Appendix_29_Geotechnical_Invest_WH_58.pdf

PREPARED FOR:

THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY

1120 IRON POINT ROAD, SUITE 190

FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA 95630

PREPARED BY:

GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800

RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742

GEOCON PROJECT NO. S9473-06-01 JANUARY 2010

General Purpose Warehouse #58 DDJC, Tracy, California

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Project No. S9473-06-01 January 15, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL

Jovan Petrovic The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company 1120 Iron Point Road, Suite 190 Folsom, California 95630

Subject: GENERAL PURPOSE WAREHOUSE #58

DDJC, TRACY, CALIFORNIA

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Dear Mr. Petrovic:

In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared this geotechnical investigation report for the subject project. The project consists of constructing an approximate 500,000-square-foot, high-bay warehouse (General Purpose Warehouse #58) at the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) in Tracy, California.

The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of constructing the warehouse as presently proposed. In our opinion, no adverse geotechnical conditions are present that would preclude development at the site provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

We look forward to reviewing the project plans as they develop further, providing engineering consultation as needed, and performing geotechnical observation and testing services during construction.

Please contact us if you have any questions concerning the contents of this report.

Sincerely, GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Robert Nixon, PE, GE Wesley Spang, PhD, PE, GE Senior Engineer Principal Engineer

RN:WS:krh

(2) Addressee

(1) Anderson & Doig Structural Engineers, Colby Anderson

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BACKGROUND

3.0 APPROACH

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.1 Regional Active Faults

5.2 Liquefaction

5.3 Expansive Soils

5.4 Site Class

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Foundation Design Criteria

6.3 Interior Slab-on-Grade

6.4 Lateral Loads

7.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

8.0 REFERENCES

FIGURES

Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photos 1 through 10

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

Figures A-1 through A-5, Logs of Dilatometer Soundings Figures A-6 and A-7, Logs of Cone Penetration Testing Figure A-8, Shear Wave Velocity Measurements

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 1 - January 15, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the construction of an approximate 500,000-square-foot, high-bay warehouse (General Purpose Warehouse #58) at the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) in Tracy, California. The approximate site location is depicted on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Previous geotechnical studies were performed at the site by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Results were presented in the following documents, copies of which were provided to us:

• Final Geotechnical Report, Active Bulk Warehouse, DDJC, Tracy, California, March 2008, 10 pages.

• Addendum to Final Geotechnical Report dated March 2008 by Structural Design Section, Active Bulk Warehouse, DDJC, Tracy, California, September 2009, 6 pages.

• Drilling Logs for Borings 2F-08-1 through 2F-08-12, 29 pages.

• Laboratory Testing Results, 113 pages.

The warehouse building pad and interior spread footings have been constructed (see Photos 1 and 2).

The building pad consists of compacted, engineered fill that extends up to approximately 4 feet above adjacent grade, as well as below the perimeter strip footings (see Photos 3 and 4). The remaining foundations to be constructed include the perimeter and interior strip footings. Walls will be of concrete, tilt-up panel construction, and the interior floor will be a concrete slab-on-grade. An administrative annex building will also be constructed adjacent to the warehouse.

As stated in our letter dated November 30, 2009, we are the new Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project and assume the responsibilities associated with this position, including our interpretations of the information and recommendations provided in the USACE documents. As the new Geotechnical Engineer of Record, we have performed supplemental subsurface exploration, engineering analysis, consultation, and prepared this report.

3.0 APPROACH

The USACE geotechnical report states the site is underlain by soft to firm soils to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Because our experience in the immediate vicinity indicates the potential for liquefaction is low, which is consistent with the USACE conclusions, the primary geotechnical issue for this project is accurate calculation of post-construction foundation settlements. Due to the size of the building and depth to groundwater, we predict that most of the settlement will occur as loads are applied (immediate settlement). Accurate calculation of immediate settlement can be very difficult in

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 2 - January 15, 2010 silty and sandy soils using conventional borings and laboratory testing due to soil sample disturbance.

Therefore, we performed in-situ testing to supplement the USACE boring data and laboratory testing results. The following in-situ testing methods were used on this project:

• Dilatometer Soundings, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6635

• Cone Penetration Testing, ASTM D3441

• Shear Wave Velocity Measurements, ASTM D5778

The logs of the USACE borings indicate the subsurface soils are fairly homogeneous and don’t vary significantly in horizontal extent. The deepest USACE borings were 2F-08-10 (31 feet near the northeast corner of the proposed warehouse) and 2F-08-3 (36 feet near the southwest corner of the proposed warehouse). We performed a total of three dilatometer soundings near each of these borings to depths ranging from 22 to 37 feet. We also performed one cone penetration test (CPT) and collected shear wave velocity measurements at the center of the proposed warehouse to a depth of 40 feet. The locations of the USACE borings and our explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our testing indicates the site is underlain by interlayered clays and silts with varying sand and gravel content to a depth of approximately 25 feet. These soils are consistent with the USACE data and geologic mapping of the area. Our testing indicates these soils are stiff to very stiff, with generally increasing consistency with depth. Below 25 feet, predominantly dense sands and gravels were encountered to 35 feet, underlain by predominantly very stiff clays and silts to 40 feet, the maximum depth explored. Groundwater is located at a depth of approximately 20 feet.

Soil conditions described above are generalized. Therefore, we advise the reader to consult the logs included in Appendix A for more detailed information.

5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.1 Regional Active Faults

Based on our research, analyses, and observations, the site is not located on any known “active” earthquake fault trace. In addition, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, we consider the potential for ground rupture due to onsite active faulting to be low.

In order to evaluate the distance of known active faults closest to the site, we used the computer program EQFAULT. The Great Valley Fault – Segment 7 is located approximately 6 miles to the east, and the Greenville Fault is located approximately 14 miles to the west.

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 3 - January 15, 2010

5.2 Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup under the cyclic shear stresses associated with intense earthquakes. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, including very stiff and dense soils below groundwater, liquefaction potential is expected to be low during seismic events.

5.3 Expansive Soils

Plasticity Index (PI) testing on USACE soil samples collected from depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet resulted in PIs ranging from 6 to 12, indicating low expansion potential.

5.4 Site Class

Based on the boring data and shear wave velocity measurements, the project limits may be characterized as Site Class D in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code, Table 1613.5.2, which is based on the 2006 International Building Code.

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 4 - January 15, 2010

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered during our investigation that would preclude construction of General Purpose Warehouse #58 as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

6.1.2 Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of referenced literature, analysis of data obtained from our field exploration program, and our understanding of the proposed development at this time.

6.1.3 We should be review the final project plans and provide engineering consultation as needed to confirm that the intent of our recommendations is properly incorporated into the project documents.

6.2 Foundation Design Criteria

6.2.1 The following warehouse design loads were provided to us by Anderson & Doig Structural Engineers.

Perimeter Wall Interior Wall Spread Footing Slab-on-Grade DL = 4,611 plf DL = 5,186 plf DL = 56 kips DL = 500 psf

LL = 500 plf LL = 1,000 plf LL = 24 kips

The bottom of footings should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade.

Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom outside edge of the footing.

6.2.2 Calculations were performed in order to estimate total and differential vertical settlement of foundations. We predict that most of the settlement will occur as loads are applied; therefore, most of the building footing settlement should have occurred by construction completion.

Interior floor slab settlement will occur based on the loading and configuration of the storage racks.

6.2.3 Settlement calculations were performed using the data obtained from the dilatometer soundings and the shear wave velocity testing. The dilatometer-based analysis was performed using the general approach presented by Schmertmann (1986) using the foundation loading and dilatometer modulus. The soil below the foundation bottom was

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 5 - January 15, 2010 discretized into layers with thickness equal to the dilatometer sounding interval (8 inches).

The stress increase in each layer due to the foundation loading was determined and the resulting individual layer settlement calculated. The individual layer settlements were summed to calculate the foundation settlement.

6.2.4 The CPT-derived shear wave velocity results were used to determine a shear modulus profile of the underlying soils. The shear modulus values were used to develop equivalent low-strain elastic soil modulus values based on Poisson’s ratio. The low-strain elastic modulus was then reduced to account for the axial strain induced by the foundation loading. The underlying soil settlement was then calculated based on the procedure presented by Mayne and Poulos (1999).

6.2.5 Total settlement of perimeter wall 4-foot-wide footings is estimated to be in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 inch. Total settlement of interior wall 4-foot-wide footings is estimated to be in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 inch. Total settlement of existing interior 8.5-foot-square footings is estimated to be in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 inch. Total settlement of the interior floor slab is estimated to the in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 inch. Differential settlement can be determined by the difference between the total settlements of specific foundation elements.

6.2.6 Administrative annex building design loads were also provided as follows: perimeter footing dead load of 2,300 plf and live load of 354 plf; slab-on-grade dead load of 100 psf. Total settlement of perimeter wall 1.5-foot-wide footings is estimated to be in the range of 0.25 to

0.4 inch. Total settlement of the interior floor slab is estimated to the in the range of 0.1 to

0.2 inch. Differential settlement can be determined by the difference between the total settlements of specific foundation elements.

6.2.7 Using the dead plus live loads and footing dimensions noted above, bearing pressures are not expected to exceed 1,600 to 1,800 psf (warehouse and annex, respectively). A one-third increase is allowed for transient loads, including wind and seismic. The weight of the footing concrete may be neglected for design purposes. If it is desired to use different footing dimensions or bearing pressures than noted above, we should be consulted for additional recommendations. Steel reinforcing should be provided as required by the structural engineer.

6.2.8 Allowable passive pressure used to resist lateral movement of footings may be assumed to be equal to a fluid weighing 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The allowable coefficient of friction to resist sliding of footings is 0.35 for concrete against soil. Combined passive resistance and friction may be utilized for footing design.

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 6 - January 15, 2010

6.2.9 We should observe foundation excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete to observe that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.

6.3 Interior Slab-on-Grade

6.3.1 We anticipate that the warehouse floor slab-on-grade will be at least 8 inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars (non-continuous) placed 18 inches on center, each way, with smooth dowels at designated joints. The existing Class 2 aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition) and proof-rolled prior to placement of the vapor barrier.

6.3.2 Migration of moisture through concrete slabs or moisture otherwise released from slabs is not a geotechnical issue. However, we are providing the following general suggestions for consideration by the design team. The suggested procedures may reduce the potential for moisture-related floor problems, but moisture problems may still occur even if the procedures are followed. If more detailed recommendations are desired, we recommend consulting a specialist in this field.

6.3.3 A minimum 10-mil-thick vapor barrier meeting ASTM E1745-97 Class C requirements should be placed directly below the slab, without a sand cushion. To reduce the potential for punctures, a higher quality vapor barrier (15 mil, Class A or B) is recommended. The vapor barrier, if used, should extend to the edges of the slab and should be sealed at all seams and penetrations.

6.3.4 The slab concrete water/cement ratio should be as low as possible. The water/cement ratio should not exceed 0.45 for concrete placed directly on the vapor barrier. Midrange plasticizers could be used to facilitate concrete placement and workability.

6.3.5 Proper finishing, curing, and moisture vapor emission testing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

6.4 Lateral Loads

6.4.1 Lateral earth pressures should be used in the design of lower portion of the warehouse perimeter concrete tilt-up panel walls. Lateral earth pressures against these structures may be assumed to be equal to the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid. For a fixed wall condition, we recommend using an at-rest equivalent fluid weight of 65 pcf. Buried walls should be moisture-proofed as required. Passive resistance of footings should be determined based on the recommendations presented in Section 6.2.8 of this report.

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 7 - January 15, 2010

7.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials, environmental contamination, or corrosive soils was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Client to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are properly incorporated into the plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

The recommendations contained in this report are preliminary until verified during construction by representatives of our firm. Changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.

Additionally, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated partially or wholly by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices used in this area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied.

Project No. S9473-06-01 - 8 - January 15, 2010

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, Version. 3.00, 2000.

2. California Building Standards Commission, 2007 California Building Code, based on 2006 International Building Code, International Code Council.

3. Jennings, C.W. (compiler), Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982.

4. Kanare, Howard, Concrete Floors and Moisture, 2005.

5. Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G., Approximate Displacement Influence Factors for Elastic Shallow Foundations, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, June, 1999, pp.

453-460.

6. Schmertmann, J.H., Dilatometer to Compute Foundation Settlement, In-Situ Testing 86, ASCE, 1986, pp. 303-321.

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Final Geotechnical Report, Active Bulk Warehouse, DDJC, Tracy, California, March 2008, 10 pages.

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Addendum to Final Geotechnical Report dated March 2008 by Structural Design Section, Active Bulk Warehouse, DDJC, Tracy, California, September 2009, 6 pages.

9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Drilling Logs for Borings 2F-08-1 through 2F-08-12, 29 pages.

10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Laboratory Testing Results, 113 pages.

11. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon.

12. Wagner, D.L., Bortugno, E.J., and McJunkin, R.D. (compilers), Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1991.

General Purpose Warehouse #58

DDJC,

Tracy, California

VICINITY MAP

January 2010 Figure 1S9473-06-01

P H O N E 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 1 3 2

3 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R . – S U I T E 8 0 0 - R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A . 9 5 7 4 2

PROJECT LOCATION

Base: USACE Plan Sheet G-101

Base: USACE Plan Sheet C-161

General Purpose Warehouse #58

DDJC,

Tracy, California

SITE PLAN

January 2010 Figure 2S9473-06-01

P H O N E 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 1 3 2

3 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R . – S U I T E 8 0 0 - R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A . 9 5 7 4 2

0 100

Scale in Feet

LEGEND:

LIMITS OF

PROPOSED

WAREHOUSE

LIMITS OF

PROPOSED

WAREHOUSE

Approximate Location of USACE Boring

Approximate Location of Cone Penetration Test

Approximate Location of Dilatometer Sounding

2F-08-12

CPT-1

CPT-1

DMT-2 DMT-1

2F-08-10

2F-08-7

2F-08-52F-08-42F-08-3

2F-08-6

2F-08-9

2F-08-11 2F-08-12

2F-08-8

DMT-3

CPT-1

DMT-3

DMT-2 DMT-1

2F-08-10

2F-08-7

2F-08-52F-08-42F-08-3

2F-08-6

2F-08-9

2F-08-11 2F-08-12

2F-08-8

DMT-3

PHOTOS NO. 1 & 2

Photo No. 1 View of Existing Building Pad Looking South from Northeast Corner

Photo No. 2 View of Existing Building Pad Looking Southwest from Northeast Corner

January 2010GEOCON Project No. S9473-06-01

DDJC,

Tracy, California

General Purpose Warehouse #58

P H O N E 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 1 3 2

3 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R . – S U I T E 8 0 0 - R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A . 9 5 7 4 2

Cones Placed Over Existing Footing Anchor Bolts

Cones Placed Over Existing Footing Anchor Bolts

PHOTOS NO. 3 & 4

Photo No. 3 View of Existing Building Pad Looking North from Beyond South End

Photo No. 4 View of Engineered Fill Pad Cross-Section

January 2010GEOCON Project No. S9473-06-01

DDJC,

Tracy, California

General Purpose Warehouse #58

P H O N E 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 1 3 2

3 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R . – S U I T E 8 0 0 - R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A . 9 5 7 4 2

I M P O R T E D G R A N U L A R M AT E R I A L

N AT I V E M AT E R I A L

I M P O R T E D G R A N U L A R M AT E R I A L

N AT I V E M AT E R I A L

PHOTOS NO. 5 & 6

Photo No. 5 Dilatometer Blade

Photo No. 6 Dilatometer Blade Attached to CPT Rods

January 2010GEOCON Project No. S9473-06-01

DDJC,

Tracy, California

General Purpose Warehouse #58

P H O N E 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 8 5 2 - 9 1 3 2

3 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R . – S U I T E 8 0 0 - R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A . 9 5 7 4 2

PHOTOS NO. 7 & 8

Photo No. 7 Dilatometer Control Box

Photo No. 8 Location of Dilatometer Sounding #1 and #2, Northeast Corner of Building Pad

January 2010GEOCON Project No. S9473-06-01

DDJC,

Tracy, California

General Purpose Warehouse #58

PHOTOS NO. 9 & 10

Photo No. 9 Location of Dilatometer Sounding #3, Southwest Corner of Building Pad

Photo No. 10 Location of Cone Penetration Test #1 at Center of Building Pad

January 2010GEOCON Project No. S9473-06-01

DDJC,

Tracy, California

General Purpose Warehouse #58

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

Our geotechnical field exploration program was performed on December 4 and 11, 2009. We performed in-situ testing to supplement the USACE boring data and laboratory testing results. The following in-situ testing methods were used on this project:

• Dilatometer Soundings, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6635

• Cone Penetration Testing, ASTM D3441

• Shear Wave Velocity Measurements, ASTM D5778

The locations of the USACE borings and our explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

The Dilatometer test is performed in-situ by pushing a blade-shaped, precision-instrument into the soil (see Photos 5 and 6). The blade is equipped with an expandable membrane on one side that is pressurized until the membrane moves horizontally into the surrounding soil. Readings of the pressure required to move the membrane to a point that is flush with the blade (A – pressure) and to a point 1.1 mm into the surrounding soil (B – pressure) are recorded (see Photo 7). The pressure is subsequently released and, in permeable soils below the groundwater table, a pressure reading is recorded as the membrane returns to the flush position (C – pressure). The test sequence is performed at 0.2-meter (8-inch) intervals to obtain a comprehensive soil profile. A material index (Id), a horizontal stress index (Kd) and a dilatometer modulus (Ed) are obtained directly from the dilatometer data.

Marchetti (1980) developed a soil classification system based on the material index. According to this system, soils with Id values less than 0.6 are classified as clay. Soils classified as sand have an Id value greater than 1.8. Material index values between 0.6 – 1.8 indicate silty clay to silty sand soils.

Empirical relationships between the horizontal stress index and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure (Ko) have been developed by Lunne et al. (1990) for clays and by Schmertmann (1983) for uncemented sands. While Lunne’s method makes use of dilatometer data exclusively, Schmertmann utilizes both dilatometer and cone penetration data to estimate Ko. Since the dilatometer is strain-controlled, the measured difference between the B-pressure and A-pressure readings (corrected for membrane stiffness) and cavity expansion theory can be used to directly measure the soil stiffness.

Assuming a Poisson’s ratio, the dilatometer modulus is correlated to shear modulus, Young’s modulus, and constrained modulus.

The Dilatometer Soundings completed at this site were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 22 to 37 feet. Wesley Spang, PhD, PE, GE, with Geocon recorded pressure readings every 8 inches along the length of each sounding.

One cone penetration test (CPT) was also completed at this site to a depth of approximately 40 feet using an approximate 20-ton push capacity CPT rig. CPT parameters including tip resistance (Qt), sleeve friction (Fs) and dynamic pore pressure (Pw) were measured at approximate 2-inch intervals as the cone advanced. Soil behavior types and engineering characteristics were then determined using published correlations. The cone was equipped with a seismic transducer and shear wave velocity measurements were also collected at approximate 1-meter intervals.

Logs of our explorations as well as interpretation plots are included herein.

GEOCON

Operator: Doug

Sounding: CPT-1

Cone Used: DSG1111

CPT Date/Time: 12/11/2009 10:42:53 AM

Location: Tracy Army Depot

Job Number: 364

Maximum Depth = 39.99 feet Depth Increment = 0.164 feet

*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983

Tip Resistance

Engineered FillEngineered Fill

Qt TSF

Depth (ft)

Pore Pressure

Pw PSI 50-10

Friction Ratio

Fs/Qt (%)

Soil Behavior Type*

Zone: UBC-1983

1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material 3 clay

4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt

7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand

10 gravelly sand to sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 sand to clayey sand (*)

SPT N*

60% Hammer

Figure A-6

In te rp re ta ti o n o f

C P

T- 1, D D

JC

T ra cy

0 50

Sand Seam

Sand Seam

Clay Seam

D ep th ft

S u

(p

sf) u sin g

N k=

E ng

. F ill

S an d an d G ra ve l C la y an d

S ilt

C la y an d S ilt

Soft Med.

Stiff

Stiff Very Stiff Hard

Figure A-7

GEOCON

Tracy Army Depot, 12/11/09

Depth 5.381ft Ref*

Delay 6.29ms Velocity*

Depth 8.661ft Ref 5.381ft

Delay 10.66ms Velocity 607.64ft/s

Depth 11.778ft Ref 8.661ft

Delay 15.35ms Velocity 596.51ft/s

Depth 15.059ft Ref 11.778ft

Delay 19.84ms Velocity 684.09ft/s

Depth 18.340ft Ref 15.059ft

Delay 24.53ms Velocity 670.45ft/s

Depth 21.621ft Ref 18.340ft

Delay 28.79ms Velocity 747.52ft/s

Depth 24.902ft Ref 21.621ft

Delay 32.77ms Velocity 805.10ft/s

Depth 28.182ft Ref 24.902ft

Delay 36.91ms Velocity 778.73ft/s

Depth 31.463ft Ref 28.182ft

Delay 40.35ms Velocity 941.38ft/s

Depth 34.744ft Ref 31.463ft

Delay 43.24ms Velocity 1122.37ft/s

Depth 38.025ft Ref 34.744ft

Delay 46.44ms Velocity 1014.82ft/s

Depth 40.157ft Ref 38.025ft

Delay 48.16ms Velocity 1230.85ft/s

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (ms)

Hammer to Rod String Distance 1.52 (m)

* = Not Determined

Figure A-8