A07.02_-_Atch_7_-_Geotech_&_Foundation_Report.pdf

Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder

All Rights Reserved

Only the client or its designated representatives may use this document and only for the specific project for which this report was prepared.

20162168/MER15R00000 Page i of iv September 25, 2015

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL AND FOUNDATION REPORT

DESC 1511

REPLACE JET FUEL COMPLEX

FRESNO-YOSEMITE IAP ANG, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

September 25, 2015

20162168/MER15R27276 Page ii of iv September 25, 2015

September 25, 2015 Project No. 20162168

Mr. Bryan Strayer Austin Brockenbrough & Associates, LLP 1101 Boulder Springs Drive, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23225

Subject: Geotechnical and Foundation Report

DESC 1511

Replace Jet Fuel Complex Fresno-Yosemite IAP ANG, Fresno, California

Dear Mr. Strayer:

Enclosed is our Geotechnical and Foundation Report for the FY16 DLA MILCON, DESC 1511, Replace Jet Fuel Complex, Fresno-Yosemite IAP ANG in Fresno, California. This project consists of constructing two (2) new steel fuel storage tanks, six (6)-feet tall concrete containment dikes (walls), a pump house, two (2) commercial truck unloading stands, two (2) truck loading stands, an equipment storage building, and supporting facilities including utilities and pavements.

This report provides geotechnical data and recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the proposed structures for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical design services for this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Michael Beltran at (209) 384-7552.

Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC.

Michael R. Beltran, PE Nathan L. Dahlen, PE Project Manager Senior Engineer

MRB:DLP:sj

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

20162168/MER15R27276 Page iii of iv September 25, 2015

Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

1.2.1 Project-Related Documents Reviewed

1.2.2 Proposed Improvements

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

2 METHODS OF STUDY

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.2 EARTH MATERIALS

3.3 GROUNDWATER

4 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN

4.1.1 2012 IBC Seismic Design Parameters

4.1.2 LIQUEFACTION

4.1.3 API 650 Seismic Design Parameters

4.2 SEISMIC DEAGGREGATION ANALYSIS

4.3 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS

4.3.1 Allowable Vertical Bearing Pressure And Settlement

4.3.1.1 Resistance to Lateral Loads

4.4 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE

4.4.1 Subgrade Preparation

4.4.2 Capillary and Moisture/Vapor Break

4.4.3 Conventional Slab Design

4.5 PRELIMINARY SOIL CORROSIVITY

4.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.6.1 Flexible Pavement

4.7 EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES

4.8 RETAINING WALLS

4.9 SITE GRADING

4.9.1 Relative Compaction Standard

4.9.2 Site Preparation

4.9.3 Excavation Characteristics

4.9.4 Engineered Fill

4.9.5 Import Materials

4.9.6 Construction Observation

4.10 UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS

4.10.1 General

4.10.2 Temporary Trench Excavations

4.10.3 Shoring

4.10.4 Surcharge Loading

4.10.5 Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page

20162168/MER15R27276 Page iv of iv September 25, 2015

4.11 PIPELINE DESIGN

4.11.1 Pipe Loading

4.11.2 Resistance to Longitudinal Loading

4.12 DEWATERING

5 LIMITATIONS

6 REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 4-1 Ground Motion Parameters Based on 2012 IBC Table 4-2 Seismic Deaggregation Analysis Table 4-3 Available Allowable Bearing Table 4-4 Estimated Settlement ..………………………………………………………... 8 Table 4-5 Passive Pressures and Frictional Coefficients Table 4-6 Soil Corrosion Test Summary Table 4-7 Summary of Recommended Flexible Pavement Section Table 4-8 Lateral Earth Pressures Table 4-9 Criteria for Imported Fill Table 4-10 Lateral Earth Pressures for Shoring Table 4-11 E’ Values Table 4-12 Allowable Frictional Coefficient Table 4-13 Allowable Available Lateral Bearing of Deep Thrust Blocks Table 4-14 Allowable Available Lateral Bearing of Shallow Thrust Blocks

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Exploration and Log of Test Borings Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 1 of 25 September 25, 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The project site is located at the Fresno Air National Guard (ANG) site in the eastern portion of the City of Fresno. The base is bound by East McKinley Avenue to the south, Clovis Avenue to the east, and Fresno-Yosemite International Airport to the north and west. The geographic coordinates for the site are:

Latitude = 36.76633°

Longitude = -119.71497°

This Geotechnical and Foundation Report provides geotechnical data and recommendations for design and construction for the proposed improvements, and structural pavement sections for the access road. It is understood the structural design of the proposed facilities will be performed in accordance with 2012 International Building

Code (IBC) and that the Unified Facilities Criteria standards (UFC 3-250-01 FA) apply to design of pavements for the access road.

1.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

1.2.1 Project-Related Documents Reviewed

The following project-related documents noted below have been reviewed as part of this study.

Boring Location Plan (undated; provided to Kleinfelder April 2014)

Scope of Services for FY16 DLA MILCON, DESC 1511, Replace Jet Fuel Complex, Fresno-Yosemite IAP ANG in Fresno, California, dated March 12, 2014.

“Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-250-01FA, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas” prepared by Naval Facilities Engineering Command

(NAVFAC), dated January 16, 2004.

1.2.2 Proposed Improvements

Understanding of the proposed project is based on discussions with ISM Services, Inc., Austin Brockenbrough & Associates (AB&A), and the documents listed in Section 1.2.1.

The project will consist of the following:

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 2 of 25 September 25, 2015

Two (2) 2,500 barrel above-ground, steel fuel storage tanks with lined concrete foundations;

Secondary containment dikes (walls);

Two (2) commercial truck unloading stands;

Two (2) truck loading stands;

A POL pump house/control building;

POL equipment storage building; and, Supporting facilities including utilities, site improvements, pavements, and communications.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this Geotechnical and Foundation Report was to evaluate site conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the proposed improvements. The scope of work for this project included:

Review of readily available background data such as geologic maps, previous test borings, as-built plans;

Perform a subsurface investigation;

Perform laboratory testing on selected samples of the subsurface soils;

Develop geotechnical engineering parameters for design;

Perform geotechnical analyses;

Develop geotechnical recommendations to aid in design and construction of the proposed improvements; and

Present the results of the investigation and provide recommendations in this report.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 3 of 25 September 25, 2015

2 METHODS OF STUDY

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling a total of 7 borings to depths ranging from approximately 26.5 to 51.5 feet, at the locations shown on Figure 1, Site

Plan. The borings were advanced using hollow stem auger techniques. Soil samples were collected from the borings at nominal 5-foot intervals using a 3 inch outside diameter and 2.4 inch inside diameter California split barrel sampler lined with 6 inch long brass sleeves and a 2 inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without liners. An engineer from Kleinfelder coordinated the field exploration activities, logged the soil conditions exposed in the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. A description of the test borings logs and a key to logs are presented in Appendix

A.

Upon their completion, borings were backfilled with cuttings and capped with concrete where needed.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on selected samples to substantiate field classifications and to provide engineering parameters for geotechnical analysis and design. Soil testing performed included two (2) moisture/density measurement, two (2)

Atterberg limits, two (2) direct shear, corrosivity (pH, minimum electrical resistivity, soluble sulphates and soluble chlorides), two (2) Modified Proctor compaction tests, and two (2) resistance value (R-value) tests. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 4 of 25 September 25, 2015

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The project site is located east of the intersection of E. McKinley Avenue and E. Clinton

Way in Fresno, California. The base is bound by East McKinley Avenue to the south, Clovis Avenue to the east, and Fresno-Yosemite International Airport to the north and west.

At the time of the field reconnaissance, the site was occupied by some asphalt and some concrete with structures in the east and north portions of the site and was relatively flat.

3.2 EARTH MATERIALS

The following description provides a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration and further validated by the laboratory-testing program. For a more thorough description of the actual conditions encountered at specific boring locations, refer to the boring logs presented in Appendix A (Plates A-3 through A-

9). All soils have been classified in general conformance to the Unified Soil Classification

System (ASTM D2487).

The soil in the general site vicinity is mapped as Holocene fan deposits. The natural soil encountered is comprised generally of laterally discontinuous layers of silty sand, silt, and poorly graded sand. These generally had a relative consistency of medium dense to very dense.

3.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in the borings performed for this study. The State of

California Department of Water Resources, “Lines of Equal Elevation of Water in Wells”, Spring 2011 indicates depth to regional ground water is about 100 feet below the existing ground surface elevation at the contour line. While it is possible that ground water conditions at the site could change at some time in the future due to variations in rainfall, ground water withdrawal or recharge, construction activities, or other factors not apparent at the time of the test borings, it is not anticipated that the changes would be substantial.

Ground water is not anticipated to effect design or anticipated construction.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 5 of 25 September 25, 2015

4 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections provide discussions and recommendations to aid in design of the project.

4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN

It is understood design of tanks will be based on API 650 and other site facility design will be based on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC 2012). The average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the site (Vs30) was calculated to be 1000 ft/sec (307 m/s) based on Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-05 and data developed using from B-2.

4.1.1 2012 IBC Seismic Design Parameters

The Vs30 value calculated for the site corresponds to Site Class D. Site Class D is defined by the 2012 IBC (ASCE 7-05) as a stiff soil profile with average shear wave velocities within the upper 100 feet between 600 ft/s (183 m/s) and 1,200 ft/s (366 m/s), average

SPT 15≤N≤50, or average 1,000 psf ≤Su≤ 2,000 psf. Based on the Site Class D designation and the site location with respect to mapped spectral acceleration parameters

SS and S1, Kleinfelder developed 2012 IBC seismic design parameters.

The estimated Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) mapped spectral accelerations for 0.2 second and 1 second periods (Ss and S1), associated soil amplification factors (Fa and Fv), and design peak ground acceleration (PGA) are presented in Table 4-1.

Corresponding site modified (SMS and SM1) and design (SDS and SD1) spectral accelerations, and PGAM, are also presented in Table 4-1. Presented values were estimated using Section 1613.3 of the 2012 IBC and the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) U.S. seismic design maps. The Seismic Design Category is estimated to be D.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 6 of 25 September 25, 2015

TABLE 4-1

GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS BASED ON 2012 IBC

Parameter Value

SS 0.607 g

S1 0.250 g

Site Class D

Seismic Design Category D

Fa 1.315 g

Fv 1.901 g

PGA 0.222g

SMS 0.798 g

SM1 0.474 g

SDS 0.532 g

SD1 0.316 g

TL 12s

FPGA 1.356

PGAM 0.301g

CRS 1.046

CR1 1.099

4.1.2 LIQUEFACTION

In order for liquefaction, and possible associated effects, of soils due to ground shaking to occur, it is generally accepted that four conditions will exist:

The subsurface soils are in a relatively loose state, The soils are saturated, The soils are non-plastic, and

Ground shaking is of sufficient intensity to act as a triggering mechanism.

Based on the ground shaking which may be expected at this site, the soil relative density, soil type, and depth to groundwater, analysis utilizing Youd (2001) indicates liquefaction, and associated seismically induced settlement, is considered unlikely.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 7 of 25 September 25, 2015

4.1.3 API 650 Seismic Design Parameters

If any parameters different than associated with the 2012 IBC or the model magnitude in

Section 4.2 are required for the API 650 seismic design criteria, Kleinfelder should be contacted.

4.2 SEISMIC DEAGGREGATION ANALYSIS

Seismic deaggregation analysis for the PGAM was performed for both Design Earthquake

(DE) and MCE earthquake event using the 2008 USGS Interactive Deaggregations at https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. Analysis was also performed for a PGA equal to two-thirds of the PGAM. Table 4-2 presents a summary of the results.

TABLE 4-2

SEISMIC DEAGGREGATION ANALYSIS

PGA Modal Moment Magnitude Modal Distance (km)

DE 5.4 15.3

MCE 5.2 7.9

4.3 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS

The proposed structures may be supported by conventional shallow footings supported on approved undisturbed native soil or properly engineered fill. The following recommendations are based on the assumption that the recommendations in Section 4.9, “Site Grading”, have been implemented. Recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of building design are presented below.

4.3.1 Allowable Vertical Bearing Pressure And Settlement

Generally two geotechnical issues determine the design bearing pressure for conventional spread footing or mat foundations: (1) available soil bearing capacity based on the strength of the soil and/or (2) tolerable settlement.

The available bearing capacity, based only on the shear strength of the soil, will be dependent upon the footing geometry. Presented in Table 4-3 are the expressions for the allowable available bearing capacity (shear strength considerations only) for static

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 8 of 25 September 25, 2015 loading (D.L. + L.L.) and total combined loading (D.L. + L.L. + transient loading, such as wind or seismic).

TABLE 4-3

AVAILABLE ALLOWABLE BEARING

Available Allowable Bearing (psf)

Static Loading 700B + 1590D

Total Combined Loading 1050B + 2380D

Note: B is footing width in feet and D is footing embedment depth in feet.

Analysis, based on Schmertmann and Hough, determined the following estimated static settlement based on a range of assumed design bearing and estimated structural loads.

The settlement assumes the sustained load is 100 percent of the total load. Settlement is expected to occur rapidly with load application.

TABLE 4-4

ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT

Footing Type Loading

(DL +LL)

Design Bearing (psf)

Estimated Settlement (inch)

Strip To 5.0 kip/ft To 5000 Less than 0.25

Column To 150 kips To 5000 Less than 0.25

Mat (40-foot Diameter)

1025 kips 1000

0.4 at Center of Mat

Less than 0.25 at Edge of Mat

If deemed necessary by the design engineer, Kleinfelder can provide the estimated settlement for other loading conditions.

A modulus of subgrade reaction, Kp (Bp = 1 foot), of 440 pci can be used for undisturbed on-site soil and engineered fill. It should be noted that the subgrade modulus reflects the response of the subgrade under primarily elastic conditions and small deflections. It is not a characteristic intended to define soil compressibility (settlement) or load bearing capacity.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 9 of 25 September 25, 2015

4.3.1.1 Resistance to Lateral Loads

Lateral loads can be resisted by lateral bearing against the side of the foundation and friction along the base of the footing. The allowable and ultimate passive pressures and frictional coefficients for the footings are presented in Table 4-5.

TABLE 4-5

PASSIVE PRESSURES AND FRICTIONAL COEFFICIENTS

Item Description

Allowable

Ultimate (FS = 1) Static

(FS)

Total Combined

(FS)

Frictional Coefficient 0.47 (1.5) 0.56 (1.25) 0.70

Passive Pressure (psf/ft of depth) 395 (2.0) 530 (1.5) 790

Lateral Translation Needed to Develop Lateral Bearing

0.006D 0.012D 0.028D

Note: D is the depth to bottom of foundation

If the deflection resulting from the strain necessary to develop the passive pressure is within structural tolerance, the passive pressure and frictional resistance can be used in combination. Otherwise, additional passive pressure values could be provided based on tolerable deflection. The allowable values already incorporate a factor of safety and, as such, would be compared directly to the driving loads. If analytical approaches require the input of a ratio of available resisting forces and driving loads greater than unity, the ultimate values would be used.

4.4 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE

4.4.1 Subgrade Preparation

Slabs-on-grade should be supported on engineered fill placed as described in Section 4.9 of this report. The slab subgrade, to a depth of 12 inches, should have a moisture content of at least optimum immediately prior to pouring the slab or placing a vapor retarding membrane.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 10 of 25 September 25, 2015

4.4.2 Capillary and Moisture/Vapor Break

Considering the depth to ground water soil types, and soil saturation levels, a capillary break (i.e. clean sand or gravel layer) is not necessary.

If the building contains components (flooring or equipment) which might be adversely affected by moisture or moisture vapor transmission through the floor slab, it is recommended that the slab subgrade be covered by a vapor retarding membrane such as polyolefin sheets having a minimum thickness of 15 mil. As an added precaution, consideration could be given to extending the vapor retarding membrane down along the interior side of the footings to provide a more complete barrier. The subgrade surface should be smooth and care should be exercised to avoid tearing, ripping, or otherwise puncturing the vapor retarding membrane. If the vapor retarding membrane becomes torn or disturbed, it should be removed and replaced or properly patched in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. It is recommended consideration be given to placing concrete directly on the vapor retarding membrane. If designers require a sand blatter layer over the vapor retarding membrane, the sand should be saturated surface dry (SSD). Concrete should not be placed if sand overlying the vapor barrier has been allowed to attain a moisture content greater than about 5% (due to precipitation or excessive moistening). Excessive water beneath interior floor slabs could result in future significant vapor transmission through the slab, adversely affecting any moisture-sensitive floor coverings and the indoor environment.

It should be noted that, although the slab support discussed above is currently the industry standard, this system might not be completely effective in preventing floor slab moisture vapor transmission problems. This system will not necessarily assure that floor slab moisture transmission rates will meet floor-covering manufacturer standards and that indoor humidity levels will not inhibit mold growth. A qualified specialist(s) with knowledge of slab moisture protection systems, flooring design and other potential components that may be influenced by moisture, should address these post-construction conditions separately. The purpose of a geotechnical study is to address subgrade conditions only, and consequently, it does not evaluate future potential conditions.

4.4.3 Conventional Slab Design

There are no geotechnical considerations (e.g. expansive soil), which would require special design of slabs. Therefore, the thickness and reinforcement of slabs-on-grade

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 11 of 25 September 25, 2015 should be determined by structural considerations and should be designed by the project structural engineer or building designer. A modulus of subgrade reaction, K1 (Bp = 1 foot), of 440 pci may be used for elastic analysis of slabs on properly compacted subgrade.

Slab concrete should have good density, a low water/cement ratio, and proper curing to promote a low porosity. It is recommended the water/cement ratio not exceed 0.45 to minimize vapor transfer.

4.5 PRELIMINARY SOIL CORROSIVITY

Kleinfelder performed soil corrosivity screening testing on one (1) sample obtained from the borings to aid in the evaluation of soil corrosivity with respect to concrete and ferrous metals. The preliminary corrosive screening laboratory test results for pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and soluble chloride and sulfate content are provided below in Table

4-6.

TABLE 4-6

SOIL CORROSION TEST SUMMARY

Boring No.

Depth (feet)

Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH Chloride Content (ppm)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

B-1 0 - 5 5090 5.92 8.3 11.5

For reference, Caltrans (2003) considers a site to be corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for the representative soil samples taken at the site: chloride concentration is 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater, sulfate concentration is 2000 ppm or greater, or the pH is 5.5 or less. According to the Portland Cement Association (1988), the potential for sulfate attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate contents in soil ranging from 0.00 to 0.10 percent by weight (0 to 1,000 ppm), and moderate for water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.10 to 0.20 percent by weight (1,000 to 2,000 ppm).

The potential for sulfate attack is considered severe for water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.20 to 2.00 percent by weight (2,000 to 20,000 ppm) and very severe for water-soluble sulfate contents over 2.00 percent by weight (greater than 20,000 ppm).

Based on the laboratory test results and considering the natural potential for variability of soil, standard cement (Type II/V) could be used for concrete in contact with soil and additional reinforcement cover could be needed.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 12 of 25 September 25, 2015

Based solely on soil resistivity, the site soil would be considered moderately corrosive to unprotected buried steel or iron. Kleinfelder does not practice corrosion engineering and the purpose of our corrosion tests is only to provide a preliminary screening. A qualified corrosion engineer should be contacted to for detailed evaluation of corrosion potential with respect to construction materials at this site and review the proposed design.

4.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN

The pavements for this project were designed in accordance with Unified Facilities

Criteria UFC 3-250-01FA, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open

Storage Areas, dated 16, January 2004. The anticipated vehicular traffic was not provided at the time of this report. Kleinfelder has assumed 50 trips per day of a 35,000-pound gross vehicle weight (GVW) truck with a product load of 65,000 to 67,000 pounds are anticipated.

UFC 3-250-01FA is based on maximum single axle loads of 18,000 pounds. However, the high percentage of trucks in the anticipated traffic results in a Traffic Category IVA in spite of the relatively low total traffic volume. Even when an approximate conversion to

18,000-pound maximum axle loads, using the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement

Structures 1993, is considered, the anticipated traffic still falls at the low end of the allowable traffic for a Street Classification D. Thus, a Pavement Design Index of 5 was used.

4.6.1 Flexible Pavement

For flexible pavement design, a subgrade CBR of 3 was selected. This is based on the results of the sampling and testing, information gathered from other investigations performed in the area, and is in keeping with Table 5-1 of UFC 3-250-01FA. Using Figure

8-1 of the procedure, a total pavement thickness of 25 inches was determined. Since the use of subbase is not anticipated, this is the total combined thickness of asphalt concrete and aggregate base. In accordance with Table 6-1 and Table 4-1 of the procedure, the recommended flexible pavement sections are provided below in Table 4-7. Note that

Kleinfelder recommends a minimum asphalt concrete lift thickness of three and one half

(3½) inches for purposes of constructability.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 13 of 25 September 25, 2015

TABLE 4-7

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION

Asphalt Concrete

Aggregate Base w/ CBR of 50

Compacted Subgrade(1)

3.5 inches 21.5 inches 12 inches

Notes:

1. Depth below finish subgrade, moisture conditioned to at least 3% above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95%, but not more than 100%, per ASTM D 698

Asphalt concrete shall comply with the requirements of UFC 3-250-03, Standard Practice

Manual for Flexible Pavements. Aggregate base shall comply with Chapter 6, Flexible

Pavement Base Courses, of UFC 3-250-01FA. As an alternative, aggregate may comply with Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base conforming to Section 26 of the Caltrans 2010

Standard Construction Specifications. As an alternative, the asphalt pavement may conform to ½-inch Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Type A or ¾-inch HMA Type A as defined in

Section 39 of the Caltrans 2010 Standard Construction Specifications.

4.7 EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES

The contractor should perform their own utility research to evaluate the presence of underground utilities. If underground utilities are encountered the contractor should identify precise locations of buried utilities, and take the necessary measures to protect or relocate utilities as appropriate prior to commencing construction.

Similarly, the contractor should select means and methods that do not result in damage to existing facilities.

4.8 RETAINING WALLS

The lateral earth pressure against retaining structures will be dependent upon the ability of the walls to deflect. Presented in Table 4-8 are the active, braced, and, at-rest lateral earth pressures for on-site soil used as wall backfill. Active and at-rest soil pressures distributions are upright triangular-shaped, and soil pressures for the braced condition are uniform rectangular-shaped. The active soil pressure is applicable to walls capable of

0.0005 radian deflection at the top of the wall. The at-rest pressure should be used for walls fully fixed against rotation or translation (e.g., the ring wall). Walls restrained from translation at the top and bottom, but able to deflect 0.0005 radian between restrained points (e.g., 0.03 inch deflection at the midpoint of a 10-foot high wall) should be designed

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 14 of 25 September 25, 2015 for the braced lateral pressure. The at-rest condition considers the normal Jaky solution plus consideration for built-in stress (over consolidation) due to backfill compaction.

These lateral earth pressures assume a drained backfill condition, and therefore do not include lateral pressure due to hydrostatic forces.

TABLE 4-8

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Condition Lateral Pressure

Active 36 psf/ft of depth

Braced 24H psf

At-rest 84 psf/ft of depth

Note: H is the height of the wall in feet

The lateral effect of a uniform surcharge above a wall backfill with on-site soil can be determined by multiplying the surcharge by 0.27.

4.9 SITE GRADING

Recommendations regarding any site grading are presented in subsequent sections of this report. It is anticipated any site grading required could be accomplished with conventional grading equipment and techniques.

Prior to commencement of grading operations, a meeting should be convened with the

Geotechnical Engineer, the contractor, and a representative of the owner present to formulate a program to search for the undocumented fill.

Recommendations regarding site grading are presented in subsequent sections of this report.

4.9.1 Relative Compaction Standard

Reference herein to maximum dry density is established in accordance with ASTM D698.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 15 of 25 September 25, 2015

4.9.2 Site Preparation

Prior to general site grading, man-made structures including buried pipes, utilities, etc., should be completely removed within the grading limits. Existing concrete and asphalt surfaces, existing vegetation, any organic top soil, and any debris should be stripped and disposed of outside the construction limits. Stripped topsoil (less any debris) may be stockpiled and reused for landscape purposes; however, this material should not be incorporated into any Engineered Fill.

Excavations for removal of any man-made items should be cleared of remaining loose soils, and backfilled with properly compacted Engineered Fill per Section 4.9.4.

4.9.3 Excavation Characteristics

Excavations in the existing alluvium can generally be accomplished with heavy-duty equipment in good operating condition. The groundwater table at the site is relatively deep (see Section 3.3). Excavation below the groundwater table is not anticipated.

However, excavations that do extend below ground water, adequate dewatering will likely be required. Kleinfelder should be contacted if additional recommendations are necessary.

4.9.4 Engineered Fill

Fill soils generated from the on-site materials for placement as compacted fill should be free of clay clods, organic materials, deleterious debris, and particles greater than 3 inches in diameter. It is recommended that Engineered Fill soil placed within the upper 3 feet of finished grade within the proposed improvement areas should consist of material similar to that which is on-site and have a maximum PI of 12 or less.

Soil placed as Engineered Fill should be moisture conditioned to at or above optimum moisture and be compacted to at least 90 percent, relative compaction in general accordance with ASTM D698, maximum dry density.

Although the optimum lift thickness for fill soils will be dependent on the type of compaction equipment used, fill should generally be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding approximately 8 inches in loose thickness.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 16 of 25 September 25, 2015

In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at or above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent, but not more than

100 percent, of the maximum laboratory dry density, as evaluated by ASTM D698.

4.9.5 Import Materials

Recommended requirements for any imported soil to be used as engineered fill, as well as applicable test procedures to verify material suitability, are provided on Table 4-9.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 17 of 25 September 25, 2015

TABLE 4-9

CRITERIA FOR IMPORTED FILL

Gradation Test Procedures

Sieve Size Percent Passing

ASTM1 Caltrans2

76 mm (3 inch) 100 C136 202

19 mm (¾ inch) 80 – 100 C136 202

No. 4 60 - 100 C136 202

No. 200 20 – 70 C136 202

Strength ɸ = 35

Plasticity Index

D3080

< 12 D4318 204

Soluble Sulfates

< 2000 ppm - 417

Soluble Chloride

< 300 ppm - 422

Resistivity

> 2000 ohm-cm - 532

Notes:

1 American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (latest edition) 2 State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Test Methods (latest edition)

Any imported materials to be used for engineered fill should be sampled and tested by a representative of the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to being transported to the site.

4.9.6 Construction Observation

It is recommended all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the suitability of the various soil types exposed during excavation for use as Engineered Fill. Also, all site preparation, placement of all

Engineered Fill and trench backfill, and construction of slab and pavement subgrades, should be observed and tested by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer. The

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 18 of 25 September 25, 2015 purpose of these services would be to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend any necessary appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.

Kleinfelder can serve as the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. If

Kleinfelder is not retained to serve as the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction and to provide the recommended services, Kleinfelder will cease to be the engineer of record for this project and will assume no responsibility for any potential claim during or after construction on this project.

4.10 UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS

4.10.1 General

All excavations should comply with applicable, local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. The information below is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. The contractor’s qualified “competent person” should evaluate all excavations at the site.

4.10.2 Temporary Trench Excavations

It is understood shallow trenches will be required for pipe construction. For preliminary planning purposes, it is recommended criteria for OSHA soil Type C be used for excavation. The contractor should be responsible for the structural design and on-site safety of the temporary shoring system. The designated “competent person” employed by the contractor should classify soil type during construction and perform regular inspections of all temporary excavations for stability.

Trenching below the groundwater table is not anticipated. Kleinfelder should be contacted for dewatering recommendations if trenching or other excavations below the groundwater table become necessary.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 19 of 25 September 25, 2015

4.10.3 Shoring

Where insufficient space is available to adequately layback construction slopes, shoring will be necessary. Table 4-10 presents recommended parameters for cantilevered or braced shoring supporting level ground.

TABLE 4-10

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SHORING

Condition

Active Pressure (psf/ft) 36

Braced Pressure (psf) 24H

Allowable Passive Pressure

Solid Sheeting (FS = 1.5) 395 psf/ft

Isolated Soldier Pile (FS = 1.5) 1270 psf/ft

Notes: 1. H is shored height in feet.

2. Values for isolated solder piles already include an increase for arching, no further consideration should be applied.

Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for the project (if any), should be designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of California.

4.10.4 Surcharge Loading

Heavy construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should be kept sufficiently away from the top of any excavation to prevent any unanticipated surcharging. As a general guideline, spoil piles or heavy equipment should be set back 0.75H from the top of shoring and 0.35H (minimum 5 feet) behind the top of unsupported excavation slopes, where H is the excavation depth in feet. If it becomes necessary to encroach within these general set backs, surcharging effects should be evaluated.

4.10.5 Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill

Backfill material specifications should also fulfill any required military requirements, if more stringent.

Trench backfill (i.e., material placed between the embedment zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of approved, onsite or import soils placed in loose lift thicknesses, consistent with compaction procedures, moisture conditioned to above optimum, and

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 20 of 25 September 25, 2015 compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D698. Trench backfill in pavement or structure areas should be moisture conditioned and compacted as required for pavement or structure subgrade. All utility trenches should be properly backfilled and mechanically compacted. Ponding or jetting should not be permitted.

4.11 PIPELINE DESIGN

4.11.1 Pipe Loading

Table 4-11 provides estimated geotechnical parameters for designers to consider in evaluating pipe zone backfill criteria (relative to ASTM D698) compatible with pipe types and deformation tolerances.

TABLE 4-11

E

Soil Stiffness Modulus (psi) Values Backfill Density (pcf)

Trench Sidewall

En

Class III Backfill Eb

85% Compaction

90% Compaction

95% Compaction

85% Compaction

90% Compaction

95% Compaction

3000 600 900 1350 126 134 141

En represents the modulus for the undisturbed natural soil and is based on relative density and data by Howard (1996). Eb is the modulus for backfill and is based on data by Hartley and Duncan (1987) and Watkins and Andersen (2000). The design E will be dependent upon the pipe diameter and trench width, which dictates the relative influence of En and Eb. Methods by Howard (1996) are suggested for evaluating the design E. In evaluating the maximum load (Wc) on pipes, a Kμ’ of 0.19 (K = 0.28 and μ’ = 0.67) can be used in determining the load coefficient Cd for backfill.

The net effective stress in foundation soil below installed pipes will be less than the pre-construction overburden. Consequently, no post-construction settlement of the foundation soil is anticipated.

4.11.2 Resistance to Longitudinal Loading

Loading along the axis of pressurized pipe may be resisted by friction along the pipe and lateral bearing of thrust blocks. Frictional resistance and lateral bearing may be used in combination.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 21 of 25 September 25, 2015

Frictional Resistance - Table 4-12 presents the allowable frictional resistance between the pipe and properly compacted pipe zone backfill consisting of Class III soils (ASTM D

2321). Data are presented for relatively rough (e.g., reinforced concrete, cement coated or corrugated) and relatively smooth (e.g., uncoated steel or smooth plastic) pipe under sustained longitudinal loading and test condition loading.

TABLE 4-12

ALLOWABLE FRICTIONAL COEFFICIENT

Pipe Type Sustained Loading Test Loading

Rough 0.41 0.49

Smooth 0.21 0.25

Allowable frictional resistance or bond stress between the pipe and Controlled Low

Strength Material fill (CLSM), which fully encases the pipe diameter, can usually be considered as 5% of the unconfined compressive strength of the CLSM.

Thrust Blocks - The sustained lateral load on deep thrust blocks (block height less than

70% of the depth to the pipe center) poured against undisturbed soil can be resisted by the allowable lateral pressure provided in Table 4-13.

TABLE 4-13

ALLOWABLE AVAILABLE LATERAL BEARING OF DEEP THRUST BLOCKS

Loading Allowable Available Lateral Bearing of Deep Thrust Blocks

Sustained 3000H psf

Test 4600H psf

Note: H is the height of the block in feet.

The sustained lateral load on shallow thrust blocks (block height greater than 70% of the depth to the pipe center) poured against undisturbed soil can be resisted by the allowable lateral pressure provided in Table 4-14.

TABLE 4-14

ALLOWABLE AVAILABLE LATERAL BEARING OF SHALLOW THRUST BLOCKS

Loading Allowable Available Lateral Bearing of Shallow Thrust Blocks

Sustained 395 psf/ft of depth

Test 530 psf/ft of depth

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 22 of 25 September 25, 2015

The lateral deformation associated with the available capacity of shallow thrust blocks is

0.005D for sustained loading and 0.007D for test loading, where D is the depth to the bottom of the thrust block. It is anticipated the lateral movement associated with the available lateral bearing of deep thrust blocks under sustained or test loading is about

0.25 inch per 1000 psf of loading.

4.12 DEWATERING

It is not expected excavations will extend below groundwater, and therefore dewatering is not anticipated for this project. Kleinfelder should be contacted for additional recommendations if dewatering becomes necessary.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 23 of 25 September 25, 2015

5 LIMITATIONS

This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. The conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data.

It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.

This report may be used only by the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report.

The work performed was based on project information provided by Austin Brockenbrough

& Associates (AB&A) and the Navy. If Kleinfelder is not retained to review plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, written approval from Kleinfelder that such changes do not affect our recommendations must be obtained. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder’s recommendations.

Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance.

Recommendations contained in this report are based on the field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil, or groundwater conditions could vary between or

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 24 of 25 September 25, 2015 beyond the points explored. If soil, or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, AB&A / NAVFAC are responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so recommendations of this report may be revaluated. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the estimated loads and locations of the improvements, changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by

Kleinfelder.

Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from

Kleinfelder, including site preparation, preparation of foundations, installation of piles, and placement of engineered fill and trench backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the actual soil, and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, Kleinfelder will cease to be the engineer of record for this project and will assume no responsibility for any potential claim during or after construction on this project. If changed site conditions affect the recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must also be retained to perform a supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to the original report.

Kleinfelder's services did not include evaluation of hazardous materials. Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury that results from pre-existing hazardous materials being encountered or present on the project site, or from the discovery of such hazardous materials. Nothing contained in this report should be construed or interpreted as requiring Kleinfelder to assume the status of an owner, operator, or generator, or person who arranges for disposal, transport, storage or treatment of hazardous materials within the meaning of any governmental statute, regulation or order. NAVFAC is solely responsible for directing notification of all governmental agencies, and the public at large, of the existence, release, treatment or disposal of any hazardous materials observed at the project site, either before or during performance of Kleinfelder's services. NAVFAC is responsible for directing all arrangements to lawfully store, treat, recycle, dispose, or otherwise handle hazardous materials, including cuttings and samples resulting from Kleinfelder's services.

20162168/MER15R27276 Page 25 of 25 September 25, 2015

6 REFERENCES

California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Central Coast Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-03.

Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. (1997), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, 1997 revised edition, 38p.

Jennings C.W. and Bryant, W.A. (compilation 2010), Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, 1:750,000.

Matthews, R.A. and Burnett, J.L. (1965), Geologic Map of California, Fresno 2o Sheet: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1:250,000.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC 2004). “Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)

3-250-01FA, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas,” January 16, 2004.

Peterson, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, N., Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update for the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open File Report 2008-1128.

Howard, A.K. 1996. Pipeline Installation. Lakewood, Colo.: Relativity Publishing

Hartley, J.P., and J.M. Duncan, 1987, E’ and Its Variations with Depth. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE 113(5):538-553

Watkins, R.K. and L.R. Andersen. 2000. Structural Mechanics of Buried Pipes. New York:

CRC Press

FIGURES

SITE VICINITY MAP

DESC 1511

REPLACE JET FUEL COMPLEX

FRESNO-YOSEMITE IAP ANG

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

20162168

09/2015

DMF

MB

20162168_F1.mxd

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society£ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet References:

US Topo Maps, ArcOnline data, ESRI

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE

www.kleinfelder.com

SITE

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B1 B2

E. McKINLEY AVE.

80 8040

APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)

A T

T A

C H

E D

X

R E

F S

A T

T A

C H

I M

A G

E S

I m a g e s

F

R E

S N

O I A

P

A E

R I A

L J P

G

FILE NAME:

20162168_F2.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

C A

D

F

I L

L

C

A D

D

L

A Y

O U

T

P L

O T

T E

S e p p m d f a h r n e y www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

R I V

E R

S I D

E

C

A

DESC 1511

REPLACE JET FUEL COMPLEX

FRESNO-YOSEMITE IAP ANG

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

FIGURE

2DMF

MB

09/2015

20162168

SITE PLAN

SOURCE: U.S.G.S., The National Map Viewer, 2012.

EXPLANATION

APPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATIONB7

APPENDIX A

Field Exploration and Log of Test Borings

FIGURE

A-1DESC 1511

Replace Jet Fuel Complex

Fresno-Yosemite IAP ANG, Fresno, California

KLEINFELDER - | | PH: |

The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.

Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at…