GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT PLEASANT

ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOTECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND ANALYTICAL TESTING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT

PLEASANT AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS

TULARE, CALIFORNIA

BSK PROJECT G18-202-11F

PREPARED FOR:

PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

286 CROMWELL AVENUE

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711

FEBRUARY 3, 2021

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT

PLEASANT AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS

TULARE, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

286 W. Cromwell Avenue

Fresno, California 93711-6162

BSK Project: G18-202-11F

February 3, 2021

Prepared by:

______________________________________

Neva M. Popenoe, PE, GE

Geotechnical Group Manager

______________________________________

On Man Lau, PE, GE

South Valley Regional Manager

BSK Associates

550 West Locust Avenue

Fresno, California 93650

(559) 497-2880

(559) 497-2886 FAX

Distribution: Client (Email: [email protected])

Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report BSK Project G18-202-11F Pleasant Avenue Improvements February 3, 2021 Tulare, California P a g e | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Purpose and Scope of Services ................................................................................................. 1

2. Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 1

2.1. Field Exploration ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................... 2

3. Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Site Description and Surface Conditions ................................................................................... 2

3.2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................................................. 2

3.3 Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................................................... 3

4. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Soil Corrosivity ......................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Excavation Stability .................................................................................................................. 4

4.3 Temporary Shoring ................................................................................................................... 4

4.4 Trench Backfill and Compaction ............................................................................................... 5

4.5 Bedding and Pipe Envelope ...................................................................................................... 5

4.6 Modulus of Soil Reaction E´ ...................................................................................................... 6

4.7 Pipe Loading Design Factors ..................................................................................................... 6

4.8 Conventional Pavement Section Recommendations ................................................................. 7

4.9 Soil Cement Pavement Section Recommendations ................................................................... 7

5. Plans and Specifications Review ....................................................................................................... 8

6. Construction Testing and Observations ............................................................................................ 8

7. Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report BSK Project G18-202-11F Pleasant Avenue Improvements February 3, 2021 Tulare, California P a g e | ii

Tables

Table 1: Boring Summaries

Table 2: Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring

Table 3: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (E’)

Table 4: Pipe Loading Design Factors

Table 5: Conventional Pavement Section Recommendations

Table 6: Soil Cement Pavement Section Recommendations

Appendices

Figures

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Overall Site Map

Figure 3: Boring Location Maps

Appendix A: Field Exploration

Table A-1: Consistency of Coarse-Grained Soil by Sampler Blow Count

Table A-2: Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil by Sampler Blow Count

Boring Logs: Borings B-1 through B-10

Appendix B: Laboratory Testing

Table B-1: Summary of Corrosion Test Results

Table B-2: Summary of Minus #200 Fines Wash Test Results

Figures B-1 through B-3: Direct Shear Test Results

Figures B-4 through B-9: Resistance-Value Test Results

Figures B-10: Laboratory Compaction Curve

Figure B-11: Cement Treated Soil Test Results

Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report BSK Project G18-202-11F Pleasant Avenue Improvements February 3, 2021 Tulare, California P a g e | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation conducted by BSK Associates

(BSK), for the Pleasant Avenue Improvements in Tulare, California (Site). The site is located along Pleasant

Avenue between Road 84 (North Enterprise) and North H Streets, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map,

Figure 1. The geotechnical engineering investigation was conducted in accordance with BSK Proposal

GF18-16938, dated June 8, 2018.

This report provides a description of the geotechnical conditions at the Site and provides specific

recommendations for earthwork and flexible pavement design recommendations. In the event that

changes occur in the design of the project, this report’s conclusions and recommendations will not be

considered valid unless the changes are reviewed with BSK and the conclusions and recommendations

are modified or verified in writing.

1.1. Planned Construction

BSK understands that the project will include installation of water mains, sewer line, storm drain

replacements, and pavement rehabilitation with full-depth reclamation (FDR). The limits of

improvements on Pleasant Avenue consist of Enterprise Street to H Street will include a full depth

reclamation using cement. Details of the proposed pipeline invert depths were not available at the time

this report was prepared, as such, we assume pipeline invert depths at less than 10 feet below ground

surface (bgs).

1.2. Purpose and Scope of Services

The objective of this geotechnical investigation was to characterize the subsurface conditions at the

project site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the preparation of plans and

specifications. The scope of the investigation included a field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering

analyses, and preparation of this report.

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1. Field Exploration

The field exploration for this investigation was conducted under the oversight of a BSK engineer. Ten (10)

borings were drilled at the Site on August 16 and 17, 2018 using a Mobile B-61 truck-mounted drill-rig.

The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 16.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).

The soil materials encountered in the borings were visually classified in the field, and the logs were

recorded during the drilling and sampling operations. Visual classifications of the materials encountered

in the borings were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488).

A soil classification chart is presented in Appendix A.


Boring logs are presented in Appendix A and should be consulted for more details concerning subsurface

conditions. Stratification lines were approximated by the field staff based on observations made at the

time of drilling, while the actual boundaries between soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may

vary at other locations.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate moisture content, dry density, shear

strength, maximum density optimum moisture relationship (compaction), sieve analysis, corrosion

characteristics (pH, Minimum Resistivity, Soluble Sulfates, and Soluble Chlorides), resistance-value (R-

value), and cement treated subgrade design. In-situ moisture, dry density, percent minus 200 sieve, and

direct shear test results are presented on the boring logs. A description of the laboratory test methods

and results are presented in Appendix B.

3. SITE CONDITIONS

The following sections address the site descriptions and surface conditions, subsurface conditions, and

groundwater conditions at the site. This information is based on BSK’s field exploration and published

maps and reports.

3.1 Site Description and Surface Conditions

The project is located along Pleasant Street between North Enterprise and North H Streets and includes

the asphalt pavement. The topography is generally featureless, and includes asphalt paved 2 lane

roadway with unpaved shoulders between Enterprise and Cromley and between Anderson Avenue and

Alpha Street, and curb and gutter in remaining portions of the alignment.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The predominant general soil profile for the upper 4 to 9 feet consists of silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy

clay, and silt underlaid by laterally discontinuous layers of silty sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and poorly

graded sand to the maximum depth of explanation, 16.5 feet bgs. Coarse grained soils were loose to

medium dense, fine grained soils were medium stiff to stiff. The sand deposits are expected to present

vulnerability to sloughing when exposed in trenches.

Borings were drilled through existing pavement. Pavement section thickness was measured and is

presented in Table 1. R-value testing was completed for various near surface (0 to 5 feet bgs) samples.

Results are also presented in Table 1.


TABLE 1: Boring Summaries

Boring AC Thickness

(inches) AB Thickness

(inches) R-Value

B-1 3 ¼ - 20

B-2 3 ¼ 6 47

B-3 8 4 -

B-4 3 ½ 8 35

B-5 4 - -

B-6 3 6 28

B-7 3 4 ½ 23

B-8 3 - -

B-9 2 - -

B-10 1 ¾ - 51

The boring logs in Appendix A provide a more detailed description of the materials encountered, including

the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbols.

3.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered at the Site during our exploration on August 16 to 17, 2018. The

California Department of Water Resources indicates the depth to groundwater exceeds 100 feet.

However, fluctuations in the groundwater level or the presence of perched groundwater may occur due

to variations in rainfall, irrigation, seasonal factors, pumping from wells and other factors that were not

evident at the time of our investigation

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint,

it is our opinion that the soil conditions would not preclude the construction of the proposed

improvements. However, the contractor should anticipate caving sand conditions. The contractor should

be advised of this situation and plan accordingly.

4.1 Soil Corrosivity

Based on test results, on-site near-surface soils have low soluble sulfate and chloride contents, a low to

moderate minimum resistivity, and are alkaline. Thus, on-site soils are considered to have a low corrosion

potential with respect to buried concrete and low to moderate corrosive potential with respect to

unprotected metal in contact with subgrade soils. It is recommended that Type I/Type II cement and

maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 be used in the formulation of concrete. Buried reinforcing steel


protection be provided with the minimum concrete cover required by the American Concrete Institute

(ACI) Building Code for Structural Concrete, ACI 318, Chapter 7.7. Buried metal must have protective

coatings in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. If detailed recommendations for corrosion

protection are desired, a corrosion specialist should be consulted.

4.2 Excavation Stability

Open Trench excavation depths are expected to be less than 10 feet. Soils encountered within the depth

explored are generally classified as Type C soils in accordance with OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health

Administration). The slopes surrounding or along temporary excavations may be 1.5:1 for excavations

that are less than five feet deep and exhibit no indication of potential caving, but should be no steeper

than 2H:1V for excavations that are deeper than five feet, up to a maximum depth of 15 feet. The

presence of sand layers with minimal to low fines content was observed in borings B-4 and B-10 (near

North H Street respectively). The sand layer ranges from about 4 to 8 feet bgs. If areas of sand layers are

encountered in this location or along the alignment, slopes should be laid back.

Certified trench shields or boxes may also be used to protect workers during construction in excavations.

Temporary excavations for the project construction should be left open for as short a time as possible and

should be protected from water runoff. In addition, equipment and/or soil stockpiles must be maintained

at least 10 feet away from the top of the excavations. Because of variability in soils, BSK must be afforded

the opportunity to observe and document sloping and shoring conditions at the time of construction.

Slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) must in no

case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations, (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety

Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations).

4.3 Temporary Shoring

Where there is insufficient space to layback slopes, temporary shoring will be necessary. Lateral earth

pressures for cantilevered or braced shoring supporting level ground are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring

Parameter Pressure

Active Pressure 35 psf/ft

Braced Pressure 26H psf

Allowable Passive Pressure

Solid Sheeting 290 psf/ft

Isolated Soldier Pile 560 psf/ft

Notes: 1. H is shored height in feet

2. Values for isolated soldier piles already include an increase for arching, no further

consideration should be applied.


In areas where the stability of adjoining improvements could be compromised by excavation operations,

support systems such as shoring, bracing or underpinning may be required to provide stability and to

protect personnel working within the excavation. Shoring, bracing or underpinning required for the

project (if any), should be designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of California.

4.4 Trench Backfill and Compaction

Processed on-Site soils, which are free of organic material, are suitable for use as general trench backfill

above the pipe envelope. Native soil with particles less than three inches in the greatest dimension may

be incorporated into the backfill and compacted as specified. The backfill must be placed in thin layers

not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness, be well-blended and consistent texture, moisture conditioned

to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density

as determined by the ASTM D1557. The uppermost 12 inches of trench backfill below pavement sections

must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.

Moisture content within two percent of optimum must be maintained while compacting this upper 12-

inch trench backfill zone.

We recommend that trench backfill be tested for compliance with the recommended Relative Compaction

and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Test Methods D1556 or D6938.

We recommend that field density tests be performed in the utility trench bedding, envelope and backfill

for every vertical lift, at an approximate longitudinal spacing of not greater than 250 feet. Backfill that

does not conform to the criteria specified in this section should be removed or reworked, as applicable

over the trench length represented by the failing test so as to conform to BSK recommendations.

4.5 Bedding and Pipe Envelope

A minimum of six inches of bedding material is recommended for rigid and force main pipe installations.

For pipe diameters smaller than 12-inches, the bedding thickness may be reduced to 4-inches. In the case

of flexible pipe installation, the bedding thickness should be determined by the pipe designers to achieve

the desired bedding angle and corresponding Bedding Constant. It is recommended that the bedding

material consist of sand or silty sand with 100 percent passing the 3/8-inch sieve and not more than 35

percent passing the #200 sieve with less than 5 percent finer than 0.005 millimeter (clay-size particles.)

The bedding material should be carefully placed so as to fully support the entire conduit. An envelope of

granular backfill material should be placed along the sides and top of the pipe to a minimum of 12 inches

above the crown of the pipe.


4.6 Modulus of Soil Reaction E´

Modulus of Soil Reaction E´ values for use in the Iowa Formula for estimating the deflection of buried

flexible pipes are provided in Table 3. The materials include undisturbed native soils (trench sidewalls),

compacted native soil backfill, Class 2 base rock conforming to Caltrans Section 26 of Standard

Specifications and sand-cement slurry (50 psi at 7 days).

TABLE 3

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (E´)

Material Designation Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction (E´), psi

Degree of Compaction of Bedding & Envelope

(ASTM: D1557)

Trench Sidewalls: 6'-12' (SM/CL)* 1500 -

Compacted Native Soil Backfill 1000 90 percent

Class 2 Base Rock: 3400 95 percent

Sand-Cement Slurry 4000 -- Note: * Derived from standard penetration tests SM: Silty Sand, CL: Sandy Clay

The Modulus of Subgrade Reaction is applicable to the determination of initial deflection only. For long-

term deflection, a deflection lag factor of 1.25 is recommended for design purposes.

4.7 Pipe Loading Design Factors

Pipe loading design factors listed in Table 4 are provided for bedding material consisting of:

1) Native and imported sand or silty sand soil with less than 35 percent passing the #200 sieve and

100 percent passing the 3/8-inch sieve (SP/SM);

2) Class 2 crushed base rock conforming to Caltrans Section 26 of standard specifications;

3) Sand-cement slurry with 28-day compressive strength of 50-200 psi.

TABLE 4

Pipe Loading Design Factors

Materials Classification Angle of Internal Friction, Degrees

Kµ (Marston’s Formula) Degree of

Compaction ASTM: D1557

(1) SM/CL 32 0.19 90

(2) Class 2 Aggregate Base 45 0.17 95

(3) Cement/Sand Slurry (CLSM) 55 0.14 --

A bulk unit weight of 130 pcf is recommended for compacted soil backfill within the pipe bedding and

envelope. For Class 2 aggregate base, a unit weight of 140 pcf is recommended.


In the determination of the load coefficient, Kµ, “K” is Rankine’s lateral earth pressure ratio and µ is equal

to the coefficient of friction.

4.8 Conventional Pavement Section Recommendations BSK calculated the conventional pavement section thicknesses using a design subgrade R-Value of 20 and

Traffic Indexes of 6.5. BSK has presented a summary of its pavement section thickness recommendations

in Table 5, Conventional Pavement Section Recommendations.

TABLE 5

Conventional Pavement Section Recommendations

(R-Value = 20, 20-yr design life)

Traffic Index

Conventional Section

HMA (inches)

AB (inches)

ASB (Inches)

Crushed Misc Base (inches)

6.5

3.5 11.0 - -

4.0 8.5 - -

3.5 4.5 7.5 -

6.5 - - 5.5

9.5 6.0 16.5 - -

6.0 6.5 11.0 -

Notes: HMA: Hot Mix Asphalt AB: Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base (Minimum R-Value = 78) ASB: Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Minimum R-Value = 50)

Hot mix asphalt, Class 2 aggregate base, and Class 2 aggregate subbase should conform to and be placed

in accordance with the latest revision of Caltrans Standard Specifications. It is recommended subgrade be

scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95% maximum density,

based on ASTM D1557 prior to placing new aggregate base/subbase section.

4.9 Soil Cement Pavement Section Recommendations

Based on laboratory testing, 4% cement additive would result in cement treated subgrade strengths of

greater than 350 psi. Results of the preliminary mix design are provided in Appendix B. BSK recommends

using soil-cement with a cement content of 4%. BSK calculated the pavement section thicknesses using a

compressive strength of 350 psi, a design subgrade R-Value of 20 and Traffic Indexes of 6.5 and 9.5. BSK

has presented a summary of its pavement section thickness recommendations in Tables 6, Soil Cement

Pavement Section Recommendations.


TABLE 6

Soil Cement Pavement Section Recommendations

(Cement Content = 4%, Unconfined Compressive Strength = 350 psi, R-Value = 20, 20-yr design life)

Traffic Index

FDR-C Section

HMA (inches)

AB (inches)

Soil-Cement Thickness (inches)

6.5 3.5 4 12

3.5 - 12

9.5 6.0 6.0 12

6.0 - 15

Notes: HMA: Hot Mix Asphalt AB: Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base (Minimum R-Value = 78) FDR-C: Full-depth reclamation with 4% cement to a depth of 12 inches

Hot mix asphalt should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of Caltrans Standard Specifications. BSK recommends after any asphalt removal and grading, uniformly mix remaining material with 4% cement, moisture condition to 4% above optimum moisture content, and compact it to 95% relative compaction by ASTM D1557. Specifications can be provided for use in construction, if desired. If unstable soil conditions occur during construction, BSK recommends replacing unstable material with a minimum of two feet of Class II aggregate base or 18 inches of soil cement. The aggregate base should be compacted to 95% relative compaction, and soil cement should follow recommendations above.

5. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

BSK recommends that it be retained to review the draft plans and specifications for the project, with

regard to foundations and earthwork, prior to their being finalized and issued for construction bidding.

6. CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND OBSERVATIONS

Geotechnical testing and observation during construction is a vital extension of this geotechnical

investigation. BSK recommends that it be retained for those services. Field review during Site preparation

and grading allows for evaluation of the exposed soil conditions and confirmation or revision of the

assumptions and extrapolations made in formulating the design parameters and recommendations. BSK’s

observations must be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance

with these recommendations. BSK must also be called to the Site to observe excavations, prior to

placement of pavement, in order to assess whether the actual conditions are compatible with the

conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.


If a firm other than BSK is retained for these services during construction, then that firm must notify the

owner, project designers, governmental building officials, and BSK that the firm has assumed the

responsibility for all phases (i.e., both design and construction) of the project within the purview of the

geotechnical engineer. Notification must indicate that the firm has reviewed this report and any

subsequent addenda, and that it either agrees with BSK’s conclusions and recommendations, or that it

will provide independent recommendations.

7. LIMITATIONS

The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the

Borings performed at the locations shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 3. The report does not

reflect variations which may occur between or beyond the Borings. The nature and extent of such

variations may not become evident until construction is initiated. If variations then appear, a re-

evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-Site observations

during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of the variations.

The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing

and observation program during the construction phase. BSK assumes no responsibility for construction

compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless it has been retained to perform the

testing and observation services during construction as described above.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present. However, changes in the conditions of the Site can

occur with the passage of time, whether caused by natural processes or the work of man, on this property

or adjacent property. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether

they result from legislation, governmental policy or the broadening of knowledge.

BSK has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Client and members of the project design team.

The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices

which existed in Tulare County at the time the report was written. No other warranties either expressed

or implied are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of BSK’s agreement with Client

and included in this report.

FIGURES

SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1

0 0.5 1.0

Scale: 1" = 1.0 mile(APPROXIMATE)

550 West Locust AvenueFresno, California 93650

Tel. (559) 497-2880

Pleasant Street ImprovementsBtwn Enterprise and H Streets

Tulare, California

SITE

BORING LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2

550 West Locust Avenue

Fresno, California 93650

Tel. (559) 497-2880

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

B- 1

0 100' 200'

Scale: 1" = 200'

(APPROXIMATE)

Pleasant Street Improvements

Tulare, California

Rd

84

E Prospertity Ave

N J

St

N W

es

t S

t

N S

ac

ram

en

to S

t

N E

St

Figure 3 - 1 of 4

Figure 3 - 2 of 4

Figure 3 - 3 of 4 Figure 3 - 4 of 4



Tel. (559) 497-2880

LEGEND:APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

B- 1

0 100' 200'

Scale: 1" = 200'(APPROXIMATE)


Tulare, California

Rd

84

B-1W Pleasant Ave

Cro

mle

yR

d



Tel. (559) 497-2880


B- 4

0 100' 200'



Tulare, California

LaD

awna

St

B-2 W Pleasant Ave

NM

in erS t

B-3 B-4



Tel. (559) 497-2880


B- 7

0 100' 200'



Tulare, California

NW

estSt

B-5W Pleasant Ave

Belm

ontSt

B-6 B-7



Tel. (559) 497-2880


B- 10

0 100' 200'



Tulare, California

NA

St

B-8 W Pleasant AveN

FS t

B-9 B-10

NE

St

NE

St

NF

St

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration for this investigation was conducted under the oversight of a BSK staff member. Ten

(10) borings were drilled at the Site on August 16 and 17, 2018 using a Mobile B-61 truck-mounted drill

rig. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 16.5 feet beneath the existing ground surface (bgs).

The soil materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and the logs were

recorded during the drilling and sampling operations. Visual classification of the materials encountered

in the test borings was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM

D2488). A soil classification chart is presented herein. Boring logs are presented herein and should be

consulted for more details concerning subsurface conditions. Stratification lines were approximated by

the field staff based on observations made at the time of drilling, while the actual boundaries between

soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary at other locations.

Subsurface samples were obtained at the successive depths shown on the boring logs by driving samplers

which consisted of a 2.5-inch inside diameter (I.D.) California Sampler. The sampler was driven 18 inches

using a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches by means of either an automatic hammer

or a down-hole safety hammer. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches was recorded

as the blow count (blows/foot) on the boring logs. The relatively undisturbed soil core samples were

capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content. At the completion of the

field exploration, the test borings were backfilled with the excavated soil cuttings and capped with

coldpatch asphalt mix.

It should be noted that the use of terms such as “loose”, “medium dense”, “dense” or “very dense” to

describe the consistency of a soil is based on sampler blow count and is not necessarily reflective of the

in-place density or unit weight of the soils being sampled. The relationship between sampler blow count

and consistency is provided in the following Tables A-1 and A-2 for coarse-grained (sandy and gravelly)

soils and fine grained (silty and clayey) soils, respectively.

Table A-1: Consistency of Coarse-Grained Soil by Sampler Blow Count

Consistency Descriptor SPT Blow Count

(#Blows / Foot)

2.5” I.D. California Sampler Blow

Count (#Blows / Foot)

Very Loose <4 <6

Loose 4 – 10 6 – 15

Medium Dense 10 – 30 15 – 45

Dense 30 – 50 45 – 80

Very Dense >50 >80

Table A-2: Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil by Sampler Blow Count

Consistency Descriptor SPT Blow Count

(#Blows / Foot)

2.5” I.D. California Sampler Blow

Count (#Blows / Foot)

Very Soft <2 <3

Soft 2 – 4 3 – 6

Medium Firm 4 – 8 6 – 12

Firm 8 – 15 12 – 24

Very Firm 15 – 30 24 – 45

Hard >30 >45

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

SANDS WITH

OVER 15% FINES

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

Mor

e th

an H

alf <

#20

0 si

eve

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

CL

OL

MH

MAJOR DIVISIONS

R-Value

Sieve Analysis

Swell Test

Cyclic Triaxial

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

Torvane Shear

Unconfined Compression

(Shear Strength, ksf)

Wash Analysis

(with % Passing No. 200 Sieve)

Water Level at Time of Drilling

Water Level after Drilling(with date measured)

RV

SA

SW

TC

TX

TV

UC

(1.2)

WA

(20)

TYPICAL NAMES

GRAVELS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS

CH

OH

Pt

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

Mor

e th

an H

alf >

#20

0 si

eve

LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

CLEAN GRAVELS

WITH LITTLE OR

NO FINES

GRAVELS WITH

OVER 15% FINES

CLEAN SANDS

WITH LITTLE

OR NO FINESMORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS SMALLER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS LARGER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINESANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS

ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY

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

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITHSLIGHT PLASTICITY

CA

CN

CP

DS

PM

PP

CLAYEY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURES

SANDS

SILTS AND CLAYS

SILTS AND CLAYS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

SILTY SANDS, POOORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

Modified California

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Split Spoon

Pushed Shelby Tube

Auger Cuttings

Grab Sample

Sample Attempt with No Recovery

Chemical Analysis

Consolidation

Compaction

Direct Shear

Permeability

Pocket Penetrometer

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND LOG KEY

LGD

A N

NN

N02

TE

ST

.GP

J

5/10

/18

ø = 32, c = 60 psf

ASPHALT (3.25")Sandy SILT - brown, moist, medium stiff, fine grainedsand

... medium stiff

Clayey SAND - brown, moist, loose, fine to mediumgrained

Poorly Graded SAND - light brown, moist, mediumdense, fine to medium grained

... loose

Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet bgs.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings.No groundwater encountered.

11.2

4.8

105.9

102.4

9

7

16

8

ML

SC

SP

Project: Pleasant St. Improvements

Location: Tulare, California

Project No.: G18-202-11F

Logged By: J. Schallberger

Checked By: N. Popenoe

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS

BSK Associates550 W. Locust AvenueFresno, California 93650Telephone: (559) 497-2880

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring: B- 1In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18

* See key sheet for symbols and abbreviations used above.

Drilling Contractor: Dave's DrillingDrilling Method: Hollow Stem AugerDrilling Equipment: Mobile B-61Date Started: 8/16/18Date Completed: 8/16/18

Surface Elevation: Sample Method: 2.5-inch Modified Cal & 1.5-inch I.D. SPT Split SpoonGroundwater Depth: Not EncounteredCompletion Depth: 16.5 FeetBorehole Diameter: 6"

ASPHALT (3.25")AGGREGATE BASE 6"SIlty SAND - brown, moist, medium dense, fine tocoarse grained

Clayey SAND - brown, moist, medium dense, fine tomedium grained

Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand

Silty SAND - brown, moist, medium dense, fine tocoarse grained

Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet bgs.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings, and capped withperma patch.No groundwater encountered.

6.9

13.8

118.6

113.1

38

16

8

17

SM

SC

CL

SM





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 2In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (8")AGGREGATE BASE (4")Silty SAND - brown, moist, very loose, fine to mediumgrained

... trace clay


Silty SAND - brown, moist, loose, fine to mediumgrained


6.1

15.9

100.8

114.6

5

7

13

6

41

SM

CL

SM





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 3In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ø = 33, c = 100 psf

ASPHALT (3.5")AGGREGATE BASE (8")Silty SAND - brown, moist, loose, fine to coarsegrained

... very loose, decrease fines content

Poorly Graded SAND - light brown, moist, loose, fineto medium grained

Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, medium dense, finegrained sand


0.9

13.4

25.5

119.9

93.5

98.6

14

3

7

8

29

SM

SP

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 4In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (4")Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand

... medium stiff


Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, medium stiff, fine grainedsand

... stiff

Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet bgs.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings.No groundwater encountered.

17.6

17.7

101.4

101.9

12

7

9

12

CL

SP

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 5In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (3")AGGREGATE BASE (6")Silty SAND - brown, moist, medium dense, fine tomedium grained


... increase sand content, fine to medium grained


11.6

9.2

13.4

110.3

112.0

108.4

31

18

13

18

SM

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 6In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ø = 29, c = 40 psf

ASPHALT (3")AGGREGATE BASE (4.5")Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand


Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, stiff, fine to mediumgrained

... dark brown

... brown


14.3

28.9

111.9

93.7

13

7

12

11

CL

SM

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 7In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (3")Silty SAND - dark brown, moist, loose, fine to mediumgrained

Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, medium stiff, fine grainedsand

... stiff, pinholes

... medium stiff


10.9

15.7

16.2

105.9

107.4

106.8

11

11

10

11

30

SM

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 8In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (2")Silty SAND - brown, moist, loose, fine to mediumgrained

Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, medium stiff, fine tomedium grained sand

... stiff, fine grained sand


8.6

23.9

102.0

101.9

7

5

15

10

24

SM

CL





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B- 9In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




ASPHALT (1.75")Clayey SAND - brown, moist, loose, fine to mediumgrained


Sandy CLAY - brown, moist, sitff, fine grained sand


Sandy SILT - greenish brown, moist, medium stiff, finegrained sandBoring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet bgs.Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings, and capped withperma patch.No groundwater encountered.

10.8

2.7

103.2

99.9

8

10

11

11

SC

SP

CL

SM

ML





Checked By: H. Ngo

Page 1 of 1S

ampl

es

Gra

phic

Log

Dep

th (

Fee

t)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Bul

k S

ampl

es

REMARKS



Boring: B-10In

-Situ

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt(%

)

In-S

itu D

ry D

ensi

ty(p

cf)

Pen

etra

tion

Blo

ws

/ F

oot

% P

assi

ngN

o. 2

00 S

ieve

US

CS

GE

O B

OR

ING

LO

GS

G18

-202

-11F

.GP

J B

SK

.GD

T 9

/14/

18




APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

Moisture-Density Tests

The field moisture content, as a percentage of dry weight of the soils, was determined by weighing the

samples before and after oven drying in accordance with ASTM D2216 test procedures. Dry densities, in

pounds per cubic foot, were also determined for undisturbed core samples in general accordance with

ASTM D2937 test procedures. Test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Minus #200 Wash Tests

Four (4) Minus #200 Wash Tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained at the time of drilling

in the area of planned construction. The tests were performed to determine the amount of fine material

present in the subsurface materials. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test

Method D1140. Test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Direct Shear Test

Three (3) Direct Shear Tests were performed on in-situ soil samples from selected Borings. The tests were

conducted to determine the soil strength characteristics. The standard test method is ASTM D3080, Direct

Shear Test for Soil under Consolidated Drained Conditions. The direct shear test results are presented

graphically on Figures B-1 through B-3.

R-Value Test

The Resistance-Value of six (6) samples of the surficial soil were tested in accordance with California

Department of Transportation’s Test Method CT 301. The results of the R-Value tests are presented on

Figures B-4 through Figures B-9.

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content

A Modified proctor test was performed to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture

content of a selected soil sample. The sample was compacted under a standardized compaction effort at

varying moisture contents in general accordance with ASTM D1557. The results are presented on Figure

B-10.

Cement Treated Soil

A sample was mixed with various percentages of cement, compacted to 95% of maximum dry density,

oven cured for 7 days, and unconfined compression tested in general accordance with Caltrans Test

Method 373. The results are presented on Figure B-11.

Soil Corrosivity

Three (3) Corrosivity Evaluations were performed on bulk soil samples obtained at the time of drilling in

the area of planned construction. The soil was evaluated for pH and minimum resistivity (CT 643), sulfate

ion concentration (CT 417), and chloride ion concentration (CT 422). The test results are presented in

Table B-1.

Table B-1: Summary of Corrosion Test Results

Sample Location pH Sulfate, ppm Chloride, ppm Minimum Resistivity, ohm-cm

B-1 @ 0-5 feet bgs 8.4 33 Not Detected 2,700



550 W. Locust

Fresno, CA 93650

Ph: (559) 497-2880

Fax: (559) 497-2886

Project Name: Sample Date: 8/16/2018

Test Date: 8/22/2018

Project Number: Lab Tracking ID: Report Date: 9/6/2018

Sample Location: B-1 @ 3' Sandy SILT (ML), brown, moist, fine grained sand

Pleasant Avenue Improvement

Sample Description:

Direct Shear Test

ASTM D-3080

Sampled By:

Tested By:

G18-202-11F F18-675

D.M.

J.S.

Figure B-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

KS

F)

NORMAL STRESS (KSF)

SHEAR STRENGTH DIAGRAM

DRY DENSITY: 105.9 pcf

MOISTURE CONTENT: 11.2 %

INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, f = 32o

COHESION, c = 0.06 ksf

32o

550 W. Locust

Fresno, CA 93650

Ph: (559) 497-2880

Fax: (559) 497-2886




Sample Location: B-4 @ 2' Silty SAND (SM), brown, moist, fine to coarse grained

Pleasant Street Improvement

Sample Description:

Direct Shear Test

ASTM D-3080

Sampled By:

Tested By:

G18-202-11F F18-675

D.M.

J.S.

Figure B-2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

KS

F)

NORMAL STRESS (KSF)






33o

550 W. Locust

Fresno, CA 93650

Ph: (559) 497-2880

Fax: (559) 497-2886




Sample Location: B-7 @ 3' Sandy CLAY (CL), brown, moist, fine grained sand


Sample Description:

Direct Shear Test

ASTM D-3080

Sampled By:

Tested By:

G18-202-11F F18-675

D.M.

J.S.

Figure B-3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

KS

F)

NORMAL STRESS (KSF)






29o

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152

Sample Date: 8/16/2018

Sample By: JS


Report Date: 8/24/2018

Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C

EXUDATION PRESSURE, LOAD (lb) 7284 4673 1637

EXUDATION PRESSURE, PSI 580 372 130

EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0.0012 0.0015 0.0019

EXPANSION PRESSURE, PSF 0 0 0

Enter value of "T" from the Chart above STABILOMETER PH AT 2000 LBS 63 100 130

DISPLACEMENT 4.39 4.3 4.67

47 26 11

47 26 11

11.8 12.8 13.6

DRY DENSITY AT TEST, PCF 123.8 119.9 118.8

"R" VALUE BY EXPANSION

Remark:

20

N/APRESSURE TI = 4.0, GF=1.50

RESISTANCE VALUE "R"

% MOISTURE AT TEST

"R" VALUE AT 300 PSI

EXUDATION PRESSURE

"R" VALUE CORRECTED FOR HEIGHT

R-Value Test

Caltrans Test Method 301

Sample Description: Yellowish brown silty sand

Pleasant Ave Improvement

G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-1@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:

COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION PRESSURE, INCHES

"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES

EXUDATION PRESSURE, PSI

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0

Reviewed By: ____JKA_______

Figure B-4

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152


Sample By: JS



Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C



EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004




64 58 43

64 58 43

11.1 11.8 12.4



Remark:

47



% MOISTURE AT TEST


EXUDATION PRESSURE


R-Value Test




G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-2@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:


"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0


Figure B-5

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152


Sample By: JS



Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C



EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0 0 0




71 50 21

71 50 21

9.2 9.7 10.8



Remark:

35



% MOISTURE AT TEST


EXUDATION PRESSURE


R-Value Test




G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-4@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:


"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0


Figure B-6

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152


Sample By: JS



Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C



EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0 0 0




67 48 27

67 48 27

9.6 10.5 11.3



Remark:

28



% MOISTURE AT TEST


EXUDATION PRESSURE


R-Value Test




G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-6@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:


"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0


Figure B-7

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152


Sample By: JS



Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C



EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0 0 0




52 22 12

52 22 12

7.0 8.7 9.5



Remark:

G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-7@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:

R-Value Test




23



% MOISTURE AT TEST


EXUDATION PRESSURE



"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0


Figure B-8

399 Lindbergh Ave

Livermore, CA 94551

Ph: (925) 315-3151

Fax: (925) 315-3152


Sample By: JS



Tested By: RC

SPECIMEN A B C



EXPANSION, * 0.0001 IN 0 0 0




73 64 40

73 64 40

8.9 9.7 10.5



Remark:

51



% MOISTURE AT TEST


EXUDATION PRESSURE


R-Value Test


Sample Description: Yellowish brown silty sand with gravel


G18-202-11F

L18-734

B-10@0-5'

Project Name:

Project Number:

Lab Tracking ID:

Sample Location:

Sample Source:


"R"

VA

LU

E

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

, IN

CH

ES


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

10020300400500600700800 0


Figure B-9

550 W. Locust Ave.

Fresno, CA 93650

Ph: (559) 497-2868Fax: (559) 497-2886

Project Name: Sample Date: 6/16/18-6/17/18

Project Number: Sampled By: J. Schallberger Test Date: 6/20/2018

Lab Tracking ID: Tested By: D. Messin

Sample Location:

Sample Description:

Procedure A X Procedure B Procedure C

Laboratory Compaction Curve ASTM D-1557

Figure B-10

Silty and Clayey Sand


Composite of B-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,and 9

G18-202-11F

F18-675

PROCEDURE USED

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY ,

PC

F

MOISTURE , PERCENT

2.6

2.82.7

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: PCF

OPTIMUM MOISTURE: %

ZERO AIR VOIDS

2.6

2.7

2.8

129.0

8.5

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT PLEASANT