B B GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
A
BC
DE
FG
HI
JK
LMB
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED EYE CLINIC
JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA VA TASK ORDER NO. 605-334
PREPARED FOR: Leo A. Daly
550 South Hope Street, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071
PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road
San Diego, California 92123
February 24, 2015 Project No. 107860001
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................1
4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING....................................2
5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................3 5.1. Regional Geologic Setting............................................................................................3 5.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................4
5.2.1. Fill .......................................................................................................................4 5.2.2. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits..............................................................................4
5.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................4 5.4. Excavatability ...............................................................................................................4 5.5. Flood Hazards...............................................................................................................5 5.6. Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................................................5
5.6.1. Local Faults.........................................................................................................6 5.6.2. Strong Ground Motion ........................................................................................7 5.6.3. Ground Surface Rupture .....................................................................................7 5.6.4. Ground Motion....................................................................................................7 5.6.5. Seismic Design Considerations...........................................................................8 5.6.6. Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis............................................................9 5.6.7. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement............................................10 5.6.8. Tsunamis ...........................................................................................................11
5.7. Landsliding .................................................................................................................11
6. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................11
7. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................12 7.1. Earthwork ...................................................................................................................12
7.1.1. Site Preparation .................................................................................................12 7.1.2. Remedial Grading .............................................................................................13 7.1.3. Materials for Fill ...............................................................................................14 7.1.4. Compacted Fill ..................................................................................................14 7.1.5. Utility Trench Backfill ......................................................................................15 7.1.6. Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................15
7.2. Temporary Shoring.....................................................................................................16 7.3. Foundations.................................................................................................................17
7.3.1. Spread Footings – Proposed Building...............................................................17 7.3.2. Spread Footings - Ancillary Structures .............................................................19
7.4. Slabs-On-Grade ..........................................................................................................20 7.5. Concrete Flatwork ......................................................................................................20 7.6. Pavements ...................................................................................................................21 7.7. Corrosion ....................................................................................................................22
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc ii
7.8. Concrete......................................................................................................................22 7.9. Drainage......................................................................................................................23 7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation ...............................................................24 7.11. Pre-Construction Conference......................................................................................24
8. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................25
9. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................27
Tables Table 1 – Principal Active Faults .....................................................................................................5 Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site ..................................................................7 Table 3 – Seismic Design Factors ....................................................................................................8
Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Figure 3 – Geology Figure 4 – Fault Locations Figure 5 – Cross Sections A-A′ and B-B’ Figure 6 – MCER Design Response Spectrum Figure 7 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Cantilevered Shoring
Appendices Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 1
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated July 28, 2014, we have performed a geo-
technical evaluation for the Proposed Eye Clinic to be located at the existing Jerry L. Pettis Veteran
Affairs (VA) Medical Center facility in Loma Linda, California. This report presents the results of
our field exploration, geophysical survey, geotechnical laboratory testing, our conclusions regard-
ing the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, and our recommendations for the design and
earthwork construction of this project.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of geotechnical services for this study included the following:
Review of readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature, topographic maps, geologic maps, fault maps, hazard maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs.
Performance of a field reconnaissance to observe site conditions and to locate and mark explora-tory borings.
Notification of Underground Service Alert (USA) and retention of a geophysical subconsul-tant to clear proposed boring locations for the potential presence of underground utilities.
Performance of a subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of three small-diameter borings to depths of up to 81.5 feet.
Performance of geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples to evaluate the subsurface ma-terials’ pertinent engineering characteristics.
Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations re-garding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project.
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located to the northeast of the existing VA Medical Center main hospital
building and primarily consists of relocatable buildings, concrete paved walkways, asphalt
concrete (AC) paved driveways and landscaped areas (Figure 1). The site is terraced with two
relatively level to gently sloping areas that are separated by a south-facing slope up to 10 feet
in height that transects the central portion of the site. The elevation of the subject site is ap-
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 2
proximately 1,155 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site coordinates are approximately
34.0507 north latitude and 117.2489 west longitude.
Based on our recent communications with Leo A Daly, we understand that the development will
include the construction of a single-story building having an approximate footprint of 15,000
square feet, paved parking and drive areas, underground utilities, and other associated appurte-
nances. We further understand that the proposed building will be supported by conventional
shallow foundations. Anticipated column loads have not been established at this time; however,
based on our communications with Nabih Youssef Associates, we have assumed building column
loads of up to 175 kips.
As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed previous geotechnical reports for the Speech ENT
Clinic Building, Cancer Building, and Behavioral Health Services Building, which are located in
close proximity to the north of the proposed Eye Clinic site (Construction Testing & Engineer-
ing, Inc., 2010; Geotechnologies, Inc., 2011; Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 2012). The
reviewed reports indicate that the portion of the VA Medical Center site that includes the pro-
posed Eye Clinic is underlain by varying amounts of fill materials over young alluvial fan
deposits. Several small, man-made ponds surround the VA Medical Center’s main hospital build-
ing, some of which have been backfilled to accommodate the construction of the Speech ENT
Clinic, Medical Building, and Behavioral Health Services Building projects. According to the
report prepared by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. (2012), fills up to approximately
13 feet in depth are present at the proposed Behavioral Health Sciences building.
4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our subsurface exploration for this study was conducted on December 4, 2014, and consisted of
the excavation, logging, and sampling of three, 8-inch diameter exploratory borings. The borings
were drilled to depths of up to 81.5 feet with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow
stem augers. In-place and bulk soil samples were obtained from the borings. Samples were then
transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the
exploratory borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the borings are included in Appendix A.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 3
Geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples included an evaluation of in-situ dry
density and moisture content, gradation analyses, consolidation, shear strength, expansion index, soil
corrosivity (including sulfate and chloride content, pH, and resistivity) and R-value. The results of
the in-situ dry density and moisture content tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The
results of the other geotechnical laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B.
5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting and seismicity, landslides, ex-
cavatability, and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections.
5.1. Regional Geologic Setting
The project area is situated near the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains in the Transverse
Ranges Geomorphic Province (Norris and Webb, 1990). This geomorphic province encom-
passes several east-west trending mountain blocks within Southern California. The site lies
within alluvial fan deposits near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains (Figure 3). Quater-
nary age and younger partially consolidated alluvium is mapped within the city of Loma Linda
(Morton, 1978a; 1978b). The alluvium is expected to be 100 feet or more in thickness.
The Transverse Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault zones trend-
ing roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 4, are considered active
faults. The San Jacinto, Banning, San Timoteo Canyon, and Rialto-Colton Faults are all active
faults in the project area. The San Jacinto Fault Zone, the nearest active fault system, has been
mapped approximately 1 mile southwest of the project site (Figure 4). Major tectonic activity asso-
ciated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of
right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in
the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 4
5.2. Site Geology
The earth materials encountered during our subsurface evaluation included fill, and Quater-
nary-age young alluvial fan deposits. Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered
during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent
sections. Additional descriptions of the subsurface units are provided on the boring logs in
Appendix B. The general geology of the site is shown on Figure 2 and geologic cross sec-
tions are presented on Figure 5.
5.2.1. Fill
Fill soils were encountered in our borings to approximate depths of up to 8½ feet. The fill
soils consisted of brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand with scattered gravel.
5.2.2. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Quaternary-age young alluvial fan deposits were encountered beneath the fill in each of our
borings to the total depths explored. The young alluvial fan deposits were observed to con-
sist of brown, light brown, and yellowish brown, moist, loose to dense, silty sand. Scattered
interlayers of gravel were encountered in the young alluvial fan deposits.
5.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings. Fluctuations in the groundwater
level and local perched conditions may occur due to variations in ground surface topography,
subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors.
5.4. Excavatability
Based on our subsurface exploration of the site, the earth materials underlying the site
should be excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 5
5.5. Flood Hazards
Based on review of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance
rate map (FIRM), the site is considered to be outside of the 100-year flood zone
(FIRM, 2008). Based on this information, the potential for significant flooding of the site
is considered to be low.
5.6. Faulting and Seismicity
Like most of southern California, the project area is considered to be seismically active.
Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs,
as well as on our geologic field mapping, the subject site is not underlain by known active or
potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last
11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). However, the site is located in a seismically
active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground mo-
tion is considered significant during the design life of the proposed structure.
The nearest known active fault is the San Jacinto fault, located approximately 1 mile south-
west of the site. Table 1 below lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the
subject site and their associated maximum moment magnitudes (MW) as published for the
CGS by Cao et al. (2003). The approximate fault to site distance in the table was calculated
by the National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters program (USGS, 2008).
Table 1 – Principal Active Faults
Fault Approximate Distance
miles (kilometers) Moment Magnitude
(MW)
San Jacinto (San Bernardino) 1 (1.6) 6.7 San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) 2.4 (3.8) 6.9 San Andreas (San Bernardino) 6.9 (11.1) 7.3 San Jacinto (Anza Segment) 13.6 (21.9) 7.2 Cucamonga 14.2 (22.8) 7.0 Cleghorn 15.4 (24.8) 6.5 North Frontal (Western) 18.4 (29.6) 7.0 Elsinore (Glen Ivy) 23.8 (38.3) 6.8 Chino 24.0 (38.6) 6.7 Whittier 24.9 (40.1) 6.8 Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 27.6 (44.4) 6.8
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 6
Table 1 – Principal Active Faults
Fault Approximate Distance
miles (kilometers) Moment Magnitude
(MW)
Sierra Madre 28.6 (46.0) 7.2 Pinto Mountain 30.2 (48.6) 7.0 North Frontal (Eastern) 32.4 (52.1) 6.7 Clamshell-Sawpit 36.6 (58.9) 6.5 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Springs
40.3 (64.8) 7.3
Raymond 43.2 (69.5) 6.5 Landers 47.6 (76.6) 7.3 Burnt Mountain 47.9 (77.1) 6.4 Elysian Park 48.9 (78.7) 6.7 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 49.0 (78.9) 7.1 Eureka Peak 49.2 (79.2) 6.4 Elsinore (Julian Segment) 50.8 (81.8) 7.1 South Emerson-Copper Mtn 52.1 (83.8) 6.9 Verdugo 52.2 (84.0) 6.7 Hollywood 56.5 (90.9) 6.4 San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 57.1 (91.9) 6.8 Calico-Hidalgo 58.3 (93.8) 7.1 Gravel Hills-Harper Lake 59.7 (96.1) 6.9 Palos Verdes 60.9 (98.0) 7.3 San Gabriel 61.9 (99.6) 7.0 Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 62.0 (99.8) 6.7
In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include strong ground motion, ground
surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis. These hazards
are discussed in the following sections.
5.6.1. Local Faults
As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the Loma Linda area is underlain by several mapped and
named faults (including the San Jacinto, Banning, San Timoteo Canyon, and Rialto-
Colton faults). Several faults have been mapped in the project vicinity including the
northwest-southeast trending San Jacinto fault located approximately 1 mile to the
southwest of the project area. This fault is considered to be inactive or potentially active
(evidence of movement within the last 2,000,000 years).
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 7
5.6.2. Strong Ground Motion
Based on our review of background information, data pertaining to the historical seis-
micity of the area that includes Loma Linda are summarized in Table 2 below. This
table presents historic earthquakes within a radius of approximately 62 miles (100 kilo-
meters) of the site with a magnitude of 6.5 or greater.
Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site
Date Magnitude
(M) Approximate Epicentral Distance
miles (kilometers) December 8, 1812 7.3 31.8 (51.2) July 22, 1899 6.4 22.4 (36.1) December 25, 1899 6.7 22.4 (36.1) April 21, 1918 6.8 25.2 (40.6) March 11, 1933 6.4 49.4 (79.6) December 4, 1948 6.0 50.5 (81.2) October 1, 1987 6.0 47.6 (76.6) June 28, 1992 7.3 47.4 (76.3) June 28, 1992 6.5 25.3 (40.8)
5.6.3. Ground Surface Rupture
Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, no active
faults are known to cross the project vicinity. Therefore, the potential for ground rup-
ture due to faulting at the site is considered low. However, lurching or cracking of the
ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
5.6.4. Ground Motion
The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate
seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion
response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent
damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for
structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-
source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the
MCER for the site was calculated as 0.949g using the United States Geological Survey
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 8
(USGS, 2013) seismic design tool (web-based). Spectral response acceleration parameters,
consistent with the 2013 CBC, are also provided in Section 5.6.7. for the evaluation of
seismic loads on buildings and other structures.
The 2013 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be
evaluated, where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean
(MCEG) peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance
with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCEG peak
ground acceleration is based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a
2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The MCEG peak ground acceleration
with adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 0.912g using the USGS
(USGS, 2013) seismic design tool that yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground accelera-
tion of 0.912g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.00 for Site Class D.
5.6.5. Seismic Design Considerations
Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the
seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with the CBC (2013) guidelines and
adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (USGS, 2013).
Table 3 – Seismic Design Factors
Factors Values Site Class D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.50 Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 2.372 g Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 1.086 g Short Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMS 2.372 g One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SM1 1.628 g Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 1.582 g Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SD1 1.086 g
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 9
5.6.6. Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis
We have performed a site-specific ground response analysis in accordance with Sec-
tion 1614A.1.2 of the California Building Code (CBC, 2013) and Section 21.2 of
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-10 (ASCE, 2010). The analy-
sis consisted of a review of available seismologic information for nearby faults and
performance of probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analyses to provide an
acceleration response spectrum (ARS) to model building response to seismic ground
shaking for design of the proposed structure.
We conducted a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to evaluate the horizontal ground mo-
tion with a recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years or a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years, also known as the ground motion associated with the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE). We conducted our analysis using the hazard spectrum cal-
culator program OpenSHA (Field, et al., 2003) and the online database of fault locations,
rupture areas, and recurrence intervals (Cao, et al., 2003). We considered several attenua-
tion relationships in our analysis to model spectral response acceleration at the site and
selected the relationships by Chiou & Young (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008), and
Boore & Atkinson (2008) in evaluating the probabilistic MCE ARS. The results of our
probabilistic ground motion analysis for 5 percent damping are presented on Figure 6.
We conducted a deterministic seismic hazard analysis to evaluate ground shaking
wherein we computed the 5 percent damped, median ARS for characteristic earth-
quakes acting individually on known active faults within the region. In our analysis, we
used the National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters tool (USGS, 2008) to
evaluate the fault to site distance for the database of fault locations and magnitude pub-
lished by the USGS/CGS (Cao et al., 2003). We found that the ARS at the site for a
moment magnitude 6.7 earthquake event on the San Jacinto fault (approximately 1 mile
southwest of the site) exceeds the ARS at the site due to seismic events on other re-
gional faults using published estimates of earthquake magnitude (Cao et al., 2003). We
considered several attenuation relationships and modeled the MCE ground motion for a
magnitude 6.7 event on the San Jacinto fault. In accordance with the Section 21.2.2 of
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 10
ASCE 7-10, we constructed the deterministic MCE ground motion from the largest
scaled median spectral response acceleration at each period evaluated and the lower
limit specified in Section 21.2.2. The deterministic MCE ARS from our analysis is also
presented on Figure 6.
The site-specific design ARS is presented on Figure 6. In accordance with Sec-
tion 21.2.3 of ASCE 7-10, the site-specific design ARS is the lesser of the probabilistic
and deterministic MCE ARS at each period evaluated reduced by a factor of one-third.
The design ARS for a Site Class D computed in accordance with Section 1613A of the
CBC and Section 11.4.5 of ASCE 7-10 is presented on Figure 6 for comparison. The
site-specific design ARS presented on Figure 6 meets or exceeds 80 percent of the de-
sign ARS for a Site Class D in accordance with Section 21.3 of ASCE 7-10. The
spectral ordinates for the site-specific design ARS are tabulated on Figure 6.
5.6.7. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to
earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non-
plastic silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible
to liquefaction. Based on the observed absence of a shallow groundwater table during
our subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that liquefaction at the subject site is not a
design consideration.
The seismically induced settlement potential of the subsurface soils was evaluated using
the soil sampler blow counts recorded at various depths in our exploratory borings and
our laboratory test results. The potential seismically-induced settlement within the upper
soils at the site was estimated using the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Soft-
ware, 2007), which incorporates Tokimatsu and Seed’s procedure (1987). Deaggregation
of the probabilistic ground motion at the site was performed using the USGS interactive
webpage (web address http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/), which estimates the
modal magnitude for a given probabilistic seismic ground motion. Results of our seismic
hazard deaggregation yielded a modal magnitude of 7.0, which is the magnitude used in
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 11
our analysis. Our analysis also assumed a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.91g based
on the design seismic event. Based on our evaluation, we estimate a total seismic induced
settlement to be on the order of 6 inches. Differential earthquake induced settlements are
estimated to be approximately 3 inches over a 40-foot span.
5.6.8. Tsunamis
Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth)
generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes,
landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on the location and elevation of the site, the po-
tential for a tsunami is not a design consideration.
5.7. Landsliding
Based on our review of the original geotechnical evaluation for the site, other published geo-
logic literature, and aerial photographs and our subsurface evaluation, landslides or related
features do not underlie and are not adjacent to the subject site.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory
testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed Eye Clinic to be located at the existing
Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical Center is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recom-
mendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the
project. In general, the following conclusions were made:
The project site is underlain by fill and young alluvial fan deposits. The fill material, due to the lack of documentation of its placement, is not considered suitable for support of the pro-posed building in its current condition.
The earth materials underlying the site should be excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition. However, the fill and upper portions of the young allu-vial fan deposits were observed to be loose and may be prone to caving within unsupported excavations.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 12
From a geotechnical standpoint, the on-site soils may generally be re-used for compacted fill material provided they meet the specifications herein.
Groundwater was not encountered to the depths evaluated and is not anticipated to be a de-sign consideration, although seepage may be encountered in some areas. Fluctuations in the groundwater level and local perched conditions may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors.
The active San Jacinto fault zone is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the site. Ac-cordingly, the potential for relatively strong seismic ground motions should be considered in the project design.
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation, the site is not considered to be susceptible to seismically-induced liquefaction. However, our evalua-tion indicates that portions of the alluvial fan deposits are susceptible to seismically-induced settlement.
Based on the results of our limited soil corrosivity testing as well as testing in nearby soils, and Caltrans corrosion guidelines (2012), the site would not be classified as a corrosive site.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the de-
sign and construction of the proposed structure. The proposed site improvements should be
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governing agencies.
7.1. Earthwork
Earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable gov-
erning agencies and the recommendations presented in the following sections of this report. Ninyo &
Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations presented herein.
7.1.1. Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements, vegetation, utility
lines (if present), asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded.
Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally
not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation
and fill areas. The debris and unsuitable material (e.g., oversize and organic materials) gen-
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 13
erated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and dis-
posed of per the local governing jurisdiction.
7.1.2. Remedial Grading
In those areas of the site where slabs-on-grade and shallow foundations are planned, we
recommend that the upper soils be removed and recompacted to a depth of 8 feet below the
existing ground surface, or 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed foundations (whichever
is deeper). In general, remedial grading should extend 5 feet or more beyond the outer edge
of the structure footprint, as practical. Ninyo & Moore should observe the excavations prior
to filling to evaluate the need for deeper removals. Deeper removals may be needed at spe-
cific locations if loose, compressible, or otherwise unsuitable materials are exposed during
grading. The removals should be replaced with compacted fill in accordance with this re-
port. Fill material placed in the upper 3 feet of the structural portion of the pad should
conform to the criteria listed below for import fill material.
As noted above, the young alluvial fan deposits that underlie the subject site are considered
susceptible to seismically-induced settlement, due to a design-level earthquake. To reduce
the differential settlement that could occur as a result of the seismic settlement, we recom-
mend that consideration be given to placing two or more layers of geosynthetic
reinforcement within the fill placed within the building area as part of the remedial earth-
work recommended herein. The geosynthetic reinforcement should consist of Tensar TriAx
TX140 geogrid (or acceptable equivalent), which should be placed with a vertical spacing
of 12 inches or more. The lowermost layer of geosynthetic reinforcement should be placed
on the bottom of the excavation. We recommend that the geosynthetic layers be placed be-
low the bottom of the lowest foundation (if conventional shallow foundations are planned
for building support) and below those underground utilities/conduits that are planned within
the building area. Deep foundations (if planned for building support) can extend through the
geosynthetic layers and into the underlying soils.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 14
7.1.3. Materials for Fill
From a geotechnical standpoint, on-site soils with an organic content of less than approxi-
mately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) are suitable for use as fill. In general,
fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 4 inches in diameter, and
not more than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾-inch. Oversize materials should be
separated from material to be used for fill and removed from the site.
Imported fill material should generally be granular soils with a very low to low expansion
potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] of 50 or less as evaluated by ASTM International
[ASTM] D 4829). Import material should also be non-corrosive in accordance with the Cal-
trans (2012) corrosion guidelines. Retaining wall backfill material should further conform
to the specifications presented for Structure Backfill in the “Greenbook” (Public Works
Standards, Inc., 2012). Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s
representative prior to filling or importing.
7.1.4. Compacted Fill
Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the ex-
posed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed
ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or
dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents generally above the optimum moisture con-
tent. The scarified materials should then be compacted to a relative compaction of
90 percent as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of compaction
by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for
observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify
this office and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observa-
tion, and to provide reasonable time for that review.
Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum
moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material
type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent
within the soil mass.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 15
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading
operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive
fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.
Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thick-
ness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a
moisture content generally above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by
mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers or
other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by
ASTM D 1557. Aggregate base, if used as fill beneath pavement, and the upper 12 inches
of subgrade soils, should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. Successive
lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.
7.1.5. Utility Trench Backfill
Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site earth materials should be generally suitable
for re-use as trench backfill provided they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris,
and rocks greater than approximately 3 inches in diameter. Larger chunks, if generated dur-
ing excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off site. Soils
classified as silts or clays should not be used for backfill in the pipe zone. Fill should be
moisture-conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum. Trench backfill should be
compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 except for
the upper 12 inches of the backfill below pavements that should be compacted to a relative
compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Lift thickness for backfill will
depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but fill should generally be placed in
lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Special care should be exercised to avoid
damaging the pipe during compaction of the backfill.
7.1.6. Temporary Excavations
For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used:
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 16
Fill and Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Type C
Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should be
evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA regulations.
Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommendations.
For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met
using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by laying back the slopes to no steeper
than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in fill and young alluvial fan deposits. Temporary excava-
tions that encounter seepage may be shored or stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along
the base of the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.
7.2. Temporary Shoring
Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, the proposed structure will not in-
clude a subterranean level. If deep excavations are planned where temporary sloping of the
walls of the excavation is not feasible, it may be necessary to install a temporary shoring
system. The shoring plans should clearly depict the site constraints and the shoring system.
The shoring plans should be signed and stamped by a professional engineer registered in the
State of California experienced in the design the shoring systems. Ninyo & Moore should be
given the opportunity to review the project plans to check its compliance with design and
construction recommendations presented herein.
A cantilever shoring system consisting of soldier piles and lagging can be utilized to facili-
tate construction staging (Figure 7). The soldier piles may be comprised of structural
concrete below the bottom of the excavation and lean concrete slurry backfill above the bot-
tom. H-piles inserted in the drilled shafts, during the placement of concrete, are to act as
reinforcement below the bottom of the excavation. Lagging spans the distance between the
H-piles, transferring the soil lateral pressure to the H-piles.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 17
Lateral earth pressures exerted on cantilever shoring are indicated on Figure 7. These lateral
earth pressures should be evaluated by a structural engineer for the design of the temporary
shoring system. These design earth pressures assume that spoils from the excavations, or other
surcharge loads, will not be placed above the excavations within a 1:1 plane extending up and
back from the base of the excavation. For shoring subjected to surcharge loads, such as soil
stockpiles or construction materials/equipment, an additional horizontal uniform pressure of
0.5q may be applied to the full height of the excavation, where “q” is the surcharge pressure.
Street traffic or construction traffic may be assumed to induce a surcharge pressure “q” of
240 pounds per square foot (psf). If a braced shoring system is planned for the site, we would be
pleased to provide recommendations for their design and construction upon request.
7.3. Foundations
Conventional shallow foundations are feasible for support of structures, provided the rec-
ommended remedial grading is performed as discussed above in Section 7.1.2. The
following foundation design parameters are provided as recommendations based on prelimi-
nary analysis. The foundations are not intended to control differential movement of the soils.
Minor cracking (considered tolerable) of slabs and flatwork may occur, particularly after a
major seismic event. The following preliminary recommendations may be utilized for con-
struction. These recommendations should be reviewed once structural plans are available
and site excavations are finished. In addition, requirements of the appropriate governing juris-
dictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the structures. If
alternative foundation systems (e.g. deep foundations, etc) are proposed, we would be pleased to
provide recommendations for their design/construction upon request.
7.3.1. Spread Footings – Proposed Building
The proposed structure may be supported on shallow footings provided the
recommended remedial earthwork is performed as described in Section 7.1.2. We
estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein,
will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement on the
order of 1/2 inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 18
Shallow foundations, either spread or continuous, founded on compacted fill may be
designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf),
which incorporates a factor of safety of 3 or more. The allowable bearing capacity value
may be increased by 1/3 when considering loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. Foundations should be founded 24 inches below the adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a width of 18 inches or more and isolated footings
should be 48 inches or more in width.
For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pres-
sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used. This
value assumes that the ground surface is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or
three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recom-
mend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be
neglected when calculating passive resistance.
For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35
be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistances are to be used in
combination, we recommend that the passive value not exceed one-half of the total re-
sistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
We estimate that shallow foundations, designed and constructed as recommended
herein, will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement
on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.
To help resist the effects of seismically-induced settlement of the soils that underlie the
site, we recommend that the foundations supporting the proposed Eye Clinic building
be structurally interconnected through the use of reinforced concrete grade beams.
These grade beams can provide added rigidity to the foundation system and can help the
foundation system to behave as a structural unit to span areas of differential settlement.
As such, we recommend that the grade beams be designed and constructed in accor-
dance with the structural engineer’s requirements.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 19
7.3.2. Spread Footings - Ancillary Structures
Ancillary structures such as site walls or shade structures may be supported on shallow,
spread or continuous footings founded on at least 18 inches of compacted fill. Shallow,
spread or continuous footings bearing on recompacted fill may be designed using an allow-
able bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by
one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
Spread footings should be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Con-
tinuous footings should have a width of 15 inches and isolated footings should be
24 inches in width or more. The spread footings should be reinforced in accordance
with the recommendations of the project structural engineer.
For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pres-
sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used. This
value assumes that the ground surface is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or
three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recom-
mend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be
neglected when calculating passive resistance.
For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.30
be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistances are to be used in
combination, we recommend that the passive value not exceed one-half of the total re-
sistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
We estimate that shallow foundations, designed and constructed as recommended
herein, will undergo total static settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement
on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 20
7.4. Slabs-On-Grade
We recommend that slab-on-grade floors underlain by compacted fill materials of generally very
low to low expansion potential be 5 inches in thickness, and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing
bars spaced 18 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the middle
of the slab. To help resist the effects of seismic settlement of the soils that underlie the site, the
structural engineer can consider designing the floors as structural slabs. As a means to help re-
duce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with expansion joints at
intervals of approximately 12 feet each way. The required slab thickness, reinforcement, and ex-
pansion joint spacing should be designed by the project structural engineer.
If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a
vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene (or equivalent)
membrane placed over 4 inches of compacted, medium to coarse, clean sand or pea gravel and
overlain by an additional 2 inches of sand to help protect the membrane from puncture during
placement and to aid in concrete curing. The exposed subgrade should be moistened just prior to
the placement of concrete.
7.5. Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork should be 4 inches in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3
reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on-center both ways. A vapor retarder is not needed for exte-
rior flatwork. To reduce the potential manifestation of distress to exterior concrete flatwork due
to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-
control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the structural engineer. Exterior slabs should
be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. Granular subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of
12 inches, moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum moisture content,
and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Positive
drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 21
7.6. Pavements
For preliminary design purposes, we have assumed traffic index (TI) values of 5, 6, and 7 for
our initial evaluation of pavement structural sections at the site. If traffic loads are different from
those assumed herein, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. Actual pavement recom-
mendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at
the finished subgrade elevations once grading operations have been performed.
Based on the results of our previous laboratory testing and experience with the on-site soils, we
have used a design R-value of 39 for the preliminary design of flexible pavements at the project
site. As noted above, actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests per-
formed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at the finished subgrade elevations following grading
operations. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re-evaluate the pavement design at the
time of construction. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are as follows:
Table 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
Traffic Index Design
R-Value Asphalt Concrete
(in)
Class 2 Aggregate Base
(in) 5 39 3.0 4.0 6 39 3.0 6.5 7 39 4.0 7.0
We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade, and aggregate base materials be
compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current
version of ASTM D 1557. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement
design should be re-evaluated.
Where rigid pavement sections are proposed, we recommend a 6-inch thickness of Portland
cement concrete underlain by 4 inches of compacted aggregate base. We recommend that the
Portland cement concrete have a 600 pounds per square inch (psi) flexural strength and that
it be reinforced with No. 3 bars that are placed 18 inches on center (both ways). The rigid
pavement and aggregate base should be placed on compacted subgrade that is prepared in
accordance with the recommendations presented above.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 22
7.7. Corrosion
Laboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site earth materials to
evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and
electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) 643 and
the sulfate and chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and
CT 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Corrosivity testing was performed on two samples of the upper soils obtained from our explora-
tory borings B-1 and B-3. The results of the corrosivity testing performed on the sample from
boring B-1 indicated an electrical resistivity of 5,800 ohm-cm, soil pH of 9.6, a chloride con-
tent of 45 parts per million (ppm), and a soluble sulfate content of 0.002 percent
(i.e., 20 ppm). The results of the corrosivity testing conducted on the sample from boring B-3
indicated an electrical resistivity of 2,800 ohm-cm, soil pH of 8.5, a chloride content of
70 parts per million (ppm), and a soluble sulfate content of 0.002 percent (i.e., 20 ppm), re-
spectively. Based on the Caltrans corrosion (2012) criteria, both samples from of the on-site
soils would not be classified as corrosive. Corrosive soils are defined by Caltrans (2012) as
soils with electrical resistivities less than 1,000 ohm-cm, more than 500 ppm chlorides, more
than 0.1 percent sulfates, or a pH less than 5.5.
7.8. Concrete
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates
can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a soluble sulfate con-
tent of 0.002 percent for the tested samples collected onsite, which is considered to represent
a negligible potential for sulfate attack (ACI, 2011). Based on the results of our laboratory
testing, Type II cement can be used. However, due to the variability in the on-site soils and
the potential future use of reclaimed water at the site, we recommend that Type II/V cement
be considered for concrete structures in contact with soil or the formational materials. In ad-
dition, we recommend a water-to-cement ratio of no more than 0.45. We also recommend
that 3 inches of concrete cover be provided over reinforcing steel for cast-in-place structures
in contact with the on-site earth materials.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 23
In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we rec-
ommend that for slabs-on-grade, the concrete be placed with a slump in accordance with
Table 5.2.1 of Section 302.1R of The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Floor and Slab Con-
struction,” or Table 2.2 of Section 332R in The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Guide to
Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction.” If a higher slump is needed for screening
and leveling, a super plasticizer is recommended to achieve the higher slump without chang-
ing the required water-to-cement ratio. The slump should be checked periodically at the site
prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that crack control joints be provided in
slabs in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the poten-
tial for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend
that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs-on-grade and foundations be in accor-
dance with CBC Section 1907.7. The structural engineer should be consulted for additional
concrete specifications.
7.9. Drainage
Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed such that runoff water is diverted away from
slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts,
concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be established and main-
tained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations
of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside the
building perimeter, and further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in
accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect.
Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A
gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns
should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 24
Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage
terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to
the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained
for the life of the project. The property owner and the maintenance personnel should be
made aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to slope stability and foun-
dation performance.
7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of ob-
served conditions in widely spaced exploratory borings. If conditions are found to vary from
those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommen-
dations will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project
drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo & Moore
should perform the needed observation and testing services during construction operations to
evaluate the assumptions inherent in the design.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore
will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that
it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that
the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicat-
ing that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full
agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construc-
tion of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing
appropriate techniques and construction materials.
7.11. Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading.
The owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer,
Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should attend to discuss the plans, the project, and the
proposed construction schedule.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 25
8. LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have been
conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotech-
nical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is
made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no
evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions
not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties rela-
tive to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional
subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was lim-
ited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of
structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an
accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per-
form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent
evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for
the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,
our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon
request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of
natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to
the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac-
tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over
time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 26
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or re-use of the findings, con-
clusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at
said parties’ sole risk.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 27
9. REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 1991a, Guidelines for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, (ACI 302.1R).
American Concrete Institute, 1991b, Guidelines for Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Con-struction, (ACI 332R).
American Concrete Institute, 2011, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Con-crete and Commentary.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 99-138: dated February.
California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 2.0), Divi-sion of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated November.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map of California: Map Sheet 48 (revised).
Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 139-172: dated February.
Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Willis, C. J., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps: California Geological Survey: dated June.
Chiou, B. S.-J., and Youngs, R.R., 2008, An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 173-216: dated February.
CivilTech Software, 2007, LiquefyPro v. 5.5c.
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., 2010, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Speech ENT Clinic, VA Loma Linda Medical Center, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, Califor-nia, CTE Job No. 40-2654, dated December 30.
Field, E.H., Jordan, T.H., and Cornell, C.A., 2003, OpenSHA: A Developing Community-Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismological Research Letters, 74, no. 4, p. 406-419.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 28
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), 2008, San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map No. 06071C8711H, Federal Emergency Management Agency, revised August 28, 2008.
Geotechnologies, Inc., 2011, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Medical Build-ing, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, California, File No. 20245, dated December 12.
Harden, D.R., 1998, California Geology: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Geologi-cal Survey, California Geologic Map Series, Map No. 6.
Morton, D.M., 1978a, Geologic Map of the Redlands Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open File Report: 78-21, Scale 1:24,000.
Morton, D.M., 1978b, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino South Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open File Report: 78-20, Scale 1:24,000.
Mualchin, L., 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map, Based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Ninyo & Moore, In-house Proprietary Data.
Ninyo & Moore, 2014, Revised Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, Proposal No.P-21534: dated July 28.
Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Public Works Standards, Inc., 2012, “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Investigation, Behavioral Health Services Building, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Medical Center, Loma Linda, Cali-fornia, SCS&T No. 12310235F, dated December 11, revised December 13.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013, Seismic Design Requirements, VA Seismic Design Document H-18-8, dated August.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual.
United States Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/.
United States Geological Survey, 2012a, Redlands Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 29
United States Geological Survey, 2012b, San Bernardino South Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey, 2013, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
1_10
7860
001_
SL.m
xd
"
SITE
0 2,000 4,0001,000
SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED EYE CLINICJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
SITE LOCATION FIGURE
1PROJECT NO. DATE107860001 2/15
±
SOURCE: USGS, FAO, NPS, EPA, ESRI, DELORME, TANA, OTHER SUPPLIERS.
±
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
LEGEND
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
0 30 6015
SCALE IN FEET
GEOTECHNICAL MAP FIGURE
2PROJECT NO. DATE
2_10
7857
001_
BL.m
xd AO
B
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2014.
@A B-3TD=31.5'
PROPOSED EYE CLINICJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA107860001 2/15
B-1TD=21.5'
@AB-3TD=31.5'
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED BUILDING
B
@?BORING (CTE, 2010)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
CTE B-1TD=50.5'
@?CTE B-1
TD=50.5'
A
A'
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONB B'
EXISTING SPEECH CLINIC
@A
B-2TD=81.5' B'
@A
ARTIFICIAL FILLafYOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS(CIRCLED WHERE BURIED)
Qa
af
Qa
af
Qa
NOTES: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 0 1,900 3,800
SCALE IN FEET
GEOLOGY FIGURE
3PROJECT NO. DATE
SITE
3_10
7860
001_
Gl.m
xd AO
B
±
SOURCE: MORTON, D.M., AND MILLER, F.K., 2003, PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN BERNARDINO 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED EYE CLINICJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA107860001 2/15
UD
FAULT - SOLID WHERE ACCURATELYLOCATED, DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED. ARROW AND NUMBER INDICATE DIRECTION AND ANGLE OF DIP OF FAULT PLANE
LEGEND
65
VERY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITSQfVERY YOUNG ALLUVIAL VALLEY DEPOSITS
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
QaYOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS, UNIT 3Qyf3
YOUNG ALLUVIAL VALLEY DEPOSITS, UNIT 3Qya3
SAN TIMOTEO BEDS OF FRICK (1921)UPPER MEMBER. INCLUDES INFORMALLY NAMED RECHE CANYON MEMBER (QTSTR)
QTstuQTstr
STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDS, INCLINED5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
M E X I C OU S AP a c i f i c
O c e a n
S A N J A C I N T OE L S I N O R E
I MP ER I A L
W H I T T I E R S A N A N D R EA S
N EW P O R T- I N G L E W O O D
CORONADO BANK
SAN DIEGO TROUGH
SAN CLEMENTE
SANTA CRUZ-SANTA CATALI NA RIDGE
PALOS VERDESOFFSHORE ZONE
OF DEFORMATION
GARLOCKWH IT E W
OLF
CL EA RWAT ERSAN G ABRIEL
SIERRA MADR E
B A N N I N G
M I S S I O N C R E E KBLACKWATERHARPER
LOCKHART
LENWOOD
CAMP ROCKCALICO
LUD LOW
PISGAH
BULLION MOUNTAIN
JOHNSON VALLEY
EMERSON
PINTO MOUNTAIN
MANIX
MIRAGE VALLEY
NORTH
HELENDALE
FRONTAL
CHINO
SAN JOSECUCAMONGA
MALIB U COAST SANTA MONICA
SANCAYETANO
SANTASUSANASIMI- SANTA
ROSA
NORTHRIDGE
CHARNOCK
SAWPITCANYON
SUPERSTITION HILLS
NEVADACAL IFORNIA
RO S E CA NY ON
San Bernardino County
Kern County
Riverside CountySan Diego County Imperial County
Los Angeles County
Ventura County
Orange County
Riverside County
San
Bern
ardi
no C
ount
y
Los Angeles County
Kern
Cou
nty
IndioIrvine
Pomona
Mojave
Anaheim
Barstow
Temecula
Palmdale
El CentroSanDiego
Escondido
Oceanside
SantaAna
Riverside
Tehachapi
Long Beach
Wrightwood
ChulaVista
Los Angeles
Victorville
SanClemente
PalmSprings
Big Bear CityThousandOaks San
Bernardino
LakeArrowhead
Twentynine Palms
Baker
DesertCenter
!
!
CALI FO RNIA
0 30 60
SCALE IN MILES
LEGEND
HOLOCENE ACTIVE
CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY HISTORICALLY ACTIVE
LATE QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY
QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
"SITE
!
4_10
7860
001_
F.mxd
AOB
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE
4PROJECT NO. DATE
±
SOURCE: JENNINGS, C.W., AND BRYANT, W.A., 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
PROPOSED EYE CLINICJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA107860001 2/15
FIGURE
5
PROPOSED EYE CLINIC
JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001
DATE
2/15
0 40 80
SCALE IN FEET
CROSS SECTIONS A-A' AND B-B'
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
LEGEND
Qaf FILL
Qa YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS
GEOLOGIC CONTACT,QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
?
1160
1120
A A'
EL
EV
AT
IO
N (F
EE
T, M
SL
)
1080
EL
EV
AT
IO
N (F
EE
T, M
SL
)
B-3
TD=31.5'
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
5 10
7860
001
cs.d
wg
1160
1120
1080
TD=50.5'
TD=31.5'
TD=81.5'
B-2
1160
1120
B B'
EL
EV
AT
IO
N (F
EE
T, M
SL
)
1080
EL
EV
AT
IO
N (F
EE
T, M
SL
)
1160
1120
1080
TD=21.5'
B-1
TD=81.5'
B-2
CTE B-1B-3
(PROJECTED 27'WEST)
PROPOSED
EYE CLINIC
EXISTING SPEECH
CLINIC BUILDING
Qaf
Qa
PROPOSED
EYE CLINIC
??
?
??
?
Qaf
Qa
CTE B-1
TD=50.5'
BORING (CTE, 2010)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
6 107860001 Response Spectrum Using NGA (REV3).xls
NOTES:1
in 50 years using Chiou & Youngs (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008), and Boore & Atkinson (2008) attenuation relationships.
2 Deterministic Spectrum is 84th percentile of the median values from attenuation relationships by Chiou & Youngs (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia
(2008) and Boore & Atkinson (2008) for deep soils considering a MW 6.7 event on the San Jacinto fault 1 mile from the site.It conforms to the lower bound limit per ASCE 7 Section 21.2.2 as modified by 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions.
3 Spectrum is the lesser of spectral ordinates of deterministic and probabilistic spectra at each period per ASCE 7 Section 21.3.
The design spectrum is 80% or more of the General Response Spectrum at all periods per ASCE 7 Section 21.3.
4
SMS = 2.840 g SM1 = 2.151 g
SDS = 1.893 g SD1 = 1.434 g5 General Response Spectrum is computed from mapped spectral ordinates modified for Site Class D (stiff soil profile) per ASCE 7 Section 11.4.
6
107860001
The spectral ordinates represent horizontal ground motion with 5% damping, and do not include response modification factor or importance factor.
6PROPOSED EYE CLINIC
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
0.0000.0100.0500.075
PERIOD(seconds)
PERIOD(seconds)
MCER RESPONSE
SPECTRUM,Sa (g)
1.1721.378
0.400
MCER RESPONSE
SPECTRUM,Sa (g)
0.1000.1370.1500.200
1.5851.8931.893
0.7700.842 0.500
0.6870.750
1.8931.8931.8931.734
1.000
2.0001.500
1.3000.9420.7170.4550.326
2/15
0.3003.0004.000
1.8931.893
Probabilistic Spectrum is for Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) with ground motions having 2% probability of exceedance
Site Specific Seismic Design Parameters
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
SP
EC
TR
AL
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N, S
a (
g)
PERIOD, T (seconds)
Deterministic Spectrum
Probabilistic Spectrum
General Response Spectrum
Design Response Spectrum
MCER DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
PROJECT NO. DATE
FIGURE
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings and test pits. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetra-tion Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1⅜ inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of pene-tration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140-pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
0
5
10
15
20
XX/XX
SM
CL
Bulk sample.
Modified split-barrel drive sampler.
2-inch inner diameter split-barrel drive sampler.
No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler, or 2-inch inner diameter split-barreldrive sampler.
Sample retained by others.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
No recovery with a SPT.
Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.
No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.
Continuous Push Sample.
Seepage.
Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Groundwater measured after drilling.
MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):Solid line denotes unit change.
Dashed line denotes material change.
Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Beddingc: Contactj: Jointf: FractureF: Faultcs: Clay Seams: Shearbss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracturesz: Shear Zonesbs: Shear Bedding Surface
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.
BORING LOGExplanation of Boring Log Symbols
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PER ASTM D 2488
PRIMARY DIVISIONSSECONDARY DIVISIONS
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME
COARSE- GRAINED
SOILS more than
50% retained on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL more than
50% of coarse fraction
retained on No. 4 sieve
CLEAN GRAVELless than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with clay
GRAVEL with FINES
more than 12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND 50% or more
of coarse fraction passes
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN SAND less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES more than 12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE- GRAINED
SOILS 50% or
more passes No. 200 sieve
SILT and CLAY
liquid limit less than 50%
INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY
ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY
ORGANICOL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
SILT and CLAY
liquid limit 50% or more
INORGANICCH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT
ORGANIC
OH (plots on or above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATIONExplanation of USCS Method of Soil Classification
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
APPARENT DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL
APPARENT DENSITY
SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL
(blows/foot)SPT
(blows/foot)MODIFIED
SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL
CONSIS-TENCY
SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL
(blows/foot)SPT
(blows/foot)MODIFIED
SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PLA
STI
CIT
Y IN
DE
X (
PI)
, %
0 10
1074
20
30
40
50
60
70
020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
PLASTICITY CHART
GRAIN SIZE
DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE
GRAIN SIZE
APPROXIMATE SIZE
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017”
Flour-sized to sugar-sized
Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
0
10
20
30
40
9
6
6
8
6.2
10.1
9.1
10.5
106.2
102.0
99.3
103.0
SM
SM
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE:Approximately 5 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered gravel.YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace coarse sand and fine gravel; faint finelaminations.
Massive.
Yellowish brown.
Brown; trace medium sand.
Total Depth = 21.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled and patched with concrete on 12/04/14.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higherlevel due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed inthe report.
BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001DATE
2/15FIGURE
A-1
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 1,155' (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH
1
0
10
20
30
40
4
8
8
9
12
14
13
9.5
8.9
11.4
8.8
5.6
7.7
98.6
102.2
98.1
100.0
111.0
SM
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 2 inches thick.BASE:Approximately 6 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine SAND; trace medium sand.
Few gravel up to 1/2-inch in diameter.
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; scattered interlayers of fine to medium sand.
Micaceous.
Trace medium and coarse sand.
Scattered interlayers of gravel 1 to 2 inches thick.Medium dense.
Scattered interlayers of silty fine to coarse sand.
BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001DATE
2/15FIGURE
A-2
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,155' (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH
3
40
50
60
70
80
21
19
33
24
28
5.9
3.6
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS: (Continued)Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand; scatteredinterlayers of gravel and scattered interlayers of fine to coarse sand.
Light brown; dense; silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (gravel up to 1/2-inch indiameter).
Brown; silty fine sand; scattered interlayers of silty fine to coarse sand; trace gravel up to1-inch in diameter.
Scattered layers of gravel.
BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001DATE
2/15FIGURE
A-3
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,155' (MSL) SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH
3
80
90
100
110
120
54 4.5Moist; very dense; some fine gravel up to 1/2-inch in diameter.
Total Depth = 81.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled and patched with concrete on 12/04/14.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higherlevel due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed inthe report.
BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001DATE
2/15FIGURE
A-4
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,155' (MSL) SHEET 3 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH
3
0
10
20
30
40
6
5
7
24
13
40
7.7
6.7
9.1
2.0
7.7
3.4
98.3
96.3
103.2
119.9
117.1
SM
SM
DECORATIVE GRAVEL:Approximately 2 to 3 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand.
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; trace medium to coarse sand; laminated.
Trace fine gravel.
Yellowish brown; trace medium sand.
Light brown.Loose to medium dense; silty fine to coarse sand; scattered subrounded gravel up to 1inch in diameter; trace caliche deposits.
Brown; silty fine sand.
Light brown; silty fine to coarse sand. (Disturbed sample)
Scattered gravel up to 1.5-inch in diameter.
Total Depth = 31.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled and patched with concrete on 12/04/14.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higherlevel due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed inthe report.
BORING LOGJERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
107860001DATE
2/15FIGURE
A-5
DE
PT
H (
feet
)
Bul
kS
AM
PLE
SD
riven
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
MO
IST
UR
E (
%)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y (
PC
F)
SY
MB
OL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
U.S
.C.S
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/04/14 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 1,153' (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (B-61) (Cal Pac)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY CAT LOGGED BY CAT REVIEWED BY RDH
1
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings and test pits in Appendix A.
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex-ploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor-dance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-5. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with USCS.
Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the tests are summarized on Figures B-6 and B-7.
Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures B-8 through B-11.
Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 18-2 (ASTM D 4829). Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-12.
Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general ac-cordance with CT 643. The sulfate and chloride content of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure B-13.
Proposed Eye Clinic, Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center February 24, 2015 Loma Linda, California Project No. 107860001 VA Task Order No. 605-334
107860001 R.doc 2
R-Value The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils was evaluated in general accordance with CT 301. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equi-librium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure B-14.