Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL 9515 HANEY STREET PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM Whittier, California January 20, 2016 Project 4953-15-0302 January 20, 2016 Mr Luis Rojas Rio Hondo Program Management Team c/o Rio Hondo College 3600 Workman Mill Road Whittier, California 90601-1699 Subject: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements Proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus El Rancho Adult School 9515 Haney Street Pico Rivera, California, 90660 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 Dear Mr. Rojas: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult School in Pico Rivera, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 24, 2015, which was authorized by e-mail on December 15, 2015. The scope of our services was planned with Mr. Manuel Jaramillo of DelTerra. We have been furnished with a site plan and a general description of the proposed improvements. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a permit. Correspondence: Amec Foster Wheeler 6001 Rickenbacker Road Los Angeles, California 90040 USA Tel +1 (322) 889 5300 Fax +1 (323) 721-6700 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL 9515 HANEY STREET PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM Whittier, California Amec Foster Wheeler Los Angeles, California January 20, 2016 Project 4953-15-0302 El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation January 20, 2016 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ..................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. iv 1.0 SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS ............................................ 3 3.0 EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS ...................................................... 4 4.0 SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 5 5.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 6 5.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................... 6 5.2 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS ........................................................................... 6 5.3 GROUNDWATER....................................................................................... 7 5.4 FAULTS ...................................................................................................... 7 5.5 GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................ 16 5.6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 21 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 23 6.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................ 23 6.2 FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................... 23 6.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................... 24 6.4 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT ......................................................................... 26 6.5 PAVING .................................................................................................... 27 6.6 GRADING ................................................................................................ 29 6.7 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION ........................................................... 32 7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 33 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 34 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX: FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ii El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation January 20, 2016 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES 1 Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California 2 Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California 3 List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Km of the Site 4 Horizontal Response Spectra Pseudospectral Acceleration in g FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Plot Plan 3 Local Geologic Map 4 Regional Geologic Map 5 Regional Faults and Seismicity Map 6 Horizontal Response Spectra, Components of the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake Response Spectrum 7 Horizontal Response Spectra, Components of the Design Response Spectrum iii El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation January 20, 2016 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult School campus in Pico Rivera, California. Our subsurface explorations, engineering analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below. The proposed improvements include the replacement of the existing restroom building near the eastern corner of the adult school campus and new pavement, including a fire lane, in the central portion of the campus. The proposed new restroom building will be one story in height and will be of pre-fabricated modular-type construction. We explored the soil conditions by drilling three borings to depths of 10 to 50 feet below the existing grade. Fill soils, 1½ to 3½ feet thick, were encountered in our borings. The fill is underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene age alluvial fan deposits (Saucedo, 1999; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998) consisting of sandy silt, silty sand, and sand. The upper 8 feet is generally medium stiff to stiff sandy silt or loose silty sand. Below 8 feet, the deposits generally consist of poorly to well graded medium dense to very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel. Groundwater was not encountered within the 50-foot maximum depth explored by our borings. The historic-high groundwater level at the site has been mapped at a depth of about 15 feet below the existing grade by the California Geological Survey (CDMG, 1998). Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath or projecting toward the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement propagating to the ground surface during the design life of the project is considered low. Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. According to the City of Pico Rivera and County of Los Angeles, the site is within potential dam inundation area. Dams are routinely inspected by state and federal agencies; therefore, the potential for inundation is low. The relatively flat-lying topography at the site precludes stability problems. The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, subsidence, methane gas, radon gas, asbestos, and volcanism affecting the site is considered to be low. However, there is a potential for seismically-induced settlement of the unsaturated loose and medium dense sandy soils beneath the site. The existing fill soils are not uniformly well compacted and records documenting their placement and compaction are not available; therefore, these fill soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed building, pavement, or other exterior concrete walks and slabs on grade. In addition, the upper natural soils are generally only loose to medium stiff. Accordingly, in order to support the proposed building on conventional spread/continuous footings, all existing fill soils and the upper natural soils should be excavated to allow for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath foundations. The existing fill soils and upper natural soils should also be excavated to allow for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath pavement and exterior concrete walks and slabs on grade and any floor slabs on grade. However, beneath pavement and exterior concrete walks and slabs, particularly in areas that are currently iv El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation January 20, 2016 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 paved, the existing fill and upper natural soils may be left in place if the risk of settlement, cracking, and greater than normal maintenance is considered acceptable. v El Rancho