1. business and industrial
2. construction

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS
DISTRICT NO. 19
NEAR TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
May 2013
Fugro Job No. 04.62120071
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
4820 McGrath Street, Suite 100
Ventura, California 93003-7778
Tel: (805) 650-7000
Fax: (805) 650-7010
May 2, 2013
Project No. 04.62120071
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
4532 Telephone Road, Suite 113
Ventura, California 93003
Attention:
Mr. Jon Turner, PE
Subject:
Geotechnical Study, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19, Near Term
Capital Improvement Project, Ventura County, California
Dear Mr. Turner:
This report describes the findings and conclusions of a geotechnical study performed for
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 19, Water Pipeline Upgrade Project, in Ventura County,
California. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the
proposed alignments, and to aid in developing geotechnical opinions and recommendations
concerning construction and improvements to the proposed pipeline segments. The field
exploration program for this study consisted of six hollow-stem-auger drill holes, and two handauger explorations. A summary of the exploration program is provided in the text, on Plates 1
through 3, and supporting documentation attached as appendices to this report. The work was
performed in general accordance with our proposal dated January 26, 2012.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc. on this
project. Please contact the project manager, Ms. Lori Prentice, if you have any questions
regarding the information in this report or require additional geotechnical input for the
Waterworks District No. 19 Water Pipeline Upgrade Project.
Sincerely,
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
Loree A. Berry, PE
Project Engineer
Copies Submitted:
Lori E. Prentice, PG, CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
(1) Addressee and Pdf
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Project Description...........................................................................................
Purpose ...........................................................................................................
Scope of Work .................................................................................................
1.3.1 Data Review, Pre-Field Planning, and Permitting .................................
1.3.2 Subsurface Exploration ........................................................................
1.3.3 Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................
1.3.4 Geotechnical Evaluation and Report Preparation .................................
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................
4
2.1
2.2
Geologic Setting ..............................................................................................
Site Conditions and Local Setting ....................................................................
2.2.1 Site Conditions .....................................................................................
2.2.2 Local Setting ........................................................................................
Subsurface Conditions .....................................................................................
2.3.1 Earth Materials .....................................................................................
2.3.2 Engineering Properties of Selected Earth Materials .............................
2.3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................
Geohazards and Seismicity .............................................................................
2.4.1 Faults ...................................................................................................
2.4.2 Strong Ground Motion ..........................................................................
2.4.3 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading ......................................................
2.4.4 Seismically Induced Settlement ...........................................................
2.4.5 Landsliding/Slope Instability .................................................................
2.4.6 Flooding ...............................................................................................
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................
9
2.3
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
General............................................................................................................
Pipeline Construction .......................................................................................
3.2.1 Temporary Excavations and Shoring ...................................................
3.2.2 Operations ...........................................................................................
3.2.3 Existing Utilities/Pipelines ....................................................................
Pipeline Design ................................................................................................
3.3.1 Pipe Zone Materials .............................................................................
3.3.2 Trench Backfill Materials ......................................................................
3.3.3 External Pipeline Loads .......................................................................
3.3.4 Modulus of Soil Reaction .....................................................................
3.3.5 Thrust Resistance ................................................................................
3.3.6 Frictional Resistance ............................................................................
Corrosivity .......................................................................................................
Dewatering ......................................................................................................
Replacement of Existing Asphalt Concrete Pavement .....................................
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
i
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
CONTENTS
Page
3.7
4.0
5.0
Field Observation and Testing .........................................................................
13
LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................
14
4.1
4.2
4.3
Potential Variations in Subsurface Conditions..................................................
Local Practice ..................................................................................................
Report Use ......................................................................................................
14
14
14
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................
16
TABLES
Page
1
2
Exploration Locations ............................................................................................
Summary of Chemical Test Results .......................................................................
3
12
PLATES
Plate
Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................
Drill Hole Location Plan .....................................................................................................
Regional Geologic Map .....................................................................................................
1
2
3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Log of Drill Hole ........................................................................................ Plates A-1 through A-8
Key to Terms & Symbols Used on Logs ........................................................................ Plate A-9
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Summary of Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................ Plate B-1
Grain Size/Percent Passing No.200 Results ................................................................. Plate B-2
Plasticity Chart .............................................................................................................. Plate B-3
Compaction Test Results .............................................................................................. Plate B-4
Corrosivity Test Results ................................................................................ Plates B-5a and 5b
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
ii
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study performed for Ventura County
Waterworks District (VCWWD) No. 19 Water Pipeline Upgrade Project in the Somis area of
Ventura County. The location of the project alignments relative to nearby streets and landmarks
is shown on Plate 1 - Vicinity Map.
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed water pipeline upgrade project consists of replacement of older,
undersized, and deteriorating water pipelines, and abandonment and replacement of selected
service lines within the VCWD jurisdiction near the Somis area of Ventura County. We
understand that VCWD has designated a total of 12 upgrade/repair locations (Project No. 1
through 12) that have been divided into two contracts. The scope of work for this contract
consists of Project Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5b, 6, 7, and 12.
The project alignments included in this work scope consist of installation of 2-inch
diameter customer service lines and replacement of existing 4- to 8-inch-diameter distribution
lines with 12- to 14-inch-diameter pipelines. The pipelines likely will be installed using cut and
cover and possibly pipe bursting construction techniques. Pipe inverts are anticipated to be
about 3 to 5 feet deep.
The pipeline upgrade locations within this contract are shown on Plate 2 - Drill Hole
Location Plan and consist of:
•
Project No. 1. Installation of about 560 feet of 14-inch-diameter waterline within the
Bradley Road right-of-way (ROW), north of Well No. 2 to a tie-in at Berylwood Road.
•
Project No. 3. Replace about 1,320 feet of 8-inch-diameter water pipeline with a 12inch-diameter pipeline along Donlon Road near McBean Road.
•
Project No. 4. Replace about 920 feet of 8-inch-diameter water pipeline with a 12inch pipeline along Kingsgrove Drive from Faircrest Drive northwest to the Well No. 3
access road.
•
Project No. 5b. Installation of two 2-inch-diameter waterlines near Bell Ranch Road
in Somis about 2,600 feet westerly along an agricultural access road.
•
Project No. 6. Relocate three water meters to within public ROW on Posita Road
east of Balcom Canyon Road and install two 2-inch-diameter waterlines that extend
from Posita Road north along a private drive about 1,360 feet.
•
Project No. 7. Replace about 1,360 feet of 4-inch-diameter waterline with an 8-inchdiameter waterline in West Street alley in Somis.
•
Project No. 12. Replace about 1,810 feet of 4-inch-diameter waterline and 800 feet
of 6-inch-diameter waterline with 12-inch-diameter waterline along Balcom Canyon
Road from SR118 to an existing pressure reducing station; relocate pressure
reducing station to near intersection of SR 118 and Balcom Canyon Road.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
1
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
1.2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this geotechnical engineering study is to evaluate subsurface conditions
along the project alignments and to develop geotechnical opinions and recommendations
concerning construction and improvements for the pipeline project.
1.3
SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work consisted of data review, permitting, subsurface exploration,
laboratory testing, geotechnical evaluation, and reporting. The work was performed in general
accordance with our proposal dated January 26, 2012.
1.3.1
Data Review, Pre-Field Planning, and Permitting
Fugro reviewed relevant existing geologic and geotechnical data available in our files.
We performed a site reconnaissance to observe existing site conditions and to locate the drill
holes. Prior to initiating subsurface exploration, we obtained encroachment permits for
exploration work in the County of Ventura (County) roadway right-of-way and contacted
Underground Service Alert for utility clearance.
1.3.2
Subsurface Exploration
We advanced six hollow-stem-auger drill holes and two hand-auger drill holes near the
project upgrade alignment locations between May 31 and June 23, 2012. Table 1 provides a
summary of the exploration locations performed for this study. The drill holes were generally
advanced in shoulder areas of County roadways near the locations indicated on Plate 2. The
hollow-stem-auger drill holes were advanced by S&G Drilling of Lompoc, California at locations
accessible by the truck-mounted drill rig. Hand-auger drill holes were advanced in locations
inaccessible by the truck-mounted equipment due to space limitations within the roadway
shoulder and/or existing utilities. Drill locations originally proposed within private property were
not performed for this study as access to those locations was not granted by the property
owners at the time we performed our field exploration.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
2
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
Table 1. Exploration Locations
Project
No.
Location
(approx. alignment length)
Drill
Hole
Number*
Depth
Material
Type
DH-01
10.0
CL
1
Bradley Road (560 feet)
3
Donlon Road (1,320 feet)
DH-03A
10.0
CL/ML/SC
3
Donlon Road (1,320 feet)
DH-03B
11.5
CL/ML/SC
4
Kingsgrove Drive (920 feet)
HA-04
6.0
CL/SC
5
Somis Rd near Bell Ranch Road (2,600 feet)
DH-05A
11.5
CL
6
Posita Road/Private Drive (1,360 feet)
DH-06
11.5
CL/SC
7
West Street alley (1,360 feet)
DH-07
10.0
CL
12
Balcom Canyon Road (1,810 feet)
HA-12B
6.0
ML
Notes:*A prefix of "DH" indicates the exploration was advanced using a drill rig equipped with hollow
stem augers. "HA" indicates hand auger
Drilling. The drill holes were advanced using a Central Mining Equipment CME-75,
truck-mounted hollow-stem-auger drill rig, to depths of about 10 to 11.5 feet, and were sampled
at about 2.5-foot intervals. A description of the subsurface conditions encountered is presented
on the drill-hole logs in Appendix A - Field Exploration.
Sampling. The drill holes were sampled using a 2-3/8-inch-inside-diameter (ID)
Modified California Sampler or a 1-3/8-inch-ID Standard Penetration Test sampler. Samplers
were driven using a 140-pound CME automatic-trip hammer free falling from a height of
30 inches. Bulk samples were collected during the course of drilling by taking cuttings obtained
from the auger flights. The bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes
and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths.
Hand Auger holes were excavated with a 3-inch diameter barrel hand auger with a 5-foot
extension pole. Bulk bag samples were collected from the cuttings retained within the hand
auger barrel.
1.3.3
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the field exploration
program to assist in our characterization of the geotechnical engineering properties of the
materials encountered. Tests performed for this study were based on the findings from the field
exploration and consisted of moisture content, soil classification (grain-size, plasticity,
expansion index), strength, corrosion potential, sand equivalent, and compaction. The results of
the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B - Laboratory Testing.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
3
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
1.3.4
Geotechnical Evaluation and Report Preparation
Subsurface exploration and laboratory test data were evaluated to develop geotechnical
design recommendations for the pipeline project. This report was prepared to present the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations developed for this study. The report includes the
following:
•
Summary of soil and groundwater conditions at exploration locations;
•
Discussion of site geology, faulting, and seismicity;
•
Potential for geologic hazards to impact the project (such as seismic shaking,
liquefaction, and slope instability);
•
Geotechnical pipeline design criteria;
•
Summary of
encountered);
•
Discussion of excavation conditions and temporary support considerations;
•
Suitability of onsite soil for use as fill and select fill material; and
•
Suggested specifications for on-site and imported materials used as fill.
existing
pavement
sections
at
exploration
locations
(where
2.0 FINDINGS
2.1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The proposed pipeline upgrade project is located within the Transverse Ranges
geologic/geomorphic province of California. That province is characterized by generally eastwest-trending mountain ranges composed of sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age
from Cretaceous to Recent. Major east-trending folds, reverse faults, and left-lateral strike-slip
faults reflect regional north-south compression and are characteristic of the Transverse Ranges.
2.2
SITE CONDITIONS AND LOCAL SETTING
The scope of work for the project consisted of evaluation of subsurface conditions for
seven project alignments as summarized in Table 1. The approximate drill hole locations are
indicated on Plate 2.
2.2.1
Site Conditions
The project alignments are located in rural areas of Ventura County. Projects 1, 3, 4,
and 12 are located adjacent to County roadways that are typically narrow, have narrow
shoulders, and overhead and underground utilities adjacent to the roadways. Projects 5 and 6
are located within earthen access/agricultural roads and Project 7 is located within a paved
alleyway in Somis consisting of older asphalt pavement in very poor condition.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
4
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
2.2.2
Local Setting
Regional geologic conditions as mapped by Dibblee (1992a and 1992b) are shown on
Plate 3 - Regional Geology Map. Projects 1, 3, 4, and 6 are located south of the southwarddipping limb of the Long Canyon Anticline. Projects 5 and 7 are located southeast of the
southward-dipping limb of the Camarillo Hills Anticline and Project 12 is located west of the
western nose of the Moorpark Anticline. Dibblee indicates that Projects 1, 4, 5, 7, and 12 are
underlain by alluvial sediments consisting of sand, silt, and gravel in valley and floodplain areas.
Projects 3 and 6 are underlain by older alluvial sediments consisting of weakly consolidated
alluvial sediments of gravel, sand, sand/clay as mapped by Dibblee.
The proposed alignments in the upgrade project are generally located within publicrights-of way in shoulder areas of rural roadways in Ventura County. Topography is generally
gently sloping to the south and southeast with elevations (el.) that range from about el. 600 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) near Project 6 north of Posita Drive to about el. 225 feet MSL near
Project 5 near Bell Ranch Road in the southern portion of the project area (Plate 2).
2.3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.3.1
Earth Materials
Earth materials exposed along the proposed alignment segments and encountered by
the drill holes advanced for this study generally consist of artificial fill underlain by alluvial or
older alluvial deposits to the depths explored. The majority of the artificial fill materials appear
to be related to roadway construction, existing utility construction, and agricultural activity.
Project No. 1. The Project No. 1 alignment along Bradley Road near Ventura County
Water Well No.2 was explored by drill hole DH-01. The earth materials encountered by the drill
hole consist of about 2 feet of sandy gravelly clay fill materials overlying medium stiff lean clay
with sand alluvial sediments to the depth explored (10 feet).
Project No. 3. The Project No. 3 alignment along Donlon Road was explored by drill
holes DH-03A and DH-03B. The earth materials encountered at DH-03A consist of about 2 feet
of sandy clay artificial fill materials overlying hard silty clay and medium dense to dense clayey
sand alluvial sediments to the depths explored (10 feet). The materials encountered at DH-03B
consist of about 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of granular base materials pavement
section underlain by alluvial sediments. The sediments consist of medium stiff sandy silt, very
stiff sandy clay, and loose to medium dense clayey sand alluvial sediments with fine to medium
gravel to the depth explored (11.5 feet).
Project No. 4. The Project No. 4 alignment along Kingsgrove Drive east of Heatherton
Drive was explored by hand auger hole HA-04 due to space limitations that precluded using the
drilling rig. At the location explored, the subsurface conditions appear to consist of about 6
inches of sandy clay artificial fill materials overlying clayey sand alluvial sediments to the depths
explored (6 feet).
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
5
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
Project No. 5. Project No. 5 alignment along Bell Ranch Road was explored by drill
hole DH-05. The earth materials encountered by the drill hole consist of about 2.5 feet of clayey
artificial fill materials overlying medium stiff lean clay with sand alluvial sediments to the depths
explored (11.5 feet).
Project No. 6. The Project No. 6 alignment extending north of Posita Road within
private property was evaluated by drill hole DH-06. Because access onto the private property
was not available, DH-06 was advanced on the southern shoulder of Posita Drive near the
location indicated on Plate 2. Earth materials encountered by the drill hole consist of
approximately 6 feet of medium stiff artificial fill soils underlain by very stiff sandy clay and
medium dense clayey sand alluvium to the depths explored (11.5 feet).
Project No. 7. The Project No. 7 alignment along the West Street alley in Somis was
explored by drill hole DH-07. At the location explored, the subsurface conditions appear to
consist of approximately 3.5 feet of medium stiff sandy lean clay underlain by medium stiff to
stiff lean clay with sand to the depths explored (10 feet).
Project No. 12. The Project No. 12 alignment along Balcom Canyon Road north of Los
Angeles Avenue was explored by hand auger holes due to the narrow shoulders and
underground and overhead utilities that precluded use of the truck mounted drilling equipment.
HA-12A was attempted twice and abandoned at depths of approximately 2 feet due to the
presence of sandy, gravelly artificial fill materials and caving of the hole. HA-12B was advanced
to about 6 feet. The materials encountered at HA-12B consist of medium stiff silt with sand to
the depth explored.
2.3.2
Engineering Properties of Selected Earth Materials
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples recovered from our field
exploration programs to characterize the engineering properties of the soils at the locations
explored. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B.
Soil Unit Weight. In-place soil dry density measurements for selected soil samples
ranged from about 71 to 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and moisture contents ranged from 5 to
39 percent.
Grainsize. Selected samples of granular material were tested to evaluate the grainsize
distribution of the soils encountered in our explorations. The laboratory analyses indicate that
the tested materials are lean clay with sand and gravel, silt with sand, and clayey sand with
gravel. Additionally, tests to evaluate the fines content were performed on selected samples.
Measured fines content within the granular materials ranged from about 29 to 47 percent. Tests
on samples of sandy clay and clay with sand indicated fines contents of 80 and 91 percent,
respectively.
Atterberg Limits Tests. Atterberg limits tests were performed on selected samples of
cohesive materials. The results suggest liquid limits ranging from 24 to 48 and plasticity indices
ranging from 7 to 24, indicating that the tested materials are lean clay.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
6
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
Shear Strength. Shear strength of the encountered soils was evaluated using SPT-N
value correlations and results of torvane tests performed on selected ring samples. Torvane
results suggest the cohesive soils have an average undrained shear strength of about 700 psf.
Expansion Index Tests. The results of four expansion index (EI) tests performed on
selected samples of near surface soil materials suggest EIs. ranging from 1 to 122 feet. Table
1809.7 of the 2010 Ventura County Building Code defines that range to be classified as having
very low (0-20) to high (91-130) expansion potential.
Summary of Expansion Index Results
Sample
Segment
Depth (ft)
Material
Expansion Index
DH-3A
Donlon Rd.
0-4
Sandy Lean CLAY (L)
54
DH-3B
Donlon Rd.
1-4
Sandy SILT (ML)
1
DH-06
Positas Rd.
6
Lean CLAY w/sand (CL)
87
DH-07
West St. Alley
0-5
Lean CLAY w/sand (CL)
122
Corrosion Tests. Five samples were selected for corrosivity testing and the results are
summarized in Section 3.2.1.
2.3.3
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the explorations performed for this study to
the depths explored (about 11.5 feet). Groundwater conditions may vary due to precipitation,
irrigation practices, or other factors. There is also a potential for groundwater to be encountered
during construction at areas not explored during our study.
2.4
GEOHAZARDS AND SEISMICITY
The project area is located in a seismically active portion of California. The project
improvements will most likely be subject to earthquake-related strong ground shaking during
their design life, potentially resulting in damage to improvements.
2.4.1
Faults
The site is proximal to a number of faults that are considered active or potentially active
including the Springville, Camarillo, Simi-Santa Rosa, Anacapa-Dume, Malibu Coast,
Ventura/Pitas Point, Oak Ridge, and San Cayetano. There are no faults considered active or
potentially active by the State of California that cross any of the project alignments. However,
the eastern portion of the Springville fault (zoned active by the State of California) is located
within about 2,000 to 4,000 feet of the Projects 5 and 7 alignments. The potential for fault
rupture along the alignments is considered to be low.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
7
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
2.4.2
Strong Ground Motion
Site-specific analyses of anticipated strong ground motion were not included as part of
the scope of services for this study. However, review of the interactive USGS website suggests
peak horizontal ground accelerations range from about 0.52 to about 0.67 (10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years) for the various alignment segments.
2.4.3
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is described as the sudden loss of soil strength because of a rapid increase
in soil pore water pressures due to cyclic loading during a seismic event. Liquefaction has been
linked to granular soils with low standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts such as could be
expected within the alluvial sediments in the project area. However, groundwater was not
encountered in any of the shallow drill holes advanced for this study and is anticipated to be in
excess of 40 feet below the ground surface based on review of California Division of Mines and
Geology ([CDMG] 2000, 2002a, and 2002b). On that basis, the potential for liquefaction to
occur in the alluvial valleys is considered low. Liquefaction is less likely to occur in areas
underlain by older alluvial sediments.
Lateral spreading is the phenomena where earth materials move laterally toward a free
face or in the direction of sloping ground in response to strong ground shaking. Occurrence of
lateral spreading is related to liquefaction and the alignments are not located proximal to free
faces that would be impacted by lateral spreading. On that basis, the potential for lateral
spreading to affect the project alignments is considered to be low.
2.4.4
Seismically Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement or collapse can occur in "dry" soils that are loose, soft, or
moderately dense, but weakly cemented. Because groundwater is anticipated to be in excess
of about 40 feet below the ground surface and the encountered soils are primarily granular, the
potential exists for seismically induced settlement from "dry" soils above the groundwater level
to impact the project alignments.
2.4.5
Landsliding/Slope Instability
The pipeline alignments addressed in this study are not located proximal to slopes and
therefore would not be expected to be impacted by slope instability.
2.4.6
Flooding
The proposed alignments are not located within areas that are anticipated to be affected
by flooding.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
8
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
GENERAL
Conclusions and recommendations for this study are based on the results of our
exploration and testing programs, and on our understanding of the project. The geotechnical
conditions in the project area should be considered in the design and construction of the
proposed project elements.
3.2
PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
3.2.1
Temporary Excavations and Shoring
Excavations more than 4 feet deep should be excavated, shored, or shielded in
accordance with federal and state standards, project specifications, and safe construction
practices. The contractor should be responsible for the safety of temporary excavations. As
guidance for design, the onsite soils appear to meet the OSHA criteria for Type C Soils.
Temporary excavations should be monitored for stability during construction and be modified if
necessary.
Shoring and bracing of the trench sidewalls may be required and should be designed in
accordance with OSHA regulations. Unconsolidated sand with varying amounts of silt, clay, and
gravel were encountered in the drill holes above and below more clayey layers. Sloughing of
the granular materials could occur unless the trench walls are shored or shielded. The
contractor should be responsible for design and implementation of shoring systems and safe
working conditions.
The use of metal, plywood, and/or timber sheeting will likely be necessary between
shores or pipe jacks to minimize sloughing of the soils. Trench walls lacking sheeting and/or
adequate sidewall support could move or be unstable and result in damage to existing
improvements and adjacent utilities. Continuous support should be anticipated to minimize
potential sloughing of the existing soils in large part because of the presence of existing utilities
and improvements near the proposed pipeline alignment. Conventional trench shields provide
only for worker safety and do not provide continuous support unless the shield is installed tight
against the sidewalls.
3.2.2
Operations
On pipeline projects, the contractor typically places the excavated soils adjacent to the
trench and spreads those soils so that a sideboom, welding trucks, and other vehicles can drive
adjacent to the trench on the excavated soils. To help reduce the potential for caving/sloughing
of the trench sidewalls from traffic vibration, we suggest that the contractor maintain a vehicle
setback equal to depth of trench. However, if local soil conditions create a trench-sidewallstability hazard, a geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate alternative minimum
distances needed between the edge of the trench and stored excavated soils and vehicle traffic,
so that the potential for trench instabilities can be minimized.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
9
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
Similarly, heavy equipment should be operated in a safe manner and should be kept an
adequate distance from vertical trench sidewalls to prevent a trench-sidewall-stability hazard.
The width of that heavy equipment exclusionary zone will vary based on underlying earth
materials, depth of trench excavation, the presence or absence of groundwater, and the
configuration of the excavated trench. As a general guideline, heavy equipment should be
excluded from a zone located between the top of the trench excavation and a 1h:1v projection
from the bottom of the adjacent trench sidewall. This is a general guideline and may need to be
modified in the field for specific geotechnical conditions. The contractor should consult a
qualified geotechnical engineer regarding his excavation procedures.
3.2.3
Existing Utilities/Pipelines
Trenches should be excavated no closer than a 1h:1v projection up from the bottom of
the excavation in areas where an existing utility/pipeline parallels or subparallels the trench
excavation. The minimum clear distance between an existing utility and the trench should be
evaluated by the contractor. We recommend that existing utility/pipelines be supported/
protected or that the trench be shored to prevent loss of lateral support for existing
utility/pipelines when: 1) the trench is closer than a 1h:1v projection to the existing utility, 2) the
stability of the existing utility is in question, or 3) there is a potential for sloughing of the trench
sidewalls adjacent to the existing utility.
3.3
PIPELINE DESIGN
Compacted fill materials for the proposed pipeline will consist of pipe zone materials and
trench backfill materials. The following subsections describe each of those materials. The
recommendations for characteristics and placement of those materials are largely derived from
the "Greenbook" (2012), Section 306.
3.3.1
Pipe Zone Materials
Pipe zone materials are defined, herein, as those select earth materials used as pipeline
bedding and shading. The pipe zone materials should extend from at least 6 inches below the
pipe to 12 inches above the crown. The pipe zone materials also should extend at least 24
inches out from the sides of the pipeline. Pipe zone materials should consist of clean sand or
crushed angular gravel with a minimum SE of 30 to facilitate placement and achieve uniform
support for the improvements. Gravel should conform to the gradation for ¾-inch, crushed rock
in Table 200-1.2, of the "Greenbook" (2012).
On the basis of our observations, the soils encountered during subsurface exploration
for the project appear unlikely to comply with the recommendations presented above for pipe
zone backfill materials. Selected soil samples from the drill holes advanced along the pipeline
alignments have fines contents ranging from about 29 to 91 percent and SE values between
about 4 and 16. Some of the onsite soils may satisfy the requirements for pipe zone material.
However, the potential quantity of those materials is unknown and it will be difficult to identify
and segregate those materials. Therefore, in our opinion, most, if not all, of the pipe zone
backfill materials will likely need to be imported to the project site.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
10
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
Pipe zone materials should be properly placed and mechanically compacted in order to
achieve a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by standard test method
ASTM D1557. Sand backfill should be placed in loose lift thicknesses no greater than 8 inches
and mechanically compacted with a vibratory compactor. If crushed gravel is used as bedding
material, the gravel bedding should be placed in loose lift thicknesses no greater than 8 inches
and should be mechanically compacted using a minimum of 3 passes of a vibrating mechanical
compactor. The trench width should be sufficient to allow compaction equipment to operate
between the pipe springline and trench wall. Jetting or flooding of pipe zone materials should
not be allowed.
3.3.2
Trench Backfill Materials
Trench backfill materials are defined herein, as those materials placed above the pipe
zone. Onsite soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill. Trench backfill should be
spread in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent
of optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined from ASTM D1557. The upper 1 foot of the subgrade beneath paved areas should
be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density ASTM D1557. Particles larger than
6 inches in maximum dimension should be excluded.
3.3.3
External Pipeline Loads
External loads on the pipes will consist of loads due to the overlying earth materials,
loads due to construction activities, and loads related to traffic, agricultural operations, or other
post-construction land uses. We recommend that the pipes be designed to resist the imposed
loads with a factor of safety and an amount of deflection, as recommended by the pipeline
manufacturer.
Loads on the pipe due to the overlying soil will be dependent upon the depth of
placement, the type and method of backfill, the type of pipe, the configuration of the trench, and
whether or not any fill will be placed above the ground surface. The pipe may be subject to
surcharge pressures due to construction activities and traffic. Those surcharge pressures
should be considered in the design of the pipe.
3.3.4
Modulus of Soil Reaction
Flexible and semi-rigid pipes are typically designed to withstand a certain amount of
deflection from the applied earth loads. Those deflections can be estimated with the aid of
equations developed by Howard (1995). We suggest an E'-value of 1,500 pounds per square
inch for project design. The E'-value is for a combined trench/pipeline system that includes a
minimum of 12 inches of compacted pipe zone material around the pipeline.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
11
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
3.3.5
Thrust Resistance
Where the proposed pipeline changes direction abruptly, resistance to thrust forces can
be provided by mobilizing frictional resistance between the pipe and the surrounding soil, by use
of a thrust-block, or by a combination of the two.
Thrust-blocks can be designed on the potential applied lateral stress imparted by the
pipeline. For thrust-blocks bearing directly against undisturbed native soils, the ultimate lateral
pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf up to an ultimate value of
1,5000 pounds per square foot (psf). Where the thrust block is submerged, the equivalent fluid
weight should be reduced to 125 pcf. The estimated lateral displacement needed to develop
the ultimate passive pressure for a 5-foot high thrust-block is about one-half inch (about 1
percent of the block height). Lateral bearing should be neglected from the ground surface to a
depth of 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade.
3.3.6
Frictional Resistance
Thrust resistance can also be developed from soil friction on the pipeline. Frictional
resistance from the proposed backfill materials will vary with embedment depth, groundwater
levels, and trench conditions. Assuming normal trench conditions and compacted backfill
around the pipe, the ultimate soil friction can be estimated using a friction coefficient of 0.25.
The recommended values assume a coefficient of friction between the soil and the PVC pipe of
at least 15 degrees. A factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be used to estimate the allowable
resistance.
3.4
CORROSIVITY
Corrosivity tests were performed on selected samples from the field program. The
results from the testing laboratory are presented in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Chemical Test Results
1
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Material Description
Sulfates
(ppm)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
pH
Chlorides
(ppm)1
DH-03B
1
Sandy SILT (ML)
130
2809
7.2
<2
HA-04
2
Clayey SAND (SC)
<5
2586
8.1
13
DH-05
1
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
241
332
7.0
33
DH-06
1
Sandy lean CLAY (CL)
52
1699
7.2
20
HA-12B
3.5
SILT with sand (ML)
<5
1614
7.9
16
ppm - parts per million
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
12
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
The resistivity values suggest that the existing near surface onsite soils at 4 of the 5
locations tested are moderately to fairly corrosive to metals. The soils tested from DH-05
indicate the soils at alignment No. 5 may be very corrosive to metals. If buried metal structures
are incorporated into the project they should be protected against corrosion. Buried metal shall
be wrapped in polyethylene to provide corrosion protection in accordance with standard industry
practice."
Soluble sulfate and chloride concentrations tested within the near surface onsite soils
suggest the tested soils have negligible to moderate corrosive properties relative to concrete.
Based on the preliminary testing performed for this study, Type II cement should be acceptable.
In accordance with the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), concrete and reinforcing
steel should conform to the requirements of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of ACI 318.
3.5
DEWATERING
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the drill holes advanced for this study and
dewatering is not anticipated for the project. However, the potential exists for water to occur
during construction at locations not explored for the study. If groundwater is encountered, it
likely can be handled by sumping and pumping of free water from open excavations.
Although not anticipated to be required for this project, dewatering efforts should
maintain water levels at least 3 feet below any point on the excavated surface (including the
bottom of overexcavations) and should provide trench sidewalls free of groundwater seepage.
Dewatering operations may require permitting in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System regulations and possibly other local permits.
3.6
REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
The field explorations for areas 1, 4, 5 and 12 were advanced in the unpaved shoulder
areas, and asphalt concrete or other paving materials associated with current road surfaces
were not encountered. Asphalt concrete was encountered at exploration location DH-03B as
indicated on the drill hole log. The asphalt pavement in the alleyway along Project No. 7 where
DH-07 was advanced is in very poor condition to nonexistent; as such, DH-07 did not encounter
asphalt concrete. Where pavements are encountered during project construction, at a
minimum, we suggest that the replacement pavements match the existing asphalt section
thickness plus 1 inch. Granular base materials should be replaced with an equal thickness of
base material conforming to Section 200-2.2 (Crushed Aggregate Base) or 200-2.4 (Crushed
Miscellaneous Base) in the 2012 Greenbook.
3.7
FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The construction process is an integral part of the design with respect to geotechnical
aspects of a project. Some of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are
based on assumptions made during our geotechnical studies and evaluations. To verify or
disprove those assumptions, a representative of our firm should be present during construction
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
13
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
to observe subsurface geotechnical conditions as they are exposed. Therefore, we recommend
that Fugro be retained during grading and construction of the proposed pipelines to observe
compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those
anticipated. Our representative should test and/or observe excavations, fill and backfill
placement and compaction, and the construction of foundation systems. In addition, in
geologically sensitive areas, an engineering geologist from our firm should observe and map
exposures to verify the presence or absence of geohazards. If a firm other than Fugro provides
construction-phase geotechnical services, they should assume full responsibility for all
geotechnical aspects of the project, including taking over as Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
4.1
POTENTIAL VARIATIONS IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions for the project elements were evaluated by a limited number
of explorations.
There is a potential for variation in the consistency, densities, and
strength/hardness of the materials. There is also potential for oversized materials (greater than
8 inches in diameter), perched water, zones of poorly consolidated soils, or other conditions not
indicated in the drill-hole logs. If significant variation in the geologic conditions is observed
during grading, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer, in conjunction with the project
designer evaluate the impact of those variations on the project design.
4.2
LOCAL PRACTICE
Fugro prepared the findings, conclusions, recommendations and professional opinions
presented in this report according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and
practices at the time and location this report was prepared. This statement is in lieu of all
warranties, express or implied.
4.3
REPORT USE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix Civil Engineering for the
County of Ventura Waterworks District No. 19 Water Pipeline Upgrade Project. If any changes
are made to the project that differ from those described in this report, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report may become invalid. Fugro should review any
changes to the project, and provide modifications as necessary to the recommendations
presented in this report. This report and the drawings contained in this report are intended for
design-input purposes; they are not intended to act as construction drawings or specifications.
The scope of our services presented in this report did not include any environmental site
assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, groundwater,
surface water, or the presence of wetlands. The scope also did not include site assessments
for the presence or absence of biological pollutants, mold, and/or mildew. Any statements or
lack of statements regarding odors noted or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
14
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
during this study are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering
judgment regarding potential hazardous/toxic assessment.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
15
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
May 2, 2013 (Project No. 04.62120071)
5.0 REFERENCES
California Building Code (CBC, 2010), California Building Standards Commission
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) (2000), Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the
Moorpark 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Ventura County, California, Open-File Report 2000007.
______ (2002a), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Santa Paula 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,
Ventura County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 061.
______ (2002b), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Camarillo 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,
Ventura County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 054.
______ (1998a), Earthquake Fault Zones, Santa Paula Quadrangle.
______ (1998b), Earthquake Fault Zones, Camarillo Quadrangle.
______ (1999), Earthquake Fault Zones, Moorpark Quadrangle.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr.. (1990), Geologic Map of the Camarillo and Newbury Park Quadrangles,
Ventura County, California, Map No. DF-28.
______ (1992), Geologic Map of the Moorpark Quadrangle, Ventura County, California, Map
DF-40.
______ (1992), Geologic Map of the Santa Paula Quadrangle, Ventura County, California, Map
DF-41.
Greenbook (2012), "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction."
Howard, A.K., et al. (1995), "Prediction of Flexible Pipe Deflection," prepared for U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado,
January 31.
M:\WP\2013\04.62120071\04.62120071_5-2-13.DOC
16
PLATES
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
6
LEGEND
Approximate location
of pipeline alignment
4
3
1
M:\Drafting\JOBFILES\2012\04.62120071\Drawings\B04.62120071-01 Vicn Map.dwg 07-18-2012 - 4:20pm
12
5
7
NORTH
0
2400
4800
FEET
VICINITY MAP
Ventura County Water Works
District 19 Pipeline Upgrade Project
Ventura County, California
BASE MAP SOURCE: Thomas Guide 2007, Ventura County (p. 474, 475, 494, & 495).
PLATE 1
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
DH-6
HA-4
LEGEND
DH-12b
DH-3a
Approximate Drill Hole/ Hand Auger
location
DH-1
M:\Drafting\JOBFILES\2012\04.62120071\Drawings\B04.62120071-02 DH Loc.dwg 07-18-2012 - 4:22pm
DH-3b
Approximate pipeline alignment
location
HA-12b
DH-7
NORTH
0
2400
4800
FEET
DH-5
DRILL HOLE LOCATION PLAN
Ventura County Water Works
District 19 Pipeline Upgrade Project
Ventura County, California
BASE MAP SOURCE: Aerial photograph provided by Google Earth Pro, 2012.
PLATE 2
Phoenix Civil Engineering
Project No. 04.62120071
LEGEND
DH-12b
DH-6
HA-4
Approximate Drill Hole/ Hand Auger location
Approximate pipeline alignment location
Qa
Alluvium
Qls
Landslide debris
Qoa
Older Alluvial Sediments
QTs
Saugus Formation
QTlp
Las Posas Sand
Tcvb
Conjeo Volcanics
DH-3a
DH-1
DH-3b
HA-12b
Tls
Topanga Sandstone
Tsp
Sespe Formation
M:\Drafting\JOBFILES\2012\04.62120071\Drawings\B04.62120071-03 geo map.dwg 07-18-2012 - 4:22pm
Formation Contact - dashed where inferred
or indefinite
Fault - dashed where indefinite or inferred,
dotted where concealed, relative vertical
movement shown by U/D (U = upthrown side,
D = downthrown side), short arrow indicates
dip of fault plane, sawteeth are on upper
plate of low angle thrust fault
Anticline - dashed where inferred or indefinite
Syncline - dashed where inferred or indefinite
Strike and dip of beds:
Inclined
DH-7
Inclined, approximate
NORTH
0
2400
4800
FEET
DH-5
BASE MAP SOURCE: * Geologic Map of the Camarillo and Newbury Park Quadrangles, Ventura County, California (Dibblee & Ehrenspeck, 1990).
* Geologic Map of the Moorpark Quadrangle, Ventura County, California (Dibblee, 1992).
* Geologic Map of the Santa Paula Quadrangle, Ventura County, California (Dibblee, 1992).
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Ventura County Water Works
District 19 Pipeline Upgrade Project
Ventura County, California
PLATE 3
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
BB
2
(7)
3
5
4
(21)
6
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL): medium stiff, brown,
dry to moist
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): medium stiff, dark brown,
moist
32
- with trace very fine gravel, at 6 feet
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
39
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
71
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
99
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
WATER
CONTENT, %
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
7
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
4
1
LOCATION: Bradley Road
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
2
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
t 1.3
91
48
24
8
- very stiff, with some caliche, at 8.5 feet
119
10
100
19
t 1.5
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: May 31, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-01
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-1
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
12
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
115
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
128
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: Donlon Road North of McBean
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
24
7
t 0.4
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, dark brown, moist
2
1
4
BB
2
6
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)/Silty CLAY with sand
(CL-ML): hard, reddish brown, moist
(50/5") - dry to moist, at 3.5 feet
6
3
30
Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense to dense, reddish
brown, dry to moist
4
(45)
- with some fine gravel and some clay pockets, at 8.5
feet
8
29
8
10
126
118
7
t 0.0
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: May 31, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-03A
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-2
2
4
1
BB
(20)
6
2
23
3
(41)
4
7
8
10
Clayey SAND (SC): dense, reddish brown, moist
- with fine to medium subrounded gravel and caliche, at
7.5 feet
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
4 inches asphalt / 4 inches base
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Sandy SILT (ML): medium stiff, dark brown to reddish
brown, moist
Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, dark brown to
reddish brown, moist
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): very stiff, dark brown to reddish
brown, moist, with some fine gravel and caliche
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: Donlon Road
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
8
132
116
14
t 0.6
30
133
120
11
18
t 0.2
34
- loose, with fine sand, at 10 feet
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 11.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cutting / Asphalt Patch
DRILLING DATE: June 22, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-03B
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-3
2
B1
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
12
8
4
6
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, brown, moist
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Clayey SAND (SC): loose to medium dense, dark brown,
moist
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: Kingsgrove Road
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
47
B2
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 6.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: May 31, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 3-inch-dia. Hand Auger
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. HA-04
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-4
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): dark brown
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: West Side of Somis Rd, near Bell Ranch Rd
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
18
2
4
6
8
1
BB
6
2
(12)
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): medium stiff, dark brown,
dry to moist
- brown, moist, below 6 feet
3
6
4
(13)
115
93
23
t 0.2
112
91
24
t 0.6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 11.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: June 22, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-05
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-5
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, brown, dry
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: Positas Rd
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
12
2
1
7
4
BB
6
2
(26)
3
20
4
(23)
8
10
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): very stiff, light brown, moist
- with trace roots and caliche, at 6 feet
- very stiff, with caliche, at 7.5 feet
Clayey SAND with gravel (SC): medium dense, moist,
fine to medium subrounded gravel
119
104
14
113
107
6
t 1.3
83
t 0.0
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 11.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: June 22, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-06
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-6
3
7
4
(18)
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
6
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
(12)
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
2
BB
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
4
WATER
CONTENT, %
8
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
1
2
LOCATION: Alley between Rice/Bell
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
115
96
20
80
37
20
t 0.1
111
96
16
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, dark brown, dry to
moist
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): medium stiff to stiff, brown,
dry to moist
- with some caliche, at 3.5 feet
8
10
- with trace subrounded gravel to 0.5", at 8.5 feet
t 0.4
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Bentonite Grout / Asphalt Patch
DRILLING DATE: May 31, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch-dia. Hollow Stem Auger
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Trip
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-07
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-7
2
B1
PLASTICITY
INDEX, %
LIQUID
LIMIT, %
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH, Su, ksf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)
SILT with sand (ML): medium stiff, dark brown to
medium brown, moist
WATER
CONTENT, %
SURFACE EL: ft +/- (rel. MSL datum)
UNIT DRY
WEIGHT, pcf
LOCATION: Balcom Canyon
See Plate 2.
UNIT WET
WEIGHT, pcf
SAMPLER
BLOW COUNT
SAMPLERS
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
DEPTH, ft
ELEVATION, ft
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
5
12
81
4
6
B2
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
COMPLETION DEPTH: 6.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: May 31, 2012
DRILLING METHOD: 3-inch-dia. Hand Auger
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing
LOGGED BY: T. Ferro
CHECKED BY: L. Prentice
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. HA-12B
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
DRILL HOLE LOG VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:34 p
PLATE A-8
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
0.0
4.5
6.0
9.5
0.0
4.5
6.0
9.5
1.0
3.5
5.0
8.5
0.5
3.5
1.0
6.0
10.5
1.0
6.0
11.0
0.0
4.5
9.5
0.0
2.0
DH-01
DH-01
DH-01
DH-03A
DH-03A
DH-03A
DH-03A
DH-03B
DH-03B
DH-03B
DH-03B
HA-04
HA-04
DH-05
DH-05
DH-05
DH-06
DH-06
DH-06
DH-07
DH-07
DH-07
HA-12B
HA-12B
DEPTH, ft
DH-01
DRILL
HOLE
SAMPLE NUMBER
B2
B1
4
2
BB
4
2
BB
4
2
BB
B2
B1
3
2
1
BB
4
3
2
BB
4
3
2
BB
SILT with sand (ML)
SILT with sand (ML)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Clayey SAND with gravel (SC)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Sandy SILT (ML)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Clayey SAND (SC)
LAB SUMMARY TABLE VENTURA _N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ_ 7/20/12 01:38 PM-cab
71
32
39
8
7
8
91
93
12
24
23
18
111
115
96
96
113 107
12
5
16
20
6
119 104 14
112
115
8
12
133 120 11
132 116 14
126 118
128 115 12
119 100 19
99
81
80
83
47
34
29
91
UWW UDW MC FINES
%
pcf %
pcf
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
7
37 20
30 18
24
48 24
LL PI
116.0 13.8
OPT
MC
%
COMPACTION
TEST
MAX
DD
pcf
C
ksf
PHI
deg
DIRECT
SHEAR
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)/Silty CLAY with sand (CL-ML)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
S
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
TESTS
U
Qu, (Cell Prs.)
ksf
ksf
1614
1699
332
2586
2809
R
7.90
7.20
7.00
8.10
7.20
pH
16
20
33
13
<2
Cl
<5
52
241
<5
130
So4
(ppm)
CORROSIVITY TESTS
EXPANSION INDEX
122
87
1
54
SAND EQUIVALENT
(SE)
16
4
6
6
9
9
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
PLATE B-1
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R-VALUE
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
US STD SIEVE SIZE
INCHES
3
1.5
3/4
US STD SIEVE SIZE
NUMBERS
3/8
4
10
20
40
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
200
100
100
90
80
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL
Coarse
SAND
Fine
Coarse
LEGEND
Medium
Fine
CLASSIFICATION
(location)
(depth,ft)
DH-03B
HA-04
DH-06
HA-12B
8.5
3.5
6.0
2.0
SILT or CLAY
Cc
Cu
Clayey SAND (SC)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
SILT with sand (ML)
GRAIN SIZE CURVES
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
GRAIN SIZE CURVES VENTURA (N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ) 7/20/12 01:36 p-sz
PLATE B-2
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
100
90
80
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
70
60
CH or OH
50
40
30
CL or OL
MH or OH
20
10
CL-ML
0
0
10
20
ML or OL
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
LEGEND
location
depth, ft
CLASSIFICATION
LIQUID
LIMIT(LL)
PLASTIC
LIMIT(PL)
PLASTICITY
INDEX (PI)
24
DH-01
6.0
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
48
24
DH-03A
4.5
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)/Silty CLAY with sand (CL-ML)
24
17
7
DH-03B
5.0
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
30
12
18
DH-07
4.5
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
37
17
20
PLASTICITY CHART
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
PLASTICITY CHART VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:36 p
PLATE B-3
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 04.62120071
135
ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES
(Gs = 2.65 to 2.75)
Test Method: ASTM D1557
130
UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf
125
120
115
110
105
100
0
5
10
15
20
25
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
LEGEND
(location)
depth, ft
DH-05
1.0
CLASSIFICATION
MAXIMUM UNIT
DRY WEIGHT, pcf
OPTIMUM WATER
CONTENT, %
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
116.0
13.8
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Ventura County Water Pipeline Rehabiliation
Somis, California
COMPACTION TEST VENTURA
N:\PROJECTS\04_2012\04_6212_0071_CNTY_VTA_WATER_PIPELINE\EXPLORATIONS\GINT\2012\04-6212_VR12B.GPJ 7/20/12 01:37 p
PLATE B-4
446-137
Fugro Consultants Inc.
-
-
-
DH-3B
DH-5
DH-6
DH
6
1
1
1
Sample Location or ID
Boring
Sample, No. Depth, ft.
CTL #
Client:
Remarks:
PLATE B-5a
-
-
-
1699
332
2809
Cal 643
-
-
-
ASTM G57
Sulfate
mg/kg
%
Dry Wt.
Dry Wt.
PJ
20
33
<2
52
241
130
0.0052
0.0241
0.0130
Cal 422-mod. Cal 417-mod. Cal 417-mod.
Chloride
mg/kg
Dry Wt.
Resistivity @ 15.5 oC (Ohm-cm)
As Rec.
Minimum
Saturated
ASTM G57
Tested By:
7/12/2012
VCWW Pipeline
Date:
Project:
Corrosivity Test Summary
7.2
7.0
7.2
Cal 643
pH
-
-
-
11.6
17.5
8.3
ASTM D2216
%
mv
SM 2580B
Moisture
At Test
(Redox)
ORP
Checked:
PJ
Proj. No: 04.62120071
Brown Silty
y SAND
Brown Clayey SAND
Brown Silty SAND
Soil Visual Description
446-135
Fugro Consultants
-
-
HA-4
HA-12B
2-6
3.5-6
Sample Location or ID
Boring
Sample, No. Depth, ft.
CTL #
Client:
Remarks:
PLATE B-5b
-
-
ASTM G57
1614
2586
Cal 643
-
-
ASTM G57
Sulfate
mg/kg
%
Dry Wt.
Dry Wt.
PJ
16
13
<5
<5
<0.0005
<0.0005
Cal 422-mod. Cal 417-mod. Cal 417-mod.
Chloride
mg/kg
Dry Wt.
6/15/2012
Tested By:
Ventura County WW Pipeline
Resistivity @ 15.5 oC (Ohm-cm)
As Rec.
Minimum
Saturated
Date:
Project:
Corrosivity Test Summary
7.9
8.1
Cal 643
pH
-
-
12.6
7.6
ASTM D2216
%
mv
SM 2580B
Moisture
At Test
(Redox)
ORP
Checked:
PJ
Proj. No: 04.62120071
Light Brown SAND w/ Silt
Brown Silty SAND
Soil Visual Description