1 - Geotechnical Exploration Report

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
Contents
Page Section Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................................iv Geotechnical Exploration Report .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Historical Use of Project Area ............................................................................................... 3 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing .......................................................................... 3 Local Geology ......................................................................................................................... 5 Site Seismicity ......................................................................................................................... 5 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6 Electrical Building, Soil Boring B-1 ......................................................................... 6 Influent Pump Station, Soil Borings B-2 and B-3 .................................................. 6 Foul Air Biofilter Systems, Test Pit TP-1 ................................................................ 7 Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 7 Discussion of Geotechnical Issues ........................................................................................ 7 Settlement ................................................................................................................... 8 Seismic Design Criteria and Related Risks ............................................................ 8 Soil Corrosivity .......................................................................................................... 9 Expansive Soil ............................................................................................................ 9 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 9 Excavations ................................................................................................................. 9 Construction Dewatering ....................................................................................... 10 Required Over-excavation of Unsuitable Material ............................................. 10 Fill and Backfill ........................................................................................................ 11 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................... 12 Structure Foundations ............................................................................................ 13 Groundwater Design Considerations ................................................................... 14 Construction Considerations .............................................................................................. 14 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................ 15 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 15 References .............................................................................................................................. 15 Appendices A B Soil Boring and Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
II
Contents, Continued
Page Tables 1 2 Soil Corrosivity Analysis Summary..................................................................................... 9 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................................ 12 Figures 1 2 Project Vicinity and Facilities Map ...................................................................................... 2 Subsurface Exploration Locations ........................................................................................ 4
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
III
Acronyms and Abbreviations

CBC City OSHA pcf psf SPT WWTP California Building Code City of Roseville Occupational Safety and Health Administration pounds per cubic foot pounds per square foot standard penetration test wastewater treatment plant
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
IV
Geotechnical Exploration Report

Introduction
This report presents the results of a geotechnical exploration for the proposed Influent Pump Station Replacement Project at the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Roseville, California. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the geotechnical exploration was to observe surface and subsurface soil conditions within the area of proposed structures and provide geotechnical recommendations to aid in design and construction. To accomplish this, our scope of work included the following: Site visit to observe existing field conditions Review of previous geotechnical reports at the Dry Creek WWTP and review of historical use of the project area Subsurface exploration consisting of three soil borings and one test pit Laboratory testing and engineering analysis of geotechnical data for foundations, wall design, and performance recommendations Preparing this report to document explorations, findings, analysis, and design recommendations
The City of Roseville (City) authorized CH2M HILL to perform the work described in this report under a second amendment to an agreement for professional services, dated May 6, 2009.
Project Description
The City plans to construct the following improvements to the existing Dry Creek WWTP: A new influent pump station to replace an existing pump station and a pump station annex. The pump station will be a belowgrade, cast-in-place concrete structure with a peak hour flow capacity at buildout of about 51 million gallons per day. The pump station wet well and pump room will extend to a maximum depth of about 28 feet below the existing ground surface, and the inflow channel that is connected to the pump station will be founded at a depth of approximately 17 feet below ground surface. A smaller pond return pump station that will consist of two pumps installed in a belowgrade concrete structure. The bottom of the pond return pump station will be about 26 feet below the ground surface.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
Two new foul air control biofilter systems. Each biofilter will be surrounded by cast-inplace concrete perimeter walls, without a structural floor. A new stand-alone electrical building is proposed to house the systems required to power and control the influent pump station and new foul air collection and treatment systems. The electrical building will be constructed of masonry walls with a concrete slab floor and foundation walls. The slab will be elevated on structural fill material placed inside of perimeter foundation walls.
The locations of the proposed structures are shown on Figure 1. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the site, Map Number 06061C0478F, indicates that the Influent Pump Station Replacement Project is located within a 100-year floodplain in accordance with the information provided by the City. The finish floor slab of the electrical building and the top deck slab of the pumping stations will be constructed at an elevation 120.5 feet, approximately 4 to 6 feet above the existing ground surface, to avoid inundation during a 100-year flood event.
Historical Use of Project Area

A number of structures have been constructed and demolished within the project area over the last 40 years. Between about 1974 to the early 1990s, a trickling filter with a diameter of approximately 78 feet was located in the vicinity of the proposed electrical building, and a secondary clarifier with a diameter of approximately 40 feet was located in the vicinity of the proposed pump station. The locations explored for the current subsurface investigation were positioned to help characterize backfill materials within these areas. The extent of the excavations and backfill around these structures during construction and demolition is not currently known. The proposed biofilter units will be constructed within the area previously used as sludge drying beds since about 1974. Currently, the City utilizes the drying bed area for storing soil materials excavated from sewer line trenches from City construction projects.
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing

The field exploration consisted of drilling three soil borings on August 4, 2009, at the locations shown on Figure 2. The borings were advanced using a Stratastar 15 truckmounted drill rig, equipped with 8-inch hollow stem augers. Drilling was performed by PC Exploration of Rocklin, California. Modified standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at a maximum of 5-foot intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586, except that a modified California sampler was used at some of the sample intervals to enable larger samples to be collected. Soil Boring B-1 was drilled in the area of the proposed electrical building to a depth of 15.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil boring B-2 was drilled near the north edge of the proposed influent pump station to a depth of 46.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil boring B-3 was drilled near the south edge of the proposed influent pump station to a depth of 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
In addition to the soil borings, one test pit was excavated at the location of the proposed biofilter units to a depth of 8 feet (see Figure 2). The field exploration was directed by a CH2M HILL geotechnical engineer. The subsurface materials encountered were visually classified in approximate accordance with ASTM D2488 (visual-manual procedure for description of soils). The soils were classified in accordance with the unified soil classification system (ASTM D2487) using available laboratory test results. The boring and test pit logs are included in Appendix A. Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to aid in soil classification and to determine the strength and characteristics of the subsurface materials. Soil testing was performed by MTI Material Testing, Inc., of Redding, California. Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix B.
Local Geology
A review of published geologic maps indicate that the project site is underlain by Pleistocene geologic deposits of the Turlock Lake Formation, with portions near to and along Dry Creek underlain by alluvium pertaining to the Modesto Riverbank Formation. The Turlock Lake Formation generally consists of partially consolidated sand, silt, and gravel derived mainly from Sierran granitic and metamorphic rocks (Wagner et al., 1987). The Modesto Riverbank formation consists of a younger Pleistocene unit of sand silt and gravel derived from older formations. Artificial fill materials are present within areas where old structures were demolished. The thickness of the fill layer varied from about 6 feet to 26 feet from the existing ground surface to the bottom of the fill. The approximate location of these structures is shown on Figure 2.
Site Seismicity
A review of the Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, 1994) and other available geologic studies from USGS and CGS indicates that no faults are known to pass through the Project site. A number of regional and local faults traverse the Project region at the edges of the Sacramento Valley. The most significant of these faults are the Bear Mountains Fault Zone and the Melones Fault Zone, located approximately 18 and 28 miles, respectively, east of the project area. Both of these faults are associated with the Foothills Fault System. The most significant historical earthquake event associated with the Foothills Fault System was a magnitude 5.8 event that originated 50 miles north of the project site in 1975 near the town of Oroville, California. Review of the probabilistic national seismic hazard maps (USGS, 2008 update) indicates that the peak ground acceleration within rock beneath the project site with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.18 g. This probability corresponds to an average return period of about 2,475 years.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
Surface Conditions
The new pump station and electrical building will be located adjacent to and west of the existing screenings facility, and north of the existing pump station annex. The project area is relatively flat, with about 3 feet of elevation change across the project area. Access roads to the current facilities cross through the project area and are paved with asphalt concrete. Concrete curbs line the access roads, and the unpaved areas inside of the curbs are covered with geotextile and about 3 inches of gravel. All of the soil borings were drilled within the graveled areas.
Subsurface Conditions
Electrical Building, Soil Boring B-1
The cuttings and material retrieved during sampling at B-1 indicated that uncontrolled fill material was present from the ground surface to a depth of about 6 feet. This is likely backfill material that was placed in the former location of the trickling filter that was demolished in the 1990s. The majority of the building footprint appears to be within the location previously occupied by the trickling filter. The fill consists of well-graded sand, silt, and gravel. The degree of compaction is unknown. The fill may also contain cobbles or other large debris judging from high blow counts with no recovery during sampling in the near surface soil. A layer of clayey sand and stiff clay approximately 6 feet thick was encountered beneath the fill. The clay was very stiff to hard at a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Below the clay, the soil encountered in the boring consists of fine- to medium-grained, dense, poorly-graded sand that appears to be granitic in origin.
Influent Pump Station, Soil Borings B-2 and B-3

The proposed pump station is situated partially over the area previously occupied by a secondary clarifier (see Figure 2). The northern portion of the pump station footprint is underlain by native soil as indicated by the soil material encountered at soil boring B-2. The southern portion of the structural footprint is underlain by artificial fill material according to the soil material encountered at soil boring B-3. The limits of fill may extend outside the perimeter of the secondary clarifier that previously occupied the proposed structure location, depending on how it was constructed and demolished. The fill consists of well-graded sand and clayey sand, and is loose. CH2M HILL is unaware of any records of compaction for this soil material, and based on the SPT results, the soil was not well compacted. At the base of the fill, 2 to 3 feet of poorly-graded gravel was encountered that may have been placed beneath the concrete floor of the clarifier as a stabilization or drainage layer. The concrete slab of the clarifier was not encountered, and was likely removed during the structure demolition. The bottom of fill is about 29 feet below the existing ground surface at B-3. The upper 12 feet of native soil at B-2 consists of silty to clayey sand. The sand is finegrained, and medium-dense with a stiff clay matrix. The clayey sand is underlain by about
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
8 feet of medium-dense to dense sand, generally poorly graded, with about 10 to 15 percent silt. Layers of dense clayey sand, stiff clay, and dense silty sand were encountered from about 20 feet depth to the maximum depth explored.
Foul Air Biofilter Systems, Test Pit TP-1

The area for the proposed biofilter units is paved with about 8 inches of asphalt concrete at the test pit location. The asphalt is underlain by about 6 inches of aggregate base material. The underlying soil consists of silty and clayey sand with lenses of soft clay. The sand is well graded from fine to coarse. The upper 4.5 feet of soil is dark brownish-gray unlike any of the soil encountered within the soil borings, and appears to be loose in consistency. Also, a thin lense (1 inch) of soil with organic material was observed at a depth of 4.5 feet, and it is possible that the upper soil is fill material. The biofilter walls will be founded near the base of this upper soil.
Groundwater
Free water was encountered in all of the soil borings at a depth between 13 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater may be perched above less permeable clay layers encountered from 20 to 30 feet deep within the soil borings. The groundwater level was estimated to be within approximately 1 to 3 feet of the water level in Dry Creek that flows along the south side of the project area. The groundwater removed from the holes inside the drill rods within soil borings B-1 and B-2 was hot, with an estimated temperature greater than 120 degrees Fahrenheit. This likely indicates the dense consistency of the native soil formations in which heat is created from friction between the augers and the soil during drilling. Steam was often seen escaping from the sides of the auger. The friction was less within the loose artificial fill material at B-3, and the groundwater temperature was not noticeably elevated. Groundwater conditions can be expected to fluctuate in response to seasons, storm events, and other factors. Because the area is within a floodplain, the buried structures should be designed to resist buoyant forces, assuming complete inundation of the structure. For purposes of evaluating liquefaction potential during an earthquake event, the groundwater level may be assumed to be at a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface.
Discussion of Geotechnical Issues

The results of our field and laboratory investigations indicate that the project site can be developed as proposed, provided that the geotechnical design recommendations are followed, and that noted conditions and risks are acknowledged. The primary geotechnical site consideration for the current project is the presence of uncontrolled artificial fill materials beneath the proposed structures that have the potential to consolidate under the foundation loads, and also may be subject to liquefaction during relatively rare, strong ground motion seismic events. Recommendations presented below include provisions that address these concerns. The limits of uncontrolled fill are unknown, but are anticipated to exist at least within the perimeter of previous structures that have occupied the project area (as shown on Figure 2).
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
Uncontrolled fill refers to soil material placed with an unknown degree of compaction or compactive effort, and may be subject to excessive consolidation settlement under new loading. Structural fill as used in this report refers to soil material placed and compacted in accordance with specified criteria. Subsurface exploration was not performed at the location of the pond return pump station, as the location was not known at the time of exploration. The recommendations provided below for the influent pump station should be applied to the pond return pump station, subject to confirmation of similar geotechnical conditions during construction.
Settlement
The bearing pressures of the belowgrade pump station structures will likely be less than the overburden pressures currently exerted by the soil; however, because of the inherent limitations of current engineering and construction practices, some post-construction vertical consolidation settlement is likely to occur. Loads to be applied by the electrical building and biofilter units to the soil are greater than are currently exerted and are, therefore, subject to a larger amount of potential settlement. The recommendations provided below are intended to limit post construction settlement to less than 1 inch, and limit differential settlement to less than inch. To avoid tilting or cracking of the electrical building at a transition between native and fill material, recommendations are provided below to over-excavate the existing soil materials beneath the entire building footprint and replace them with a uniform thickness of structural fill material.
Seismic Design Criteria and Related Risks

The site is subject to moderate ground motion from seismic sources. The minimum standard for constructing the building structures should be in accordance with the 2007 edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The potential for liquefaction was evaluated assuming a peak ground acceleration corresponding to a 2 percent probability of exceedance within 50 years. The conditions encountered at the exploration locations suggest that the risk of liquefaction of the native subsurface soil is low. The risk of liquefaction of the uncontrolled fill material, however, is high where it is below the groundwater level. The uncontrolled fill material will be excavated and replaced with structural backfill material where it underlies the proposed structures. For design of structures subjected to seismic loads, a soil site class of D may be used in accordance with Section 1613.5.2 of the 2007 CBC. The site class was based on the materials encountered during the field exploration. The mapped spectral accelerations (Site Class B) for short periods (Ss) and at 1-second period (S1) ground motion are 0.42 g and 0.20 g, respectively. These values should be corrected for site class D soil at the Project site using site coefficients of 1.45 for Fa and 1.99 for Fv to obtain structural design values for seismic loads in accordance with Section 1613.5.3 of the CBC.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
Soil Corrosivity
A representative sample of the native soil from a depth of 6 feet was tested for corrosive properties. The sample was analyzed for minimum electrical resistivity, pH, chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and moisture content. The results of the soil analysis are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Soil Corrosivity Analysis Summary Influent Pump Station Replacement Project Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Roseville, California
Parameter Minimum Resistivity Chloride Sulfate pH Moisture Content Notes: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ohm-cm = ohm-centimeters Units ohm-cm mg/kg mg/kg pH units percent Measured Value 1,530 8.7 10.5 6.86 15.5
The results of the soil sample analysis indicate that the soils are moderately corrosive toward ferrous metals based on the minimum resistivity values. The minimum electrical resistivity measures the resistivity of the soil when it is saturated and is generally used to estimate the worst-case scenario for soil corrosivity. Chlorides were below concentrations significant to corrosion of ferrous pipes, sulphates were below concentrations significant to concrete and mortar-coated steel pipe, and pH value was close to neutral in the soil sample; therefore, the native soils are not expected to be aggressively corrosive toward buried ferrous metals or concrete and cement mortar surfaces. Reinforced concrete structures for this project can be constructed from ordinary cement (American Society Testing and Materials C150 Type I or II).
Expansive Soil
High-plasticity clay soil was not encountered during the field investigation, and is generally not anticipated beneath the site. The risk of adverse consequences to the proposed building from expansive soils is considered low.
Recommendations
Excavations
It is anticipated that the subsurface soil materials can be excavated with heavy excavating equipment. The excavator should be selected with sufficient power (e.g., minimum 200 horsepower) to penetrate the hard clay and very dense silty sand that was encountered within the native soil formation. Some caving should be anticipated, especially where the materials are dry or saturated. Severe caving is expected where loose, uncontrolled backfill materials are present.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
Excavations must be shored in a manner to protect existing structures from damage due to deformations in the soil supporting the structures. The shoring system should be the contractors responsibility and must be designed by a professional engineer registered in the state of California.
Temporary Cut Slopes

A sloped excavation may be used where sufficient space is available for a larger excavation. It is the contractors responsibility to retain a competent person to evaluate and verify the type of materials exposed in any particular cut slopes in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to determine allowable slope inclinations. Where temporary cut slopes are proposed within 20 feet of existing structures, the slopes should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the existing structures are sufficiently protected from damage due to slope deformations.
Construction Dewatering
Groundwater will be encountered during construction of the proposed influent and pond return pump stations. To construct the buried building structures, dewatering will be required to approximately 15 to 20 feet below the existing groundwater level. The dewatering system may include a combination of shoring, sumps, tremie slabs, or well points that are designed by a professional engineer with at least 5 years of experience in designing similar systems. The dewatering system design should be the contractors responsibility. The dewatering system should be capable of dewatering the excavation to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed excavation to prevent wet soil conditions in the bottom of the excavation that would inhibit compaction efforts. Dewatering should be continued until it is no longer required to prevent floating of the structure during construction.
Required Over-excavation of Unsuitable Material

Influent Pump Station Over-excavation
The finish floor of the influent pump station structure is at elevation 90.5 feet in the pump room, elevation 88.75 feet in the wet well area, and elevation 100 feet in the inflow channel area on the east side of the structure. The uncontrolled fill materials, which were encountered under a portion of the pump station footprint down to an elevation of about 85 feet, should be entirely removed within the structural footprint of the pump station structure, including the inflow channel area. Given the depth of fill encountered in the subsurface exploration, this will require over-excavation below the design subgrade elevation of the inflow channel and replacement with compacted structural fill. If uncontrolled backfill is present below a portion of the inflow channel, both the native and uncontrolled fill material should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill of uniform thickness beneath the entire inflow channel.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
10
Electrical Building Over-excavation

Uncontrolled fill materials were encountered under the electrical building area to a depth of about 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The existing native and fill soil materials should be over-excavated to elevation 109 beneath the entire electrical building, extending 3 feet beyond the edge of the building foundation. The excavation should be observed by a licensed California Professional Engineer or Geologist to verify that unsuitable soil materials have been removed down to a firm, stable material prior to placing backfill materials. Structural fill should be placed up to the final design grades, after which the foundation excavations can be made within the structural fill.
Fill and Backfill

Fill will be placed behind the pump station walls, within over-excavated areas beneath the inflow vault for the influent pump station and electrical building, for minor site grading, and within trenches. Backfill around and beneath structures should be processed and blended to provide a homogeneous, well-graded mixture that is 3-inch minus and free of organic material and debris. Beneath structures and within the influence area of structure foundations, structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches. In accordance with ASTM D1557, the fill should be moisture-conditioned as necessary to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. A minimum of 6 inches of granular aggregate base fill should be placed immediately below floor slabs, and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM D1557. Dewatering of the subgrade soil will be required prior to compacting the fill materials where excavations are below the groundwater level. Structural fill material should be non-plastic or low-plasticity material (liquid limit less than 35, plasticity index less than 15) containing no organic material or debris; the fill should contain less than 30 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) and no individual particles should be more than 3 inches in dimension. Material with a plasticity index greater than 15 may be used as fill if the percentage of fines is less than 20 percent. The majority of soil material encountered during the subsurface investigation will meet the requirements for structural fill. Some soil encountered during the subsurface exploration, such as native soil between 6 to 10 feet depth at soil boring B-1, had more than 20 percent clay with a plasticity index exceeding 15; therefore, it would not meet the requirements for structural fill material unless it is mixed with a sufficient amount of granular material to meet the requirements. Where over-excavation is required beneath the inflow vault of the pump station and the electrical building, the excavated soil should be replaced with structural fill up to the design subgrade elevation. Backfill inside the perimeter walls of the electrical building, above the final outside grade elevation, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density and within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, in accordance with ASTM D1557. Only lightweight, hand-operated equipment should be used within 3 feet of retaining walls.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
11
Backfill around the outside of structures and outside of the influence area of structure foundations should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches, compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density and within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, in accordance with ASTM D1557. The backfill should be placed and compacted in even lifts around the structure perimeter.
Lateral Earth Pressures

Walls buried belowgrade will need to withstand earth pressures from the surrounding soil or backfill. Restrained structure exterior walls should be designed to resist at-rest earth pressures. Walls free to deflect as a cantilever should be designed to resist active pressures. Passive pressures may be used to resist lateral forces into the backfill. Walls should be designed to resist the static lateral equivalent fluid pressures shown in Table 2. In addition to the loading in Table 2, any lateral pressures from equipment or earth surcharge loads adjacent to the walls should be added. The values provided in Table 2 are applicable to the wide variety of soils encountered during the field exploration, and are conservative for some of the more competent soil materials. An increased passive resistance (i.e., an equivalent fluid pressure of 450 pcf) may be used for compacted structural fill materials.
TABLE 2
Lateral Earth Pressures Influent Pump Station Replacement Project Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Roseville, California
Drainage Condition Drained Saturated Equivalent Fluid Pressures (pcf) Active At-rest Passive 40 60 375 85 97 225 Earth Pressure Coefficients, (K) Active: 0.32 At-rest: 0.48
Notes: Assumed Values: Native moist = 125 pcf; sat = 135 pcf; = 31 degrees, c = 100 psf Uncontrolled Backfill moist = 120 pcf; sat = 130 pcf; = 28 degrees moist = moist unit weight sat = saturated unit weight = material friction angle pcf = pounds per cubic foot c = cohesion psf = pounds per square foot 1. Equivalent fluid pressures for saturated conditions include the hydrostatic pressure of the water in addition to the earth pressure for active, at-rest, and passive conditions. 2. The lateral earth pressure (units of pounds per square foot per foot of wall width) at a given height of wall is given by multiplying the equivalent fluid density (in units of pounds per cubic foot) times the wall height (H in units of feet). The wall height is the distance between the ground surface and the base of the wall. Walls should be designed to resist surcharge loads and adjacent at-grade structures. The lateral earth pressure caused by a surcharge load is equal to the anticipated surcharge load in psf multiplied by the earth pressure coefficient. 3. Substantial movement must take place before the available passive pressure is mobilized. Therefore, a reduced value of passive pressure one-third to one-half of the total passive pressure should be used when calculating resistance to thrust or sliding. The reduced value will depend on the amount of movement allowed by the structural designer. 4. Earthquake loading should be considered separately. The design earthquake should be applied in addition to the active static soil pressure and surcharge loads. 5. Compaction within 3 horizontal feet of walls should be performed with lightweight, hand-operated equipment so that compaction-induced lateral stresses are limited. If heavy or large equipment is used for compaction immediately adjacent to the structure, lateral stresses will be larger than those shown in this table.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
12
Concrete footings and slabs cast against undisturbed native or structural fill soil may use a sliding friction factor of 0.45 in resisting lateral loads. One-half of the passive earth pressures may be used in conjunction with frictional resistance. The provided lateral resistance parameters are ultimate values; therefore, a suitable factor of safety should be applied for design purposes. Ground motion during earthquakes tends to increase the earth pressure above static levels. Therefore, retaining walls should be designed to resist a dynamic active lateral force increase of 9*H2 pounds per linear foot of wall, which acts at a height of 0.6*H above the base of the wall, where H is the wall height. The dynamic lateral force increase should be used in addition to the active earth pressure.
Structure Foundations
Influent and Pond Return Pump Stations
The foundations for the pump station structures should consist of a watertight mat foundation and may be designed with a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. An increase of up to one-third of the allowable bearing pressure may be used for short-term loading, such as for wind, seismic, or equipment. Total post-construction settlement for these belowgrade structures is expected to be less than 0.5 inch. Seismic-induced settlement under strong ground shaking is not anticipated because of the dense nature of the native soil. A subgrade modulus for a 1-foot-square plate of 120 pounds per cubic inch may be used for designing the floor slab or mat foundation. This value needs to be modified for the proposed foundation dimensions. A friction factor of 0.45 for concrete in contact with soil may be used to resist lateral loads.
Electrical Building
The foundation for the electrical building will consist of foundation walls supported on shallow strip footings. Following over-excavation of loose uncontrolled fill and replacement with structural fill as recommended above, foundations may be constructed. Foundations should be designed so they do not exceed a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for dead load plus live loads, assuming a minimum footing width of 2 feet and a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches. An increase of up to one-third of the allowable bearing pressure may be used for short-term loading, such as for wind, seismic, or equipment. Total post-construction settlement for the elevated structure is expected to be less than 1 inch, with a maximum differential settlement of about one-half inch. Seismic-induced settlement under strong ground shaking is not anticipated because of the dense nature of the underlying native soil. A friction factor of 0.45 for concrete in contact with soil may be used to resist lateral loads.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
13
Foul Air Biofilter Units

The biofilter units will have perimeter retaining walls embedded at least 3 feet below the existing ground surface. The width of the footings will depend on the required resistance to overturning forces. Prior to placing rebar or forms for concrete footings, the subgrade within the footing excavations should be moisture-conditioned as necessary to a depth of 6 inches and compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM D1557. Foundations should be designed so they do not exceed a net allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for dead load plus live loads. An increase of up to one-third of the allowable bearing pressure may be used for short-term loading, such as for wind, seismic, or equipment. A friction factor of 0.45 for concrete in contact with soil may be used to resist lateral loads.
Miscellaneous Shallow Foundations

The foul air fan structures and miscellaneous small structures, such as the foul air pipeline, will be founded on shallow footings embedded at least 1.5 feet below the final grade. The width of the footings will vary depending on the loading. Prior to placing rebar or forms for concrete footings, the subgrade within the footing excavations should be moisture-conditioned as necessary to a depth of 6 inches and compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM D1557. Foundations should be designed so they do not exceed a net allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for dead load plus live loads. An increase of up to one-third of the allowable bearing pressure may be used for short-term loading, such as for wind, seismic, or equipment. A friction factor of 0.45 for concrete in contact with soil may be used to resist lateral loads.
Groundwater Design Considerations

The groundwater table will be encountered within excavations required for the pump stations. Seepage into the excavations will require some unwatering or dewatering. For buoyancy calculations for permanent facilities, it should be assumed that the entire pumping station is inundated during a flood condition.
Construction Considerations
It is anticipated that the subsurface soil materials can be excavated with heavy excavating equipment. The excavator should be selected with sufficient power (e.g., minimum 200 horsepower) to penetrate the hard clay and very dense silty sand that was encountered within the native soil formation. Some caving should be anticipated, especially where the materials are dry or saturated. Severe caving is expected where loose, uncontrolled backfill materials are present.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
14
Design of all temporary excavation and shoring to construct the belowgrade pumping station structures should be made the contractors responsibility. Groundwater will enter the excavation, especially where cleaner sand layers are present. Dewatering will be required to construct the pump stations to allow observation of the prepared subgrade and construction on a firm surface. Methods of dewatering should also be made the responsibility of the contractor, subject to approval by the City. The adjacent existing structures housing the odor control system and screenings facility must be protected from settlement or distortion due to the open excavation required for constructing the new pumping station. Also, existing underground piping and electrical ductbanks must be protected from distortion damage during construction.
Construction Observation and Testing

If any unusual conditions are encountered at the footing locations, a geotechnical engineer should review the excavation bottom and determine if revisions are needed. Compaction testing and periodic fill observations should be performed while placing backfill.
Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of CH2M HILL and the City for specific application to the design and construction of the Influent Pumping Station Replacement Project at the Dry Creek WWTP, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained from exploratory borings and test pit for the proposed structures. These explorations indicate subsurface conditions only at specific locations and times, and only to the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect strata variations that may exist between such locations. Subsurface conditions and water levels at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these indicated locations. The passage of time may result in a change in the conditions at these locations. If variations in subsurface conditions from those described are noted during construction, recommendations in this report must be reevaluated. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by CH2M HILL. CH2M HILL is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with the interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of CH2M HILL.
References
Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Area, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750,000, California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
15
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps. 2008. Open-File Report 20081128 by Mark D. Petersen, Arthur D. Frankel, Stephen C. Harmsen, Charles S. Mueller, Kathleen M. Haller, Russell L. Wheeler, Robert L. Wesson, Yuehua Zeng, Oliver S. Boyd, David M. Perkins, Nicolas Luco, Edward H. Field, Chris J. Wills, and Kenneth S. Rukstales. Wagner, D.L., Jennings, C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and Bortugno, E.J. 1987. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, Scale 1:250,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series Map No. 1A.
RDD/092720003 (NLH4186.DOC)
WBG010810103225RDD
16
Appendix A Soil Boring and Test Pit Logs
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-1
SHEET
OF 1
SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT : Dry Creek WWTP, Roseville, California ELEVATION : DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : Stratastar 15, 8" HSA WATER LEVELS : 14.5 ft below ground surface
INTERVAL (ft) RECOVERY (ft) #TYPE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESULTS DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (ft)
LOCATION : Proposed Electrical Bldg. DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.
GRAPHIC LOG
START : 8/4/09 07:30 SOIL DESCRIPTION
END : 8/4/09 09:00
LOGGER : M. Twede COMMENTS DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE, DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, AND INSTRUMENTATION
6"-6"-6" (N)
SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR, MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY
Gravel over geotextile on surface Gravelly Sand with Silt (SW-SM): brown, dry to moist, medium dense, angular to subrounded gravel, fine to coarse sand, 1/4" thick black soil lense at 5.7 feet depth(FILL)
2.5
Cuttings are steaming hot
0.0
3.5
CA
23-50/5.5" (50/5.5")
@2.5': No Recovery, driving large cobble or debris? Retained baggie of cuttings.
5.0
1.5
6.5
CA
11-8-10 (18)
Clayey Sand (SC): brown, moist, medium dense, firm clay matrix, fine to medium sand, medium plasticity
Clay (CL): brown, moist, hard, trace sand, medium plasticity 10

10.0 10.9
0.9
CA
23-50/4.5" (50/4.5")
Sand (SP): light brown/white/gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium sand, abundant quartz
14.0
15
15.5
1.5
SS
8-11-14 (25)
12-inches of water in hole at end of drilling, hole backfilled with cuttings Bottom of Hole at 15.5 ft below ground surface
20
Lines denoting lithology changes are approximate depth based on non-continuous sampling.
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-2
SHEET
OF 3
SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.
GRAPHIC LOG
END : 8/4/09 14:00
6"-6"-6" (N)
Gravel over geotextile on surface Silty Sand (SM): light brown, dry to moist, medium dense, fine sand, poorly graded
5.0
1.5
6.5
CA
10-8-9 (17) Clayey Sand (SC): light brown, moist, medium dense, firm clay matrix, fine sand, low to medium plasticity, high dry strength
10
10.0
1.3
11.5
CA
4-8-12 (20)
1.5
13.0
SS
4-8-9 (17)
@10.5': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 40% Moisture Content = 24%; Dry Density = 98 pcf Liquid Limit=25; Plasticity Index=8 @11': Friction Angle, =31 degrees Sand with Silt (SP-SM): brown/white/gray, moist, medium dense, low plasticity, lenses of silt
15
15.0
1.5
16.5
SS
9-13-14 (27)
becomes wet, fine to coarse sand, mostly medium sand, maximum size 1/2-inch gravel
@15': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 11%
Silty Sand (SM): brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse sand
20
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-2
SHEET
OF 3
SOIL BORING LOG

GRAPHIC LOG
END : 8/4/09 14:00
6"-6"-6" (N)
20.0
1.0
21.5
SS
3-8-10 (18)
Sandy Clay (CL): brown, moist, firm, medium plasticity, very high dry strength
Clayey Sand (SC): brown/white/yellow/gray, moist, dense with firm clay matrix, granitic, fine to coarse sand 25
25.0
1.5
26.5
CA
7-13-46 (59)
groundwater/soil is hot, sampler too hot to touch @25.5': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 42% Unconfined Compressive Strength = 5,348 psf Moisture content = 14%; Dry Density = 116 pcf @26': Moisture content = 12%; Dry Density = 122 pcf @27': driller comments ground is hard
30
30.0
1.4
31.5
SS
8-12-18 (30)
Clay (CL): yellowish brown, moist, firm, medium plasticity, trace fine sand, very high dry strength
@30': torvane c=2,500 psf Liquid Limit=32; Plasticity Index=15 Moisture Content = 19%
Clayey Sand (SC): brown/white/yellow/gray, moist, dense with firm clay matrix, granitic, fine to coarse sand
35
35.0 35.9
0.9
CA
27-50/5" (50/5")
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, very dense, fine sand, non-plastic
@35.5': Moisture Content = 15%; Dry Density = 115 pcf
40
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-2
SHEET
OF 3
SOIL BORING LOG

GRAPHIC LOG
END : 8/4/09 14:00
6"-6"-6" (N)
40.0
1.5
41.5
SS
8-20-44 (64)
@40': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 34%
Clay (CL): pale brown, moist, hard 45

45.0
1.5
46.5
SS
8-23-35 (58)
Bottom of Hole at 46.5 ft below ground surface
50
55
60
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-3
SHEET
OF 2
SOIL BORING LOG

GRAPHIC LOG
END : 8/4/09 17:00
6"-6"-6" (N)
Clayey Sand (SC): dark grayish brown, moist, very loose, fine to medium grained sand with occasional coarse sand (FILL)
5.0
1.0
6.5
CA
2-2-3 (5) @6': Moisture Content = 11%; Dry Density = 103 pcf
7.5
0.8
9.0
SS
1-1-1 (2)
10
10.0
0.8
11.5
SS
1-1-2 (3)
@10': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 31% Liquid Limit=30; Plasticity Index=14
Well-graded Sand (SW): gray, moist, loose, fine to coarse sand, approximately 5 percent fines, stratified poorly-graded and well-graded sand (FILL) 15
15.0
0.3
16.5
SS
3-4-3 (7)
20
PROJECT NUMBER:
BORING NUMBER:
363312
B-3
SHEET
OF 2
SOIL BORING LOG

GRAPHIC LOG
END : 8/4/09 17:00
6"-6"-6" (N)
20.0
0.5
21.5
SS
6-3-1 (4)
25
25.0
0.8
26.5
SS
1-1-2 (3) Poorly-graded Gravel (GP): 3/4" to 1" gravel, subangular to subrounded
@25': catcher used in sampler
Bottom of demolished clarifier
Clayey Sand (SC): brown, moist, very dense 30

30.0
1.5
31.5
SS
13-21-50 (71)
@30': Catcher used in sampler Moisture Content = 17% % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 33%
35
40
PROJECT NUMBER:
TEST PIT NUMBER:
363312
TP-1
SHEET
OF 1
TEST PIT LOG

PROJECT : Dry Creek WWTP, Roseville, California ELEVATION : EXCAVATION METHOD AND EQUIPMENT : CAT 426C, 24" Bucket WATER LEVELS : --SAMPLE INTERVAL (ft) SAMPLE TYPE DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (ft)
LOCATION : Proposed Biofilters EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR : City of Roseville
GRAPHIC LOG
END :
LOGGER : M. Twede COMMENTS CAVING OF SIDEWALLS, EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS, GENERAL COMMENTS
Asphalt concrete
Aggregate Base Clayey Sand (SC): dark brownish gray, moist, fine to coarse, slight odor
2.0
@2-3': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 36% BU

3.0
4.5
Sandy Clay (CL): brown, moist, soft, fine to coarse sand 5

5.5
BU
@4.5-5.5': Liquid Limit = 38; Plasticity Index = 18 Moisture Content = 23%
Clayey Sand (SC): brown, moist, soft clay matrix, fine to coarse sand, lenses of clay
7.0
@7-8': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 42% BU

8.0
10
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results

1 - Geotechnical Exploration 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

1 - Geotechnical Exploration Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Geotechnical Exploration Report

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Historical Use of Project Area

Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Influent Pump Station, Soil Borings B-2 and B-3

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Foul Air Biofilter Systems, Test Pit TP-1

Discussion of Geotechnical Issues

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Seismic Design Criteria and Related Risks

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Temporary Cut Slopes

Required Over-excavation of Unsuitable Material

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Electrical Building Over-excavation

Fill and Backfill

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Lateral Earth Pressures

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Foul Air Biofilter Units

Miscellaneous Shallow Foundations

Groundwater Design Considerations

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Construction Observation and Testing

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Appendix A Soil Boring and Test Pit Logs

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Electrical Bldg. DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 07:30 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 09:00

Cuttings are steaming hot

@2.5': No Recovery, driving large cobble or debris? Retained baggie of cuttings.

Clay (CL): brown, moist, hard, trace sand, medium plasticity 10

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 09:00 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 14:00

@15': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 11%

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 09:00 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 14:00

@35.5': Moisture Content = 15%; Dry Density = 115 pcf

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 09:00 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 14:00

@40': % Passing No. 200 Sieve = 34%

Clay (CL): pale brown, moist, hard 45

Bottom of Hole at 46.5 ft below ground surface

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 14:00 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 17:00

SOIL BORING LOG

LOCATION : Proposed Pump Station DRILLING CONTRACTOR : PC Exploration, Inc.

START : 8/4/09 14:00 SOIL DESCRIPTION

END : 8/4/09 17:00