007 Appendix D Geotechnical Report

Appendix D: Geotechnical Report
Copyright 2011 By ENGEO Incorporated.

This Document May Not Be Reproduced In
Whole Or In Part By Any Means Whatsoever,
Nor May It Be Quoted Or Excerpted Without
The Express Written Consent Of ENGEO
Incorporated
- Expect Excellence -

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

Ms. Olga Rodriguez
AECOM Transportation
2905 Stender Way, Suite 82
Santa Clara, California 95054

Prepared by:
ENGEO Incorporated

May 27, 2011
Project No. 9232.000.000

GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
WATER RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95119 (408) 574-4900 Fax (888) 279-2698
www.engeo.com

Project No.
9232.000.000

May 27, 2011

Ms. Olga Rodriguez
2905 Stender Way, Suite 82
Santa Clara, CA 95054

Subject: Junipero Serra Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements
Santa Clara County, California

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Dear Ms. Rodriguez:

With your authorization, we performed a geotechnical exploration for the proposed traffic
calming improvements along Junipero Serra Boulevard in Santa Clara County, California.

The accompanying report contains our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the
proposed project. It is our opinion that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint provided the recommendations in this report are implemented.

We are pleased to be of service to you on this project and will continue to consult with you and
your design team as the project progresses.

Sincerely,

ENGEO Incorporated

Andrew H. Firmin, PE Julia A. Moriarty, GE
ahf/jam/rc


9232.000.000
Junipero Serra Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements May 27, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.......................................................................................1
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...........................................................2
1.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................................3
2.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY..................................................................3
2.1 SITE GEOLOGY...................................................................................................3
2.2 REGIONAL FAULTING AND SITE SEISMICITY.........................................4
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................4
3.1 FIELD LOGGING.................................................................................................5
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING..................................................................................6
3.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................6
3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................7
3.5 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................8
4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................8
4.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................8
4.2 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT................................9
4.3 DRAINAGE CHANNEL BANK STABILITY...................................................9
4.4 COMPRESSIBLE SOILS.....................................................................................9
4.5 EXISTING FILL..................................................................................................10
4.6 EXPANSIVE SOILS............................................................................................10
4.7 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................10
4.8 FLOODING..........................................................................................................10
4.9 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS............11
4.10 CORROSIVITY CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................11
4.11 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................13
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................13
5.1 MONITORING AND TESTING........................................................................13
5.2 EXISTING UTILITY CROSSINGS..................................................................14
5.3 EXCAVATABILITY...........................................................................................14
5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS.......................................................................14
5.5 TEMPORARY DEWATERING........................................................................14
5.6 SOFT SUBGRADE CONDITIONS...................................................................15
5.7 ENGINEERED FILL SELECTION AND PLACEMENT..............................15
5.8 RETAINING WALLS.........................................................................................15
5.8.1 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations ................................................16

9232.000.000

5.8.1.1 Spread Footing Foundation............................................................16
5.8.1.2 Drilled Pier Foundation..................................................................17
5.8.2 Caltrans Standard Retaining Walls ............................................................18
5.8.3 Construction Considerations......................................................................18
5.9 R-VALUE RESULTS FOR PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN .....................19
5.10 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND INFILTRATION OPPORTUNITIES ...........19
6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS......................19

SELECTED REFERENCES

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Regional Faulting and Seismicity

APPENDIX A Boring Logs
APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Data


9232.000.000

- 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to provide geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations for design and construction of the proposed traffic calming improvements
along Junipero Serra Boulevard. We performed the following services.

Review of available literature and geologic maps for the study area;

Subsurface exploration consisting of three soil borings and one shallow core;

Laboratory testing of materials sampled during the field exploration;

Geotechnical data analyses;

Report preparation summarizing our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed
improvements.

As described in our proposal revise dated January 31, 2011, based on our geological and
geotechnical data gathered, our geotechnical report will address the following:

Physical properties of the typical soils encountered in the borings and results of laboratory
testing.

Discussion of geotechnical constraints such as compressible soils, expansive soils, existing
fills, and shallow groundwater levels, as necessary.

Retaining wall recommendations, including foundation design criteria.

We were informed that the County of Santa Clara will address the following items based on the
information we gather, assess, and report herein:

Geological hazard assessment of the site and project area, such as faulting, landsliding,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, tsunamis, and seiches.

Grading recommendations and engineered fill placement specifications.

Existing pavement conditions assessment.

Pavement design sections.


9232.000.000

- 2 -
We prepared this report exclusively for the AECOM Transportation and their design team
consultants. ENGEO should review any changes made in the character, design or layout of the
project to modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, as necessary.

1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

As shown on the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by Sebastian & Associates and dated
December 3, 2009 (Job No. JSB 08020), the planned street improvements are along
Junipero Serra Boulevard between approximately 1,200 feet northwest of Santa Maria Avenue
and approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Santa Maria Avenue (roughly 2,700 total feet)
(Figures 1 and 2).

Photo 1 Junipero Serra Boulevard near Santa Maria Avenue looking southeast

An existing drainage channel runs adjacent to the southwestern side of Junipero Serra Boulevard
at the northwestern end of the project alignment. The channel extends roughly 5 feet below street
level, and contains approximately 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) to 2:1 slope bank walls, and roughly
runs in a southeast-northwest direction. The stretch of channel bank immediately adjacent to
Junipero Serra Boulevard was lined with dry-stack concrete bags and that stretch of channel
contained a concrete bottom.

Topographic conditions off the edges of roadway along the remaining study area generally
matched existing pavement or were observed to have 2:1 or flatter upslopes or downslopes up to
2 to 3 feet in height off the edge of pavement.

According to the plans and regional topographic maps, the existing road gently slopes upward
from each end of the project alignment to a high point near the intersecting Santa Maria Avenue.
Based on review of a topographic map of the area (USGS, 1997), the project alignment varies
from approximate Elevations of 180 to 210 feet.

9232.000.000

- 3 -

1.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The Landscape Concept Plan shows proposed traffic-calming improvements including
construction of the following.

A 10-foot-wide raised median along the project alignment.

A widened street with teardrop entry medians at the northwestern and southeastern ends of
the project alignment.

A widened street with a diamond entry median at the Santa Maria Avenue intersection.

To accomplish the above improvements, the existing road will be widened up to approximately
23 feet off each side at the three above widening locations, and may be slightly widened
elsewhere at tapers and to improve the shoulders.

Based on correspondence with AECOM Transportation (AECOM), we understand construction
of site retaining walls will be necessary at some of the road widening sections. In particular, a
wall system is likely at the widened entry median at the northwestern end of the project
alignment adjacent to the existing drainage channel. To avoid impacting the existing drainage
channel bottom, we anticipate at least a portion of the wall system will comprise a 3-sided box
culvert or arch culvert with open bottom, with one side supporting the existing street soils and
the other side supporting the existing slope on the opposite side of the channel. For the retaining
wall system that extends beyond the ends of the culvert, we anticipate the wall will be situated in
between the existing channel bottom and the existing edge of pavement, therefore, a level
backfill is anticipated with a 1:1 or slightly flatter foreground below the wall. Other segments of
site walls are anticipated in areas of planned cut or planned fill associated with the road widening
activities.

2.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.1 SITE GEOLOGY

Regional mapping by Brabb (2000) depicts the majority of the subject site as underlain by the
Whiskey Hill formation (Tw) consisting mostly of coarse-grained sandstone. The northwestern
end of the site is mapped as Holocene-age alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf) in proximity to
the existing drainage channel, and the southeastern end of the site is mapped as the Santa Clara
formation (QTsc) (Figure 3).


9232.000.000

- 4 -
2.2 REGIONAL FAULTING AND SITE SEISMICITY

The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (1982) for
active faulting; however, because of the presence of nearby active faults
1
, the region is
considered seismically active.

Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large (>M7) earthquakes have
been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Figure 4 shows the approximate
locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the region.

The most common nearby active faults within 25 miles of the site (EQFault, Version 3.00) are
provided in the following table.

TABLE 1
Regional Faults
Fault Name
Approximate
Distance
(miles)
Approximate
Direction
from Site
Monte Vista - Shannon 1.7 Southwest
San Andreas 3.8 Southwest
San Gregorio 14.5 Southwest
Hayward 15.3 Northeast
Calaveras 19.4 Northeast

Ground motions are typically expressed as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (g). The
California Geological Survey (CGS) supports a web database that includes probabilistic peak
horizontal ground accelerations for the State of California. The probabilistic data are based on
the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA, 2002) model. The local faults
are estimated to cause a peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.59g at the site for a seismic
event that has an exceedance probability of 10 percent in 50 years.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

The sections below summarize our field exploration activities and laboratory testing; as well as
ground surface, subsurface, and groundwater conditions.

1
An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey as one that has had surface displacement within
Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Hart, 1997).

9232.000.000

- 5 -
3.1 FIELD LOGGING

The field exploration for this study consisted of drilling three exploratory borings and
performing one shallow core within the project alignment on May 12, 2011. Three solid flight
auger boreholes (Borings 1-B1 through 1-B3) were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately
14 feet below the existing ground surface. In addition, one shallow core (Core 1-P1) was
advanced along Junipero Serra Boulevard, using the solid flight auger drill bit to record the
existing thicknesses of the asphaltic concrete and underlying aggregate base using a field tape.

To minimize impact to existing traffic along Junipero Serra Boulevard and due to several
existing utility conflicts on the southwestern shoulder, our borings were advanced on the
northeastern paved shoulder. In addition, existing utility conflicts at the northwestern end of the
project near the existing drainage channel prohibited advancement of an exploratory boring on
either side of the street in this area.

Figure 2 presents the approximate locations of the exploratory borings and core obtained by
taping or pacing from existing features. As a result, the mapped locations should be considered
only as accurate as the methods used to determine them.

Photo 2 Field exploration

The borings and core were logged in the field by an ENGEO engineer and soil samples were
collected using either a 2-inch inside diameter (I.D.) California-type split-spoon sampler fitted
with 6-inch-long brass liners or a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.) Standard Penetration Test
split-spoon sampler. Bulk samples were also collected of near-surface drilling spoils. The
penetration of the samplers into the site materials were recorded as the number of blows needed
to drive the sampler 18 inches in 6-inch increments using an automatic-trip, 140-pound safety

9232.000.000

- 6 -
hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The boring logs record blow count results as the actual
number of blows required for the last 1 foot of penetration; no conversion factors have been
applied. We used the field logs to develop the report boring logs, which are presented in
Appendix A.

The logs depict subsurface conditions within the borings and core at the time the exploration was
conducted. Stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil
types, and the transition may be gradual. It should be recognized that subsurface conditions at
other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. In addition, the
passage of time may also result in altered subsurface conditions.

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Select soil samples recovered during drilling activities were tested to determine the following
soil characteristics:

TABLE 2
Laboratory Testing
Soil Characteristic Testing Method Location of Results
Natural Unit Weight and Moisture Content ASTM D-2216 Appendix A
Grain Size Distribution

ASTM D 422

Appendix B

Unconfined Compression ASTM D-2166 Appendix B
Resistance Value (R-Value) Caltrans 301 Appendix B
Sulfate Testing Caltrans 417 Appendix B

The laboratory test results are shown on the bore logs (Appendix A) with individual test results
presented in Appendix B.

3.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS

At the time of our field work and as briefly described under Section 1.2, the project alignment
consisted of the paved Junipero Serra Boulevard extending approximately 1,200 feet northwest
of Santa Maria Avenue and approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Santa Maria Avenue (roughly
2,700 total feet). The existing street consists of a two-lane road roughly 12-feet-wide in each
direction with a median up to approximately 4 feet in width. A paved bike lane and/or shoulder
ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet in width exist on each side of the existing street. Heavy
vehicular and bicycle traffic was present along the project alignment while we were on site.

Based on our observations, the existing road gently sloped upward from each end of the project
alignment to a high point near the intersecting Santa Maria Avenue. The existing pavement
generally appeared to be in good condition, with some occasional meandering cracks generally
aligned in the direction of travel in the vehicular and bicycle lanes. Minor patch pave areas were

9232.000.000

- 7 -
also observed, anticipated in the alignment of existing utilities. The roadway surface also
appeared to be crowned to sheet flow water off the road.

Also as described in Section 1.2, a drainage channel exists adjacent to the southwestern side of
Junipero Serra Boulevard at the northwestern end of the project alignment (Photo 3). According
to a brief review of historic aerial photographs (Google Earth), the drainage channel historically
traveled to the northeast, under Junipero Serra Boulevard. The channel was redirected to run
parallel to Junipero Serra Boulevard when the roadway was constructed several decades ago and
currently drains in a southeast to northwest direction. The channel banks are roughly 5 feet high
and has slope gradients that vary from roughly 1:1 to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The stretch of
channel bank immediately adjacent to Junipero Serra Boulevard is lined with dry-stack concrete
bags and that portion of the channel contains a concrete bottom.

Photo 3 Drainage channel at northwestern end of project looking southeast

In addition, topographic conditions off the edges of roadway along the remaining study area
generally matched existing pavement or were observed to have 2:1 or flatter upslopes or
downslopes up to 2 to 3 feet in height off the edge of pavement.

3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our borings and core were advance in pavement areas and generally encountered approximately
4 to 7 inches of asphaltic concrete (AC) over 8 to 10 inches of aggregate base (AB). The table
below presents our asphaltic concrete and aggregate base field measurements at Borings 1-B1
through 1-B3 and Core 1-P1.


9232.000.000

- 8 -
TABLE 3
Existing Asphaltic Concrete and Aggregate Base Thickness
Boring/Core
Location
Asphaltic Concrete
Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base
Thickness (inches)
1-B1 6 10
1-B2 4 8
1-B3 7 8
1-P1 6 10

Beneath the aggregate base, the borings generally encountered 6 to 7 feet of stiff or loose to
medium dense or hard sandy lean clay and clayey sand with varying amounts of fine gravel.
Beneath the sandy lean clay and clayey sand, sandstone and claystone bedrock were
encountered.

Although plasticity index testing was not performed on the sandy clay/clayey sands, our field
visual classification and laboratory testing (moisture/density and R-value) suggests these soils
have a moderately low to moderate expansion potential.

Variations in soil stratigraphy should be expected along the project alignment.

3.5 GROUNDWATER

We encountered groundwater in Borings 1-B1 and 1-B2 at depths of approximately 14 and
7 feet below existing grade, respectively. We did not encounter groundwater in Boring 1-B3
within the depth explored of 14 feet.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur seasonally and over a period of years because of
variations in precipitation, temperature, irrigation, and other factors. Based on the variation in
depth and occurrence of groundwater, we anticipate perched zones of groundwater may be
encountered within the project alignment at shallow depths.

4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS

The project alignment was not evaluated with respect to known geologic and seismic hazards
common to the Bay Area, such as faulting, landsliding, liquefaction, lateral spreading, tsunamis,
and seiches. We understand the County of Santa Clara will perform this evaluation for the
project alignment, as applicable.


9232.000.000

- 9 -
4.2 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT

As previously discussed, the existing pavement generally appeared to be in good condition, with
some occasional meandering cracks generally aligned in the direction of travel in the vehicular
and bicycle lanes, and minor areas of patch paving. We understand the County of Santa Clara
will perform a detailed existing pavement conditions assessment to provide recommendations for
pavement rehabilitation, overlay, and/or slurry seal.

4.3 DRAINAGE CHANNEL BANK STABILITY

As noted above, an existing drainage channel runs adjacent to the southwestern side of
Junipero Serra Boulevard at the northwestern end of the project alignment in an area planned for
road widening. The channel bank is roughly 5 feet high (below street level) and roughly runs in a
southeast to northwest direction with channel bank slope gradients of roughly 1:1 to 2:1.

The northeastern channel bank (supporting the street) is generally lined with dry-stack concrete
bags. The southwestern channel bank (slope to the southwest of the street) is lined with dry-stack
concrete bags or blocks for a portion of the bank, and an unlined creek bank with sparse
vegetation on the remaining portion of the bank.

Although slope stability analyses of the channel banks were not performed, these embankments
may be susceptible to natural slope regression processes, as well as minor slope deformations
during strong ground shaking. However, we assume that most of the existing utilities are situated
at least 3 feet from the top of existing creek bank and at depths generally equal to or below the
channel bottom; therefore, the potential for damage to the existing utilities due to channel bank
instability should be low. Future street improvements in proximity to the channel or other
downslopes will be supported by a planned retaining wall system(s) designed to accommodate
the downsloping condition.

If proposed improvements require excavating a portion of the unlined slope above and to the
southwest of the project alignment, or if the slope bank is planned to be graded to a condition
steeper than the current gradient, the slope should be assessed for local stability. As applicable,
additional retaining walls, slope reconstruction and incorporation of geogrid soil reinforcement
could be considered to achieve suitable factors of safety. We can provide additional consultation
regarding this issue as planning progresses and if requested.

4.4 COMPRESSIBLE SOILS

Compressible soils were not encountered in our borings within the existing Junipero Serra
Boulevard street sections. However, proposed improvements include street widening into
unpaved areas where near-surface compressible soils may be encountered. These soils may be
susceptible to settlement/compression from increased loads imposed by fills and traffic. During
construction, we recommend potholing several locations along the planned widening areas and
select street pavement areas to identify if potentially compressible soils are present within the

9232.000.000

- 10 -
project alignment. If present, it is recommended that these soils be removed and backfilled as
engineered fill. Additional recommendations are presented in a subsequent section.

4.5 EXISTING FILL

With exception to the existing pavement and aggregate base along the project alignment, existing
fills were not evident at the boring locations. However, existing fill materials should be
anticipated within utility trench backfill and likely small fills are present along select roadway
edges.

Existing fills in planned roadway widening areas could undergo vertical movement that is not
easily characterized and could ultimately be inadequate to effectively support the proposed
improvements. In general, undocumented fills encountered during construction under the
existing pavement should be observed, tested, and proof-rolled for stability. If yielding or
unsuitable conditions are encountered, localized subexcavation and replacement with engineered
fill or aggregate base may be necessary.

4.6 EXPANSIVE SOILS

As previously discussed, some of the clayey soils encountered in the borings below the asphaltic
concrete and aggregate base could be moderately expansive. Expansive soils shrink and swell as
a result of moisture changes which can cause heaving and cracking of pavements. Successful
construction on expansive soils requires special attention during grading. It is imperative to keep
exposed soils moist until the street section is placed. Conventional grading operations and
incorporating moisture and compaction fill placement specifications tailored to the expansive
characteristics of the soil are common, generally cost-effective measures to address the
expansive potential of soils.

4.7 GROUNDWATER

As discussed above, groundwater was encountered in two of the three borings at a depth as
shallow as 7 feet below existing grade. Based on the variation in depth and occurrence of
groundwater, we anticipate perched zones of groundwater may be encountered within the project
alignment. As a result, and depending on excavation depths for proposed improvements, perched
groundwater may be encountered during construction activities.

4.8 FLOODING

We did not provide an assessment of flooding or review existing FIRM maps. We understand the
Project Civil Engineer will assess if the site is located within the 100-year flood elevation.


9232.000.000

- 11 -
4.9 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS

As applicable, based on the subsurface conditions encountered and local seismic sources and
provided the site is prepared according to the recommendations contained herein, the following
2010 California Building Code (CBC) seismic design parameters should be used for design.

TABLE 4
2010 CBC Seismic Information
Parameter
Design
Value
Site Class C

0.2 second Spectral Response Acceleration, S
S
2.16
1.0 second Spectral Response Acceleration, S
1
0.87
Site Coefficient, F
A
1.00
Site Coefficient, F
V
1.30
Maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations for short periods, S
MS
2.16
Maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations for 1-second periods, S
M1
1.13
Design spectral response acceleration at short periods, S
DS
1.44
Design spectral response acceleration at 1-second periods, S
D1
0.75
Long period transition-period, T
L
12
Latitude = 37.41341; Longitude = -122.16853

4.10 CORROSIVITY CONSIDERATIONS

An evaluation of potential sulfate attack to concrete elements was conducted on two samples of
site soils ranging in depth from approximately 1 to 2 feet below existing grade. The two
samples were tested for water-soluble sulfate (SO
4
) in accordance with Caltrans Test Method
417 and yielded water-soluble sulfate concentrations of 84 mg/kg and 2,262 mg/kg (0.0084 and
0.2262 percentage by weight), from Borings 1-B1 and 1-B3, respectively.

The CBC references the 2008 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318 (Chapter 4,
Sections 4.2 and 4.3) for concrete requirements. ACI Tables 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 provide the
following sulfate exposure categories and classes and concrete requirements in contact with soil
based upon the exposure risk.


9232.000.000

- 12 -
TABLE 5
Sulfate Exposure Categories and Classes
Water- Soluble
Sulfate in Soil
Dissolved Sulfate in
Water
Sulfate
Exposure Category
S
Exposure
Class
% by Weight mg/kg (ppm)
Not Applicable S0 SO
4
< 0.10 SO
4
< 150
Moderate S1 0.10 SO
4
< 0.20
150 SO
4
1,500
seawater
Severe S2 0.20 SO
4
2.00 1,500 SO
4
10,000
Very Severe S3 SO
4
> 2.00 SO
4
> 10,000

TABLE 6
Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class
Cement Type
Exposure
Class
Max
w/cm
Min fc
(psi)
ASTM
C150
ASTM
C595
ASTM
C1157
Calcium
Chloride
Admixture
S0 N/A 2500
No Type
restriction
No Type restriction
No Type
restriction
No restriction
S1 0.5 4000 II
IP(MS), IS(<70), (MS) MS No restriction

S2 0.45 4500 V
IP(HS), IS(<70), (HS) HS Not permitted

S3 0.45 4500
V +
pozzolan or
slag

IP(HS) + pozzolan or
slag or IS(<70)
(HS) + pozzolan or
slag

HS +
pozzolan or
slag

Not permitted
Notes: For seawater exposure, other types of portland cements with tricalcium aluminate (C
3
A) contents up
to 10 percent are permitted if the w/cm does not exceed 0.40.
Other available types of cement such as Type III or Type I are permitted in Exposure Classes S1 or
S2 if the C
3
A contents are less than 8 or 5 percent, respectively.

The amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount
that has been determined by service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete
containing Type V cement. Alternatively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slag to
be used shall not be less than the amount tested in accordance with ASTM C1012 and meeting the
criteria in ACI 4.5.1.

In accordance with the criteria presented above, the test result from Boring 1-B1 at 1.5 feet
below existing grade (bgs) is classified in the not applicable sulfate exposure class (S0), while
the test result from Boring 1-B3 at 2 feet bgs is classified in the severe sulfate exposure class
(S2). Cement type, maximum water-cement ratio and minimum concrete strength for these
exposure classes are specified by the CBC in the table above. At this time based on limited
testing, we recommend the proposed improvements consider S2 exposure class
recommendations. It should be noted, however, that the structural engineering design
requirements for concrete might result in more stringent concrete specifications.


9232.000.000

- 13 -
If requested, we can provide additional sulfate testing to further define the locations of high
sulfate exposure within the project alignment.

4.11 CONCLUSIONS

It is our opinion, based on this exploration and laboratory test results, that the proposed traffic
calming improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint for the project site. Design
considerations and recommendations presented in this report and developed by the County of
Santa Clara should be incorporated into project design and implemented during construction.

Based on this geotechnical exploration, the main concerns from a geotechnical standpoint for the
planned project include:

Long-term stability of the existing drainage channel bank and retaining wall
design/construction adjacent to drainage corridors and containing downsloping foreground.

Street widening into unpaved areas that may encounter soft/compressible soils near-surface
soils or shallow existing undocumented fills

Moderately expansive subgrade soils

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the above geotechnical concerns, our design and general construction
recommendations are presented in the following sections. The recommendations included in this
report, along with other sound engineering practices, should be incorporated in the design and
construction of the project. In addition, relevant information and recommendations from the
following references were incorporated.

Division of Occupations Safety and Health (DOSH) (Cal/OSHA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Technical Manual (OTM) (1999)

The Engineer, County, and Contractor should review these references along with this report. If
there appears to be a conflict, this should be brought to the attention of the applicable agency and
Geotechnical Engineer.

5.1 MONITORING AND TESTING

It is important that all construction activities be performed under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineers field representative, in accordance with the recommendations contained
herein and developed by the County of Santa Clara.


9232.000.000

- 14 -
5.2 EXISTING UTILITY CROSSINGS

The locations and depths of the existing utilities located adjacent to or over the proposed
improvements should be evaluated such that they are not damaged during construction.
Protection of existing utility crossings in trenches should also be considered. Critical utilities
should be protected through cradling while less critical utilities could span trenches unprotected.

5.3 EXCAVATABILITY

Based on our field exploration, it appears that mid-sized equipment, such as D6 dozers and
excavators, would be able to excavate site soils to planned depths. At this time (with exception to
possible deep foundations for the retaining walls), we do not anticipate that proposed
improvements will extend to bedrock.

5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

Based on the soil data, it is our opinion that excavations should be either shored and/or shielded
if vertical cuts are constructed, or sloped and/or bench cut if existing constraints are not present.
The Contractor should be familiar with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, and shall
conform to Cal/OSHA requirements for shoring and/or sloped excavations and utility
construction within the excavations. The design of appropriate shoring systems is the
responsibility of the Contractor and should be in conformance with the OTM and Cal/OSHA.

For vertical trench excavation or sloped excavations and/or benching, design and construction
should be performed in accordance with the OTM. The contractors Competent Person is
responsible to confirm or adjust soil classifications based upon actual field conditions
encountered during construction. The Contractor should consider vehicular traffic, construction
equipment, soil stockpiles, etc. in determining their excavation plan. Excavated soils, if
stockpiled, should be situated away from the edge of excavations to reduce potential adverse
effects on excavation stability.

Temporary slopes and excavations will be subject to deformation, sloughing, and erosion and
should be backfilled as soon as practical.

5.5 TEMPORARY DEWATERING

As previously discussed, perched groundwater may be encountered depending on the location
and depth of excavations. General recommendations are provided below.

The water level at the excavation locations should be maintained below the bottom of the
excavations. The selection of equipment and method should be determined by the contractor.
The dewatering system implemented should be selected so as to have minimal impact on the
groundwater level surrounding the proposed excavations. The dewatering system should be
designed to prevent pumping soil fines with the discharge water into a location approved by the
County.

9232.000.000

- 15 -

5.6 SOFT SUBGRADE CONDITIONS

It is possible that soft subgrade conditions may be encountered at the bottom of the proposed
excavations or at street subgrade. Depending on the depth of excavations and the time of year
that construction takes place, it may become necessary to perform subgrade stabilization to
mitigate such conditions. Excavations that bottom in soft, yielding soils may require additional
mitigation such as chemical treatment, placement of geotextile stabilization material (such as
Mirafi 600X) directly on subgrade, or overexcavation of up to 18 inches below planned subgrade
(if existing utilities allow) to encounter a firm soil base before backfilling with drier engineered
soil fill or compacted aggregate base within street areas. If yielding material is encountered at the
base of soft soil overexcavations, placing geotextile stabilization material at the base and up the
side walls of the overexcavation is recommended prior to backfill entirely with compacted
aggregate base up to street subgrade. Incorporating geogrid reinforcement, such as Tensar
triaxial geogrid, on subgrade and at mid-height of the aggregate base section, could also be
considered.

ENGEO is available to provide additional consultation and recommendations based on actual
field conditions during site construction.

5.7 ENGINEERED FILL SELECTION AND PLACEMENT

We understand the County of Santa Clara will provide grading recommendations and engineered
fill placement specifications and materials for the project. The proposed improvements should be
constructed in accordance with these separate recommendations and requirements provided by
the County.

5.8 RETAINING WALLS

As previously discussed, we anticipate construction of site retaining walls be necessary at some
of the planned road widening sections. In particular, a wall system is likely at the widened entry
median at the northwestern end of the project alignment adjacent to the existing drainage
channel. To avoid impacting the existing drainage channel bottom, we anticipate at least a
portion of the wall system will comprise a 3-sided box culvert or arch culvert with open bottom
that receives backfill behind and above the culvert to achieve planned pavement elevation.

For the retaining wall system that extends beyond the ends of the culvert, we anticipate the wall
will be situated in between the existing channel bottom and the existing edge of pavement,
therefore, a level backfill is anticipated with a 1:1 or slightly flatter foreground below the wall.
Other segments of site walls are anticipated in areas of planned cut or planned fill associated
with the road widening activities.


9232.000.000

- 16 -
The following sections present general retaining wall design recommendations and Caltrans
Standard Plan recommendations. The foundation details and structural calculations for retaining
walls should be submitted for review by the Geotechnical Engineer.

5.8.1 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations

Since the site retaining walls will be supporting pavements, we recommend they be designed
using restrained, at-rest, drained earth pressures. If minor rotation at the top of wall is tolerable,
then an active, drained earth pressure is feasible. As a result, retaining walls up to 10 feet in
height may be designed using the following drained equivalent fluid pressures as follows.

TABLE 7
Equivalent Fluid Pressures
Backfill Slope Condition
(horizontal:vertical)
Active Earth Pressure
(pounds per cubic foot, pcf)
At-Rest Earth Pressure
(pounds per cubic foot, pcf)
Level 50 70
3:1 60 80
2:1 70 90
1:1 80 100

An at-rest earth pressure of 70 pcf should be used in design of the culvert since the culvert walls
should not be allowed to rotate.

If portions of the walls or culvert are to be undrained, then an additional 30 pcf should be added
to the values above. For walls with a level foreground condition (for a distance of at least
10 feet), the equivalent fluid pressures should extend to a depth of 1 foot below lowest adjacent
soil subgrade, or to the bottom of the wall foundation (footing or pier cap), whichever is deeper.
If a downsloping condition is present, the earth pressure should extend to that depth necessary to
achieve a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet to the nearest free face. For site retaining walls
situated adjacent to and parallel with the existing drainage channel, the earth pressure should
extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the drainage channel bottom.

Appropriate safety factors (F.S.) against overturning (suggested minimum F.S. of 2.0) and
sliding (minimum F.S. of 1.5) should be incorporated into the design calculations as well as
incorporation of surcharge loads from pavement and traffic, where applicable.

5.8.1.1 Spread Footing Foundation

The following recommendations apply to site walls supported on a spread footing foundation.

Retaining wall footings should be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds
per square foot (psf), assuming the footing is supported on firm soil. A minimum footing width
of 12 inches is recommended as well as a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below lowest

9232.000.000

- 17 -
adjacent soil subgrade, or deepened as necessary to achieve at least 10 horizontal feet to the
nearest free slope face. For the wall footing situated parallel to the existing northwestern
drainage channel, we recommend the footings be extended to at least 24 inches below the bottom
of the drainage channel to account for a limited amount of future scour or downcutting.

The friction factor for sliding resistance may be assumed as 0.30. Passive pressures acting on
foundations may be assumed as 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) provided that the area in front of
the retaining wall is level for a distance of at least 10 feet or three times the depth of foundation
and keyway, whichever is greater. Passive resistance should start below the depth required for
lateral equivalent fluid pressure noted above. The passive pressure may be increased by
1
/3 for
transient loads such as wind or seismic.

Actual footing dimensions and reinforcement should be determined by the wall designer, based
on structural design considerations.

5.8.1.2 Drilled Pier Foundation

For walls supported on a drilled pier foundation system, the following pier design criteria should
be incorporated:

Pier diameter: Minimum 12 inches.

Pier depth: Minimum 6 feet.

Maximum allowable skin friction: 400 pounds per square foot (psf). This value may be
increased by
1
/3 when considering seismic or wind
loads. Exclude the upper 2 feet of the pier shaft
from pier load capacity computations.

Minimum pier spacing: 3 pier diameters, center-to-center.

For a downsloping foreground condition, the lateral equivalent fluid pressures noted above
should continue down the pier shaft to that depth necessary to achieve at least 10 horizontal feet
to the nearest slope face, or to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the existing drainage channel,
where applicable. The lateral earth pressures should span over the tributary width between piers.

An equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting on two times the pier diameter
may be used to evaluate passive resistance, starting below the depth required for lateral
equivalent fluid pressure noted above. The passive pressure may be increased by
1
/3 for transient
loads such as wind or seismic.

Actual pier depths, spacing, and reinforcement should be determined by the wall designer, based
on structural design considerations.


9232.000.000

- 18 -
5.8.2 Caltrans Standard Retaining Walls

As an alternative, retaining walls may be designed and constructed according to the Caltrans
Standard Plan (2006). Based on our review, Retaining Wall Type 1, Type 1A, Type 2, or Type 5
may be used. For the proposed culvert and select walls in cut, 2:1 or slightly steeper slopes may
be present behind the retaining wall and traffic loading may be applied to the other side of the
wall. As such, Loading Cases I, II, and IV should be considered in design based on the Caltrans
Standard Plan and Bridge Standard Detail Sheets.

According to the standard plans, the walls may be supported on a spread footing or pile/pier
foundation. The walls should be designed to meet the minimum requirements on the standard
plans based on the design recommendations provided in prior sections of this report for spread
footing and drilled pier foundations.

5.8.3 Construction Considerations

Retaining walls should be provided with drainage facilities to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic
pressures behind the walls. Wall drainage may be provided using a 4-inch-diameter perforated
pipe (SDR 35 or equivalent) embedded in either free-draining gravel surrounded by synthetic
filter fabric (minimum 6-ounce) or Class 2 permeable material. The width of the drain blanket
should be at least 12 inches, and the drain blanket should extend to about 1 foot below the soil
subgrades. The upper 1 foot of wall backfill to soil subgrade should consist of compacted site
soils. Drainage should be collected in solid pipes and directed to an outlet approved by the Civil
Engineer, such as a catch basin, storm drain manhole or into an existing drainage swale or
channel above normal high water elevation. Wall drainage recommendations provided in the
Caltrans Standard Plan may also be utilized provided that weep hole drains are spaced at 6 feet
on-center, maximum. Pervious backfill material should meet the requirements provided above.

All backfill should be placed as engineered fill using light equipment to reduce possible
overstressing of the walls.

For drilled pier foundations, pier drilling and concrete placement should be coordinated so that
pier holes are left open a limited amount of time. Pier holes should not be allowed to desiccate
visibly before placing concrete. Pier holes should be cleaned of loose materials and tamped, and
any water at the base of the pier hole should be pumped prior to concrete placement, or displaced
during concrete placement using the tremie method. Due to the depth of the piers and
groundwater considerations, we suggest pier concrete in general be tremie-placed to avoid
dislodging soil from the sidewalls of the pier shaft.

We recommend that all footing excavations, pier hole drilling, and related construction be
performed under observation of the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm exposed soil conditions
and that the walls are constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this
report.


9232.000.000

- 19 -
5.9 R-VALUE RESULTS FOR PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN

Resistance value (R-value) testing was performed on near-surface soil cuttings collected from
Borings 1-B1 through 1-B3. The results are presented in the table below.

TABLE 8
Boring Location
Resistance Value
(R-value)
1-B1 17
1-B2 13
1-B3 17

We understand the County of Santa Clara will provide pavement section designs based on our
R-value testing. If desired, ENGEO can provide preliminary sections for use in land planning if
the Traffic Index is provided.

5.10 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND INFILTRATION OPPORTUNITIES

The work area and finished grade must be positively graded at all times to provide for removal of
surface water run-off and to prevent ponding of water or seepage during or after construction.
Ponding of stormwater must not be permitted during prolonged periods of inclement weather. All
surface water should be collected and discharged into the storm drain system or through an
engineered water quality system. Landscape mounds must not interfere with this requirement.

Due to the generally high fines content tested in the site materials, the site soils encountered are
not expected to have adequate permeability values to handle storm water infiltration in grassy
swales or permeable pavers unless subdrainage is installed. Therefore, best management
practices should assume that little stormwater infiltration will occur at the site.

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to transmit
the information and recommendations of this report to developers, owners, buyers, architects,
engineers, and designers for the project so that the necessary steps can be taken by the
contractors and subcontractors to carry out such recommendations in the field. The conclusions
and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions.

The professional staff of ENGEO strives to perform its services in a proper and professional
manner with reasonable care and competence but is not infallible. There are risks of earth
movement and property damages inherent in land development. We are unable to eliminate all
risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our
services.


9232.000.000

- 20 -
This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of preparation of
ENGEOs report. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse; that is, reusing
without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires
ENGEO to evaluate the documents applicability given new circumstances, not the least of
which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications,
adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEOs documents. Therefore, ENGEO must
be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes
before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEOs scope of
services does not include on-study area construction observation, or if other persons or entities
are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims
arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and
from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications,
discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.


9232.000.000

SELECTED REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05).

Blake, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.

Brabb, E.E., Graymore, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geology of Palo Alto, 30 x 60 minute
quadrangle, California: a digital database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report
OF-98-348, Scale 1:100000.

California Building Code, 2010.

California Department of Transportation, 1992, Highway Design Manual.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 1999, Technical Manual.

SEAOC, 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Tentative Commentary.

State of California, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in
Santa Clara County, California, Special Report 107, Plates 1 through 4.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Regional Faulting and Seismicity

F
I
G
U
R
E
S
0
0 FEET
METERS
2000
1000
VICINITY MAP
9232.000.000
AS SHOWN
1
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
1-B1
1-B2
1-P1
1-B3
0
0 FEET
METERS
400
200
SITE PLAN
9232.000.000
AS SHOWN
2
EXPLANATION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE AND
AGGREGATE BASE CORE
1-B3
1-P1
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
D
I
S
H
H
IK
I
N
G
T
R
A
I
L
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
0
0 FEET
METERS
4000
2000
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
9232.000.000
AS SHOWN
3
EXPLANATION
Qhl
alf
Qhsc
Qhb
Qhfp
Qpoaf
Qpaf
QTsc
Tlad
Tm
Tpm
Tw
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
P
A
L
O

C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
S
A
N

G
R
E
G
O
R
I
O
O
R
T
I
G
A
L
I
T
A
G
R
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y

B
A
Y

-

T
U
L
A
R
C
I
T
O
S
R
E
L
IZ
S
A
N

G
R
E
G
O
R
I
O
S
A
N

A
N
D
R
E
A
S
H
A
Y
W
A
R
D
P
O
I
N
T

R
E
Y
E
S
S
A
N

A
N
D
R
E
A
S
C
O
N
C
O
R
D
G
R
E
E
N

V
A
L
L
E
Y
V
A
C
A
S
A
N

J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
O
R
T
I
G
A
L
I
T
A
T
O
L
A
Y
R
O
D
G
E
R
S

C
R
E
E
K
C
O
R
D
E
L
I
A
M
I
D
W
A
Y
S
I
L
V
E
R

C
R
E
E
K
S
A
N

J
O
S
E
M
O
N
T
E
V
I
S
T
A
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
B
E
R
R
O
C
A
L
Z
A
Y
A
N
T
E
V
E
R
G
E
L
E
S
R
E
L
I
Z
S
A
R
G
E
N
T
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
C
A
R
N
E
G
I
E

C
O
R
A
L

H
O
L
L
O
W
S
A
N

A
N
D
R
E
A
S
S
A
N

B
E
N
I
T
O
C
A
L
A
V
A
R
E
S
Q
U
I
E
N

S
A
B
E
W
E
S
T

N
A
P
A
A
N
T
I
O
C
H
B
E
A
R

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
S
B
E
A
R

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
S
M
E
L
O
N
E
S
G

R

E

A

T

V

A

L

L

E

Y

F

A

U

L

T
San Beni t o
Sant a Cr uz Sant a Cl ar a
Mer c ed
San Mat eo
Mar i pos
Al ameda
St ani sl aus
Cont r a Cost a
San J oaqui n
Mar i n
Tuol um
Cal averas
Sol ano
San
Fr anc i sc o
S
A
N

A
N
D
R
E
A
S
S
A
N

A
N
D
R
E
A
S
REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
9232.000.000
AS SHOWN
4
0
0
MILES
KILOMETERS
15
30
SITE
EXPLANATION
MAGNITUDE 7+
MAGNITUDE 6-7
MAGNITUDE 5-6
HISTORIC FAULT
HOLOCENE FAULT
QUATERNARY FAULT
HISTORIC BLIND THRUST
FAULT ZONE
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T

APPENDIX A

Key to Boring Logs
Boring Logs
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

A
No recovery
6.5 inches asphaltic concrete over 10 inches aggregate base
SANDY LEAN CLAY TO CLAYEY SAND (CL-SC), brown,
medium stiff to medium dense, moist, <5% fine gravel, fine-
to coarse-grained sand, trace rootlets
R-value test of near-surface soil cuttings =17
46
No recovery
L
O
G

-

G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

9
2
3
2
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

G
I
N
T
.
G
P
J

E
N
G
E
O

I
N
C
.
G
D
T

5
/
2
6
/
1
1
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

M
e
t
e
r
s
1
2
3
4
SANDSTONE, gray and brownish yellow, weak (R2), crushed
to very closely fractured, massive, moderately weathered
(WM) [Whiskey Hill Formation]
12.5 0.9
109.7
112
104.3
111.6
9.3
7.5
12.2
18
11
58/6"
50/2"
50/3"
Geotechnical Exploration
J unipero Serra Boulevard
9232.000.000
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

d
r
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
)
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
B
l
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
/
F
o
o
t
Bottom of boring at approximately 14.25 feet below existing
grade. Groundwater encountered at approximately 14 feet
below existing grade during drilling.
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l
F
i
n
e
s

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

#
2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
)
A. Firmin / J AM
West Coast Exploration
Solid Flight Auger
140 lb. Rope and Cathead
P
l
a
s
t
i
c

L
i
m
i
t
L
i
q
u
i
d

L
i
m
i
t
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (MSL):
L
o
g

S
y
m
b
o
l
5/12/2011
Approx. 14 ft.
4.0 in.
Approx. 195 ft.
DESCRIPTION
Atterberg Limits
S
a
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
5
10
LOG OF BORING 1-B1
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t
(
p
c
f
)
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

F
e
e
t
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(
t
s
f
)

*
f
i
e
l
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
4 inches asphaltic concrete over 8 inches aggregate base
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark brown, medium stiff, moist, <
5% fine gravel, fine- to coarse-grained sand
LEAN CLAY (CL), dark yellowish brown, stiff, moist, 5 - 10%
fine- to coarse-grained sand
SILTY CLAYSTONE, light yellowish brown and pale yellow,
extremely weak (R0), crushed, massive, highly weathered
(WH) [Whiskey Hill Formation]
grade. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet
below existing grade during drilling.
L
O
G

-

G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

9
2
3
2
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

G
I
N
T
.
G
P
J

E
N
G
E
O

I
N
C
.
G
D
T

5
/
2
6
/
1
1
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

M
e
t
e
r
s
1
2
3
SILTY CLAYSTONE, yellowish brown and gray, extremely
weak (R0), crushed to very closely fractured, massive,
moderately weathered (WM) [Whiskey Hill Formation]
39.3
0.9
1.5*
108.5
110.9
78.4
13.1
18
14
29
26
13.9
P
l
a
s
t
i
c

L
i
m
i
t
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

F
e
e
t
B
l
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
/
F
o
o
t
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l
F
i
n
e
s

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

#
2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
)
Atterberg Limits
9232.000.000
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
L
i
q
u
i
d

L
i
m
i
t
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (MSL):
L
o
g

S
y
m
b
o
l
5/12/2011
Approx. 12 ft.
4.0 in.
Approx. 185 ft.
DESCRIPTION
A. Firmin / J AM
Solid Flight Auger
5
10
S
a
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
LOG OF BORING 1-B2
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(
t
s
f
)

*
f
i
e
l
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t
(
p
c
f
)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

d
r
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
)
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

F
e
e
t
7.5 inches asphaltic concrete over 8 inches aggregate base
SANDY LEAN CLAY TO CLAYEY SAND (CL-SC), brown,
very stiff to dense, moist, <5% fine gravel, fine- to
coarse-grained sand
SANDSTONE, dark yellowish brown and gray, very weak
(R1), crushed, massive, highly weathered (WH) [Santa Clara
Formation]
SANDSTONE, dark yellowish brown, very weak (R1),
crushed, massive, highly weathered (WH) [Santa Clara
Formation]
grade. Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
L
O
G

-

G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

9
2
3
2
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

G
I
N
T
.
G
P
J

E
N
G
E
O

I
N
C
.
G
D
T

5
/
2
6
/
1
1
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

M
e
t
e
r
s
1
2
3
4
SANDSTONE, dark yellowish brown, very weak (R1),
crushed, massive, highly weathered (WH) [Santa Clara
Formation]
10
3.5*
+4.5*
120.3
120.5
7.5 31
38
62/6"
55
51
45
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
F
i
n
e
s

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

#
2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
)
Atterberg Limits
A. Firmin / J AM
Solid Flight Auger
P
l
a
s
t
i
c

L
i
m
i
t
B
l
o
w

C
o
u
n
t
/
F
o
o
t
L
i
q
u
i
d

L
i
m
i
t
DATE DRILLED:
HOLE DEPTH:
HOLE DIAMETER:
SURF ELEV (MSL):
L
o
g

S
y
m
b
o
l
5/12/2011
Approx. 14 ft.
4.0 in.
Approx. 177 ft.
DESCRIPTION
9232.000.000
5
10
S
a
m
p
l
e

T
y
p
e
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l
LOG OF BORING 1-B3
DRILLING METHOD:
HAMMER TYPE:
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(
t
s
f
)

*
f
i
e
l
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t
(
p
c
f
)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%

d
r
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
)

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Data
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

B
ENGEO, Inc.
Rocklin, CA
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D
85
= D
60
= D
50
=
D
30
= D
15
= D
10
=
C
u
= C
c
=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
See boring logs
.375
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#140
#200
100.0
99.8
99.6
98.2
90.7
78.5
53.4
46.2
0.3217 0.1355 0.0909
1-B1@2-2.5' GEX 5/24/2011
J unipero Serra Boulevard 2-2.5'
Santa Clara County
9232.000.000
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Sample No.: Source of Sample: Date:
Location: Elev./Depth:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*
PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
% +3"
Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 8.9 44.5 46.2
6

i
n
.
3

i
n
.
2

i
n
.
1

i
n
.
1

i
n
.

i
n
.

i
n
.
3
/
8

i
n
.
#
4
#
1
0
#
2
0
#
3
0
#
4
0
#
6
0
#
1
0
0
#
1
4
0
#
2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D
85
= D
60
= D
50
=
D
30
= D
15
= D
10
=
C
u
= C
c
=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
See boring logs.
#200 44.6
1-B3 @ 2-2.5 05/26/11
Junipero Serra Boulevard - Santa Clara County, CA
9232.000.000
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Sample No.: Source of Sample: Date:
Location: Elev./Depth:
Client:
Project:
Project No:
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*
PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
% Cobbles
Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
44.6
6

i
n
.
3

i
n
.
2

i
n
.
1

i
n
.
1

i
n
.

i
n
.

i
n
.
3
/
8

i
n
.
#
4
#
1
0
#
2
0
#
3
0
#
4
0
#
6
0
#
1
0
0
#
1
4
0
#
2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
psf tsf
Sample Description:
Initial Diameter: in. Sample Number:
Initial Height: in. Boring Number:
Strain Rate: %/min Dry Unit Weight: pcf
Total Strain: % Moisture Content: %
Depth of Sample: ft.
Job
No.:
INCORPORATED
4.80
0.68
5.63
ENGEO
Junipero Serra Blvd.
Santa Clara County, CA
1-B1
112.0
12.5
A
x
i
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
Unconfined Compressive Strength: 1880
1-B1-2
Unconfined Compression Test
ASTM Test Method D2166
Percent Strain
2.42
0.9
See boring logs
1-B1-2
2.0

Figure
No.
5/24/2011
9232.000.000
Date:
Sample
Number:
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
psf tsf
Sample Description:
Initial Diameter: in. Sample Number:
Initial Height: in. Boring Number:
Strain Rate: %/min Dry Unit Weight: pcf
Total Strain: % Moisture Content: %
Depth of Sample: ft.
Job
No.:
INCORPORATED
5.05
0.63
4.75
ENGEO
Junipero Serra Blvd.
Santa Clara County, CA
1-B2
110.9
13.1
A
x
i
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
Unconfined Compressive Strength: 1710
1-B2-3
Unconfined Compression Test
ASTM Test Method D2166
Percent Strain
2.42
0.9
See boring logs
1-B2-3
3.0

Figure
No.
5/24/2011
9232.000.000
Date:
Sample
Number:
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
R VALUE TEST REPORT
CAL-301
Date: 5/24/11
Project Name:
Project Number:
Sample:
Description: Grayish Brown Sand with Silt and Gravel (SM)
Specimen A B C
Exudation Pressure, p.s.i. 349 298 169
Expansion dial (.0001") 0 0 0
Expansion Pressure, p.s.f. 0 0 0
Resistance Value, "R" 21 17 9
% Moisture at Test 10.4 11.3 12.2
Dry Density at Test, p.c.f. 132.3 128.8 127.2
" R" Value at 300 p.s.i., Exudation Pressure 17
9232.000.000 (Ph 001)
1-RV1 (Soil cuttings from Boring 1-B1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Exudation Pressure (psi)
R
-
V
a
l
u
e
R VALUE TEST REPORT
CAL-301
Date: 5/24/11
Project Name:
Project Number:
Sample:
Description: Dark Grayish Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
Specimen A B C
9232.000.000 (Ph 001)
1-RV2 (Soil cuttings from 1-B2)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
R
-
V
a
l
u
e
R VALUE TEST REPORT
CAL-301
Date: 5/24/11
Project Name:
Project Number:
Sample:
Description: Dark Brown Sand with Silt and Gravel (SM)
Specimen A B C
9232.000.000 (Ph 001)
1-RV3 (Soil cuttings from 1-B3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
R
-
V
a
l
u
e
ENGEO Incorporated
Project Name: Junipero Serra Boulevard Project Number: 9232.000.000
Tested By: GC Date: 05/20/11
mg/kg % by Weight
1 1-B1@1.5-2 soil 2262 0.2262
2 1-B3@2-2.5 soil 84 0.0084
SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALTRANS Test Method 417
Water Soluble Sulfate (SO
4
)
in Soil
Sample
Number
Sample Location Matrix
Office: 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250, San Ramon, CA 94583
Laboratory: 2057 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, San Ramon, CA 94583
1

007 Appendix D Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

007 Appendix D Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix D: Geotechnical Report

Copyright 2011 By ENGEO Incorporated.

IP(MS), IS(<70), (MS) MS No restriction

IP(HS), IS(<70), (HS) HS Not permitted

You might also like