SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Geotechnical Investigation ... · SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON...

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Geotechnical Investigation

Triton 115/12 KV Substation City of Temecula Riverside County, California

September 26, 2008

TDBU Civil/Geotechnical Engineering Group

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Triton 115/12 kV Substation

City of Temecula, Riverside County, California

i

September 26, 2008

Jerry Silva Project ManagerT & D Business Unit Project Licensing Southern California Edison

Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Triton 115/12 kV Substation City of Temecula, Riverside County, California

Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Group TDBU has prepared this report to present the findings of the geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed Fogarty Substation to be located east of Terra Cotta Road, Between Hoff Avenue and King Highway Lake Elsinore, California. The subject substation site can be developed from a geotechnical standpoint to support the proposed structures, provided the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated in the preparation of the final grading plan, foundation design, and construction of the project.

The recommendations contained herein are contingent upon adequate monitoring of the geotechnical aspects of the construction.

If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

_________________

Esam Abraham, PE Civil Engineering GroupT&D Business Unit 2131 Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Cell : (626) 695-1097

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 12.1 SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 12.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 1

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING............................................ 13.1 FIELD EXPLORATION .............................................................................................. 13.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................... 23.3 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING...................................................................................... 23.4 PERCOLATION TESTING .......................................................................................... 33.5 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TESTING .......................................................................... 3

4.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................... 3

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................ 35.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 35.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 45.3 GROUNDWATER..................................................................................................... 45.4 FLOODING ............................................................................................................. 45.5 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS ..................................................... 4

6.0 FAULTING ............................................................................................................. 56.1 SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS .......................................................................................... 66.2 SECONDARY EFFECTS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY ............................................................ 7

7.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 87.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 87.2 OVER-EXCAVATION/REMOVAL FOR PROPOSED SUBSTATION STRUCTURES ................. 87.3 OVER-EXCAVATION/REMOVAL FOR PAVEMENT AREAS .............................................. 87.4 STRUCTURAL FILL.................................................................................................. 97.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE............................................................................... 107.6 EXCAVATIONS AND TEMPORARY SLOPES ............................................................... 107.7 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................... 10

8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 118.1 GENERAL EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 118.2 FOUNDATION TYPES AND BEARING PRESSURES ..................................................... 118.3 DRILLED CAST-IN-PLACE FRICTION PILES.............................................................. 128.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS ........................ 128.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE............................................................................................... 128.6 SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATION ........................................................................... 13

iii

8.7 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT........................................................................... 138.8 SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................... 14

9.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................ 15

10.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A……………………….……………………………………………..Field Exploration Appendix B………………………………………………….……...Laboratory Testing ProgramAppendix C……………………………………………..…..Soil Environmental Testing ResultsAppendix D………………………………………………….………Percolation Testing ResultsAppendix E……………………………...………………….………….……Soil Resistivity StudyAppendix F……………………………...…………………………..………………..…Bipile Data

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

ACI – American Concrete Institute ADSC – An International Association of Foundation Drilling Contractors ASTM – American Standard Testing and Measurement CBC – California Building Code EI – Expansion Index MSL – Mean Sea Level Mw – Maximum Moment Magnitude SCE – Southern California Edison SE – Sand Equivalent SPT – Standard Penetration Test pcf – Pounds per cubic foot ksf – Kips per square foot



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of the geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed Triton 115/12 kV Substation to be located southeast of the intersection of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road, in the city of Temecula, California. For the site location, see Figure 1. Site Location Map.

The purposes of this investigation were to determine the nature and engineering properties of the subsurface soils; and to provide preliminary recommendations regarding general site-grading, and foundation design and construction. The site plan is included in this report as Figure 2. Approximate Boring Location Map.

No site grading plan was available at the time this report was prepared. The site earthwork and design recommendations provided in this report should be considered preliminary. The final grading plan should be reviewed for compliance with the design recommendations.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Location Description

The site is bounded by Nicholas Road to the north, vacant land to the east, residential homes to the south, and Calle Medusa in the west. The site is currently covered by low level grasses and wild flowers. The site is relatively flat with slight gradient to the west. Drainage is by sheet flow to the west.

2.2 Proposed Development

The major structures of the substation will consist of 115 KV and 12 KV switchracks and 115/12KV transformer bank, in addition to circuit breakers, capacitor banks, and a mechanical and electrical equipment room (MEER). The units will be supported on shallow or mat foundations, and drilled shafts.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING

The scope of the field investigation and the laboratory testing included a review of existing information, site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration for geotechnical and environmental soil sampling, percolation testing, and electrical resistivity testing.

3.1 Field Exploration

A total of five soil borings were drilled on July 22, 2008. These borings were completed under the supervision of a Southern California Edison engineer. The approximate soil boring locations are shown in Figure 2. Approximate Boring Location Map.

The borings (B1 to B5) were drilled within the project site using a truck mounted drill rig

Figure No.

SITE LOCATION MAPProject Name: Triton 115/12 KV Substation

Location: City of Temecula, California

TDBU

Source: USGS, Quadrangle

1Civil/Geotechnical Engineering Group

SiteLocation

Figure No.

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION MAPProject Name: Triton 115/12 KV Substation

Location: City of Temecula, California

TDBU

Source: SCE drawing

2Civil/Geotechnical Engineering Group



2

equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers for soil sampling. The boring depths ranged from 26.5 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).

Relatively undisturbed thin-walled ring and bulk samples of representative subsurface materials were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed starting at 7 feet bgs using a standard split-barrel sampler (1.4 inches inside diameter and 2.0 inches outside diameter).

For a description of the field exploration and sampling program, see Appendix A, FieldExploration.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Representative samples of the site soils were tested in the laboratory to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate relevant engineering properties of the site soils. These tests included:

� In situ moisture contents and dry densities (ASTM Standard D2216) � Collapse (ASTM Standard D5333) � Expansion Index (ASTM Standard D4829) � Soil corrosivity tests (Caltrans 643, 422, 417, and 532) � Percent passing the #200 sieve (ASTM Standard D1140) � Grain size distribution (ASTM Standard D422)� Maximum dry density and optimum-moisture content relationship (ASTM

Standard D1557)� Direct shear (ASTM Standard D3080) � Consolidation (ASTM Standard D2435)

For in situ moisture content, see the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration. For a description of the laboratory test methods and test results, see Appendix B, LaboratoryTesting Program.

3.3 Environmental Testing

On July 22, 2008, representative samples were collected for environmental testing concurrently during the geotechnical site exploration. Soil samples were collected in 8 oz jars, labeled and placed on ice in an ice chest for transportation to American Scientific Laboratories, LLC with the chain of custody. Soil samples were collected at 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 feet bgs from each boring.

Samples were transported to American Scientific Laboratories, LLC on July 22, 2008. The test results, including chain-of-custody documentation, are included Appendix C, SoilEnvironmental Testing Results.



3

3.4 Percolation Testing

Percolation tests were conducted in two borings, B1 and B5. The borings were originally drilled to 51.5 and 36.5 feet bgs during our field exploration. The borings were then backfilled to the depth of 11.0 and 8.0 feet bgs, respectively, for percolation testing. Plastic perforated pipes, 2-inch diameter were inserted into the borings. The borings were presoaked on July 29, 2008 and percolation testing was performed on July 30, 2008. For discussion of test procedures and test results, see Appendix D, PercolationTesting Results.

3.5 Electrical Resistivity Testing

Electrical resistivity testing was performed by Ocampo-Esta Corporation on August 13, 2008. Ocampo-Esta followed the Grounding–Soil Test Requirements as indicated in SCE Engineering Standards under the Electrical Design Station Layout EDSL 33-90-00. The Electrical Resistivity of soils was measured from depth 1 Feet and followed the suggested pin incremental to approximate depth of 150 feet. The soil electrical resistivity test was conducted using the Wenner (Four Point) method. Additional soil corrosivity tests were performed on a selected sample from soil borings by M.J. Schiff & Associates. The results and evaluation of soil field resistivity and laboratory corrosivity testing is presented in a separate report prepared by M. J. Schiff & Associates included in Appendix E, Soil Resistivity Study.

4.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

The project area lies along the southwestern edge of the Perris Block, a northwest-trending structural block that lies between the Elsinore fault zone on the southwest and the San Jacinto fault zone on the northwest. The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is an area that extends from the San Gabriel Mountains southeasterly into Baja California. This geomorphic province is characterized by northwesterly trending mountain ranges, bounded by systems of northwesterly trending faults and alluvial-filled basins.

Mesozoic metamorphic and plutonic rocks and Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic rock formations form hills of low to moderate relief. The subject site is located in the Temecula Valley and is underlain by recent alluvium along the Murrieta Creek flood plain. Late Pleistocene Pauba Formation is present beneath and to the southwest of the site and forms the rounded foothills along the higher Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 General

This section contains a general description of the subsurface conditions and various materials encountered at the site during the field exploration and a discussion of site-



4

specific geology.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered at the site are discussed below. For additional information on the subsurface conditions, see Appendix A, Field Exploration. Based on the field observations and site exploration data, the site for the proposed substation is underlain by alluvial deposits consisting of mainly sandy silt, silty sand, sand and sandy clay, to the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet bgs.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled to the maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs. Based on information obtained from the Spring 2008 Cooperative Well Measuring Program Report, produced by Western Municipal Water District, the depth to the groundwater in a well located about ¼ mile south of site (Rancho California Water District Well) was 209 feet bgs. Therefore, groundwater does not need to be considered for design and construction.

It should be noted that the groundwater level could vary depending upon the seasonal precipitation, agriculture irrigation and possible groundwater pumping activity in the site vicinity.

5.4 Flooding

Based on the review of National Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the site is located within Flood Zones X, “Areas determined to be outside of 0.2 % annual chance of floodplain”.

5.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results

Laboratory testing was performed to determine the physical characteristics and engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Results of in situ moisture and dry density tests are presented on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration, andremaining test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program. Discussion on the various test results is presented below:

� In situ Moisture and Dry Density – In situ dry density at the upper 5 feet ranged from 91 to 122 pcf with corresponding moisture content of 9 and 11 percent, respectively.

� Collapse Potential – The collapse potential of 6 relatively undisturbed samples was tested under a vertical stress of 2.0 ksf in accordance with the ASTM Standard D5333 test method. The test results including collapse potential calculated from two consolidation tests indicated 3.6 % of collapse to 0.7 % of swell, which corresponds between “Moderate” and “None” collapse potential



5

based on the ASTM Standard D5333. One out of six collapse tests indicated Moderate collapse potential. This test is considered representative of site conditions; therefore, collapse mitigation is not considered necessary.

� Expansion Index – Representative samples from the upper 10 feet of the site soils were tested to evaluate Expansion Index (EI) in accordance with the ASTM Standard D4829. The values of the measured EI within the upper 5 feet of site soils were 10 and 21. These values of EI indicate that the site soils have “Very Low” to “Low” expansion potential. The value of measured EI within 5 to 10 feet deep indicated EI of 60 which indicate “Medium” expansion potential.

� Soil Corrosivity – Two representative samples of the site soils were tested to determine soil corrosivity with respect to common construction materials such as concrete and steel. Evaluation of soil corrosivity is presented in Section 8.6, Soil Corrosivity Evaluation.

� Percent Passing Sieve #200 – The results of seven tests (including results obtained from gradation analysis tests) indicate the soils tested are primarily silty sand (SM), sandy silt (ML), and sandy clay (CL).

� Gradation Analysis – Results of three tests indicated the soils tested are silty sand (SM), sand with silt (SP/SM), and sandy silt (ML).

� Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content – A typical moisture-density relationship of the representative surfacial soils is 133.5 pcf maximum dry density and 7.0% optimum moisture.

� Direct Shear – Seven direct shear tests were performed on representative samples. Tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in soaked moisture conditions. Direct shear tests were performed on three ring samples collected at the same depth with a range of normal loads. Results of direct shear tests indicate the soil tested has moderate shear strength.

� Consolidation Tests – Two consolidation tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate the settlement characteristics of on-site soils under loads and also to evaluate susceptibility to moisture variations upon inundation/saturation under load. The test results indicate the soil tested has moderate compressive potential and moderate moisture sensitivity.

6.0 FAULTING

Based on the available geologic data, the site is not in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement propagating to the ground surface during the design life of the project is considered low. The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault, Temecula segment, which is



6

located approximately about 6.9 kilometers from the site. An active fault is defined as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Table No. 1 presents a few major active faults near to the site.

Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking on the structures can be mitigated by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with 2007 CBC, current building codes and engineering practices.

Table No. 1, Summary of Regional Faults

6.1 Seismic Coefficients

The project site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground shaking may occur resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and distant faults. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults in the area may generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site.

The seismic site coefficients are determined in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code and ASCE 7-05 Standard (ASCE, 2005) using the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2007) Earthquake Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.8, program. The site location used was Latitude 33.5428°N and Longitude 117.1146°W with a Site Class “D.” The seismic site coefficients under the new code are presented in the following table:

Table 1613.5.2 Site Class Definitions C

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion Figure 1613.5 0.2 second Sort Period Spectral Response, Ss 1.500 g Figure 1613.5 1 second Spectral Response, S1 0.600 g Table 1613.5.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00 Table 1613.5.3(2) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.50

Design Earthquake Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Response, SDS 1.000 g 1 second Spectral Response, SD1 0.600 g

Fault Name and Section Approximate

Distance(kilometers)

SourceType

(A, B, C)

MaximumMagnitude

(Mw)

Slip Rate (mm/yr)

Elsinore-Temecula 6.9 A 6.8 5 Elsinore-Julian 20.6 A 7.1 5 Elsinore-Glen Ivy 24.4 A 6.8 5



7

6.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity

Secondary effects of seismic activity include surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, differential settlement and ground lurching, lateral spreading, landslides, earthquake-induced flooding, and seiches. Site-specific potential for each of these seismic hazards is discussed in the following sections.

Surface Fault Rupture: The site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on review of existing geologic information, no known active fault zone crosses the site. The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of the nearby major faults is unknown with certainty but is considered low.

Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon in which a soil mass due to the development of excess pore pressures, soil mass suffers a substantial reduction in its shear strength. During earthquakes, excess pore pressures may develop in saturated soil deposits as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction. Soil liquefaction occurs in submerged granular soils during or after strong ground shaking. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction.

Differential Settlement and Ground Lurching: The potential of significant differential settlement at the site during earthquakes is considered to be low. The potential for ground lurching during earthquakes cannot be quantified; however, the potential for the ground lurching is considered to be minimal, and should not be an issue for the project.

Lateral Spreading: Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. It differs from a slope failure in that ground failure involving a large movement does not occur due to the flatter slope of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is characterized by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved over the liquefied soils towards and open face. The potential for lateral spreading at subject site is considered low.

Landslides: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The site topography is relatively level and the absence of nearby slopes precludes any slope stability hazards. The potential for seismically induced landslides is considered low.

Earthquake-Induced Flooding: This is flooding caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. The potential of earthquake-induced flooding of the subject site is considered to be low.

Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on the site location, seiches do not pose a hazard.



8

7.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

This section contains the general recommendations regarding earthwork and site grading for the proposed development. These recommendations are based on the results of the field exploration, laboratory testing, and data evaluation as presented in the preceding sections. These recommendations may need to be modified based on observation of the actual field conditions during grading.

Prior to the start of any earthwork, the site should be cleared of all vegetation and debris. The materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations should be removed from the site.

The final bottom surfaces of all excavations should be observed and approved by the project engineer prior to placing any fill and/or structures. Based on observations, removal of localized areas deeper than those documented may be required during grading. Some variations in the depth and lateral extent of over-excavation recommended in this report should be anticipated.

7.2 Over-excavation/Removal for Proposed Substation Structures

As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of surficial soils of the whole site should be excavated, moisture-conditioned, and replaced as compacted fill to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density to produce a firm and unyielding surface.

� Continuous or isolated footings should be placed on at least two feet of compacted fill.

� Over-excavation should provide as a minimum of two feet of structural fill below the bottom of mat foundations and slab-on-grade.

� Over-excavations should extend at least three feet outside foundation footprints.

� The bottom of the excavation should be scarified an additional six inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557.

The foundation excavations should be backfilled with approved granular materials which should be placed in eight inch lifts or less and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557.

7.3 Over-Excavation/Removal for Pavement Areas

In areas receiving asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete paving, including



9

driveways, street areas, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and other flatwork, the upper two feet of native surficial soils should be excavated. Such over-excavation should extend at least two feet beyond the pavement edges. The pavement sections should be placed on at least one foot of non expansive fill, moisture conditioned if necessary, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.

7.4 Structural Fill

The approved bottom of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least six inches. The scarified soils should be moisture conditioned to within three percent of optimum moisture content for granular soils and above optimum for fine-grained soils and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density if not specified elsewhere in this report to produce a firm and unyielding surface.

All structural fill should be placed on competent, scarified and compacted native materials as determined by the project engineer and in accordance with the specifications presented in this section.

Excavated site soils, free of deleterious materials and rock particles larger than three inches in the largest dimension, should be suitable for placement as compacted fill except where non-expansive soils are specified. The import fill should be non-expansive (expansion potential less than 30). The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. Any import fill should be tested and approved by the project engineer.

Prior to compaction, fill materials should be thoroughly mixed and moisture conditioned where necessary, to within three percent of optimum moisture content for sandy soils and above optimum for fine-grained soils. All fill, if not specified otherwise elsewhere in this report, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 test method.

� The upper two feet of fill under structure foundations and at least three feet outside of foundation perimeter should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.

� The upper two feet of fill under perimeter wall footings and at least two feet outside of footings should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.

� All other fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 test method.

At the time of the field investigation, in-situ moisture content of the upper five feet of native soils ranged from 4% to 12%. The optimum moisture content was 7%. Therefore, some moisture conditioning/drying may be necessary prior to the material being placed as compacted fill. The amount of processing required for proper moisture conditioning



10

at the site will depend on the seasonal variations in the in-situ moisture conditions, the depth of cut, the equipment, and the processing method.

7.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence

The shrinkage and/or bulkage would depend on, among other factors, the depth of cut and/or fill, and the grading method and equipment utilized. For preliminary estimation, shrinkage factors for various units of earth material at the site may be taken as presented below:

� In computing fill quantities, the approximate shrinkage factor for the upper five feet of alluvial soils is estimated to range from 10% to 20% with an average of 15% when excavating and compacting the soils to 90% as recommended. That is, it will require about 1.15 cubic yards of excavation to make 1 cubic yard of compacted fill.

� Subsidence would depend on the construction methods including type of equipment utilized. For estimation purposes, ground subsidence may be taken as 0.20 feet.

Although these values are only approximate, they represent our best estimates of the factors to be used to calculate volume loss that may occur during grading. If more accurate shrinkage and subsidence factors are needed, it is recommended that field-testing using the actual equipment and grading techniques be conducted.

7.6 Excavations and Temporary Slopes

Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not extend below a plane drawn at 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending downward from adjacent existing footings. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met.

7.7 Site Drainage

Adequate positive drainage should be provided away from graded areas to prevent ponding and to reduce percolation of water into the foundation soils. Structural pads should have a drainage gradient of at least two percent towards drainage facilities. A desirable drainage gradient is one percent for paved areas.

Surface drainage should be directed to suitable non-erosive devices. Any slope should be planted as soon as possible after construction.



11

8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 General Evaluation

The various design recommendations provided in this section are based on the assumption that the earthwork and grading recommendations will be implemented in preparing the site.

8.2 Foundation Types and Bearing Pressures

The proposed substation structure(s) may be supported by shallow spread footings, mat foundations or drill piers. Design recommendations for various types of foundations are presented below.

8.2.1 Shallow Spread Footing Design Parameters

Continuous and isolated shallow spread footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively, and embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade.

Footings should be placed on at least two feet of structural fill below the bottom of the footings, compacted as recommended in the grading section, and extending at least four feet beyond the edge of the footings, can be designed to impose a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 1200 pounds per square foot. The excavations should be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils. The allowable net bearing capacity is defined as the maximum allowable net bearing pressure on the ground. It is obtained by dividing the net ultimate bearing capacity by a safety factor. The ultimate bearing capacity is the bearing stress at which ground fails by shear or experiences a limiting amount of settlement at the foundation. The net ultimate bearing capacity is obtained by subtracting the total overburden pressure on a horizontal plane at the foundation level from the ultimate bearing capacity. Geotechnical design parameters for shallow foundation and drilled pier are presented in Appendix F, Bipile Data.

The footings should have a minimum reinforcement equal to two #4 bars-one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom. Structural design may require wider footings and/or more reinforcement.

The net allowable bearing values indicated above are for the dead loads and frequently applied live loads and are obtained by applying a factor of safety of 3.0 to the net ultimate bearing capacity. If normal code requirements are applied for design, the above vertical bearing value may be increased by 33 percent for short duration loadings, which will include loadings induced by wind or seismic forces.

8.2.2 Mat Foundations

For design of mat foundations founded on native soil or compacted fill, the following



12

equation may be used to calculate the modulus of subgrade reaction, k:

k = 200[(B+1)/2B]2k = modulus of subgrade reaction, kips per cubic feet B = foundation width, feet

8.3 Drilled Cast-In-Place Friction Piles

8.3.1 Vertical Capacity

Soil density and strength parameters from direct shear tests presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing Program, were used.

The minimum center-to-center spacing between piles should be no less than three pile diameters. No group efficiency factors are considered necessary. Pile group efficiencies at other pile spacing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Vertical uplift capacities for intermittent loads can be calculated from the friction capacities following the procedures by Poulos and Davis (1980) and Tomlinson (1981), where the allowable vertical uplift capacity can be taken as two-thirds of the downward shaft friction capacity and limited to the available dead weight of a potential group wedge. The allowable uplift capacities obtained using these procedures generally compared favorable with 60 percent of the total downward capacity. Geotechnical design parameters for shallow foundation and drilled pier are presented Appendix F, Bipile Data.

8.3.2 Pile Construction

Pile drilling and concrete placement should be performed in accordance the recommendations presented in the Standards and Specifications of ADSC, AnInternational Association of Foundation Drilling Contractors.

8.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance to Lateral Loads

The lateral earth pressures and resistance to lateral loads are estimated by using on-site native soils compacted to an average of 92 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Geotechnical design parameters for lateral earth pressures are presented in Appendix F, Bipile Data.

8.5 Slabs-On-Grade

The design of the slabs-on-grade will depend on, among other factors, the expansive potential of the pad soils. Based on the soil classification the expansive potential of the pad soils is expected to be variable, ranging from “Very Low” to “Low”.



13

The slabs-on-grade should be at least four inches thick. Care should be taken to avoid slab curling if slabs are poured in hot weather. Moisture sensitive slabs-on-grade should be protected by 6-mil-thick polyethylene vapor barriers. The barrier should be overlain by two inches of sand to minimize punctures and to aid in the concrete curing.

Subgrade for slabs-on-grade should be firm and uniform. All slab subgrade should be moisture-conditioned between optimum and two percent above optimum at subgrade soils prior to the placement of concrete. All loose or disturbed soils including under slab utility trench backfills should be recompacted prior to the placement of clean sand underneath the moisture barrier.

8.6 Soil Corrosivity Evaluation

One bulk soil sample obtained from the site was tested. The test includes normal electrical resistivity, pH, soluble sulfates, and chloride content. The results are included in Appendix E, Soil Resistivity Study.

The sulfate content of the samples tested was 0.0039 percent by weight, which indicated that site soils are not deleterious to concrete. Type II Portland Cement may be used for the construction of the foundations or slabs.

The chloride content was 5.5 mg/kg by weight. The pH value of the site soil was 7.3. The measured value of the electrical resistivity when saturated was 4400 Ohm-cm. These values indicate a “mildly corrosive” therefore, potential for ferrous metals in contact with these soils is considered low.

8.7 Asphalt Concrete Pavement

At or near the completion of grading, subgrade samples should be tested to evaluate the actual subgrade for final pavement design.

Prior to placement of aggregate base, at least the upper 6 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, if necessary, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as defined by ASTM Standard D1557 test method.

The base course for asphaltic paving should meet the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the latest edition of the State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. Alternatively, the base course could meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2.2 "Crushed Aggregate Base,"of the current Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC) and should be placed in accordance with Section 301.2 of the SSPWC.

Asphaltic concrete materials should conform to Section 203 of the SSPWC and should be placed in accordance with Section 302.5 of the SSPWC.



14

8.8 Settlement

Total settlement of the proposed structures placed on compacted fill, designed as recommended above, from structural load-induced settlements should be 1-inch or less. The differential settlement can be taken as equal to one half of the total settlement over a distance of 50 feet.



15

9.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site, to prepare site precise grading recommendations, and to assist the civil and structural engineers in the design of the proposed substation structures and associated foundations.

Recommendations presented herein, are based upon the assumption that adequate earthwork monitoring will be provided. Excavation bottoms should be observed, any imported fill materials should be tested and approved by the project engineer prior to the delivery to the site. Structural fill and backfill should be placed and compacted during continuous observation and testing. Footing excavations and drilling for drill pier foundations should be observed prior to placement of steel and concrete so that footings are founded on satisfactory materials and excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials.

The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice within our profession in effect at this time in Southern California.



16

10.0 REFERENCES

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES (CBC 2007).

BOWLES, J. E., 1982, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), Riverside County, California, Map No. 06065C2740G, Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated August 28, 2008.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, March 1999.

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (SSPWC, 2006), Joint Committee of the Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association and Southern California Districts Associated General Contractors of California.

USGS, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Computer Program Version 5.0.8, dated November 20, 2007.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

GW

GM

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

GP

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

MORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTIONRETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE

SAMPLE TYPE

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTYOR CLAYEY FINE SANDS ORCLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHTPLASTICITY

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES

BULK SAMPLE

1

OH

GROUNDWATER WHILE DRILLING

PlasticityGrain Size AnalysisPassing No. 200 SieveSand EquivalentExpansion IndexCompaction CurveHydrometer

DRIVE SAMPLE No recovery

DRIVE SAMPLE

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

pdsds*uctxvs

STRENGTH

GRAVELSWITHFINES

GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING

ML

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE

SANDS WITHFINES

SW

SP

SM

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN NO.

200 SIEVE SIZE

MORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTIONPASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE SC

SILTS ANDCLAYS

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: KEY

TRITON 115/12 KV SUBSTATIONCity of Temecula, Riverside County, CaliforniaFor: Southern California Edison

A - 1Drawing No.Project No.

08-81-203-01

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEANCLAYS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILSWITH HIGH ORGANICCONTENTS

CH

LIQUID LIMIT LESSTHAN 50

BORING LOG SYMBOLS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUSOR DIATOMACEOUS FINESAND OR SILTY SOILS

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

SILTS ANDCLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TOHIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANICSILTS

GC

TYPICAL

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

ConsolidationCollapse TestResistance (R) ValueChemical AnalysisElectrical Resistivity

CLASSIFICATION

CLEANSANDS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

CL

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE ORNO FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

LETTER

Converse Consultants

Split barrel sampler in accordance withASTM D-1586-84 Standard Test Method

Pocket PenetrometerDirect ShearDirect Shear (single point)Unconfined CompressionTriaxial CompressionVane Shear

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE ORNO FINES

OL

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GRAPH

MH

DESCRIPTIONSSYMBOLS

LABORATORY TESTING ABBREVIATIONS

(Results shown in Appendix B)

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

CLEANGRAVELSGRAVEL

ANDGRAVELLY

SOILS

TEST TYPE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS

FINEGRAINED

SOILSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY

2.42" I.D. sampler.

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

pimawaseeimaxh

ccolrcaer

PTHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

ds, wa

6/8/8

ma

wa

ds

wa

2/2/3

12/15/23

4/3/2

6/8/20

13/12/14

96

97

103

101

104

92

8

21

8

10

9

9

9

4/4/8

91

8/12/16

12/16/12

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to medium-grained, brown.

CLAYEY SAND/SANDY CLAY (SC/CL): fine- tocoarse-grained sand, brown.

SANDY SILT (ML): fine-grained sand, brown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, trace clay,brown.

ALLUVIUM (Qal): SANDY SILT (ML): fine- to coarse-grained sand, roots,

trace clay, dark brown.

BU

LK

Dates Drilled: CG

SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

NOT ENCOUNTERED

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project andshould be read together with the report. This summary applies only atthe location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurfaceconditions may differ at other locations and may change at this locationwith the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification ofactual conditions encountered.

Logged by:

1161

A - 2a


BLO

WS

/ 6"


5

10

15

20

25

30

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

Checked By:

Equipment:

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)


DR

IVE

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Dep

th (f

t)

Gra

phic

Log

SAMPLES

BU

LK


Driving Weight and Drop:

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: LOG

Project No.

Dep

th (f

t)

OTH

ER

08-81-203-01Drawing No.

Depth to Water (ft):

DR

IVE

Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

RJR

CME/ 8" HSA 140 lbs / 30 in

Log of Boring No. BH - 1

End of boring at 51.5 feet.No groundwater encountered.Hole backfilled loose with soil cuttings and perforated pipeinstalled for percolation testing on 7/22/08.

86

959

36


Drawing No.

SAMPLES

BU

LK

ds


ma

4/12/19

7/9/24

9/14/18

4/8/13


SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, brown.

CLAY (CL): fine-grained sand, brown.

SAND WITH SILT (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, gray.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to medium-grained, brown.

Dates Drilled:



DR

IVE

Equipment:

Gra

phic

Log

BU

LK

CG

Gra

phic

Log

BLO

WS

/ 6"


40

45

50

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)


40

45

50

Checked By:

DR

IVE

Dep

th (f

t)

08-81-203-01

Depth to Water (ft):Ground Surface Elevation (ft):

RJR



Project No.A - 2b

NOT ENCOUNTERED


Logged by:

OTH

ER

1161

Dep

th (f

t)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

c

4/5/5

ds

ca, er, ei

8/10/18

1/3/2

8/7/14

3/4/4

5/6/4

3/3/4

3/7/9

98

99

118

115

122

9

11

15

10

11

12

120

4/4/8

SAND (SP): fine- to medium-grained, brown.


SANDY CLAY (CL): fine- to coarse-grained sand, brown.

SANDY SILT (ML): fine- to coarse-grained sand, tracegravel, dark brown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, trace clay,dark brown.

ALLUVIUM (Qal):

BU

LK

Dates Drilled: CG


NOT ENCOUNTERED


Logged by:

1162

A - 3a


BLO

WS

/ 6"


5

10

15

20

25

30

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

Checked By:

Equipment:

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)


DR

IVE

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Dep

th (f

t)

Gra

phic

Log

SAMPLES

BU

LK




Project No.

Dep

th (f

t)

OTH

ER

08-81-203-01Drawing No.


DR

IVE


RJR




Dep

th (f

t)


140 lbs / 30 inCME/ 8" HSA

RJR


DR

IVE

Project No.


08-81-203-01

OTH

ER

Dep

th (f

t)

SAND (SP): fine- to medium-grained, brown. 10/10/10

End of boring at 36.5 feet.No groundwater encountered.Hole backfilled loose with soil cuttings on 7/22/08.


BU

LK

SAMPLES

Drawing No.

Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

DR

IVE


DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Gra

phic

Log

Equipment:


Checked By:

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

7/22/2008


BLO

WS

/ 6"

A - 3b

1162

Logged by:


NOT ENCOUNTERED



CGDates Drilled:

BU

LK

1/2/4

8

ds

c

col

ma

4/13/23

107

90

7

96

98

92

104

6

19

6

8

8/7/10

5/13/17

ALLUVIUM (Qal):

2/4/4

7/8/10

8/10/10

8/8/14

11/12/15


SANDY SILT (ML): fine- to coarse-grained, brown.

CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine-grained, brown.

Equipment:

BU

LK

Dates Drilled: CG



NOT ENCOUNTERED

This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project andshould be read together with the report. This summary applies only atthe location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurfaceconditions may differ at other locations and may change at this locationwith the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification ofactual conditions encountered. B

LOW

S/ 6

"


5

10

15

20

25

30

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

Checked By:

DR

IVE


5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

BU

LK

Logged by:



Gra

phic

Log

CME/ 8" HSA

SAMPLES

Converse ConsultantsDrawing No.

1161

A - 4a

Dep

th (f

t)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

140 lbs / 30 in


Dep

th (f

t)

OTH

ER

08-81-203-01


Project No.

DR

IVE


RJR

Project No.



RJR


DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Gra

phic

Log


08-81-203-01

OTH

ER

Dep

th (f

t)

DR

IVE


SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, brown. 8/11/17


99


BU

LK

SAMPLES

Drawing No.

Dep

th (f

t)

13

DR

IVE


DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Gra

phic

Log


Checked By:

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

7/22/2008


BLO

WS

/ 6"


A - 4b

1161

Logged by:


Equipment:


CGDates Drilled:

BU

LK

NOT ENCOUNTERED

max, ca,er, ei

ds

col

col, wa

4/5/5

13/15/20

2/2/2

8/5/14

5/7/9

10/8/11

7/8/8

9/9/4

ei

11


119

120

117

115

15

12

11

4 106


SANDY CLAY (CL): fine- to coarse-grained sand, brown.


CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine- to coarse-grained, brown.

SANDY CLAY (CL): fine- to coarse-grained sand, darkbrown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, brown. ALLUVIUM (Qal):


Dates Drilled: CG


NOT ENCOUNTERED

Logged by:

1161

A - 5

Dep

th (f

t)

5

10

15

20

25

BLO

WS

/ 6"


5

10

15

20

25

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

Checked By:

BU

LK


Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)


DR

IVE

Equipment:

SAMPLES



DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Drawing No.

BU

LK

CME/ 8" HSA


Project No.

DR

IVE


OTH

ER

Gra

phic

Log

08-81-203-01

Dep

th (f

t)RJR

140 lbs / 30 in



8/4/11

ds

col

3/2/5

12/11/13

2/5/6

10/10/14

4/5/5

103

105

122

104

105

7

6

13

8

5

4

7/9/12

112

16/13/15

8/9/14


CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine- to coarse-grained, brown.

SANDY SILT (ML): fine- to coarse-grained sand, darkbrown.

SILTY SAND (SM): fine- to coarse-grained, dark brown. ALLUVIUM (Qal):

BU

LK

Dates Drilled: CG

DR

IVE


NOT ENCOUNTERED


Logged by:


BLO

WS

/ 6"


5

10

15

20

25

30

7/22/2008

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

Checked By:

Equipment:

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phic

Log

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Converse Consultants A - 6a

1161G

raph

icLo

g

Drawing No.

SAMPLES

BU

LK



Converse Consultants 08-81-203-01

DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Dep

th (f

t)Driving Weight and Drop:

OTH

ER

Dep

th (f

t)


Project No.

DR

IVE


RJR


Project No.



RJR


DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Gra

phic

Log


08-81-203-01

OTH

ER

Dep

th (f

t)

DR

IVE


SANDY CLAY (CL): fine- to coarse-grained sand, brown. 11/10/14


104


BU

LK

SAMPLES

Drawing No.

Dep

th (f

t)

24

DR

IVE


DR

Y U

NIT

WT.

(pcf

)

Gra

phic

Log


Checked By:

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

7/22/2008


BLO

WS

/ 6"


A - 6b

1161

Logged by:


Equipment:


CGDates Drilled:

BU

LK

NOT ENCOUNTERED

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

PL

0.329

Sand With Silt (SP/SM)BH - 1

COBBLES

140100P

ER

CE

NT

FIN

ER

BY

WE

IGH

T

3.0 - 4.540.0 - 41.530.0 - 31.5

76.9

BH - 3

BH - 1

Sandy Silt (ML)

Silty Sand (SM)

6.745.3

Boring No.

Drawing No.

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

50

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

100

10

60

5

55

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

Depth (ft)

CuPI

200

coarse fine

30 40 50

6

10

Project No.

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Description

3

D30BH - 1BH - 1BH - 3

20

Depth (ft)

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

3/8

%Sand


3/4

Converse Consultants 08-81-203-01

3

0.1280.685

6

53.891.222.8

60

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS

B - 1

Boring No. %SiltD10

SILT OR CLAY

14

6.07

8

0.113

mediumSAND

2

LL

30.0 - 31.5

1.40

GRAVEL

4

2.36

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

coarse

0.00.00.0

2.36D100

2.36

1

%Gravel

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: GRAIN SIZE

%Clay

40.0 - 41.53.0 - 4.5

1.5 1/2

Cc

fine

D60

4 16

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :

SURCHARGE PRESSURE, psf

:

:

5.0 - 6.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: DIRECT SHEAR

DRY DENSITY (pcf)

100

BORING NO.

Sandy Silt (ML)

B - 3

28:


NOTE: Ultimate Strength.

: 8.7 91.2

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 1 :


DEPTH (ft)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf

FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)

:

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :


:

:

25.0 - 26.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000


5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000


DRY DENSITY (pcf)

300

BORING NO.

Silty Sand (SM)

B - 4

31:



: 7.9 96.9

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 1 :


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:

0 4,000

Project No.08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :

7,0006,0005,000

4,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

3,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

:

1,000

:

2,000

:


:

600

BORING NO.

Clay (CL)

B - 5


9

BH - 1 45.0 - 46.5

DRY DENSITY (pcf)


: 35.7 86.3

Drawing No.TRITON 115/12 KV SUBSTATIONCity of Temecula, Riverside County, CaliforniaFor: Southern California EdisonConverse Consultants


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:

COHESION (psf)

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :


:

:

10.0 - 11.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000


5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000


DRY DENSITY (pcf)

400

BORING NO.

Sandy Clay (CL)

B - 6

28:



: 15.3 114.7

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 2 :


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :


:

:

15.0 - 16.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000


5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000


DRY DENSITY (pcf)

100

BORING NO.

Clayey Sand (SC)

B - 7

30:



: 18.6 106.5

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 3 :


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :


:

:

20.0 - 21.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000


5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000


DRY DENSITY (pcf)

1350

BORING NO.

Sandy Clay (CL)

B - 8

24:



: 14.9 118.9

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 4 :


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:

5,000

Project No.

2,000

08-81-203-01

DESCRIPTION :


:

:

7.0 - 8.5

4,000

0

1,000

4,000

3,000


5,000

0 1,000 3,000

2,000


DRY DENSITY (pcf)

650

BORING NO.

Clayey Sand (SC)

B - 9

30:



: 12.7 122.0

Drawing No.

COHESION (psf)

BH - 5 :


DEPTH (ft)


SH

EA

R S

TRE

NG

TH, p

sf


:


100 1,000 105

8


08-81-203-01Project No.

B - 10

NOTE: SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READINGS AFTER ADDITION OF WATER

10,000

^^

10

0

2

4

6

75

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

0.409

VOIDRATIO

STRESS, ksf

INITIAL

FINAL

Drawing No.

120

10

12.9

PERCENTSATURATION

STR

AIN

, %

0.490

MOISTURECONTENT (%)

Sandy Silt (ML)

BORING NO.

128.8

BH - 2

121.8

DEPTH (ft): :

:DESCRIPTION

DRY DENSITY(pcf)

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: CONSOLIDATION

5.0 - 6.5

100 1,000 10,000


20


08-81-203-01Project No.

B - 11

NOTE: SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READINGS AFTER ADDITION OF WATER

105

^^

30

0

5

10

15

INITIAL

FINAL

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

0.513

Drawing No.

120

7.3

17.5

PERCENTSATURATION

STR

AIN

, %

STRESS, ksf

0.805

MOISTURECONTENT (%)

Sandy Silt (ML)

BORING NO.

119.9

BH - 3

100.5

DEPTH (ft):

VOIDRATIO

:

:DESCRIPTION

DRY DENSITY(pcf)

Project ID: 08-81-203-01.GPJ; Template: CONSOLIDATION

7.0 - 8.5

APPENDIX C

SOIL ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING RESULTS

APPENDIX C

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION

Soil samples were collected at 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 feet bgs from each boring on July 22, 2008. Soil samples were collected in 8 oz or 4 oz jars, capped with plastic lids, labeled and placed on ice in an ice chest for transportation to American Scientific Laboratories, LLC for environmental characterization.

Samples collected at depths 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0 feet bgs, were analyzed for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) using EPA 1664 (Oil and Grease). Two composite samples identified as Composite (1) and Composite (2) consisted of a representative mix of selected samples collected at depths of 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0 feet bgs. Composite samples were analyzed for:

• Organochlorine pesticides (Pesticides) using EPA 8081A • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using EPA 8082 • California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 metals (California

Assessment Manual CAM 17 metals) using EPA 6010B and EPA 7471A Four soil samples had detectible TRPH (Oil and Grease) at a maximum of 70 mg/kg at the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) of 20 mg/Kg. Organochlorine pesticides were not detected in the composite samples. Analytical results indicate no detectable concentrations of PCBs in all composite soil samples. Analytical results indicate that CCR Title 22/CAM 17 Metals were not detected in composite samples at concentration exceeding either the TTLC or ten times STLC limits.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analytical results of the sampled soil, no further environmental evaluation is recommended and no special handling and disposal is anticipated to be required for excavated soils in these areas. A limited number of soil samples were collected and analyzed for this environmental study. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report were based on site conditions existing at the time of soil sample collection. If any discolored and/or impacted soils with an oily appearance or unusual odors are encountered during excavation and construction activities, additional soil characterization and handling recommendations will be necessary.

The laboratory report from American Scientific Laboratories, LLC including Chain of Custody documentation is attached.

Number of Pages 14 Date Received 07/23/2008 Date Reported 08/01/2008

Southern California Edison2131 Walnut Grove Ave.Rosemead, CA 91770-

Job Number Ordered Client

38649 07/23/2008 SCEDI

Project ID:Project Name:

TRITON 115/12 KV SUBTriton 115/12 KV Substation

Ordered By

Attn Esam AbrahamTelephone (626)302-8325

Enclosed are the results of analyses on 21 samples analyzed as specified onattached chain of custody.

Site: Temecula, California

American Scientific Laboratories, LLC (ASL) accepts sample materials from clients for analysis with the assumption that all of the information provided to ASL verbally or in writing by our clients (and/or their agents), regarding samples being submitted to ASL, is complete and accurate. ASL accepts all samples subject to the following conditions:

1) ASL is not responsible for verifying any client-provided information regarding any samples submitted to the laboratory. 2) ASL is not responsible for any consequences resulting from any inaccuracies, omissions, or misrepresentations contained in client-provided information regarding samples submitted to the laboratory.

Rojert G. AraghiLaboratory Director

Amolk MOLKY BrarLaboratory Manager

Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/KgMatrix Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilDate Analyzed 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008

Date Prepared 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008

[email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]'[email protected]'[email protected]'Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method

222093 222094 222095 222096Our Lab I.D. 222092QC Batch No: 072808-1

38649 07/23/2008 SCEDIASL Job Number Submitted Client

Temecula, CaliforniaSouthern California Edison2131 Walnut Grove Ave.Rosemead, CA 91770-



2Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham

SiteANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (626)302-8325

Method: 1664, Oil and Grease (SGT-HEM)

Analytes Results Results Results Results ResultsPQL

ConventionalsTPH 20.0 ND ND 36.0 ND ND

AnalytesLCS LCS/LCSD

% REC % Limit

QUALITY CONTROL REPORTQC Batch No: 072808-1

ConventionalsTPH 86 80-120

Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008


Date Prepared 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008


Preparation Method






3Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325



ConventionalsTPH 20.0 ND ND ND ND 40.0


% REC % Limit



Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008


Date Prepared 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008


Preparation Method






4Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325



ConventionalsTPH 20.0 ND ND ND 44.0 70.0


% REC % Limit



Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008


Date Prepared 07/29/2008 07/29/2008 07/29/2008 07/29/2008 07/29/2008

[email protected]'(B1&B

2)


2)

[email protected]'(B3-5)



2)

Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method






5Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325

Method: 6010B/7471A, CCR Title 22 Metals (TTLC)


AA MetalsMercury 0.0500 ND ND ND ND ND

ICP MetalsAntimony 0.500 ND ND ND ND ND

Arsenic 0.250 ND ND 0.765 ND ND

Barium 0.500 182 256 264 163 170

Beryllium 0.500 ND ND ND ND ND

Cadmium 0.500 0.538 0.569 0.703 ND ND

Chromium 0.500 12.6 15.1 16.5 11.9 11.5

Cobalt 0.500 7.84 9.30 10.1 7.56 7.34

Copper 0.500 14.4 10.3 13.6 15.1 13.8

Lead 0.250 ND ND ND ND ND

Molybdenum 0.500 ND ND ND ND ND

Nickel 0.500 5.52 6.00 7.35 5.13 4.74

Selenium 0.500 ND ND ND ND ND

Silver 0.500 1.62 0.831 0.584 0.926 1.16

Thallium 0.500 ND ND ND ND ND

Vanadium 0.500 35.8 45.0 46.6 31.1 32.6

Zinc 0.500 55.3 70.7 75.5 53.3 53.2


% REC % Limit


AA MetalsMercury 107 80-120

ICP Metals

38649 07/23/2008 SCEDIASL Job Number Submitted ClientProject ID:

Project Name:TRITON 115/12 KV SUBTriton 115/12 KV Substation

6Page:

ANALYTICAL RESULTS



% REC % Limit


ICP MetalsAntimony 113 80-120

Arsenic 112 80-120

Barium 113 80-120

Beryllium 112 80-120

Cadmium 110 80-120

Chromium 111 80-120

Cobalt 111 80-120

Copper 100 80-120

Lead 111 80-120

Molybdenum 112 80-120

Nickel 112 80-120

Selenium 99 80-120

Silver 90 80-120

Thallium 108 80-120

Vanadium 108 80-120

Zinc 104 80-120

Date Sampled 07/22/2008

Dilution Factor 1Units mg/KgMatrix SoilDate Analyzed 07/29/2008

Date Prepared 07/29/2008


Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method

Our Lab I.D. 222112QC Batch No: 072908-2





7Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325


Analytes ResultsPQL

AA MetalsMercury 0.0500 ND

ICP MetalsAntimony 0.500 ND

Arsenic 0.250 0.708

Barium 0.500 273

Beryllium 0.500 ND

Cadmium 0.500 0.661

Chromium 0.500 16.0

Cobalt 0.500 9.95

Copper 0.500 17.8

Lead 0.250 ND

Molybdenum 0.500 ND

Nickel 0.500 8.22

Selenium 0.500 ND

Silver 0.500 ND

Thallium 0.500 ND

Vanadium 0.500 47.9

Zinc 0.500 74.5


% REC % Limit


AA MetalsMercury 107 80-120

ICP MetalsAntimony 113 80-120



8Page:

ANALYTICAL RESULTS



% REC % Limit


ICP MetalsArsenic 112 80-120

Barium 113 80-120

Beryllium 112 80-120

Cadmium 110 80-120

Chromium 111 80-120

Cobalt 111 80-120

Copper 100 80-120

Lead 111 80-120

Molybdenum 112 80-120

Nickel 112 80-120

Selenium 99 80-120

Silver 90 80-120

Thallium 108 80-120

Vanadium 108 80-120

Zinc 104 80-120

Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1Units ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kgMatrix Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilDate Analyzed 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008

Date Prepared 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008


2)


2)




2)

Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method






9Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325

Method: 8081A, Organochlorine Pesticides


Aldrin 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Alpha-BHC) 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Beta-BHC) 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Gamma-Chlordane 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

alpha-Chlordane 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

4,4'-DDD (DDD) 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

4,4'-DDE (DDE) 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

4,4'-DDT (DDT) 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Delta-BHC) 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Dieldrin 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan 1 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan 11 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan sulfate 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin aldehyde 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin ketone 4.00 ND ND ND ND ND

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Gamma-BHC, Lindane) 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Heptachlor 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Heptachlor epoxide 2.00 ND ND ND ND ND

Methoxychlor 17.0 ND ND ND ND ND

Toxaphene 170 ND ND ND ND ND

Our Lab I.D. 222107 222108 222109 222110 222111Surrogates % Rec.Limit % Rec. % Rec. % Rec. % Rec. % Rec.

.

Surrogate Percent RecoveryDecachlorobiphenyl 43-169 114 112 112 99 89



10Page:

ANALYTICAL RESULTS


AnalytesLCS LCS RPDLCS DUP LCS/LCSD LCS RPD

% REC % REC% REC % Limit % Limit


Aldrin 119 111 7.0 42-122 <30

4,4'-DDT (DDT) 94 116 21.0 25-160 <30

Dieldrin 123 116 5.9 36-146 <30

Endrin 132 112 16.4 30-147 <30

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane(Gamma-BHC, Lindane)

121 116 4.2 32-127 <30

Heptachlor 108 109 <1 34-111 <30


Dilution Factor 1Units ug/kgMatrix SoilDate Analyzed 07/31/2008



Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method






11Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325


Analytes ResultsPQL

Aldrin 2.00 ND

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Alpha-BHC) 2.00 ND

Beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Beta-BHC) 2.00 ND

Gamma-Chlordane 2.00 ND

alpha-Chlordane 2.00 ND

4,4'-DDD (DDD) 4.00 ND

4,4'-DDE (DDE) 4.00 ND

4,4'-DDT (DDT) 4.00 ND

delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Delta-BHC) 2.00 ND

Dieldrin 4.00 ND

Endosulfan 1 2.00 ND

Endosulfan 11 4.00 ND

Endosulfan sulfate 4.00 ND

Endrin 4.00 ND

Endrin aldehyde 4.00 ND

Endrin ketone 4.00 ND

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Gamma-BHC, Lindane) 2.00 ND

Heptachlor 2.00 ND

Heptachlor epoxide 2.00 ND

Methoxychlor 17.0 ND

Toxaphene 170 ND

Our Lab I.D. 222112Surrogates % Rec.Limit % Rec.

.

Surrogate Percent RecoveryDecachlorobiphenyl 43-169 98



12Page:

ANALYTICAL RESULTS





Aldrin 119 111 7.0 42-122 <30

4,4'-DDT (DDT) 94 116 21.0 25-160 <30

Dieldrin 123 116 5.9 36-146 <30

Endrin 132 112 16.4 30-147 <30

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane(Gamma-BHC, Lindane)

121 116 4.2 32-127 <30

Heptachlor 108 109 <1 34-111 <30

Date Sampled 07/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/200807/22/2008

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1Units ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kgMatrix Soil Soil Soil Soil SoilDate Analyzed 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008

Date Prepared 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 07/31/2008


2)


2)




2)

Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method






13Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325

Method: 8082, Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) by Gas Chromatography


Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) 33.0 ND ND ND ND ND







Our Lab I.D. 222107 222108 222109 222110 222111Surrogates % Rec.Limit % Rec. % Rec. % Rec. % Rec. % Rec.

.

Surrogate Percent RecoveryDecachlorobiphenyl 43-169 114 112 112 99 89




Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) 111 111 <1 39-150 <30


Dilution Factor 1Units ug/kgMatrix SoilDate Analyzed 07/31/2008



Client Sample I.D.

Preparation Method






14Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Esam Abraham


Telephone: (626)302-8325

Method: 8082, Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analytes ResultsPQL

Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) 33.0 ND

Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) 67.0 ND

Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) 33.0 ND

Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) 33.0 ND

Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) 33.0 ND

Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) 33.0 ND

Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) 33.0 ND

Our Lab I.D. 222112Surrogates % Rec.Limit % Rec.

.

Surrogate Percent RecoveryDecachlorobiphenyl 43-169 98




Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) 111 111 <1 39-150 <30

APPENDIX D

PERCOLATION TESTING RESULTS

APPENDIX E

SOIL RESISTIVITY STUDY

APPENDIX F

BIPILE DATA

Geotechnical Recommendations September 24, 2008

Triton 115/12 KV Substation Reference ReportCity of Temecula, California Geotechnical Investigation

by Converse Consultants

A. Shallow Foundation Design Parameters

Foundation Bearing Pressure: An allowable net vertical bearing 1,000 psfpressure for 1.5 feet wide footing with a minimum embedmentdepth of 18 inches below adjacent grade and less than one inchsettlement.

a. Increase per foot of embedment 380 psfb. Increase per foot of width 110 psfc. Maximum not to exceed 3,000 psfd. Increase for transient loads (wind or seismic) 33%

2- Allowable Lateral Soil Pressure and Friction

a. Active pressure (drained and horizontal backfill) 39 psf/ftb. Passive pressure 270 psf/ftc. Base friction value 0.33d. Increase for transient loads 33%

B. Drilled Pier Foundation Design Parameters

1- Soil Density

a. Moist 109 pcfb. Saturated 125 pcfc. Submerged 63 pcf

2- Ultimate Bearing Capacitya. At Surface - moist 2,000 psfb. Rate of increase per foot - moist 1,100 psfc. Rate of increase per foot - submerged 650 psfd. Maximum not to exceed 20,000 psf

3- Ultimate Moist Skin Frication at a Depth of 10 Feet Soil Density 650 psf4- Estimated Depth to Groundwater >100 feet5- Friction Angle of Soil 28 Deg6- Ratio of Submerged to Moist Skin Friction 0.577- Estimated Depth to Bedrock >100 feet8- Passive Pressure Multiplier Factor (PPM) 2.59- Ultimate Lateral Soil Pressure at a Depth of 10 Feet 7,600 psf

NOTES: 1- Slight to moderate caving is expected during the drilling of the pier foundation excavations, the use of water duringthe drilling of the pier excavations should aid in the control of caving. Casing, drilling mud, or other meansto control caving should be made available if the use of water is found to be ineffective in the control of caving.

2- The soil parameters under item A are allowable values, and parameters under item B are ultimate valueswhich require the use of appropriate factors of safety design.

Date post:	20-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	34 times
Download:	1 times

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Geotechnical Investigation ... · SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON...

Documents