Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1319000-1
INDEX' STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS WILD GOOSE PROJECT (17052:001) GLYCOL •DEHYDRATION SKID FILE NO.. BOOK NO... DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE FINAL CHK'D DESIGN CALLS .1j�..�J.�Op:.1........:....:8.........:.. r .1I3 ....��PT.. t�,:1�9� .......I~�........... to FILE NO.. BOOK NO... DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE FINAL CHK'D DESIGN CALLS .1j�..�J.�Op:.1........:....:8.........:.. GLYCt3lWYORAM ON.SK a.....................................:� .1I3 ....��PT.. t�,:1�9� .......I~�........... Iw6....... 'WILD GOOSE GAS STORAGE PROJECT STRUCTURAL'CALCULATIONS BOOK 6 77052.001 Page 1 FOAM 5010 REV. 3M United Engineers CALCULATION SET NO. $ construe � CALCULATION SUMMARY L 3 d O b - "`'0%000C rP@rV & CONTROL SHEET Page 1 of 2 PRELIM.FlNAL VOIO REVISION PROJECT TITLE W 6o-o�e S6a-1 e Fa e- I DISCIPLINE 1-t,- G u r J.o. OEZ-, DO STRUCTURE OR SYSTEM Fb wyl. A i w -y' S DESIGN CLASSIFICATION SUBJECTSUBJECT �/ C �i L . �cl e ki e+ -AA ("a -yl 1re4:k COMPLETED BY F►-" — G yI cr5f DATE T CHECKED BY /Z7, 73ODI 5 DATE 7// r/ � APPROVED BY�% C, % y4� �SE�� DATE SOE OR MGA OF STAFF GROUP ' DISTRIBUTION REASON FOR REVISION: ---------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS IN THIS ISSUE 1C.J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SHEETS REVISED. AOOED OR _....�................................................ .......................................................... .......................................................... .......................................................... DELETED _ PROBLEM STATEMENT: .. des 1.cr. ....141 -vr .. -20 _ B ....... .- ` .. l'`i`"G�. Zl�I (?,Z�_.. �es►. h c c�� ►�_vs-! ?- may'? . - - - �ri!!�?:�?�1�.. �es ..�S.....---•..................... ........................................-•---•--.......................... a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: ..... r 1 r . .. _ .. �'? e T wvl a. i w� l.. j e s I4 e � .. �`.' ! i rrl ..S ti`I e � y ........... . .. . S. `�•�J fl r `t" e.. e� t.c S yri. 'L ....1... ��.i.1�1 .. . ......... . �1.:. a gyp ; ►��,�, .. -� . -�� e............ . 4. l Z r, .. ✓r,a.X !M.wrv�...I! G1 11'1 a .{! ,................................. . ......................................................................------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {= _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RUM M AEN.Y...................... Dow -AP OV n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A07WC1711 FOAM $010 AEV. 3190 CALCULATION SUMMARY & CONTROL SHEET Page 2 of 2 1 PROJECT TITLE W � �+ G o aS e- r CALCULATION SET NO. PREUM, I FINAL VOID REVISION DISCIPUNE hA- J.O. 77 Z7 -z' 60 DESIGN BASIS: -•---------------------------------------•-----=--....•---..._._..._....____ .......................................................... ---•---------------------•----•--•------•------•-----------•--------•------- :.................. UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS/OPEN ITEMS: ----------•----------------------------------------•-----•----------_----- .....................................••---... ----._..._........---...._....._ .........................................•----...---...... •-------•--••-.---•---------•-••.............................•--....._...._.. ............ ............................................................... ............................__._........•-----...._....----•----- ............................................................................ ... ---...--------- ... ----_..... REFERENCES: (SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS, CODES, CALCULATIONS, TEXTS, REPORTS, COMPUTER DATA, FSAR, ETC.) ............................................................................. ........... ]-.3t$.-95 .............................. ................. .................................... --------................................................... "......_._.. q4. U.8 C..................................................... =---•.............................:......................................... .......................•--............_.......--•--.._.._.........._._...... ..................•--------..................----..........----._........... ........................................••---...-•------------....__........ ............................................................................ COMPUTER PROGRAM DISCLOSURE INFORMATION: PROGRAM USED: (NAME) REV. NO- REV DATE PROGRAM TYPE UEIC VERIFIED Cl YES ❑ NO ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION RUN NO. RESULT The attached computer output has been reviewed, the input data checked• and the results approved for rebase. INPUT CRITERIA BY DATE CHECKED BY RUN BY DATE APPROVED BY DATE DATE _ r7 r7 0S 2. -�'�..:- _-.__�t� c� i �e9 e�__�a.7�` . �} ►-eco � . - _- _- S4�� { 3SIa��4 ---• 2S�r3� - ' • ll 11 1 �l"4�-�-/--A'. =S -- --B_ '-8t ---t—_`-_t-- ._S _� Irit-i _�-�-.__�-':,iIatt�� �—.w _---_�O-_ =_-- �.• i--' 43- .�-_------y_--.---'�I'. ---- -_-' ----------1i-t-- -i5--4I,,Ir: �' �------ -_'!i —__- _-__ -_— -.-�'^' _�-_UC - -T_6 ,—_!�. -"S�_--I %I--- -}-`1i{-----N-C--'._-.- .,; a _-� —----�-"-- fI�,-j�! -_ _ ' ..';,,!.I -� '�' --_---. e i�II �1,—iI — 8 _ �`—' ��!'I�► 1I�— . �_N �-LEi�'I�r� �- -/ L—" O -!--_J z"�r�Vi�I_- '-.�- �'G�•--1'.66.t�-.N i' _..—,'T./�_T �_, ! y .D,Iri:!IIi1—;�-/OH'f! t�,'II,;IIii�! '-,c �-_-_.II:iiII'jIIIIi 1,9 NO -_--C'IIIi- T,. IJ..t-8-'�IiI-N�_.: - !I� �+-I+j�iIIIi! -. A-_�O-- -.�Ii�I(I�I� '• -.. -•'-;,iti 1 T-_ ( -- I'�I! ,II'S_eXIC;i,t'I,!1 _ —�—tae� 1}-.a.�d .p 6i.I,1 mo -r'1 -t$2 - -ss E,S- RIS-'I ?E/t�O�t, 3_/•�r 6I11>_U��-�L-6 - =. -�� �;iIIIII,_ZlT�a_`� -o �-N_ 72 kE711 pz —ir- 'De te ope 2-P L2 4 ,To?Io? I fi_IZZQ _ N��,IIII fam — —__�-t•�I(oIi,ifI!,j N .. , s j I j i � , i I 1 I ! i - • � � � ' I i � � ' ' ! 1 i 1e.� i I r 1 ! ( I I ' - t----- ---- I _ , • I I j i ; I I i El, 6S-4 z -9. 0. P49, -- _ {-__- - _. ._-_ -�_�_ _ _. _ -_ -.-I - I-- I ,�I ! I I I 111 �•� j • I ' } � i Vi II I a i L" 'IL6N �- -- -i '- - -- { I j � -•-- -- I'U- -' -- ( I - � i I' rl --- -- - I - -! II - j � 1 - � I i � '\ I I ` 0 II ! i I,'b ' � I 44 IQ> 44 -f\ 1 -- LA ^U.; _ n A . i s � Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION l3 l Q 800 —1rj DCLCLA+T2— SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID DATE %a PROJECT ;I'd �� CS e SHEET OF r DATE DATE SUBJECT O N 1'�G� J.O. /7 %OSZ. DO/ ph��r� i Ql (N e X M N I i +V W 6-L f�� S 9 0 - Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION®v— SHEET (-1 ���e CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY A. CHK'D. BY PRELIM. FINAL / ✓ VOID q pp ! 7U q/ y PROJECT V� //�� j A SUB 1ECTC�I V Ce I �Cq f'Vi A�Gt�'t 1 V eGt SHEET OF DATE DATE J.O. / 7o -s z • Q o 00001 l-'4 c4 -, S —N No 0000000,;� 3\0 Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & Constructors GENERAL COMPUTATION SHEET CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CH_K'D. BY PRELIM. FINAL VOID 9'�ATIE /y PROJECT Vel 1 a �� SUBJECT l7I COI e ev^a I Oyu ►-e SHEET - OF DATE DATE J.O. Z, 00 i 1 l2-#4 /,'ps 3-`114 .. /1 Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION l 3 t"q 60)00 1 1 FC7 EAT3 SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID ` 7 9 PROJECT VEL tt �-�+V a SHEET OF DATE DATE SUBJECT O Vi re A- J.O.770rZ, ooJ 1740 ef V1 vvl LL J7 2,3 (2 5) (40� IS 67c4, 2 Z0Z9 e f, 11 �a4�a,n ynewT aLove D 99(40 - I -Z6; = 2355 —ZOZ9 ..} let6 �iree000_v -- Ndc . 7-A e Ifo 11 0-cA.0 1 k9 . Cax<c C4,1 ad�'<MS O lil O►''i g r r1 -Q/ GtSS w�wJO %�~�Nt� Gr -via . pre! �Yrr.ih aW D� S � �.�-w►.p � i� Uyt S S O ��t 2 D ri cJ � vt cL. � � � s � `G�' � i5 �e.�t�a�'e• Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION 13 1 1 0 00—t F67 ECJ_ SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID ATE PATE, fQ l y ` ' 1 /' ✓ D PROJECT //V���,! W1,1J. d ATO Ose SHEET OF DATE DATE SUBJECT Ca)VCOI �eget�lE'VG.��a/1 YeQ J.O. 77�SZ.t7�� To, U— 2D I A 4 D X 0 W x -C. G, CG. DW(Xi ��••1(Y OW(K� Ow1�Y 3 T070 X880 I =o £-j 7880 63 �2 fl Soo IS -4 .0 41-2 6 3 63402 '76zs s zo 78S 27-4 Ho 2)4E4 11'79 Szo 78S 27-4 4--Z 21454 -3Z?4 89ZO 18.9ziD 20-6 6-8 27.6 607 121 sz? -34,10 s?50 20-8 1-10 117819 5603 9-6*0 15-1 ,?o 7-4.Z 2-1 141768 4,160S 3 00c 8654a /0-.?• 8--Z 149b433 65801 29&0 2900 4.9-1 2-)l 13'74 z4 .'8/-7./= 2800 28-00 43-1 5-4 13 7 4 Z4 241.2-4- 6lz42'76.0 2'70-0 ?&CrO �S 10. Z-7 i 351,134 25; 0 b 383D41'70 2-9- Z) - 6-0 10429-0 25020 139-3V 13630 2S70 6 O 240'7so 1,00 0 '7853 163780 331779j1 ll,?17,01 ?3/ 7 7 4 . Z 0,..,2Z _ !6 3 ? So y = 112-1?011 6.85 o Grssw.n.� VerTC. at 6 '6" L) 14 2L6 6 r7 �.6, I`ti•,i- C Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY' CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION 13 l g D o o —I F-. FJ SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID AT DTE `-, ✓ 8 9 PROJECT y`� ' I %� � v oOS,e SHEET- OF SUBJECT 6(!�Cdl �eCff'�l e �l A VI2,A DATE DATE . J.o. e -O/ 27, V I M . M 27.33` 6,o7' LO a cli 27.33` 6,o7' LO a Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION [31!3 0.00 — 6-1 SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID A PROJECT /`A (f -a6 -PS -E SHEET /O OF (rDATE DATE SUBJECT I �pCO l �ec�EH F1rCc i Ove I�eQJ.O. W4, F4. =/g.67�s4.67)(2•S�(.IS� 383 Ass rr► 2 �`', G: a" 6 r 6 af� a v +oP of vr�+ = 34« 6.S) - zz I z ve,r4. = 36 314 + /644: S47 k MGM, x=-164-'`(�,�9') = 19s, z.Y-€iawi - so. K P - s'4 7 94,4764-67).L. F /8, -6'7'(S -4,67)L S��KSF .V62KSF,�_ `�D�Ks c 7BSX� •s�6�I:--2Ksr KSF .3671csF 0367 PreSSu.1--e�pI&rJN:' 5 -f- Sei two C ►'1x 34 (9�t- My z 4- (,d zds,.4K�r_ ;9n s3� KSS_ KS F_ ,LSF z kSF _ ,27/ i Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) . Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION 1 31 9 000 — — F r--, �� SHEET PRELIM: FINAL VOID PAT QATE C�A49's W? PROJECT V�`� COOS SHEET OF DATE DATE SUBJECT p S0i � PreSSu.V2 c� �er�.),T, Des c� ►� Via; l ssu� _ , g o/ - Z, s (, �s) 0 43y" M 2.4-0K +- M U 2.9-0 7 � _ 4i93 k�N 3 �`' S' -g4 . S, g�r 3 � 8" l,ae2.8%'r-fE N ap,l IT s �i, 33, T , 67 '*/ + 8 43"". .S2Kff- p) -, 4 Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION12 SHEET r I� 6052 CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY PRELIM. FINAL VOID 4AT� / PROJECT SUBJECT �� C-14 `lea e � �rw ; o -n AreQ . SHEET 12 OF DATE DATE J.O. rJ%OS Z. e01 z vl� Irl ; Y�r,� �rc c eS S E a u.� . L s y Wrr f, z -24 �9��2.s8l'r� P 1 C°, or Q i dI er ct ap pra-A„ 62�r c-6ov-2 to 0+, V\ - SdeiSV V*I, v = . 206 (30") = u. 2 �� { A. DMr 6. zy--(G. o+2,s1) M A 2 `des S ,hy NI u = Gl / !`4S� 2 Sz, -®- �e�►� FJ �/ 6 el7-' E., W, qtr 1. e aS Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO, Constructors COMPUTATION I 3 6 (Do — SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID \ ' J V/ PROJECT VEL lr I l L 005 /� SHEET OF SUBJECT�� Cb� �at �°►� Py�i-� \ 4, 2 h �Ovl Q. J.O. /7�5`_,00/ eve 1 A,y-ea V, n W a [ I Z-aajS —n Lam, Pra Waier L oad i ,6624(2.$)2 z =. /9S" 694 Ihs�4 .11 (. 67)(1.r)�. III K N Sol Swye-�A.vvg e_ , qty, =3K/s) .4-54 _.67(3.67 (,IS) 3.7 �'XSo, =-2.'0(,83�,19k ,os 012" ea 12 REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY FG 'x -i 12 M -S -P? S ?// ti% DATE /L6H 8'.1 l0„ "S'e►z`' 0 ,195 'JOY -1, H 1 1"1.9 TV E I in DATE 00 W .: V e,r-f. LA s,=./g"+-, 37"-+,45"+. z3K`+-. /,9-6K = /, 3%'4 t y 694 ►I�j r ` �/ ��9�� 2 674 F"S, -_ 2,09Z = Z,q-� 6k - '37(j, /7) . 23 (2.2E) 0629(2.0(2.25> -.3s z.asz .: V e,r-f. LA s,=./g"+-, 37"-+,45"+. z3K`+-. /,9-6K = /, 3%'4 Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION SHEET S CALCULATION SET NO. 131 1 n 00 - REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY -�L2 J PRELIM. FINAL VI/[ VOID D n D-1,75 / U PROJECT SUBJECT6rlyoI�^chey6'eAyG SHEET )/ OF DATE DATE 4-6-©1 ..%IGS Sd� l ���ulre 11319 So► `Pves9tAy /.,39 (L) 364b)/ 095 Ks 4, d I -s r O IL Gt1eG�2 se`I S ►ti►-� C, 14- y- fl- F 4- Kfl- F S, 2�dSZ x,99 >/,S aK 1, 03 7 4' I- �9 3(.7.4) 1_ .__ _ ,682�,33� Z rdZ? S e i S ►n � �. wi: trvr� � GI.T `�'o v � ¢ �cj . 1RS �1,21� �2, b) . 0 5z(/, Z/V 33) _ —,0:33 37 6 3.6r7' Z 285Z - R._.. _. _ Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION SHEET 1�n 1 11�C i (U GO t're CALCULATION SET NO. 2,� 16f (D DO — (Fr7 REV. COMPP, BY CHK'D. BY e_— w PRELIM. FINAL VOID n �S Q�PATE/ PROJECT SUBJECT �j/Co I ReCieh e1rGi 10K 146A SHEET OF DATE DATE J.O. 717,0-TZ,001 4" aN �/2" t . Zo °H,-��- c� {C Nl "'A ' W, v e rfi, Ic , D O 12(l2) (8) ml -vi, Walt k o v -6- , In U ZO (1 Z) (I -Z) 27 `+ use_ 5 12 -,3l 14o, --e- 45 = ,00 4z(44j(g) - 1.4813yuSe. S-=1.5S4w My - .3 '-VI,7)�/,l) z �j C am 0�-K LAJ 4k U"g:zl 00/ 8 l 4.9) a . 24 �a -lop as -el Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers &. GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION SHEET W t���= CALCULATION SET NO. 1 3 ( Q 6) DO —1 REV. COMP. BY 1` CHK'D. BY PRELIM. FINAL VOID PROJECT I %%`` ! 1 SUBJECT(�lyC.OI `(ZegeV1a�ra.'t�cM ��pa SHEET 1 OF DATE DATE rj-0-,q-?OSZ"W Trend An,/e Tib -S See DLI, 13-10- I ZZZ �S Cao rvt e)- $ars = Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL Constructors COMPUTATION SHEET PROJECT W; I Q GeCSe SUBJECT1�4 Cch (• ��eN�YGt.� I C+'1 A 1^2Ol —I CALCULATION SET NO. I 000 - PRELIM. FINAL VOID I SHEET Irl OF I J.O. '7705Z, 8o/ W44e, LoQ� Z �rr Mme, � 6a5c at wall = . 68f tc//. Sb') M t.�/SeiSw,iL = 1,t�6�/,Zl� L /.28 Nle A5reed = .l4 '*"/4 C SS (z� 4 &-cro (/2-) ./ 6"- - 6 rl REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY L J /Z ATE 9ATE DATE DATE �hecl� �� 3So TZ, As. 0s'1•, 9 �4c l 3 5'b . �cn-► c ►-e,T e �nD q +e ►-`� +►-u c� u ►-es P, 4— �o� q 6k 5'�a.los ,�s=., do42�,1., �,oe74k�iz�l6�Z —► P- su,/ TO ID? p� or�1 d o��er ��h e� n� •cls -e Sial . R �-."VVL ✓ t Form 5007 (Rev. 9/95) Raytheon Engineers & GENERAL CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Constructors COMPUTATION 13 17 &00 FGx- ,/� 9 SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID DATE AT 7 ib 98 � PROJECT �!I �pp-"0 C)S'e II SHEET ` OF DATE DATE SUBJECT y Co F2C� E Nt°YaTiC�VI Asea J.O. %�S �. OO� O _( 1 a0 C z 8 u �a. _ May 3, 2004 County of Butte Building Department Scott Rutherford 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: Fax: Re: Plan Review: Butte County Jail — Electrical Only Dear Sir/Madam: County of Butte- FIRST REVIEW Jurisdiction Application No.: XXX LP2A Job No. 2040015-040 BUTTE COUNTY MAY 0 6 2001 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Lmhart Petersoh Powers :Associates (LP2A) has completed an initial -review of the following documents: -- 1. Plans: Four (4) copies plan sheets Single Line Diagram, dated March 4, 2004 by Sun Power Geothermal Energy. 2. Miscelllaneous: Five (5) copies Foundation Analysis dated November 20, 2004 by Eclipse Engineering Inc. The 2001 California Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and'Energy Codes''(i e: 1-1997 UBC; 2000: UMC, 2000 UPC, and 1999 NEC as amended by the State of California) were used as the basis of our review. Our comments follow on the attached list. Please submit an itemized response=l.a��r;.,n.�i;t�n�o (2) sets of complete and revised documents with all revisions clouded. Sincerely, HART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOCIATES Rc iald Greenwall I.C.B.O. Plans Examiner. RG:ag Enclosures: Cc: Alice Mefford: amefford@buttecounty.net ..... Mbutte county015\butte county 2004\204001.5-040 pc1:doc LINHART PETERSEN POWERS AS,SQCIATES 7610 Auburn Boulevard • Citrus Heights, CA 95610 (916) 725-4200 FAX(916)725-8242 Toll Free (877) 235-0653 P, 7 . Butte County Jail 33 County Center Drive May 3, 2004 County of Butte - First Review LP2A Job No.: 2040015-040 Page 2 GENERAL COMMENTS: G1.. The following plan review documents are based on the County of Butte Building Regulations. For your convenience, the following comments are referred only to the 2001 California Building Code unless otherwise noted. G3. Please respond in writing to each comment by marking .the attached comment list or creating a response letter: Indicate which detail,, specification, or. calculation shows. the requested information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re -check and hopefully, approval of this project. Thank you for your assistance. G4. For clarity, please amend the Cover Sheet to specify that only the 2001 California Building (CBC), Plumbing (CPC), Mechanical (CMC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes (adopted by the State . of California as of November 1, 200.2) and amendments by local jurisdiction are applicable to this project. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: (rg 5/3/04) E1- Show size of ac/dc disconnects. E2- Show size of conduit for circuiting wires. E3- Show fuse size for a/c disconnect. E4. You show a 1600 amp breaker at distribution panel but your conductors are only good for 1520, clarify and revise. If you should have any questions regarding the above plan review comments, please feel free to contact Ron Greenwall at (916) 725-4200 between 8:00 A.M. to, 5:00 P.M., M -F. [END] r. Eclipse 4 c.o n s u l November 20, 2003 Engineering, Inc-. t i ng e n d i n g 0. r s, z`. f Craig Stager Sun Power & Geothermal Energy APR `2 6 2004 863 East Francisco Blvd, Suite A San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Foundation Analysis Sun Power Ground Mount Units San Rafael, CA 94901 Craig, As requested, we have completed a structural analysis on the foundation of the above noted ground mount unit to determine the width and depth required for the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area. This structural analysis was performed for the ground mount unit as shown on the plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Our calculations were based on the worst case design scenario for both vertical loading and lateral loading caused by the configuration of the system as shown on the attached plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Pour, (4),1'-0".diameter x 4'-6" deep concrete piers, as shown on the attached Detail A, are required to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area for One Circuit, (12 Modules). A 112 " diameter, x 0'-8" long threaded rod shall be installed in -the uni-strut: and project into the concrete footing as shown on the attached Detail A. The piers shall be constructed per the specifications in our attached general notes. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. has only reviewed the adequacy of the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading incurred by the configuration and specifications of the system shown on the attached plans by Sun Power.and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. We take no responsibility for any other element or the structure as a whole. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you, Eclipse Engineering, Inc Brian Hanson, Project Engineer Encl: (Sun Power Plans, Detail A, and General Notes) 0 / C 5729 1� 2`I o3 /t ERI G OF 6 School Street, #180 EXPiREs: Fairfax, CA 94930 3p °s Phone: (415) 453-3469 Fax: (415)453-1280 www.eclipse-engineedng.com 022) j%, Strut 1law iU n a U (1122A) Double 1}a'' Br 77 Strut System Weight for one Circuit (12 Sharp -185 Modules). B22 - 1 Strut 1.91 lbs per foot B22A - Double Back to Back 1 Strut =. 3.80.Ibs per foot Front Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x -3.8 = 61 lbs Rear Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Front Footings (B22A) = 15 lbs Rear Footings (B22A) = 27 lbs Diagonal Supports (B22) = 30 ibs Horizontal :Supports (B22) = 64 lbs . Cement per hole @ 24' depth/ 12' width = 300 lbs x 4 holes = 1200 lbs Modules - -37.5 x .12 = 450 lbs Hardware - 2.7 lbs Total approx weight of One Circuit (12 Modules) = 1935 lbs VEST (B104SFp Three Hole • Adjustable Corner Angle 4M.�-ryf per, � D>� (B763) Two Hole Open Angle W-" (B104SH) Three Hole / Adjustable Corner Angle (B22A) Slotted side on Horizontal B22A Double I%- Strut {I B22A Connection Detail i F i o IN zu a l� NYr wlw.ml. ro..,.,• •,ql. Izzzu Approx 5'-8' r Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules• • - Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81° ' Weight-=37.5(bs --n1—a 0016 1 Issue 9/8/03 z ' SIXJTN _ NORTH r--•1 EAST F-- Q Q 2214 Fixed Tilt C)) 01 :tl d ED J c� ' W -a— rl°Hrar DoH 1- w ry C> �• E W z 0)o o sa e< .weza'. s rn \ O .LA ON 0) U �m6h.7- No4 glrn Mql. LD C Q r fr'0�•wH 11 4mt"W TMUr o6Ri . npy,el, r -a L� —1 1q.. wpnwur ro..r,• mp. i 0) 1, LLJ 3 Ul Q- lf) CL O d -d 'q- O 0- LTJ � M C r a.C.- .m..—a �.o C5 E) 00 V) -E Structural Mounting Job. E • Ground Mount . (B104SFp Three Hole • Adjustable Corner Angle 4M.�-ryf per, � D>� (B763) Two Hole Open Angle W-" (B104SH) Three Hole / Adjustable Corner Angle (B22A) Slotted side on Horizontal B22A Double I%- Strut {I B22A Connection Detail i F i o IN zu a l� NYr wlw.ml. ro..,.,• •,ql. Izzzu Approx 5'-8' r Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules• • - Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81° ' Weight-=37.5(bs --n1—a 0016 1 Issue 9/8/03 z O r--•1 F-- Q Q ?i C)) 01 :tl d ED J c� w ry C> L.L! E W z 0)o o 3 s rn O .LA ON 0) U LD C Q r dUcD o6Ri ~ L� —1 1q.. i 0) 1, LLJ 3 Ul Q- lf) CL O d -d 'q- O 0- LTJ � M C ' �.o C5 E) 00 V) 13, ?i :tl d is ;J �o$ M ¢ N ,n u V a rn .tr n -h v A 0000 ' Drawing Type. Structural Mounting Job. • Ground Mount . Drawn Ryi ' 1 .' Craig Stager. 416-740-0097 _....... .. .. 1 .. Date. . 10/70/03 . .. Scale. PROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. CONFIDENTIAL.- THIS DRAWING} MID ANY DATA. DESCRIPTION, AND OTHER Sheet: ' I 1 INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONSIDERED AS PROPRIETARY AND THE EACLUSIvE PROPERTY OF SUhPOWER @ GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. AND Of SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED, 'REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED, OR USED, IN wHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS wRRTEN PERMISSION OF A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SUNPOWER, h GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO.. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. • f - Eclipse Engineering, Inc. c o n s u I t i n g e n g i n e e r s anax"AL 235 N. First St west. so< �.,. Second Floor. NEXT Missoula, MT 59802 °°'ER''°°" Ph: (408)721-5733 GROUND MOUNT. UNIT SUN POVT=R 4 GEOTHERMAL EN =RGY z DATE: DESIGN BY: www.eclipse-engineenn_q.com 11/20/03 BH UNIT 5TRUT -BY OTHERS N ElN1SH GRADE mI-21FIMSH GRADE 11-1 11=111--111-111-111: I I I L-1 11=1 I I. III L I m III 1211(o GONG. PIER W/ i (4) #5 VERTS. 4 f I #3 TIE5 0. )0" D.G. „ GLR. .I'-0" 111 I/2"'PXO'-8" LONG THREADED ROD I I -a vcj 3" GLR: 4.. 4,. N.T.S.. r,'FNFRAL NOTES - St IN POIA/FR GROUND MOUNT UNIT -SAN RAFAFL, CA A. GENERAL - I.. Contractor shall verify all dimensions and job site conditions before` commencing. work and shall report any discrepancies to the engineer. 2. Use written dimensions. Do not use scaled dimensions. Where no dimension is provided, consult the architect or engineer for clarification before proceeding with the work. 3. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc. is the sole responsibility of the contractor and has not been considered by the engineer. The contractor is responsible for the stability of the structure prior to the completion of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms and finish materials. r 1. CODE: Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 2. VERTICAL LIVE LOADS: ROOF - 20 PSF (Snow). FLOOR - NA 3. LATERAL LOADS: WIND - 80 MPH, Exp. C SEISMIC - Zone 4 4. SOIL BEARING: 1500 PSF (ASSUMED) 1. fc = 2.500 PSI at 28 days, normal weight. 2. Max. slump = 3" for slabs and footings, 4" for walls, columns and beams. 3. Curing compound: ASTM C309, Type 2, Class B. 4. Construction to be in accordance with ACI 318-83. 5. Location of construction or pour joints must be approved by the engineer unless otherwise shown on these drawings. 6: Concrete shall be air -entrained and shall conform to section 3.4.1 of ACI 301-84 for durability. B. REINFORCING STEEL: 1. Use ASTM A615 -Grade 40 for #3 reinforcing bars, Grade 60 for #4 and larger reinforcing bars. 2. Provide clearance. and cover of rebar as designated in ACI -318. General Notes Ground Mount Units Sun Power & Geothermal Energy. Page 1 of 1 Eclipse Engineering, I nc. _ ... con s u I t. i. n g e n .g ..i n e e .r_ s. November 20, 2003 Craig Stager �a Sun Power & Geothermal Energy 863 East Francisco Blvd, Suite A A PR 2 6 2004 San Rafael, CA 94901 uNHAfiTHAM PEn O w� Re: Foundation Analysis Sun Power Ground Mount Units San Rafael, CA 94901 Craig, As requested, we have completed a structural analysis on the foundation of the above noted ground mount unit to determine the width and depth required for the concrete pier.foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area. This structural analysis was performed for the ground mount unit as shown on the plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Our calculations were based on the worst case design scenario for both vertical loading and lateral . . loading caused by the configuration of the system as shown on the attached plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Pour, (4),1'-0° diameter.x 4'-6° deep concrete piers, as shown on the attached Detail A, are required to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the -San Rafael area for One Circuit, (12 Modules). A 1l2:° diameter z 0' -8" -long threaded rod shall be installed in the uni-strut and project into the concrete footing as shown on the attached Detail A. The piers shall be constructed per the specifications in our attached general notes. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. has only reviewed the adequacy of the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading incurred by the configuration and specifications of the system shown on the attached plans by Sun Power -and Geothermal Energy -dated October 10,2003. We take no responsibility for any other element or the structure as a whole.. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you, Eclipse Engineering, Inc. Brian Hanson, Project Engineer Encl` (Sun Power Plans, Detail A, and General Notes) v C 529 (p3 f OF p� 6 School Street, #180lR€s: Fairfax, CA 94930 Phone: (415) 453-3469 Fax: (415)453-1280 www,6clipse-6ngineedng.com (1122) 1%' Strut Im Aye Kiln PIS!94 L" Y All- System Weight for one Circuit (12 Sharp -185 Modules) B22 - 1 5/s' Strut 1.91 lbs per foot B22A - Double Back to Back 1 Strut = 3.80 "lbs per foot Front Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Rear Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Front Footings (B22A) = 15 lbs Rear Footings (B22A) = 27 lbs Diagonal Supports (B22) = 30 lbs Horizontal Supports (B22) = 64 "lbs Cement per hole @ 24' depth/ 12' width = 300 lbs x 4 holes = 1200 lbs Modules - 37,5 x 12 = 450 lbs Hardware - 27 lbs Total approx weight of One Circuit (12 Modules) = 1935 lbs — - _ VEST N . 0' Ib conU NORTH SOUTH r.o,le xo,am+w rr..i°�. I�iu. 1Mr MOU t EAST t U U 5''B' te22N 0 . Ifom���• d> (B22A) Double 14a' Strut I 2211, Fixed Tilt M6-n•,y s.uws. ea. <B704SH) Three Hole AdJustnble Corner Angle 134V MW l am M. >s. '. '(B)63) Two Hole Open Angle _ I (B104SH) / Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side on Horizontal B22A (B22A) Double I%— Strut B22A Connection Detail i 1 E H 6163' l o NW a— Np. 0' Ib conU � 1 r.o,le xo,am+w rr..i°�. I�iu. 1Mr MOU t Ixlpelome ro,.v. Mp. t Approx 5''B' te22N 0 . Ifom���• d> R 1 Z Oii o °°' 3 s 0 7 r- 0V01a a O O Ul M N U LD C Q r d U o 0 CU 6 •Q . <B704SH) Three Hole AdJustnble Corner Angle 134V MW l am M. >s. '. '(B)63) Two Hole Open Angle _ I (B104SH) / Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side on Horizontal B22A (B22A) Double I%— Strut B22A Connection Detail i Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules- - Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight-=37.51bs vale 1 Issue 9/8/03 Z 1 E H Q 0' Ib conU � 1 L ?' 1Mr MOU t Ixlpelome ro,.v. Mp. t Approx 5''B' te22N 0 . Ifom���• d> R 1 Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules- - Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight-=37.51bs vale 1 Issue 9/8/03 Z E H Q Q � L ?' o v� J c� � w d> W F� Z Oii o °°' 3 s 0 7 r- 0V01a QUI O O Ul M N U LD C Q r d U o 0 CU 3i U L� 01 41 0-M Ll -i 3 u1 c- LO a— Od d 'q- o 1:3 IL LJ DY - D/ c M C :3 D � V) OD V) v job 1 'J ZCh 8 � y 0 7 r- 0V01a I. In it w In ti a ff4 w�-A 3i U 7 � M ,. lY 00 '+ i - Drawing Type: ' ' 1 Structural Mounting Jobs Ground Mount Drown Byi • Craig Stager 415440-0097 r .. . . 10/10/03.._ .. Scolel PROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. - - CONFIDENTIAL. THIS -DRAWING MID ANY DATA, DESCRIPTION, AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONSIDERED' AS PROPRIETARY AND THE Sheet: I Of 1 EACLUSNE PROPERTY OF SUNPOwER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY Co„ INC. AND LL SHANOT BE PUBLISHED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED, OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE ExPRESS WRITTEN . PERMISSION OF A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO..l01C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. consulting engineers aMcnaft a 235 N. First St west s ln Second Floor NEXT Missoula, MT 59802 °SRA°0N Ph: (406)721-5733 GROUND MOUNT UNIT SUFI POWER 4 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DATE: DESIGN BY: www.eclipse-engineering.com 111/20/03 8H UNIT STRUT -BY OTHERS ' N , IN15H GRADE m INISH GRADE ' 11=1 I I-1 I L-1 I i-1 11=1 I I. • 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 I - III.. 12"0 GONG. PIf—:�R W/ (4) #5 VERTS. 4 I I #3 TIE5 0 10" O.G. II II ,. . II U� I/2"(PxO'-8" LONG THREADED ROD -a II _aa_ �. 4" 4" @�SCALE- N.T.S. C;FNFRAI NOTES _.R1 IN POWER C+ROUNn MOUNT UNIT -SAN .RAFAFL', CA A. GENERAL :. 1. 'Contractor shall verify. all dimensions and job sitezonditions before commencing work and shall report any discrepancies to the engineer.. 2. Use written dimensions. Do not use scaled dimensions. Where no dimension is provided, consult the architect. or engineer for clarification before proceeding with the work. 3. The design, adequacy and safety of erection. bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc.. is the sole responsibility of the contractor and has not been considered by the engineer. The contractor is responsible for the stability of the structure prior to the completion of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms and finish materials. B. DESIGN CRITERIA - 1 . RITERIA-1. CODE: Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 2. VERTICAL LIVE LOADS: ROOF - 20 PSF.(Snow) FLOOR - NA 3. LATERAL LOADS: WIND 80 MPH, Exp. C SEISMIC - Zone 4 4. SOIL BEARING: 1500 PSF (ASSUMED) CAST -IN -P Ar-FAr-F MINIM T A. CONCRETE: 1. fc = 2500 PSI at 28 days, normal weight... 2. Max. slump = 3" for slabs and footings, 4" for walls, columns and beams. 3. Curing compound: ASTM C309, Type 2, Class B. 4. Construction to be in accordance with ACI 318-83. 5. Location of construction or pour joints must be approved by the engineer unless otherwise shown on these drawings. 6. Concrete shall be air -entrained and shall conform to section 3.4.1 of ACI 301-84 for durability. B. REINFORCING STEEL: 1. Use ASTM A615 -Grade 40 for #3 reinforcing bars, Grade 60 for #4 and larger reinforcing bars. 2. Provide clearance and cover of rebar as designated in ACI -318. General Notes Ground Mount Units Sun Power & Geothermal. Energy Page 1.of 1 Eclipse Engineering,. c o n suiting e n g i n e November 20, 2003 Craig Stager Sun Power & Geothermal Energy 863 East Francisco Blvd, Suite A San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Foundation Analysis Sun Power Ground Mount Units San Rafael, CA 94901 Craig, nc. e r s APR 2 ,6 Z094 As requested, we have completed a structural analysis on the foundation of the above noted ground mount unit to determine the width and depth required for the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area. This structural analysis was performed for the ground mount unit as shown on the plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Our calculations were based on the .worst case design scenario for both vertical loading and lateral . loading caused by the configuration of the system as shown on the attached plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. t=our, (4),1'-0" diameter x 4'-6" deep concrete piers, as shown on the attached Detail A, are required to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area for One Circuit, '(12 Modules). A 1 /2.° diameter x 0'-8° long threaded rod shall be installed in the uni-strut and project into the concrete footing as shown on the attached Detail A. The piers shall be constructed per the specifications in our attached general notes. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. has only reviewed the adequacy of the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading incurred by the configuration and specifications of the system shown on the attached plans by Sun Power.and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. We take no responsibility for any other element or the structure as a whole. A If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you, Eclipse Engineering, Inc. Brian Hanson, Project Engineer Encl: (Sun Power Plans, Detail A, and General Notes) / Cf 5729 E'i @ EIVG1�4 �a`P TF OF A UFO 6 School Street, #180 EXPIRES: 3,0 os- Fairfax, rFairfax, CA 94930 Phone: (415) 453-3469 Fax: (415)453-1280 www.eclipse-engineenng.com •� r (B22) 1%' Strut y� Jae ma Iftr 1 _ ago N II a U N (1122A) Double ] Strut System Weight for one Circuit (12 Sharp -185 Modules) B22 - 1 Strut 1.91 lbs per foot B22A - Double Back to Back 1 Strut = 3.80 lbs per foot Front Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x -3.8 = 61 lbs Rear Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Front Footings (B22A) = 15 lbs Rear Footings (B22A) = 27 lbs Diagonal Supports (B22) = 30 lbs Horizontal Supports (B22) = 64 lbs Cement per hole @ 24' depth/ 12' width = 300 lbs x 4 holes 1200 lbs Modules - 37.5 x 12 = 450 lbs Hardware - 27 lbs Total approx weight of One Circuit (12 Modules) = 1935 lbs <B104SH> Three Hole Adjustoble Corner Angle BIm- VEST SOUTM NDRTM EAST uM-n".y flava.• not 22h Fixed Tilt awam a I -¢I•• e ftrvctuyl c." �Y (B163) Two Hole Open Angle W'b} (B104SH) Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side an Horizontal B22A Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight-=37.51bs I \ i (B22A) 1 Double 1%" Strut 1 B22A Connection Detail 1 F / . O Doc-• I'M• ftM ,•r p ¢w Itreomcl taz¢a Approx 5'-8' ry Kev-n,en Ine.e T ] Issue 9/8/03 Q � U L �' 0 Q)'3 J c In � w d> W E Gq z 0) o 3 sO0'1� 41 UIT o O .Lri 0) U L3 C Q 'y CSUo 06 L (U LLj 3 In LI_ U-) O d -d 'F O CIW D!f :3 ,O d T � a / O tB161 l.o Ipr Oprn p.plr la B Y d nwa. I M• zwt O rw,t KwaoAm � ,nlwfKr App,w. P• i+ ,nr•e rlu f 1UAata4r Cor,+ py. • Drawing Type - a� 6mro t Job: . r of f."t.r awam a I -¢I•• e ftrvctuyl c." �Y (B163) Two Hole Open Angle W'b} (B104SH) Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side an Horizontal B22A Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight-=37.51bs I \ i (B22A) 1 Double 1%" Strut 1 B22A Connection Detail 1 F / . O Doc-• I'M• ftM ,•r p ¢w Itreomcl taz¢a Approx 5'-8' ry Kev-n,en Ine.e T ] Issue 9/8/03 Q � U L �' 0 Q)'3 J c In � w d> W E Gq z 0) o 3 sO0'1� 41 UIT o O .Lri 0) U L3 C Q 'y CSUo 06 L (U LLj 3 In LI_ U-) O d -d 'F O CIW D!f :3 ,O d 7y la B Y d rr n svo rwn i a •' ja f■ ;9 ; Y irk It 00 O 43 V1 a v 00 i+ • Drawing Type - Structural Mounting Job: . Ground Mount Drawn By. Craig Stager 415-740-0097. Date- 10/1003 Scale - PROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. CONFIDENTIAL. THIS DRAWING MBD ANY DATA, DESCRIPTION, AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONSIDERED' AS PROPRIETARY AND THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SONPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO. INC. AND SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED,{REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED, OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR A)JY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE.E%PRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SU14POWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO.. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Sheet - 1 Of 1 i t Eclipse Engineering, Inc. GROUND MOUNT UNIT consulting engineers SOWTUPAL . 235 N. First St West SUN POVT=R 4 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY amuTtom Second Floor NEXT Missoula, MT 59602 (4L 09"'"0N Ph: (406)721-5733 DATE: DESIGN BY: www.eclipse-engineering.com ++/20/03 BH UNIT STRUT -BY OTHERS N FINISH GRADE m INI5H GRADE 77 IF T� ct) I/2"4)XO'-8" LONG THREADED ROD 0 SCALE: N.T.S. 12110 GONG. PIER A/ (4) #5 VERTS. 4 #3 T)E5 a 10" O.G. 3" GLR. is t in A. GENERAL - 1 . N RA 1. Contractor shall verify all dimensions and job site conditions before commencing work and shall report any discrepancies to the engineer. 2. Use written dimensions. Do not use scaled dimensions. Where no dimension is provided, consult the architect or engineer for clarification before proceeding with the work. 3. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc. is the sole responsibility of the contractor and has not been considered by the engineer. The contractor is responsible for the stability of the structure prior to the completion of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms and finish materials. 1. CODE: Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 2. VERTICAL LIVE LOADS: ROOF - 20 PSF (Snow) FLOOR - NA 3. LATERAL LOADS: WIND - 80 MPH, Exp. C SEISMIC - Zone 4 4. SOIL BEARING: 1500 PSF (ASSUMED) 1. fc = 2500 PSI at 28 days, normal weight. 2. Max. slump = 3" for slabs and footings, 4" for walls, columns and beams. 3. Curing compound: ASTM C309, Type 2, Class B. 4. Construction to be in accordance with ACI 318-83. 5. Location of construction or pour joints must be approved by the engineer unless otherwise shown on these drawings. 6. Concrete shall be air -entrained and shall conform to section 3.4.1 of ACI 301-84 for durability. ► 1 : ► 1. Use ASTM A615 -Grade 40 for #3 reinforcing bars, Grade 60 for #4 and larger reinforcing bars. 2. Provide clearance and cover of rebar as designated in ACI -318. - General Notes Ground Mount Units Sun Power & Geothermal Energy Page 1 of 1 Eclipse. c o n s u l November 20, 2003 .Engineering} t i n g e n g i n e Craig Stager Sun Power & Geothermal Energy 863 East Francisco Blvd, Suite A San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Foundation Analysis Sun Power Ground Mount Units San Rafael, CA 94901 Craig, Inc. e r s RECEIVED APR 2 6 2004 PA o wE% As requested, we have completed a structural analysis on the foundation of the above noted ground mount unit to determine the width and depth required for the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area. This structural analysis was performed for the.ground mount unit as shown on the plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Our calculations were based on the .worst case design scenario for both vertical loading and lateral . loading caused by the configuration of the system as shown on the attached plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003.. Four, -(4),1'-0" diameter x 4'-6" deep concrete piers, as shown on the attached Detail A, are required to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area for One Circuit, (12 Modules). A 1/2 . diameter x 0'-8° long threaded rod shall be installed in the uni-strut and project into the concrete footing as shown on the attached Detail A. The piers shall be constructed per the specifications in our attached general notes. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. has only reviewed the adequacy of the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading incurred by the configuration and specifications of the system shown on the attached plans by Sun Power.and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. We take no responsibility for any other element or the structure as a whole. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you, Eclipse Engineering, Inc. Brian Hanson, Project Engineer Encl: (Sun Power Plans, Detail A, and General Notes) Al C 5729 E N G N't\ OF GA0 6 School Street, #180 Fairfax, CA 94930 . EXPIRES: Phone: (415) 453-3469 Fax: (415)453-1280 www.eclipse-engineedng.com (B22> l�' Strut MENE:'■ I aLq N °u (B22A) Double JV Strut System Weight for one Circuit (12 Sharp -185 Modules) B22 - 1 Strut 1.91 lbs per foot B22A - Double Back to Back 1 %" Strut = 3.80 lbs per foot Front Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x '3.8 = 61 lbs Rear Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Front Footings (B22A) = 15 lbs 1 Rear Footings (B22A) = 27 lbs Diagonal Supports (B22) = 30 lbs Horizontal Supports (B22) = 64 lbs Cement per hole @.24' depth/ 12' width = 300 lbs x 4 holes = 1200 lbs Modules - 37,5 x 12 = 450 lbs Hardware - 27 lbs Total approx weight of One Circuit (12 Modules) = 1935 lbs i VEST SOUTH NORTH CAST 22)e Fixed Tilt J � t 1 (B104SH) Three Hole AtlJustoble Corner Angle -9Wr 4� Je i�P aT� ll� i (11163) Two Hote Open Angle PVW . /Jif, k 0 Scale a' = r (B104SH) \ Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle (B22A) Slotted side on Horizontal 822A Double 1%" Strut F/ Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules Physical Specifications Length --62.01" Width --32,52' Depth --1.81' Weight-=37.51bs i i II B22A Connection Detail i i a+a. �wrTia,�tM 1 i Approx 1I Issue 9/8/03 � Q m a) L 41 o �3 CV) W �> W c Gq Z OLi o 3 s ° ED . o.mm 0) U LD C Q } d U CD o6 L (U LLJ 3 Ul LI- n n O o -c,v O D.- W DL 1,O C5 (0 OD (/0 i� 40 'Y i y o V q ] t C U1 �h r cd 7� en en r Y 0000 Y 1 ' Drawing Type. Structural Mounting Job - Ground Mount Drown By. Craig Stager 415-740-0097. Date: 10/10/03 Scale, PROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. CONFIDENTIAL. THIS DRAWING AND ANY DATA DESCRIPTION, AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONSIDERED AS PROPRIETARY AND THE Sheet: I Of 1 EACLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY Co., INC. AND SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED,(REPRODUCEO, COPIED, DISCLOSED, OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS wRNTEN PERMISSION OF A DULY AUTHORIZED -REPRESENTATIVE OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO.. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Eclipse Engineering, Inc. GROUND MOUNT UNIT c o n suiting e n g i neer s samcnw,. au235 N. Fust St West SUN POAER 4 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY tmaas Second Floor NEXT, Missoula, MT 59602 °OAMA710H Ph: (406)721-5733 DATE: DESIGN BY: www_eclipse-onginearing.com 11/20/03 BH d- FINISH GRADE I I-1 11-1 I I-1 11-1 I F I/2"4)XO'-8" LONG. THREADED ROD V UNIT STRUT -B`(. OTHERS O1 INISH GRADE I I I I-1 I I=1 I I-1 11=1 I m III 1211(o GONG. VIER A/ (4) #5 VERTS. & I, #3 TIES ® 10" O.G. 111-W LA-m. 1 411411 _+ 3" GLR. 11-011 ' f SCALE: N.T.S. �v� A. rFNFRAL . 1. Contractor shall verify all dimensions and job site conditions before commencing work and shall report any discrepancies to the engineer. 2. Use written dimensions. Do not use scaled dimensions. Where no dimension is provided, consult the architect or engineer for clarification before proceeding with the work. 3. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc. is the sole responsibility of the contractor and has not been considered by the engineer. The contractor is responsible for the stability of the structure prior to the completion of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms and finish materials. 1. CODE: Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 2. VERTICAL LIVE LOADS: ROOF - 20 PSF (Snow) FLOOR - NA 3. LATERAL LOADS: WIND - 80 MPH, Exp. C SEISMIC - Zone 4 4. SOIL BEARING: 1500 PSF (ASSUMED) 1. fc = 2500 PSI at 28 days, normal weight. 2. Max. slump = 3" for slabs and footings, 4" for walls, columns and beams. 3. Curing compound: ASTM C309, Type 2, Class B. 4. Construction to be in accordance with ACI 318-83. 5. Location of construction or pour joints must be approved by the engineer unless otherwise shown on these drawings. 6. Concrete shall be air -entrained and' hall conform to section 3.4.1 of ACI 301-84 for durability. ► I 3A Hei 121 1. Use ASTM A615 -Grade 40 for #3 reinforcing bars, Grade 60 for #4 and larger reinforcing bars. 2. Provide clearance and cover of rebar as designated in ACI -318. General Notes Ground Mount Units Sun Power & Geothermal Energy Page 1 of 1 Eclipse con s u November 20, 2003 Engineering,. t i n g e n ..g i n e Craig Stager Sun Power & Geothermal Energy 863 East Francisco Blvd, Suite A San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Foundation Analysis Sun Power Ground Mount Units San Rafael, CA 94901 Craig, Inc. e r s RECEJVE.D A PR 2 6 2004 As requested, we have completed a structural analysis on the foundation of the above noted ground mount unit to determine the width and depth required for the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area. This structural analysis was performed for the ground mount unit as shown on the plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. Our calculations were based on the .worst case design scenario for both vertical loading and lateral .. loading caused by the configuration of the system as shown on the attached plans by Sun Power and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 2003. l=our, (4),1'-0" diameter x 4'-6° deep concrete piers, as shown on the attached Detail A, are required to support the vertical and lateral loading requirements of the San Rafael area for One Circuit, '(12 Modules). A 112 diameter x 0'-8° long threaded rod shall be installed in the uni-strut and project into the concrete footing as shown on the attached Detail A, The piers shall be constructed per the specifications in our attached general notes. Eclipse Engineering; Inc. has only reviewed the adequacy of the concrete pier foundation to support the vertical and lateral loading incurred by the configuration and specifications of the system shown on the attached plans by Sun Power -and Geothermal Energy dated October 10, 20 responsibility for any other element or the. structure as a whole. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you, Eclipse Engineering, Inc. Brian Hanson, Project Engineer Encl: (Sun Power Plans, Detail A, and General Notes) 6', Fa Phone: (415) 453-3469 Fax: (415)453-1280 www.eclipse-engineenng.com (B22) 1%' Strut 1L I I ima N II a u N (B22A) Double lie' Strut System Weight for one Circuit (12 Sharp -185 Modules) B22 - 1 %' Strut 1.91 lbs per foot B22A - Double Back to Back 1 Strut = 3.80 lbs per foot Front Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Rear Horizontal (B22A) = 16' x 3.8 = 61 lbs Front Footings (B22A) = 15 lbs I Rear Footings (B22A) = 27 lbs Diagonal Supports (B22) = 30 lbs Horizontal Supports (B22) = 64 lbs Cement per hole @ 24' depth/ 12' width = 300 lbs x 4 holes = 1200 lbs Modules - 37.5 x 12 = 450 lbs Hardware - 27 lbs Total approx weight of One Circuit (12 Modules) = 1935 lbs (B104SH> Three Hole Adjustable Corner Anglell WEST SoDTH NORTH EAST (B163) Two Hate Open Angle Fires . /r,"k 11FUl W-4 Scale 1' = 1' (B104SH) Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side on Horizontal B22A Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight --37.51bs I l \ (B22A) Double 1%" Strut I B22A Connection Detail 1 1 RIssue99Y 9/8/03 z ?3 0 --y F � Q Q >, U a l) O r�dn r�uo (B163) Two Hate Open Angle Fires . /r,"k 11FUl W-4 Scale 1' = 1' (B104SH) Three Hole Adjustable Corner Angle Slotted side on Horizontal B22A Sharp 185 NT-S5EIU High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Modules Physical Specifications Length --62.01' Width --32.52' Depth --1.81' Weight --37.51bs I l \ (B22A) Double 1%" Strut I B22A Connection Detail 1 1 RIssue99Y 9/8/03 z ?3 0 --y F � Q Q >, U a l) O a, V) � W rY d U F L z Qj o 3 s°O'� ca V U 41IJlzr 0 .1A m .�rorn`� 0) U �vd c)ca� r d U o 3t W l oo Li 3 U1 LI- to q O d .<5,;T 0 a_ LJry _ r/ CLr) :3,O d Structural Mounting � 00 V) ?3 ? d a l) ;o 1_j Ty gyp O Q� °U 1 t ca V U .�rorn`� �vd 3t W l oo n Drawing Type. i Structural Mounting Job: Ground -Mount Drawn By. , Craig Stager 415-740-0097.. Date: IOi10/03 Scale: IROPERTY OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. CONFIDEMIAL. THIS DRAWING AND ANY DATA. DESCRIPTION, AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONSIDERED AS PROPRIETARY AND THE Sheet: 1 of 1 EACLUSNE PROPERTY OF SuNPOwER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO., INC. AND SHALL N07 BE PUBLISHED,IREPRODUCED. COPIED, DISCLOSED, OR USED, IN wHOLE OR IN PMT, FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SUNPOWER & GEOTHERMAL ENERGY CO.. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. . Eclipse Engineering, Inc. "GROUND MOUNT UNIT c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s w 235 N. First St. West SUN POWER 4 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY tmtxas Second Floor NEXT Missoula. MT 59802 C4 °vi9k°0 " Ph: (406)721-5733 DATE: DESIGN BY: www.eclipse-engineering.com 11/20/03 BH FINISH UNIT 5TRUT -BY OTHERS " GLR. I/2"ePx0'-8" LONG THREADED ROD . 11M 4" L411 56ALE: N.T.S. GRADE 12"0 GONG. MER N (4) #5 VERT5. 4 #3 TIES o !0" O.G. A. GFNFRAL- 1. Contractor shall verify all dimensions and job site conditions before commencing work and shall report any discrepancies to the engineer. 2. Use written dimensions. Do not use scaled dimensions. Where no dimension is provided, consult the architect or engineer for clarification before proceeding with the work. 3. The design, adequacy and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc. is the sole responsibility of the contractor and has not been considered by the engineer. The contractor is responsible for the stability of the structure prior to the completion of all shear walls, roof and floor diaphragms and finish materials. rr ► �:7Iq 1. CODE: Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 2. VERTICAL LIVE LOADS: ROOF - 20 PSF (Snow) FLOOR - NA 3. LATERAL LOADS: WIND - 80 MPH, Exp. C SEISMIC - Zone 4 4. SOIL BEARING: 1500 PSF (ASSUMED) 1. fc = 2500 PSI at 28 days, normal weight. 2. Max. slump = 3" for slabs and footings, 4" for walls, columns and beams. 3. Curing compound: ASTM C309, Type 2, Class B. 4. Construction to be in accordance with ACI 318-83. 5. Location of construction or pour joints must be approved by the engineer unless otherwise shown on these drawings. 6. Concrete shall be air -entrained and shall conform to section 3.4.1 of ACI 301-84 for durability. 1. Use ASTM A615 -Grade 40 for #3 reinforcing bars, Grade 60 for #4 and larger reinforcing bars. 2. Provide clearance and cover of rebar as designated in ACI -318. General Notes Ground Mount Units Sun Power & Geothermal Energy Page 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER An employee owned company k'9 KLEINFELDE/R GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED REMOTE FACILITY AND WELL PAD EXPANSION WILD GOOSE STORAGE ---- ------GRIDLEY--;-CAL- IFORNIA---------------- ®WashinM, fRECEIVEO OEN.VERI A'R1210®'' DATA CONTROL. April 18, 2002 This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational, and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page i of v April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER An employee owned company April 18, 2002 File: 23-484979-GEO Mr. Ian Duthie, P. Eng. ` - hA, Wild Goose Storage, Inc. ' + 3900, 421 — 7"' Avenue S. W. � r` Calgary, Alberta, Canada T21? 4K9 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Remote Facility and Well Pad Expansion Wild Goose Storage Gridley, California Dear Mr. Duthie: Kleinfelder is pleased to present the attached geotechnical investigation report for the proposed - expansion of the remote facility located at 2780 W. Liberty Road, and the well pad site located near the Cherokee Canal west of Gridley, California. The purpose of,our investigation was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at various locations on the site in order to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for project design and construction. Based on 'the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing programs, it is our professional opinion the site may be developed for the proposed. structures using conventional grading and foundation construction techniques. However, near -surface expansive soils and loose, potentially compressible, near -surface soils were encountered across a majority of the site. ' In addition, very loose compressible and liquefiable soils were encountered to a depth of at least 16 1/2 feet in the southwest corner of the site. Additional investigation may be warranted to determine the extent of these deep compressible soils if structures are planned for this area. Specific recommendations to reduce potential adverse effects of near -surface expansive soils and loose, potentially compressible near -surface soils as well as general.recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction are presented in the following report. Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the' provisions outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. The project Owner should become familiar with these provisions in order to assess further involvement by Kleinfelder and other potential impacts to the proposed project. 1 ■ 23-484979-6EO/2312R182 Pae ii of v Aril 18 2002 Page p , Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 3077 Fite Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827-1815 (916) 366-1701 (916) 366-7013 fax We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services for..this project. If you have questions regarding this report or if we'may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely,: KLEINFELDER, INC. Q�pFESS/pM v 9� � � 2 ichard M. Stauber, P.E. y �No. C 056153p Project Engineer Exp.12/31/e9t 1 �ql CIV1" CLQ F OF C � ?VF/ 1. �y Alan i of y A. illi No. 2404 N � Geotechnical D art ent Manager . , 'RMS:TAW:eas CAllf�Q, cc: Client (4) I , ►r ,t i 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page iii of v April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. }� KLEINFELDER 3077 Fite Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827-1815 (916) 366-1701 (916) 366-7013 fax r� u 1 F] 1 1 1 n TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER WELL PAD EXPANSION ................................... k'g KLEINFELDER PAGE ..........................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... :......................... ...... .... ..:.:... ....... 1.1 GENERAL ............................................ 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................... 1.2.1 Remote Facility ....................................... 1.2.2 Well Pad Site ........................................... 1.3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ...................... -- - - ---i:4 ---PURPOSE-AND-SC-OPE-OF S -ER -VICES ::. 2. SITE CONDITIONS ............................. 2.1 SURFACE .................................. 2.2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ... 2.3 SUBSURFACE .......................... 2.3.1 Remote Facility ............... 2.3.2 Well Pad Site ................... .............................. .... ......................................................1 .....................................................2 .....................................................2 .....................................................2 ..................................................... - ............................................................................4 ............................................................................4 ............................................................................5 ............................................................................5 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................7 3.1 GENERAL....................:.........................................................................................7 3.2 LOOSE SURFICIAL SOIL.....................................................................:............7 3.3 COMPRESSIBLE AND LIQUEFIABLE SOILS.........................................:....8 3.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS......................................................................................:.......8 3.5 SITE PREPARATION.....................................:..............................................:.....9 3.5.1 Stripping and Grubbing......................................................................:.........9 3.5.2 Existing Utilities, Wells, and/or Foundations..............................................9 3.5.3 Scarification and Compaction......................................................................9 3.6 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS.......................................................................10 3.6.1 General........................................................................................................10 3.6.2 Excavations and Slopes..............................................................................10 3.6.3 Construction Considerations......................................................................10 3.7 ENGINEERED FILL........................................................:.................................11 3.7.1 Materials..............................................................:............:. ...........11 ............ 3.7.2 Compaction Criteria...................................................................................12 3.8 TRENCH BACKFILL........................................................................................12 3.8.1 Materials...........................................................................................:........12 3.8.2 Compaction Criteria...................................................................................13 3.9 SPREAD FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................13 3.9.1 Allowable Bearing Pressures.....................................................................13 3.9.2 Estimated Settlements................................................................................14 3.9.3 Lateral Resistance......................................................................................14 3.9.4 Construction Considerations .................................. .................................... 14 3.10 MAT SLABS........................................................................................................15 3. 10.1 Subgrade Modulus.....................................................................................15 3.11 ELASTIC AND DYNAMIC MODULI..............................................................15 3.11.1 Elastic and Dynamic Modulus...................................................................15 3.12 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................16 3.13 CORROSION.......................................................................................................16 23-484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page iv of v April 18, 2002 '9 KLEINFELDER 4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES...........................:......................................:.............:...........17 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW....................:..........:....................17 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING..............................:.....17 5. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................18 PLATES 1 Site Location Map --------- 2 --_— Boring Location Map-- APPENDIX �. A Field Investigation Testing B Seismic Refraction and.Corrosion Testing C Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page v of v April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. 11 it GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED REMOTE FACILITY AND WELL PAD EXPANSION WILD GOOSE STORAGE GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL kn K L E I N F E L D E R In this report we present the results of.our geotechnical investigation for proposed expansion of the Wild Goose Storage, Inc. remote facility located at 2780 W. Liberty Road, and the well pad site located along the Cherokee Canal west of Gridley, California. Exploratory soil borings were placed in two possible expansion areas, east and west of the existing remote facility, respectively. We understand that the west expansion area has been selected for construction. This report presents the results of the exploratory soil borings placed in the west expansion area. Wenner probe testing and cross -hole seismic testing was only performed in the east expansion area since the west expansion area was flooded and not accessible after the first day of field exploration. The results. of the Wenner probe testing and cross -hole seismic testing from the east expansion iarea are also presented in this report. The site location relative to existing streets and topographic features is shown on Plate 1. This report includes our recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the locations of our explorations and the provisions and requirements outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. Recommendations presented herein should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without our prior review. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page I of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. kn KLEINFELDER 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1.2.1 Remote Facility The proposed project will. involve expansion of the existing remote facility which consists of above ground tanks, compressors, coolers, and other ancillary equipment supported on concrete mat slabs and conventional spread footings. Proposed equipment will be constructed within a rectangular area approximately 500 feet by 450 feet in the. west expansion area. 1.2.2 Well Pad Site Grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. However, as site topography is relatively level earthwork cuts and fills of about 1 to 2 feet in vertical extent are expected to achieve level building pads and provide .vehicular access and positive surface drainage. Excavations for underground utilities are not anticipated to exceed 3 to. 5 feet below existing site grade. A plot plan indicating the proposed project layout is shown on Plate 2. 1.3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION An investigation was previously performed for original construction of the well pad and remote facility by Anderson Consulting Group (AGC). The Final Geotechnical Report, Wild Goose Gas Storage Facility, was issued by AGC on May 1997. 1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our investigation was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at various locations on the site in order to develop recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. The scope of our services included the following: • Exploration of the subsurface conditions at various locations within the area of the proposed construction utilizing 18 drilled borings. �l 23-484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. 11 Page 2 of 18 April 18, 2002 �I K'9 KLEINFELDER 2. SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 SURFACE The remote facility site consists of a rectangular -shaped parcel located at 2780 W. Liberty Road approximately six miles west of Gridley in Butte County, California. The site is bounded by rice fields to the north and west, the existing remote facility to the east, and Liberty road to the south. Currently, the east portion of the expansion area is part of the existing remote facility. The --western-portionof--the -expansion-area-is-a-rice--field.--Site- topography -is -relatively --level: --An - - ' embankment separates the existing facility from the rice field. The well pad site is located about 10 miles west of Gridley, California along the Cherokee Canal. The site vicinity consists of undeveloped or range land. The proposed expansion is west of and adjacent to the existing well pad. Vegetation consists of low grasses and weeds. Site topography is relatively level. 1 2.2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The remote facility and well pad sites lie. within the northern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, which includes the San Joaquin Valley to the south, the Sacramento Valley to the north, and the San Joaquin/Sacramento River delta area between. This province is characterized by thousands of feet of marine and non -marine sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous (about 140 —65 million year old), Tertiary (about 65-2 million years old), and Quaternary (about the last 2 million years) non -marine sediments. These deposits fill a large northwest trending basin over 400 miles in length and 50 miles wide. The Cretaceous rocks are predominantly well consolidated marine sandstones and shales. The Tertiary rocks consist of inter -bedded marine and non -marine sandstones and shales, non -marine conglomerates, and a few volcanic flows, tuff layers and diatomaceous rocks. The Quaternary sediments typically consist of alluvial and lacustrine sediments that are semi -consolidated to unconsolidated. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 4 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. k'q KL EINFELDER 2.3 SUBSURFACE 2.3.1 Remote Facility Near -surface soils encountered in our borings located within the rice field (boring numbers B-11 through B-17) consisted predominantly of very soft clay to depths of about 2 to 5 feet below existing site grade. These soils have been disturbed by previous farming activities to perhaps as deep as five feet. Below the soft surficial soil, predominantly very stiff to hard clay and silt were encountered. Near -surface soils encountered in Boring Number B-18 placed within the previously constructed berm consisted of surficial clay with organics that had been stripped and placed in the berm during previous development. Below the berm, predominantly very stiff to hard clay and silt were encountered. Boring Number B-10 was placed in a gravel road that crosses the southwest corner of the site. Near -surface soils encountered in Boring Number B-10 consisted of soft clay to ' a depth of about 9 feet. Below the clay, loose poorly graded sand was encountered. The loose sand extended to at least the termination depth of the boring, 16 `/2 feet. At the time of our field investigation, free groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths of 9 to 13 feet below site grade. It should be noted that groundwater and soil moisture conditions within the area vary depending on rainfall, irrigation practices, and/or runoff conditions not apparent at the time of our field investigation. 2.3.2 Well Pad Site . Soils encountered in our borings located within the well pad expansion area. consisted predominantly of very stiff to hard clay. Except for a 4 -foot thick lens of sand encountered in Boring Number B-20 at a depth of 9 feet, very stiff to hard clay was encountered to the termination depth of the borings at 16 `/2 feet. At the time of our field investigation, free groundwater was encountered in our borings at a depth of 8 feet below 'site grade. It should be noted that groundwater and soil moisture conditions within the area vary depending on rainfall, irrigation practices, and/or runoff conditions not apparent at the time of our field investigation. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 5 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER A discussion of the field investigation and laboratory testing programs is presented in Appendix A of this report. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered during our field investigation are presented on the Logs of Borings, Plates A-3.through A-20 of the appendix. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 6 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. 1 3.1 GENERAL 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS k4 KLEINFELDER Based on the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing `programs, it is our rprofessional opinion the site may be developed for.the proposed structures using conventional grading and foundation construction techniques. 'However, near -surface expansive soils and' loose, potentially compressible, near -surface soils were encountered across a majority of the site. -- -- •--In--addition, -very-loose-compressible-and--liquef able-soils-were--encountered-to-a-depth-of-at-least-- ' 16 1/2 feet in the southwest corner of the site. Additional investigation may be warranted to determine the extent of these deep compressible soils if structures .are planned for this area. Specific recommendations to reduce potential adverse effects of near -surface expansive soils and loose, potentially compressible near -surface soils as well as general recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction are presented below. 3.2 LOOSE SURFICIAL SOIL Based on the results of our field investigation, loose surficial soils were encountered across a majority of the remote facility site to depths of approximately 4 to 5 feet below present site grade. In our opinion, these materials are potentially compressible under typical foundation and, mat slab load. Construction of structural improvements over these areas could result in excessive settlement. Therefore, we recommend any loose surficial soil within the proposed building areas (and extending 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the structures) be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill. The berm should be considered as loose soil unless compaction test results performed during its construction can be obtained. Excavated soil may be reused as general fill, but not non -expansive engineered fill, provided any debris exceeding 3 inches in maximum dimension and all organic or deleterious material is removed and disposed of off-site. Preparation of the subgrade exposed by overexcavation and requirements for engineered fill should be in accordance with recommendations provided below (see sections below entitled "SITE PREPARATION" and "ENGINEERED FILL"). 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 7 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. kTJ KLEINFELDER 3.3 COMPRESSIBLE AND LIQUEFIABLE SOILS Compressible and liquefiable soils were encountered in boring number B-10 located in the southwest corner of the site. These loose soils may represent a pre-existing drainage feature such as a slough or creek. Structures supported on these soils may experience excessive post construction soil movement even with the recommended over -excavation. The risk of liquefaction induced settlement in the sand layer is high based on the design peak ground acceleration(PGA) of 0.20g. It is very Y likel that unstable soil conditions would make ( equipment access difficult in the bottom of excavations in this portion of the site. 1 Options to mitigate compressible and liquefiable soils include. avoiding this portion of the site, deepening the overexcavation, ground improvement, or supporting structures on piers. Specific information regarding the size and weight of structures planned for this area is needed to determine the necessary additional measures that might be warranted in this area. 3.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS Based on the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing programs, near -surface clay soils located across'a majority of the site appear to be moderately expansive. These soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported -on -grade, or pavements supported on these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction. Several options are available to mitigate or reduce potential adverse effects to structures, concrete slabs supported -on -grade, and pavements due to expansive subgrade soils. We understand that existing structures at the site are supported on about 4 to 5 feet of imported non - expansive engineered fill. This is a suitable option for mitigating post construction soil movement due to expansive soils. Other options can be provided if desired. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 8 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER . 3.5 SITE PREPARATION 3.5.1 Stripping and Grubbing Prior to general site grading, vegetation, organic topsoil, and any debris should be stripped and disposed of outside the construction limits. We estimate the depth of stripping to be approximately 1 to. 3 inches over a majority of the site. Deeper stripping or grubbing may be required where concentrations of organic soils or tree roots are encountered during site grading. Stripped topsoil (less any debris) may be stockpiled and reused in non-structural fills such as berms; however, this material should not be incorporated into any engineered fill. 3.5.2 Existing Utilities, Wells, and/or Foundations Although not encountered .during our.field investigation, it is possible abandoned utility lines, septic tanks, cesspools, wells, and/or foundations may exist on site. If encountered within the area of construction, these items should be removed and disposed of off-site; existing wells should be abandoned in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Existing utility pipelines that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and that are to be abandoned in-place should be plugged with cement grout to prevent migration of soil and/or water. All excavations resulting from removal activities should be cleaned of loose or disturbed material (including all previously -placed backfill) and dish -shaped (with sides sloped 3(h) to 1(v) or flatter) to permit access for compaction equipment. �. 3.5.3 Scarification and Compaction Followingsite stripping and any required grubbing and/or overexcavation, we recommend all q g g areas to receive engineered fill or to be used for the future support of structures or concrete slabs supported -on -grade be . scarified to a depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture -conditioned to between 0 and 5 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Test Method D 1557. '! Should site grading be performed during or subsequent to wet weather, near -surface site soils may be significantly above optimum moisture content. Additionally, it is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon overexcavation within agricultural fields with shallow groundwater. This condition could hamper equipment maneuverability and efforts to compact site soils to the 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 9 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER recommended compaction criteria. Disking to aerate, chemical treatment, replacement with drier material, stabilization with a geotextile fabric or geogrid, or other methods may be required to reduce excessive soil moisture and facilitate earthwork operations. 3.6 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 3.6.1 General All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. 3.6.2 Excavations and Slopes The Contractor should be aware that slope height,, slope inclination, or excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, and/or federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part1926, or successor regulations). Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if they are not followed, the Owner, Contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. 3.6.3 Construction Considerations Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within 1/3 the slope height from the top of any excavation. Where the stability .of adjoining buildings, walls, or other structures is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability and to protect personnel working within the excavation. A professional engineer registered in the State of California should design shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for the project (if needed). 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 10 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations. All runoff water and/or groundwater encountered within excavation should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits. 3.7 ENGINEERED FILL 3.7.1 Materials All imported non -expansive engineered fill soils should be nearly free of organic or other deleterious debris, essentially non -plastic, and less than 3 inches in maximum dimension. In -- - ------general,-well=graded-mixtures-of-gravel sandy -non=plastic-silt;-and-small-quantities-of -clay-are acceptable for use as engineered fill. Specific requirements for non -expansive engineered fill, as well as applicable test procedures to verify material suitability, are provided below. Table 1: Engineered Fill Requirements 11 1 , r t S. a Fill Requirement :.1 Test Pro ced ures ASTM''1. Caltrans Gra4 dation 3 LT Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inch 100 C 136 202 3/4 inch 70-100 C 136 202 No. 4 50-100 C 136 202 No. 40 30-100 C 136 --- No. 50 30-100 --- 202 No 200 15-70 C 136 202 : PIQStiClty ;�-,� Liquid Limit Plasticity Index <30 <12 D 4318 204 r Organic Content Less than 3% " D2974 --- Expansion Potentaali(UBC 29 2) ", , Less than 20 - `. Dry Density,' , More than 105 pcf --- D1557 --- American Societyfor Testing and Materials Standards (latest edition) 2State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Test Methods latest edition 23 -484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 11 of 18 April 18, 2002 h4 KLEINFELDER In general, near -surface, on-site clay soils similar to those encountered in our borings do not meet the requirements indicated above but may be used for general fill outside of structural areas provided they are adequately moisture -conditioned during placement (see section below entitled "Compaction Criteria"). All imported fill materials to be used for non -expansive engineered fill should be sampled and tested by the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to being transported to the site. 3.7.2 Compaction Criteria Soils used for non -expansive engineered fill should be uniformly moisture -conditioned to between 0 and 5 percent above the optimum moisture content, placed in.horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. On-site expansive soils used for general fill should be uniformly moisture -conditioned to, between 2 and 6 percent above the optimum moisture content, placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to between 88 and 92 percent relative compaction. The upper twelve inches of slab subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Fills exceeding 5 feet in thickness should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction for their full depth. Disking and/or blending may be required to uniformly moisture -condition soils used for engineered fill. 3.8 TRENCH BACKFILL 3.8.1 Materials 1 Pipe zone backfill (i.e., material beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the pipe) should consist P PP ) -: of native or imported soil less than one inch in maximum dimension; trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of native soil which meets the requirements for engineered fill provided above. If import material is used for pipe or trench. zone backfill, we recommend it consist of fine- grained sand. In general, coarse-grained sand and/or gravel is not recommended and should not be used for pipe or trench zone backfill due to the potential for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained sand and/or gravel. If coarse-grained backfill is selected, please contact our office for additional recommendations. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 12 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. ,1 1 1 f t I r t k'q KLEINFELDER Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements only. More stringent material specifications may . be required to fulfill local codes and/or bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend the project Civil Engineer develop these material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, and other factors beyond the scope of this study. 3.8.2 Compaction Criteria All trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided above for engineered fill: Within pavement areas or, non -paved roads, trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction within .12 inches of finished subgrade. Mechanical compaction is recommended; ponding or jetting should be avoided, especially in areas supporting structural loads or beneath concrete slabs supported -on -grade, pavements, or other improvements. 3.9 SPREAD FOUNDATIONS 3.9.1 Allowable Bearing Pressures We recommend spread footings constructed of reinforced concrete and founded on imported non -expansive engineered fill be used for support of the proposed structures. Footings should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest final adjacent subgrade'. An allowable bearing pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for spread foundations with the above minimum dimensions. The allowable bearing pressure will vary with footing width and embedment. Therefore, the minimum allowable bearing pressure provided above may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of width and by 1000 psf for each additional foot of embedment up to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure provided above is a net value; therefore, the weight of the foundation (which extends below grade) may be neglected when computing dead loads. The Within this report, subgrade refers to the top surface of undisturbed native soil, native soil compacted during site preparation, or engineered fill. 23 -484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 13 of 18 April 18, 2002 �KL KLEINFELDER allowable bearing pressure applies to dead plus live loads, includes a calculated factor of safety of at least 3, and may be increased by 1/3 for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces. 3.9.2 Estimated Settlements Total settlement of an individual foundation will vary depending on the plan dimensions of the �f foundation and the actual load supported. Based on anticipated foundation dimensions and loads, we estimate maximum settlement of foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations to be .on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement between similarly loaded adjacent footings is expected to be less than V2 inch. Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly and should be essentially complete shortly after initial application of the loads. 3.9.3 Lateral Resistance Resistance to lateral loads (including those due to wind or seismic forces) may be provided by frictional resistance between the bottom of concrete foundations and the underlying soil, and by passive soil pressure against the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 35 may be used between cast -in-place concrete foundations and the underlying soil. Passive pressure available in engineered fill or undisturbed native soil may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic.foot (pcf). Lateral resistance parameters provided above are ultimate values. Therefore, a suitable factor of safety should be applied to these values for design purposes. The appropriate factor of safety will depend on the design condition and should be determined by the project Structural Engineer. 3.9.4 Construction Considerations Structures located near the top (or bottom) of a cut or fill slope should maintain a minimum set- back in accordance with requirements indicated in Figure No. 18-I-1 (page 1-176) of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 edition, or 5 feet (measured horizontally from. the top of slope to the closest point of approach of the structure), whichever is greater. Prior to placing steel or concrete, footing excavations should be cleaned of all debris, loose or soft soil, and water. All footing excavations should be observed by the project Geotechnical 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 14 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. k`■ KLEINFELDER Engineer just prior to placing steel or concrete to verify the recommendations contained herein are implemented during construction. 3.10 MAT SLABS 3. 10.1 Subgrade Modulus Subgrades to support structural concrete mat slabs should be processed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Engineered Fill sections of this report. At least. 3 feet of non -expansive engineered fill is recommended beneath concrete mat slab foundations. The .appropriate slab thickness and reinforcement should be chosen by the project Structural Engineer. A modulus of subgrade reaction of kv, 175 psi per inch (for a 1 square foot bearing plate) may be used for design of tank and equipment slabs supported as recommended above. 3.11 ELASTIC AND DYNAMIC MODULI 3.11.1 Elastic and Dynamic Modulus Down -hole and cross -hole seismic testing was performed for the east expansion option. Shear wave velocities varied from 760 to 1200 ft/sec in the down -hole survey and from 1000 to 1260 ft/sec in the cross -hole survey. The average velocity above the ground water table (about 10 feet . below grade) was 915 ft/sec. The average velocity below the groundwater table was 1160 ft/sec. Elastic and dynamic moduli calculated from .the results of the seismic survey. are presented in the following table. Complete results of the seismic survey are presented in Appendix B. Depth Below Unit Shear Wave Dynamic Shear Poisson's Young's. Grade Weight Velocity Modulus Ratio Modulus (feet) (pcf) (feet/second) (ksf) (ksf) 0 to 10 100 915 2600 0.486 7700 10 to 30 120 1160 5000 0.479 15000 r�1 23 -484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 15 of 18 April 18, 2002 k'9 KLEINFELDER 3.12 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Structures should be designed for lateral force requirements as set forth in Section 1629.8 of the UBC (1997). Parameters for input to seismic modeling are provided on the basis of information contained in this report as follows: Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters ' Seismic Source Type' UBC Table 16-U A -C B Near Source Factor' UBC Table 16-S/T Na, Nv 1.0,1.0 Seismic Zone UBC Figure 16-2 1-4 3 Seismic Zone Factor UBC Table 16-I Z 0.30 Soil Profile type 'UBC Table 16-J S SD Seismic Response Coefficient UBC /Table 16-Q/R Ca, Cv 0.36, 0.54 Ground Motion (Horizontal) CDMG2 gh 0.20g Ground Motion (Vertical) UBC 1631.2.5 gv 0.13g 'Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology; Jennings, C. W. (1994). . ZProbabalistic Seismic Hazard Map, Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration, 10% Probability in 50 Years, Soft -Rock Site Condition, California Division of Mines and Geology (1996). 3.13 CORROSION Electrical resistivity was measured using a Werner array. Electrical resistivity ranged from 3 ohm -ft near the surface to 70 ohm -ft at depth. Descriptions of the test procedure as well as more detailed test results are presented in Appendix B. 23-484979-GEO/2312R 182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 16 of 18 April 18, 2002 e 4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW k" KLEINFELDER We recommend Kleinfelder conduct a general review of final plans and specifications to evaluate that our earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and �\ implemented during design. In the. event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this.. '" - ----- ---we---will--assume--no ---- responsibilifor---misinte retati�on--of our---"------- — �,__ rP r recommendations. 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, placement of all engineered fill and trench backfill, construction of slab and roadway subgrades, and all foundation excavations. The purpose of �1 these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or constructionP rocedures if conditions differ from those described herein: 1 11 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Page 17 of 18 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. ,j IV, k'q KLEINFELDER 5. LIMITATIONS Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during construction. which differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed - -_.-_._-__loads or -structural -locations; -changes-from-that- described -in- this-report,-our-recomrrieridatioris -�— -- should also be reviewed. We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by Kleinfelder during. the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with. the passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of J� this report by any unauthorized party. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. s Page 18 of 18 April 18, 2002 n .� �� i 4 , `- t 1 1 1 Q Kleinfelder, Inc. 202. A. 35 36 31 ,,mss �% • 0 n 67 BM 68 69 II ----• -----•------------------� ---'------•---: •-'---- B M. -------'--------- 7,1 o: CID O tl 2; 6 aAG ft a / DRAIN �= ✓ _ - -.: ---'-- nm�rrnrtm.onm..mnn�yFo E -': J WEST 69 LIBERTY u 3 E O i3 E ._�i.:_;� - a 3E 3 E .• " 3 ;E 13E 1 —..... _ ,, --� 1 3'o�mir.r�n.nrtmmnmw�'•m,••••�E � Y .��� RE E w 72 a LA a 31 JE a w, N E 3c - 3E - S 'Pro I Ar z _;..APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch=2000 feet O 65 --W i 0 1000 2000 4000 ,z , 70I is ��o _ _— :"y byf ....�•� 11 RUTHERFORD ='r'^3 3c (1.62,500) 70 ' if ____� _ o,• — —3 SITE LOCATION MAP � PLATE kHK.L E I N F E L D E R REMOTE FACILITY EXPANSION WILD GOOSE STORAGE, INC. Graphic By: D. Anderson Date: 1/21/02 Project No. 23-484979-GEO Filename: v4dgoos2.fh10 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA Q Kleinfelder, Inc. 202. r _. of �Ji i 71 }68 �59 aE �"rovi le 4 '�'.! un Clubs �t 3 Ha un C 1 1 J li ------- -- x �` Y 11 ------- - mm�mm .' WTmTR-'.—unTttll � �/ �dme y ... m."..,.5,� 68 y — - 3 3F d2 _ n 1h9pI en` it f.wi r.Ul1It 3 y _ CIUit s , 17 __ _____ _ c.,.. 16- U3 We n !) Wimnmrtm.m. ar �I � at: J. 0`-.\\ •nom,: ._ - '• 1 J � .•' .�.-' .t��tk• y i a ..� - \\� a` _ E E^� 3� . �.�.. ! M+ / J i .� l " _ 9 \ sem- Lam, �•,,, 3c ' �. ` _ ♦A (�! .ti t/�. 1/ �� ST00 = 7y};_•ti ''��� y, m.�rmrtm.".m mnrli ,n. / u lia.R zq— _ _ ... by 14 It 21 l .. ¢ co SUTT] APPROXIMATE SCALE: finch=2000 feet 1 _ L W -P:_ -- - I Chi �w = 0 loo0 2000 _ a000 - __ •- = �= '{ ' i ne Be 1 LL PLATE kHK L E I N F E L D E R SITE LOCATION MAP WELL PAD EXPANSION 2 Graphic By: D. Anderson Date: 1/21/02 WILD GOOSE STORAGE, INC. Project No. 23-484979-GEO Filename: wldgoos1.fh10 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA Q Kleinfelder, Inc. 202 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ri ........ .... - ----------- c hr ASHLEY 1J, fix h V 'L�, N CQ 9k. .. . . ........ G -7 30 C0LVSA:! CID j :65 LATERAL i6 3 -J -32 34 3 33 36 Y 4� L? - - ------- z 0 < -j L) Cori —j .;f?EMP E FA S1 2�- 3 i 0 3 LL lb SEPT W hL: W z ppJJ ly ell -T W .7 . . . . . . . . . . 12e 0 7 TV, Z Z I < fj EVANS REWEP --- - ------- W J; ELL" D--- A 7 0 Z 16 13 70 G W R 0 -"V ly 4 0 < W LLJ -S- A N "A G E ENT E'J' 4f' W s F1 11:F 0 _W.-, M LL • 0 co 123 19 F- �.18 2cr 241 14- ow) A R?", CLOO.- V` co z It L) 0 T ..... ..... . . . ... .... -N A 0 ,UJ,o ti L 2 LIj 31) > W > ;gam M . 1 9 28 -26-- W F- rH tnuferre 0 QT�7 PL, 1!11 '2 ch=4 milesti cL APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 in ..< 0 0 0) 2 4 8 " 35 31 I Ile. 26 S 1 71- I Ir tz _J? 0 (1:62,500) U) I uN k LU /0 EXPLANATION =0-6- . z a). Qmu - Older Alluvium (Pleistocene) - Modesto Formation, Upper Member: Unconsolidated unweathered gravel, sand, silt, and clay ?Luoclay Qml - Older Alluvium Pleistocene Modesto Formation, Lower Member: Unconsolidated slightly weathered gravel, sand, silt, and Qd - Older Alluvium Pleistocene � - Riverbank Formation, Lower Member: Red serniconsoliclated gravel, sand, silt, and clay Qb - Basin Deposits - Undivided (Holocene): Fine grained silt and clay .of M". I PLATE KLEINFELDER GEOLOGIC MAP REMOTE FACILITY AND WELL PAD 3 Graphic By: D. Anderson Date: 1/21/02 WILD GOOSE STORAGE, INC. ect No. 23-484979-GEO Filename: wldgoos3.fh 10 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA I I IQ Kleinfelder, Inc. 2001 I EXPANSION WEST PLANT EXISTING PLANT Q ll O r N xl W N x PG&E t2" PIPELINE #167J I � � � �36" PIPELINE TO PG&E X401 RICE FARMING 01 0 o I I -- n " N253062,Q0 ROAD o o UILOING 35 w r, LANDSCAPE (q - COMPRESSOR ) FENCE � �� ii BERM ri 15' ACCESS (TYR) GAS ' Lkj'�BH-16t ORO AREA I ! -C3 ION e rr BH -11 -BH -12 -BH -13 r r , COMPRESSOR UI N U I I BH -17 I (f�UT _ E�� 100 M jCCOM R. BLDG. a v n PI E SLEEPERS- ___ m _ c ( W PARKING oMV a a pfl M M. — _ W W Z I O._:_ .... ... W U I PIPE SLE PERSgH-15 a BH -18 ° PIPE SLEEPERS BH -10 I oBH-14 -0' o o Le PARKING O¢ o• o• O ` __CD CY) __ c I 15' CCESS' (TYP) — — — 5 35'SCAPE FENCE-� I I GATE ( II. Z FENCELANGAT 0C BER TYP. y t I I af f z__ DITCH --- f MAIN II DfTCH._.. - = I ----. I I GATE I WEST LIBERTY ROAD i 3" ATER FROM WELL P D + a GREY LODE WILDLIFE AREA F 18" GAS FROM WELL P D - - -------- -Ji------ - ------ ----------- ---- --- w ----------�--- I Cc T 0. x o q o _ N Z O t � f Z x APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 100 feet - LEGEND <r w N E Cr . 0 50 100 200 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION D S' wBORING LOCATION MAP PLATE Z k'%KLEI N FELDER Q REMOTE FACILITY EXPANSION 4 LL 1 Project No. 23-484979-geo - Graphic By: D. Anderson WILD GODS€"STflRAG€, INC. Cr Filename: w1dgoos5a.fh10 Date: 4/15/02 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA elder, Inc. 2002 f Iti IN W'W SM-60/�— EMS ING GAS WELL IW Lrr i I /, I •/ i/ I i0P OF 9ERM ELEv. 64.0' :I �+ I i SBH-19 I I I � I ,i PERIMETER c1c 60.0 �_ • I i_ I i ; ZONE U FUTURE I I I I I LL+ II 1 N 2+&200 i , 1, 1 I; I 1 '� q; it I• 1� 1 d' I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , 2&4200� •-�^' I i l_J L_J.IL_JIL�JI l_J L_J L_J L_J l_J L:J I fl { I vz mv CbPPI 1 ' i I I it I 1 *,--Jl EXISTING WATER WELL AND 2.5' �DW. PRESSURE WE` LPAO—I 1 TANK ('E-39.2) ' 9UILvING RELOCATE 1 ` I , `: ;t _(�N9CH�- 1 I D(unNG BERM(136'-0-)J . _x�q§ - ' B ! 1 I . I I I I- ,�I�NC PIPE':1NE 1 4 {..._. __ _ _jV'-. _/— � INTERFACE I I i I•I T I Z ( ;. N2u! '. E59a900 --- r� I r� T } 1 I I 1 N 2"100 1 � J- -t rllll"' N2"100 I 1 j,A J,�7 O J,V JJ •fj. W Y . WIN y'Y�f i I ED . 1 i (� I �_' ; 3'• _• .�• I I I 3I �., 3I iI- I � 31W 3:IW oi3 I , 1... W tY c� td+ I "-La 426V FUTUR rn LU LONE- L-1 - I I 1. I I ZONE L-1 C 11\ 1 o � I cr =- T • } X �� I TOP. :OF .9ERM ELEV. - 63.0) F � � 1 'I N 2&4000 � q o----- �- o N Z O Z CL APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 50 feet LEGEND t cr w N e cr 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION `L s BORING LOCATION MAP PLATE W k4K L E I N F E L D E R U z _ WELL PAD EXPANSION CJ w Project No. 23-484979-geo Graphic By: D. Anderson WILD GOOSE STORAGE, INC. x filename: wldgoos6.fh10 Date: 4/15/02 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA Q Kleinfelder, Inc. 2002 �h' 1 �,,: � ��l� -- � a � yy � . i` �' � a 1 � ` ` � ,� _ , ` , �'' _ '� ,' �: �. �€ '� ,' �`�. �` ,' _ . ^ i t. ;f +pi �', �i `�; . �, � ^ �. ? ` , a r . • � _ <�r i� �' _ � i f. f 1f . jai � \ rj. t ` t f ,Y �,, �.. c � ; ' � r i .r � i. �E f� �k �t� ,i`�,; �c{� w i k'9 KLEINFELDER APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING FIELD INVESTIGATION General The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on October 2"', 3`d, and 4"', 2001 by drilling 11 borings to depths ranging from 16 '/z to 31 '/2 feet below existing grade. Borings were drilled using a CME 75 truck -mounted drill rig equipped with 6 -5/8 -inch -diameter hollow -stem auger. The locations of borings performed for this investigation are shown on Plates 2 4. and 5 of the report. Borings were located in. the field by visual sighting and/or pacing from existing site features. Therefore, the location of borings shown on Plates 4 and 5 should be considered approximate and may vary from that indicated on the plate. Our engineer maintained a log of the borings, visually classified soils encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System (see Plate A-1), and obtained relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of the subsurface materials. A key to the Logs of Borings is presented on Plate A-2 of this appendix; Logs of Borings are presented on Plates A-3 through A-11. Sampling Procedures Soil samples were obtained from the borings using either a Modified California or Standard Penetration Sampler driven 18 inches (unless otherwise noted) into undisturbed soil using a 30-. inch drop of a 140 -pound hammer. Blow counts were recorded at 6 -inch intervals for each sample attempt and are reported on the logs in terms of blows -per -foot for the last foot of penetration. Soil samples obtained from the borings were packaged and sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and returned to our Sacramento laboratory. After borings were completed, they were backfilled with cement grout. 23-484979-GEO/2312R182 A-1 April 18, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS USCS TYPICAL SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS ' k'% KLEINFELDER Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 Date: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a copyrw ftwolew, hQ 2002 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA PLATE A-1 GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND CLEAN GRAVELS MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES WITH LITTLE : GRAVELS OR NO FINES ° (More than half of G P POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND coarse fraction O MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES is larger than the #4 sieve) ° GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SILT -SAND GRAVELS MIXTURES COARSE WITH OVER GRAINED 12% FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY SOILS MIXTURES (More than halfS W WELL -GRADED SANDS, SAND -GRAVEL of material SANDS CLEAN SANDS ; MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES is larger than WITH LITTLE SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, SAND -GRAVEL the #200 sieve) (More than half of OR NO FINES coarse fraction is smaller than MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES the #4 sieve) SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -GRAVEL -SILT MIXTURES SANDS WITH OVER 12% FINES • . SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -GRAVEL -CLAY MIXTURES M L INORGANIC SILTS & VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM CL PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, (Liquid limit less than 50) SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS FINE — GRAINED SOILS _ OL ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY (More'than halfMI I INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR of material DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT is smaller than the #200 sieve) SILTS AND CLAYS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, (Liquid limit greater than 50) FAT CLAYS ffOH] ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF MEDIUM -TO -HIGH PLASTICITY LOAMS 10 UNDER USDA SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, po 0o SOIL OF APPROXIMATELY EQUAL SAND/SILT/CLAY k'% KLEINFELDER Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 Date: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a copyrw ftwolew, hQ 2002 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA PLATE A-1 LOG SYMBOLS STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER --- ---(2-inch-outside-diameter)--- - CONTINUOUS CORE PERCENT FINER -4 THAN THE NO.4 SIEVE (ASTM Test Method C 136) PERCENT FINER -200C THAN Test NO. d 00 C11E17) LIQUID LIMIT LL (ASTM Test Method D 4318) PLASTICITY INDEX PI (ASTM Test Method D 4318) CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TXCU TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION (EM 1110-171906) BULK / BAG SAMPLE EI MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (2-1/2 inch outside diameter) ROCK CORE COL CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (3 inch outside diameter) WATER LEVEL STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER --- ---(2-inch-outside-diameter)--- - CONTINUOUS CORE PERCENT FINER -4 THAN THE NO.4 SIEVE (ASTM Test Method C 136) PERCENT FINER -200C THAN Test NO. d 00 C11E17) LIQUID LIMIT LL (ASTM Test Method D 4318) PLASTICITY INDEX PI (ASTM Test Method D 4318) CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TXCU TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION (EM 1110-171906) GENERAL NOTES 1. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual. 2. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations. 3. Logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated. 4. In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were evaluated by visual methods only. Therefore, actual designations (based on laboratory tests) may vary.: d LOG KEY PLATE k% KLEINFELDER WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD A-2 Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA flbate: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a W09ht KJehteKW. M ZM SHELBY TUBE EI EXPANSION INDEX (UBC STANDARD 29-2) ROCK CORE COL COLLAPSE POTENTIAL WATER LEVEL (level where first encountered) UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION (ASTM Test Method D 2166) T WATER LEVEL (level after completion) /w SEEPAGE MC MOISTURE CONTENT. (ASTM Test Method D 2216) GENERAL NOTES 1. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual. 2. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations. 3. Logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated. 4. In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were evaluated by visual methods only. Therefore, actual designations (based on laboratory tests) may vary.: d LOG KEY PLATE k% KLEINFELDER WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD A-2 Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA flbate: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a W09ht KJehteKW. M ZM I t . I 1 1 1 1 Y Copynift KWHeklw. M& 2002 Surface Conditions: Gravel road. Date Completed: 10/3/2001 Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 8-1/2 feet Logged By: C. Giuntini below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY m DESCRIPTION CL O a, a 1 C o ; t CL L n a E E C 'n V� .-. mO p co m m n a v aa,o a OH Approximate Elevation .feet (msl)p Clayey SAND (CL): Dark brown, dry to slightly moist 4 Sandy CLAY (CL): Olive, moist, soft to 5 1 moderately stiff 6 <.25 1Poorly graded SAND ---(SP): Brown, wet, loose = trace fines 10 ; 4 15 no sample recovered due to heave 27 Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20 25 LOG OF BORING BH -10 PLATE k09 K L E I N F E L D E R WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 1 of 1 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-3 Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 Date: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a U > KA_2001 4979_A.GPJ 1/16/02 3 I vv Cnn o. v, o Ln i Depth (feet) C a ; Type a C pp -Sample rn N v CL ;v m 0 c N 0 _ Sample No. m • • 0 O_- T /\ 41 O I'7'1 r'' � 4 o co A Blows/ft o Cr S7 2 N O Z C z Z C .n. B T Pen (tsf) (D a obi N f L 0 m o 'to Al m :3. ? w rv Dry m • � a -----•------- --- ---- ----- -- -- -- •- -- - -- -- -- Density (pc) ,C o i� Moisture a 4 Co T Content (%) fD a Liquid Limit m w ----- --- -- - -- --- -- a CD Plasticity Index Passing s o v t Or - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - _ #' Sieve_ ON Passing D w IT! 0 0 ! #200 Sieve % x I <r-00 w < 3 0W� .. O m rm 7D m z m 0 m }7 j i other Tests N 7) 33 i CD m z o o il = SIN ... Lithography DOT D C7 O < mN�0 3m Mal ° �� o o w o < m D �_ 7t° a ,e I o N m .D D m m C' o CLO CD_y ®ml aI °SII m Ali ( CLO O � _ s 3 _ m a �l PSICL x MZI 3061 U93.°ll m m w n o m f0 m' NCD 7m � CD CLCryal! m.''m n �_ ^' Q ro C O. - mal faA 7 I �I �I a CD G 7 l o Ca ?: 7 •_•� o 2. O O .. _ O m z waw fl ? ®� .�l it m N D J m of o 1 Cr fCL g II KA 2001 4979_A.GPJ 1/16/02 vv o Cn M o En o (n o Depth (feet) co CL ca Sample Type No Sample No. N H M ro Blows/ft 6 T -u CD O C CD 3 Z T + Pen (tsf) M H'1 A Dry ----------------------------- - - Density(pcf) i�wmAv Moisture T I Content (%) M. - - - ----- ------- -- -- -- --- -- - - ---- Liquid Limit Plasticity Index v moor-- Passing 000 -- --- -- -- -- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- -•- - -- n m#200 Passing Sieve % n �r-00 0 o W.tn rm M m Z j Om I Other Tests I DDO p + Lithography 0 r X. o » M•1 a is i �c ..I I m 3.I °x to CLM 3 mw m wl D m Co n t SI 0 jI N� m y Z t— DN --i CD i -- M Cr N m 0 fl t 1 a Y Copyrlhf VWWA . he. 2002 Surface Conditions: Harvested rice field. Date Completed: 10/2/2001 Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 13 feet Logged By: C. Giuntini below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY m v DESCRIPTION T 6 CL c G o'. > L ..�- m H y m C J Ofj 1 1 1 1 t 81 a Y Coyrigf ftNakW. br. 2002 Surface Conditions: Harvested rice field. Date Completed: 10/2/2001 Logged By: C. Giuntini Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 12-1/2 feet below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY CD v DESCRIPTION w ... m (D- N T'mC. 7 J '�' •U C M05 a R o CL o a � 3 m C m C N C Z ° ' ° ° 5 y `—° 5 y(n'y0 ° v' ° c°v Ole L m 0 = Approximate Elevation feet (msl) o_ 00 r20 1 a o-a,o-* OH Sandy CLAY (CL): Mottled gray to olive -brown to yellow-brown, moist, trace fine sand, organics 5 0.5 Is 0.9 10 olive -brown, trace fine to medium sand 17 r 1 Poorly graded SAND (SP): Brown, wet, fine grained 15 22 Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20 25 LOG OF BORING BH -15 PLATE k19 KLEINFELDER WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 1 of 1 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-6 Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 Date: 1/16/2002 File Number: 4979_a Surface Conditions: Harvested rice field. Date Completed: 10/2/2001 Logged By: C. Giuntini Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 12-1/2 feet below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY X DESCRIPTION CD CU > a C E o m > _ L 7 .p U �> �/ C m' E r4 CL ECD E 3 o .-. c m c' �' c �m'oo N c' ro CU M N y = m OI Approximate Elevation feet (msl) 0 (a co I Cn m o- 00 ,20 _ a o-a.o. OH CLAY (CL): Dark brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff, trace fine sand, organics <.25 - — - _- - —1.0 . - _. 0.5_ Sandy CLAY (CL): Yellow-brow4n, dry to moist, hard, fine grained sand 5 2.0 32 >4.0 ; 10 53 15 wet 45 Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20 25 a LOG OF BORING BH -16 PLATE a k9 KLEINFELDER r' WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY 1of1 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-7 aJ Date: 1/16/2002 < File Number: 4979_a wrhgM McWdeW, W_ zw¢ Surface Conditions: Harvested rice field. Date Completed: 10/2/2001 Logged By: C. Giuntini Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 11 feet , below existing site grade: Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY ' (1) v — DESCRIPTION m CL d "a n, _> a L d a 3 C' '-' C 'y N �' h O lD O CL m � O m c 0 a z m'° O' Do,�U Q' `—° _ a o v' C6 N a. :o- L m OF - Approximate Elevation feet (msl) D cn rn CLAY (CL): Mottled olive -brown to black, moist, trace very fine sand Sandy CLAY (CL): Olive -brown to brown, dry to moist, stiff, trace fine sand. -12.. . .09 ..... _ .__. ..----- very stiff, trace coarse sand 5 1.5 24 2.0 Clayey SAND (SC): Mottled yellow-brown to olive -brown too dark brown, wet, very dense, fine sand 10 66 Sandy CLAY (CL): Mottled olive -brown to yellow-brown, wet, hard, fine sand 15 38 Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20- 025LOG 25— LOGOF BORING BH -17 PLATE k09 K L E I N F E L D E R i 1 n' WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY of a 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD N Drafted By: D.:Ross.. Project No.: 23-484979 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-8 a' Date: 1/16/2002 y File Number: 4979_a oWght MalnteW, by- 2002 Surface Conditions: Gravel/sand/silt road. Date Completed: 10/3/2001 Logged By: C. Giuntini Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of approximately 12 feet below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY X c DESCRIPTION m a o n' E; > a Q a) m U C C n E E 3 v c .«T' c' y c ' D in a a) yto'coo o W m... ca o Approximate Elevation feet (msl) o m a 00 :20 _ s a,a. a O CLAY (CL): Dark olive -brown to black, moist, with fine sand, organics Sandy CLAY (CQ: Olive to olive -brown mottled, . dry to moist, hard 5 2.5 32 3.0 ; with medium to coarse sand 10 84/10° 15 wet, with fine to medium sand 27 — — — — — — — — — — — Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20 25 N D , , LOG -OF BORING BH -18 PLATE k4 KLEINFELDER 1of1 A' WILD GOOSE REMOTE FACILITY d 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD y Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-9 a' Date: 1/16/2002 r File Number: 4979_a opplght KlehtekW, me. Ewt KA 2001 4979B GPJ 4/15/02 v v cNn o cn o cn ! Depth (feet) R CD o c Sample Type \, v CD N oI Sample No. y `D 0 :3 NT N X I O T N N N C N Blows/ft rn x Q1 (D CD Z C O. Z y �! C �» T N iv bo in Pen (tsf) "-' w a Z rn co m 0• M Dry DensitY(Pcf) °' CL�• m o Co A ---------------------- ----- ------ -- - - ------ -- - - --- - tVp Co v Moisture O IQfl'1 j Content (%) d j Liquid Limit' w -• - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - ------- ------ - - -- - -- -•- - - -- ---- -- Plasticity Index C1 CD G) ry r Passing o pop Passing C M :* G) , #200 Sieve % o M �r� I m n � m� rr r Other 0 TTests I zoo _ iN Lithography D p D v (D a) 0 m 3N od 30 or 0 v . ° to SD - 7(O m W oo o D 0Ca. Co n»m U3 owl � o 11 v3 waw W ¢ m 0) �_ O� O �m x 3 a CL � � = n �0 m m n . .. N CL = CD ml -0 'nom (D n 37 M s o A CD yCr su I mm p y N O O O aj I ! _� N.@ = O m N OO N Z rn co �� 3o a rR D i t D N m N o. OI i 3 B 1 -4 M Cr M QI r :E y a O i :E 1 1 11 Surface Conditions: Harvested rice field. Date Completed: 10/4/2001 Logged By: C. Giuntini Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at a depth of about 8 feet below existing site grade. Total Depth: 16-1/2 feet FIELD LABORATORY m D o DESCRIPTION E w N w .. y :: C J 2� U m> Om C_ C_ V% a lC _ d cis _N Q M 3 o _ C �, 7 C H C Z m o o 7 N v m' W05.W O 0 N m!2 L m CM O = Approximate Elevation feet (msl) 0 cn cn m a cc, M U n o- a,o- :* O F - Sandy CLAY with medium to coarse sand (CL): Olive -brown to brown, moist, hard -... _.36 .._ .2.8 5 light olive -brown to light brown 41 3.8 ; • 1 Poorly graded SAND (SP): Red -brown, wet, loose to medium dense, trace fines 10 i3 Sandy CLAY with fine to medium sand (CL) Olive to olive -brown, wet, very stiff to hard 15 31 Boring terminated at a depth of 16-1/2 feet below existing site grade. 20- 025LOG 25— LOGOF BORING BH -20 PLATE k4K E I N F E L D E R 1 1 .L WILD GOOSE WELL PAD of 2780 W. LIBERTY ROAD GRIDLEY, CALIFORNIA A-1 1 Drafted By: D. Ross Project No.: 23-484979 Date: 4/15/2002 File Number: 4979_b ccpyagl IOeinfeaer, 1M. 2M a a. to ,w f �r a a. to c Em GEOPHYSICAL NORCRL CONSULTANTS, INC. I • October 26, 2001 Klelnfelder, Inc. 3077 Fite Circle ISacramento, CA 95827 Subject: Wild Goose Storage Facility I Gridley, California Geophysical Investigation Attention: Mr. Rick Stauber Gentlemen: This report presents the `results of a geophysical investigation performed by NORCAL Geophysical Consultants at the subject facility. The surrey was performed on October 5, 2001 by NORCAL geophysicists William E. Black and William J. Henrich. Mr. Clay Giantinni of Kleinfelder provided site ' orientation and logistical support. 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Wild Goose Storage Facility is a natural gas storage plant located approximately six miles southwest of Gridley, California. The facility is accessed from Colusa Highway by Penington Road and West Liberty Road. The area of investigation is an open field located east of the existing facility. Currently, the area is used for growing rice: However, we understand that additional gas storage facilities are to be constructed in this area. The terrain is flat and marshy at an elevation of about 70 ft above mean sea Ilevel. 2.0 PURPOSE ' TheP urpose of the geophysical investigation is to measure the compressional (P) wave and shear (S) wave velocity of the I strata underlying the site. An additional objective is to measure the electrical resistivity of the subsurface soils. We understand that Kleinfelder will use the P- and S -wave velocity data, along with geological and geotechnical data they obtained, to evaluate the foundation characteristics of the site. We further understand that the resistivity information will be used to evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work consisted of using the downhole and cross -hole seismic methods to measure subsurface P-wave and S -wave velocities, and vertical electric soundings to measure the electrical resistivity of the subsurface. Our scope of work also included analyzing and interpreting the seismic and ' resistivity data, and presenting our findings in a written report. ' 1350 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, SUITE A PETALUMA, CA 94952 • TELEPHONE (707) 763-1312 • FAX (707) 762-5587 www..norcaIgeophysical.com t u 1 C' i Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 2 4.0. BOREHOLE SEISMIC SURVEY 4.1 DOWNHOLE METHOD rAL The downhole seismic method consists of measuring the travel time of compressional (P) and shear (S) waves propagating from a seismic energy source located on the surface, to a detector placed at various measurement depths within a borehole. We produce P-waves through multiple vertical impacts with a sledge hammer against a metal strike plate placed on the ground surface. We produce S -waves using what is referred to as the surface traction method. With this method, we place a large timber on the ground and weight it down by driving the wheels of a truck onto it. Striking one end of the timber with a sledge hammer produces horizontally polarized shear (Sh) waves. Striking the opposite end of the timber also produces Sh-waves, but of the opposite polarity. By recording both directions of impact we are able to superimpose the recorded wave traces and identify the Sh wave arrival by the characteristic phase reversal 4.2 CROSS -HOLE METHOD The cross -hole seismic method consists of measuring the travel time of P- and S- waves propagating from a seismic energy source located in one borehole, to detectors placed at the same depth in an adjacent borehole. Seismic energy is produced in the source hole using a downhole S -wave hammer. Upward and downward vertical impacts with the hammer produce vertically polarized shear (Sv) waves that are detected by the vertical component of the downhole geophone. Reversing the direction of impact reverses the polarity -of the Sv waves. By recording both directions of impact (up and down) we are able to superimpose the recorded wave traces and identify the Sv wave arrival by the characteristic phase reversal. 4.3 INSTRUMENTATION We recorded the downhole and cross -hole seismic data using a Geometrics Strataviewer 24 -channel seismograph. Input signals are amplified, filtered, digitized, and stored in an internal hard drive. Repeated signals are algebraically summed (stacked) to reduce noise and enhance the signal. The resulting waveforms can be downloaded to a portable computer for future processing. The waveforms are also printed out on strip charts (seismograms) for analysis and data archiving. For the downhole survey, we used the seismic source described in the section 4.1. For the cross -hole survey, we produced P- and S- waves using a' downhole shear wave hammer manufactured by Soils Engineering & Geophysics, Inc. of Clinton, Mississippi. The hammer consists of a steel rod mounted inside an inflatable packer (hollow metal cylindrical with an air bladder attached to the outside). The rod has stops both inside and outside of the cylinder to keep it from slipping through the packer..The stops also serve as impact points for vertical motion. A spring inside the packer compresses when the rod is moved upwards. A cable attached to the top of the rod supports the weight of the assembly. When placed inside a borehole, the packer is inflated via an air hose connected to a hand pump on the surface. 1i r d 1 NORCRI Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 3 This couples the packer to the casing. By pulling sharply upwards on the support cable, the stop at the bottom of the rod impacts the bottom outside of the packer. This produces both P-waves and vertically polarized S -waves. By quickly releasing the cable when the rod is at the top of its throw, the internal spring expands, pushing the rod downwards. This causes the stop inside the cylinder to impact the bottom inside of the packer. This also produces P-waves and vertically polarized S -waves. However, the phase of the S -waves produced by the downward impact is the opposite of those produced by the upward impact. A sensor mounted inside the packer sends a triggering pulse to the seismograph at the instant of each upward or downward impact. For both the downhole and cross -hole surveys, we detected P- and S -wave energy using a downhole geophone sonde that was also manufactured by Soils Engineering & Geophysics, Inc. The sonde is a metal cylinder containing three geophone components. One of the components is mounted vertically and the remaining two are horizontal and mutually perpendicular. This insures that, regardless of the orientation of the sonde, at least one of the horizontal componentswill be oriented nearly parallel to the direction of particle motion produced by the Sh waves (for downhole surveys). All three geophones have a natural frequency of 28 Hz. They are connected to the seismic recording instrumentation by a 100 ft. long umbilical cable. To insure proper coupling, the downhole geophone package is held in place against the inside of the borehole by a leaf spring attached to the sonde. 4.4 LIMITATIONS . If a vertical variation in velocity is gradational, cross -hole measurements will probably resolve it as such. Downhole measurements, on the other hand, will probably resolve the velocity variation as an abrupt change. This is because, the cross -hole method tends to have better vertical resolution than the downhole method. Conversely, if there is an abrupt increase in velocity with depth, downhole measurements will probably resolve it as such. Cross -hole measurements, on the other hand, will probably resolve the change as gradational. This is because the cross -hole measurements will be affected to some degree (depending on hole spacing) by refractions from the high velocity layer. Downhole velocity measurements, particularly of the P-waves, are subject to interference by energy propagating down the casing (tube waves). However, these can usually be identified by their characteristic high frequency and relatively low amplitude. Cross -hole measurements are subject to interference by refractions (as described above). Of the energy sources used in downhole and cross -hole surveys, both the surface traction method and the downhole hammer are good S -wave sources. However, vertical impacts with a sledge hammer against a metal plate on the surface (used for downhole surveys) is a better source of P-waves than the.downhole hammer (used for cross -hole surveys). This is because the downhole hammer is designed primarily as an S -wave source. As a result, cross -hole P-wave arrivals are subtle and difficult to identify. Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 4 4.5 DATA ACQUISITION NORCAL performed the seismic velocity survey in a suite of two boreholes.spaced 24 -ft apart in a northwest -southeast alignment. Both holes were approximately 30 ft deep and were cased with 4 -inch inside diameter (i.d.) pvc casing. The location of the borehole. suite is shown on Plate 1. 4.5.1 Downhole Survey K We performed the downhole survey in the northwest hole of the suite. The timber for horizontal impacts (Sh- waves) was placed 6 ft west of the borehole. The metal strike plate for Vertical impacts (P-waves) was placed 6 ft northwest of the borehole. We initiated the downhole survey with the downhole geophone at a depth of 5 -ft below ground surface. We then performed the survey proceeding down the hole at 5 -ft increments. At each measurement depth we recorded the vertical (P-wave) impacts and both directions of horizontal (Sh-wave) impacts. 4.5.2 Cross -hole Survey Prior to performing the cross -hole survey, we measured the distance between the two boreholes. We performed the cross -hole survey with the downhole hammer in the northwest borehole (source hole), and the downhole geophone in the southeast borehole (receiver hole). We measured P- and S -wave travel times at 5 ft depth intervals beginning at a depth of 5 ft and proceeding downward to a depth of 27 ft (maximum depth that -could be reached in the boreholes). At each measurement depth, we stacked multiple upward impacts on one record and multiple downward impacts on another. This was done so that the wave traces from one direction of impact could be compared with those from the opposite direction to identify the phase reversal (see above) associated with the on -set of S -wave energy. We also recorded a large number of both upward and downward impacts at the 5 ft, 10 ft, and 27 ft depths in order to augment the P-wave data. 4.6 DATA ANALYSIS ' 4.6.1 Downhole Survey ' We examined the seismic records (hard copies and computer files) to determine the P- and S- wave travel times. The P-wave travel times were based on the first departure ("break") of the vertical component wave trace from a straight line to a sinusoidal wave form. The S -wave arrivals were determined by superimposing the horizontal component wave traces representing opposite directions of impact on the timber (see Section 4. 1), and looking for the point where the wave traces reverse polarity. We then corrected the P- and S -wave travel times for the source offset (distance from the casing collar) and plotted the resulting values versus the appropriate geophone depth on a time versus depth graph. Straight line segments fit to the points identify the various velocity layers. The inverse slope of these lines indicates the P-wave velocity (Vp) and S -wave velocity (Vs) of each layer. L i� Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 a Page 5 4.6.2 Cross -hole Survey We analyzed the cross -hole seismic data by examining the seismic records (hard copies and computer files) to determine the P- and S -wave arrival times at each downhole geophone. The P-wave arrivals are represented by the earliest deviation (first break) of the wave trace from a straight line to a sinusoidal wave. The S -wave arrival occurs later than the P-wave arrival but usually has a larger amplitude. It is best identified by superimposing the wave forms recorded using opposing directions of impact (upward and downward) at each measurement depth. This facilitates identification of the phase reversal associated with the S -wave arrival, and consequently, the determination of the S -wave travel time. We then computed the P- and S -wave velocities at each measurement depth by dividing the travel path distance by the P- and S -wave travel times. 4.7 SEISMIC VELOCITIES ' The results of the downhole and cross -hole surveys are superimposed on Plate 2 and are listed in the following table. DEPTH (ft) DOWNHOLE VELOCITY (ft/sec) CROSS -HOLE VELOCITY (ft/sec) AVERAGE VELOCITY (ft/sec) P -WAVE S -WAVE . P -WAVE S -WAVE P -WAVE S -WAVE 5 5800 760 5000 1000 5400 880 10 5800 760 5700 1140 5750 950 15 5800 1200 6400 1260 6100 1230 20 5800 1200 6000 1200 5900 1200 25 5800 1200 5250 1000 5525 1100 27 5800 1200 1 5300 1000 1 5550 1100 The velocities shown above are listed according to measurement depth. In some cases, velocity changes occur right at a measurement depth (e.g. 5 ft and 15 ft). In these cases, we listed the higher (deeper) velocity. The velocities of the material between the surface and the first measurement depth (5 ft) are only sampled by the downhole survey, and are not listed in the table. These velocities are: 1500 ft/sec (P- wave) and 400 ft/sec (S -wave). The cross -hole data indicates a slight increase in both P- and S -wave velocity from depths of 5 ft to 15 ft, and then a slight decrease in velocity from 15 ft to the bottom of the suite at 27 ft. The downhole data indicates no change in P-wave velocity (5800 ft/sec) at depths of 5 ft to 27 ft, and only a slight increase 1 �. Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 6 in S -wave velocity (from 760 ft/sec to 1200 ft/sec) at a depth of 15 ft. Otherwise, the downhole and cross - hole P- and S -wave velocities are in close agreement. At measurement depths of 5 ft and greater, the velocities are relatively uniform. The average P-wave velocity ranges from 5400 ft/sec to 6100 ft/sec. The average S -wave velocity ranges from 880 ft/sec to 1200 ft/sec. 4.8 ELASTIC MODULI The average P- and S -wave velocities listed above can be used to calculate elastic moduli at each measurement depth. The elastic moduli most commonly used to determine how foundation materials'will respond under dynamic loads are; Poisson's Ratio, shear modulus, bulk modulus, and Young's Modulus. However, computing the shear modulus, bulk modulus, and Young's modulus requires information on the density of the material. Since density data was not available to us, we could only compute Poisson's Ratio. The average seismic velocities and Poisson's Ratio are listed in the following table. DEPTH (ft) VP (ft/sec) Vs* Vs* (ft/sec) Poisson's Ratio 5 5400 880 0.486 10 5750 950 0.486 15 6100 1230 0.479 20 5900 1200 0.478 25 5525 1100 .0.479 27 5550 1100 0.480 * average of downhole and cross -hole velocities 5.0 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY ' Electrical resistivity is the resistance of a volume of earth material to the flow of. electrical current. The electrical resistivity method is often used to measure the variation in electrical resistivity with depth beneath a fixed point or along a profile. This information can be valuable in determining the corrosion potential of the subsurface, the depth and thickness of groundwater aquifers, the depth and thickness of clay layers, the thickness of landfills, and in some cases, the depth to bedrock. 11 f NORCAI Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 7 5.1 VERTICAL ELECTRIC SOUNDINGS Determining the variation in electrical resistivity with depth beneath a fixed point is referred to as a vertical electric sounding (VES). This involves transmitting electrical current (/) into the ground between two electrodes, and measuring the resulting potential drop (V) between two other electrodes. There are a number of different electrode configurations that can be used. The most common are the Wenner and Schlumberger arrays. With both techniques, the four. electrodes are arranged in a collinear array. Current is transmitted between the outer two electrodes and the potential drop is measured across the inner two electrodes. Readings are taken with many different electrode separations, ranging from small to large.. The larger the separation, the deeper the current is forced to flow in order to complete a circuit. For this survey,we we used the Wenner electrode configuration. With this configuration, the distance between all four electrodes, referred to as the "A" spacing, is always uniform. Readings are obtained at several different A spacings, and the results are used to compute a value referred to as apparent -resistivity (pa). The term "apparent" is used because the value represents the resistivity of a volume of earth rather than a discrete layer. This value is computed according to the following equation: pa = 2TrA (V/n The pa values are plotted versus electrode separation on log -log paper to form a field curve. This curve can then be inverted using either computer or curve -matching techniques to determine the depth, thickness, and true resistivity of horizontal layers beneath the center of the electrode array. j5.2 DATA ACQUISITION We used the Wenner Array to perform vertical electric soundings (VES) at the two locations shown on Plate 1. At each location, we performed two soundings; one with the electrode array oriented north -south, the other with the array oriented east -west. This was done to account for possible lateral variations in electrical resistivity. We obtained 11 readings for each sounding, with A spacings ranging from 1ft to 45 ft. We acquired the resistivity data using a Bison 2350 resistivity meter and copper clad steel electrodes. 5.3 DATA ANALYSIS ' At each location, we combined the results from the two crossing arrays into a single resistivity curve. This was possible because the readings were so similar, except at small A spacings. We computed the apparent resistivities using the equation shown above. We then plotted the apparent resistivities versus electrode spacing on log -log paper, and compared the resulting "field curves" with families. of published "theoretical curves" representing layered one-dimensional (1 D) electrical resistivity models. The models providing the closest fit between the theoretical curves and the field curves represent our interpretation r of the soundings. 1 Kleinfeldec October 26, 2001 ' Page 8 5.4 RESULTS f Our interpretation of the electrical resistivity data resolves the subsurface into three electrical resistivity. layers. The thickness and resistivities of these layers at each VES location are listed in the a following: table: It can be seen that soundings VES -1 and VES -2 'have similar layer resistivities. Both exhibit low resistivities (3 to 14 ohm -ft) in the upper 2.0 to 5.5 ft, and moderate resistivities (60 - 70 ohm -ft) at depth. The depth extent of the third layer is undetermined. However, the general rule of thumb regarding depth of investigation for the Wenner array is that it roughly equals the maximum A spacing. (45 ft). The. variations in electrical resistivity are probably caused by variations in clay and/or moisture content. The higher the concentration of clay and moisture, the lower the resistivity. 5.5 LIMITATIONS For any given field curve (apparent resistivity vs. depth) there can be more than one 1-D model witha, .theoretical curve that closely matches the field curve. As a result, no one model is unique. This is known as the principal of equivalence, and is common to all electrical methods. Therefore, the results of any electrical resistivity survey should be compared with known conditions (ground truth) obtained from borings or by other, means. 6.0 STANDARD CARE AND WARRANTY The scope of NORCAL's services for.this project consisted of using the downhole and cross -hole seismic .� techniques to measure subsurface P- and S -wave velocities, and vertical electric soundings to measure subsurface electrical resistivities. The accuracy of our findings is, subject to specific site conditions and limitations inherent to the techniques used. We performed our services in a manner consistent with the • Kleinfelder October 26, 2001 Page 9 level of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently employing similar methods. No Warranty, with respect to the performance of services or products delivered under this agreement, expressed or implied, is made by NORCAL. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to Kleinfelder for this project. If you have any questions, or require additional geophysical services, please do ,not hesitate to call., Yours very truly, NORCAL Geophysical Consultants, Inc. dib E William E. Black ` a�9 Principal Geophysicist GP -843 No. � �OF CAL�FOP WEB/jm Enclosure: Plates 1 and 2 1 9 5 10 H 15 0- W . 0 W, 30 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 0 LEGEND P-wave velocity (cross -hole) S wave velocity (cross -hole) — — — — P-wave velocity (downhole) — — — — — S -wave velocity.(downhole) 1 20 25 30 YL �. _ __ , . p .. t t t 1 'l t t F 11 t Geolechnical: Engineering Repopt � Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe- cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con- ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc- tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot- echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi- neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre- pared it. And no one—not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -spe- cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref- erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates other- wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • 'completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply- ing the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub- surface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi- neer who developed your report to provide construction obser- vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso- ciated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom- mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject To Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photo- graphic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condi- tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech- nical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written let- ter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi- cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other �engJneering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created, unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint- ments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot- echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations", many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi- neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen- tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu- lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben- efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE 8811 Colesville Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017 email: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2000 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re -use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research. IIGER1000.10M 1 r It J SILL 8'-rt�l�or2-T utiJD� ; . Cod-(pt2C-<S0 7/C?E G V I L_ i Qw_ —e.