HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEV 2017-0229; VERSUM MATERIALS CHANNEL STABILIZATION; REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-07-26GROUP DELTA 1 1 /17/7 0
1~ C11 ;7 Versum Materials July 26, 2017
1969 Palomar Oaks Way
FRZ
L
EO
Si J~l1iL2_Proect No. SD535
Carlsbad, CA 92011 1 initia. Dbcumerht No. 17-0087
Attention: Mr. William Elkins P w1ED
NOV 02 2017,
SUBJECT: REPORT OF G EOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Versum Materials -Swale Repair
1969 Palomar Oaks Way
' Carlsbad, California 92011
Mr. Elkins:
LAND DEVELOP MNT
F N 7
We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the swale repair on the
Versum Materials property, located in Carlsbad, California. Our investigation was conducted in
general accordance with our proposal (Proposal No. 17-008) dated February 7, 2017. The
approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The approximate
locations of the four areas we sampled surficial soils are shown on Exploration Plan, Figure 2A.
Pictures of the existing site conditions are shown in Figure 2B.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of our investigation was to characterize the general geotechnical constraints to site
development, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design of the
proposed regrading and surfacing of the existing slope and swale. The recommendations
provided herein are based on ourrecent field visit, laboratory tests, engineering and geologic
analyses, as well as our previous experience with similar conditions.
1.1 Scope of Services
This report was prepared in general accordance with the provisioris of the referenced proposal
in Appendix A (GDC, 2017). In summary, we provided the following scope of services.
An exploration of the site including four soil samples taken at the approximate
locations shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2A.
Laboratory testing of the soil samples including sieve analysis, expansion, R-Value,
and corrosivity testing. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 5D535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 2
. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data to help develop geotechnical
recommendations for site preparation, remedial earthwork, and finish concrete
design.
Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and preliminary
geotechnical recommendations for site development.
1.2 Site Description
The site is located to the south of the Versum Materials building located at 1969 Palomar Oaks
Way in Carlsbad, Califonia, as shown in Figure 2A. The site conditions are documented in pictures
shown in Figure 2B. The existing site consists of a concrete lined swale at the bottom of the
drainage, and a dirt slope with low vegetation ranging in height from approximately five to ten
feet up to the existing building grade (Photo 1). The slope inclination varies slightly, but averages
about a 2:1 horizontal to vertical angle. Based on previous explorations (Geotechnics, 2010), the
slope consists of fill soils. The fill is underlain by potentially compressible and liquefiable alluvial
deposits. The drainage empties into a pond immediately to the west of the subject site (Photo 2).
At the time of our field investigation, the slope had been eroded to various degrees (Photo 3)
and standing water was observed in the bottom of the swale (Photo 4).
1.3 Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the current proposed improvement plan is to regrade the existing
slope, remove the existing concrete swale, and install a permanent surface to prevent future
erosion. Based on communications with Joanne Tyler of O'Day Consultants, Cable Concrete by
International Erosion Control Systems, or a comparable system, is planned to be used as the
permanent resurfacing of the slope for erosion control. Cable Concrete uses precast concrete
blocks joined together with steel cables and a geotextile fabric to form a mat that allows
vegetation to grow through while water can infiltrate.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The field investigation included a visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site and the
excavation of four test samples on June 27, 2017. The approximate locations of the excavations
are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2A. Bulk soil samples were collected from all four
locations for geotechnical testing and analyses. The laboratory testing program included
gradation analysis to aid in material classification using the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS); Expansion Index (El), R-Value, and corosivity testing were conducted on bulk samples to
aid in site development recommendations. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix
B.
A~ I3RDUP DELTA
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 3
The soils sampled generally consist of silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC). The soils on the slope
were sampled at locations H-i and H-3. The soils near the bottom of the slope at the existing
concrete swale were sampled at H-2 and H-4. As shown in Appendix B, the soils have
approximately 35% fines and a low expansion potential. The soils near the bottom of the swale
were wet, and test results indicate they are severely corrosive to metals.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The planned improvements appear to be feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided that
appropriate measures are implemented during construction. Several geotechnical conditions will
need to be addressed:
Slope erosion has created irregular and possibly unstable slope conditions. The planned
improvements should incorporate regrading of the slope at an inclination no greater than
1'/:1 (horizontal:vertical) to rectify the existing conditions.
Laboratory tests indicate that the near surface fill soils at the site primarily consist of silty
sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC). Based on laboratory testing, these soils are anticipated
to have a low expansion potential (20<El<50). Soils with a low expansion potential or
greater (El>20) are typically not considered suitable fill for heave sensitive improvements.
If a flexible surface improvement, such as Cable Concrete,or equivalent, is used and some
heave and settlement are considered tolerable -factoring in both structural integrity and
appearance of the surface improvements - low expansion material would be considered
suitable subgrade material.
Laboratory testing indicates that some of the onsite soils are severely corrosive to buried
metals. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific recommendations.
The presence of water runoff indicates that shallow groundwater may be encountered
during site grading. During grading activities, exposed subgrade materials may be
saturated, soft, or yielding. Recommendations for stabilizing subgrade are presented in
the following section.
AL.- GROUP DELTA
S
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and
the design of the proposed improvements. These recommendations are based on empirical and
analytical methods typical of the standards of practice in southern California. If these
recommendations do not cover a specific feature of the project, contact our office for revisions.
4.1 Plan Review
We recommend that the improvement plans be reviewed by Group Delta prior to construction.
4.2 Excavation and Grading Observation
Remedial grading excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer of record. During
grading, the geotechnical engineer should provide observation and testing services continuously.
Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those
anticipated by this investigation, to adjust designs to the actual field conditions, and to determine
that the remedial grading is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations
presented in this report.
4.3 Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the applicable local
grading ordinance and the requirements of the current California Building Code. The following
recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork
construction.
4.3.1 Site Preparation
General site preparation for any permanent improvements should begin with the removal of
deleterious materials from the site. Deleterious materials include existing structures,
foundations, pavements, slabs, trees, vegetation, trash, contaminated soil and other demolition
debris. Existing subsurface utilities that will be abandoned should be removed and the
excavations backfilled and compacted as described in the section titled Fill Compaction.
Alternatively, the abandoned pipes may be grouted with a two-sack sand-cement slurry under
the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
A~ GROUP DELTA
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 5D535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 5
4.3.2 Improvement Areas
We understand that the planned improvements consist of regrading the existing slope and
installing a permanent surface, such as Cable Concrete, to protect from future erosion.
After site preparation, the existing slope should be regraded at an inclination not exceeding 11/2:1
(horizontal:vertical). Any soil affected by erosion, including soft, yielding soils should be removed
to expose competent material approved by the geotechnical consultant. Approved fill material
may then be placed as uniformly compacted fill to the planned finish subgrades. Fill soils should
be placed on a horizontal subgrade to ensure proper compaction and bonding within the existing
slope geometry. The contractor may achieve a level working surface by benching into the existing
soils. A sketch of a typical benching operation is provided, for reference only, in Figure 3A. After
removal of existing soil, the upper 12-inches of exposed material should then be scarified and
brought to above optimum moisture content, and compacted as described in the section titled
Fill Compaction. Fill soils should be placed in level, horizontal lifts, to above finish subgrade
elevations. Compacted fill should then be cut to planned finish subgrade elevations with fine
grading equipment.
Based on laboratory testing, existing near-surface soils have low expansion potential and severe
corrosion potential to buried metals. If surface improvements are not heave sensitive, such as
the flexible Cable Concrete, and corrosion prevention measures are taken, the near-surface
material is considered suitable to be re-used as compacted fill. During grading, the fill soils should
be tested to verify the conditions. If surface improvements are susceptible to heave or corrosion,
existing fill should be removed and replaced with imported material in the upper two feet of
finish subgrade. Imported material should meet the criteria described in the section titled Fl/I
Compaction below.
If Cable Concrete is used, it should be placed per the manufacturers requirements and
recommendations. Typical details are provided in Figure 3B. A typical concrete swale should be
formed at the toe of the slope, sized for the appropriate flow volumes, and may incorporate the
Cable Concrete detail shown in Figure 3B.
An alternative to Cable Concrete would be a shotcrete facing on the graded slope. Typical
shotcrete details are shown in Figure 3C, including necessary weep holes. To reduce the potential
for cracking and spalling of the shotcrete, a minimum of two feet of material with an Expansion
Index of 20 or less (El<20) is recommended beneath the shotcrete finish. Water can infiltrate
GROUP DELTA
S S
Report of Geotechnical investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 6
cracks and spalled sections and can lead to soil erosion and the undermining of the shotcrete
itself.
In either case, the surface improvements should be constructed immediately after compaction
of the subgrade. If any erosion, drying, or other degradation occurs before installation of the
surface improvements, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified immediately prior to
the installation, brought to optimum moisture, and compacted as described in the section titled
Fill Compaction.
As discussed above, and in the referenced report (Geotechincs. 2010), the improvement area is
situated over potentially compressible and liquefiable alluvium. It is our understanding that the
slope and swale is a non-essential, non-hazardous, non-occupied structure, and that the risks
associated with the potential for settlement due to liquefaction of the underlying alluvium are
deemed tolerable by the owner. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the current loading
conditions near the top of slope (within eight feet) will remain approximately the same.
Consequently, the fill and underlying alluvium will not be subjected to substantial new loads, and
should experience little settlement.
4.3.3 Fill Compaction
All fill and backfill should be placed at slightly above optimum moisture content using equipment
that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum recommended
relative compaction is 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. Sufficient
observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant so that an opinion
can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Rocks or concrete fragments greater than 6
inches in maximum dimension should not be used in structural fill.
Due to possible shallow groundwater, saturated, soft, or otherwise yielding subgrade may be
encountered that would not allow 90 percent relative compaction to be reasonably achieved
through typical compaction efforts. If encountered, any standing water should be pumped out of
the excavation. The excavation bottom should be leveled to a reasonable degree by removing
soft mud. A geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi HP570, or equivalent, should be placed on the
excavation bottom - and up the excavation sides if applicable. A 12 to 18-inch section of gravel
(crushed rock) should be placed on top of the fabric to bridge the gap over the soft subgrade. A
filter fabric should then be placed over the gravel section to prevent migration of fines into the
void spaces over time. Compacted fill can then be placed over this section. This section should
A&_ GROUP DELT(
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 7
not be within 12 inches of the finish subgrade elevation. If necessary, the excavation should be
deepened to account for the section.
Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability
for use. In general, imported fill materials should consist of granular soil with less than 35 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM C136 and an Expansion Index less than 20 based on
ASTM D4829. Samples of the proposed import should be tested by the geotechnical consultant
in order to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use, which may include
corrosion testing. During grading operations, soil types may be encountered by the contractor
that do not appear to conform to those discussed within this report. The geotechnical consultant
should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use.
A two-sack sand and cement slurry may also be used for structural fill as an alternative to
compacted soil. It has been our experience that slurry is often useful in confined areas which
may be difficult to accesswith typical compaction equipment. Samples of the slurry should be
fabricated and tested for compressive strength during construction. A minimum 28-day
compressive strength of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) is recommended for the two-sack sand
and cement slurry.
4.3.4 Expansive Soils
We anticipate that the proposed excavations will predominately generate mixtures of silty to
clayey sand. Based on our laboratory testing, these materials have a low expansion potential
based on common criteria (20<El<50). For heave sensitive improvements, we recommend the
upper two feet of subgrade material have very low expansion potential (Ek20).
4.3.5 Reactive Soils
In order to assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site soils, samples were
tested for water-soluble sulfate content, as shown in Figure B-2. The test results indicate that the
on-site soils have a negligible potential for sulfate attack based on commonly accepted criteria.
The sulfate content of the finish subgrade soils should be determined during fine grading.
In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with buried metals, the pH, resistivity, and
chloride contents were also determined (see Figure B-2). Resistivity tests suggest that the on-site
soils are very corrosive to ferrous metals. Chloride content was elevated in the sample that had
been saturated by water runoff and suggests that these soils are severely corrosive to metals.
Typical corrosion control measures should be incorporated into design, such as providing
A&I ERDUP DELTA
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 8
minimum clearances between reinforcing steel and soil, or sacrificial anodes for buried metal
structures. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific recommendations.
4.3.6 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations are anticipated for the re-grading of the proposed slope. All excavations
should conform to Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary slopes should be inclined no steeper than 1:1
for heights up to 20 feet. Higher temporary slopes, or any excavations which encounter seepage,
should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis.
4.3.7 Slope Setback
As a minimum, all foundations should be setback from any descending slope at least eight feet.
The setback should be measured horizontally from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the
slope face. The horizontal setback may be reduced by deepening the foundation to achieve the
recommended setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. Note
that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-slope movements due to
slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement
sensitive structures not be constructed within 5 feet of the slope top without specific review by
Group Delta.
AWVQ GROUP DELTA
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD535
Swale Repair July 26, 2017
Versum Materials Page 9
5.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in similar localities. No
warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in
this report.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of
a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings
of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore,
this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Please feel free call with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else.
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS
Taylor Latimer, PE 82035 Jim Sanders, CEG 2258
Project Engineer Associate Engineering Geologist
Distribution: (1) Mr. William Elkins (William.Elkins@versummaterials.com)
91~kOFESS
oVk LA
I No.C82035 I Lv
*EKp._3-31-18
CIVIt.
IXF SANDERS I N2258
I cERliPED
ENGINEERING * GEOI.OG%SI
OF
AF~ GROUP DELTA
FIGURES
S
:; -- f' 1
C
S
A
NO SCALE
REFERENCE: Google Faith (2016). SateIie imagery dated 11/17/16.
C
4
I
a
Approximate limits
of proposed
. development.
H-4 Sample identification number.
-4- Approximate location of sample. A
NO SCALE
t3RDUP IDELTA
DELTA CONSLTL-TANTS, INC. -R5 AND =a 1150535
;::0 17-0087
EXPLORATION PLAN
REFERENCE: Google Earth (2016), Satelite imagery dated 11/8/16.
40 •
.
.*'.
sinpe drainane and swale (Inokinci east from H-2),
p
Photo 3: Erosion of slope near existing CMU wall and concrete lined slope (looking east)
"S
S
Photo 2: Existing pond immediately vest at site Io K dieast I: ni 11a
-
- ; .;:.. :
' -
.'
' - -'
fl -
I
Photo 4: Standing water and saturated soils near existing drainage (looking west from H-4).
Existing pavement
Existing slope
Existing erosion within slope
---------------
Exi tin erosion within slope
Ilk
Bench excavation to
- - -
competent subgrade material
NO SCALE
ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIStS S0535
CRETE 5
GEOTEXTILE
TOP OF SLOPE DETAILS TOE OF SLOPE DETAILS
REFERENCE: International Erosion Control Systems Inc. (2010), Key in Detail and Toe in Detail, dated December 9.
1'/2:1 (HORIZONITAL:VERTICAL)
MAXIMUM SLOPE INCLINATION
4" THICK CONCRETE SHOTCRETE WITH /
6" by 6", W2.9 by W2.9 WELDED WIRE FABRIC
1-
CONCRETE /' GALVINZED METAL SCREEN
S WALE
4" DIAMETER WEEP HOLES
@10' f-% 04 WITH 1" MAX GRAVEL
PLACED 18" ON EACH SIDE OF HOLE &
4" COVER ABOVE AND BELOW HOLE
Uj
REFERENCE: Ue0techncs Incorporated (2010). Slope Protection, Schumacher Facilities, Document No. 10-0359, Figure 1.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4,
Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (II); Geosynthetics,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, Compact Disk.
Geotechnics Incorporated (2010). Slope Protection, Schumacher Facilities, 1969 Palomar Oaks
Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0272-005-00, Document No. 10-0359, June 10.
Group Delta Consultants (2017). Proposalfor Geotechnical Recommendations, Versum Materials -
Swale Repair, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No. S017-008, February 7.
International Conference of Building Officials (2016). 2016 California Building Code.
International Erosion Control Systems Inc., Cable Concrete Specifications, undated.
United States Geological Survey (2005). Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle,
California, Kennedy and Tan.
GROUP DELTA
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the
same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of
the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test
method has been referenced, such as ASTM or Caltrans, the reference only applies to the specified
laboratory test method, which has been used only as a guidance document for the general
performance of the test and not as a "Test Standard". A brief description of the various tests
performed for this project follows.
Classification: Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System as
established by the American Society of Civil Engineers per ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are
shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.
Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D422, and
were used to supplement visual classifications. The results are shown in Figures 8-1.1 to B-1.2.
Expansion Index: The expansion potentials of selected samples of finish grade soils within the
building pad areas were estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined
in ASTM test method D4829. The test results are summarized in Figure B-2.
R-Value: R-Value tests were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in general
accordance with CTM 301. The test results are shown in Figures B-2.
pH and Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metals, selected soil samples
were tested for pH and minimum resistivity using Caltrans test method 643. The corrosivity test
results are summarized in Figure B-3.
Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with concrete, selected soil samples were
tested for water soluble sulfate. The sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a
10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted solution was tested for water soluble sulfate
in general accordance with ASTM D516. The test results are also presented in Figure B-3, along
with common criteria for evaluating soluble sulfate content.
Chloride Content: Soil samples were also tested for water soluble chloride. The chloride was
extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted
solution was then tested for water soluble chloride using a calibrated ion specific electronic probe.
The test results are also shown in Figure B-3.
£ I3DUP DELTA
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
100 3" 1W J4' #4 #8 #IA #0 #SU #100 #900
90 92
80
70 FV
60
I.- a, C
ii.. 50
40
a)
a) 0
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
--
--l% Gravel 35% Fines--+
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND
CLAY GRAVEL SAND
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATERBERG LIMITS
BORING NUMBER: H-i LIQUID LIMIT: --
SAMPLE DEPTH: DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: --
PLASTICITY INDEX: --
Project No. SD535
GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Document No. 17-0087
FIGURE B-1.1
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
100
3'1 I4 #50 #100 #200
90 Ilk 88
80
.1m 70 - OD --------- ____ -------- ____ - ____
60
150
40
30
20
10
A
..
- - -
- —0% Gravel 65% Sand - 35% Fines— - - - -1i, 0 -- - I - - liii I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
I COARSE I FINE I COARSE MEDIUM j FINE I SILT AND I
I CLAY I I GRAVEL SAND
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATERBERG LIMITS
BORING NUMBER: H-2 LIQUID LIMIT: --
SAMPLE DEPTH: DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: -
PLASTICITY INDEX: --
GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Project No. SD535
Document No. 17-0087
041:,Z~w FIGURE B-1.2
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
(CTM 301)
SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION R-VALUE
H-4@ 0'- 1' Fill: Green/Blue Gray Sandy Lean Clay to Clayey Sand (CL/SC). 24
EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D4829)
EXPANSION SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION
INDEX
H-2 @ 0'- 1' Fill: Light Brown Clayey Sand (SC). 46
H-3 @ 0'- 1' Fill: Light Brown Silty Sand (SM). 33
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 to 20 Very low
21to50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very High
Project No. 5D535
OUP 0ELT1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 17-0087
FIGURE B-2
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D516, CTM 643)
RESISTIVITY SULFATE CHLORIDE SAMPLE NO. pH
[OHM-CM] CONTENT [%] CONTENT [%]
H-3 7.18 607 <0.01 0.01
H-4 7.14 111 0.06 0.29
SULFATE CONTENT [%] SULFATE EXPOSURE CEMENT TYPE
0.00 to 0.10 Negligible -
0.10 to 0.20 Moderate II, IP(MS), IS(MS)
0.20 to 2.00 Severe V
Above 2.00 Very Severe V plus pozzolan
SOIL RESISTIVITY
[OHM-CM]
GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS
METALS
0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive
1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive
2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive
Above 10,000 Slightly Corrosive
CHLORIDE (CI) CONTENT GENERAL DEGREE OF
[%] CORROSIVITY TO METALS
0.00 to 0.03 Negligible
0.03 to 0.15 Corrosive
Above 0.15 Severely Corrosive
Project No. SD535 GROUP DELTA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 17-0087
FIGURE B-3