Gtreport

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT
PROPOSED WATER STORAGE TANK

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
WALNUT GROVE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
MWH AMERICAS INC
Prepared by:
NOVEMBER 2012
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT
PROPOSED WATER STORAGE TANK

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
WALNUT GROVE, CALIFORNIA
AGS Job No. 11-015
Prepared for:
MWH AMERICAS INC
Prepared by:
NOVEMBER 2012
5 Freelon Street, San Francisco, California 94107 # Phone (415) 777-2166 # Fax (415) 777-2167
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 1
1.3 WORK PERFORMED ........................................................................................ 2
1.3.1 Review of Available Data ........................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Field Exploration ........................................................................................ 2
1.3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ............................................................... 3
1.3.4 Engineering Analyses and Report Preparation .......................................... 4
2.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 5
2.2 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................... 5
2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 6
2.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY ......................................................................................... 7
2.6 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................. 7
2.7 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ..................................................................... 7
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 8
3.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................... 8
3.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 8
3.2.1 General ...................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Fault Rapture Hazard................................................................................. 8
3.2.3 Maximum Earthquake ................................................................................ 9
3.2.4 Estimated Earthquake Ground Motions ..................................................... 9
3.2.5 Deterministic Methods ............................................................................... 9
3.2.6 Probabilistic Methods ............................................................................... 10
3.2.7 2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria .......................................................... 10
3.2.8 Design Earthquake .................................................................................. 11
Walnut Grove Water System i November 2012

3.2.9 Vertical Acceleration ................................................................................ 11

3.2.10 Liquefaction Hazard ................................................................................. 11
3.2.11 Consequences of Liquefaction ................................................................. 14
3.2.11.1 Seismically-Induced Settlements ........................................ 14
3.2.11.2 Lateral Deformation ............................................................ 14
3.2.12 Liquefaction Mitigation ............................................................................. 15
3.3 EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK ................................................................. 16
3.3.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 16
3.3.2 Overexcavation ........................................................................................ 17
3.3.3 Fills and Backfills ..................................................................................... 17
3.3.4 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................... 18
3.3.5 Dewatering............................................................................................... 18
3.4 PIPELINES ...................................................................................................... 19
3.4.1 General .................................................................................................... 19
3.4.2 Earth Loads ............................................................................................. 19
3.4.3 Surcharge Pressures ............................................................................... 20
3.4.4 Modulus of Earth Reaction....................................................................... 21
3.4.5 Thrust Resistance .................................................................................... 21
3.4.6 Trench Width ........................................................................................... 21
3.4.7 Pipe Bedding ........................................................................................... 22
3.4.8 Trench Backfill ......................................................................................... 22
3.5 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................... 23
3.5.1 General .................................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Soil Improvement ..................................................................................... 24
3.5.3 Shallow Foundations................................................................................ 25
3.5.4 Deep Foundation System ........................................................................ 27
3.5.5 General Deep Foundation Recommendation........................................... 28
Walnut Grove Water System ii November 2012

3.6 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS .............................................................. 29

3.6.1 Shallow / Mat Foundations....................................................................... 29
3.6.2 Deep Foundations ................................................................................... 29
3.7 SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................. 30
3.7.1 Static Settlements .................................................................................... 30
3.7.2 Seismically-Induced Settlements ............................................................. 32
3.8 CORROSION POTENTIAL .............................................................................. 32
3.9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 32
3.9.1 General .................................................................................................... 32
3.9.2 Effects on Adjacent facilities .................................................................... 33
3.9.3 Geotechnical Services During Construction............................................. 34
4.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................... 36
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 37
TABLES
TABLE 1 - FAULT SEISMICITY ...................................................................................... 6
TABLE 2 - SEISMIC CRITERIA .................................................................................... 10
TABLE 3 - SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS................................................................... 12
TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION TECHNIQUES ................... 26
TABLE 5 - ESTIMATE ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION AND UPLIFT CAPACITIES
OF 14-INCH SQUARE DRIVEN PILES ........................................................ 28
TABLE 6 - ESTIMATE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STATIC SETTLEMENTS ... 31
PLATES
PLATE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP
PLATE 2 – BORING LOCATION MAP
PLATE 3 – EARTH LOAD COEFFICIENTS FOR PIPELINE DESIGN
Walnut Grove Water System iii November 2012

PLATE 4 – VERTICAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES

PLATE 5 – LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES POINT AND LINE LOADS
PLATE 6 – LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES AREAL LOADS
PLATE 7 – RESPONSE TO LATERAL LOADING
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING
APPENDIX B – GEOTECHNICAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C – CORROSIVITY TESTING
APPENDIX D – LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Walnut Grove Water System iv November 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of the geotechnical study conducted by AGS for the
proposed water storage tank as part of California American Walnut Grove Water
System (WGWS) Improvement project, in Walnut Grove, California. The study was
performed to develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the design of
the new water storage tank. The location of the project site is shown on Plate 1 – Site
Location Map.
This report includes geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations

related to subsurface conditions, geoseismic hazards, geotechnical design
considerations, site improvements, earthwork, and construction monitoring for the
proposed project. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are
based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the location of one boring drilled for
this study, available geotechnical information from other studies in the vicinity of the
project site, and available geologic information for the area. The conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or
used for other facilities without prior review by AGS.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AGS understands that the proposed project includes construction of a new steel water
storage tank, a 5000-gallon horizontal hydropneumatic tank, two new pipelines, and
associated structures such as booster pump station, valves and bends. The proposed
water storage tank will be about 46 feet in diameter and 24 feet in height. The dead load
(including the weight of full water and concrete foundation) and live load are estimated to
be 3,300 kips and 250 kips, respectively. The total based shear force is estimated to be
between 400 kips to 800 kips.
Walnut Grove Water System 1 November 2012

AGS understand that two pipes will be constructed. One pipe will be approximately 400
lineal feet gravity sewer pipe and the other will be an approximately 1,100 lineal feet 6-inch
pressurized water pipe. The sewer pipe will be constructed between the existing Arsenic
Removal Water Treatment Plant (ARWTP) and the Islandview Way, and the pressurized
pipe will be constructed between ARWTP and the proposed steel tank. Based on profile
map of 6-inch pipeline (entitled as “Preliminary Design Phase – June 2012”, Sheet C-06),
the alignment of the proposed pipeline extends along 1st Street, Island Way and the dirt
access road, and will be located about 4 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The
alignment of the pressurized water pipeline crosses at least four 6- to 15-inch diameter
utility lines which located at about 6- to 12-inch above or below the proposed pipeline. The
alignment of the sewer pipeline is not available at the time of this study.
1.3 WORK PERFORMED
As stated in the revised proposal, dated May 18, 2012, the purpose of the study was to
explore and evaluate subsurface conditions and develop final site-specific geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations for design of the proposed tank. The work performed
for this geotechnical study included the following tasks.
1.3.1 Review of Available Data
AGS reviewed readily available reports of geotechnical studies previously conducted by

others including a geotechnical study performed by Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc.
(YCI) at the location of the ARWTP in 2006, and available published geotechnical,
geologic, and seismologic data of the vicinity of the project site.
1.3.2 Field Exploration
AGS conducted a field exploration program consisting of drilling one boring. Boring B-1
was extended to a depth of approximately 94 feet below the existing ground surface.
The field exploration program was performed on July 26, 2012.

AGS notified Underground Service Alert a minimum of 48-hours in advance of any
invasive work and renewed the notifications as required. AGS scheduled and
coordinated access to the test location with WGWS personnel. AGS obtained a permit
from Sacramento County, Environmental Management Department.
The field exploration program was performed under the technical supervision of a
qualified geologist from AGS who has extensive experience on the soil conditions in the
area. A log of boring and the conditions encountered at the site were recorded by the
geologist in the field. The boring was backfilled with cement grout and the ground
surface at the location of the boring was restored to the original condition. The drill
cuttings generated from the drilling operation were placed into a 55-gallon drum, which
was labeled, and left at the site.
The location of the boring drilled for this study is shown on Plate 2 – Boring Location
Map. Details of the field exploration program, including copy of the boring log, are
included in Appendix A - Field Exploration and Sampling.
1.3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the field
exploration program. The laboratory tests included moisture, density, sieve analyses,
Atterberg limits, consolidation, and unconfined compressive strength testing of the earth
materials. Details of the geotechnical laboratory testing program are included in
Appendix B - Geotechnical Field and Laboratory Testing.
Samples were submitted to an outside laboratory for corrosivity testing, and the results
are included in Appendix C – Corrosivity Testing.

1.3.4 Engineering Analyses and Report Preparation
The data generated were used to perform engineering analyses in order to develop site-
specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction
of the proposed project. Our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations,
along with the supporting data, are presented in this engineering report. The report
addresses the following:
 Subsurface soil conditions;

 Local geologic conditions;
 Groundwater elevations;
 Faults and seismicity;
 Probabilistic seismic hazards evaluation;
 2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria;
 Geoseismic hazards including liquefaction potential, seismically-induced
settlements, and seismically-induced lateral deformation;
 Total and differential settlement, and time rate of settlement;
 Settlement mitigation measures;
 Liquefaction potential, consequences, and mitigation measure;
 Earthwork and subgrade preparation recommendations;
 Shallow/mat foundation design recommendations;
 Deep foundation design recommendations;
 Resistance of shallow/mat and deep foundations to lateral loads;
 Pipeline design parameters;
 Soil corrosivity;
 Effects of the construction on the adjacent structures; and
 Construction considerations.

2.0 FINDINGS
2.1 SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed project area is farmland, located approximately 2,000 feet from the
western bank of the Sacramento River. It is surrounded by farms to the north, to the
west and to the south, and by an existing water treatment facility plant to the east. The
existing plant to the east side of the project site is about 60 feet by 80 feet in plan view.
The project site is relatively flat with an elevation about -3 feet (NGVD29). An old
pavement driveway connects the site and adjacent facility plant to Islandview Way.
2.2 GEOLOGY
The project site is located within the Great Valley geomorphic province of California
which is underlain by Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sediments. This
province may exceed about 4,500 feet in thickness in the Solano County area.
According to the 1:250,000 scale Sacramento Quadrangle of California State Geology
map, the project site is underlain by Quaternary-Age intertidal deposits of peaty mud.
2.3 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
The project area is located in a seismically active region which has been subjected to
several strong earthquakes during historic time.
The closest fault to the site is the Great Valley 3 Fault, which appears 29 kilometers
(km) to the east of the site. Further from the project site are the Bartlett Spring-Fault
System and the San Andreas Fault, which pass at about 61 km and 82 km from the site,
respectively.
The maximum moment magnitude earthquake (Mmax) is defined as the largest

earthquake that a given fault is considered capable of generating. The seismicity

associated with each pertinent fault, including estimated slip rates, is summarized below
in Table 1 - Fault Seismicity.
TABLE 1
FAULT SEISMICITY
Distance to Maximum Slip

Site1 Moment Rate2
Fault (km) Magnitude2 (mm/year)
Great Valley 3 29 6.9 1.5
Bartlett Spring 61 7.7
San Andreas 82 7.9 24
1. Jennings (1994)
2. Working Group ‘02 (2003)
There are other active faults in the region, but these are either farther from the project
site or smaller and, therefore, would not be capable of causing shaking at the project
site as strong as those caused by the faults listed in Table 1.
2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AGS performed this geotechnical study to explore and evaluate subsurface conditions
and develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for design of the proposed
water storage tank. The field exploration program consisted of drilling one boring at the
site.
The subsurface conditions encountered in Boring B-1 consisted of approximately 7 feet

of very soft organic silt and clay (peat) materials is underlain with approximately 5 feet
of very soft sandy silt materials. The sandy silt material is underlain with approximately
18 feet of very loose to loose silty sand layers. The loose sandy material is underlain
with approximately 23 feet of medium stiff sand with silt layers. Under medium stiff sand
layers, approximately 41 feet of stiff to hard fat clay and sandy clay materials were
encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 94 feet below the
existing ground surface.

2.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY
Samples of soil were taken from Boring B-1 at respective depths of 0.0 to 0.5 feet and
1.0 to 3.0 feet for corrosion testing. Samples were tested for resistivity at 100-percent
saturation (ASTM G57), chloride content (ASTM D4327/ Cal 422-mod.), sulfate content
(ASTM D4327/ Cal 417-mod.), pH (ASTM G51), and redox potential (SM 2580B), to
evaluate potential soil corrosivity to buried metal and concrete. AGS’ conclusions about
the corrosion potential of subsurface materials are presented in Section 3.8. The results
of the corrosivity tests are provided in Appendix C.
2.6 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was measured in Boring B-1 at approximately 3 feet below the existing
ground surface. The elevation of the site is about -3 feet (NGVD29). Based on the result
of current study and previous geotechnical reports in vicinity of the site, a groundwater
level at ground surface elevation can be used for design purposes.
Variations in the groundwater level at the site are likely to occur due to influences from
fluctuations in the nearby river, changes in precipitation and temperature, and other
factors not evident at the time of this study.
2.7 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
The project site is located about 2,000 feet west of the Sacramento River. According to
FIRM Map Number 06067C0560H, the proposed project site is located in Zone AE, part
of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. The base flood elevation is about 16 feet (North
America Vertical Datum of 1988). The 1% annual flood (100-years flood), also known as
the base flood, is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equal or exceeded in any
given year. The base flood elevation is the water-surface elevation of the 1% annual
chance flood.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of the field exploration and geotechnical laboratory testing
programs, it is the opinion of AGS that it is geotechnically feasible to construct the
proposed water storage tank and associated pipelines provided the recommendations
presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
The major geotechnical considerations for this project are:
• Presence of compressible soils with the potential of up to 10 inches of static

settlement;
• The potential for liquefaction and seismically-induced settlements up to about 9
inches; and
• The impact of the groundwater during construction.
3.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
3.2.1 General
The geotechnical seismic design recommendations and geoseismic hazards are

summarized below and were developed considering the subsurface conditions
encountered during this study and the seismic sources as indicated in Section 2.3,
Table 1, of this report.
3.2.2 Fault Rapture Hazard
The site is not within any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones, and there is no evidence
that the project site is located on an active fault. Therefore, damage due to fault rupture
at the site is considered unlikely.

3.2.3 Maximum Earthquake
The Mmax earthquake is the largest earthquake that a given fault appears capable of
generating. The controlling Mmax earthquake for the project site would be a magnitude
6.9 event occurring along the Great Valley 3 Fault at a distance of approximately 29 km
from the site. A Mmax earthquake would have strong shaking for a duration of
approximately 15 to 30 seconds with a predominant period of approximately 0.25
seconds at bedrock.
3.2.4 Estimated Earthquake Ground Motions
Ground surface accelerations were estimated using both deterministic methods and
probabilistic methods, using the EZ-FRISK™ computer software package Version 7.40.
These acceleration values were developed in the cases of 5.0 percent and 0.5 percent
damping.
3.2.5 Deterministic Methods
Correlations between distance from a causative fault and mean values of the peak
bedrock accelerations and the effects of local soil conditions on peak ground
accelerations have been developed for very dense soil and soft rock site through
various attenuation relationships. Recent seismic models use the so-called next
generation attenuation (NGA) relationships. These NGA relationships were used to
calculate seismic acceleration values at the project site. In particular, the relationships
by Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008) were used to calculate the peak ground
accelerations at the project site.
Based on average values of the peak ground acceleration calculated by these four
correlations, a Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax) of 6.9 occurring of the Great
Valley 3 Fault, located approximately 29 km away, the peak horizontal ground surface
acceleration (PGA) is estimated to be 0.15 g at the site for mean peak horizontal ground

acceleration. Lesser values of PGA may be used for design depending on the level of
risk acceptable to the designer.
3.2.6 Probabilistic Methods
For the project site, peak horizontal ground accelerations were developed in
accordance with 2010 CBC/ASCE 7-05 Section 21.3 for the average earthquake return
period of 2,500 years, using the NGA relationships developed by Abrahamson and Silva
(2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and
Youngs (2008). This earthquake return period corresponds to an approximately 2
percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The estimated average value of
peak horizontal acceleration calculated from the four attenuation relationships
discussed above is 0.32g.
3.2.7 2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria
Based on the explored subsurface conditions and the seismic criteria, design seismic
parameters were determined using the 2010 California building Code (CBC), AWWA
D100-11, and ASCE 7-05 procedures as described in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
SEISMIC CRITERIA
Factor Site Class/ Value
Site Class F
Short-Period (0.2 sec.) MCE, g 0.85

Ss
MCE* at 1 sec., g 0.30
S1

3.2.8 Design Earthquake
The project site is classified as Site Class F. According to AWWA D100-11, Section
13.2.8 “Design Response Spectra -Required Site-Specific”, the design response
spectrum for impulsive components in a site classified as Site Class F, should be based
on 2,500-year return period, corresponding to 5 percent damping. Based on the results
of the probabilistic seismic hazard evaluation 2,500-year return period earthquake is
estimated to have peak horizontal ground surface accelerations (PGA) of 0.32g.
The probabilistic spectral response acceleration of 2,500-year return period,

corresponding to 5 and 0.5 percent structural damping ratios (ASCE 7-5, Section
21.2.1), as well as the deterministic response acceleration (ASCE 7-5, Section 21.2.2),
and the design spectral response acceleration in accordance with Sections 21.3 and
21.4 of ASCE 7-5, are presented on Table 3.
3.2.9 Vertical Acceleration
AGS recommends that the peak vertical component of the acceleration be taken as
equal to ¾ of the peak horizontal acceleration component discussed above.
3.2.10 Liquefaction Hazard
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged) cohesionless soils

lose their strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure, especially during
cyclic loadings such as those induced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires
mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements, if not confined.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, uniformly graded, fine-grained
sands. Silty and clayey sands may also liquefy during strong ground shaking.

TABLE 3
SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS
Spectral Acceleration Value
Probabilistic Analysis Deterministic
Period Analysis
2,500-Year Return Period 2010 CBC Design Values
(sec) (ASCE 7-5,
(ASCE 7-5, Section 21.2.1) (ASCE 7-5, Sections 21.3
Section and 21.4)
21.2.2)
5% Damping 0.5% Damping Mean 5% Damping 0.5% Damping
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
PGA
0.319 0.319 0.149 0.213 0.213
0.05 0.362 0.362 0.160 0.276 0.276
0.10 0.504 1.070 0.216 0.357 0.692
0.20 0.699 1.303 0.311 0.490 0.885
0.30 0.771 1.277 0.334 0.514 0.902
0.40 0.724 1.178 0.301 0.490 0.797
0.50 0.708 1.104 0.261 0.490 0.797
0.75 0.615 0.922 0.191 0.490 0.797
1.00 0.506 0.757 0.147 0.446 0.697
2.00 0.301 0.418 0.082 0.223 0.340
3.00 0.198 0.263 0.057 0.149 0.214
4.00 0.140 0.191 0.041 0.112 0.163
5.00 0.105 0.145 0.032 0.089 0.129
6.00 0.080 0.090 0.025 0.074 0.084
7.50 0.060 0.061 0.019 0.059 0.060
10.00 0.040 0.044 0.012 0.036 0.041
12.00 0.030 0.032 0.008 0.025 0.027
15.00 0.020 0.021 0.005 0.016 0.017

The nature of liquefaction depends greatly on the characteristics of the soil. In loose
soils, liquefaction results in significant loss of soil strength, which can lead to large
deformations. In dense soils, although a condition of liquefaction can be initiated, the
tendencies for loss of strength and deformations are resisted by dilation of the soils.
Deformations in dense soils result in a tendency for soil volume increase (dilation),
which in turn results in reduction of pore water pressures, increase in effective stresses,
and increased resistance to further deformations.
The liquefaction potential of soils at the project site was evaluated using a simplified,
analytical, and empirical procedure that is correlated with the liquefaction behavior of
saturated sands during historic earthquakes (Youd, 2001; and Idriss and Boullanger,
2008). The primary data utilized in the analysis consisted of standard penetration test
(SPT) and modified California (MC) sampler blow counts, which were obtained from the
one boring drilled at the site. The SPT and MC blow counts recorded in the field were
corrected for various factors to obtain corrected N-values, which were used in the
liquefaction analysis. The factors used to obtain corrected N-values, included the
effects of overburden pressure, rod length, sampler type and size, and fines content.
During drilling, the groundwater was measured at depths of approximately 3 feet below
the existing ground surface in Borings B-1. A design groundwater at existing ground
surface was assumed because of the likelihood of the water level fluctuation in future,
and the elevation of the existing site (-3 feet).
The liquefaction analysis was conducted using the following parameters.

• Magnitude 6.9 earthquake
• Peak horizontal acceleration of 0.21g
• Groundwater depth at the existing ground surface
Based on the results of the liquefaction analysis, the very loose to medium dense
granular materials (7 to 35 feet below existing ground surface) at the project site are
considered to have a high liquefaction potential. Plate D-1 in Appendix D shows the
liquefiable layer(s) at the location of Boring B-1.

3.2.11 Consequences of Liquefaction
The main effects of liquefaction at the project site include settlement of the ground
surface and utilities, lateral deformation, development of excess pore water pressure,
buoyancy effects on the below groundwater structures, loss of allowable bearing
pressure, and increased lateral pressures on utilities and foundations extending below
the groundwater table.
3.2.11.1 Seismically-Induced Settlements
The results of the liquefaction analysis conducted for Boring B-1 is included in Appendix
D. The estimated seismically-induced settlement is up to approximately 9 inches based
on subsurface exploration results obtained at location of Borings B-1. It is the opinion of
AGS that differential seismically-induced settlement along 100 feet of length within the
project site is less than half of the above-mentioned seismically-induced settlement.
If the anticipated seismically-induced settlement is not acceptable to the designer, AGS

recommends that a soil improvement program as discussed in Section 3.5.2, be used to
reduce liquefaction consequences to an acceptable level. However, AGS understands
that it would not be economically feasible to construct ground improvements to reduce
liquefaction effects in project site, and even with soil improvements the proposed
structures could be damaged during a magnitude 6.9 or greater earthquake.
Another option to reduce the liquefaction impact on the proposed structures is to

support the proposed structures on deep foundation system.
3.2.11.2 Lateral Deformation
Seismically-induced lateral deformation is another phenomenon which can occur during

a seismic event. The continuity/discontinuity of potentially liquefiable soil layers is a key

consideration in evaluating the potential for lateral deformation. During Lateral spread,
blocks of mostly intact, surficial soil displace downslope or towards a free face along a
shear zone that has formed within the liquefied sediment.
The project site is located about 2,000 feet from the Sacramento River. It is unlikely that
lateral spread extends within 2,000 feet towards the river bank. In general, due to lack
of slope at site and large distance between the site and river bank, the potential of
liquefaction lateral spreading at project site is low.
3.2.12 Liquefaction Mitigation
The project site is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils. Some settlements and
cracking may result from differential seismically-induced settlements of liquefiable soils
during an earthquake and could damage the proposed structures. A seismically-induced
settlement of up to 9 inches within the project site is anticipated, as discussed
previously. A mitigation plan should be employed where estimated seismically-induced
settlements cannot be tolerated.
Ground improvement can be performed in areas where the total calculated seismically-
induced settlement exceeds the structurally acceptable level, and be designed to
reduce the total liquefaction-induced deformation to a tolerable level. Based on the
AGS’s boring, the soil zone to be improved includes those soils which are at depth of 5
to 30 feet. If the soils which are at the depth of 5 to 30 feet are improved, seismically-
induced settlement will reduce to about 1 inch with differential seismically-induced
settlement of 0.5 inch along 100 lineal feet. The total thickness of the zone to be
improved depends both on the actual thickness of the potentially liquefiable material
and the desired reduction in predicted settlement. The details of soil improvements are
discussed in Section 3.5.2.
Alternatively, the existing structures may be supported on deep foundations

incorporating impact of liquefaction-induced earth and pore-water pressures in design of

the new deep foundation system. More details and foundation options are discussed in
Section 3.5.
3.3 EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK
3.3.1 Site Preparation
Prior to the site grading all existing structures should be removed and debris should be
properly disposed of outside the construction area. Existing above and underground
utilities located within the proposed construction areas, if affected by construction
activities, should be relocated prior to excavation. Debris generated from the demolition
of underground utilities, including abandoned pipes, should be removed from the site as
construction proceeds.
3.3.2 Overexcavation
If deep foundation system is not chosen for the proposed 5000-gallon horizontal
hydropneumatic tank, the existing soils below the tank footprint area extending to a
depth of 7 feet should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill.
In the proposed paved area around the new steel water storage tank, the soils should
also be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill extending to a depth of 3 feet
below ground surface.
Upon completion of excavation, backfill may be placed in accordance with the

recommendations presented in the following sections. The overexcavated sandy and
clayey soils may be reused as structural fill provided that they meet the criteria
described in Section 3.3.3. The materials within 6 feet of ground surface encountered in
Boring B-1 were organic silt which does not meet the criteria described in Section 3.3.3.
The excavated soils which do not meet the above-mentioned requirements may be
mixed with import soil to achieve the required gradation and plasticity limit. Fill and
backfill materials should be observed and tested by the geotechnical engineer prior to
their use in order to evaluate their suitability.

3.3.3 Fills and Backfills
Fills and backfills may either be structural or nonstructural. Structural fills and backfills
are defined as providing support to foundations, slabs, and pavements. Nonstructural
fills and backfills include all other fills such as those placed for landscaping, and not
planned for future structural loads. Structural fills and backfills should be compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557; nonstructural fills
and backfills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined per ASTM D-1557.
If the proposed water tank is to be founded on shallow foundations, in addition to soil

improvement, the top 5 feet of the subsurface materials at the project site should be
removed and replaced with structural fill. If the proposed water tank will be supported on
deep foundations, structural fill is not required.
Structural fill and backfill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding approximately
8 inches in loose thickness, brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted
using mechanical compaction equipment. Nonstructural fills and backfills may be
placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted in a similar
manner.
No grading information was available at the time of this report. It is anticipated that the
backfilling necessary at the completion of the debris removal will be achieved using the
import material. In case that import fill is required to achieve the design grades, it should
be placed and compacted under the full time inspection and testing of the project
geotechnical engineering firm. Material to be used as compacted fill and backfill should
be predominantly granular, less than 3 inches in any dimension, free of organic and
inorganic debris, and contain less than 20 percent of mostly non-plastic fines passing
the No. 200 sieve. The fill and backfill soils should have a liquid limit less than 35 and
plasticity index less than 12. Samples of fill and backfill materials should be submitted

to the geotechnical engineer prior to use for testing to establish that they meet the
above criteria.
3.3.4 Temporary Excavations
Significant mass excavation of soil is not anticipated for this project. However, some
excavation of soil will be necessary in conjunction with removal of in-fill material within
the slipway.
In case of massive excavation, excavations must comply with the current requirements
of OSHA or Cal-OSHA, as applicable. Additionally, all cuts deeper than 5 feet should
be sloped or shored. Shallow excavations above the groundwater level may be sloped
if space permits. It is our opinion that temporary excavations may be sloped at 1½H:1V
(Horizontal to Vertical) above and below the groundwater level, respectively. The
groundwater is estimated to be as shallow as 1 to 2 feet below the existing ground
surface; however, it is the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe and stable
slopes or design and provide shoring during construction. Flatter slopes will be required
if clean or loose sandy soils are encountered along the slope face.
Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicle traffic
should not be allowed within 7 feet of the top of excavations.
3.3.5 Dewatering
If the existing subsurface materials are removed, groundwater may be encountered

during excavation. The contractor should be responsible for selecting the appropriate
range of groundwater levels for dewatering design, and for providing an adequate
dewatering system during construction. A properly designed, installed, and operated
dewatering system should:
 Lower the water table inside the excavation or intercept any seepage which will
emerge from the sides or the bottom of the excavation;

 Improve the stability of the excavation and prevent disturbance of the bottom of
the excavation;
 Provide a reasonably dry working area in the bottom of the excavation; and,
 Provide for collection and removal of surface water and rainfall.
It is recommended that the water level be maintained at least two feet below the bottom
of the excavation until the proposed structure is constructed, and the weight of the
structure and the hold-down system are sufficient to resist buoyancy.
Selection of the equipment and methods of dewatering should be left up to the

contractor, who should be aware that modifications to the dewatering system may be
required during construction, depending on conditions encountered.
Water collected during dewatering should be tested for contamination prior to disposal.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to properly contain and dispose of the discharged
water.
3.4 PIPELINES
3.4.1 General
The proposed water pipeline will be constructed at 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground
surface. Based on log of Boring B-1, the top 7 feet of subsurface materials are mainly
very soft to soft organic clay and silt. Based on our evaluations of subsurface
conditions, it is our opinion that the subsurface materials at the site will provide
adequate support to the pipelines. Shoring trench and dewatering might be necessary in
some areas.
3.4.2 Earth Loads
Earth loads on pipelines due to the overlying soil will be dependent upon the depth of
placement, width of the trench at the top of the pipe, the backfill type and placement, and the

type of pipe. It is likely that the pipelines will be placed in trenches with near-vertical sides.
The earth load on the pipelines should be calculated using formulas developed by
Marston (1930). For the proposed pipelines constructed in a "trench" condition, AGS
recommends that equations 1 and 2 be used for rigid and flexible pipes, respectively.
Wc = Cd  W (Bd)2 (1)
Wc = Cd  W  Bd  Bc (2)
Where: Wc = Vertical load on the pipe in pounds per unit length

Cd = An empirical coefficient described by Marston (1930)
W= Unit weight of the trench backfill material in pcf
Bd = Width of the trench at the top of the pipe in feet
Bc = Outside diameter of the pipe in feet
When using the above equations, the empirical coefficient, Cd, can be obtained from
Plate 3 - Earth Load Coefficients for Pipeline Design. The data presented on Plate 3
are developed for saturated soils. AGS recommends using the data for saturated soils
in order to avoid damage to pipelines resulting from possible saturation of subsurface
soils. The unit weight of the trench backfill, W, can be assumed as 130 pcf.
It is estimated that most of the pipes will be placed in the "trench" condition. However, if
the width of the trench is greater than two times the diameter of the pipe, the earth loads
on the pipe may be larger than those calculated by equations 1 and 2. The earth loads
should then be calculated on the basis of Marston's formula for "embankment"
conditions (Marston, 1930) and the prism load should be used for flexible pipes.
3.4.3 Surcharge Pressures
For any surcharge applied on the pipelines, the vertical pressures on the pipelines may
be estimated using the pressure diagrams presented on Plate 4 - Vertical Surcharge
Pressures. The horizontal surcharge pressures may be estimated using Plates 5 and 6.

3.4.4 Modulus of Earth Reaction
A modulus of earth reaction of 150 psi due to very soft to soft clay can be used to
estimate deformation of the proposed pipelines along the project alignment. This
recommended modulus of earth reaction is estimated based on the earth materials
encountered in the borings drilled for this study along the proposed pipelines alignment.
3.4.5 Thrust Resistance
Where the proposed pipelines change direction abruptly, resistance to thrust forces can
be provided by mobilizing frictional resistance between the pipe circumference and
surrounding earth material, by the use of a thrust block, or by a combination of the two.
The frictional resistance can be calculated utilizing coefficients of friction of 0.35

between polyethylene coated pipe and adjacent backfill; and 0.40 between cement
mortar armor coated pipe and adjacent backfill. Pipe segments may be connected by
tension joints capable of transmitting the required thrust forces if more than one
segment of pipe is needed.
Passive resistance at a thrust block may be used instead of, or in conjunction with,
frictional resistance to resist pipe thrust. Based on the earth materials encountered in
the boring drilled for this study, equivalent fluid pressures of 250 and 120 pcf should be
used for design above and below the groundwater level, respectively, for thrust blocks
that are used in backfill materials.
3.4.6 Trench Width
Minimum trench widths should be provided in order to ensure uniform support for the
pipelines. AGS recommends that the trench be a minimum of two feet wider than the
outside diameter of the pipe at each side of the pipe. The minimum clear width of
trench at the top of the pipe is recommended to be not more than the outside diameter
of the pipe plus four feet.

3.4.7 Pipe Bedding
The proposed pipelines should be completely surrounded with bedding material to

provide uniform support and protection. The bedding should consist of medium to
coarse-grained sand, or crushed rock of less than ¾ inch in maximum size. The
material should be of uniform gradation.
Pipe bedding should be placed beneath the pipe with a minimum thickness of 9 inches,
and should extend 12 inches above the spring line of the pipes. All bedding material
should be placed carefully to achieve uniform contact with the pipe and a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by standard test method ASTM D1557.
Compaction by jetting or flooding should not be permitted.
3.4.8 Trench Backfill
Trench backfill materials within pipe zone (extending from the trench bottom to a
minimum of 9 inches above the pipe) should conform to the requirements of fill and
backfill materials presented in Section 3.3.2. Trench backfill should be compacted in
layers not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted
to 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557, except for trenches
under pavements or slabs. The material used for pipe bedding (the area from bottom of
the pipe to 9 inches below the pipe) and the pipe zone should be the same and receive
the same compaction effort. Under the pavement or slab areas, the upper 3 feet of the
backfill measured from the top of the pavements or slab should conform to the
requirements of the individual agency encroachment permits ( County, Caltrans, etc.).
The pipe bedding materials should also be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction
as determined by ASTM D1557.

3.5 FOUNDATIONS
3.5.1 General
AGS recommends that if the seismically-induced and static settlements cannot be

tolerated by the proposed structures, either soil improvement should be performed and
the top 5 feet of the subsurface materials be overexcavated and replaced with structural
fill, or the proposed structures should be founded on deep foundations.
Due to seismically-induced and static differential settlement, and loss of allowable

bearing pressure, AGS does not recommend that the proposed structures be supported
on shallow or mat foundation system without any soil improvement and placement of
structural fill.
If the proposed 5000-gallon horizontal hydropneumatic tank will be supported on the

mat foundation system without any soil improvement, it is recommended that the upper
7 feet be removed and replaced with structural fill in accordance with Section 3.3.3 of
this report. Dewatering may be required during excavation and backfilling. It is
recommended that a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 20 pounds per cubic inch be
used for design of the mat foundations. This value of subgrade reaction is based on
immediate, elastic settlement estimates. An allowable bearing pressure of 600 pounds
per square foot (psf) may be used for mat foundations. The allowable bearing pressure
is not a net value. Therefore, the weight of the foundation should be considered when
computing dead loads. The bearing pressure applies to dead plus sustained live load
and includes a calculated factor of safety of about 3. The allowable pressure may be
increased by one-third for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces.
If the static and seismically-induced settlements cannot be tolerated, the proposed

5000-gallon horizontal hydropneumatic tank may be supported in accordance with the
recommendations mentioned in Section 3.5.3 after implementation of soil improvement
or Section 3.5.4 without any soil improvement.

3.5.2 Soil Improvement
This section provides options for mitigation of seismic-induced settlements through a

program of soil improvement. Due to the presence of very loose to loose sandy layers
within the subsurface materials, caving is anticipated during drilling. Contractor should
be familiar with techniques such as mud pressure or casing to prevent the caving.
Some available techniques for soil improvement which may be applicable to this site
include: vibro-replacement stone columns, grouting techniques, and dynamic deep
compaction.
Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns

The vibro-replacement stone column technique of ground treatment, in which a vibrator
penetrates to depth by means of its weight and vibrations and horizontal vibrations are
generated at treatment depth by the use of eccentric weights that are rotated by means
of electric motors, has proven successful in reducing the liquefaction potential of sands
and low plasticity silt. Stone columns are used for loose silty sands having greater than
about 15 percent fines. Cohesive, mixed and layered soils generally do not densify
easily when subjected to vibration alone, therefore, the vibro-replacement stone column
technique was developed specifically for these soils, effectively extending the range of
soil types that can be improved with the deep vibratory process.
Grouting
Grouting techniques (compaction, permeation, deep mixing, chemical, and jet grouting)
of soil improvement have also proven successful in reducing the liquefaction potential of
sandy material. The grouting techniques become less efficient with increased fine
content, such as silt and clay. Of these grouting techniques, jet grouting appears to be
the most efficient method for the site. Essentially, in jet grouting, ultra high pressure
fluids or binders are injected into the soil at a high velocity. These binders break up the
soil structure completely and mix the soil particles in-situ to create a homogeneous
mass which in turn solidifies. Other grouting techniques, such as deep mixing, involve

the use of large augers both to introduce cement grout and to mix it with the soil,
producing a treated soil cement column.
Dynamic Deep Compaction

Dynamic deep compaction can densify and reduce the liquefaction potential of sandy soils.
This method becomes less effective with high groundwater level and increased fine content
in soils, but has relatively lower cost compared to other methods. However, due to the
effects of vibrations on the adjacent properties, AGS believes that this method is not
applicable for this site.
The soil improvement design, if chosen as an economically feasible, will depend on the
costs of performing the work as well as the technical specifics of the work, and is
beyond the scope of this study.
The practical applications of many of these measures have been presented in the
literature (Hryciw 1995; Stewart et al. 1997; Boulanger et al. 1997; Mitchell et al. 1998b)
and summarized in Table 4.
3.5.3 Shallow Foundations
Provided the subsurface sandy soils are improved using a soil improvement technique,
the proposed water tank can be founded on shallow foundations. The existing upper
soils extending to a deep of 5 feet should be overexcavated and replaced with structural
fill. It is AGS’ opinion that the proposed water tank can be supported on shallow
foundation system, constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill materials.
Ring Footings
Ring foundations should extend at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
grade and be at least 24 inches wide. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds
per square foot (psf) may be used for ring footings. The allowable bearing pressure is a
net value. Therefore, the weight of the foundation and the backfill over the foundation

may be neglected when computing dead loads. The bearing pressure applies to dead
plus sustained live load and includes a calculated factor of safety of about 3. The
allowable pressure may be increased by one-third for short-term loading due to wind or
seismic forces.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
Liquefaction Mitigation Advantages Disadvantages Relative
Technique Cost
Vibro-Replacement Effective and economical method Ineffective for densifying soils Moderate
Stone Column in many situations. Able to reach with greater than 20% fine
depths unattainable by other contents. The liquefiable soil
methods. should have a minimum thickness
for this method to be effective.
Waste spoils disposal is required.
Grouting compaction Pinpoint treatment, Speed of Not effective at depths with low Low
grouting installation, Wide applications confining pressure (<15 feet). to moderate
range. Can be performed in very Ground surface heave due to
tight access and low headroom grout pressure. Very low
conditions, Non-hazardous, no reinforcing effects of the
waste spoil disposal. Able to reach compaction grout bulbs/columns.
depths unattainable by other
methods.
deep mixing Wide applications range (even Waste spoils disposal is required. High
grouting with high fine contents), Cost Significant overhead clearance is
savings over deep foundation required. Pinpoint treatment is not
designs. Installation methods are applicable. Very low reinforcing
customized for the site conditions. effects of the compaction grout
columns.
permeation Minimum disturbance of the native Construction process is complex. High
grouting soil. Can be performed in very Very costly. limited to clean sands
tight access and low headroom and ineffective in soils with fines.
conditions. Pinpoint treatment.
chemical Minimum disturbance of the native Construction process is complex. High
grouting soil. Can be performed in very Very costly. limited to clean sands
tight access and low headroom and ineffective in soils with fines.
conditions. Pinpoint treatment.
jet grouting Nearly all soil types groutable. Soil erodibility plays a major role High
Most effective method of direct in predicting geometry, quality
underpinning of structures and and production. Cohesionless
utilities. Safest method of soils are typically more erodible
underpinning construction. Ability than cohesive soils. Pinpoint
to work around buried active treatment is not applicable. Very
utilities, can be performed in low reinforcing effects of the
limited workspace, treatment to compaction grout bulbs/columns.
specific subsurface locations, no
harmful vibrations. Much faster
than alternative methods.

Mat Foundations
For the proposed steel water storage tank, it is recommended that a coefficient of
subgrade reaction of 60 pounds per cubic inch be used for design of the mat
foundations. This value of subgrade reaction is based on immediate, elastic settlement
estimates. An allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be
used for mat foundations. The allowable bearing pressure is a net value. Therefore,
the weight of the foundation may be neglected when computing dead loads. The
bearing pressure applies to dead plus sustained live load and includes a calculated
factor of safety of about 3. The allowable pressure may be increased by one-third for
short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces.
3.5.4 Deep Foundation System
We understand that 14-inch square reinforced concrete piles are considered to be used
to support the proposed water tank. AGS evaluated the lateral and axial capacities of
the proposed piles based on boring data and the information provided by Structural
Engineer. AGS recommends adding pre-cast concrete driven piles. Lateral and axial
capacities of proposed pre-cast concrete driven piles with 14-inch square were
evaluated in this report.
AGS estimated the allowable compression and uplift capacities of 14-inch square
reinforced concrete driven piles, for different depth of piles, and presented in Table 5.
The driven piles should be at least 70 feet long to develop their capacity from the friction
in the clay and sandy soil materials.

TABLE 5
ESTIMATE ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION AND UPLIFT CAPACITIES OF
14-INCH SQUARE DRIVEN PILES
Depth of Piles Compression Capacity Uplift Capacity
(feet) (kips) (kips)
70 33 23
80 48 33
90 63 44
Effect of liquefaction and downdrag are incorporated in the vertical capacity. A

downdrag force of 40 kips is estimated for each pile. The driven piles capacities include
a factor of safety of two or greater.
The recommended allowable uplift capacity does not include the effect of the weight of
piles. The buoyant weight of the piles should be added to the recommended uplift
capacity to estimate total allowable uplift capacity. The uplift is based on the resistance
capacities of the soils; the structural tension capacity of the piles should be checked by
the project structural engineer.
The effect of vibration on adjacent structures, during the construction of driven pile,
should be analyzed. If the vibrations due to construction of driven piles are not tolerated
with adjacent structures, vibration-free pile should be used.
3.5.5 General Deep Foundation Recommendation
The structural capacities of the driven piles depend on the strength of the materials
used, which should be checked by the project structural engineer.
Spacing should be determined as required by the load distribution, but minimum

spacing should not be less than 3 pile diameters, center to center. Maximum spacing is
to be determined by the Structural Engineer. To resist lateral loads, the passive

resistance of the soil can be used. The soil passive pressures can be assumed to act
against the lateral projected area of the pile described by the vertical dimension of twice
the pile diameter.
The allowable pile capacity should be reduced by group action when spaced closer
than three times the width, and where this occurs additional geotechnical analyses will
be necessary.
3.6 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS
3.6.1 Shallow / Mat Foundations
Resistance to lateral loads for shallow and mat foundations may be provided by
frictional resistance between the bottom of spread footings and the underlying earth
materials, and by passive pressure of the earth materials against the sides of the
shallow and mat foundations.
The coefficient of friction between poured-in-place concrete foundations and the

underlying earth materials may be taken as 0.35. Passive pressure available in
compacted backfill or undisturbed earth materials may be taken as equivalent to the
pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 250 pcf. The above-recommended value includes
a calculated factor of safety of at least 1.5; therefore, frictional and passive pressure
resistance may be used in combination without reduction.
3.6.2 Deep Foundations
Resistance to lateral loads on driven pile is provided by passive earth pressure against
the pile and by the bending strength of the pile foundations itself. Plate 7 - Response to
Lateral Loading, show estimated lateral capacities as functions of lateral deformation,
and maximum induced shear forces and bending moments for 14-inch square driven
piles with fixed head. The given lateral capacities and moments depend on the
allowable deflection at the top of the piles as shown on Plate 7.

The maximum shear forces on driven pile corresponding to ¼-inch lateral deflection at
top of piles is about 6 kips.
Additional resistance to lateral loads on pile cap structure may be provided by frictional
resistance between the bottom of pile cap and the underlying earth materials, and by
passive pressure of the earth materials against the sides of the pile cap using the
geotechnical parameters presented in Section 3.6.1.
3.7 SETTLEMENT
3.7.1 Static Settlements
Improved Soil
If the proposed water tank is to be founded on shallow foundations constructed on a
minimum of two feet of fill structure underlain by improved soil, as was explained in
Section 3.5.3, it is estimated that the total static settlement is about 1 inch, and the
differential settlement is about half of total settlement. AGS recommends that settlement
calculations be evaluated if an improvement soil technique is conducted.
Existing Soil Without Improvements

If shallow foundations are supported on existing subsurface materials without soil
improvements, some settlements are anticipated. The implications and potential adverse
effects of settlement, under static and seismic loading conditions, require consideration of
alternative methods of structural support, particularly deep (pile) foundations.
The primary consolidation of the highly compressible soils underlying the site is
estimated to be complete; therefore, settlements of the soft soils under their own weight
are expected to be negligible. It is anticipated that additional settlements will occur as a
result of additional grading and loading at the project site. The majority of the static
settlements will be time dependent and will result from consolidation of the soft soils.

The magnitude and time rate of the settlements will depend upon the thickness of the
soft soils. The weight of the new tank and the stored water (assuming the tank
supported on shallow/mat foundation) will result in the compression of the in-situ soils.
In estimating static settlement at location of Boring B-1, AGS assumed dead plus live
load of 1.7 ksf, soft soil thickness of 7 feet, an undrained shear strength of 80 psf
(obtained from the data in Boring B-1), and average compression index of 0.5 (based on
published information for soft peaty soils of Sacramento/San Joaquin delta area). AGS
estimated the static settlement using the above mentioned parameters and assuming
moisture content of the compressible soils ranges between 30 to 70 percent. Table 6
summarizes AGS’ estimate of both primary and secondary static settlements.
TABLE 6
ESTIMATE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STATIC SETTLEMENTS
Boring Primary Time Required to complete Secondary Time Required to complete
ID Static Primary Static Settlement Settlement Primary Static Settlement*
Settlement (year) (years)
(inches) (inches) 50% 90%
B-1 10 1 2 4 15
*After completion of construction and assuming full tank.
We understand that the proposed 5000-gallon horizontal hydropneumatic tank will be

constructed on two concrete saddles supported by a mat foundation. Size of the mat
foundation is unknown at the time of preparation of this report. We assumed dead plus
live load of 0.8 ksf based on typical dimensions of a 5000-gallon horizontal tank,
replacement of the upper 7 feet of the soils by structural fill materials, and 2-foot thick
mat foundation. Using the above assumptions, the estimated primary and secondary
static settlements will be about half of the values indicated in Table 6.
Differential static settlement for shallow/mat foundation estimated to be about one half
(1/2) of the total value. Over-excavation, surcharging with or without wick drains before

construction may be used to reduce the amount of time-dependent settlements, if soil
improvement techniques is not taken.
3.7.2 Seismically-Induced Settlements
As discussed previously, liquefaction of the in-situ, loose, saturated sandy fill may occur
and would result in liquefaction-induced settlement. The seismically-induced settlement
will be in addition to the static settlement, if additional structures are planned to be
added. The details of seismically-induced settlements are presented in Section 3.2.11.1.
3.8 CORROSION POTENTIAL
Based on the resistivity measurements of two samples, the subsurface materials were
classified as “mildly corrosive” to “corrosive”. Based on sulfate measurements results,
concrete containing Type II cement can be used for the construction of the proposed
foundations. Pile caps will be in the peat or above existing ground surface. The corrosive
materials may adversely affect the driven steel pile and pile caps. Mitigation measures
such as coating or sacrificial thickness should be considered for protection of the steel
drivel piles and pile caps. A corrosion engineer should be consulted to evaluate the
effects of the corrosive soils and to provide mitigation procedures alternatives.
3.9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
3.9.1 General
Although the information in this report is primarily intended for the design engineers,
the subsurface data will also be useful to the bidders and contractors. However, it is
the responsibility of the bidders and contractors to evaluate soil and groundwater
conditions independently and to develop their own conclusions and designs regarding

excavations, grading, site improvements, foundation installation, and other
construction or safety aspects.
3.9.2 Effects on Adjacent facilities
The effect of vibration on adjacent structures, during the construction of driven pile,
should be analyzed. If the vibrations due to construction of driven piles (and possible
settlement) are not tolerated with adjacent structures, a vibration free or low-vibration
piling system (such as Screw-in Piling or Press-in Piling) should be used. In these low-
vibration systems, a pile is screwed or pushed into the strata, with the resulting skin
friction and end bearing capacities similar to driven piles.
During pile driving operations, the magnitude of ground movement and the potential risk
of damage to adjacent structures mainly depends on the level of vibration (particle
velocity), the number of vibration cycles, the in-situ density of the soil, the distance to
the adjacent structures, and the type of foundation. The particle velocity should not
exceed 0.5 cm/sec near the locations of the foundations of the existing adjacent
structures or pipelines.
If vibration-free piles are used, it is recommended that an indicator pile program be

undertaken to ascertain the driving resistance and verify the pile capacities across the
site and to obtain field data for the selection of production pile lengths. Monitoring of pile
driving using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during the indicator program is
recommended to evaluate refusal criteria, to ascertain the stresses in the pile during
driving, to estimate damage to the proposed piles during driving, and to develop
additional data as to the ultimate pile capacity. AGS recommends that an indicator pile
program of at least 2 piles be performed for the proposed improvement.
The piles should be driven using a diesel hammer developing at least 70,000 foot-
pounds of rated energy. For preliminary estimating purposes, a practical refusal of 60
blows per 1 foot or 40 blows per 1 foot for the last 3 feet of penetration is assumed,

provided the hammer delivers at least 80 percent of the rated energy. It is further
recommended that the same size and type of hammer should be used for indicator and
production pile driving.
During excavations adjacent to the existing structures, care should be taken to

adequately support facilities that might be affected by the proposed construction
procedures. Underpinning will be required where excavations extend below an imaginary
plane sloping at 1:1 downward and outward from the edge of existing foundations.
Construction-induced settlements of existing structures are discussed in Section 3.7.1.
AGS recommends that driven piles to be constructed prior to construction of the utilities.
3.9.3 Geotechnical Services During Construction
AGS recommends that the geotechnical engineer review the geotechnical aspects of
design during the design process. Furthermore, AGS recommends that earthwork,
excavation, and foundation construction be monitored during construction by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. This would include services during the following operations:
● Site Preparation and earthwork;
● Foundation construction, including excavations for footings;
● Placement and compaction of fill and backfill;
● Pile foundation construction; and
● Pipe placement and backfilling construction;
The soil conditions encountered during construction should be observed to verify the
applicability of the recommendations presented in this report, and to recommend
appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those
described herein.
In the early stages of construction, representative samples of fill material should be

submitted to AGS for testing to establish that they will be suitable for use. Field density

tests should be taken during subgrade preparation and placement and compaction of fill
to make sure moisture and compaction requirements are met.

4.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional
geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of the MWH for the proposed
water storage tank project in Walnut Grove, California. No other warranty, express or
implied, is made.
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the boring drilled for this study. The nature and extent of variations from
the borings may not become evident until construction. In the event variations occur, it
will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report.
It is the responsibility of the owner or its representative to ensure that the applicable
provisions of this report are incorporated into the plans and specifications, and that the
necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor carry out such provisions.
Respectfully submitted,
AGS, Inc.
FESS I ON
PRO AL
D A N GHIA
R
E
M S
ER
EN
KA
REG I ST
SI
GI N
No. C66379
No. GE2792
EER
Exp. 6/30/2014
E C IV IL &
L
G
OT
E C HNIC R
IA
A
ST
TE
N
A
O
CA OF L IF
_________________________ _________________________
Kamran Ghiassi, Ph.D. Keyvan Fotoohi, Ph.D.
Geotechnical Engineer #2792 Geotechnical Engineer #2774

5.0 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N., Atkinson, G., Boore, D., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., Chiou, B., Idriss,
I.M., Silva, W., and Youngs, R. (2008), Comparison of the NGA Ground Motion
Relations, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 45-66.
Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (2008), Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA
Ground-Motion Relations, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 67-97
AWWA D100-11, American Water Works Association, effective date: July 1, 2011.
Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G..M. (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the
Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral
Periods Between 0.01s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 99-138
Borchardt, G. and Toppozada, T.R., 1996. Relocation of the A1836 Hayward Fault
Earthquake to the San Andreas Fault. EOS Transactions, 1996 Fall Meeting,
American Geophysical Union, vol. 77, no. 46.
Brabb, E.E. and Pampeyan, E.H., 1972. Preliminary Geologic Map of San Mateo
County, California. U. S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map
MF-328, 1:62,500.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008), NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric
Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic
Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra,
24, 139-171.
Chiou, B.S.J. and Youngs, R.R. (2008), An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal
Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra,
24, 173-215.
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The Revised
2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003; California
Geological Survey. URL: http: // www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/psha/fault
_parameters / pdf /2002_CA_Hazard_Maps.pdf.

Hryciw 1995; Stewart et al. 1997; Boulanger et al. 1997; Mitchell et al. 1998b
Idriss, I.M., 1991. Selection of Earthquake Ground Motions at Rock Sites, Report
Prepared for the Structures Division, Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Department of Civil
Engineering, UC Davis, September.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with
Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. CDMG Geologic Data Map
No.6.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., and Reichle, M.S., 1996.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California. California
Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08; U. S. Geological Survey,
Open File Report 96-706.
Real, C.R., Toppozada, T.R., and Parke, D.L., 1978. Earthquake Epicenter Map of
California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 39, 1:1,000,000.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982. Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph.
Toppozada, T.R., Real, C.R., and Park, D.L., 1981. Preparation of Isoseismal Maps
and Summaries of Reported Effects for pre-1900 California Earthquakes.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 81-11 SAC.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1999. Earthquake Probabilities

in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000 to 2030 - A Summary of Findings. Open
File Report 99-517, version 1.0.

PLATES
Reference: MARSTON, N. 1930 EARTH LOAD COEFFICIENTS
FOR PIPELINE DESIGN
PROPOSED STORAGE WATER TANK AGS, Inc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WALNUT GRAVE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.: AGS-11-015 DATE: 9/2012 PLATE 3
Reference: NAVFAC DM -7.01 VERTICAL SURCHARGE
PRESSURES
Reference: MARSTON, N. 1930
LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES

POINT AND LINE LOADS
Reference: MARSTON, N. 1930
LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES

AREAL LOADS
16
Lateral Loads at Top of Piles (kips)

12
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Deflection at Top of Piles (inches)
Deflection (inches) Moment (kip-feet) Soil Reaction (kips/feet) Shear (kips)

-1.6 -0.8 0 0.8 -4 0 4 8 12 16
-0.4 0.4 1.2 -120 -80 -40 0 40
0
20
Depth Below Pile Head (feet)
40
60
80
100
Sign Conventions
(direction of positive load,
Notes: moment, and shear)
This evaluation applies to piles 90 feet long.
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete was used E=1,847ksi.
This plate may be used for vertical loads up to 75 kips.
Plate
7
Project No.: AGS-11-015 Date: Oct. 2012
APPENDIX A
FIELD
D EXPLORA
ATION AND
D SAMPLIN
NG
A.1 EXPLORAT
E TION
AGS obtained a drrilling permit through the

t County of San Ma
ateo Enviro
onmental Health
Departm
ment, and notified
n Underground Service Alert (USA) for utilitiess to be ma
arked
relative to
t each pro
oposed boriing location
n.
Drilling was
w performed by Ge urface Exp loration of Dixon, Callifornia, usiing a
eoex Subsu
rotary wash
w truck-m ME 75 drilling rig with a 5-inch dia
mounted CM ameter bit.
The drillling spoils were

w place
ed inside 55
5-gallon dru
ums, sealed
d, and afte
er analytical test
results on a comp
posite soil sample were
w available, transp
ported from
m the site. The
subsurfa
ace conditio
ons encoun
ntered in th
he borings w
were contin
nuously log
gged in the field
during drilling
d operrations by a geologistt from AGS A-1.1 - Log of Boringss B-1
S. Plate A
gives de
escriptions and graphic
c representtations of th
he encounttered materrials, the de
epths
at which
h samples were
w obtain
ned, and the
e laboratoryy tests perfformed. Th
he legend to
o the
logs is shown
s on Plate A-2 - Soil
S Classification Cha rt and Key to Test Datta.
A.2 SAMPLING
S
Soil sam
mples, as ap
ppropriate for
f the vario
ous earth m
materials en
ncountered, were colle
ected
using sttandard pen
netration te
est (SPT), modified
m C
California (M
MC) sample
ers, and Sh
helby
Tube sa
amplers. Samples
S ere typically collected
we d at least o
once in eacch 5-foot d
depth
interval.
ely undisturbed soil sa

Relative amples obta
ained with the MC sa
ampler werre collected
d into
2.5-inch outside dia
ameter by 6-inch
6 long brass or sstainless ste
eel liners. The liners w
were
immedia
ately cappe
ed, sealed with
w vinyl tape, and la oil sampless collected from
abeled. So
the SPT
T sampler were
w placed
d into plastic bags and
d labeled. T
The Shelbyy Tube sam
mples
were sto
ored in app
proximately
y 30-inch lo
ong Shelbyy Tubes, ca
apped and sealed. Alll the
liners we
ere kept up
pright and cushioned frrom shock.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m A-1 Octobe
er 2012
The SPT
T and MC samplers were driven with a hyydraulicallyy-operated automatic 140-
pound hammer,
h fallling 30 inch
hes for an 18-inch
1 pen
netration, w
where possiible. The b
blows
required
d to advance the samp
plers were used
u to asssist in classifying the a
apparent de
ensity
of cohes
sionless so
oil deposits
s, and the relative co
onsistency of cohesive
e soil depo
osits.
The blow
w counts re
equired to drive
d the sa
ampler for e
each 6-inch increment were recorrded;
except where
w refus
sal was me
et, in which
h case the number off inches pe
enetrated b
by 50
blows (typically) wa
as recorded. The blo
ow counts a
are shown on the Log
gs of Boring
gs in
Appendiix A. The blow
b counts
s shown on
n the Logs o
of Borings are the num
mbers reco
orded
in the fie
eld, and hav
ve not been
n corrected or adjusted
d.
ng the comp
Followin pletion of drrilling and sampling,
s th
he boring w
was backfille
ed with cem
ment-
bentonitte grout, an
nd the ground surfac
ce was retu
urned to itss original ccondition to
o the
maximum extent po
ossible.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m A-2 Octobe
er 2012
DRILLING DATE: 7/26/12 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft
LOG OF
DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Wash w/ 5" Drag Bit DATUM:
BORING
DRILL RIG TYPE: CME 75 LOGGED BY: JF
B-1 HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb, falling 30 inches CHECKED BY: KG
LIQUID LIMIT (%)

DEPTH (FEET)
SAMPLE TYPE
GRAPHIC LOG
BLOW COUNT
DRY DENSITY
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE NO.
ADDITIONAL
PLASTICITY
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
MOISTURE
INDEX (%)
TESTS
(PCF)
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), very dark gray, moist, very soft to soft, trace 54 69
6 sand [TOPSOIL]
1A 5 CV
B ORGANIC SILT (OH), peat, dark brown and black, moist, very soft,
4 some clay, many organics
1
2 1 WA
1 (97)
5 3 150 - trace fine-grained sand and shell fragments 65 55 61 28 UC
(0.08)
psi
SANDY SILT(ML), dark gray, wet, very soft, little fine-grained gravel, little
250 to some organics, little fine-grained sand, moderate organic odor CN
4 psi
10
1
5 1
1
200
6 psi - stiffer, trace clay 101 27 NP NP UC
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, wet, very loose, fine-grained (0.48)
SA
1 30 (40)
7 WOH
15
1
1 -changed to loose WA
8 36 NP NP (28)
2
1
20
25
5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark gray, wet, loose, WA
9 27 (6)
5 medium to coarse-grained micaceous sand, little fine-grained
5 subrounded gravel
30
5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) continued, dark gray, WA
10 26 (6)
7 wet, medium dense, medium to coarse-grained micaceous sand, trace
11 fine-grained subrounded gravel
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) dark gray, wet, medium dense,

medium to coarse-grained micaceous sand, trace fine-grained
35 subrounded gravel (small quartz pebbles)
LBG 30 AGS-11-015.GPJ 10/9/12
6 SA
11 23 (4)
6
8
40
JOB NO. AGS-11-015 PROJECT: Walnut Grove Water Tank SHEET 1 OF 3 PLATE A-1.1
LOG OF
BORING
LIQUID LIMIT (%)

DEPTH (FEET)
SAMPLE TYPE
GRAPHIC LOG
BLOW COUNT
DRY DENSITY
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE NO.
ADDITIONAL
PLASTICITY
MOISTURE
INDEX (%)
TESTS
(PCF)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark gray, wet,
medium dense, medium to coarse-grained micaceous sand, trace
fine-grained subrounded gravel (small quartz pebbles)
7 WA
12 25 (6)
8
15
45
50
3 FAT CLAY (CH), grayish-green, moist, stiff, little silt WA

13 39 62 34 (97)
4
7
55
5
14A 6
6
60
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), grayish-green, moist, stiff, consists of SILTY
CLAY WITH INTERBEDDED LENSES OF POORLY GRADED SAND
WITH SILT
7
15 7
8
65
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark greenish-gray, moist, hard, lighter

colored mineral staining, some fine-grained sand and silt
70
21 WA
16 21 19 39 21 (63)
23
75
LBG 30 AGS-11-015.GPJ 10/9/12
80
LOG OF
BORING
LIQUID LIMIT (%)

DEPTH (FEET)
SAMPLE TYPE
GRAPHIC LOG
BLOW COUNT
DRY DENSITY
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE NO.
ADDITIONAL
PLASTICITY
MOISTURE
INDEX (%)
TESTS
(PCF)
SANDY CLAY (CL), dark gray and dark green, medium-stiff, some silt,
trace fine-grained sand, moderately plastic
4 79 41
17A 5
B 7
85
90
-hard
- changed to very hard, few fine-grained sand, mineral staining and light
37 cementation
18 57
64 Boring terminated at a depth of approximately 94 feet below the existing
95
ground surface.
Estimated groundwater depth approximately 3 feet below ground
surface at time of drilling.
Boring backfilled with cement-bentonite grout to 3 feet below ground
surface. top 3 feet was backfilled with soils cuttings.
Boring elevation approximately 2.5 feet lower than existing paved
building pad.
100 Bulk sample of cuttings collected at depth of 1 to 3 feet.
105
110
115
LBG 30 AGS-11-015.GPJ 10/9/12
120
MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES
CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR
NO FINES GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
MORE THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTION
More than Half > #200 sieve
SILTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILT

COARSE GRAINED SOILS
IS LARGER THAN GM MIXTURES

GRAVELS WITH
NO. 4 SIEVE
OVER 15% FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY
GC MIXTURES
CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

SANDS WITH LITTLE
OR NO FINES SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS
COARSE FRACTION
IS SMALLER THAN SM SILTY SANDS, POOORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES
SANDS WITH
NO. 4 SIEVE
OVER 15% FINES
SC CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,

ML SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
More than Half < #200 sieve
CL GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

FINE GRAINED SOILS
LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
OL PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE

MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
SILTS AND CLAYS
CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
OH ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Modified California Sampler (2.5-inch I.D.) 1.5 Pocket Penetrometer - Field, tsf
Standard penetration Test (1.5-inch I.D.) RV R-Value
Pitcher Barrel DS Direct Shear
HQ Core Barrel TX Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
Bulk Sample (Auger Cuttings) NP Non-Plastic
Sample Attempt with No Recovery UC Unconfined Compression/Uniaxial Compressive Strength
CA Chemical Analysis (1.2) (Unconfined Strength, ksf)
CV Corrosivity SA Sieve Analysis
CN Consolidation WA Wash Analysis

(20) (with % Passing No. 200 Sieve)
CP Compaction
Water Level at Time of Drilling
Is Point Load Index
Water Level after Drilling (with date measured)
TS Thin Section Analysis
ADDITIONAL TESTS AND KEY TO TEST DATA
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA

Walnut Grove Water System Proposed Tank
Geotechnical Investigation
JOB NO. AGS 11-015 DATE August 2012 PLATE A-2.1
APPENDIX B
GEO
OTECHNIC
CAL FIELD AND LAB
BORATORY
Y TESTING
G
B.1 GENERAL
G
nary visual soil

Prelimin s classific
cations were made byy AGS in th
he field in a
accordance
e with
ASTM D-2488
D -93,, Standard Practice fo
or Descriptio
on and Identification o
of Soils (Visual-
ompletion off drilling, the samples collected frrom the borings
Manual Procedure)). Upon co
were tak
ken to AGS
S’ laboratory for exam nd analysess. The soiil classifications
mination an
were ve
erified by ob
bservation of the sam
mples in the
e laboratoryy and a tessting progra
am in
accordance with ASTM
A D-24
487 -93, Sttandard Classification
n of Soils ffor Enginee
ering
es (Unified Soil
Purpose S Classiffication Sys
stem).
hnical field and laborratory tests

Geotech s were pe
erformed on selected
d soil and rock
samples
s in order to
t evaluate
e the engin
neering pro
operties of the materiials. The tests
included
d particle siz
ze, moisturre content and
a densityy measurem
ments, Atterrberg limits,, and
consolid
dation tests.
B.2 FIELD
F TEST
TING
The blow
ws required
d to drive th
he samplerrs, using a 140-pound hammer fa
alling 30 inches
for an 18-inch
1 pen
netration, were
w used to assist iin classifying the rela
ative density of
cohesion
nless soil deposits
d and the stifffness of co
ohesive so
oil depositss. Blow co
ounts
recorded
d by AGS in
n the field are
a shown on
o the Logss of Boringss.
B.3 LABORATO
ORY TESTIN
NG
oratory tes
The labo sts were pe
erformed us
sing the techniques a
and proced
dures discussed
below.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-1 Octobe
er 2012
B.3.1 Particle
P Size
e
Particle size analys

ses were conducted
c on d samples in accordance with A
o selected ASTM
D-422, Standard Test
T Metho
od for Partticle Size A
Analysis off Soils or ASTM D-1
1140,
Standard Test Metthod for Am Soils Finer than the N
mount of Material in S No. 200 (75
5-µm)
Sieve. The
T results of the particle size an
nd wash an alyses are presented on Plates B
B-1.1
and B-1.2, Particle
e Size Analysis. The amounts p
passing the No. 200 sieve are sh
hown
on the Logs
L of Boriings.
B.3.2 Moisture
M and
d Density Tests
T
Moisture
e content and
a density
y tests werre performe
ed on sele
ected samp
ples to evaluate
their consistencies
s and the moisture variation
v thrroughout the explore
ed profile. The
moisture
e content was
w evaluatted in acco
ordance witth ASTM D
D-2216 -92,, Standard Test
Method for Laborattory Determ
mination of Water (Moiisture) Con
ntent of Soill and Rock,, and
was con
nsidered to represent the moistu
ure content of the enttire sample for dry de
ensity
evaluatio
on. The te
est results are presen
nted on the
e Logs of B
Borings at the approp
priate
sample depth, in Appendix A.
B.3.3 Atterberg
A Lim
mits
Atterberrg limits were evaluate

ed on selectted cohesivve, fine-grained soil sa
amples to a
assist
in their classificatio
c on. Liquid limits, plastiic limits, an
nd plasticityy indices we
ere evaluated in
A D-43
318, Standa
ard Test M
Method for Liquid Limiit, Plastic L
Limit,
sticity Index
and Plas x of Soils. The results
s of the Atte
erberg limitts tests are
e included in
n the
Plasticity
y Chart in Appendix
A B,
B Plate B-2
2.1. Liquid
d limits and plasticity indices are also
shown on
o the Logs
s of Borings
s, in Append
dix A.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-2 Octobe
er 2012
B.3.4 Consolidatio
C on Tests
dation tests
Consolid s were perfformed on selected u
undisturbed
d soil samp
ples, by Co
ooper
Testing Laboratory
y of Palo Alto,
A Califorrnia, to eva
aluate theirr consolida
ation properties.
The testts were con
nducted in accordance with AST
TM D2435 Standard T
Test Metho
od for
One-Dim
mensional Consolidati
C on Propertties of Soil.. The Con
nsolidation test resultss are
shown on
o Plates B-3.1
B and B-3.2.
B The
e major con
nstraint reg
garding cho
oice of sam
mples
was the presence of
o shells afffecting the results.
B.3.5 Unconfined
U Compressiv
C ve Strength
h Tests
Unconfin
ned comprressive stre
ength tests
s were pe
erformed o
on selected
d cohesive soil
samples
s to evalua
ate their strength
s ch
haracteristiccs. The tests were
e conducte
ed in
A D-21
166, Standard Test M
Method for Unconfined Compresssive
Strength
h of Cohesive Soil. Th
he unconfin
ned compre
essive stren
ngth test ressults are sh
hown
on Plate
es B-4.1 and
d B-4.2.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-3 Octobe
er 2012
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 70 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
P
E 70
R
C 65
E
N 60
T
55
F 50
I
N 45
E
40
R
35
B
Y 30
W 25
E
20
I
G 15
H
T 10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAMPLE SOURCE CLASSIFICATION MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu
B-1 @ 5.0' Organic Silt (OH) 55 61 33 28
B-1 @ 13.0' Sandy Silt (ML)
B-1 @ 18.5' Silty Sand (SM) 36 NP NP NP
B-1 @ 26.0' Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) 27

SAMPLE SOURCE D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-1 @ 5.0' 0.08 0.0 0.0 96.6
B-1 @ 13.0' 12.50 0.14 3.0 56.7 40.3
B-1 @ 18.5' 0.08 0.0 0.0 28.4
B-1 @ 26.0' 0.08 0.0 0.0 5.8
B-1 @ 31.0' 0.08 0.0 0.0 5.6
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Walnut Grove Water Tank
Walnut Grove, California
JOB NO. AGS-11-015 DATE Oct 2012 PLATE B-1.1
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 70 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
P
E 70
R
C 65
E
N 60
T
55
F 50
I
N 45
E
40
R
35
B
Y 30
W 25
E
20
I
G 15
H
T 10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAMPLE SOURCE CLASSIFICATION MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu
B-1 @ 38.5' Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 23 1.24 2.7
B-1 @ 53.5' Fat Clay (CH) 39 62 28 34
B-1 @ 73.5' Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 19 39 18 21
SAMPLE SOURCE D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-1 @ 38.5' 12.50 0.41 0.278 0.1516 2.4 93.5 4.0
B-1 @ 43.5' 0.08 0.0 0.0 6.0
B-1 @ 53.5' 0.08 0.0 0.0 97.0
B-1 @ 73.5' 0.08 0.0 0.0 63.4
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

80
70
60 CH
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
50
CL
40
30
20 MH or OH
10
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY % PASSING

SAMPLE SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
LIMIT (%) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%) #200 SIEVE
B-1 @ 5.0' Organic Silt (OH) 61 33 28 97
B-1 @ 12.5' Silty Sand (SM) NP NP NP
B-1 @ 18.5' Silty Sand (SM) NP NP NP 28
B-1 @ 53.5' Fat Clay (CH) 62 28 34 97
B-1 @ 73.5' Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 39 18 21 63
PLASTICITY CHART
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
Job No.: 041-094 Boring: B1-4 Run By: MD

Client: AGS Sample: Reduced: PJ
Project: AGS 11-015 Depth, ft.: 7-9(Tip-9") Checked: PJ/DC
Soil Type: Dark Greenish Gray CLAY w/ Sand Date: 8/31/2012
Strain-Log-P Curve
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Strain, %
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Effective Stress, psf
Ass. Gs = 2.75 Initial Final Remarks: The 550 psf point was shifted to 600 psf due to regulator
Moisture %: 36.6 30.8 drift.
Dry Density, pcf: 80.1 93.1
Void Ratio: 1.143 0.845
% Saturation: 87.9 100
PLATE B-3.1
500
450
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STRAIN (%)
Ultimate Strain Dry Moisture

Sample Source Classification Type of Test Strength Density Content
(psf) (%) (pcf) (%)
B-1 @ 5.0' Organic Silt (OH) 75 1 65 55.1
UC = Unconfined Compression
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

500
450
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STRAIN (%)
Ultimate Strain Dry Moisture

Sample Source Classification Type of Test Strength Density Content
(psf) (%) (pcf) (%)
B-1 @ 12.5' Silty Sand (SM) 478 3 98 27.3
UC = Unconfined Compression
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

APPENDIX C
CORROS
SIVITY TES
STING
Corrosivity Test Summary
CTL # 041-094 Date: 8/22/2012 Tested By: PJ Checked: PJ

Client: AGS Project: Walnut Grove Water Syst. Proj. No: AGS 11-015
Remarks:
Sample Location or ID Resistivity @ 15.5 oC (Ohm-cm) Chloride Sulfate-(water soluble) pH ORP Sulfide Moisture
Boring Sample, No. Depth, ft. As Rec. Minimum 100% mg/kg mg/kg % (Redox) Qualitative % Soil Visual Description
Saturated Dry Wt. Dry Wt. Dry Wt. mv by Lead At Test
ASTM D4327 /
ASTM G57 Cal 643 ASTM G57 Cal 422-mod. ASTM D4327 / Cal 417-mod. ASTM G51 SM 2580B Acetate Paper ASTM D2216
B1 Bulk 3 - - 3,390 30 119 0.0119 7.5 11 - 140.5 Black CLAY w/ organics

B1-1A - 0.5 - - 2,408 27 18 0.0018 6.2 300 - 13.4 Very Dark Brown Clayey SAND
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFAC
CTION ANA
ALYSIS
D.1 GENERAL
G
uefaction is a phenom
Soil liqu menon in which
w satura
ated (subm
merged) coh
hesionless soils
experien
nce a temp
porary loss
s of streng
gth due to the build-up of exce
ess pore w
water
pressure
e during cy
yclic seismic loadings
s. In the p
process, th
he soil acqu
uires a mo
obility
sufficien
nt to permitt both horiz
zontal and vertical mo
ovements. Soils most susceptib
ble to
liquefacttion are loo
ose, clean, saturated,
s and
a uniform
mly graded, fine-graine
ed sands, w
which
lie within
n about 50 feet of the
e ground su
urface. Sa
aturated loo
ose silty an
nd clayey sands
may also
o liquefy du
uring strong
g ground sh
haking.
ppendix pre
This ap esents the results off our lique
efaction po
otential eva
aluation forr the
propose
ed improvem
ment discus ential evaluation
ssed in the main text. The liqueffaction pote
was bas
sed on the results of our field ex
xploration p
program, w
whereby blo
ow counts w
were
recorded
d by driving
g the Califo
ornia Modiffied (MC) a
and Standard Penetration Test (S
SPT)
samplerrs. The blow
w counts sh
hown on the
ese plates w
were correccted for varrious factorrs, as
discusse
ed below, and
a used in the liquefa
action analyyses.
The des
sign earthqu
uakes evalu
uated were
e a Maximu
um Momentt Magnitude
e event of M
M6.9
on the Great Valle
ey 3. The Great Vallley 3 Faultt is located
d a minimum distancce of
approxim
mately 29 Kilometer
K (Km) from the
t site. O
Our evaluatiions were m
made using
g the
liquefacttion evalua
ation proc
cedure dev
veloped byy National Center ffor Earthquake
Enginee
ering (NCE
EE), 1996 and Youd 2001, ba quefaction observatio
ased on liq on in
previous
s earthquak
kes.
A comprrehensive collection
c of site conditions at varrious locatio
ons where some evidence
of liqueffaction was known to have
h or to have
h not takken place w
was collecte
ed by Seed
d and
others (1984). These data on sandy soils
s with a fin es content less than 5 percent u
under
magnitude 7.5 earthquake conditions
c was
w prese nted as re
elationshipss between field
values of
o average cyclic
c stress ratio, τav/σ
σ'o (where: τav = avera
age horizon
ntal shear sttress
induced by an earrthquake; and
a σ'o = in
nitial effecttive overburden presssure on the
e soil
elementt), and the SPT blow counts
c corrrected for ccertain effeccts. For an
n earthquakke of
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m D-1 Octobe
er 2012
magnitude 7.9, the
e cyclic she
ear stress ratio
r necesssary to cause liquefa
action in Se
eed’s
curve was correcte
ed to accou
unt for the earthquake
e e magnitude
e or duratio
on effect (Id
driss,
1996).
For the first step in

i estimatin
ng liquefac
ction potenttial, the me
easured SP
PT blow co
ounts
should be
b correcte
ed for vario
ous factors using the method prroposed byy NCEE (19
996).
The raw
w SPT blow
w count, N, is corrected to obtain the modified penetra
ation resista
ance,
(N1)60. The
T modifie
ed penetration resistan
nce is comp
puted as follows:
(N1)60
6 = N x Cm x Cz x Ch x Cs x Cn (D.1
1)
where:
N: ra
aw SPT or Modified California blo
ow count (b
blows/ft);
Cm: a factor to co
orrect for th
he larger siz
ze of the M
Modified California sam
mpler.
Raw
R blow co
ounts using
g a Modified
d California sampler w
were multiplied by 0.61;
Cz: a factor that depends on
o the lengtth of the driive rods; th
he following
g Cz factors may
be used for various dep
pths:
Depth
D Cz
20 < x <30 ft
f 1.0
13 < x <20 ft
f 0.95
10 < x <13 ft
f 0.85
<10 ft 0.75
Ch: a factor thatt accounts for
f the ham
mmer efficie
ency used in
n the field, where the blow
count is multiplied by a factor of 0.9;
Cs: a factor tha
at depends on the sampling tub
be; for a sp
plit-spoon ssampler witthout
lin
ner (ID = 1..5" and OD = 2.0"), the
e following Cs factors may be use
ed:
Raw
R Blow Count,
C N CS
< 10 1.0
> 10 1.2
Cn: a factor that depends on
o the effec urden presssure at the depth when
ctive overbu n the
penetration test was co
onducted.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-2 Octobe
er 2012
As presented by NCEE
N n factor, (N
(1996), anotherr correction N1)60, shou
uld be adde
ed to
(N1)60 to account fo
or fine conte
ents as follo
ows:
(N1)60 Finne = (N1)60 + (N1)60
erage cycliic stress ra

The ave atio, τav/σ'o, at a spe
ecific depth
h can be estimated from
dynamic
c site respo
onse analyses. It als
so can be estimated with reasonable accu
uracy
from the
e following equation
e as
s discussed
d by Seed a
and Idriss (1
1982).
τav/σ'o=0.65 x amax
m /g x σo/σ
σ'o x rd (D.2)
where:
amax: maximum
m ac
cceleration at the grou
und surface
e;
σo: to
otal overburrden pressu
ure on sand
d layer;
σo’: effective ove
erburden prressure on sand layer;;
r d: a stress redu
uction facto
or.
Based on
o the mag
gnitude of the
t design earthquake
e, and the peak ground acceleration
generate
ed by that earthquake
e e, the cyclic stress ratio
o was calcu
ulated using
g Equation D.2.
The cyclic stress ra
atio was the
en corrected to accoun
nt for an ea
arthquake m
magnitude o
other
than 7.5
5. The res
sulting curv
ve of the threshold
t e
earthquake
e, together with a plo
ot of
cumulative liquefa
action and
d seismically-induce d settlem
ment versu
us depth was
generate
ed, as show
wn on Plate
e D-1 for a M6.9
M eventt on the Gre
eat Valley 3 Fault.
D.2 SEISMIC
CALLY-INDUCED SET
TTLEMENT
T
For coarse-grained
d soils such
h as sand and
a gravel with variou
us amount of silt and clay,
AGS use
ed a liquefa
action evalu by Seed and his
uation apprroach develloped over the years b
co-autho
ors.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-3 Octobe
er 2012
For fine
e-grained soils
s such as silt and
a clay, there are currently two scree
ening
procedu
ures. Both approache
es are base
ed on modiified Chinese Criteria for liquefa
action
evaluatio
on of fine-g
grained soills. The firs
st approach
h was deve
eloped by B
Bray and Sa
ancio
(2006), and another approac
ch was dev
veloped byy Boulanger and Idrisss (2006). The
Bray and
d Sancio (2
2006) criteria state tha
at a soil is:
a) Susceptible
S to liquefacttion if wc/L PI < 12, and
LL > 0.85, P d LL<37
b) Moderately
M susceptible
s e to liquefac
ction if 0.8 <
<wc/LL< 0.9 and 12< PI <18
c) Not
N susceptible to lique
efaction if wc/LL< 0.8
8 and PI >18
where wc is water content, LL

L is Liquid
d Limit, and
d PI is Pla
asticity Inde
ex. The criteria
presente
ed by Boula
anger and Idriss (2006
6) state thatt a soil is
a) sand-like if PI < 7
b) clay-like if PI
P >7
where sand-like
s soils
s are su
usceptible to liquefacction, and clay-like ssoils should
d be
evaluate
ed using Bo
oulanger and Idriss (2
2004) criterria based o
on the cyclic triaxial sshear
testing.
erformed Attterberg lim

AGS pe mits test on
n five (5) so
oil sampless of subsurrface materials.
Test res
sults on these soil sam
mples are sh
hown on Ap
ppendices A and B. using the ab
bove-
mentioned criteria, the organic
c silt and clay layer (0 to 7 feet bgs) and fat clay and sandy
ers (53 feett to 92 feet bgs) are not susceptiible to lique
clay laye efaction. Ho
owever, existing
very loo
ose to medium dens
se sandy layers (7 ffeet to 53 feet bgs) in Boring B-1
considerred being susceptible
s to liquefacttion.
Based on
o the estim
mated thick able soils, the estimatted seismiccally-
knesses of the liquefia
induced settlementt of the site would be about
a 9 inch
hes as show
wn on Plate
es D-1.
Walnut Grov
ve Water System
m B-4 Octobe
er 2012
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING
A.1 EXPLORATION
AGS obtained a drilling permit through the County of San Mateo Environmental Health
Department, and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) for utilities to be marked
relative to each proposed boring location.
Drilling was performed by Geoex Subsurface Exploration of Dixon, California, using a

rotary wash truck-mounted CME 75 drilling rig with a 5-inch diameter bit.
The drilling spoils were placed inside 55-gallon drums, sealed, and after analytical test
results on a composite soil sample were available, transported from the site. The
subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were continuously logged in the field
during drilling operations by a geologist from AGS. Plate A-1.1 - Log of Borings B-1
gives descriptions and graphic representations of the encountered materials, the depths
at which samples were obtained, and the laboratory tests performed. The legend to the
logs is shown on Plate A-2 - Soil Classification Chart and Key to Test Data.
A.2 SAMPLING
Soil samples, as appropriate for the various earth materials encountered, were collected
using standard penetration test (SPT), modified California (MC) samplers, and Shelby
Tube samplers. Samples were typically collected at least once in each 5-foot depth
interval.
Relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained with the MC sampler were collected into
2.5-inch outside diameter by 6-inch long brass or stainless steel liners. The liners were
immediately capped, sealed with vinyl tape, and labeled. Soil samples collected from
the SPT sampler were placed into plastic bags and labeled. The Shelby Tube samples
were stored in approximately 30-inch long Shelby Tubes, capped and sealed. All the
liners were kept upright and cushioned from shock.
Walnut Grove Water System A-1 November 2012

The SPT and MC samplers were driven with a hydraulically-operated automatic 140-
pound hammer, falling 30 inches for an 18-inch penetration, where possible. The blows
required to advance the samplers were used to assist in classifying the apparent density
of cohesionless soil deposits, and the relative consistency of cohesive soil deposits.
The blow counts required to drive the sampler for each 6-inch increment were recorded;
except where refusal was met, in which case the number of inches penetrated by 50
blows (typically) was recorded. The blow counts are shown on the Logs of Borings in
Appendix A. The blow counts shown on the Logs of Borings are the numbers recorded
in the field, and have not been corrected or adjusted.
Following the completion of drilling and sampling, the boring was backfilled with cement-
bentonite grout, and the ground surface was returned to its original condition to the
maximum extent possible.
Walnut Grove Water System A-2 November 2012

APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
B.1 GENERAL
Preliminary visual soil classifications were made by AGS in the field in accordance with
ASTM D-2488 -93, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedure). Upon completion of drilling, the samples collected from the borings
were taken to AGS’ laboratory for examination and analyses. The soil classifications
were verified by observation of the samples in the laboratory and a testing program in
accordance with ASTM D-2487 -93, Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
Geotechnical field and laboratory tests were performed on selected soil and rock
samples in order to evaluate the engineering properties of the materials. The tests
included particle size, moisture content and density measurements, Atterberg limits, and
consolidation tests.
B.2 FIELD TESTING
The blows required to drive the samplers, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches
for an 18-inch penetration, were used to assist in classifying the relative density of
cohesionless soil deposits and the stiffness of cohesive soil deposits. Blow counts
recorded by AGS in the field are shown on the Logs of Borings.
B.3 LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory tests were performed using the techniques and procedures discussed
below.
Walnut Grove Water System B-1 November 2012

B.3.1 Particle Size
Particle size analyses were conducted on selected samples in accordance with ASTM
D-422, Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils or ASTM D-1140,
Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75-µm)
Sieve. The results of the particle size and wash analyses are presented on Plates B-1.1
and B-1.2, Particle Size Analysis. The amounts passing the No. 200 sieve are shown
on the Logs of Borings.
B.3.2 Moisture and Density Tests
Moisture content and density tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate
their consistencies and the moisture variation throughout the explored profile. The
moisture content was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D-2216 -92, Standard Test
Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock, and
was considered to represent the moisture content of the entire sample for dry density
evaluation. The test results are presented on the Logs of Borings at the appropriate
sample depth, in Appendix A.
B.3.3 Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were evaluated on selected cohesive, fine-grained soil samples to assist
in their classification. Liquid limits, plastic limits, and plasticity indices were evaluated in
accordance with ASTM D-4318, Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,
and Plasticity Index of Soils. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are included in the
Plasticity Chart in Appendix B, Plate B-2.1. Liquid limits and plasticity indices are also
shown on the Logs of Borings, in Appendix A.

B.3.4 Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil samples, by Cooper

Testing Laboratory of Palo Alto, California, to evaluate their consolidation properties.
The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D2435 Standard Test Method for
One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soil. The Consolidation test results are
shown on Plates B-3.1 and B-3.2. The major constraint regarding choice of samples
was the presence of shells affecting the results.
B.3.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests
Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on selected cohesive soil

samples to evaluate their strength characteristics. The tests were conducted in
accordance with ASTM D-2166, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive
Strength of Cohesive Soil. The unconfined compressive strength test results are shown
on Plates B-4.1 and B-4.2.

APPENDIX C
CORROSIVITY TESTING
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
D.1 GENERAL
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged) cohesionless soils

experience a temporary loss of strength due to the build-up of excess pore water
pressure during cyclic seismic loadings. In the process, the soil acquires a mobility
sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, and uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, which
lie within about 50 feet of the ground surface. Saturated loose silty and clayey sands
may also liquefy during strong ground shaking.
This appendix presents the results of our liquefaction potential evaluation for the
proposed improvement discussed in the main text. The liquefaction potential evaluation
was based on the results of our field exploration program, whereby blow counts were
recorded by driving the California Modified (MC) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
samplers. The blow counts shown on these plates were corrected for various factors, as
discussed below, and used in the liquefaction analyses.
The design earthquakes evaluated were a Maximum Moment Magnitude event of M6.9
on the Great Valley 3. The Great Valley 3 Fault is located a minimum distance of
approximately 29 Kilometer (Km) from the site. Our evaluations were made using the
liquefaction evaluation procedure developed by National Center for Earthquake
Engineering (NCEE), 1996 and Youd 2001, based on liquefaction observation in
previous earthquakes.
A comprehensive collection of site conditions at various locations where some evidence

of liquefaction was known to have or to have not taken place was collected by Seed and
others (1984). These data on sandy soils with a fines content less than 5 percent under
magnitude 7.5 earthquake conditions was presented as relationships between field
values of average cyclic stress ratio, τav/σ'o (where: τav = average horizontal shear stress
induced by an earthquake; and σ'o = initial effective overburden pressure on the soil
element), and the SPT blow counts corrected for certain effects. For an earthquake of
Walnut Grove Water System D-1 November 2012

magnitude 7.9, the cyclic shear stress ratio necessary to cause liquefaction in Seed’s
curve was corrected to account for the earthquake magnitude or duration effect (Idriss,
1996).
For the first step in estimating liquefaction potential, the measured SPT blow counts
should be corrected for various factors using the method proposed by NCEE (1996).
The raw SPT blow count, N, is corrected to obtain the modified penetration resistance,
(N1)60. The modified penetration resistance is computed as follows:
(N1)60 = N x Cm x Cz x Ch x Cs x Cn (D.1)
where:
N: raw SPT or Modified California blow count (blows/ft);
Cm: a factor to correct for the larger size of the Modified California sampler.
Raw blow counts using a Modified California sampler were multiplied by 0.61;
Cz: a factor that depends on the length of the drive rods; the following Cz factors may
be used for various depths:
Depth Cz
20 < x <30 ft 1.0
13 < x <20 ft 0.95
10 < x <13 ft 0.85
<10 ft 0.75
Ch: a factor that accounts for the hammer efficiency used in the field, where the blow
count is multiplied by a factor of 0.9;
Cs: a factor that depends on the sampling tube; for a split-spoon sampler without
liner (ID = 1.5" and OD = 2.0"), the following Cs factors may be used:
Raw Blow Count, N CS
< 10 1.0
> 10 1.2
Cn: a factor that depends on the effective overburden pressure at the depth when the
penetration test was conducted.

As presented by NCEE (1996), another correction factor, (N1)60, should be added to
(N1)60 to account for fine contents as follows:
(N1)60 Fine = (N1)60 + (N1)60
The average cyclic stress ratio, τav/σ'o, at a specific depth can be estimated from
dynamic site response analyses. It also can be estimated with reasonable accuracy
from the following equation as discussed by Seed and Idriss (1982).
τav/σ'o=0.65 x amax/g x σo/σ'o x rd (D.2)
where:
amax: maximum acceleration at the ground surface;
σo: total overburden pressure on sand layer;
σo’: effective overburden pressure on sand layer;
r d: a stress reduction factor.
Based on the magnitude of the design earthquake, and the peak ground acceleration
generated by that earthquake, the cyclic stress ratio was calculated using Equation D.2.
The cyclic stress ratio was then corrected to account for an earthquake magnitude other
than 7.5. The resulting curve of the threshold earthquake, together with a plot of
cumulative liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement versus depth was
generated, as shown on Plate D-1 for a M6.9 event on the Great Valley 3 Fault.
D.2 SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
For coarse-grained soils such as sand and gravel with various amount of silt and clay,
AGS used a liquefaction evaluation approach developed over the years by Seed and his
co-authors.

For fine-grained soils such as silt and clay, there are currently two screening
procedures. Both approaches are based on modified Chinese Criteria for liquefaction
evaluation of fine-grained soils. The first approach was developed by Bray and Sancio
(2006), and another approach was developed by Boulanger and Idriss (2006). The
Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria state that a soil is:
a) Susceptible to liquefaction if wc/LL > 0.85, PI < 12, and LL<37
b) Moderately susceptible to liquefaction if 0.8 <wc/LL< 0.9 and 12< PI <18
c) Not susceptible to liquefaction if wc/LL< 0.8 and PI >18
where wc is water content, LL is Liquid Limit, and PI is Plasticity Index. The criteria
presented by Boulanger and Idriss (2006) state that a soil is
a) sand-like if PI < 7
b) clay-like if PI > 7
where sand-like soils are susceptible to liquefaction, and clay-like soils should be
evaluated using Boulanger and Idriss (2004) criteria based on the cyclic triaxial shear
testing.
AGS performed Atterberg limits test on five (5) soil samples of subsurface materials.
Test results on these soil samples are shown on Appendices A and B. using the above-
mentioned criteria, the organic silt and clay layer (0 to 7 feet bgs) and fat clay and sandy
clay layers (53 feet to 92 feet bgs) are not susceptible to liquefaction. However, existing
very loose to medium dense sandy layers (7 feet to 53 feet bgs) in Boring B-1
considered being susceptible to liquefaction.
Based on the estimated thicknesses of the liquefiable soils, the estimated seismically-
induced settlement of the site would be about 9 inches as shown on Plates D-1.

Gtreport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gtreport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Gtreport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED WATER STORAGE TANK

WALNUT GROVE, CALIFORNIA

MWH AMERICAS INC

PROPOSED WATER STORAGE TANK

WALNUT GROVE, CALIFORNIA

AGS Job No. 11-015

MWH AMERICAS INC

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

Walnut Grove Water System i November 2012

3.2.9 Vertical Acceleration ................................................................................ 11

Walnut Grove Water System ii November 2012

3.6 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS .............................................................. 29

Walnut Grove Water System iii November 2012

PLATE 4 – VERTICAL SURCHARGE PRESSURES

Walnut Grove Water System iv November 2012

This report includes geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Walnut Grove Water System 1 November 2012

1.3 WORK PERFORMED

1.3.1 Review of Available Data

AGS reviewed readily available reports of geotechnical studies previously conducted by

1.3.2 Field Exploration

Walnut Grove Water System 2 November 2012

1.3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Walnut Grove Water System 3 November 2012

 Subsurface soil conditions;

Walnut Grove Water System 4 November 2012

2.1 SITE CONDITIONS

2.3 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY

The maximum moment magnitude earthquake (Mmax) is defined as the largest

Walnut Grove Water System 5 November 2012

Distance to Maximum Slip

2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered in Boring B-1 consisted of approximately 7 feet

Walnut Grove Water System 6 November 2012

2.7 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

Walnut Grove Water System 7 November 2012

The major geotechnical considerations for this project are:

• Presence of compressible soils with the potential of up to 10 inches of static

3.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The geotechnical seismic design recommendations and geoseismic hazards are

3.2.2 Fault Rapture Hazard

Walnut Grove Water System 8 November 2012

3.2.4 Estimated Earthquake Ground Motions

3.2.5 Deterministic Methods

Walnut Grove Water System 9 November 2012

3.2.6 Probabilistic Methods

3.2.7 2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria

Factor Site Class/ Value

Short-Period (0.2 sec.) MCE, g 0.85

Walnut Grove Water System 10 November 2012

The probabilistic spectral response acceleration of 2,500-year return period,

3.2.9 Vertical Acceleration

3.2.10 Liquefaction Hazard

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged) cohesionless soils

Walnut Grove Water System 11 November 2012

Probabilistic Analysis Deterministic