boulanger methodology [Idriss‐

Boulanger, 2008].

The procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential is empirical and is based on data and observations at sites that have and have not liquefied during an earthquake. The capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction is expressed as the cyclic resistance ratio. The seismic demand is a function of the anticipated peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site generated by the design earthquake and is termed the cyclic stress ratio. Materials are considered potentially liquefiable if the factor of safety against liquefaction, calculated as the cyclic resistance ratio divided by the cyclic stress ratio, is less than 1.0. Estimates of the liquefaction‐induced settlements were calculated using the Zhang methodology [Zhang et al., 2002].

The values of PGA (expressed as units of gravity [g]) and earthquake magnitude used in the liquefaction evaluation are 0.24g (from the California Building Code) and M6.9 (from the previous maximum magnitude event described above), respectively. The evaluation assumes a high groundwater level of 14 feet bgs.

7.3.2. Evaluation Results

The results of the liquefaction analyses indicate that the subsurface soils at a depth between approximately 30 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface have the potential for liquefaction based on analyses performed for the subsurface information from Boring #3. These analyses also indicate that the total liquefaction‐induced settlements could be as much as 3 inches. Differential settlements at the ground surface may be on the order of half that amount.

7.3.3. Liquefaction Impacts

Liquefaction potential will impact the site design, and may impact the site after development.

Liquefaction would most likely be manifested at this site as local ground subsidence, settlement, and localized reduction in shear strength at depth.

The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered to be low as (i) the site is relatively level; (ii) the potentially liquefiable lenses are located at depth; and (iii) a free face and/or steep slopes are not present in the immediate site vicinity.

7.4. Expansive Soil

Soils with some expansion potential are suspected in the near surface of the site. Based on the plasticity characteristics of the near surface soils encountered (typically indicating low plasticity silt, lean clay, and silty sands), the near surface soils are considered to have a low to medium potential for expansion.

7.5. Flooding

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) presents the flood hazard potential in the vicinity of the site as part of their Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FEMA Map No. 04027C1530F, dated

15 January 2014 [FEMA, 2015], indicates that the subject area is located in a flood hazard zone defined as “0.2% annual chance flood hazard”. Based on our review of the FEMA mapping, the geologic setting, the potential for flooding at the site during the design life of the structure is low.

7.6. Hydroconsolidation

Hydroconsolidation is the collapse and compaction of silty to sandy soil having a low bulk density that has been deposited under saturated conditions, but has remained unsaturated since deposition.

Given the location and subsurface conditions observed at the site, when combined with the engineering recommendation provided for site earthwork activities, the potential for hydroconsolidation is considered to be very low.

7.7. Other Geologic Hazards

Other potential geologic hazards evaluated which could possibly affect the site include slope instability, floods, seiches, and tsunamis. The site is relatively flat, and new slopes, if proposed at the site, will be engineered slopes designed at stable inclinations. Therefore, slope instability is not considered a hazard. Tsunamis are seismically‐induced waves generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic activity. Seiches are similarly generated but are oscillating waves within bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes or bays. The site is not located near the ocean. Based on the physiographic setting of this site, the distance to the ocean or other large water bodies, and the elevation of the site, it is our opinion that the potential for flooding from seismically‐induced seiches and tsunamis is very low.

8. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and design recommendations presented herein for the design of the proposed Fort

Yuma Health Care Center are based on our current understanding of the proposed project, review of the

2008 investigation for the project, and results of the current field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, and professional judgment. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the construction of the project, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into design and construction.

8.1. Earthwork

Site earthwork will generally consist of demolition of existing site features, site grading and engineered fill placement to construct a relatively level building pad, foundation excavations, and backfill of utility trenches. Engineered fill is defined as fill meeting the material, placement, and compaction recommendations presented in this report. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, the Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction “Greenbook” [2015], and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal

OSHA) safety requirements. A preconstruction meeting should be held at the site with owner, the contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

8.2. Site Clearing and Demolition

Existing utilities should be properly terminated and removed completely from the proposed development area. General debris, construction debris, and vegetative matter in the project area should be cleared and properly disposed off‐site. Due to the previous site uses, this site may have septic tanks, leach lines, cesspools, and other unseen obstacles. All unsuitable material should be removed from the site and disposed of properly.

8.3. Remedial Grading and Site Preparation

Based on the explorations performed for this project, the site is underlain by loose sands and soft silts and clays with some loose sand layers. These materials are conventionally considered unsuitable soils as compacted for bearing and should be overexcavated and recompacted (if suitable fill material) prior to site development. To provide uniform support for the new building structures supported on shallow foundations, we recommend that the upper three feet of soil (from the lowest of existing or final grade) be overexcavated and recompacted (if suitable for fill material) prior to building foundation excavation. The upper three feet of soil beneath the footprint of new building structures should be backfilled with non‐expansive select soil. On‐site soils may not be suitable for select soil, and import soils may be required. Foundation design parameters and estimated settlements for shallow foundations provided in subsequent sections of this report incorporate this remedial grading recommendation.

Areas to be overexcavated and recompacted should extend a minimum of ten feet beyond the footprint of the foundations laterally in each direction. If variable depths of remedial grading are needed, areas of deeper remedial grading should transition to areas of shallower remedial grading to reduce the potential contrast in stiffness between materials. Specific guidelines for such transitions should be determined in the field during grading operations by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

We recommend that in areas to receive pavement and hardscaping, the upper 1 foot of soil should be overexcavated and recompacted (if suitable for select fill material). Similarly, if buildings are to be supported on deep foundations, we recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil beneath the building footprint be overexcavated and recompacted.

Loose or soft soil, or soil disturbed by demolition activities within the proposed grading area, as identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading and foundation excavation, should be excavated or scarified as required, moisture conditioned, and then recompacted before placing additional fill or preparing subgrade. Soil containing organic or other deleterious matter, if encountered, should be removed from the site and properly disposed. Areas to receive new fill, including areas of overexcavation and recompaction, should be proof rolled and moisture conditioned prior to compacting new fill.

8.4. Fill Materials

Based on limited observation and laboratory testing performed for this investigation, the majority of on‐site fill and alluvial materials should meet the engineering properties for Engineered Fill but may not meet Select Fill requirements. Biodegradable, organic, or other compressible material should not be used for Engineered Fill or Select Fill. The following material types are applicable to the project:

Engineered Fill should consist of native or import soil that has a plasticity index less than 50 and does not contain quantities of oversize material that could make compaction difficult. Rocks or hard lumps less than 6 inches in maximum dimension may be used. Nesting of rocks or hard lumps should not be permitted.

Select Fill should consist of granular native or import soil that contains at least 40 percent of material, by dry weight, less than ¼ inch in size. Select fill should not contain rocks or hard lumps greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. In addition, select fill should have an expansion index less than 20, a liquid limit less than 30, and a plasticity index less than or equal to 15.

Class 2 Aggregate Base should conform to the State of California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans) “Standard Specifications” Section 26‐1.02B.

We recommend that if import soil is needed to achieve the design site grades, the import soil should be non‐expansive in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803A.5.3. These soils generally correlate to materials with an expansion index of 20 or less and which have a plasticity index of 15 or less.

8.5. Fill Placement and Compaction

Fill materials should be moisture conditioned and compacted between 0 and 3 percent above the optimum moisture contents determined with ASTM D1557 in layers that do not exceed 8‐inch loose lifts for heavy equipment compaction and 4‐inch loose lifts for hand‐held equipment compaction.

Each lift of fill should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction unless otherwise specified. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (in percent) of the in‐place dry density to the maximum dry density determined using the latest version of ASTM D1557 as the compaction standard. Oversize material in excess of 6 inches should be removed or placed as fill a minimum of 3 feet below the final finish grade. Class 2 aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.

8.6. Subdrains

Due to the proposed development grades and existing site topography, subdrains are not anticipated as part of the project.

8.7. Surface Drainage

Surface drainage should be planned to prevent ponding and promote the drainage of surface water away from structures (i.e., foundations, slabs, edges of pavements and sidewalks), and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. Paved and aggregate‐surfaced areas should be sloped to drain water away from structures and pavements at a minimum gradient of 1 percent, and unpaved areas should be finish graded with a minimum slope of 2 percent away from structures. Stormwater collected by roof drainage systems should be discharged at suitable locations away from the structures to reduce the possibility of saturation of foundation soil. Even when these measures are taken, experience has shown that a shallow groundwater or surface‐water condition can develop in areas where no such water condition existed before site development.

8.8. CBC Seismic Design Parameters

Seismic design parameters were developed in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2013 California

Building Code (CBC). The approximate geometric center of the site (latitude and longitude of 32.7358 degrees and ‐114.6098 degrees, respectively) was used to evaluate the minimum seismic design parameters presented in the tables below. The structural engineer may utilize more conservative values at their discretion. The seismic design parameters presented in the table below assume that the site is mitigated for soil liquefaction beneath the building.

TABLE 3: 2013 CBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS

Parameter Value

Site Soil Class D

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS 0.69 g

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, S1 0.26 g

Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.25

Long Period Site Coefficient at 1.0s Period, Fv 1.88

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 0.86 g

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, SM1 0.49 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 0.57 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, SD1 0.33 g

Note:

If the site is not mitigated for the potential liquefaction but the building is supported on deep foundations or mat foundations, the following seismic design parameters should be used:

TABLE 4: 2013 CBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS

Parameter Value

Site Soil Class E

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS 0.69 g

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, S1 0.26 g

Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.32

Long Period Site Coefficient at 1.0s Period, Fv 2.95

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 0.91 g

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, SM1 0.77 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 0.61 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0s Period, SD1 0.52 g

Note:

8.9. Soil Liquefaction/Ground Improvement

Due to the anticipated level of ground shaking for the expected life span for the project, and the density of the soil deposits underlying the site below groundwater, the probability of soil liquefaction affecting the project is considered high. Correspondingly, the potential for liquefaction‐ induced seismic settlement and foundation instability should be considered. Liquefaction is anticipated between depths of 30 and 40 feet below the existing ground surface.

The effects of liquefaction may be mitigated using a number of techniques. We recommend that the potentially liquefiable soil be mitigated to reduce the potential for liquefaction or that the proposed building structures be founded on soil beneath the potentially liquefiable soil through the use of deep foundations. Alternatively, the building structure may be supported on stiffened shallow foundations, such as a mat foundation, that are designed to withstand the anticipated potential liquefaction settlement. Repair of pavements and hardscaping in areas beyond the building footprint may be considered rather than mitigating the liquefaction potential in the case of seismically‐ induced soil liquefaction.

The potential for soil liquefaction may be reduced through several methods. Mitigation methods may include installation of stone columns, installation of jet‐grouted columns, or chemical grouting of the area. We recommend that, if required, soil mitigation for liquefaction be performed for a minimum horizontal distance of 20 feet beyond the perimeter of the building footprint. Due to the depth of the liquefiable layers, deep dynamic compaction is not recommended for the proposed project. If soil mitigation is required, additional recommendations for ground modification can be provided under a separate contract.

8.10. Shallow Foundations

The minimum recommended shallow foundation embedment depth is 24 inches below finished grade for spread or continuous foundations. The minimum recommended shallow foundation width is 18 inches. The structural engineer should determine the footing embedment, size, and reinforcement based on anticipated loads and estimated settlements. Adjacent footings founded at different elevations should be located such that the slope from bearing level to bearing level is flatter than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical).

Shallow foundations with the recommended minimum dimensions and embedment bearing on engineered fill placed as part of the site preparation may be designed for an allowable vertical bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressure value may be increased by one‐third for short‐term wind and seismic loading.

The settlement of a shallow foundation for a given allowable bearing pressure depends on the size, shape, and embedment depth of the foundation, the relative compaction and stiffness of the engineered fill, and the saturation and density of the native materials below.

Total settlement (excluding seismically‐induced settlement) based on the remedial grading recommendations and maximum recommended allowable bearing pressure is anticipated to be less than 1 inch for shallow foundation widths less than 5 feet. Differential settlements between adjacent footings are expected to be approximately half the estimated total settlements. The majority of settlement due to structural loads should occur during or shortly after construction.

8.11. Deep Foundations

Design of deep foundations may utilize skin friction and end bearing methodology to evaluate resistance to axial compression and uplift loads. We recommend that deep foundations consist of driven piles to support the building below the potentially‐liquefiable soil. In southwest United States and southern California, prestressed concrete piles are commonly used for driven pile foundations.

We understand that the final foundation sizes, both diameter and depth, will be determined by the project structural engineer, and will depend on the foundation recommendations provided in this report, the design loads, and construction considerations.

Deep foundations should bear below the potential liquefiable zone and a minimum of 45 feet below the lowest adjacent finished grade. We recommend a minimum center‐to‐center spacing of 2.5 foundation diameters for deep foundations. Specific engineering recommendations for driven pile foundations can be provided under a separate contract. Driven piles should be designed to resist downdrag forces imparted above the layer of potential soil liquefaction.

Construction of deep foundations in groups can reduce the available axial capacity of the foundations due to the relaxation of the soil between adjacent foundations. Design of deep foundations spaced closer than four foundation diameters (center to center) can have a total axial

(downward and uplift) capacity less than the sum of the capacities of the individual foundations. For design, we recommend a group efficiency factor for axial design of 0.65 and 1.0 for center‐to‐center spacing of 2.5 diameters and 4.0 diameters or more, respectively. Axial resistance group efficiency factors for intermediate spacing can be determined by linear interpolation between these values.

8.12. Mat Foundations

Mat foundations may be used to support the building structure if ground improvement is not performed to mitigate the potential soil liquefaction at the site and the mat foundation and building structure can withstand the potential soil liquefaction induced settlement. The minimum recommended mat foundation embedment depth is 12 inches below finished grade. The minimum recommended mat foundation width is 5 feet. The structural engineer should determine the footing embedment, size, and reinforcement based on anticipated loads and estimated settlements.

Mat foundations with the recommended minimum dimensions and embedment bearing on engineered fill placed as part of the site preparation may be designed for an allowable vertical bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressure value may be increased by one‐third for short‐term wind and seismic loading.

Total settlement (excluding seismically‐induced settlement) based on the remedial grading recommendations and maximum recommended allowable bearing pressure is anticipated to be less than 1 inch for mat foundation widths less than 25 feet.

8.13. Allowable Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loads on shallow foundations may be provided by passive resistance along the outside face of footings and frictional resistance along the bottom of footings. The allowable passive resistance may be taken as equivalent to a fluid weighing 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for footings poured neat against engineered fill or formational soil.

An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used with the dead load to compute the frictional resistance of footings. If frictional and passive resistances are combined, the allowable friction coefficient should be reduced to 0.3.

The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations in areas where there will be no hardscape that extends from the outside edge of the footing to a horizontal distance equal to three times the footing depth. The resistance from passive pressure should also be neglected where utilities or similar excavations may occur in the future.

8.14. Concrete Slabs and Hardscape

Concrete slabs and hardscape should be supported on select fill with low expansion potential. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be assumed for design of slabs and hardscape. The subgrade should be proof rolled prior to placing the concrete slabs and hardscape. The slab thickness and steel reinforcement should be designed by a California‐registered civil engineer for the anticipated loads. Slab‐on‐grade concrete floors should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches with a minimum steel reinforcement of #4 bars at 30 inches on center each way.

We recommend that isolation joints be provided where slabs abut walls or columns. Isolation joints should be designed to separate the floor from the abutting element, to allow each part to move independently. Crack control or expansion/contraction joints should be provided at spacing appropriate for the slab thickness and the maximum concrete aggregate size, but should be provided at regular intervals not exceeding approximately 10 feet, each way.

Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve), coarse sand. Special care should be taken by the contractor so that a uniform thickness of sand is maintained to achieve uniformity in the concrete slab thickness. We recommend that the subgrade be wetted prior to placement of the clean, coarse sand beneath the slab. A minimum 6‐mil thick plastic Visqueen sheet should be placed at the middepth of the sand layer where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated.

8.15. Utility Trenches

Utilities should be placed above and outside the envelope defined by 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) lines drawn outward and down from the bottom edge of foundations. Trench backfill is defined as material placed in a trench starting 6 inches above the pipe, and bedding is all material placed in a trench below the backfill. Pipe trench backfill should conform to the recommendations presented in this report and Section 306‐1.3 of the “Greenbook.” Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free‐draining clean sand should be used as bedding. Pavement and subgrade requirements provided in the section below should be incorporated for trench backfill. Compaction of backfill by water jetting should not be permitted.

8.16. Pavements

We recommend that the parking lot and driveways within the site be designed for a traffic index selected by the project civil engineer. Based on our experience a traffic index of 5.0 for flexible pavement design for parking areas and 6.0 for driveways is typical for similar projects.

The flexible pavement section should consist of asphalt concrete (as defined in Section 39 of the

Caltrans Standard Specifications) over Class 2 aggregate base (as defined in Section 26 of the

Caltrans Standard Specifications) over properly prepared subgrade. Properly prepared pavement subgrade consists of the uppermost 12 inches of subgrade that is moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Asphalt and aggregate base should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.

Laboratory testing for resistance value (R‐value) for soil samples obtained for this geotechnical investigations resulted in a value of 8. Based on laboratory testing and our experience an R‐value of

6 has been selected for pavement design. Based on the above assumptions, we recommend the following pavement sections:

TABLE 5: PAVEMENT SECTION (IN)

T . I . = 5 . 0

( a r e a s o f p a s s e n g e r c a r s )

T . I . = 6 . 0

( a r e a s o f t r u c k t r a f f i c )

A C 3 4 5 4 5 6

B a s e 1 0 8 6 1 1 . 5 9 . 5 7 . 5

The actual pavement section may be chosen based on the cost for asphalt versus Class 2 aggregate base.

Alternatively, Portland cement concrete (PCC) can be used for pavements where heavy truck traffic is anticipated. A minimum of 8 inches of PCC should be used over properly prepared subgrade. We also recommend that concrete pavements be provided with expansion joints at regular intervals not exceeding 10 feet in each direction and minimum reinforcing steel of #4 bars at 18 inches on center each way.

8.17. Corrosion Potential

The results of the corrosion testing performed for the current investigation are presented along with the geotechnical laboratory test data results. Corrosion testing was performed on a soil sample of the surficial soil from Boring #3. The results of the tests indicate the water soluble sulfate content and chloride content of the soil were 1,080 parts per million (ppm) and 1,120 ppm, respectively.

Sulfate contents in this range are generally considered to be moderate with respect to potential for sulfate attack of concrete in accordance with Table 4.2.1 of the 2011 American Concrete Institute

Manual. Chloride contents in this range are generally considered to be severe with respect to potential for chloride attack. We recommend the use of Type V cement for the project for concrete that will be in contact with soil. Electrical resistivity testing was not performed for this project. We recommend that for design purposes metallic utility piping and conduits should be designed for a corrosive environment. As an alternative, additional corrosion testing for resistivity may be performed at the time of construction and additional recommendations provided.

TABLE 6: CORROSION POTENTIAL GENERAL GUIDELINES

MATERIAL AFFECTED CHEMICAL AGENT

AMOUNT IN SOIL

(PPM)

DEGREE OF

CORROSIVITY

CONCRETE Soluble Sulfates

0 ‐ 1,000 Low

1,000 – 2,000 Moderate

2,000 – 20,000 Severe

>20,000 Very Severe

MATERIAL AFFECTED CHEMICAL AGENT

AMOUNT IN SOIL

(PPM)

DEGREE OF

CORROSIVITY

NORMAL GRADE

STEEL

Soluble Chlorides

0 – 200 Low

200 – 700 Moderate

700 – 1,500 Severe

>1,500 Very Severe

MATERIAL AFFECTED CHEMICAL AGENT

AMOUNT IN SOIL

(PPM)

DEGREE OF

CORROSIVITY

NORMAL GRADE

STEEL

Resistivity

1 – 1,000 Very Severe

1,000 – 2,000 Severe

2,000 – 10,000 Moderate

>10,000 Low

8.18. Construction Considerations

Much of the onsite soil consists of silty fine to very fine sand and sandy silt. Do to the uniform nature of the soil grain size, soil compaction may be difficult.