Appendix - C - Geotechnical Investigation - FINAL PDF

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GAS TURBINE POWER PLANT

NILAND, CALIFORNIA
prepared for
Imperial Irrigation District

Post Office Box 937
Imperial, CA 92251
by
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Project No. 0554-075-00
Document No. 06-0015
February 10, 2006

February 10, 2006
Imperial Irrigation District Project No. 0554-075-00

Post Office Box 937 Document No. 06-0015
Imperial, CA 92251
Attention: Mr. Baltazar Aguilera
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Gas Turbine Power Plant
Niland, California
Dear Mr. Aguilera:
In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Gas Turbine Power Plant in Niland, California. Specific conclusions regarding site conditions and
recommendations for foundations and earthwork are presented in the attached report.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide professional services. If you have any questions or
comments regarding this report or the services provided, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Robert A. Torres, P.E.

Principal Engineer
Distribution: (4) Addressee, Mr. Baltazar Aguilera

NILAND, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................... 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 2
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2
5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 3

5.1 Lacustrine Deposits...................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Alluvium ...................................................................................................................... 4
5.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 4
6.0 TECTONIC FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 5

6.1 San Andreas Fault ........................................................................................................ 5
6.2 Brawley Seismic Zone ................................................................................................. 6
6.3 Imperial Fault............................................................................................................... 6
6.4 Elmore Ranch Fault Zone ............................................................................................ 7
6.5 Sand Hills – Algodones Fault ...................................................................................... 7
7.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS....................................................................................................... 7

7.1 Surface Rupture ........................................................................................................... 8
7.2 Seismicity..................................................................................................................... 8
7.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement......................................................................... 8
7.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads ................................................................................... 9
7.5 Flooding ..................................................................................................................... 10
7.6 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding .................................................... 10
7.7 Volcanic Hazards ....................................................................................................... 10
7.8 Subsidence ................................................................................................................. 11
8.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 12
Geotechnics Incorporated
NILAND, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Plan Review ............................................................................................................... 14
9.2 Excavation and Grading Observation ........................................................................ 14
9.3 Earthwork................................................................................................................... 14
9.3.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................... 15
9.3.2 Compressible Soils ..................................................................................... 15
9.3.3 Expansive Soils........................................................................................... 15
9.3.4 Temporary Excavations .............................................................................. 16
9.3.5 Fill Compaction .......................................................................................... 16
9.3.6 Surface Drainage......................................................................................... 16
9.4 Shallow Foundations.................................................................................................. 17
9.4.1 Conventional Foundations .......................................................................... 17
9.4.2 Post-Tension Slab Foundations .................................................................. 18
9.4.3 Settlement ................................................................................................... 18
9.4.4 Lateral Resistance ....................................................................................... 18
9.4.5 Seismic Design............................................................................................ 18
9.5 Mat Foundations ........................................................................................................ 19
9.5.1 Settlement ................................................................................................... 19
9.6 Deep Foundations ...................................................................................................... 20
9.6.1 Axial Capacity ............................................................................................ 20
9.6.2 Uplift Capacity............................................................................................ 21
9.6.3 Lateral Pile Capacity................................................................................... 22
9.6.4 Settlement ................................................................................................... 22
9.7 On-Grade Slabs.......................................................................................................... 22
9.7.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs ..................................................................... 23
9.7.2 Exterior Slabs.............................................................................................. 24
9.7.3 Expansive Soils........................................................................................... 24
9.7.4 Reactive Soils ............................................................................................. 25
9.8 Earth-Retaining Structures......................................................................................... 25
9.9 Pavement Design ....................................................................................................... 26
9.9.1 Asphalt Concrete......................................................................................... 26
9.9.2 Portland Cement Concrete .......................................................................... 27
9.10 Pipelines................................................................................................................... 27
9.10.1 Thrust Blocks ............................................................................................ 27
9.10.2 Pipe Bedding............................................................................................. 27
9.10.3 Modulus of Soil Reaction ......................................................................... 27
10.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION.......................................................................... 28
NILAND, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ILLUSTRATIONS
Site Location Map................................................................................................................ Figure 1
Exploration Plan .................................................................................................................. Figure 2
Regional Geologic Map ....................................................................................................... Figure 3
Fault Location Map.............................................................................................................. Figure 4
Spectral Acceleration........................................................................................................... Figure 5
Retaining Wall Drain Details............................................................................................... Figure 6
TABLES
Regional Seismicity .............................................................................................................. Table 1
APPENDICES
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. Appendix A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION................................................................................ Appendix B
FIELD PERCOLATION TESTING............................................................................. Appendix C
FIELD RESISTIVITY TESTING ................................................................................ Appendix D
LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................... Appendix E
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... Appendix F
PILE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... Appendix G
NILAND, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Gas Turbine
Power Plant in Niland, California. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the
pertinent geotechnical conditions at the site, and provide recommendations for the geotechnical
aspects of the proposed plant. The conclusions presented in this report are based on field
exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our previous experience with similar soils
and geologic conditions.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
This investigation was conducted in general accordance with the provisions of our Proposal No. 05-
373 (Geotechnics, 2005). In order to evaluate geotechnical impacts to the proposed development,
and to provide recommendations for design and construction of the proposed power plant, the
following services were provided.
! A reconnaissance of the surface characteristics of the site. This included a literature review
of available maps, reports, and aerial stereoscopic photographs of the site and adjacent
properties. Pertinent references are provided in Appendix A.
! A subsurface exploration of the site including 12 hollow-stem auger borings and 6 cone
penetrometer soundings at the locations previously determined by the Imperial Irrigation
District. Selected samples of the materials encountered in the explorations were collected
for laboratory analysis. Logs of the explorations are presented in the figures of Appendix B.
! In-situ percolation testing of the surficial soils within the proposed storm water detention
basins. Percolation tests were conducted at three locations in general accordance with the
Imperial County Uniform Policy and Method for Soils Evaluation, Testing and Reporting.
The percolation test results are summarized in Appendix C.
! In-situ earth and thermal resistivity testing at two locations within each of the areas for the
Turbine Generator, GSU and Switchyard. The soil resistivity testing was conducted by M. J.
Schiff & Associates using the four point method (IEEE Standard 81 and 442, respectively),
and is presented in Appendix D.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 0554-075-00
FEBRUARY 10, 2006 DOCUMENT NO. 06-0015
PAGE 2
! Laboratory testing of selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing
was intended to characterize and assess the pertinent engineering properties of the on site
soils. Laboratory testing included gradation, hydrometer, Atterberg Limits, moisture
content, dry density, expansion, corrosion and shear strength. The laboratory test results are
summarized in Appendix E.
! Assessment of general seismic conditions and geologic hazards affecting the site vicinity,
and their likely impact on the project. Our liquefaction analysis is presented in Appendix F.
! Engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data in order to develop
recommendations for earthwork construction, site preparation, remedial grading
recommendations, mitigation of expansive and compressible soil conditions beneath pads,
fill and backfill placement, and foundation recommendations for the proposed structures.
Alternative foundations were evaluated including spread footings, mat foundations and pile
foundations. Our deep foundation analyses are presented in Appendix G.
! Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located about ½ mile east of the City of Niland, California, as shown on the Site Location
Map, Figure 1. Beal Road provides access to the property, and forms the southern boundary. The
southwest corner of the property contains an existing electric substation. The site is bordered by
undeveloped land to the west, north and east. The property is rectangular in shape, and is
approximately 1,000 feet long and 1,500 feet wide. The site and surrounding areas slope gently to
the southwest (toward the Salton Sea). According to the program TOPO!, the site is located between
approximately 90 and 100 feet below mean sea level (Wildflower, 1997). The layout of the property
is shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2.
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is anticipated to include the construction of two quick-start General
Electric LM6000 gas combustion turbine generators capable of producing a total of 90 megawatts of
electricity during peak power demand periods. The generators are scheduled to be incorporated into
the Imperial Irrigation District’s power supply network in May of 2008.
SITE
Project No. 0554-075-00

Geotechnics Document No. 06-0015
Incorporated SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
\Drafting\CorelDraw\Brd8x11-h Rev. 12/99
PAGE 3
In addition to the generators, development will include construction of a one-story office building
with a control room and warehouse, a variety of electrical equipment pads, two water tanks (35 feet
in diameter and 32 feet tall), several storm water detention basins, and various paved driveways and
parking areas. We anticipate that the generators and water tanks will be supported on mat
foundations or pile caps (maximum equipment loads are on the order of 460 kips). The approximate
layout of the proposed development is also shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2.
5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is situated within the south-central portion of the Salton Trough, a topographic and
structural depression bound to the north by the Coachella Valley and to the south by the Gulf of
California. The Salton Trough is a region of transition from the extensional tectonics of the East
Pacific Rise to the transform tectonic environment of the San Andreas system. Late Cenozoic
extension associated with the opening of the Gulf of California formed this deep topographic and
structural depression (Elders, 1979). The marine water of the gulf was cut off by growth of the
Colorado River delta, resulting in the closed basin present today.
The Salton Trough is an actively growing rift valley in which sedimentation has almost kept pace
with tectonism (Elders, 1979). As rifting occurred, the Colorado River delta filled the trough, and
conditions gradually changed from marine, to deltaic, to subaerial river and lake deposits. Today,
the Mesozoic-age crystalline basement rocks of the trough are covered by about 15,000 feet of
Cenozoic marine and nonmarine sedimentary deposits. During the Late Pleistocene and Holocene,
the basin was periodically inundated by floodwaters of the Colorado River to form lakes. Lake
Cahuilla was formed during the last 1,000 years and evidence of its shoreline are still present around
the Imperial Valley. The latest flooding, in 1905, created the present-day Salton Sea (Sharp, 1982).
The approximate locations of the 12 exploratory borings and 6 cone penetrometer soundings
conducted for this investigation are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The general geologic
conditions in the vicinity of the site are depicted on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 3. Logs
describing the subsurface conditions encountered in the explorations are presented in Appendix B.
The geotechnical characteristics of the materials at the site are discussed below.
EXPLANATION
Alluvium Older alluvium
Windblown sand Imperial Formation
Lake deposits Volcanic rocks
Niland Obsidian Igneous and

of Dibblee (1954) metamorphic rocks
SITE
Niland
Modified From: USGS Loeltz et al 1975, Plate 1
Project No. 0554-075-00

Incorporated REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
FIGURE 3
\Drafting\CorelDraw\Brd8x11-h Rev. 12/99
PAGE 4
5.1 Lacustrine Deposits
The subject site is underlain by lacustrine deposits associated with the ancient lakes which
occupied the area. In general, the lacustrine deposits encountered in our subsurface
exploration include thick sequences of lean to fat clay (Unified Soil Classification Symbol
CL to CH) with thin interbedded lenses of sandy silt (ML). The lacustrine deposits were
generally dry to moist, moderately to highly expansive, and hard in consistency. The
average dry density was 108 lb/ft3, with an average moisture content of 19 percent. Our
observations suggest that the lacustrine deposits at the subject site may be older and more
indurated compared to other areas in Imperial Valley, probably due to repeated cycles of
desiccation.
The cone penetrometer tip resistance in these deposits generally varied from 45 to 65 TSF.
Shear wave velocity measurements at the location of the turbine generator suggest that the
site has an average shear wave velocity (vs) of approximately 650 ft/s, which indicates a
UBC Seismic Soil Profile SD (see Appendix B). This corresponds to a dynamic shear
modulus (Gmax) of about 1,150 TSF, and a dynamic constrained modulus (Es) of about 3,680
TSF. Note that these are upper bound estimates associated with small strains in hard,
unsaturated clay. These clays will soften substantially with wetting and swelling, or strain in
general. Three percolation tests were conducted in the lacustrine deposits as described in
Appendix C. The tests suggest that the percolation rate of the lacustrine deposits ranges from
0 to ¼ gallon per square foot per day. The field resistivity test results are described in
Appendix D.
5.2 Alluvium
A thin cover of alluvium mantles the lacustrine deposits at the site. The alluvium is
generally 1 to 2 feet thick across the site. The alluvium typically consists of fine to coarse
grained, well graded sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM). This material was dry and very
loose in consistency. The alluvium is considered to be compressible.
5.3 Groundwater
No groundwater was observed within 91 feet of the surface in any of the 18 explorations
conducted at the site. However, it should be noted that perched groundwater could develop
in the future due to changes in site drainage, irrigation, or antecedent rainfall. Groundwater
contours shown on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 3, suggest that groundwater may
have been closer to the surface when that map was published (Loeltz et al., 1975).
PAGE 5
6.0 TECTONIC FRAMEWORK
The Salton Trough may have originally formed as a major half-graben during the regional crustal
extension that took place in much of western North America in the Miocene (Frost et al., 1997). The
Salton Trough is now a zone of transition between the ocean-floor spreading regime of the East
Pacific Rise in the Gulf of California and the transform tectonic environment of the San Andreas
fault system (Elders, 1979). Relative plate motion between the North American plate and Pacific
plate is thought to be transferred to the San Andreas Fault near the south end of the Salton Sea
(Sharp, 1982; Sylvester, 1976). Geophysical studies indicate the presence of a steep gravity gradient
across the San Andreas fault along the eastern edge of the Trough (Biehler, et al., 1964). This
gravity gradient indicates the northwest trending San Andreas fault is the principal structural
boundary between the Salton Trough and the North American plate (Sylvester, 1976).
The Orocopia and Chocolate Mountains represent the broken edges of the North American plate
along the eastern margin of the Salton Trough and are included in the southern Basin and Range
physiographic province (Frost et al., 1997). The eastern edge of the Pacific plate is composed of
intermediate composition granitic rocks of the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province. The
eastern edge of the plate has been offset along multiple strands of the San Andreas system. The
Salton Trough occupies the structurally weak zone between the strong, solid edges of the Pacific and
North American plates. A zone of high seismicity connects the San Andreas fault north of the
Salton Sea and the Imperial fault south of Brawley. This structurally low area (the Brawley Seismic
Zone) may be the result of tensional or releasing step between the San Andreas and Imperial faults.
Potential seismogenic sources near the site include the San Andreas Fault, the Brawley Seismic
Zone, the Imperial Fault, and the Elmore Ranch fault zone. Due to its proximity to the site, we have
also included a discussion of the Sand Hills – Algodones fault zone although it is not a recognized
seismogenic source. Each of these faults is described in greater detail below.
6.1 San Andreas Fault
The Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas Fault is located approximately 23
kilometers north of the site. The San Andreas Fault has not been mapped south of the Salton
Sea. While a linear extension of the fault may exist under the Salton Sea or in the northern
Imperial Valley, there is no geologic or geophysical evidence to support it (Sharp, 1982).
The California Division of Mines and Geology estimates a slip rate of 25 mm/year and a
maximum moment magnitude of 7.7 for this segment of the San Andreas Fault.
PAGE 6
Although the San Andreas Fault has produced a few moderate-sized earthquakes in historic
times, no large earthquake has been documented on the San Andreas system south of San
Bernadino (Hutton and Others, 1991). This ‘locked’ southernmost section of the fault also
lacks microseismicity, and stands in sharp contrast to the northern sections of the fault which
have ruptured with the largest historical earthquakes in California.
6.2 Brawley Seismic Zone
The Brawley Seismic Zone is located approximately 13 kilometers west of the site. The
Brawley Seismic Zone is characterized by earthquake swarms generally less than magnitude
3 or 4. The California Division of Mines and Geology estimates a slip rate of 25 mm/year
and a maximum moment magnitude of 6.4 for the Brawley Seismic Zone. The Brawley
Seismic Zone is believed to separate the San Andreas Fault to the northeast and the Imperial
fault to the southwest. The Brawley Seismic Zone was first recognized after several
earthquake swarms between 1973 and 1979. These events defined lineations transverse to
the strike of the Imperial fault (Johnson and Hill, 1982). Two types of earthquake swarms
appear to occur in the Brawley Seismic Zone. Swarms in the south end of the zone near the
town of Brawley tend to occur in pairs, nucleating on the Imperial fault and propagating
north into the Seismic Zone. Swarms in the northern part of the zone nucleate within the
zone and do not occur in pairs (Hutton and Others, 1991; Johnson and Hill, 1982). These
swarms appear to be triggered by creep events on the Imperial fault (Johnson and Hill,
1982).
6.3 Imperial Fault
The Imperial fault is located about 33 kilometers southeast of the site. The Brawley fault is
the northeastern branch of the Imperial fault, and was generally unrecognized until surface
rupture occurred in 1975 (Sharp, 1976). The Brawley fault ruptured with the southern
portion of the Imperial fault in 1979, confirming the relationship between these segments.
Historical seismicity suggests that a major portion of the displacement observed on the
Imperial Fault is being transferred to the San Andreas Fault to the northeast through the
Brawley Seismic Zone (Hutton and Others, 1991). The Imperial fault has a similar strike as
the Coachella segment of the San Andreas Fault. Most of the aftershocks following the 1979
earthquake on the Imperial fault occurred within the Brawley Seismic Zone (Sharp, 1982).
The California Division of Mines and Geology estimates a slip rate of 20 mm/year and a
maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 for the Imperial fault.
PAGE 7
6.4 Elmore Ranch Fault Zone
The Elmore Ranch fault zone is located approximately 30 kilometers west of site. The fault
zone is composed of six northeast-southwest trending parallel segments up to 12 kilometers
in length each. These left-lateral faults are conjugate faults (cross-faults) between the
Brawley Seismic Zone to the east and the San Jacinto fault zone to the west. The California
Division of Mines and Geology estimates a combined slip rate of 1½ mm/year, and a
maximum moment magnitude of 6.1 for the Elmore Ranch fault zone.
6.5 Sand Hills – Algodones Fault
Many published geologic maps, including the Geologic Map of California (Jennings, 1994),
show several inferred fault traces near the site with a northwest-southeast trend, commonly
known as the Sand Hills-Algodones fault. The existence of this fault is based on somewhat
ambiguous data such as anomalous topography and lineaments on aerial photographs,
groundwater barrier effects in test wells, and magnetic gradients and gravity patterns of the
Upper Mesa area in southeastern Yuma, Arizona. Seismic-reflection and refraction profiles,
which form the basis of this interpretation, were conducted near Yuma, Arizona, and indicate
a very steeply dipping basement contact, which is a possible indicator of a fault (Mattick et
al., 1973). These faults have been inferred northwestward on many regional maps because
they conveniently line up with the strike of the southern San Andreas Fault. If the Sand
Hills-Algodones faults do exist in the vicinity of the project site, they would not be
considered active, as the youngest sedimentary rocks unaffected by the inferred fault are
“almost certainly older than the latest Pleistocene” (Mattick et al., 1973).
7.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The subject site is located within one of the most seismically active areas in California. The primary
geologic hazards at the site are associated with the potential for strong ground shaking. Other
potential geologic hazards may include liquefaction, lateral spread, earthquake induced flooding, and
volcanic eruption. Each of these hazards is discussed in greater detail below.
PAGE 8
7.1 Surface Rupture
Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. The site is
located in close proximity to the inferred location of the Sand Hills – Algodones faults,
which are considered potentially active. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of active faulting was found during our
investigation. Consequently, surface rupture is not considered to be a substantial geologic
hazard at the site.
7.2 Seismicity
The approximate centroid of the proposed improvements is located at latitude 33.2432° north
and longitude 115.4993° west. The Fault Location Map, Figure 4, shows the locations of
known active faults within a 100 km radius of the site. Table 1 summarizes the properties of
these faults based on the program EQFAULT and supporting documentation (Blake, 2000).
In order to provide an estimate of the peak ground accelerations that structures founded at
the site may experience in time, the program FRISKSP was used perform a probabilistic
analysis of seismicity. The analysis was conducted using the characteristic earthquake
distribution of Youngs and Coopersmith (1985). Based on the results of our probabilistic
analysis, the Upper Bound Earthquake for the site, defined as the motion having a 10 percent
probability of being exceeded in a 100 year period, is 0.60g. The Design Basis Earthquake
is 0.52g (10 percent probability in 50 years). By comparison, the California Geological
Survey website estimates that the Design Basis Earthquake for the site is 0.38g (CGS, 2003).
7.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a process in which soil grains in a saturated sandy deposit lose contact due to
ground shaking. The soil deposit temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid; pore pressures rise,
and the strength of the deposit is greatly diminished. Liquefaction is often accompanied by
sand boils, lateral spread, and post-liquefaction settlement as the pore pressure dissipates.
Liquefiable soils typically consist of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium
dense, and saturated. Clayey soils do not liquefy because the soil skeleton is not supported
by grain to grain contact, and is therefore not subject to densification by shaking.
120°
119°
118°
117°
116°
115°
Project No. 0554-075-00

Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE 4
Le
He
nw
le
nd
oo
al
Em
d-O
Sa
e
nA
Fa
er
ld
ndr
so
ul
Ca
eas
Wo
Bu
tZ
lic
-M
So
on
llio
o
oja
m
e
n
-H
ut
ve
an
Fa
Se
h-
id
gm
Co
Sp
u
al
ent
lt
San Cayetano Fault Zone
go
pp
ri
ng
er
Fa
San
sF
San ne
u
lt Zo
lt
ou
Gab
l Fau
au
Zo
r
Me
nt
iel F onta
lt Z
th Fr
n
ai
ault
e
Nor
sq
Ventura-Pitas Point Fault
n
Zon
on
Fa
uit
e
eL
lt
Zo
ak
n
eF
e
ult Zone
Cucamonga Fa And
au
lt Zone San Zo ne
od Fau ntain Fault
reas
lt Z
Ber
Hollywo nar Pinto Mou
on
dino
e
Seg
me
nt
on ica
Santa M
San Gorgonio -
34° Wh
ittie
r Fa
ult Z
Banning Fault Zone
Fau
one Gl
en
He
lt
Gl
en Sa len Se
Ivy
Se
gm
n gmen Co
ac
he
t lla
en Va
t
Pa
l le
y
los
El Se
FAULT LOCATION MAP

sin Ja gm
Ve
en
rd
Ca
cin t
es
or sa
Zo
E
Lo
Fa
e to ma
ne
ult
-C
T
SI
lar
Co k Se
Ne
yo gm
en
wp
te
Cr t
or
ee
t-I
Fa k
ng
Se
le
Fa g
wo
ul ment
od
ult t
Fa
ul
Ea Bo
t
rth rre
q
Fa uake
ult Se go M Brawley
Zo Valle gm o Elmore Ranch Seismic
Ju en unt
ne Fault Zone 100
Ro
lia y Zone
n t ain
se
Se
gm Su
Su
pe km
Ca
33° en
Zo perstit rstition H
nyo
t
Zo Co
ne ion Mo ills Fau
nF
yo
ne te
aul
Mo
Co
u un lt Z
t Zo
Im
nta
ron
in ta on
pe
Se in e
ne
ad
Se
ria
g me
oB
gm
lF
nt
La
au
en
an
lt Z
t
Na
kF
on
cio
au
e
Sa
lt Z
nF
nD
Sa
on
aul
ates
United St
n
ieg
e
Cl
t
La
oT
em
Mexico gu
en
ro
na
ug
te
Sa
Fa
h-
la Ce
Ba
da
u
rro
lt
Fa
hia
Zo
ul Pr
n
ie
So
t
e
Ca to
lab
led
Fa
NOTATIONS asa ul
ad
sF tZ
au on
Fa
lt Z
on e
Holocene fault displacement (during past 10,000 years) without historic
ult
e
Incorporated
Sierr
Val
record. Geomorphic evidence for Holocene faulting includes sag ponds, scarps
Zo
le cito
n
showing little erosion, or the following features in Holocene age deposits: offset sF
a Jua
aul
stream courses, linear scarps, shutter ridges, and triangular faceted spurs. t Zo
ne
Recency of faulting offshore is based on the interpreted age of the youngest
rez F
strata displaced by faulting.
Geotechnics
ault Z
Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years). 32° Sa
Geomorphic evidence similar to that described for Holocene faults except
one
n
features are less distinct. Faulting may be younger, but lack of younger overlying M
ig
deposits precludes more accurate age classification. ue
lF
Sa
au
lt
Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated). Most faults of this category show
nI
Zo
N
sid
evidence of displacement sometime during the past 1.6 million years; possible ne
r
oF
exceptions are faults that displace rocks of undifferentiated Plio-Pleistocene age.

au
See Bulletin 201, Appendix D for source data. Ag

lt Z
ua
Bla
on
Late Cenozoic faults within the Sierra Nevada including, but not restricted nc
e
aF
to, the Foothills fault system. Faults show stratigraphic and/or geomorphic au
lt Z
evidence for displacement of late Miocene and Pliocene deposits. By analogy, on
late Cenozoic faults in this system that have been investigated in detail may have e
been active in Quaternary time (Data from PG&.E, l993.) REFERENCES:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Reproduced with permission, Division of Mines and Geology, CD-ROM 2000-006
Pre-Quaternary fault (older than 1.6 million years) or fault without (2000), Digital Database of faults from the Fault Activity Map of California and
recognized Quaternary displacement. Some faults are shown in this category
because the source of mapping used was of reconnaissance nature, or was not SCALE (KM) Adjacent Areas. IBID (1994), Selected Faults in Northern Baja California,
done with the object of dating fault displacements. Faults in this category are not Offshore, and the Adjacent Southern California Area.
necessarily inactive.
\Drafting\CorelDraw\Fault-SD Rev. 09/03

DISTANCE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ESTIMATED SHEAR ESTIMATED
1
FAULT TO SITE PEAK GROUND EARTHQUAKE FAULT AREA4 MODULUS4 SLIP RATE4
[KM] ACCELERATION2 MAGNITUDE3,5 [CM2] [DYNE/CM2] [MM/YEAR]
Brawley Seismic Zone 13 0.21 6.4 2.52E+12 3.30E+11 25.00
San Andreas - Whole M-1A 23 0.28 8.0 6.86E+13 3.30E+11 30.00
San Andreas - Sb-Coach. M-1B-2 23 0.25 7.7 2.43E+13 3.30E+11 27.00
San Andreas - Sb-Coach. M-2B 23 0.25 7.7 2.43E+13 3.30E+11 24.00
San Andreas - Coachella M-1C-5 23 0.20 7.2 1.15E+13 3.30E+11 25.00
Elmore Ranch (East) 30 0.11 6.1 1.11E+12 3.30E+11 1.50
Elmore Ranch (West) 31 0.11 6.1 1.32E+12 3.30E+11 1.50
Imperial (Model B) 33 0.13 7.0 7.75E+12 3.30E+11 20.00
Imperial (Model A) 34 0.13 7.0 7.92E+12 3.30E+11 20.00
Superstition Hills 38 0.09 6.6 3.89E+12 3.30E+11 4.00
Superstition Mountain 43 0.08 6.6 1.61E+12 3.30E+11 5.00
San Jacinto-Coyote Creek 49 0.08 6.8 6.15E+12 3.30E+11 4.00
San Jacinto - Borrego 51 0.06 6.6 3.48E+12 3.30E+11 4.00
San Jacinto-Anza 58 0.08 7.2 1.62E+13 3.30E+11 12.00
Laguna Salada 68 0.06 7.0 1.01E+13 3.30E+11 3.50
Elsinore (Coyote Mountain) 70 0.05 6.8 5.70E+12 3.30E+11 4.00
Elsinore (Julian) 86 0.05 7.1 1.13E+13 3.30E+11 5.00
Earthquake Valley 87 0.03 6.5 3.00E+12 3.30E+11 2.00
Cerro Prieto 93 0.04 7.1 1.16E+13 3.30E+11 20.00
1. Fault activity determined by Blake (2000), CDMG (1992), Wesnousky (1986), and Jennings (1994).
2. Median peak horizontal ground accelerations (in g's) from Sadigh (1997) for Soil Sites for the Maximum Earthquake Magnitude.
3. Moment magnitudes determined from CDMG (2003), Blake (2000), Wesnousky (1986) and Anderson (1984).
4. Estimated fault areas, shear moduli, and slip rates after fault data for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, Blake (2000).
5. The Maximum Earthquake Magnitude is the estimated median moment magnitude that appears capable of occuring given rupture of the
entire estimated fault area.
Project No. 0554-075-00

REGIONAL SEISMICITY Document No. 06-0015
TABLE 1
PAGE 9
It should be emphasized that no groundwater was observed in the 18 explorations conducted

at the site, and that the underlying lacustrine deposits are primarily composed of hard clay.
Consequently, the potential for liquefaction to occur is considered to be low. However, in
order to provide an estimate of the potential for dynamic settlement at the site (which may
occur on dry sands), liquefaction analysis was performed using the cone penetrometer data in
general accordance with the referenced guidelines (SCEC, 1999). The results of the
liquefaction analyses are presented in Figures F-1.1 through F-6.4 in Appendix F. The CPT
method of liquefaction analysis is described in greater detail in Appendix F.
Several parameters are used to evaluate liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is
not considered to be a hazard in clays. For our analysis, we assumed that soils with a Soil
Behavior Type Index (Ic) greater than 2.6 were too clayey to liquefy or settle. Dense sands
do not liquefy. For our analysis, sandy soils with a corrected CPT tip resistance (qc1N)cs
greater than 160 were deemed too dense to liquefy (seismic settlement was included in our
analysis for sands with a normalized tip resistance up to 200). The parameters Ic and (qc1N)cs
are plotted as a function of depth in Figures F-1.1 through F-6.4.
Our analysis suggests that dynamic settlement may vary from about 1½ to 2 inches at the
site. Much of this settlement is estimated to occur within the alluvium and surficial lacustrine
deposits. If a 4 foot thick compacted fill mat is constructed beneath all site improvements,
the total dynamic settlement would be reduced to approximately ½ to 1½ inches. According
to state guidelines, a differential settlement equal to one-half of the anticipated total dynamic
settlement may be conservatively assumed for structural design (SCEC, 1999).
Consequently, we estimate that dynamic differential settlement across the length of the
proposed structures will typically be less than ¾ inch at the site.
7.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads
No evidence of active landslides was observed during our subsurface investigation. The site
slopes very gently down from the northeast to the southwest, with approximately 10 feet of
fall in 1,000 feet (a one percent gradient). Static landslides are not believed to present a
significant hazard to the proposed development. However, the gradient may be large enough
to produce a lateral spread, given locally continuous granular bedding, saturated conditions,
and strong ground shaking. Such conditions were not observed on site. Consequently,
lateral spread is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard.
PAGE 10
7.5 Flooding
The site is situated within an active alluvial floodplain. Extensive gullies and channels were
observed crossing the property and throughout the site vicinity, as shown on the Exploration
Plan, Figure 2. Surface water flow at the site is likely the result of periodic intense,
prolonged rainfall events. It is our understanding that site improvements will include
construction of several detention basins to manage storm water runoff.
7.6 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding
The site is situated about 90 to 100 feet below sea level, as shown on the Site Location Map,
Figure 1. This suggests that the potential may exist for inundation in the event of a tsunami
within the Gulf of California. However, the configuration of the Gulf of California, and the
higher ground surface elevation near Calexico, has historically provided relief from such
events. There are no records which indicate that tsunamis have impacted the Imperial Valley
in the last several hundred years. The distance between the subject site and the gulf most
likely precludes damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis). The site is located
more than 100 feet above the Salton Sea, and there are no other large bodies of water in close
proximity. Consequently, the potential for seiches or earthquake induced flooding to
adversely affect the site is also considered to be low.
7.7 Volcanic Hazards
Two north-south oriented tensional spreading centers have been identified in the Salton
Trough based on geophysical surveys and recent volcanic activity (Kerr and Kidwell, 1991;
Fuis and Kohler, 1984). One spreading center is located in the southern end of the Trough,
approximately 30 kilometers south of the international border. The second spreading center
is in the northern end of the Trough, and extends from the southern part of the Salton Sea to
the City of Brawley. Volcanic activity associated with these spreading centers has reached
the surface and formed the Cerro Prieto volcano in Baja California and the Salton Buttes just
west of the site. The Salton Buttes consist of a group of five small extrusive volcanic domes.
The site is located more than 10 km east of extrusive rhyolite dome known as Obsidian Butte
(a member of the Salton Buttes). The USGS includes the “Salton Buttes rhyolite center”
among the Potential Areas of Volcanic Hazards (USGS Bulletin 1847). USGS studies
suggest that a single eruption occurred about 16,000 years ago, with no subsequent activity.
PAGE 11
According to the USGS, the most probable future potential hazard would be explosive and
extrusive rhyolitic eruptions, or phreatic and phreatomagmatic eruptions (volcanic eruptions
or explosions of steam and mud caused by the heating of groundwater). Since no recurrence
interval can be estimated, the USGS has not quantified the potential hazard.
7.8 Subsidence
The site is subject to subsidence from regional tectonic processes as well as localized fluid
withdrawal. When groundwater is withdrawn from a saturated soil, the effective stress on
the soil skeleton is increased, resulting in consolidation and subsidence. Subsidence is
known to have occurred in the Coachella Valley as a result of groundwater extraction (Sneed
et al, 1998, 2000). Surveys conducted for the geothermal plants west of the site also suggest
that groundwater extraction has caused several inches of subsidence in that area.
The site is also located within a region of active subsidence due to regional faulting. The
Salton Trough is filled with up to 20,000 feet of Cenozoic-age sediments. Regional
subsidence due to a combination of tectonic processes, including faulting and possible
reservoir loading by the Salton Sea, may combine to produce roughly 1½ inches of
settlement per year across the entire Salton Trough (Lofgren, 1978). Subsidence due to
tectonic processes generally occurs over large areas.
PAGE 12
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided
that the recommendations in the following sections of this report are implemented. However,
several geotechnical constraints exist which should be addressed prior to construction.
! Site improvements include heavy structures (such as the turbine generators and water tanks),
as well as lightly loaded structures (such as the support building and minor equipment pads).
For the lightly loaded structures, the potential for expansive soil heave will govern design
considerations. For the heavy structures, the potential for settlement may govern design.
! Heavy structures such as the turbine generators and water tanks may either be founded on
mat foundations or driven piles. In either case, the bottom of the mat foundation or the pile
cap should be located at least 5 feet below finish grade. At this depth, we anticipate that the
bearing soils will consist of hard fat clay with a dynamic shear modulus (Gmax) of about
1,150 TSF, and a dynamic constrained modulus (Es) of about 3,680 TSF. We have provided
bearing capacities at this depth to limit the estimated total settlement to approximately 1
inch. If more bearing capacity is needed, deep foundations should be used. Alternative
design parameters for square, precast, driven concrete piles are provided. The settlements
associated with the allowable pile capacities should be within generally tolerable limits.
! Lightly loaded structures such as the support building and minor equipment pads may be
founded on either conventional shallow foundations or post-tension slabs. If conventional
shallow foundations are used, these structures should be underlain by at least 5 feet of select
low expansion sand or gravel (expansion index less than 50). Alternatively, the upper 5 feet
of on site clayey soil may be “moisture treated”, compacted, and used to support post-tension
slab foundations. Post-tension slab foundation design parameters are provided assuming that
the bearing soils will consist of highly expansive, moisture treated fat clay.
! Roughly two to four feet of loose alluvium and poorly consolidated lacustrine sediments
exists at the site. These materials are considered to be susceptible to settlement from
foundation or fill loads, or from hydro-compression associated with surface water
infiltration. We recommend that the loose surficial soils be excavated and replaced as
compacted fill prior to development throughout the proposed buildings and improvement
areas.
PAGE 13
! The surficial soils at the site include moderately to highly expansive clays (CL and CH).
Heave of exterior slabs and sidewalks should be anticipated if these materials are used to
support the planned improvements. To help reduce the potential for distress to the proposed
flatwork, the upper two feet of exterior slab and sidewalk subgrade should be replaced with
low expansion sand or gravel (expansion index less than 50).
! About one to two feet of sandy alluvium mantles the site. The alluvium is less expansive
than the underlying fat clays associated with the lacustrine deposits. The sandy alluvium
may be selectively excavated and stockpiled on site. The select sand may be used to
construct the low expansion compacted fill mat recommended beneath the proposed exterior
flatwork areas (2 feet deep), as well as the 5 foot deep compacted fill mat recommended
beneath any conventional shallow foundations which may be constructed at the site.
! No groundwater was observed in the 18 explorations conducted on site, which were

extended to depths greater than 50 feet below grade. However, it should be noted that
perched groundwater may develop in the future due to changes in site drainage (such as the
proposed retention basins), irrigation, or antecedent rainfall.
! One percolation test was conducted in each of the three proposed detention basins. The tests
suggest that the lacustrine deposits have a low percolation rate (0 to ¼ gallons per square
foot per day). The percolation test results are presented in Appendix C
! The potential for liquefaction at the site is currently low due to the lack of groundwater. As
a minimum, a dynamic differential settlement of ¾ of on inch across the proposed structures
should be accounted for in the structural design. If groundwater levels were to rise to within
20 feet of the ground surface within the life of the proposed structures, the potential may
exist for liquefaction of the thinly bedded, discontinuous, saturated, granular soil layers.
This could result in roughly 1 additional inch of total (½ inch differential) post-liquefaction
settlement. Potential seismic hazards at the site should be mitigated through structural
design in general accordance with the applicable codes.
PAGE 14
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and
preliminary design of the proposed improvements. These recommendations are based on empirical
and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these
recommendations do not to cover a specific feature of the project, contact our office for
amendments.
9.1 Plan Review
We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated

prior to construction. It has been our experience that substantial changes in the development
may occur from the preliminary plans used for the investigation. Such changes may require
additional evaluation, which could result in modifications to the recommendations provided
in the following sections of the report.
9.2 Excavation and Grading Observation
Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics

Incorporated. During grading, Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and
testing services continuously. Such observations are considered essential to identify field
conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust
designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in
general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in
this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our
personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional
opinion as to compliance with the compaction recommendations.
9.3 Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the applicable
grading ordinance and Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. The following
recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork
construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the
conditions observed by our personnel during grading.
PAGE 15
9.3.1 Site Preparation: Site preparation includes removal of deleterious materials,

existing structures, or other improvements from areas to be subjected to fill or
structural loads. Deleterious materials, including vegetation, trash, construction
debris, and contaminated soils, should be removed from the site. Existing subsurface
utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the excavations backfilled
and compacted as described in Section 9.3.5.
9.3.2 Compressible Soils: The alluvium and surficial lacustrine sediments

throughout the site are considered compressible should be excavated and compacted
prior to construction of settlement sensitive improvements. Removals should expose
competent lacustrine sediments as determined by our personnel during grading. In
general, removals are anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4 feet deep, although
deeper removals may be required in some areas. Excavations bottoms should be
observed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to placement of compacted fill. The
removed soil that is free of deleterious material may be replaced in accordance with
Section 9.3.5 as a uniformly compacted fill to the proposed plan elevations.
9.3.3 Expansive Soils: Soil heave may cause distress to foundations, slabs, flatwork,
and other improvements. Figure E-3 summarizes the expansion index testing
conducted at the site. We anticipate that excavations will generate predominately
clayey soils with a medium to high expansion potential. In order to reduce the
anticipated soil heave, the upper two feet of soil (in exterior flatwork areas) and five
feet of soil (for buildings on shallow foundations) should be excavated and replaced
with low expansion soil or gravel (material with an expansion index less than 50).
The remedial grading should include the area within five feet of the building
perimeters. It should be noted that the surficial alluvium is anticipated to have a low
expansion potential. The upper 1 to 2 feet of alluvium may be selectively excavated,
stockpiled, and used to construct the select low expansion fill areas.
As an alternative to capping the building areas with 5 feet of low expansion soil, the
expansive clay may be “moisture treated” to a depth of 5 feet, and post-tension slab
foundations used for lightly loaded structures. Moisture treated fill should be
brought to at least 5 percentage points above optimum moisture content, and then
compacted to between 87 and 92 percent relative compaction, as described in Section
9.3.5.
PAGE 16
9.3.4 Temporary Excavations: Temporary excavations are anticipated throughout

the site for the removal of compressible materials and construction of the proposed
utilities. Excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary slopes
should be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) for heights up to 10
feet. Higher temporary slopes or excavations that encounter seepage should be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis during grading.
9.3.5 Fill Compaction: All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site
development should be accomplished at above optimum moisture conditions, and
using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The
minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of the maximum
dry density based on ASTM D1557, except as modified below.
If post-tension slabs are used for lightly loaded structures, we recommend that the
on-site clays be “moisture treated” to at least 5 percentage points above optimum
moisture, and then compacted to between 87 and 92 percent relative compaction
based on ASTM D1557. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by
Geotechnics so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved.
Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine
the suitability for use. In general, imported fill soils should have an expansion index
less than 50 based on UBC Test Method 29-2 or ASTM D4829. Samples of
imported materials should be tested by Geotechnics in order to evaluate their
appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. During grading operations,
soil types may be encountered by the contractor which do not appear to conform to
those discussed within this geotechnical report. The geotechnical consultant should
be contacted to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use.
9.3.6 Surface Drainage: Slope, foundation and slab performance depends greatly on
how well surface runoff drains from the site. This is true both during construction
and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should
be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures and slope tops
without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this may depend on the
prevailing landscape. The project engineer should consider these aspects in design.
PAGE 17
9.4 Shallow Foundations
Shallow foundations may be used for lightly loaded structures such as the proposed
operations building and minor equipment pads. Shallow foundation design will be
controlled by the potential for expansive soil heave. Our remedial grading recommendations
for expansive soils were presented in Section 9.3.3. Conventional shallow foundations may
be used for structures founded on at least 5 feet of low expansion sand or gravel. Post-
tension slab foundations are recommended for structures founded on moisture treated fat
clay.
The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer,
incorporating the following geotechnical parameters. These recommendations should be
considered preliminary, and subject to revision based on the conditions observed during
grading. They are only minimum criteria and should not be considered a structural design,
or to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or the structural engineer.
9.4.1 Conventional Foundations: The following design parameters are appropriate

for buildings underlain by at least 5 feet of compacted fill with a low expansion
potential (an expansion index less than 50). The low expansion fill may consist of
selectively graded on-site alluvium, or imported sand or gravel. The low expansion
soil cap should extend at least five feet beyond the structural perimeter, and should
be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557.
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lbs/ft2 (one-third increase for wind or seismic)
Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches
Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade
Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom
Subgrade Modulus: 150 lbs/in3
Slab-on-Grade: Slabs should be at least 6 inches thick, and reinforced

with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, each way.
1.80
Uniform Hazard Spectra (Upper Bound - 949 Years)

1.60
Uniform Hazard Spectra (Design Basis - 475 Years)
Upper Bound PGA = 0.60g

1.40
Design Basis PGA = 0.52g
1997 UBC Response Spectrum (Sd Seismic Soil Profile)
1.20
Spectral Acceleration, Sa [g]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period [Sec]
Project No. 0554-075-00

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE 5
PAGE 18
9.4.2 Post-Tension Slab Foundations: The following design parameters are

appropriate for buildings underlain by 5 feet of moisture treated clay with an
expansion index less than 120. The clay should be placed at a moisture content of
five or more percentage points above optimum, and compacted to between 87 and 92
percent relative compaction. The following parameters were developed in general
accordance with the design methodology of the Post-Tensioning Institute.
Edge Moisture Variation, em: Center Lift: 6.0 feet

Edge Lift: 3.0 feet
Differential Swell, ym: Center Lift: 4.5 inches

Edge Lift: 1.0 inches
Allowable Bearing: 1,500 lb/ft2 (at slab subgrade)
9.4.3 Settlement: Total and differential settlements of the proposed shallow

foundations from the recommended bearing capacities are not expected to exceed
one inch, and three quarters of an inch, respectively. In addition to the static
settlement estimates, foundations may experience dynamic differential settlements on
the order of ¾ inch across the length of the structures, as described in Section 7.3.
9.4.4 Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads against the structure may be resisted by
friction between the bottoms of footings and slabs and the supporting soil, as well as
passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into
compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 and a passive pressure of 350 psf per
foot of depth are recommended for conventional foundations on low expansion soil.
A coefficient of friction of 0.25 and a passive pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth
are recommended for post-tension slab foundations on moisture treated clay.
9.4.5 Seismic Design: Based on the shear wave velocity measurements conducted at
the location of exploration BH-10, we recommend that a 1997 UBC Seismic Soil
Profile SD be used for general seismic design at the site (the average shear wave
velocity (vs) was 650 ft/s). The shear wave velocity measurements are summarized
in Appendix B. The Brawley Seismic Zone, which is located 13 km from the site, is
a Type B Seismic Source based on 1997 UBC criteria. The near source acceleration
and velocity factors (Na and Nv) both equal 1.0. The seismic coefficients Ca and Cv
equal 0.44 and 0.64, respectively.
PAGE 19
The 1997 UBC response spectrum for the site is presented in Figure 5. Site specific
uniform hazard spectra corresponding to the design basis and upper bound
earthquakes are also shown in Figure 5 for comparison. Structural design should
comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and
standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California.
9.5 Mat Foundations
Heavy structures such as the turbine generators and water tanks should either be founded on
mat foundations or driven piles (see Section 9.6 for pile recommendations). The bottom of
the mat foundation or the pile cap should be located at least 5 feet below finish grade. If mat
foundations are less than 5 feet thick, the material between the bottom of the mat and a depth
of 5 feet should consist of aggregate base compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction based on ASTM D1557. Note that no additional remedial grading is anticipated
for mat foundations (the potentially compressible and actively expansive soils should be
removed by the mat foundation excavations). At depths of 5 feet or more, we anticipate that
the bearing soils will consist of hard fat clay with a dynamic shear modulus (Gmax) of about
1,150 TSF, and a dynamic constrained modulus (Es) of about 3,680 TSF. Mat foundation
design may be based on the following design parameters.
Allowable Soil Bearing: 4,000 lbs/ft2 (one-third increase for wind or seismic)
Minimum Dimensions: 5 feet wide by 5 feet long
Minimum Depth: 5 feet below lowest adjacent soil grade
Subgrade Modulus: 100 lbs/in3
Differential Settlement: ¾ inch
9.5.1 Settlement: Total and differential settlements of the proposed mat foundations
from the recommended bearing capacity are not expected to exceed one inch, and
three quarters of an inch, respectively. If more bearing is needed, the settlement will
increase, and deep foundations should be considered. Pile recommendations are
presented in Section 9.6. In addition to the static settlement estimates described
above, mat foundations may experience dynamic differential settlements on the order
of ¾ inch across the length of the mat, as described in Section 7.3.
PAGE 20
9.6 Deep Foundations
As an alternative to mat foundations, deep foundations may be used to support the proposed
turbine generators and water tanks. We have conducted pile analyses using the CPT data,
and assuming that driven, precast, square concrete piles will be used. For our analyses, pile
diameters of 12, 14 and 16-inches were assumed. The bottom of the pile cap was assumed to
be located 5 feet below the ground surface. Piles were assumed to be spaced at 3 feet in each
direction (group effects were neglected). The estimated pile capacities at each CPT
sounding location are presented in Appendix G.
9.6.1 Axial Capacity: The gross axial capacity (Qug) of each individual pile will be
the sum of the pile tip resistance (Qp) and the skin friction (Qs) accumulated along
the length of the pile (skin friction dominates). Estimated gross axial pile capacities
for 20 and 80 foot deep piles are presented below. The assumed minimum pile
spacing (three pile diameters) should result in negligible group effects for axial
loads. The net axial capacity (Qun) of each pile will equal the gross axial capacity
minus the tributary weight of the piles and pile cap (Wp+c).
Qun = Qug - Wp+c= (Qp+ Qs ) - Wp+c
PILE 12-INCH 14-INCH 16-INCH

DEPTH CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
20 Feet 60 Kips 75 Kips 90 Kips
The allowable gross axial pile capacities presented in the table above are consistent
with the equations shown for the CPT sounding at BH-10 (see Figure G-3 in
Appendix G). The allowable gross axial capacities of the various piles are:
Qug ~ 1.4 * (Z – 20) + 60 Kips (for a 12-inch pile)

Note that the allowable gross axial pile capacities incorporate a safety factor of
approximately 2. A one-third increase in the pile capacity may be used when
considering short-term wind and seismic loads. The compressive strength of the pile
section should be verified by the project structural engineer.
PAGE 21
It should be noted that pile foundations do not mitigate the dynamic settlement
hazard. We estimate that a total dynamic settlement of ½ to 1½ inches may occur at
the site. Current design philosophies (the neutral-plane approach) suggest that such
settlement will not decrease the axial pile capacity. Instead, the pile may experience
increased internal stress and undergo a small fraction of the total dynamic settlement.
The pile capacities presented above were not reduced to reflect dragload.
We recommend that at least one test pile be installed at the site to confirm the pile
capacity estimates presented above. Test piles should be driven under the
observation of Geotechnics Incorporated. The pile driving criteria and final axial
capacity should be based on driving conditions encountered and the pile hammer
used. If difficult driving is encountered, pre-drilling may be used. The area of the
pre-drilled hole should not exceed 80 percent of the cross-sectional area of the pile.
Piles should not be installed until the required concrete compressive strength has
been achieved, as determined by the structural engineer.
9.6.2 Uplift Capacity: The net uplift capacity (Tun) of each individual pile will be
controlled by the skin friction. The gross uplift capacity (Tug) will equal the
individual uplift capacity plus the weight of the pile and pile cap (Wp+c). Estimated
net uplift capacities for 20 and 80 foot deep piles are shown below. Depending upon
the ultimate pile configuration, a group reduction factor (ηT) may apply.
Tug = Tun * ηT + Wp+c
PILE 12-INCH 14-INCH 16-INCH

DEPTH CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
Linear approximations of the allowable net uplift capacities are presented below.
These values incorporate a safety factor of approximately 2 or more. The tensile
strength of the pile section should be verified by a structural engineer.
Tun ~ 1.4 * (Z – 20) + 24 Kips (for a 12-inch pile)

PAGE 22
9.6.3 Lateral Pile Capacity: The program LPILE Plus 4.0 was used to conduct lateral
pile analyses for single piles. The piles were assumed to be loaded to the estimated
axial capacity (Qug) presented in Section 9.6.1 (the maximum axial loads govern
deflection). The pile caps were assumed to consist of a fixed head condition (zero
rotation). The lateral load at the cap was varied until the displacement equaled
approximately ¼ to ½ inch. The corresponding axial loads are presented below.
PILE CAP 12-INCH 14-INCH 16-INCH

DISPLACEMENT PILE LOAD PILE LOAD PILE LOAD
¼ Inch 21 Kips 26 Kips 32 Kips
½ Inch 30 Kips 38 Kips 46 Kips
In addition to the lateral load capacity of the piles, lateral loads may be resisted by
friction between the bottom of pile cap and the supporting soil, as well as passive
pressure from the embedded portion of pile cap. A coefficient of friction of 0.25 and
a passive pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth are recommended. The lateral
capacity developed by friction and passive pressure may be added to that presented
in the table above for approximately the same total pile cap displacement.
9.6.4 Settlement: The program TZPILE was used to estimate pile settlement at the
site. We estimate that piles loaded to the allowable axial capacities presented in
Section 9.6.1 will experience less than ¼ inch total settlement. In addition, dynamic
settlements on the order of ½ to 1½ inches may occur around the structure, as
described in Section 7.3. A small fraction of the dynamic settlement may be
transmitted to the piles. The remaining dynamic settlement will manifest as
differential movement between the pile cap and surrounding soil.
9.7 On-Grade Slabs
The project structural engineer should design the proposed slabs for the anticipated loading
using the following minimum geotechnical parameters. On-grade slabs should be supported
by compacted fill prepared as recommended in Section 9.3. If an elastic design is used, a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 lb/in3 would be appropriate. Building slabs should be
at least 6 inches thick with at least No. 3 bars on 18 inch centers, each way. Reinforcement
should be placed near the top of the slab with at least 1½ inches cover.
PAGE 23
9.7.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs constructed on grade ultimately
cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued
capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because normal
concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive
moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tiles, or
similar problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs,
suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor
coverings, moisture sensitive equipment, or other factors warrant.
The most commonly used moisture barriers in southern California consist of two to
four inches of clean sand or pea gravel covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. Two
inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems. It
has been our experience that such systems will transmit approximately 6 to 12
pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. The architect should review the
estimated moisture transmission rates, since these values may be excessive for some
applications, such as sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with
impermeable backings that use water soluble adhesives. Sheet vinyl may develop
discoloration or adhesive degradation due to excessive moisture. Wood flooring may
swell and dome if exposed to excessive moisture. The architect should specify an
appropriate moisture barrier based on the allowable moisture transmission rate for
the flooring. This may require a “vapor barrier” rather than a “vapor retarder”.
The American Concrete Institute provides detailed recommendations for moisture

protection systems (ACI 302.1R-04). ACI defines a “vapor retarder” as having a
minimum thickness of 10-mil and a water transmission rate of less than 0.3 perms
when tested in accordance with ASTM E96. ACI defines a “vapor barrier” as having
a water transmission rate of 0.0 perms. The vapor membrane should be constructed
in accordance with ASTM E1643 and E1745 guidelines. All laps or seams should be
overlapped a minimum of 6 inches, or as recommended by the manufacturer. Joints
and penetrations should be sealed with pressure sensitive tape, or the manufacturer’s
recommended adhesive. The vapor membrane should be protected from puncture,
and repaired per the manufacturer’s recommendations if damaged. The project
architect should review ACI 302.1R-04 along with the moisture requirements of the
proposed flooring system, and incorporate an appropriate level of moisture protection
as part of the flooring design.
PAGE 24
The vapor membrane is often placed over 4 inches of a granular base material. The
base should be a clean, fine graded sandy material with at 10 to 30 percent passing
the No. 100 sieve. The base should not be contaminated with clay, silt, or organic
material. The base should be proof-rolled prior to placing the vapor membrane.
Based on current ACI recommendations, concrete should be placed directly over the
vapor membrane. The common practice of placing sand over the vapor membrane
may increase moisture transmission through the slab, because it provides a reservoir
for bleed water from the concrete to collect. The sand placed over the vapor
membrane may also move and mound prior to concrete placement, resulting in an
irregular slab thickness. When placing concrete directly on an impervious
membrane, it should be noted that finishing delays may occur. Care should be taken
to assure that a low water to cement ratio is used, that the concrete is moist cured in
accordance with ACI guidelines.
9.7.2 Exterior Slabs: Because of the presence of expansive soils throughout the site,
differential heave of exterior flatwork should be anticipated. One inch of differential
heave is not considered unusual, and more may occur. The potential for heave and
distress may be reduced by excavating the upper two feet of clayey subgrade, and
replacing with a low expansive sand (EI<50). As a minimum, we recommend that
the upper two feet of subgrade materials be brought to at least 5 percentage points
above optimum moisture content immediately prior to placement of concrete.
Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches thick. Crack control joints should be placed
on a maximum spacing of 10 foot centers, each way, for slabs, and on 5 foot centers
for sidewalks. The potential for long-term differential movements across the control
joints may be reduced by using steel reinforcement. Exterior slabs constructed on
expansive clay should be reinforced with at least 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric
placed securely at mid-height of the slab section.
9.7.3 Expansive Soils: The surficial soils observed during our investigation
primarily consisted of sandy clays (CL) and fat clays (CH) with a medium to high
expansion potential. The expansion index test results are presented in Figure E-3.
Mitigation alternatives for expansive soils were discussed in Section 9.3.3.
PAGE 25
9.7.4 Reactive Soils: In order to assess the exposure of concrete in contact with the
site soils, samples were tested for water soluble sulfate content (see Figure E-4). The
tests indicate that the site soils present a severe sulfate exposure based on UBC
criteria. According to Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC, all concrete which will come
in contact with the pore fluid generated from the site soils (including foundations and
slabs) should be designed to reduce the potential for long term sulfate degradation.
UBC Table 19-A-4 indicates that Type V cement should be used with a maximum
water to cement ratio of 0.45, and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi.
In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with metal pipe, the pH and
resistivity of selected soil samples was determined. The test results are also
summarized in Figure E-4. The test results suggest that the site soils are corrosive to
metal pipes. A corrosion engineer should be contacted for specific
recommendations. Additional field resistivity testing was conducted by Schiff
Associates (see Appendix D).
9.8 Earth-Retaining Structures
Backfilling retaining walls with expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond
normal active or at-rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with
soil which has an expansion index of 20 or less. The on site soils do not meet this criterion.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based
on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate
structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment, which could cause distress to the walls,
should not be used. Walls should contain backdrains to relieve hydrostatic pressure. Our
recommended wall drain details are shown in Figure 6.
For general wall design, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lbs/ft2, a coefficient of
friction of 0.25, and a passive pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth is recommended. Wall
footings should be embedded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Cantilever
retaining walls with level granular backfill may be designed using an active earth pressure
approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft3. These active pressures should be
used for walls free to yield at the top at least one percent of the wall height. Walls that are
restrained so that such movement is not permitted, or walls with 2:1 sloping backfill should
be designed for an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 55
lbs/ft3. Note that these pressures do not include the effects of surcharge loads.
DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-
PROOFING AS REQUIRED
ROCK AND FABRIC 12”

ALTERNATIVE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
12-INCH
MINIMUM
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK
ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC WEEP-HOLE
(MIRAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR ALTERNATIVE
APPROVED SIMILAR)
4-INCH DIAM. PVC

PERFORATED PIPE
DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-
PROOFING AS REQUIRED
12”
GEOCOMPOSITE
PANEL DRAIN PANEL DRAIN
ALTERNATIVE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
1 CU. FT. PER LINEAR FOOT OF WEEP-HOLE
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ALTERNATIVE
ROCK ENVELOPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
4-INCH DIAM. PVC

PERFORATED PIPE
NOTES
1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet
pipe should have a fall of at least 1%.
2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep-holes may be constructed. Weep-holes
should be at least 2 inches in diameter, spaced no greater than 8 feet, and be located just above
grade at the bottom of wall.
3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric.
Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches.
4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or
approved similar product.
5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling.
Project No. 0554-075-00

Incorporated WALL DRAIN DETAILS
FIGURE 6
\Drafting\CorelDraw\Walldrn Rev. 6/99

PAGE 26
9.9 Pavement Design
Alternatives for either asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete pavements are given
below. In both cases, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be
scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavement section, brought to above optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM
D1557). Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, and
should conform to Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications or Section 200-2 of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC). Asphalt concrete should
conform to Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications or Section 400-4 of the
SSPWC. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
based on the Hveem density.
9.9.1 Asphalt Concrete: The following preliminary pavement sections are provided
for estimation purposes only. Three traffic indices were assumed for preliminary
design (TI of 5.0, 6.0 and 7.5). The project civil engineer should review the assumed
traffic indices to determine if and where they are appropriate for use at the site.
R-Value testing was conducted on two samples taken during our investigation in
general accordance with CTM 301. During grading, samples of the actual pavement
subgrade may be tested for R-Value, and the pavement sections refined throughout
the site. Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance
with the Caltrans Design Method (Topic 608.4). Based on the assumed traffic
indices, and using the minimum R-Value of 5 determined in the laboratory, the
following preliminary pavement sections are recommended.
TRAFFIC ASPHALT BASE

INDEX SECTION SECTION
7.5 4 Inches 18 Inches
PAGE 27
9.9.2 Portland Cement Concrete: Concrete pavement design was conducted in

accordance with the simplified design procedure of the Portland Cement Association.
This methodology is based on a 20 year design life. We assumed interlock would be
used for load transfer across control joints. The subgrade materials were assumed to
provide “low” subgrade support based on the results of the R-Value testing.
Furthermore, the portland cement concrete was assumed to have a minimum 28 day
flexural strength of 600 psi. Based on these assumptions, and using the same traffic
indices presented previously, we recommend that the PCC pavement sections at the
site consist of at least 6½ inches of concrete placed directly over compacted soil. For
heavy traffic areas, we recommend using 7 inches of concrete placed over 6 inches of
aggregate base. Crack control joints should be constructed for all PCC pavements on
a maximum spacing of 10 feet, each way. Concentrated truck traffic areas should be
reinforced with number 4 bars on 18-inch centers, each way.
9.10 Pipelines
It is our understanding that the proposed development will include a variety of pipelines such
as storm drains and sewers. Geotechnical aspects of pipeline design include lateral earth
pressures for thrust blocks, modulus of soil reaction, and pipe bedding. Each of these
parameters is discussed separately below.
9.10.1 Thrust Blocks: Lateral resistance for thrust blocks may be determined by a
passive pressure value of 250 lbs/ft2 for every foot of embedment, assuming a
triangular pressure distribution. This value may be used for thrust blocks embedded
into compacted fill or formation.
9.10.2 Pipe Bedding: Typical pipe bedding as specified in the Standard

Specifications for Public Works Construction may be used. As a minimum, we
recommend that pipes be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding material
such as minus 3/4-inch crushed rock or disintegrated granite.
9.10.3 Modulus of Soil Reaction: The modulus of soil reaction (E=) is used to
characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed along the sides of buried flexible
pipelines. For the purpose of evaluating deflection due to the load associated with
trench backfill over the pipe, a value of 1,500 lbs/in2 is recommended for the general
site conditions, assuming granular bedding material is placed around the pipe.
PAGE 28
10.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities.
No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in
this report. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
of his representative, to ensure that the recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the
necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
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.
***
Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 James C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258

Project Engineer Project Geologist
12/31/07
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Robert A. Torres, P.E. 43077

Principal Engineer Principal Engineer
3/31/06
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). 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, 1624 p., 1228 p.
Anderson, J. G. , Rockwell, T. K., Agnew, D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of
Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp 299-335.
Anderson, J. G. (1984). Synthesis of Seismicity and Geological Data in California, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 84-424, 186 pp.
Biehler, S., Kovach, R.L., and Allen, C.R. (1964). Geophysical framework of the northern end of
the Gulf of California structural province: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir 3, p. 126-143.
Blake, T.F. (2000). EQFAULT, EQRISK, and FRISKSP: Computer Programs for the Estimation of
Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earthquakes.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: New York, McGraw Hill 1175 p.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1981). Preliminary Map of
October 1979 Fault Ruptures, Imperial County, California, Open File Report 81-5.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1984). Preliminary

Geologic Map of the California-Baja California Border Region, Open File Report 84-59LA.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1992). Fault Rupture
Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
California Geological Survey (2003). Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the
USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April
2003), 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, retrieved January 13, 2005 from
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html
Elders, W. A. (1979). The Geological Background of the Geothermal Fields of the Salton Trough,
in Geology and Geothermics of the Salton Trough, Geological Society of America, 92nd
Annual Meeting, San Diego, pp. 1 through 19.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (Continued)
Frost, E.G., Suitt, S.C., and Fattahipour, M.F. (1997). Emerging Perspectives of the Salton Trough
Region With an Emphasis on Extensional Faulting and its Implications for Later San
Andreas Deformation, in Southern San Andreas Fault, Whitewater to Bombay Beach, Salton
Trough, California: South Coast Geological Society, Guide Book No. 25, p. 57-97.
Fuis, G.S., and Kohler, W.M. (1984). Crustal Structure and Tectonics of the Imperial Valley
region, California, in Rigsby, The Imperial Basin – Tectonics, Sedimentation, and Thermal
Aspects: Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, v. 40, p. 1-
13.
Geotechnics Incorporated (2005). Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation, Niland Gas Turbine
Project, Niland, California, Proposal 05-373, Document 05-1252, December 12.
Holzer, T. L., Youd, T. L. Hanks, T. C. (1989). Dynamics of Liquefaction during the 1987
Superstition Hills, California Earthquake, Science, Vol 114, pp 691-697.
Hutton, L.K., Jones, L.M., Hauksson, E., and Given, D.D., 1991, Seismotectonics of Southern
California, in Slemmons, D.B., Engdahl, E.R., Zoback, M.D., and Blackwell, D.D., eds.,
Neotectonics of North America: Boulder Colorado, Geological Society of America, Decade
Map Volume 1, p. 133-151.
International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code (with California
Amendments) Title 23.
Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic
Data Map Series, Map No. 6.
Johnson, C.E., and Hill, D.P. (1982). Seismicity of the Imperial Valley in The Imperial Valley,
California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper
254, pp. 15 through 24.
Kerr, D.R. and Kidwell, S.M. (1991). Late Cenozoic Sedimentation and Tectonics, Western Salton
Trough, California, in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico,
Walawender, M. J., and Hanan, B. B., Guidebook for the 1991 Annual Meeting, Geological
Society of America, San Diego, California, October 21-24, pp. 373-377.
Kovach, R. L., Allen C. R., and press F. (1962). Geophysical Investigations in the Colorado Delta
Region, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 2845-2871.
APPENDIX A
Loeltz, O.J., Irelan, B., Robison, J.H., and Olmsted, F.H., (1975). Geohydrologic Reconnaissance
of the Imperial Valley, California, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-
K, 53 pp.
Lofgren, B.E., 1978, Measured Crustal Deformation in Imperial Valley, California: United States
Geological Survey Open File Report 78-910.
Mattick, R.E., Olmsted, F.H., and Zohdy, A.A.R. (1973). Geophysical Studies in the Yuma Area,
Arizona and California, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 726-D. 36 pp.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1988). Design Manual for use of CPT and CPTu,
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 200 p.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1990). Soil Classification using the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, February, pp. 151 to 158.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1997). Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on SPT and
CPT, Proceedings of the Third Seismic Short Course on Evaluation and Mitigation of
Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazards, San Fransisco, 76p.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F. and Youngs, R. R. (1997). Attenuation
Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Ground Motion
Data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, pp. 180 through 189.
Sharp, R.V. (1976). Surface faulting in Imperial Valley during the earthquake swarm of January –
February 1975; Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 66, no. 4, p. 1145-1154.
Sharp, R. V. (1982). Tectonic Setting of the Imperial Valley Region, in The Imperial Valley,
California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper
254, pp. 5 through 14.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes:
Berkeley, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 134p.
Sneed, M. et al. (1998). Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning
System and Interferometric Synthetic Aperature Radar, Coachella Valley, California, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 01-4193.
Sneed, M. et al. (2000). Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning
System and Interferometric Synthetic Aperature Radar, Coachella Valley, California, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4239.
APPENDIX A
Southern California Earthquake Center (1999). Recommended Procedures for Implementation of

DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction
Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p.
Sylvester, A.G., and Smith, R.R. (1976). Tectonic Transpression and Basement-Controlled
Deformation in San Andreas Fault Zone, Salton Trough, California: The American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 60, no. 12, p. 2081-2102.
Thelig, E., Wormer, M., Papsen, R. (1978). Geological Field Guide to the Salton Trough, in Greely,
R., et al., editors, Aeolian Features of Southern California: A Comparitive Planetary
Geology Guidebook, Arizona State University, Tempe, 264 p.
Van de Kamp, P. C. (1973). Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin California: a
Reconnaissance, Geologic Society of America Bulletin, V. 84, pp 827-848.
Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California:

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12, p. 12587-12631.
Wildflower Productions (1997). TOPO! Interactive Maps on CD-ROM, San Diego, San Jacinto
Wilderness, and Anza Borrego Desert Area, San Francisco.
Youd, T.L. et al. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 4, April.
Youngs, R.R. and Coopersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake
Recurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 939-964.
APPENDIX B
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Field exploration consisted of a visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site, the drilling of 12
exploratory borings, and the advancement of 6 cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings. The maximum
depth of exploration was approximately 91 feet. The approximate locations of the borings and CPT
soundings are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Logs describing the subsurface conditions
encountered are presented in the following Figures B-1 through B-18.
The 12 exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 51½ feet between January 12 and 17
using a truck mounted, 8-inch diameter, continuous flight, hollow stem, auger drill rig. Disturbed
soil samples were collected from the borings using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (2-
inch outside diameter). Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch outside
diameter, ring lined sampler (modified CALifornia sampler). The SPT and CAL samples were
sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. The drive weight for these
samples was a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. For each sample, the number of
blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches was recorded on the logs under “blows per ft.”
Standard Pen samples are indicated on the boring logs with “SPT”, and modified California samples
with “CAL”. Bulk soil samples are indicated on the logs with shading.
The 6 cone penetrometer (CPT) soundings were advanced to a maximum depth of 91 feet by Kehoe
Testing and Engineering on January 16 and 17, 2006. The CPT soundings were advanced using a
30-ton truck mounted rig with a 15 cm2 cone. The soundings were conducted in general accordance
with ASTM method D5778. Integrated electronic circuitry was used to measure the tip resistance
(Qc) and skin friction (Fs) at 2.5 cm (1 inch) intervals while the CPT was advanced into the soil with
hydraulic down pressure. The data from the CPT soundings is presented in Figures B-2, B-7, B-10,
B-11, B-14 and B-15. For each CPT sounding, the soil interpretation as a function of the normalized
cone resistance and friction ratio is presented (Robertson, 1990). The soil interpretations are also
shown in a color coded log on the final figure for each CPT sounding.
For one of the CPT soundings, shear wave velocity measurements were made at about 5 foot
intervals. The shear waves were generated using an air actuated hammer located inside the front
jack of the CPT rig. The shear wave arrival times were measured using a triaxial geophone located
near the cone tip. The shear wave velocity measurements are discussed in the text of this report.
APPENDIX B
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (Continued)
The exploration locations were provided by the Imperial Irrigation District, as shown on the Boring
Location Plan, Drawing No. C1-2. The latitude and longitude of the borings and CPT soundings
were located in the field using a hand held GPS receiver. The locations shown should not be
considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used and the scale of the
map. The lines designating the interface between differing soil materials on the logs may be abrupt
or gradational. Further, soil conditions at locations between the excavations may be substantially
different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be noted that the passage of time
can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs.
LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. BH-1
Logged by: JSO
Method of Drilling: 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger Date Drilled: 1/13/2006
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand (SW), moderate yellowish brown, fine to coarse, Gradation
very loose, trace of gravel. Hydrometer
1
Poorly graded sand (SP), moderate yellowish brown, fine ,dry to moist, Atterberg Limits
very loose. Soluble Sulfate
2
Soluble Chloride
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, pH & Resistivity
3
moist, hard, trace of silt (ML), iron oxide staining, salt deposits. Expansion Index
5
Gradation
9 SPT
6
10
35 CAL 105 21
11
12
13
14
15
Trace of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown, fine, dry to moist. Gradation
18 SPT
16
17
18
19
20
PROJECT NO. 0554-075-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-1.1

LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. BH-1(continued)
Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
Consolidation
37 CAL 107 22 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown,
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, trace of sandy silt.
22
23
24
25
Pocket penetrometer (PP) > 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf). Gradation
14 SPT
26
27
28
29
30
Consolidation
30 CAL 107 21 PP > 4.5 tsf.
31
32
33
34
35
Interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown, fine, dry to moist, Gradation
19 SPT between 5/8" to 2" thick. PP > 4.5 tsf.
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
18 SPT LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown,
41
high plasticity, moist, hard, trace of sandy silt. PP > 4.5 tsf.
42
43
44
45
Greenish gray. PP = 2.5 tsf. Gradation
13 SPT
46
47
48
49
50
Interbedded layers of fat clay (CH) dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist,
18 SPT and silty lean clay (CL), greenish gray, medium plasticity, moist, hard.
51
PP = 2.5 tsf.
52
Total depth: 51½ feet
No groundwater encountered
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Skin Friction (Fs) [TSF] Tip Resistance (Qc) [TSF] Friction Ratio (FR) [%]
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

CONE PENETROMETER DATA (CPT-2) Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE B-2.1
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
50 50
55 55
60 60
65 65
DEPTH [FEET]
70 70
75 75
80 80
85 85
90 90
95 95
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-2.2
1,000
Very Stiff Sand Very Stiff,

to Clayey Sand Fine Grained
Gravelly Sand to Dense Sand
100
Normalized Cone Resistance, Q
Clean Sand to Silty Sand
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
10
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay
Silty Clay to Clay

Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Normalized Friction Ratio, F
Project No. 0554-075-00

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (CPT-2) Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE B-2.3
Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 16/Jan/2006
Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: BH-2
Fax: (714) 901-7289 Project: Niland
[email protected] Client: Geotechnics Inc
Job Site: Niland Power Substation
Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 Interbedded 0
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
Silty Clay
Sandy Silt
10 10
Silty Clay
VS Fine Gr
Silty Clay
Clay
20 Silty Clay 20
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
30 30
40 40
Sandy Silt
50 50
Maximum depth: 85.62 (ft)
Page 1 of 2
Test ID: BH-2

File: Z16J0601C.ECP
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
50 50
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
60 60
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
70 Sand Mix 70
Depth (ft)
Sandy Silt
80 80
Sand Mix
90 90
100 100
Page 2 of 2
Test ID: BH-2

File: Z16J0601C.ECP
Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM), moderate Gradation
yellowish brown, fine to coarse, dry, very loose. Hydrometer
1
Atterberg Limits
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Fat clay with sand (CH), moderate yellowish Maximum Density
2
brown, dry to moist, high plasticity, trace of gravel. Optimum Moisture
Expansion Index
3
R-Value
35 CAL 106 18
6
Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist, hard, salt deposits.
10
Thinly laminated beds of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown to dark
10 SPT yellowish orange, fine, dry to moist, approximately 5/8" thick. PP > 5.0 tsf.
11
12
13
14
15
Lens of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown and dark yellowish orange.
41 CAL 106 20
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, lens of sandy silt.
22
23
24
25
Interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown, fine, dry to moist,
36 CAL 106 21 between ½" to 1" thick.
26
27
28
29
30
19 SPT PP > 4.5 tsf.

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Sandy lean clay (CL), moderate yellowish brown,

1
medium plasticity.
5
Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, dry to moist, hard, with
16 SPT interbedded fat clay and sandy silt (CH and ML), pale yellowish brown and dark
6
yellowish orange, fine, dry to moist, iron oxide staining, between ½" to ¾" thick.
10
48 CAL 107 15
11
12
13
14
15
16 SPT Some thin silt interbeds.

16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, interbedded fat clay and sandy silt (CH and ML), pale
yellowish brown and dark yellowish orange between ½" to ¾" thick.
22
23
24
25
14 SPT
26
27
28
29
30
40 CAL 105 18
31
Total depth: 31 feet

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Sandy clay (CL), moderate yellowish brown, dry to

1
moist, medium plasticity, trace gravel.
17 CAL 103 9
6
Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist, hard, interbedded
9
layers of sandy silt (ML), greenish gray and dark yellowish orange, fine, dry to
moist, approximate 2" lens of greenish gray silt at 11½ feet.
10
16 SPT
11
12
13
14
15
73 CAL 114 15
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, interbedded fat clay and sandy silt (CH and ML),
approximately 1" thick.
22
23
24
25
16 SPT
26
27
28
29
30
Interbedded sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM), yellowish brown, fine, moist,
15 SPT medium dense, approximately ½" thick.
31
32
33
34
35
15 SPT
36
37
38
39
40
Sandy silt (ML), medium to light gray, fine, moist, medium dense.

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
20 SPT LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) Sandy silt (ML), medium light gray, fine,
41
moist, medium dense.
42
43
44
45
Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist, hard.
13 SPT PP = 2.5 tsf.
46
47
48
49
50
Interbedded sandy silt beds (ML), medium light gray, less than 1" thick.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
Gradation
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Sandy lean clay (CL), moderate yellowish brown, Hydrometer
1
medium plasticity, dry to moist. Atterberg Limits
Soluble Sulfate
2
Soluble Chloride
pH & Resistivity
3
Expansion Index
28 CAL 102 13
6
10
13 SPT
11
12
13
14
15
Very hard, trace of silt. PP > 5.0 tsf.
46 CAL 108 19
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21 SPT LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) Interbedded fat clay (CH), dark yellowish
21
brown, high plasticity, moist, hard.
22
23
24
25
PP > 5.0 tsf.
34 CAL 113 14
26
27
28
29
30

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 2 4 6
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-7.1
1,000

100
10
Silty Clay to Clay

Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-7.2
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 0
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
10 Sandy Silt 10
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
20 Silt Mix 20
Depth (ft)
Silty Clay
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
30 30
40 40
50 50
Test ID: BH-7

File: Z17J0620C.ECP
Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM), moderate yellowish
brown, fine to coarse, dry, very loose.
1
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Lean clay (CL), moderate yellowish brown, medium

2
plasticity, dry to moist.
5
Lean clay to fat clay (CL/CH), light olive gray to dark yellowish brown, medium
9 SPT to high plasticity, moist, hard.
6
10
44 CAL 108 19
11
12
13
14
15
10 SPT Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist, hard, thin layers of
16
sandy silt (ML), light olive gray between 5/8" to 1" thick. PP > 4.5 tsf.
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, trace of sandy silt.
22
23
24
25
Thin interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellow brown, fine, dry to
16 SPT moist.
26
27
28
29
30
109 19
48 CAL
31

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM), moderate yellowish Gradation
brown, fine to coarse, dry, very loose. Hydrometer
1
Atterberg Limits
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Lean clay to fat clay (CL/CH), dark yellowish brown, Maximum Density
2
dry to moist, hard, trace of sandy silt (ML), light olive gray. Optimum Moisture
Expansion Index
3
R-Value
12 SPT
6
10
112 18 Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, moist, trace of sandy silt. Consolidation
50 CAL
11
12
13
14
15
14 SPT
16
At 16 feet- interbedded silty sand to sandy silt (SM/ML), light olive gray,
approximately 1" thick.
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
Consolidation
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, thin layers of sandy silt, approximately 1" thick.
22
23
24
25
13 SPT
26
27
28
29
30
102 23
39 CAL
31

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-10.1
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
50 50
55 55
60 60
65 65
DEPTH [FEET]
70 70
75 75
80 80
85 85
90 90
95 95
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-10.2
1,000

100
10
Silty Clay to Clay

Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-10.3
Geotechnics - Niland Power Substation
Niland, CA
BH-10
Shear Wave Measurements
S-Wave Interval
Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave
Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity
(ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
5.25 7.25 8.52 850.94

10.31 11.46 20.63 555.43 347.52
15.31 16.11 30.38 530.14 476.65
20.34 20.95 37.84 553.53 648.76
25.22 25.71 46.44 553.64 554.11
30.53 30.94 54.87 563.82 619.91
35.53 35.88 62.88 570.61 617.15
40.25 40.56 70.20 577.77 639.25
45.65 45.92 78.08 588.15 680.66
50.63 50.88 85.98 591.72 627.00
55.14 55.37 94.09 588.44 553.63
60.34 60.55 101.27 597.88 721.53
65.57 65.76 107.36 612.52 856.08
70.38 70.56 113.45 621.92 787.69
75.09 75.26 118.67 634.16 900.17
80.44 80.60 124.93 645.12 852.87
85.46 85.61 130.43 656.34 911.07
90.36 90.50 136.88 661.15 758.46
Shear Wave Source Offset = 5 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival

Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1)
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 0
Sand Mix
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
10 10
Silty Clay
20 Silt Mix 20
Depth (ft)
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
30 30
Silt Mix
40 Sandy Silt
40
50 50
Page 1 of 2
Test ID: BH-10

File: Z16J0603C.ECP
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
50 50
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
Interbedded
60 60
Sandy Silt
70 70
Silt Mix
Depth (ft)
Sandy Silt
80 80
Sandy Silt
90 90
100 100
Page 2 of 2
Test ID: BH-10

File: Z16J0603C.ECP
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-11.1
1,000

100
10
Silty Clay to Clay

Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-11.2
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 0
Sand
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
10 10
Silt Mix
Silty Clay
20 20
Sandy Silt
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
30 Sandy Silt 30
Silt Mix
40 40
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
50 50
Page 1 of 2
Test ID: BH-11

File: Z17J0619C.ECP
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
50 50
60 60
70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80
90 90
100 100
Page 2 of 2
Test ID: BH-11

File: Z17J0619C.ECP
Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt (SW-SM), moderate yellowish Gradation
brown, fine to coarse, dry, very loose, trace of gravel.. Hydrometer
1
Atterberg Limits
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Lean clay to fat clay (CL/CH), dark yellowish brown, Soluble Sulfate
2
medium to high plasticity, moist, hard, trace of sandy silt to silty sand. Soluble Chloride
pH & Resistivity
3
Expansion Index
5
Gradation
21 CAL 106 14 Direct Shear
6
10
7 SPT
11
12
13
14
15
Thin interbedded layers of lean clay (CL), dark yellowish brown, medium Gradation
30 CAL 106 19 plasticity, moist, hard, and sandy silt (ML), light olive gray, fine, dry to moist. Direct Shear
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, thin layers of silty sand.
22
23
24
25
Gradation
39 CAL 106 20 Direct Shear
26
27
28
29
30
18 SPT Iron oxide staining.

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt (SW-SM), moderate yellowish brown, fine
to coarse, dry, loose, trace of gravel.
1
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Lean clay to fat clay (CL/CH), dark yellowish brown,
2
medium to high plasticity, moist, hard, trace of sandy silt.
9 SPT
6
10
Thin interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown to light Gradation
31 CAL olive gray between 5/8" to 1" thick. Direct Shear
11
12
13
14
15
13 SPT
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
Gradation
46 CAL 111 18 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) Lean clay to fat clay (CL/CH), dark Direct Shear
21
yellowish brown, medium to high plasticity, moist, hard, thin interbedded layers
of sandy silt.
22
23
24
25
Micaceous between 25-25½ feet.
16 SPT
26
27
28
29
30
110 18 Gradation
41 CAL Direct Shear
31

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-14.1
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 5 10
50 50
55 55
60 60
65 65
DEPTH [FEET]
70 70
75 75
80 80
85 85
90 90
95 95
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-14.2
1,000

100
10
Silty Clay to Clay

Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-14.3
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 0
Interbedded
Silty Sand
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
10 10
Silty Clay
VS Fine Gr
Silt Mix
20 20
Sandy Silt
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
30 30
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
40 40
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
50 50
Page 1 of 2
Test ID: BH-14

File: Z16J0602C.ECP
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
50 50
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
Sandy Silt
60 60
Sandy Silt
70 Silt Mix 70
Depth (ft)
Sandy Silt
Sand Mix
80 80
90 90
100 100
Page 2 of 2
Test ID: BH-14

File: Z16J0602C.ECP
0 2 4 6 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 2 4 6
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
DEPTH [FEET]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-15.1
1,000

100
10
Silty Clay to Clay

Organic Soils-Peats
1
0.1 1 10
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE B-15.2
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
0 0
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
10 Sand Mix 10
Sandy Silt
20 20
Depth (ft)
Silt Mix
Sandy Silt
Silt Mix
30 30
Sandy Silt
40 40
50 50
Page 1 of 2
Test ID: BH-15

File: Z17J0618C.ECP
0 (tsf) 400 0 (tsf) 8 -1 (tsf) 8 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
50 50
60 60
70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80
90 90
100 100
Page 2 of 2
Test ID: BH-15

File: Z17J0618C.ECP
Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt (SW-SM), moderate yellowish brown, fine
to coarse, dry, very loose, trace of gravel.
1
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity,
2
dry to moist, hard, thin interbedded layers of silty sand to sandy silt.
34 CAL 107 14
6
10
12 SPT Trace of sandy silt (ML), light olive gray, fine, dry to moist.
11
12
13
14
15
59 CAL 110 18
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, thin layers of sandy silt, approximately 5/8" thick.
22
23
24
25
Trace of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown.
40 CAL 108 20
26
27
28
29
30
Thin interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown,
15 SPT approximately 1" thick.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt (SW-SM), moderate yellowish brown, Gradation
fine to coarse, dry, very loose, trace gravel. Hydrometer
1
Atterberg Limits
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity, Soluble Sulfate
2
dry to moist, hard, thin layers of sandy silt. Soluble Chloride
pH & Resistivity
3
Expansion Index
9 SPT
6
10
37 CAL 106 20 Sandy silt to silty sand (ML/SM), light olive gray, dry to moist, fine, medium
11
dense.
12
13
14
15
12 SPT
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
43 CAL 110 18 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: (continued) fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown,
21
high plasticity, moist, hard.
22
23
24
25
Thinly bedded layer of of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown,
14 SPT iron oxide staining.
26
27
28
29
30
106 22 Trace of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown.
34 CAL
31

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
ALLUVIUM: Well graded sand with silt (SW-SM), moderate yellowish brown,
fine to coarse, dry, loose, trace of gravel.
1
LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: Fat clay (CH), dark yellowish brown, high plasticity,
2
dry to moist, hard, trace of sandy silt.
18 CAL 106 16
6
10
Thin layers of sandy silt (ML), pale yellowish brown to dark yellowish orange.
11 SPT
11
12
13
14
15
Moist.
61 CAL 111 14
16
17
18
19
20

Logged by: JSO
BLOWS PER FT
DRIVE SAMPLE
DENSITY (PCF)
BULK SAMPLE
MOISTURE (%)
DEPTH (FT)
21
high plasticity, moist, hard, thin interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML).
22
23
24
25
Trace of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown.
52 CAL 109 20
26
27
28
29
30
Thin interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML), moderate yellowish brown
9 SPT approximately 1" thick.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

APPENDIX C
FIELD PERCOLATION TESTING
In-situ percolation testing was conducted at three locations within the proposed storm water
detention basins. The percolation tests were conducted between January 17 and 20 of this year in
general accordance with the Imperial County Uniform Policy and Method for Soils Evaluation,
Testing and Reporting. The field percolation test data is presented in Figures C-1 through C-3. The
approximate locations of the percolation tests are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2.
The test holes were drilled to a depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surfaces using a truck
mounted 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger drill rig. The test holes were prepared by first removing
all loose soils and debris, and then placing 12 inches of pea gravel in the bottom of the hole. The
holes were then presoaked by filling them with clear water to 6 inches above the pea gravel. The
columns of water were re-established periodically during the presoaking period (which lasted a total
of 24 hours). After 24 hours, water level readings were taken relative to a fixed reference point at 60
minute intervals for 5 hours. The stabilized rate of water drop (t) was reached when two successive
determinations did not vary by more than 10 percent. Based on the test results, the percolation rate
of the in-situ soils ranges from approximately 0 to ¼ gallon per square foot per day at the test depth.
Test Hole No. PT-1 Date Excavated 1/17/2006
Depth of Test Hole 5 feet Earth Material Clay/Fat clay CL/CH
Actual Percolation Tested by JSO Date 1/20/2006 Test Hole Diameter 8 in.
Case Number
Reference: Imperial County Public Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Services,
Uniform Policy and Method for Soils Evaluation, Testing, and Reporting , Percolation Testing.
T1 H1 H2 D t
Time
(min.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (min./in.)
11:45
60 33.000 33.000 0.000 0.00
12:45
12:45
60 33.000 33.125 0.125 480.00
13:45
13:45
60 33.125 33.125 0.000 0.00
14:45
14:45
60 33.125 33.250 0.125 480.00
15:45
15:45
60 33.250 33.375 0.125 480.00
16:45
Stabilized rate of drop, t= 480.00
Reported Percolation Rate, Pυ= 0.23 gal/ft²/day
T1 Time Interval 1/2
H1 Initial Water Level Pυ= 5 / (t)

H2 Final Water Level
D Change In Water Level Pυ= Percolation rate (gal/ft²/day)
t Rate of Drop (min/in) t= Stabilized rate of drop (min/in)
Project No. 0554-075-00

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE C-1
Case Number
T1 H1 H2 D t
Time
11:27
60 21.188 21.188 0.000 0.00
12:27
12:27
60 21.188 21.188 0.000 0.00
13:27
13:27
60 21.188 21.188 0.000 0.00
14:27
14:27
60 21.188 21.188 0.000 0.00
15:27
15:27
60 21.188 21.188 0.000 0.00
16:27

Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE C-2
Case Number
T1 H1 H2 D t
Time
11:00
60 20.188 20.313 0.125 0.00
12:00
12:00
60 20.313 20.375 0.063 960.00
13:00
13:00
60 20.375 20.375 0.000 0.00
14:00
14:00
60 20.375 20.438 0.063 960.00
15:00
15:00
60 20.438 20.500 0.063 960.00
16:00

Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE C-3
APPENDIX D
FIELD RESISTIVITY TESTING
The results of the soil and thermal resistivity testing conducted at the site are presented in Tables 1
through 3 of Appendix D. The approximate locations of the boreholes corresponding to the field
resistivity tests (BH-9, BH-11, BH-12, BH-14 and BH-17) are shown on the Exploration Plan,
Figure 2. All resistivity tests were conducted by Schiff Associates between January 27 and 30,
2006. Please contact Mr. James T. Keegan with Schiff Associates with any questions or comments
regarding the test results presented in this appendix.
The in-situ soil resistivity testing was conducted at three locations within each of the areas for the
two turbine generators (BH-11 and BH-14), GSU (BH-9) and switchyard (BH-17) for a total of 12
locations. The soil resistivity tests were conducted at depths of 2½, 5, 7½, 10 and 15 feet, and are
summarized in Table 2 of Appendix D. It is our understanding that the soil resistivity testing was
conducted in general accordance with IEEE Standard 81. The in-situ thermal resistivity testing was
conducted at two locations (BH-12 and BH-17). The thermal resistivity tests are summarized in
Table 3 of Appendix D. It is our understanding that the thermal resistivity tests were conducted in
general accordance with IEEE Standard 442.
James T. Keegan
Laboratory Manager
SCHIFF ASSOCIATES
431 West Baseline Road
Claremont, California 91711
Phone: (909) 626-0967
Fax: (909) 626-3316
[email protected]
www.schiffassociates.com
Consulting Corrosion Engineers – Since 1959
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Geotechnics, Inc.
Imperial Irrigation District Gas Turbine Plant, Niland, CA
MJS&A #06-0146ENG
30-Jan-06
Sample ID
BH-17 BH-12 BH-1C BH-6C BH-5C
@ 0-5' @ 0-5' @ 0-3' @ 0-5' @ 0-5'
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 800,000 260,000 71,000 210,000 170,000
saturated ohm-cm 510 640 320 200 400
pH 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.7 7.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.79 0.68 1.47 2.00 0.75
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mg/kg 297 164 405 878 240
magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 141 78 124 75 148
sodium Na1+ mg/kg 184 409 968 873 222
Anions
carbonate CO32- mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND
bicarbonate HCO31- mg/kg 229 265 198 168 232
chloride Cl1- mg/kg 460 390 1,090 980 530
sulfate SO42- mg/kg 850 818 1,849 2,765 726
Other Tests
ammonium NH41+ mg/kg 5.4 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.5
nitrate NO31- mg/kg 133.2 3.5 12.4 62.0 31.2
sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mV na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
431 West Baseline Road · Claremont, CA 91711

Phone: 909.626.0967 · Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 2
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Geotechnics, Inc.
MJS&A #06-0146ENG
30-Jan-06
Sample ID
BH-3C BH-9C
@ 0-5' @ 0-5'
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 62,000 150,000
saturated ohm-cm 250 220
pH 8.0 7.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 1.97 1.34
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mg/kg 561 493
magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 168 153
sodium Na1+ mg/kg 1,115 600
Anions
carbonate CO32- mg/kg ND ND
bicarbonate HCO31- mg/kg 272 241
chloride Cl1- mg/kg 890 640
sulfate SO42- mg/kg 2,917 1,984
Other Tests
ammonium NH41+ mg/kg 2.6 2.7
nitrate NO31- mg/kg ND 33.4
sulfide S2- qual na na
Redox mV na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed

Phone: 909.626.0967 · Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2
www.schiffassociates.com | 909-626-0967
TABLE - 2 Test Date 01-27-06

SOIL RESISTIVITY - FIELD TESTS
GEOTECHNICS - TURBINE GENERATOR, NILAND, CA
MJS&A# 06-0146ENG
AVERAGE DEPTH
MEASURED RESISTIVITY STRATUM TO PIPE
DEPTH RESISTANCE TO DEPTH RESISTIVITY CENTERLINE
LOCATION (feet) (ohms) (ohm-cm) (ohm-cm) (feet)
Turbine Gen.1 100000
BH10-11-a 2.5 200.00 100000
29032
5.0 45.00 45000
11250
7.5 15.00 22500
30000
10.0 12.00 24000
24000
15.0 8.00 24000
BH10-11-b 2.5 1600.00 800000
284746
5.0 420.00 420000
13291
7.5 25.00 37500
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
BH10-11-c 2.5 1800.00 900000
572727
5.0 700.00 700000
13501
7.5 26.00 39000
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
GSU 85000
BH9-a 2.5 170.00 85000
110270
5.0 96.00 96000
7.5 NR
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
NR = Not Read due to interference or meter sensitvity. Page 1


MJS&A# 06-0146ENG
AVERAGE DEPTH
GSU 550000
BH9-b 2.5 1100.00 550000
2811111
5.0 920.00 920000
23657
7.5 45.00 67500
19688
10.0 21.00 42000
15.0 NR
GSU 1550000
BH9-c 2.5 3100.00 1550000
852500
5.0 1100.00 1100000
15949
7.5 31.00 46500
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
Switch Yard 55000
BH17-18-a 2.5 110.00 55000
6735
5.0 12.00 12000
7.5 NR
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
Switch Yard 26000
BH17-18-b 2.5 52.00 26000
28080
5.0 27.00 27000
19636
7.5 16.00 24000
10.0 NR
15.0 NR


MJS&A# 06-0146ENG
AVERAGE DEPTH
Switch Yard 27500
BH17-18-c 2.5 55.00 27500
4888
5.0 8.30 8300
3860
7.5 4.00 6000
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
Turbine Gen.2 7500
BH14-15-a 2.5 15.00 7500
1154
5.0 2.00 2000
5667
7.5 1.70 2550
10.0 NR
15.0 NR
BH14-15-b 2.5 2000.00 1000000
162791
5.0 280.00 280000
7368
7.5 14.00 21000
597
10.0 1.10 2200
15.0 NR
BH14-15-c 2.5 220.00 110000
6908
5.0 13.00 13000
6913
7.5 6.70 10050
10.0 NR
15.0 NR

Table 3 - Field Thermal Resistivity Results
Geotechnics, Inc.
MJS&A #06-0146ENG
30-Jan-06
Sample ID
BH-12 BH-17
Thermal Resistivity Units
M-°C/W 2.14 3.70

Phone: 909.626.0967 · Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that 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, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the specified
laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method(s) or practices, and the test
method referenced 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 tests performed follows.
Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System as
established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification was supplemented by
laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in general accordance with the
laboratory soil classification tests outlined in ASTM test method D2487. The resultant soil
classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B.
Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM
D422, and were used to supplement visual soil classifications. The results are presented in Figures
E-1.1 through E-1.18.
Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318 was used to determine the liquid and plastic limits, and plasticity
index of selected soils. The results are also shown in selected Figures E-1.1 through E-1.18.
In-Situ Moisture/Density: The in-place moisture contents and dry unit weights of selected soil
samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of the Modified
California sampler. The dry unit weights and moisture contents are shown on the boring logs.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture: The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture
contents of selected soil samples were determined using ASTM D1557 as a guideline. The test
results are summarized in Figure E-2.
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was estimated in general accordance
with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test method D4829. The test results are
summarized on Figure E-3. Figure E-3 also presents the UBC criteria for evaluating the expansion
potential based on the expansion index.
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY TESTING (Continued)
Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with concrete, soil samples were tested for
water soluble sulfate. The sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum, typically using a 20:1
(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 presented in Figure E-4. Figure E-4 also
presents the UBC 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, typically using a 20:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The
extracted solution was then tested for water soluble chloride using a calibrated ion specific electronic
probe (Orion 710A+). The test results are also shown in Figure E-4.
pH and Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with metal, representative samples were
tested for pH and resistivity using Caltrans method 643. The results are also given in Figure E-4.
Direct Shear: The shear strength of selected soil samples was assessed using direct shear testing
performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. The direct shear test results are shown in
Figures E-5.1 through E-5.3.
Unconfined Compression: The undrained compressive strength of selected soil samples was
assessed using unconfined compression testing performed in general accordance with ASTM
D32166. The test results are shown in Figures E-6.1 and E-6.2.
Consolidation Test: In order to aid in evaluating soil compressibility, one-dimensional

consolidation tests were conducted in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in
ASTM test method D2435. The soil samples were restrained laterally and drained axially. The first
two unsaturated soil samples were inundated with water at a nominal seating load, allowed to swell,
and then subjected to incremental controlled stress loading. The second two samples were loaded at
the in-situ moisture content (no water was added). The results are shown in Figures E-7.1 to E-7.4.
R-Value: To aid in developing preliminary pavement section designs, two R-Value tests were
performed on selected soil samples in general accordance with California Test Method 301. Both
tests indicated an R-Value of 5 or less. The R-Value test results are discussed in Section 9.8.
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
Percent Finer by Weight
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND

GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS

SAMPLE NUMBER: BH-1 LIQUID LIMIT: 32
SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 3' DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 13
PLASTICITY INDEX: 19
Project No. 0554-075-00

SOIL CLASSIFICATION Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-1.1
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CH ATTERBERG LIMITS

SAMPLE NUMBER: BH-1 LIQUID LIMIT:
SAMPLE LOCATION: 5' - 6½' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT:
PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.2
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.3
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.4
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.5
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.6
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 5' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY WITH SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 21
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.7
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 8' - 10' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 21
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.8
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL ATTERBERG LIMITS

SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 5' DESCRIPTION: SANDY LEAN CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 15
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.9
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 5' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY WITH SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 20
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.10
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 5' DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 15
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.11
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 5' - 6' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY WITH SAND PLASTIC LIMIT:
PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.12
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 15' - 16' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT:
PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.13
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.14
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.15
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.16
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

PLASTICITY INDEX:
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.17
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

GRAVEL SAND CLAY

SAMPLE LOCATION: 0' - 5' DESCRIPTION: SANDY LEAN CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 16
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-1.18
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D1557)
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM OPTIMUM

DENSITY MOISTURE
[PCF] [%]
BH-3 @ 0’ – 5’ Brown fat clay with sand (CH). 114½ 16½
BH-9 @ 0’ – 5’ Brown fat clay with sand (CH). 116 15½
Project No. 0554-075-00

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-2
EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION EXPANSION

INDEX
BH-1 @ 0’ – 3’ Yellow brown clayey sand (SC). 69
BH-3 @ 0’ – 5’ Brown fat clay with sand (CH). 109
BH-5 @ 8’ – 10’ Dark brown fat clay (CH). 106
BH-6 @ 0’ – 5’ Yellow brown sandy lean clay (CL). 85
BH-9 @ 0’ – 5’ Brown fat clay with sand (CH). 97
BH-12 @ 0’ – 5’ Dark yellow brown sandy lean clay (CL). 43
BH-17 @ 0’ – 5’ Dark yellow brown sandy lean clay (CL). 29
UBC TABLE NO. 18-1-B, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very High
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-3
CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D516, CTM 643)
SAMPLE pH RESISTIVITY SULFATE CHLORIDE

[OHM-CM] CONTENT [%] CONTENT [%]
BH-1 @ 0’ – 3’ 8.1 190 0.49 0.16
BH-6 @ 0’ – 5’ 7.9 230 0.74 0.10
BH-12 @ 0’ – 5’ 8.1 400 0.11 0.04
BH-17 @ 0’ – 5’ 7.9 380 0.14 0.05
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 GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY

[OHM-CM] 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 (Cl) 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. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-4
2500
SHEAR STRESS [PSF] 2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
STRAIN [%]
4000
Peak Strength Test Results

3500 26 Degrees, 300 PSF Cohesion
Ultimate Strength Test Results
SHEAR STRESS [PSF]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
NORMAL STRESS [PSF]
SAMPLE: BH-12 @ 5' - 6' PEAK ULTIMATE

LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS: φ' 26 o
24 o
Dark brown fat clay with sand (CH). C' 300 PSF 150 PSF
IN-SITU AS-TESTED
STRAIN RATE: 0.0002 IN/MIN γd 106.3 PCF 106.3 PCF
(Sample was consolidated and drained) wc 13.7 % 22.4 %
Project No. 0554-075-00

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-5.1
1600
SHEAR STRESS [PSF]

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
STRAIN [%]
4500

4000
16 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion
3500
15 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion
3000
SHEAR STRESS [PSF]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
NORMAL STRESS [PSF]

15 o
Dark brown fat clay (CH). C' 200 PSF 100 PSF
IN-SITU AS-TESTED
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-5.2
2500
SHEAR STRESS [PSF] 2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
STRAIN [%]
4000

SHEAR STRESS [PSF]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
NORMAL STRESS [PSF]

20 o
Dark brown fat clay (CH). C' 300 PSF 100 PSF
IN-SITU AS-TESTED
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-5.3
PROJECT: Niland Power Plant SAMPLED BY: JSO
SAMPLE I.D.: BH-13 @ 20' - 21' TESTED BY: CAE
DESCRIPTION: Dark brown fat clay (CH) DATE: 6-Feb-06
TYPE OF SAMPLE CAL

WET WT. OF SAMPLE 727.85 [g] STRESS-STRAIN PLOT 15% STRAIN
INITIAL DIAM. 2.375 [in]
INITIAL HEIGHT 4.81 [in] 20000
INITIAL AREA 4.4 [in2]
COMPRESSIVE
STRESS [psf]
15000
INITIAL VOLUME 21.3 [in3]
WET DENSITY 130.1 [pcf] 10000
DRY WT. OF SAMPLE 618.16 [g]
5000
WEIGHT OF WATER 109.7 [g]
MOISTURE CONTENT 17.7 [%] 0
DRY DENSITY 110.5 [pcf] 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800
L-D RATIO 2.0:1 AXIAL STRAIN (in.)
STRAIN RATE 0.019 [in/min]
STRAIN AT FAILURE 3.33 [%]
STRAIN AT FAILURE 0.160 [in]
15% STRAIN 0.722
FAILURE CRITERIA: Yield
COMP. STRENGTH: 17246 [psf]
SHEAR STRENGTH: 8623 [psf]
SPEC. GRAVITY 2.8

by test:
estimate: X
SATURATION: 86 [%]
SPECIMEN AFTER FAILURE
FAILURE MODE: Brittle
Elapsed Time Axial Load Strain Dial Total Strain Unit Strain Corrected Stress
[min] [lb] [in] [in] Area [in2] [psf]
0.0 0.0 1.000 0.000 0.000 4.43 0.00
0.7 15.4 0.990 0.010 0.002 4.44 499.53
1.1 43.0 0.980 0.020 0.004 4.45 1391.89
1.5 80.0 0.970 0.030 0.006 4.46 2584.15
1.9 122.9 0.960 0.040 0.008 4.47 3961.60
2.4 169.4 0.950 0.050 0.010 4.48 5449.05
2.9 217.1 0.940 0.060 0.012 4.49 6968.73
3.5 262.0 0.930 0.070 0.015 4.50 8392.28
4.0 301.8 0.920 0.080 0.017 4.51 9646.74
4.6 340.0 0.910 0.090 0.019 4.51 10844.79
5.2 375.0 0.900 0.100 0.021 4.52 11935.83
6.3 432.9 0.880 0.120 0.025 4.54 13720.21
7.4 481.8 0.860 0.140 0.029 4.56 15204.91
8.5 521.2 0.840 0.160 0.033 4.58 16377.88
9.5 551.2 0.820 0.180 0.037 4.60 17246.08
Project No. 0554-075-00

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-6.1
PROJECT: Niland Power Plant SAMPLED BY: JSO
SAMPLE I.D.: BH-13 @ 30' - 31' TESTED BY: CAE
DESCRIPTION: Dark brown fat clay (CH) DATE: 6-Feb-06
TYPE OF SAMPLE CAL

WET WT. OF SAMPLE 874.48 [g] STRESS-STRAIN PLOT 15% STRAIN
INITIAL DIAM. 2.375 [in]
INITIAL HEIGHT 5.83 [in] 15000
INITIAL AREA 4.4 [in2]
COMPRESSIVE
STRESS [psf]
INITIAL VOLUME 25.8 [in3] 10000
WET DENSITY 129.0 [pcf]
DRY WT. OF SAMPLE 743.89 [g] 5000
WEIGHT OF WATER 130.6 [g]
MOISTURE CONTENT 17.6 [%] 0
DRY DENSITY 109.7 [pcf] 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
L-D RATIO 2.5:1 AXIAL STRAIN (in.)
STRAIN RATE 0.022 [in/min]
STRAIN AT FAILURE 2.74 [%]
STRAIN AT FAILURE 0.160 [in]
15% STRAIN 0.875
FAILURE CRITERIA: Yield
COMP. STRENGTH: 10049 [psf]
SHEAR STRENGTH: 5024 [psf]
SPEC. GRAVITY 2.8

by test:
estimate: X
SATURATION: 83 [%]
SPECIMEN AFTER FAILURE
FAILURE MODE: Brittle
Elapsed Time Axial Load Strain Dial Total Strain Unit Strain Corrected Stress
[min] [lb] [in] [in] Area [in2] [psf]
0.0 0.0 1.000 0.000 0.000 4.43 0.00
0.5 15.8 0.990 0.010 0.002 4.44 512.69
1.0 38.3 0.980 0.020 0.003 4.45 1240.66
1.3 62.6 0.970 0.030 0.005 4.45 2024.32
1.8 88.1 0.960 0.040 0.007 4.46 2844.01
2.3 110.0 0.950 0.050 0.009 4.47 3544.85
2.7 130.3 0.940 0.060 0.010 4.48 4191.77
3.1 151.4 0.930 0.070 0.012 4.48 4862.11
3.5 171.4 0.920 0.080 0.014 4.49 5494.85
4.1 191.3 0.910 0.090 0.015 4.50 6122.15
4.5 208.3 0.900 0.100 0.017 4.51 6654.58
5.5 242.3 0.880 0.120 0.021 4.52 7713.76
6.5 270.9 0.860 0.140 0.024 4.54 8594.05
7.3 295.9 0.840 0.160 0.027 4.56 9354.16
8.4 319.0 0.820 0.180 0.031 4.57 10048.84
Project No. 0554-075-00

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-6.2
-15.00%
-10.00%
Percent Strain [%]
-5.00%
0.00%
10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Stress [psf]
BH-1 @ 20' - 21'
INITIAL FINAL
1.0000 1.0916 SAMPLE HEIGHT [IN]
107.0 98.0 DRY DENSITY [PCF]
2.88 2.88 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
0.68 0.83 VOID RATIO
21.6 29.0 WATER CONTENT [%]
91.2 100.2 DEGREE OF SATURATION [%]
Project No. 0554-075-00

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE E-7.1
-15.00%
-10.00%
Percent Strain [%]
-5.00%
0.00%
10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Stress [psf]
BH-1 @ 30' - 31'
INITIAL FINAL
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-7.2
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
Percent Strain [%]
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Stress [psf]
BH-9 @ 10' - 11'
INITIAL FINAL
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-7.3
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
Percent Strain [%]
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Stress [psf]
BH-9 @ 20' - 21'
INITIAL FINAL
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE E-7.4
APPENDIX F
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Liquefaction analysis was performed on the data gathered from the CPT soundings. The liquefaction
analysis was based on the simplified techniques originally presented by Seed and Idriss (1982), with
recent improvements from the 1996 and 1998 NCEER workshops as summarized by Youd (2001).
The liquefaction analysis was conducted in general accordance with the recommended procedures for
implementation of DMG special publication 117 (SCEC, 1999). The CPT data (qc1N)cs was
normalized for overburden pressure, and corrected for fines content using the methods described in the
referenced document (Youd, 2001). The CPT fines correction was based on the Soil Behavior Type
Index (Ic). The results of the liquefaction analyses are presented in the following Figures F-1.1
through F-6.4.
The first figure for each CPT sounding (Figures F-1.1 to F-6.1) presents an overview of the soil
density, soil type, and liquefaction potential. The bottom chart shows the stress required to cause
liquefaction versus the stress induced by the upper bound magnitude weighted peak ground
acceleration (0.48g). At depths where the seismic stress exceeds the stress required to cause
liquefaction, the potential may exist for liquefaction. The middle chart shows the Soil Behavior Type
Index (Ic) plotted as a function of depth. Note that soils with an Ic value greater than 2.6 are generally
considered too clayey to liquefy (soils with a slightly lower Ic value may also be too clayey to
liquefy). The top chart shows the normalized clean sand equivalent tip resistance (qc1N)cs plotted as a
function of depth. Note that sandy soils with a (qc1N)cs value greater than 160 may be too dense to
liquefy.
The second figure for each CPT sounding presents the same charts described above (Figures F-1.2
through F-6.2). However, unsaturated soil zones are excluded from the bottom chart. None of the
soils observed on site are considered to be liquefiable at the present time, because no groundwater was
encountered in our subsurface explorations.
The next figure presents an estimate of the seismic settlement at each CPT sounding location (Figures
F-1.3 through F-6.3). Seismic settlement of unsaturated soil with a (qc1N)cs value less than 200 is
included in the settlement estimate. Only those soil zones which may be sandy enough to liquefy
contribute to the estimated seismic settlement. The final figure for each CPT sounding presents an
estimate of the settlement at each CPT sounding location after excavation and compaction of the upper
4 feet of soil (Figures F-1.4 through F-6.4). Note that the recommended 4 foot thick compacted fill
substantially reduces the estimated seismic settlement.
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
Soil Type Index (Ic)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000
Seismic Shear Stress (Design Basis)

Stress Required to Cause Liquefaction
2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (CPT-2) Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE F-1.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-1.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.8
1.6 Total Settlement = 1.7 [IN]
1.4
1.2
Settlement [IN]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS (CPT-2) Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE F-1.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
Total Settlement = 0.5 [IN]

0.5
0.4
Settlement [IN]
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-1.4
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-2.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-2.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.5
Total Settlement = 2 [IN]
2.0
Settlement [IN]
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-2.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
Settlement [IN]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-2.4
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-3.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-3.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.60
1.40
1.20
Settlement [IN]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-3.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.50
0.40
0.35
Settlement [IN]
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-3.4
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-4.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-4.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.80
1.40
1.20
Settlement [IN]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-4.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.40

1.20
1.00
Settlement [IN]
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-4.4
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-5.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-5.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.80
1.40
1.20
Settlement [IN]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-5.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.60
1.40
1.20
Settlement [IN]
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-5.4
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-6.1
300
200
qc1N(CS)
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3000

2500
2000
Stress [PSF]
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-6.2
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.50
Total Settlement = 2 [IN]
2.00
Settlement [IN]
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-6.3
400
300
qc1N(CS)
200
100
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.20

1.00
0.80
Settlement [IN]
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth [FT]
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE F-6.4
APPENDIX G
PILE ANALYSIS
Pile load capacity analysis was conducted on the data gathered from the CPT soundings using the
methods developed by Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982). The analysis assumed that driven, precast,
square concrete piles will be used. Pile diameters of 12, 14 and 16-inches were assumed. The results
of the CPT pile analyses were combined with conventional analytical techniques to develop the pile
recommendations presented in this document. The CPT pile capacity analyses are presented in
Figures G-1 through G-6. Note that a factor of safety of 2 is included in the allowable pile capacity
estimates presented in these figures.
Skin Friction (Fs) [TSF] Tip Resistance (Qc) [TSF] Allowable Pile Capacity [K]
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
DEPTH [FEET]
40 40
Estimated 16-inch pile capacity

50 50
60 60
Qug ~ 1.6*(Z-10) + 45 (12-inch pile)
Qug ~ 1.8*(Z-10) + 60 (14-inch pile)
70
Qug ~ 2*(Z-10) + 75 (16-inch pile)
70
80 80
90 90
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

PILE CAPACITY CHART (CPT-7) Document No. 06-0015
FIGURE G-2
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0
10 10
Qug ~ 1.4*(Z-20) + 60 (12-inch pile)
Qug ~ 1.6*(Z-20) + 75 (14-inch pile)
Qug ~ 1.8*(Z-20) + 90 (16-inch pile)
20 20
DEPTH [FEET]
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
80 80
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE G-3
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
DEPTH [FEET]
40 40
50 50
60 60

70 Estimated 14-inch pile capacity 70
80 Qug ~ 1.8*(Z-10) + 50 (12-inch pile) 80

Qug ~ 2*(Z-10) + 65 (14-inch pile)
90 Qug ~ 2.2*(Z-10) + 80 (16-inch pile) 90
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE G-4
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
DEPTH [FEET]
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
80 80
Qug ~ 1.7*(Z-10) + 60 (12-inch pile)
90 90
Qug ~ 1.9*(Z-10) + 75 (14-inch pile)
Qug ~ 2.1*(Z-10) + 90 (16-inch pile)
100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE G-5
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
DEPTH [FEET]
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70

80 80
Qug ~ 1.7*(Z-10) + 70 (12-inch pile)

90 90
Qug ~ 1.9*(Z-10) + 90 (14-inch pile)
Qug ~ 2.1*(Z-10) + 110 (16-inch

100 100
Project No. 0554-075-00

FIGURE G-6

Appendix - C - Geotechnical Investigation - FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix - C - Geotechnical Investigation - FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix - C - Geotechnical Investigation - FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

GAS TURBINE POWER PLANT

Imperial Irrigation District

February 10, 2006

Imperial Irrigation District Project No. 0554-075-00

Attention: Mr. Baltazar Aguilera

SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Dear Mr. Aguilera:

Robert A. Torres, P.E.

Distribution: (4) Addressee, Mr. Baltazar Aguilera

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 2

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2

5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 3

6.0 TECTONIC FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 5

7.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS....................................................................................................... 7

8.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

10.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION.......................................................................... 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

! Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Project No. 0554-075-00

5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Windblown sand Imperial Formation

Lake deposits Volcanic rocks

Niland Obsidian Igneous and

Modified From: USGS Loeltz et al 1975, Plate 1

Project No. 0554-075-00

5.1 Lacustrine Deposits

6.0 TECTONIC FRAMEWORK

6.1 San Andreas Fault

6.2 Brawley Seismic Zone

6.3 Imperial Fault

6.4 Elmore Ranch Fault Zone

6.5 Sand Hills – Algodones Fault

7.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7.1 Surface Rupture

7.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement

Project No. 0554-075-00

FAULT LOCATION MAP

exceptions are faults that displace rocks of undifferentiated Plio-Pleistocene age.

See Bulletin 201, Appendix D for source data. Ag

\Drafting\CorelDraw\Fault-SD Rev. 09/03

Project No. 0554-075-00

It should be emphasized that no groundwater was observed in the 18 explorations conducted

7.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads

7.6 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding

7.7 Volcanic Hazards

! No groundwater was observed in the 18 explorations conducted on site, which were

9.1 Plan Review

We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated

9.2 Excavation and Grading Observation

Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics

9.3.1 Site Preparation: Site preparation includes removal of deleterious materials,

9.3.2 Compressible Soils: The alluvium and surficial lacustrine sediments

9.3.4 Temporary Excavations: Temporary excavations are anticipated throughout