32apph Geotechnical Investigation PDF

APPENDIX H - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2

Structure/Development Information .......................................................................................... 2
Grading Concepts....................................................................................................................... 3
SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3
EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................... 3
Drilling ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Test Pit Excavation..................................................................................................................... 4
Material Classification ............................................................................................................... 4
Cone Penetrometer Testing ........................................................................................................ 5
Percolation Testing..................................................................................................................... 5
Soil Resistivity Testing .............................................................................................................. 5
Seismic Refraction Survey ......................................................................................................... 6
LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................. 6

Index Tests ................................................................................................................................. 6
Direct Shear Tests ...................................................................................................................... 7
Consolidation Tests .................................................................................................................... 7
Cyclic Strength Tests ................................................................................................................. 7
GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 7
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS................................................................................................................... 8
Seismicity ................................................................................................................................... 8
Faults .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Ground Motion and Liquefaction............................................................................................... 9
Regional Subsidence ................................................................................................................ 10
Flood Plains.............................................................................................................................. 10
Other Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................................... 11
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 11

General Information ................................................................................................................. 11
Seismic Design Criteria............................................................................................................ 12
Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 13
Dewatering ............................................................................................................................... 14
Trenching and Excavation........................................................................................................ 15
Grading and Filling .................................................................................................................. 16
Subsidence and Shrinkage........................................................................................................ 17
Foundation Design ................................................................................................................... 17
Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................ 19
Dynamic Foundation Analyses ................................................................................................ 20
Pipe Supports............................................................................................................................ 23
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Erosion Control ........................................................................................................................ 24

Concrete Slabs.......................................................................................................................... 25
Pavement Design...................................................................................................................... 26
Corrosion Potential................................................................................................................... 27
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS......................................................................... 27
QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 27
STANDARD LIMITATIONS CLAUSE ........................................................................................ 28
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 28
TABLES
Table 1 - Percolation Test Results

Table 2 - Resistivity Survey Results
Table 3 - Peak Bedrock and Surface Accelerations for the East Brawley Site
Table 4 - Seismic Design Criteria Using 2007 California Building Code
Table 5 - Minimum Average Roll Strength Properties for Geotextile
Table 6 - Maximum Allowable Temporary Slopes
Table 7 - Guideline Specification for Imported Structural Fill
Table 8 - Settlements Computed for Typical Heavily-Loaded Vessels for East Brawley
Geothermal Plant
Table 9 - Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Table 10 - Minimum Strength Properties for Drainage Geotextile
Table 11 - Results of Dynamic Foundation Analysis
PLATES
1 - Plot Plan
2 - Boring Logs
3 - Graphic Soils Classification Chart
4 - CPT Sounding Logs
5 - Percolation Test Data
6 - Shear Wave Velocity Modeling Results
7 - Index Test Results
8 - Direct Shear Test Results
9 - Consolidation Test Results
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES
A - Microtremor Shear-Wave Velocity Analysis

B - Dynamic Liquefaction Laboratory Testing
C - Liquefaction Evaluation
D - Dynamic Foundation Analysis
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc iii

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
EAST BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
Presented herein are the results of the Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. (BEC) geotechnical
investigation, laboratory testing, and associated geotechnical design recommendations for the
proposed geothermal power plant to be located at the northwest corner of Best and Ward Roads,
northeast of Brawley in Imperial County, California. These recommendations are based on
surface and subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, and on details of the proposed
project as described in this report. The objectives of our study were to:
1. Determine general soil and ground water conditions pertaining to design and
construction of the proposed power plant.
2. Provide recommendations for design and construction of the project, as related to

these geotechnical conditions.
The area covered by this report is shown on Plate 1 - Plot Plan. Our investigation included field
exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis to determine the physical and mechanical
properties of the various on-site materials. Results of our field exploration and testing programs
are included in this report and form the basis for all conclusions and recommendations.
The services described above were conducted in accordance with the Black Eagle Consulting
Geotechnical Consulting Professional Services Agreement dated June 4, 2008.
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed geothermal power plant site consists of a trapezoidal parcel of approximately 33.6
acres located at an elevation of about 142 feet below mean sea level (msl) in the Coachella Valley
of Imperial County, California. The site is entirely contained in Section 15, Township 13 South,
Range 14 East, San Bernardino baseline and meridian. The parcel is bordered to the north by
Field Road, on the east by the concrete-lined Best Lateral, on the south by single family residences
and a farm equipment yard, and on the west by a dirt road which parallels the southwest to
northeast trending tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad. The site is presently flood-irrigated
farmland with access obtained from the intersection of Best and Ward Roads.
Structure/Development Information
The proposed geothermal power plant will consist of six power generating units that will each be
approximately 150 feet long by 80 feet wide. Each power generation unit consists of a turbine-
generator and Ormat Energy Converter (OEC) vessels. Two banks of cooling water towers 550
feet long by 45 feet wide will be constructed north and south of the power generating units.
Above-ground pipelines will supply geothermally-heated water to the plant and carry off cooled
brine for re-injection. A control building and several electrical equipment buildings will be
located west of the plant. An electrical substation will be located at the southwest corner of the
plant. The plant pad between and around the facilities will largely consist of unpaved gravel
parking areas.
Each OEC system will consist of two parallel sets of pre-heaters, vaporizers, and condensers
oriented perpendicular to the turbine-generator. The pressure vessels will be supported on
separate spread footings, usually one at each end of each vessel. Footings are typically 10 by 20
feet with an average bearing pressure of 900 to 1,600 pounds per square foot (psf). The turbine-
generator will consist of two turbines, both driving opposite ends of the electrical generator. The
turbine-generator system will be mounted on a large concrete mat foundation, 9 feet by 37 feet,
with an average net bearing pressure of 600 psf. We understand that cooling tower loads may be
10 to 20 kips per column. A pump pit approximately 16 feet deep will be required for each
cooling water tower.

Grading Concepts
The site is approximately level, and minimal grading will be necessary. Grading concepts should
consider that substantial thickness of structural fill will be required to separate structures from clay
soils, and that 6-foot-deep excavations are required for cooling water towers. Raising the plant
grade above existing grade will reduce the amount of over-excavation needed.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is essentially flat and without existing structures, having been leveled to allow flood
irrigation of crops. The regional ground surface slopes towards the northeast at 12 feet per mile,
or a 0.2 percent gradient. A grid network of drain pipes may underlie the site; a 3-inch-diameter,
thin-wall perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe in a coarse sand envelope was
encountered at 5.5 feet below surface during excavation of test pit TP-01. The site was under
cultivation for hay at the time of field investigation activities.
EXPLORATION
The East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant site was explored between June 24 through 27, 2008
by drilling eight boreholes, excavation of two test pits, and conducting two percolation tests, one
seismic refraction survey, and one surface soil resistivity survey. Four cone penetration test (CPT)
soundings were performed on August 1, 2008. Locations of site explorations are shown on Plate 1
- Plot Plan.
Drilling
Eight boreholes were drilled at the East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant site on June 24 through
26, 2008. The borings were drilled using 6-inch-outside-diameter (O.D.), 3¼-inch-inside-
diameter (I.D.), hollow-stem augers and a truck-mounted CME 75 soils sampling drill rig. One
borehole, B-01, was drilled by the hollow stem auger method to 15 feet below surface and then by
mud-rotary method to 40 feet. The maximum depth of exploration was 60 feet below the existing
ground surface in borehole B-05. The locations of the test borings are shown on Plate 1 - Plot
Plan.

The native soils were sampled in-place every 2 to 5 feet by use of a standard, 2-inch O.D., split-
spoon sampler driven by a 140-pound drive hammer. The equipment and procedures provided by
the drilling subcontractor did not provide a sufficient level of confidence in the
Standard Penetration Testing (SPT; ASTM D 1586). Since the blowcounts obtained from this test
are critical to proper analysis of liquefaction and settlement potential, cone penetrometer testing
(CPT) was added to verify accurate penetration resistance. Both liquefaction potential and the
magnitudes of settlement greatly affect development costs and are key issues at this site.
The native soils were also sampled by use of a 3½-inch O.D., “Modified California” (MC) split-
spoon sampler (ASTM D 3550) driven by the 140-pound drive hammer. Intact samples were
obtained using 2½-inch-diameter, 6-inch-long, brass sampling tubes placed inside the split-spoon.
Because of the larger diameter of the sampler, blowcounts are typically higher than those obtained
with the SPT and also should not be directly equated to SPT blowcounts. Undisturbed samples of
fine-grained soils were obtained by pushing a 3-inch I.D., thin wall Shelby tube into the desired
strata in accordance with ASTM D 1587. Pocket penetrometer testing was performed on various
samples of fine-grained soils in order to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. The logs
indicate the type of sampler used for each sample.
Test Pit Excavation
Additional site exploration was performed on June 26, 2008 by excavating two test pits using a
Case® 420E backhoe. The maximum depth of exploration was 10 feet below the existing ground
surface. Bulk samples for index testing were collected from the trench wall sides at specific
depths in each soil horizon. Pocket penetrometer testing was performed in exposed, fine-grained
soil strata to evaluate in-place, unconfined compressive strength for evaluating trench stability.
Material Classification
A geotechnical engineering technician examined and identified all soils in the field in accordance
with ASTM D 2488. Additional soil classification was subsequently performed in accordance
with ASTM 2487 (Unified Soil Classification System [USCS]) upon completion of laboratory
testing as described in the Laboratory Testing section. Logs of the borings and test pits are
presented as Plate 2 - Boring Logs, and a USCS chart has been included as Plate 3 - Graphic Soils
Classification Chart.

Cone Penetrometer Testing
Cone penetrometer testing soundings were performed on August 1, 2008 by Middle Earth Geo
Testing Inc. of Orange, California. Four soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) were advanced to a
maximum depth of 50.5 feet. The soundings were performed using a 10 cm2 CPT cone with pore
pressure measurement. A falling head dissipation test was performed in CPT-1 at 19.2 feet depth
which identified the ground water table at 10.6 feet below ground surface. Cone penetration test
sounding logs are included as Plate 4 - CPT Sounding Logs. Cone penetrometer data combined
with site-specific interpretation from adjacent borings were used extensively for evaluation of
liquefaction potential, with calculations summarized in Appendix B.
Percolation Testing
Percolation tests were performed in test pit TP-01 at depths of 5 feet and 7 feet below the existing
ground surface. The results of the percolation testing are summarized in Table 1 - Percolation Test
Results, and field percolation test data are attached as Plate 5 - Percolation Test Data. We note
that both the 5-foot-depth percolation results were obtained in a thin (1- to 2-foot-thick) horizontal
layer confined vertically by clay and fine-grained layers with percolation characteristics similar to
the 7-foot-depth location.
TABLE 1 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS

Test Pit (Depth of Percolation Test [feet]) Final Percolation Rate (minutes/inch)
TP-01 (5) 13
TP-01 (7) 240
Soil Resistivity Testing
A surface soil resistivity survey was performed at the proposed substation location shown on Plate
1. A Nilsson Model 400 4-pin soil resistance meter was used to measure soil resistivity at varying
distances within the proposed substation footprint. Equal spacing was maintained between the
pins so that the depth of resolution is approximately equal to the pin spacing. Resistivity was
calculated by the formula:
(6.28) x (spacing) x (meter reading) = Resistivity in Ohm-cm.
where spacing is in centimeters. No meter reading (resistance of zero) was obtained for a 5-foot
spacing, despite multiple attempts both before and after the wider-spaced readings. The results are
presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2 - RESISTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS
Spacing (feet) Meter Reading (Ohms) Calculated Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
5 0 NR
10 7.8 14,930
20 2.9 11,102
40 1.8 13,782
NR = No Reading
Seismic Refraction Survey
A microtremor survey was performed to evaluate shear-wave velocities in order to provide data
for dynamic foundation analyses. Methodology of this analysis is included in Appendix A -
Microtremor Shear-Wave Analysis, and results are shown on Plate 6 - Shear-Wave Velocity
Modeling Results. The approximate location of the geophysical survey line is shown on Plate 1 -
Plot Plan. The microtremor geophone lines were shortened to 38 percent of the normal geophone
spacing to more closely measure the shear-wave velocity profile in the upper 25 to 40 feet. The
geophysical data indicates low to moderate shear-wave velocities (on average greater than 1,500
feet per second) to greater than 100 feet below ground surface. Results below 75 feet depth are
generally not very meaningful or reliable, but shear-wave velocities are expected to be the same or
increase relative to the values measured at shallow depth.
LABORATORY TESTING
All soils testing performed in the Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. soils laboratory is conducted in
accordance with the standards and methodologies described in Volume 4.08 of the ASTM
Standards.
Index Tests
Samples of each significant soil type were analyzed to determine their in situ moisture content
(ASTM D 2216), grain size distribution (ASTM D 422), and plasticity index (ASTM D 4318).
The results of these tests are shown on Plate 7 - Index Test Results. Test results were used to
classify the soils according to ASTM D 2487 and to verify field logs, which were then updated as
appropriate. Classification in this manner provides an indication of the soil's mechanical
properties and can be correlated with standard penetration testing, cone penetrometer testing, and

published charts (Bowles, 1996b; NAVFAC, 1986a and b) to aid in evaluation of bearing capacity,
lateral earth pressures, and settlement potential.
Direct Shear Tests
A direct shear test (ASTM D 3080) was performed on a representative sample of clay site soils.
Tests were run on an undisturbed sample at three varied confining pressures so as to plot the
strength envelope. A slow loading rate was used to determine the long-term (drained) shear
strength. Results of these tests are shown on Plate 8 - Direct Shear Test Results and were used in
calculation of bearing capacities, friction factors, and lateral soil pressures.
Consolidation Tests
Five consolidation tests (ASTM D 2435) were performed on native fine-grained soils. These
results (Plate 9 - Consolidation Test Results) were used to estimate settlement characteristics of
the soils and to arrive at an allowable bearing capacity.
Cyclic Strength Tests
Five samples were selected from layers considered to be liquefiable or potentially subject to cyclic
softening during earthquakes. Cyclic triaxial tests were performed by the University of Nevada -
Reno, SEA Geotechnical Laboratory. Methodology and results of this testing are included in
Appendix B.
GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
The East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant site is located in the Imperial Valley, a part of the
Salton Trough in the Colorado Desert physiographic province of California. With surface
elevations as low as 275 feet below sea level, the Salton Trough formed as a structural depression
resulting from tectonic boundary adjustment between the Pacific and the North American Plates.
The Salton Trough is bounded on the east and northeast by the San Andreas Fault and on the west
by the San Jacinto fault zone. This structural trough is filled with more than 15,000 feet of
Miocene and younger, marine and non-marine sediments capped by approximately 100 feet of
Pleistocene and later lacustrine deposits which have been deposited by intermittent filling of the
fresh water Lake Cahuilla. Morton (1977) describes surficial deposits in the project area as
Quaternary lake beds …. Sediments of ancient Lake Cahuilla and playa lakes. Tan and grey
fossiliferous clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
Results of the exploration program show that the site is underlain by laterally continuous
moderately to thickly bedded fat to lean clays with occasional moderately bedded silty sand and
silt layers to at least 60 feet depth. A ½- to 1½-foot-thick silt layer was encountered within
medium plasticity clay at depths ranging from 5 to 6½ feet below surface. Silty sand was also
recorded at depths ranging from 4½ to 7 feet in boreholes B-01, B-04, and B-05, and in test pits
TP-01 and TP-02. An approximately 8- to 9-foot-thick silt layer was encountered starting at
approximately 15 to 17 feet below surface.
Ground water depth coincided with the upper surface of the silty sand layer at 15 to 17 feet below
surface. Because of the low permeability of fine-grained soils, ground water levels did not
stabilize before the borings were backfilled in the current investigation. The CPT pore pressure
dissipation test indicated ground water is at 10.6 feet depth.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Seismicity
Much of the Western United States is a region of moderate to intense seismicity related to
movement of crustal masses (plate tectonics). By far, the most active regions, outside of Alaska,
are in the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault system of California. The East Brawley Geothermal
Power Plant site lies within an area with a high potential for strong earthquake shaking. The
project area lies within the seismically active Salton Trough of Southern California, near the
southern terminus of the San Andreas Fault system. Seventy earthquakes with a magnitude
greater than 5.0 have been reported within 100 miles of the site since 1987. It is generally
accepted that a maximum credible earthquake in this area would be in the range of magnitude 7 to
7.4 along the San Andreas Fault system some 25 miles northeast of the project site. Other
significant seismicity includes a possible maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.4 on the
Brawley Seismic Zone approximately 1½ miles west of the site (Blake, 2000).
Faults
The published fault activity maps (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], 1998;
CGS, 2002) shows six major fault systems within 30 miles of the project site, all of which have
evidence of Holocene movement. A computerized review of fault locations indicates 24 major
faults and fault zones within 100 miles of the site (Blake, 2000).

The legislature of the State of California passed the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zone Act in
1972, renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (APEFZA) in 1994. The intent of
the legislation was to limit the hazards of fault surface rupture to occupied structures. Active
faults are those with evidence of displacement within the past 11,000 years (Holocene time).
Those faults with evidence of displacement during Pleistocene time (11,000 to 2,000,000 years
before present) are generally considered potentially active. In 1974, the CDMG (currently known
as the California Geological Survey) began establishing special study zones (SSZ) along known
active faults termed Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ). Starting in 1976, the CDMG initiated the
Fault Evaluation and Zoning Program to study faults identified in the APEFZA as “sufficiently
active and well defined” to be considered for further evaluation. Fault Evaluation Reports (FER)
were prepared for each EFZ summarizing data on fault location, age of activity, orientation and
probable magnitude of displacement. The Alquist-Priolo mapping projects (SSZ, EFZ, and FER)
show the nearest active fault being the Brawley Fault Zone (Type B fault), approximately 1-1/2
miles west of the site. The nearest Alquist-Priolo-defined Type A fault is the Imperial Fault,
approximately 5 miles to the south. (Hart and Bryant, 1999; CDMG, 1998).
Based on the geologic map, the faults in the vicinity of the project are considered active.
However, as no fault structures are mapped on or adjacent to the building site, and none were
identified by our exploration, further fault hazard mitigation or investigation is not considered
necessary.
Ground Motion and Liquefaction
Table 3 provides the peak bedrock acceleration predicted by the USGS

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/), which includes data sets published in 1996
and 2002. A major reduction in PGA between the 1996 and 2002 data resulted from USGS
reclassifying the Brawley fault from being an active splay of the San Andreas Fault Zone to a
more diffuse, smaller-magnitude hazard referred to as the “Brawley Seismic Zone.” Whereas in
1996, the Brawley fault was assumed to have the same seismic risk associated with the 750-mile-
long San Andreas Fault, in 2002, it was modeled based on actual fault sizes, potential magnitudes,
and local seismic activity (Hamsen, 2007). Based on adoption of the new data by USGS, we
recommend the latter data set should be used for design.
We also included an estimate of peak ground surface acceleration based on analysis in Appendix
C, shown on the last column of Table 3. Site-specific wave propagation was determined using the
program DMOD-2000 (Geomotions, 2006). The analysis overall suggests that softening of stiff
lake clays and silts of Lake Cahuilla results in attenuation of short-period ground motions above
0.10 g, and for bedrock accelerations of 0.50 to 0.9g, the peak ground acceleration is more or less

Click Here & Upgrade
Expanded Features
PDF Unlimited Pages
Documents
Complete
constant between 0.25 and 0.30g. We note that the wave propagation effects have both positive
and negative effects. The positive effect is that the site will have reduced peak ground
acceleration. The negative effect is that ground motions will be stronger at longer periods, and
since displacement is accentuated at longer periods, the overall ground surface displacements
experienced will be higher than for a bedrock or stiff soil site.
TABLE 3 - PEAK BEDROCK AND SURACE ACCELERATIONS FOR THE EAST

BRAWLEY SITE
Probability of Peak Bedrock Peak Ground Surface
Source
Exceedence Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g)^
2 percent in 50 years 1.57 ND*
USGS 1996
10 percent in 50 years 1.08 ND*
2 percent in 50 years 0.69 0.40
USGS 2002
10 percent in 50 years 0.46 0.40
^ Peak ground surface acceleration including attenuation due to deep stiff soil profile using DMOD- 2000
*ND = not determined
It is our judgment that the site soils are non-liquefiable. Cyclic softening or strength reduction
will be minor and is considered to have negligible impact on design. Details of our analysis are
included in Appendix C.
Regional Subsidence
The Imperial Valley is subject to localized high levels of ground subsidence due to active ground
water withdrawal for geothermal purposes. Ground subsidence is typically caused by pumping of
ground water or extraction of petroleum, such that the effective unit weight of the soil mass is
increased, which in turn increases the effective stress on underlying soils, resulting in
consolidation/settlement of the underlying soils. Subsidence may also be caused by tectonic
processes in this geologic setting. Normally, both of these forms of subsidence affect a regional
area so that the potential for localized differential settlement that would damage facilities is very
low.
Flood Plains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the site as lying in unshaded
Zone C, areas of minimal flooding, (FEMA, 1984).
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley rpt pg 10 03 10 11.doc 10

Other Geologic Hazards
A high potential for dust generation is present if grading is performed in dry weather. Expansive
clay soils are present across the site.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Information
The project site is underlain by a considerable thickness of stiff to hard clays and silts which will
provide for suitable foundation conditions as long as clay soils are separated from improvements
with structural fill. Two to 3 feet of separation using structural fill is recommended between
structural improvements and native clay soils. This separation can be provided by any
combination of filling or over-excavation and replacement with structural fill. Ground conditions
during construction may be soft and unable to support heavy equipment until structural fill is
placed. Irrigation on this site should be stopped as early as possible prior to start of earthwork.
Site soils appear to be marginal for use of conventional septic field disposal systems.
The recommendations provided herein, and particularly under Site Preparation, Grading and
Filling, Foundation Design, Site Drainage and Quality Control, are intended to minimize risks
of structural distress related to consolidation or expansion of native soils and/or structural fills.
These recommendations, along with proper design and construction of the structure and associated
improvements, work together as a system to improve overall performance. If any aspect of this
system is ignored or poorly implemented, the performance of the project will suffer. Sufficient
quality control should be performed to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are
followed.
Structural areas referred to in this report include all areas of buildings, concrete slabs, asphalt
pavements, as well as pads for any minor structures. All compaction requirements presented in
this report are relative to ASTM D 1557. For the purposes of this project:
• Fine-grained soils are defined as those with more than 40 percent by weight passing the
number 200 sieve, and a plastic index lower than 15.
• Clay soils are defined as those with more than 30 percent passing the number 200 sieve,
and a plastic index greater than 15.

• Granular soils are those not defined by the above criteria.
Any evaluation of the site for the presence of surface or subsurface hazardous substances is
beyond the scope of this investigation. When suspected hazardous substances are encountered
during routine geotechnical investigations, they are noted in the exploration logs and immediately
reported to the client. No such substances were revealed during our exploration.
Seismic Design Criteria
The 2007 California Building Code (CBSC, 2007), adopted by Imperial County, requires a
detailed soils evaluation to a depth of 100 feet to develop appropriate soils criteria. The site shear
wave velocity survey shows average shear wave velocity in excess of 1,000 feet per second. The
Site Class D soil profile is for stiff soils with a shear velocity between 600 and 1,200 feet per
second, or with an N (Standard Penetration Test [SPT]) value between 15 and 50 or an undrained
shear strength between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Based on the shear-wave
velocity data, the site soils profile, and our understanding of the site geology, the Site Class D is
appropriate for this site.
TABLE 4 - SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA USING THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

CODE
Approximate Latitude 33.02
Approximate Longitude 115.51
Spectral Response at Short Periods, Ss, percent of gravity 150
Spectral Response at 1-Second Period, S1, percent of gravity 60
Site Class D
Occupance Category (to be verified by structural engineer) II/III
Site Coefficient Fa, decimal 1.00
Site Coefficient Fv, decimal 1.50
Site Adjusted Spectral Response at Short Periods, SMS, percent of gravity 150
Site Adjusted Spectral Response at Long Periods, SM1, percent of gravity 90
Seismic Design Category D/D
None of the special conditions that trigger use of Site Class E or F are present for this site. As
required by the California Building Code, we have performed a liquefaction evaluation, results of
which are included in Appendices B and C or our original report. We concluded that there is no
liquefaction potential on this site.

Site Preparation
All vegetation should be stripped and grubbed from structural areas and removed from the site. A
stripping depth of 0.1 to 0.2 feet is anticipated. It appears that an agricultural drain network
underlies the site, and thin-wall 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC drain pipe in a coarse sand
envelope was encountered at 5.5 feet below surface during excavation of test pit TP-01. An
interceptor subsurface drain should be installed on the upgradient side of the drain system and
drainage diverted around the plant site, and the intercepted downstream line under the plant
removed or crushed for at least 5 feet downstream from the interceptor. Where the subdrains lie
within 10 feet of heavily-loaded foundations under the OEC pads, they should either be a)
backfilled by pumping the pipes full with sand-cement slurry or b) completely removed and
trenches backfilled with structural fill compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Removal or
slurry filling of drains is not necessary under cooling towers or the remainder of the site.
Interbedded clay and silt soils were present from the ground surface down to depths of 15 feet
below the ground surface. The soils were classified as dry to moist, stiff, and clays were identified
as exhibiting medium plasticity. Laboratory testing performed on these materials indicates the
clay soils exhibit plasticity indices between 8 and 45, indicative of soils ranging from low to very
high expansion potential (Nelson and Miller, 1992).
Clay and fine-grained soils should be removed from beneath structural areas, as necessary, so that
these soils will be covered by at least 3 feet of structural fill beneath footings and interior floor
slabs, and 2 feet beneath exterior slabs and pavements (asphalt or Portland cement concrete
pavements). The 2 feet of separation for slabs and pavements can include the thickness of
required aggregate base sections. It must be emphasized that unless clay soils could be completely
removed from structural areas some differential movement should be anticipated. The required
separation may be achieved by any combination of site filling or over-excavation and replacement.
Any over-excavation should be backfilled with structural fill to footing grade, or subgrade for
pavements and slabs. The width of over-excavation should extend laterally from the edge of
footings, concrete slabs or asphalt pavements at least 1½ feet (half the depth of the separation).
Depending on final design elevations, considerable over-excavation could be required.
Clays to be left in place and covered with fill should be moisture-conditioned to 2 to 4 percent
over optimum for a minimum depth of 12 inches. This moisture level will significantly decrease
the magnitude of shrink-swell movements in the upper foot of clay. The high moisture content
must be maintained by periodic surface wetting, or other methods, until the surface is covered by
at least one lift of fill.

All areas to receive structural fill or structural loading should be densified to, at least, 88 percent
relative compaction. In all cases, the final surface should be smooth, firm, and exhibit no signs of
deflection.
If construction proceeds during wet weather, irrigation is not stopped soon enough, or for
excavations greater than 4 feet below ground surface, surface soils may be well above optimum
moisture and impossible to compact. In some situations, moisture conditioning may be possible
by scarifying the top 12 inches of subgrade and allowing it to air dry to near-optimum moisture,
prior to compaction. Where this procedure is ineffective or where construction schedules preclude
delays, mechanical stabilization will be necessary. Mechanical stabilization may be achieved by
over-excavation and/or placement of an initial 12- to 18-inch-thick lift of 12-inch-minus, 3-inch-
plus, well graded, angular rock fill. The more angular and well graded the rock is, the more
effective it will be. This fill should be densified with large equipment, such as a self-propelled
sheeps-foot or a large loader, until no further deflection is noted. Additional lifts of rock may be
necessary to achieve adequate stability. The use of a geotextile will prevent mud from pumping
up between the rocks, thereby increasing rock-to-rock contact and decreasing the required
thickness of stabilizing fill. The geotextile should meet or exceed the following minimum
properties.
TABLE 5 - MINIMUM AVERAGE ROLL STRENGTH PROPERTIES FOR GEOTEXTILE

Trapezoid Strength (ASTM D 4533) 80 lbs.
Puncture Strength (ASTM D 4833) 120 lbs.
Grab Tensile/Elongation (ASTM D 4632) 245 @ 50 %
As an alternate to rock fill, a geotextile/gravel system may be used for stabilization. Aggregate
base, Class 1 or 2 permeable backfill, or approved pit run gravels should be placed above the
geotextile. Regardless of which alternate is selected, a test section is recommended to determine
the required thickness of stabilization. Cooling tower pump sump pits below the water table do not
require separation from clays, but stabilizing fill, consisting of a stabilizing geotextile overlain by
a minimum of 18 inches of permeable backfill (drain rock) should be used.
Dewatering
The proposed pump sumps for the cooling water towers will be excavated potentially 5 to 10 feet
below the ground water table. The material at this depth may include horizontally bedded sandy
silts with low permeability, which have a potential to seep slowly and may result in low
excavation wall stability and continual sloughing. Dewatering wells or sumps will likely to have
only low inflow rates and will not be fully effective in lowering ground water levels. Temporary

dewatering will be required in the sump excavation to keep the bottom of excavation dry. The
sumps must be designed to resist buoyant forces with ground water assumed to be at a depth of 5
feet for this purpose.
Trenching and Excavation
Temporary trenches with near-vertical sidewalls should be stable to a depth of approximately 5

feet. Temporary trenches are defined as those that will be open for less than 48 hours.
Excavations to greater depths will require shoring or laying back of sidewalls to maintain adequate
stability. The State of California, Department of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA),
requires that temporary sidewall slopes be no greater than those presented in Table 6.
TABLE 6 - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SLOPES

Maximum Allowable Slopes1 for Deep
Soil or Rock Type
Excavations less than 20 Feet Deep2
Stable Rock Vertical (90 degrees)
Type A3 3H:4V (53 degrees)
Type B 1H:1V (45 degrees)
Type C 3H:2V (34 degrees)
Notes:
1. Numbers shown in parentheses next to maximum allowable slopes are angles expressed in degrees from
the horizontal. Angles have been rounded off.
2. Sloping or benching for excavations greater than 20 feet deep shall be designed by a registered
professional engineer.
3. A short-term (open 24 hours or less) maximum allowable slope of 1H:2V (63 degrees) is allowed in
excavation in Type A soils that are 12 feet or less in depth. Short-term maximum allowable slopes for
excavations greater than 12 feet in depth shall be 3H:4V (53 degrees).
Cal/OSHA, has adopted and strictly enforces these regulations, including the classification system
and the maximum slopes. In general, Type A soils are cohesive, non-fissured soils, with an
unconfined compressive strength of 1.5 tons per square foot (tsf) or greater. Type B are cohesive
soils with an unconfined compressive strength between 0.5 and 1.5 tsf. Type C soils have an
unconfined compressive strength below 0.5 tsf. Numerous additional factors and exclusions are
included in the formal definitions. The client, owner, design engineer, and contractor shall refer to
Appendix A and B of Subpart P of the previously referenced Federal Register for complete
definitions and requirements on sloping and benching of trench sidewalls. Appendices C through
F of Subpart P apply to requirements and methodologies for shoring.
On the basis of our exploration, the site soils are predominately Type B. Any area in question
should be considered Type C, unless specifically examined by the engineer or geologist during
construction. Excavations below the water table should be treated as Type C or be specially
designed. All trenching should be performed and stabilized in accordance with state and federal
OSHA standards.
Grading and Filling
Native clay soils should be placed as fill only in nonstructural areas. We recommend import
structural fill meet the specifications below:
TABLE 7 - SPECIFICATION FOR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL

Sieve Size Percent by Weight Passing
4 Inch 100
3/4 Inch 70 – 100
No. 40 15 – 70
No. 200 5 – 30
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Maximum Liquid Limit Maximum Plastic Index
5 – 10 50 20
11 – 20 40 15
21 – 30 35 10
Fill should have a soluble sulfate content of less than 500 ppm ( 500 mg/kg).
These recommendations are intended as guidelines to specify a readily available, prequalified

material. Adjustments to the recommended limits can be provided to allow the use of other
granular, non-expansive material. Any such adjustments must be made and approved by the
geotechnical engineer, in writing, prior to importing fill to the site.
Any structural fill under heavy industrial structures (cooling water towers, OEC units) should be
placed in maximum 8-inch-thick (loose) lifts, each densified to, at least, 95 percent relative
compaction. All other structural fill (including under maintenance and control buildings, and the
substation) and utility trench backfill in all structural areas should be densified to a minimum 90
percent relative compaction. Nonstructural fill should be densified to, at least, 85 percent relative
compaction to minimize consolidation and erosion. If the approved import fill has greater than 30
percent retained on the 3/4-inch sieve, standard density testing is not valid. A proof rolling
program of at least five single passes of a minimum 10-ton roller in mass grading or at least five
complete passes with hand compactors in footing trenches is recommended. Compaction must
continue to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. Acceptance of this rock fill is based
upon observation of maximum particle size, lift thickness, moisture content, applied compactive
effort, and proof rolling. In all cases, the finished surface should be smooth, firm, and show no
signs of deflection. Grading should not be performed with or on frozen soils.

The maximum particle size in trench backfill should be 4 inches. Bedding and initial backfill 12
inches over the pipe will require import. Bedding and initial backfill should conform to the
requirements of the utility having jurisdiction, or where none exist, use CalTrans bedding sand
(19-3.025C [CalTrans, 2002]). Excavations below the ground water table will likely require
dewatering. Below the waterline, bedding and backfill should consist of compacted drain rock
graded in accordance with the requirements for CalTrans Class 1, Type A (¾-inch drain rock) or
Class 2 permeable fill. Final backfill above the ground water table can consist of native soils in
nonstructural areas and structural fill in structural areas. Above the waterline, trenches should be
backfilled in maximum eight-inch-thick (loose) lifts in all structural areas. Each lift should be
densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). When drain rock is
used as trench backfill, it shall be considered a rock backfill (greater than 30 percent retained on
the 3/4-inch sieve) and should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick loose lifts, with each lift
densified by at least five complete passes with approved compaction equipment and until no
deflection is observed. A separator geotextile such as Mirafi® 140N should be placed between the
drain rock and any overlying soil backfill.
Subsidence and Shrinkage
Subsidence of about 0.2 feet should be anticipated from construction traffic on clay soils. Clay
soils excavated and recompacted in nonstructural fills should experience quantity shrinkage of
approximately 20 percent. In other words, one cubic yard of excavated clay will generate about
0.8 cubic yards of nonstructural fill at 85 percent relative compaction.
We estimate placement of a 4-foot-thick fill will induce approximately 0.2 inches of uniform
consolidation settlement of the native strata. Ninety percent of this settlement is predicted to occur
within 3 months of load placement. Depending on the timing of construction, this settlement will
add to footing settlements summarized below.
Foundation Design
The native clay and fine-grained soils are poor foundation materials such that footings should not
bear directly in these materials. The most economical method of foundation support lies in spread
footings bearing on structural fill. Individual rectangular footings and continuous wall footings
(such as for the control building) underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of structural fill can be
designed for a net maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds psf, and should have
minimum footings widths of 24 and 12 inches, respectively. The net allowable bearing pressure is
the pressure at the base of the footing in excess of the adjacent overburden pressure. This
allowable bearing value should be used for dead plus ordinary live loads. Ordinary live loads are
that portion of the design live load which will be present during the majority of the life of the
structure. Design live loads are loads which are produced by the use and occupancy of the
building, such as by moveable objects, including people or equipment loads. This bearing value
may be increased by one-third for total loads. Total loads are defined as the maximum load
imposed by the required combinations of dead load, design live loads, and wind or seismic loads.
Lateral loads, such as wind or seismic, may be resisted by passive soil pressure and friction on the
bottom of the footing. The recommended coefficient of base friction is 0.45, assuming the
foundation is bearing on structural fill and has been reduced by a factor of 1.5 on the ultimate soil
strength. Design values for active and passive equivalent fluid pressures are 35 and 300 pounds
per square foot per foot of depth, respectively. These design values are based on spread footings
bearing on and backfilled with structural fill. All exterior footings should be placed a minimum of
one foot below adjacent finish grade.
If loose, soft, wet, or disturbed soils are encountered at the foundation subgrade, these soils should
be removed to expose undisturbed soils, and the resulting over-excavation backfilled with
compacted structural fill. The base of all excavations should be dry and free of loose soils at the
time of concrete placement.
With this allowable bearing pressure, total long-term foundation movements of less than 3/4 inch
should be anticipated, including if the plant site is raised approximately 4 feet above existing
ground surface. Differential movement between footings with similar loads, dimensions, and base
elevations should not exceed two-thirds of the values provided above for total movements. Much
of the anticipated movement will occur during the construction period as loads are applied. Long-
term settlement estimates for each of the major industrial foundations is summarized on Table 8.
TABLE 8 - SETTLEMENTS COMPUTED FOR TYPICAL HEAVILY- LOADED

VESSELS FOR EAST BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL PLANT
Dimensions and Average Predicted Long-Term
Structure
Long-Term Bearing Pressure Settlements, Inches
Turbine Generator 9 x 37 feet, net bearing 450 psf 0.20
Condensor, Fixed End 17.5 x 21 feet, 900 psf 0.50
Condensor, Guide End 12 x 23 feet, 1,090 psf 0.40
Preheater, Fixed End 9 x 14 feet, 1,570 psf 0.40
Preheater, Guide End 12 x 23 feet, 1,090 psf 0.40
Vaporizers 18 x 14 feet, 1,250 psf 0.50
Vaporizers 18 x 10.5 feet, 1,150 psf 0.50

Retaining Walls
A pump pit approximately 16 feet deep will be required for each of the cooling towers. The
following recommendations are for retaining walls with vertical back faces, horizontal backfill,
and no surcharge loads next to the top of the wall. Surcharge loads, including construction and
traffic loads, should be added to the following values. While the recommendations here may be
suitable for other conditions, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for retaining walls
with unusual conditions such as sloping faces. The geotechnical engineer should also be consulted
where retaining walls exceed 20 feet in height.
It is expected that sump pit walls will be designed using at-rest pressures, but retaining walls free
to yield a displacement of at least 1/2 percent of the wall height, can be designed using active
pressure. Lateral earth pressures for design are included on Table 9. Lateral earth pressures are
reduced below the water table, but water pressure (62.4 per cubic foot [pcf]) should be added.
TABLE 9 - RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Bearing Pressure 2,500 psf (3,300 for seismic conditions)
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.45
Above Water Table Below Water Table
At Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure 70 pcf 35 pcf
Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 44 pcf 22 pcf
At-Rest Earthquake Equivalent
88 pcf 45 pcf
Fluid Pressure
Active Earthquake Equivalent
62 pcf 31 pcf
Fluid Pressure
Allowable Passive Equivalent
300 pcf 150 pcf
Fluid Pressure
Unit Weight of Soil 125 pcf 62 pcf
Drain rock should be used for backfill below the ground water table, or below the depth of active
seepage in excavation walls as they are backfilled. When drain rock is used as trench backfill, it
shall be considered a rock backfill (greater than 30 percent retained on the 3/4-inch sieve) and
should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick loose lifts, with each lift densified by at least five
complete passes with approved compaction equipment and until no deflection is observed. A
drainage filter geotextile should be placed above the granular backfill and below other fills to
prevent migrations of fines into the granular backfill. Such a drainage geotextile should have the
following minimum properties:

TABLE 10 - MINIMUM STRENGTH PROPERTIES FOR DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE
Grab Tensile (ASTM D 4632) 90 lbs.
Burst Strength (ASTM D 3786) 150 psi.
or if backfill soils have sharp, angular rocks:
Grab Tensile (ASTM D 4632) 130 lbs.
Burst Strength (ASTM D 3786) 250 psi.
Passive pressures can be used in design for retaining walls where appropriate, but no passive
pressure should be developed within two feet of final grade.
Lateral earthquake pressures are typically applied as follows. The static active or at-rest earth
pressure is assigned as usual, following a triangular distribution with the maximum pressure at the
base of the wall and the centroid of loading at 1/3 of the wall height. The increment of earthquake
pressure (for the at-rest case, 88 - 70 pcf which is 18 pcf) is computed as a triangular distribution
(for a 16-foot wall, ½(γ[∆Ko])*H2 or ½*18 pcf*(16 ft)2 = 2,304 lb/ft of wall) but is applied as a
rectangular load with the centroid of loading at the wall mid-height. Therefore, the overall
centroid of loading during earthquake conditions is higher than the centroid of loading under static
conditions.
Sump pit wall backfill above the ground water level under structural areas should use structural
fill. Backfill behind retaining walls should be compacted to 90 percent of the material's maximum
dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557, but should not be densified to more than about 92
percent relative density to minimize pressure against the wall. Care should be exercised when
compacting backfill against retaining walls and foundations. To reduce temporary construction
loads on the walls, heavy equipment should not be used for placing and compacting fill within a
region as determined by a 0.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) line drawn upward from the bottom of
the wall, or within 3 feet of the wall, whichever is greater. We recommend that hand-operated
compaction equipment be used to compact soils adjacent to walls.
The sump will extend as much as 5 feet below the water table and will require construction
dewatering. Appropriate buoyancy forces should be accommodated in the design.
Dynamic Foundation Analyses
The exact dimensional requirements for the turbine-generator footing is not available at the time of
this report and therefore, a footing of 9 feet wide by 36.9 feet long is used in the dynamic
foundation analysis based on the turbine generator foundations for the North Brawley geothermal
plant. Both outer ends of the mat under the turbines are 1.3 feet lower than the center section
under the generator. The turbine-generator foundation should be underlain by a minimum of 3
feet of structural fill, underlain by compacted native subgrade. The zone of over-excavation
should be at least 5 feet wider than the turbine-generator foundation in each direction. For the
very stiff clay site soils and the geometries above, we recommend a subgrade modulus of 80 kips
per cubic foot be used for design.
Dynamic analyses of vibrating machinery are relatively complicated and necessarily based on a
number of assumptions and approximations. These include calculating the mass moments of
inertia of the equipment themselves, as approximated by simple cylinders or blocks, as well as
estimating the crucial engineering values for foundation materials, Poisson’s ratio and shear
modulus, on the basis of standard penetration testing (blowcounts) and soil classification. It
cannot be predicted whether the rotating machinery will respond to the dynamics of the average of
the shear-wave velocities or to the shear-wave velocity of a particular soils unit. The analysis is
also complicated by the effects of embedment. Stiffness contrast will likely reflect a percentage of
the vibration returning to the surface, rather than geometric damping of vibrations that normally
occurs within a homogeneous soils profile. These reflections could nearly double, or nearly
negate, the magnitude of machinery vibration. This effect is not reliably predictable with the
current state-of-the-art methods.
The two primary theories for foundation analysis of vibrating machinery are the elastic half-space
and the lumped sum method. The elastic half-space method has been advanced by a number of
authors and is summarized in NAVFAC DM 7.3 (1997). Bowles (1996a) presents the lumped
sum method and has developed a Fortran-based computer program (FADDYNF 1) to perform the
relatively tedious calculations. Our staff has successfully used these methods on a number of
projects for many years.
Although the computer program FADDYNF simplifies the actual dynamic analysis calculations,
the input data required is in itself tedious and time consuming for hand calculations, particularly
when many iterations are necessary to properly size the foundation block. Black Eagle
Consulting, Inc. has programmed these calculations using the MATHCAD software so that
changes in foundation dimensions instantly provide the necessary changes in the numerous other
input variables.

Dynamic analysis has two major components:
• Making sure the machinery and foundation system do not resonate with the operating
frequency of the equipment; and
• Making sure that the amplitude of vibration is acceptable for the machinery type.
Vibration analysis has six primary degrees of freedom:
• vertical mode
• sliding along the length
• sliding along the width
• rocking along the length
• rocking along the width
• torsion
For centrifugal machinery with a horizontal axis parallel to the long direction of the foundation,
there are no significant torsional forces, and horizontal or rocking vibrations along the length of
the foundation are also expected to be minimal.
A basic rule of thumb is that the mass of the foundation should be at least 2 to 3 times the mass of
the centrifugal machinery. The goal is to minimize the size of the footing while adequately
damping vibrations and providing a foundation/machinery system frequency that is at least 20
percent above or below the operating frequency (as related to rpm) of the machinery. For this site,
the machinery operating frequency is well above the foundation natural frequency. The results of
our analysis are presented in Appendix D - Dynamic Analysis Results and summarized on below.
The analysis assumes that the machine develops unbalanced forces due to eccentricity of the
rotating mass of 0.001 inches after several years of operation; therefore the vibrational
displacements on Table 11 are also small.

TABLE 11 - RESULTS OF DYNAMIC FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
Foundation Length 36.9 feet
Foundation Width 9.0 feet
Average Foundation Thickness 5.5 feet
Lumped Mass Dynamic Results (Elastic half-space results in parentheses)
Operating Frequency Maximum Amplitude of
Mode
Natural Frequency Vibration (inches)
Vertical Mode 1.8 (1.4) 0.00006 (0.00007)
Sliding Across Width 2.0 (1.5) 0.00006 (0.00005)
Rocking Across Width 2.4 0.000003*
* Displacement in inches, calculated as result in radians times 9.0 feet , the width of footing.
Changes to the foundation geometry may be made as follows without invalidating the design
calculations:
• The overall foundation mass should not be decreased;
• The OEC may be adjusted by 1 foot in width, length, or average thickness; and
• Combined footings under adjacent vessels or piping which connect to the OEC foundation
will generally have negligible effect or improve slightly the dynamic footing response.
If greater adjustments are required, we should review and re-analyze the dynamic foundation
response.
Pipe Supports
Geothermal circulation water and cooling water supply and return pipelines are conventionally
supported on individual or grouped pipe supports on shallow footings or drilled shafts. Guide
supports typically have vertical loads of 50 kips or less, and lateral loads of 15 kips or less.
Anchor supports may have vertical loads of 50 kips and lateral loads in excess of 100 kips.
Shallow footings are economical where pipe supports are not close to other foundations or
obstacles, and the pipe supports do not resist significant lateral loads. Pipe-support footings may
use an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds psf with at least 2 feet of over-excavation and
replacement with compacted structural fill. This allowable bearing pressure may be measured by
1/3 for seismic resistance.

Drilled piers are often used because piers can be installed vertically in relatively tight horizontal
constraints, can be constructed as a single element from the pipe to the ground, and can provide
high axial and lateral capacity. Assuming skin friction only (so that cleanout of the bottom of hole
would not be critical), 45 kips allowable axial capacity could be provided by 10-foot-deep, 2.5-
foot-diameter drilled shafts. These shafts can resist 15 kips of lateral load and 100 kip-feet
moment with less than 0.5 inch lateral displacement at ground line.
Pipe supports on previous plants have been located 3 to 4 feet on center from the edge of the
cooling tower. The cooling tower basin will extend to 5 feet below ground surface, such that pipe
support lateral capacity must be developed below the level of the basin slab (i.e. 15 feet total
depth). Anchor supports supporting lateral loads in the range of 100 kips lateral load will require
individual geotechnical design and will typically require lengths of 20 to 30 feet. For the subject
site, the high potential for caving of the soil below 15 feet depth will make drilled shaft
installation difficult. The drilled shaft contractor and their equipment should have to have the
capability to case the hole to full depth.
Two alternatives to consider relative to drilled piers would be to use helical anchors or short piles
driven with a vibratory hammer. Helical piers are readily available which can provide axial
capacity of 10 to 50 kips. Helical piers are constructed with extendable sections which are added
on until the driving equipment records the required torque. Multiple helical piers could be
installed on a batter (up to 45 degrees) under a single pile group to provide for lateral resistance by
coupled uplift and compression. Using the Chance anchor design method for 14-inch-diameter
helix anchors at 3.5-foot vertical spacings, 30 and 50 kips allowable axial capacity could be
provided by 15- and 30-foot-long galvanized helical piers, respectively. A concrete pile cap
would be necessary under helical pile groups. Battered helical piers potentially would have to be
installed prior to installation of above-ground equipment.
Short sheet piles could be installed with a vibratory hammer that can be mounted on an excavator
or small crane. Joints of adjacent sheet piles can be welded at the top to provide sufficient
continuity if more than one pile is required, or steel bents can be welded between piles to support
multiple pipes. It is likely that vibratory driven piles would less cost effective than helical piers.
Since the soil in this area is highly corrosive, the piers would have to be corrosion resistant.
Erosion Control
Dust potential at this site will be moderate to high during dry periods. Temporary (during
construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control will be required for all disturbed
areas. The contractor shall prevent dust from being generated during construction in compliance

with all applicable city, county, state, and federal regulations. The contractor shall submit an
acceptable dust control plan to the appropriate agencies prior to starting site preparation or
earthwork. Project specifications should include an indemnification by the contractor of the owner
and engineer for any dust generation during the construction period. The owner will be responsible
for mitigation of dust after accepting the project.
In order to minimize erosion and downstream impacts to sedimentation from this site, best
management practices with respect to storm water discharge should be implemented at this site.
Concrete Slabs
All concrete slabs should be directly underlain by CalTrans Class 2, ¾-inch aggregate base
(“aggregate base”) and structural fill as discussed under Site Preparation. The thickness of base
material shall be 6 inches beneath curb and gutters and 6 inches beneath floor slabs and private
flatwork. This 6 inches should include a 2 inch sand layer where a vapor barrier is used. The
strength of the base material is particularly critical for point loads, such as occur with storage
racks or crane pad loads. Aggregate base courses should be densified to at least 95 percent
relative compaction.
The structural section for exterior aprons and dolly pads should be a minimum of 6 inches of
4,000 psi concrete overlying 6 inches of aggregate base, over a minimum of 18 inches of structural
fill. These exterior rigid pavements have been designed using the AASHTO (1993) method for
concrete with a 28-day flexural strength of 570 psi (approximately 4,000 psi compressive
strength).
The Imperial Valley is a region with highly variable relative humidity. As a consequence, concrete
flatwork is prone to excessive shrinking and curling. Concrete mix proportions and construction
techniques, including the addition of water and improper curing, can adversely affect the finished
quality of concrete and result in cracking, curling, and the spalling of slabs. We recommend that
all placement and curing be performed in accordance with procedures outlined by the American
Concrete Institute (2008). Special considerations should be given to concrete placed and cured
during hot or cold weather conditions. Proper control joints and reinforcement should be provided
to minimize any damage resulting from shrinkage. Concrete should not be placed on frozen in-
place soils.
Any interior concrete slab floors with moisture-sensitive flooring will require a moisture barrier
system. Installation should conform to the specifications provided for a Class B vapor restraint
(ASTM E 1745-97). A 15-mil StegoRap® vapor barrier or approved equal should be placed over a

sand bedding layer. A 4-inch-thick layer of aggregate base should be placed over the vapor barrier
and be compacted with a vibratory plate. The base layer should remain compacted and a uniform
thickness maintained during the concrete pour, as its intended purpose is to facilitate even curing
of the concrete and minimize curling of the slab. Extra attention should be given during
construction to ensure that rebar reinforcement and equipment do not damage the integrity of the
vapor barrier.
Pavement Design
It is our understanding that traffic on the site will be generally very light, except during initial
construction and during shutdowns/repairs. Paved areas subject to automobile traffic or infrequent
truck traffic can consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base,
underlain by 18 inches of structural fill. Roads that would be subject to daily heavy truck
deliveries, if any, will require an individual analysis. All aggregate base beneath asphalt pavement
should be densified to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Unpaved roads should consist of 12 or 18 inches of aggregate base over a separation geotextile,
where the thicker section is only for main roadways which will see the most use. The separation
geotextile shall be a non-woven geotextile such as Mirafi® 180N or equivalent. The separation
geotextile will provide additional strength to resist occasional overloads (due to shutdown traffic)
and will prevent mixing of the aggregate base into the native subgrade with repeated loading.
Additional separation from clay and fine-grained subgrade (structural fill thickness) as described
under the Site Preparation section is not required for gravel roads. These gravel roads should
perform acceptably under the same level of service as the asphalt pavement, provided that routine
maintenance (re-grading, recompaction, replacement of eroded materials) is performed.
Pavement design is mostly a function of heavy truck traffic and subgrade strength. Inherent in the
selection of design subgrade strength is the assumption that the subgrade will not become
saturated. Subgrade strength drops dramatically when moisture increases even slightly more than
the selected design value. This is essentially true for any material other than clean sands and
gravels and is more critical in fine-grained and clay soils than in granular soils. Soils at this site
are considered to be of high moisture sensitivity. We should provide additional recommendations
if lawn or other irrigated landscaping (not including shrubs watered by drip system) are planned
immediately adjacent to roadways.
Asphalt concrete pavements have been designed for a standard 20-year life expectancy with the
design assumptions presented under Pavement Design. Between 15 and 20 years after initial
construction (average 17 years), major rehabilitation (structural overlay or reconstruction) is

generally required. To achieve even this performance life, periodic maintenance is required. Such
maintenance includes regular crack sealing, seal coats, and patching as necessary. Failure to
provide the required maintenance will significantly reduce pavement design life and performance.
Corrosion Potential
Based on the testing results for the North Brawley Plant, foundation soils are likely to have high
sulfate levels. Soluble sulfate minerals, particularly sodium sulfate, aggressively attack the surface
of low strength porous concrete. Foundations with their bottom elevation at or below original
grade (or otherwise potentially in a “bathtub” where perched seepage water can pool at shallow
depth below the concrete on native soils) should consist of Type V cement, and maximum
water/cement ratio of 0.45, and a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 pounds per square inch
(psi). Concrete-slabs on grade or foundations at or above original grade and located on 2 to 3 feet
of structural fill, have performed well for other geothermal plants in the project vicinity and we
recommend can use Type II cement, a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50, and a minimum
compressive strength of 4,000 psf. Locally developed mix designs using fly-ash and/or slag may
also be acceptable for sulfate resistant concrete.
Site foundation soils exhibit severe to extreme erosion potential with respect to buried steel
structures. As a result, buried steel in contact with the ground will typically require corrosion
protection.
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS
Depending on the season of construction, adjacent or on-site irrigation, or for excavations greater
than 3 feet below ground surface soft, wet soils may make it difficult for construction equipment
to travel and operate. The sump excavation will be difficult to dewater and the excavation slope
will likely tend to slough. The bottom of the sump excavation will need to be stabilized.
QUALITY CONTROL
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that sufficient field
testing and construction review will be provided during all phases of construction. We should
review the final plans and specifications to check for conformance with the intent of our
recommendations. Prior to construction, a pre-job conference should be scheduled to include, but
not be limited to, the owner, architect, civil engineer, the general contractor, earthwork and
materials subcontractors, building official, and geotechnical engineer. The conference will allow
parties to review the project plans, specifications, and recommendations presented in this report
and discuss applicable material quality and mix design requirements.
STANDARD LIMITATIONS CLAUSE
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices. The
analyses and recommendations submitted are based on field exploration performed at the locations
shown on Plate 1 - Plot Plan of this report. This report does not reflect soils variations that may
become evident during the construction period, at which time re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be necessary. The owner shall be responsible for distributing this
geotechnical investigation to all designers and contractors whose work is related to geotechnical
factors.
Equilibrium water level readings were made on the date shown on Plate 2 - Boring Logs and Plate
4 - CPT Sounding Logs of this report. Fluctuations in the water table may occur due to rainfall,
temperature, or adjacent irrigation practices. Construction planning should be based on
assumptions of possible variations in the water table.
This report has been produced to provide information allowing the engineers to design the project.
The owner is responsible for distributing this report to all designers and contractors whose work is
affected by geotechnical aspects. In the event there are changes in the design, location, or
ownership of the project from the time this report is issued, recommendations should be reviewed
and possibly modified by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer is not granted
the opportunity to make this recommended review, he or she can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation or misapplication of his or her recommendations or their validity in the event
changes have been made in the original design concept without his or her prior review. The
geotechnical engineer makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the
professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement and included in this report.
REFERENCES
Acquits – Prolog Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, 1993, California Codes; Public Resources Code;
Sections 2621-2630.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, Design
Manual for Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice: Parts 1 through 5.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2005, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics, Volume 4.08.
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. (BEC) 2007, Geotechnical Investigation, North Brawley Geothermal
Power Plant, Imperial County, California, Private Consultant Report, Project No. 0478-
07-1.
Blake, T., 2000, EQFAULT for Windows Version 3.00b, computer program, Thomas Blake,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Boulanger, R.W., and I. M. Idriss, 2006, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132 No. 11, ASCE.
Bowles, J. E., 1996a, FADDYNF - A Computer Program for Simple Dynamic Base Analysis,
Rocking/Sliding not Coupled..
Bowles, J. E., 1996b, 5th ed., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2007, California Building Code.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), 2002, Standard Specifications for

Construction of Local Streets and Roads.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Map of Known Active Fault Near-
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of
Building Officials.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)
Model 2002 (Revised April 2003), http://www.conserv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm.
Geomotions, LLC, 2006, D-MOD2000, A Computer Program for Seismic Response Analyses of
Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits, Earthfill Dams, and Solid Waste Fills, Geomotions,
LLC, Lacey, Washington.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1984 (March 15, 1984), Flood Insurance Rate
Map 060065 0600B, Imperial County, California.
Hamsen, Stephen, July 9, 2007, Personal Communication, United States Geological Survey,
Denver, Colorado.
Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 1999. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Louie, John N., April 2001, “Faster, Better: Shear-Wave Velocity to 100 Meters Depth for
Refraction Microtremor Arrays.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 91,
n. 2, p. 347-396.
Morton, Paul K., 1977, Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial County California, California
Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 7.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 1997, Proceedings of the
NCEER Workshop on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, Utah, NCEER
Technical Report NCEER-97-0022.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design
Aspects, (formerly Design Manual DM 7.3), MIL-HDBK-1007-3.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 1986a, Foundations and Earth Structure;
Design Manual 7.2.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 1986b, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1.
Nelson, John D. and Debora J. Miller, 1992, Expansive Soils: Problems and Practice in
Foundation and Pavement Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Robertson and Wride, 1998, Evaluating Cyclic Liqeufaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration
Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 35 pp. 442 – 459.
Seed. H. B., and I. M. Idriss, 1983, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.

Seed, H. Bolton and Kenneth L, Lee, 1966, Liquefaction of Saturated Sands During Cyclic
Loading, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, November, 1966.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2003, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the
Conterminous United States by Latitude Longitude, 1996 and 2002 Data,
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq-men/html/lookup-interp-06.html.
USGS, 1982, The Imperial Valley, California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979, U.S.G.S
Professional Paper 1254, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Youd, T. L., I.M. Idriss, Ronald D. Andrus, Ignacio Arango, Gonzalo Castro, John T. Christian,
Richardo Dobry, W. D. Liam Finn, Leslie F. Harder, Jr., Mary Ellen Hynes, Kenji
Ishihara, Joseph P. Koester, Sam S. C. Liao, William F. Marcuson III, Geoffrey R. Martin,
James K. Mitchell, Yoshiharu Moriwaki, Maurice S. Power, Peter K. Robertson, Raymond
B. Seed, and Kenneth H. Stokoe II, 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary
Report” from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, October, 2001, p. 817-833.
Youd, T.L., and T.L. Holzer, 1994, Piezometer Performance at Wildlife Liquefaction Site,
California, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, June 1994, p. 975-995.

PLATES
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: B-01 DATE: 6/26/2008
TYPE OF BORING: CME 75 DEPTH TO GROUND WATER (ft): 15.6
LOGGED BY: SMM GROUND ELEVATION (ft): -142 ± msl
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Lean Clay with Sand Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff,
with an estimated 80-85% high plasticity fines and 15-20% fine
A SPT 21 sand. Occasional black mottling and white stringers. Pocket
penetrometer = 1.5 - >4 tsf.
Pocket penetrometer = 0.75 - 1.5 tsf.
B SPT 26 CL
5
Pocket penetrometer = 0.5 - 2 tsf.
C SPT 16
ML Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 -

100% non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand.
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff, with an
D SPT 26 estimated 90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
Occasional black mottling and white stringers.
10
E SPT 20
CH
Pocket penetrometer = 1 - 2.5 tsf.

F SPT 17
15
G SPT 23 Silt Brown, tan, wet, medium dense to dense, with an estimated
100% non-plastic to slightly-plastic fines. Begin mud rotary
drilling at 16.5 feet.
H SPT 44
BORING_LOG 0478091.GPJ BLKEAGLE.GDT 8/8/2008
20 ML
I SPT 34
PROJECT NO.:
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. Ormat Inc. 0478-09-1

1345 Capital Blvd., Suite A
East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant
Reno, Nevada 89502-7140 PLATE:
(775) 359-6600 Imperial County, California 2
SHEET 1 OF 2
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
25
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff, with 99% high
plasticity fines and <1% fine sand. Occasional black mottling and
J SH 27.2 45 white stringers.
Pocket penetrometer = 1.0 - >4 tsf.

K SPT 51
30
CH Pocket penetrometer = <0.5 - 0.75 tsf.

L SPT 29
35
Pocket penetrometer = 150 - 3 tsf.
M SPT 51

N SPT 52
40
O SPT 66
SM Silty Sand Brown, tan, wet, very dense, with an estimated 35 -
40% non-plastic fines and 60 - 65% fine to medium sand. Begin

mud rotary drilling at 16.5 feet.
PROJECT NO.:

(775) 359-6600 Imperial County, California 2a
SHEET 2 OF 2
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Lean Clay with Sand Brown, reddish brown, moist, firm, with
84% medium plasticity fines and 16% fine sand. Occasional black
mottling and white stringers.
A SH 19.0 17 CL
Pocket penetrometer = <0.5 - 1.5 tsf.

B SPT 6
5
ML
Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 -
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, firm, with an estimated
90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand. Occasional
C SPT 8 black mottling and white stringers.
10
D MC 26
CH
15
E SPT 19 Silt Brown, tan, wet, medium dense to dense, with an estimated
95% non-plastic fines and 5% very fine mica sand.
ML
20
F SPT 15
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 2
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
G SPT 23
CH Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff, with an
estimated 90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
25
30
35
40
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 2 OF 2
BORING LOG
TYPE OF BORING: CME 75 DEPTH TO GROUND WATER (ft): 17
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, with
A SPT 12 98% high plasticity fines and 2% fine sand. Occasional black
mottling and white stringers. Pocket penetrometer = 0.75 - 2 tsf.
Pocket penetrometer = 1 - 3 tsf. No tubes in sampler.

B MC 22 27.7 37 CH
5
C SH 28.4 34

Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, with
D SPT 18 96% high plasticity fines and 4% fine sand. Occasional black
mottling and white stringers. Laboratory analysis reveals
abundant gastropod shells up to 1 mm size between 15 - 16.5
10 feet.
E SH 27.0 22
CL

F SPT 22
15
G SH 26.0 29
Silt Brown, tan, wet, medium dense to dense, with an estimated
100% non-plastic to very low plasticity fines.
H SPT 23
ML
20
grades non-plastic.
I MC 47
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 1
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, with an
A SPT 9 estimated 90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
Occasional black mottling and white stringers. Pocket
penetrometer = 1 - 2.5 tsf.
CH
B SPT 17
5
Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with 99% low plasticity
fines and 1% fine sand.
C MC 32 23.1 8 ML
D SPT 26 Occasional black mottling and white stringers.
CH
10
E SPT 32
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, hard, with 98%

medium plasticity fines and 2% fine sand. Occasional black
F MC 62 mottling and white stringers.
CL
15
G SH 1.9 11
Silt Brown, tan, wet, medium dense, with an estimated 100%
non-plastic fines.
H SPT 13
ML
20
I SPT 20
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 2
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, with
99% high plasticity fines and 1% fine sand. Occasional black
J MC 56 mottling.
25
K SPT 23
CH
L SH 27.0 37
30
M SPT 49
Silty Sand Brown, tan, wet, medium dense, with an estimated

SM
25 - 30% non-plastic fines and 70 - 75% fine to medium sand.
N SPT 17 Sand is primarily fine grained.
Clayey Sand Brown, reddish brown, moist dense, with 50%

35
high plasticity fines and 50% fine sand.
SC
O SH 24.1 36
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, hard, with an estimated

90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
P SPT 49 Pocket penetrometer = 3.5 - >4.5 tsf.
CH
40
Q MC 53
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 2 OF 2
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, stiff, with an estimated
85 - 90% medium plasticity fines and 10-15% fine sand.
A SPT 12 Occasional black mottling and white stringers. Pocket
penetrometer = 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
CL
Pocket Penetrometer = 1.25 - 2.5 tsf.
B SPT 14
5
Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 -
C SPT 25
ML 100% non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand.
D MC 37 Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, with an
E SPT 27
Pocket Penetrometer = 3 - 4.5 tsf.

F SPT 29
10
CH Pocket Penetrometer = 3 - 3.5 tsf. Sampler failure after driving 12
G SPT 20+ inches. Could not drive final 6 inch interval.
H MC 90 (9")
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.5 - 3 tsf.

I SPT 31
15
J SPT 33 35 - 40% non-plastic fines and 60 - 65% fine to medium sand.
SM
K SPT 20
L MC 18
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, with
98% low plasticity fines and 2% fine sand. Occasional black
20
mottling. Pocket penetrometer = 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
M MC 11 28.1 9 CL
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 3
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.75 - >4.5 tsf.
N SPT 40
Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, with an
O SPT 17 Occasional black mottling. Pocket penetrometer = 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
25
P MC 37
Pocket Penetrometer = >4.5 tsf.

Q SPT 18
Pocket Penetrometer = 1 - 2 tsf.

R SPT 17
30
CH Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 - 2 tsf.
S SPT 19
Pocket Penetrometer = 2 - 4 tsf.

T SPT 28
U MC 25
35
V SPT 36
Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 - 3 tsf.

W SPT 27
CL Silt Brown, tan, dry, very stiff, with an estimated 95 - 100%

X MC 36 non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand.
40 CL 35 - 40% non-plastic fines and 60 - 65% fine to medium sand.
Y SPT 13
Silty Sand, Clayey Sand Brown, tan, moist, medium dense, with
Z SPT 18 an estimated 30 - 40% non-plastic to medium plasticity fines and
60 - 70% fine to medium sand. Thinly bedded formation with
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 2 OF 3
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
layers of Silty Sand and Clayey Sand.
AA SPT SC-SM
45
AB SH
Silty Sand Brown, tan, wet, dense to very dense, with an
estimated 35 - 40% non-plastic fines and 60 - 65% fine to medium
AC SPT 37 sand.
SM
AD SPT 65
50
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, hard, with 98%
medium plasticity fines and 2% fine sand.
AE SPT 47 Pocket Penetrometer = 0.75 - 2.25 tsf.
AF MC 61 CL
AG SH 27.8 19
55
SM Silty Sand Brown, tan, wet, dense, with an estimated 35 - 40%
AH SPT 46 non-plastic fines and 60 - 65% fine to medium sand.
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, hard, with an estimated
90 - 95% medium plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
AI SPT 52 Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 - 1 tsf.
CL Pocket Penetrometer = >4.0 tsf.
AJ SPT 31
Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 - 0.75 tsf.

60
PROJECT NO.:

(775) 359-6600 Imperial County, California 2b
SHEET 3 OF 3
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, with an
A SPT 11 estimated 90 - 95% medium plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
B SPT 24 CL
5
C MC 36

Fat Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, hard, with 99% high
D SH 24.2 37 plasticity fines and 1% fine sand. Occasional black mottling and
white stringers.
10
Pocket penetrometer = >4.5 tsf.
E SPT 47
CH

F SPT 36
15
G MC 43 non-plastic to very low plasticity fines.
ML
20
grades an estimated 95% non-plastic fines and 5% very fine mica
H SPT 24 sand.
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 1
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
B MC 29 CL
5
C SPT 18

Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, with
an estimated 90 - 95% medium plasticity fines and <10% fine
D SH sand. Occasional black mottling and white stringers.
10
E SPT 24
CL
15
F MC 38

very low plasticity to non-plastic fines.
ML
20
grades non-plastic.
G SPT 17
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 1
BORING LOG
PLASTICITY INDEX
BLOWS/12 inches
USCS SYMBOL
MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE NO.
LITHOLOGY
DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION
penetrometer = 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
CL
B MC 52
5
C SPT 38 ML Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 -
CL-ML 100% non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand.
Silt and Lean Clay Tan, brown, moist,
D SH
Lean Clay Brown, reddish brown, moist, very stiff, with an
estimated 90 - 95% medium plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
10 Occasional black mottling and white stringers.
E SPT 24
CL
15 Silt Brown, tan, wet, stiff to very stiff, with 92% non-plastic fines
and 8% fine to medium sand.
F MC 29 27.4 NP
SM
20
G SPT 17
PROJECT NO.:

SHEET 1 OF 1
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-01
Date Excavated: 6/24/2008 Logged by: SMM
Equipment: Case 420 D Surface Elevation (ft) -142 ± msl
Depth to Ground Water: NE
MOISTURE
NUMBER
GRAPHIC
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
Comments: Conducted percolation tests at 5 and 7 feet below ground surface.
DEPTH
(feet)
LOG
(%) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PI
1
Occasional black mottling and white stringers. Pocket penetrometer
= 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
2 CL
4
Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 - 100%
5 ML non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand. Thin-wall corrugated PVC
drain pipe in medium to coarse sand envelope encountered at 5.5
6
feet bgs.
7
8 CL
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-02

Date Excavated: 6/24/2008 Logged by: SMM
Equipment: Case 420 D Surface Elevation (ft) -142 ± msl
Depth to Ground Water: NE

MOISTURE
NUMBER
GRAPHIC
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
Comments:
DEPTH
(feet)
LOG
(%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PI
1
Occasional black mottling and white stringers. Pocket penetrometer
= 1.5 - 2.5 tsf.
2
3 CL
5
BEC-TP1 0478091.GPJ LAGNNN07.GDT 8/8/2008
6
ML Silt Brown, tan, dry, stiff to very stiff, with an estimated 95 - 100%
7 non-plastic fines and 0 - 5% fine sand.
8 estimated 90 - 95% high plasticity fines and <10% fine sand.
CH Occasional black mottling and white stringers.
9
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. Ormat Inc.

Reno, Nevada 89502-7140 East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant
Phone: (775) 359-6600 Fax: (775) 359-7766 Imperial County, California 0478-09-1 Plate 2
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART EXPLORATION SAMPLE TERMINOLOGY
SYMBOLS TYPICAL Sample Type Sample Symbol Sample Code

MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - Auger Cuttings Auger
CLEAN GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
GRAVEL GRAVELS
AND
GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, Bulk (Grab) Sample Grab
SOILS
GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
Modified California
COARSE MC
GRAVELS WITH GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
Sampler
GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES
SILT MIXTURES
SOILS OF COARSE
FRACTION
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT Shelby Tube SH or ST
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
Standard Penetration SPT

SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY Test
CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
SAND
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) Split Spoon SS
LARGER THAN NO. SANDY SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FINES
No Sample
MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
OF COARSE FINES
FRACTION
PASSING ON
NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE
SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

Component of Sample Size Range
ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)
SILTS
AND
LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
FINE LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in.
GRAINED CLAYS
(300mm to 75mm)
SOILS
OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
(75mm to 2mm)
MORE THAN 50%
MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
OF MATERIAL IS
SILTY SOILS
Sand # 4 to #200 sieve
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS
(2mm to 0.074mm)
AND
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
CLAYS Silt or Clay Passing #200 sieve
(0.074mm)
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
N - Blows/ft Relative Density

FILL MATERIAL -- FILL MATERIAL, NON-NATIVE
0-4 Very Loose
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL 5 - 10 Loose
CLASSIFICATIONS.
11 - 30 Medium Dense
31 - 50 Dense
PLASTICITY CHART greater than 50 Very Dense
60
NE
LI
50 " NE
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
"U LI CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

"
40 OH "A
Unconfined Compressive
OR Strength, psf N - Blows/ft Consistency
30
CH
less than 500 0-1 Very Soft
20 R
OL 500 - 1,000 2-4 Soft
O
CL MH OR OH 1,000 - 2,000 5-8 Firm
10
7
CL-ML 2,000 - 4,000 9 - 15 Stiff
USCS_CHART 0478091.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/8/2008
4 ML OR OL
0 4,000 - 8,000 16 - 30 Very Stiff
0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
8,000 - 16,000 31 - 60 Hard
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS AND greater than 16,000 greater than 60 Very Hard
FINE-GRAINED FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. USCS Soil Classification Chart

1345 Capital Blvd., Suite A Project: East Brawley Geothermal Power Plant
Reno, Nevada 89502-7140
Telephone: (775) 359-6600 Location: Imperial County, California
Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 3
Black Eagle Consultants
Location East Brawley Geothermal Operator VO/LE Filename SDF(156).cpt
Job Number 0478-09-1 Cone Number DSG1023 GPS
Hole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 8/1/2008 8:08:27 AM Maximum Depth 50.52 ft
Water Table Depth 10.00 ft CPT Cone Tip= 10 squared cm Net Area Ratio= .8
BEHAVIOR
CPT DATA
DEPTH
TYPE
SOIL
(ft)
TIP FRICTION Fs/Qt SPT N

0 TSF 160 0 TSF 3 0 % 9 0 40 0 12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 - sensitive fine grained 4- silty clay to clay 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 10 - gravelly sand to sand
2- organic material 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 8- sand to silty sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
3- clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 9- sand 12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
Depth Increment *Soil

Soil Behavior
behavior Referance
type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 PLATE 4A
Location East Brawley Geothermal Operator VO/LE
Hole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 8/1/2008 8:08:27 AM
Equilized Pressure 3.67 Ground Water Depth 10.71
4
19.19 ft
PRESSURE U2 PSI
0
0 Time (Sec) PLATE 4B 600.00
Page 1 of 1
BEHAVIOR
CPT DATA
DEPTH
TYPE
SOIL
(ft)

0 TSF 160 0 TSF 3 0 % 9 0 40 0 12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Behavior
behavior Referance
type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 PLATE 4C
BEHAVIOR
CPT DATA
DEPTH
TYPE
SOIL
(ft)

0 TSF 160 0 TSF 3 0 % 9 0 40 0 12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Behavior
behavior Referance
type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 PLATE 4D
BEHAVIOR
CPT DATA
DEPTH
TYPE
SOIL
(ft)

0 TSF 160 0 TSF 3 0 % 9 0 40 0 12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Behavior
behavior Referance
type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
PLATE 4E
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Ormat East Brawley Date of Test: 06/27/2008

Project Location: Imperial County, California Project No.: 0478-09-1
Test Location: Northeast Corner
Test Pit Number: TP-01 Test depth (ft): 5
Test Performed by: SMM Reviewed by: Jonathan Pease Phd. P.E.
Registration No.: CA C59611
TEST DATA:
Time of Presoaking (hours 26 Water Depth (in) 12
Percolation
Time Depth to Depth
Time of Rate
Difference Water Difference Comments
Reading (minutes/inch)
(minutes) (1) (inches) (inches) (2)
1÷2
TEST 1
6:45:00 0:00:00 5.88 0.00
7:32:00 0:47:00 11.81 5.94 7.92
10:45:00 3:13:00 DRY
TEST 2
10:46:00 0:00:00 5.75 0.00

10:55:00 0:09:00 7.13 1.38 6.55
11:05:00 0:10:00 7.88 0.75 13.33
11:15:00 0:10:00 8.69 0.81 12.31
11:25:00 0:10:00 9.63 0.94 10.67
11:35:00 0:10:00 10.25 0.63 16.00
11:45:00 0:10:00 10.88 0.63 16.00
11:55:00 0:10:00 11.63 0.75 13.33
12:05:00 0:10:00 12.38 0.75 13.33
12:15:00 0:10:00 13.13 0.75 13.33
Notes:
Test performed in a silt layer between 4
and 6 feet depth.
PLATE 5A
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Ormat East Brawley Date of Test: 06/27/2008

Project Location: Imperial County, California Project No.: 0478-09-1
Test Location: Northeast Corner
Test Pit Number: TP-01 Test depth (ft): 7
Test Performed by: SMM Reviewed by: Jonathan Pease Phd. P.E.
Registration No.: CA C59611
TEST DATA:
Time of Presoaking (hours) 24 Water Depth (in) 11
Percolation
Time Depth to Depth
Time of Rate
Difference Water Difference Comments
Reading (minutes/inch)
(minutes) (1) (inches) (inches) (2)
1÷2
TEST 1
6:45:00 0:00:00 6.06 0.00
7:32:00 0:47:00 6.63 0.56 83.56
10:45:00 3:13:00 7.75 1.13 171.56 Results heavily influenced by
11:35:00 0:50:00 8.13 0.38 133.33 evaporation; >105 degrees F
12:05:00 0:30:00 8.25 0.13 240.00 outside.
Notes:
Test run in plastic clay at 7 feet bgs.
PLATE 5B
Shear Wave Velocity Modeling Results
Ormat East Brawley Geothermal Site
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
500
600
700
800
0 900
-10 Vs100' = 1548 ft/s
-20
-30
-40
Depth, ft
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s
Plate 6
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification USCS Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu

B-01 25.0' FAT CLAY (CH) 65 20 45
B-02 2.5' LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 33 16 17
B-03 2.5' FAT CLAY (CH) 56 19 37
B-03 5.0' FAT CLAY (CH) 53 19 34
B-03 10.0' LEAN CLAY (CL) 37 15 22
US_GRAIN_SIZE2 0478091.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/8/2008
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 MC % %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-01 25.0' 4.75 27.2 0.0 0.5 99.5
B-02 2.5' 9.5 19.0 0.1 15.6 84.3
B-03 2.5' 2 27.7 0.0 1.7 98.3
B-03 5.0' 2 28.4 0.0 2.1 97.9
B-03 10.0' 2 27.0 0.0 4.2 95.8
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 7a
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAVEL SAND

B-03 15.0' LEAN CLAY (CL) 45 16 29
B-04 5.0' SILT (ML) 32 24 8
B-04 15.0' LEAN CLAY (CL) 34 23 11
B-04 27.5' FAT CLAY (CH) 54 17 37
B-04 35.0' CLAYEY SAND (SC) 51 15 36
B-03 15.0' 2 26.0 0.0 2.4 97.6
B-04 5.0' 2 23.1 0.0 0.7 99.3
B-04 15.0' 0.85 1.9 0.0 1.9 98.1
B-04 27.5' 2 27.0 0.0 1.3 98.7
B-04 35.0' 2 0.093 24.1 0.0 50.1 49.9

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 7b
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAVEL SAND

B-05 20.0' LEAN CLAY (CL) 31 22 9
B-05 53.0' LEAN CLAY (CL) 38 19 19
B-06 7.5' FAT CLAY (CH) 56 19 37
B-08 15.0' SILT (ML) NP NP NP
B-05 20.0' 2 28.1 0.0 2.4 97.6
B-05 53.0' 2 27.8 0.0 1.6 98.4
B-06 7.5' 2 24.2 0.0 0.8 99.2
B-08 15.0' 0.425 27.4 0.0 7.6 92.4

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 7c
60
CL CH
50
P
L
A
S 40
T
I
C
I
T 30
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
10
CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Specimen Depth in Feet. LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines USCS Classification

B-01 25.0' 65 20 45 99 FAT CLAY (CH)
B-02 2.5' 33 16 17 84 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
B-03 2.5' 56 19 37 98 FAT CLAY (CH)
B-03 5.0' 53 19 34 98 FAT CLAY (CH)
B-03 10.0' 37 15 22 96 LEAN CLAY (CL)
B-03 15.0' 45 16 29 98 LEAN CLAY (CL)
B-04 5.0' 32 24 8 99 SILT (ML)
B-04 15.0' 34 23 11 98 LEAN CLAY (CL)
B-04 27.5' 54 17 37 99 FAT CLAY (CH)
B-04 35.0' 51 15 36 50 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
B-05 20.0' 31 22 9 98 LEAN CLAY (CL)
B-05 53.0' 38 19 19 98 LEAN CLAY (CL)
B-06 7.5' 56 19 37 99 FAT CLAY (CH)
B-08 15.0' NP NP NP 92 SILT (ML)
US_ATTERBERG_LIMITS 0478091.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/8/2008
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 7d
0
6
STRAIN, % (Percent of Consolidation)
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-02 [2.5] Classification: LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)

LL= 33 PL=16 PI=17 Gs= NT Test Unit: Carol-Warner 1016 Pneumatic
Specimen Type: Undisturbed Condition: Inundated Before Test After Test
Diameter (in.): 2.42 Height (in.): 1.00 Water Content, w(%) 19.0 16.9
CONSOL_STRAIN2 0478091.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/11/2008
Overburden Press, Po (psf): 280 Void Ratio, e0 0.66 0.48

Preconsolidation Pressure, Pc (psf): 6000 Saturation, S(%) 76.7 94.0
Compression Index, Cc: 0.19 Dry Density (pcf) 99.8 112.0
Rebound Index, Cs: 0.006 Test Method: ASTM D2435B
Remarks:
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST - STRAIN

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9a
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-03 [5] Classification: FAT CLAY (CH)


Remarks:

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9b
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-04 [27.5] Classification: FAT CLAY (CH)

LL= 54 PL=17 PI=37 Gs= NT Test Unit: Wykeham Farrance 24251 Deadweight

Rebound Index, Cs: 0.02 Test Method: ASTM D2435A
Remarks:

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9c
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-04 [35] Classification: CLAYEY SAND (SC)

LL= 51 PL=15 PI=36 Gs= NT Test Unit: Wykeham Farrance 24251 Deadweight

Remarks:

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9d
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-05 [53] Classification: LEAN CLAY (CL)

Specimen Type: Undisturbed Condition: Saturated Before Test After Test

Preconsolidation Pressure, Pc (psf): Saturation, S(%) 93.4 97.1
Remarks:

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9e
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 5
100 1,000 10,000 10
STRESS, psf
Source: B-06 [7.5] Classification: FAT CLAY (CH)

Specimen Type: Undisturbed Condition: Saturated Before Test After Test

Remarks:

Fax: (775) 359-7766
Project Number: 0478-09-1 Plate Number: 9f
APPENDIX A
MICROTREMOR SHEAR-WAVE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX A
MICROTREMOR SHEAR-WAVE ANALYSIS
Shear-wave velocities for subsurface strata were collected using a multiple channel
digital acquisition data logger and geophone system. A DAQLink II™ 24-bit, 2-channel
analog to digital data logger, coupled with 12, 4.5-Hz geophones on 3-meter spacings,
was used to record background micro tremor refraction data. SeisOpt ReMi® software
was then used to model the digital refraction data using a wave field transformation data
processing technique and an interactive Rayleigh-wave dispersion model. Model output
after data processing is presented as a spectral solution of wave frequency vs. slowness,
the modeled Rayleigh-wave phase-velocity dispersion curve, and a graphical
representation of shear-wave velocity vs. depth at the modeled location.
The Raleigh-wave dispersion curve and slowness-frequency wave dispersion are shown
on the attached figure. For standard 8-meter geophone spacing, estimation of Rayleigh-
wave phase-velocity dispersion curves by slowness-frequency wave field transformation
has been shown to be an effective method for estimation of 30-meter (100-foot) average
shear-wave velocities and one-dimensional shear-wave profile within 20 percent
accuracy to 100 meters depth1. By reducing the geophone spacing to 3 meters, greater
definition was obtained to 7 meters for turbine-generator modeling, and one-dimensional
shear-wave profile was obtained within 20 percent accuracy to approximately 75 feet.
The shear-wave velocity versus depth model for the site is shown on Plate 4 in the main
report. The inverse-weighted-average shear-wave velocity from 0 to 100 feet is also
calculated, as shown on the plate.
1
Louie, John N., April 2001, “Faster, Better: Shear-Wave Velocity to 100 Meters Depth
for Refraction Microtremor Arrays.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, v. 91, n. 2, p. 347-396.
Rayleigh Wave Phase Velocity,ft/s
ORMAT East Brawley Geothermal Project
Dispersion Curve Showing Picks and Fit

1000
Dispersion Graph
900
Model Fit Data
800
700
600
500
400
0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07
Period, s
p-f Image with Dispersion Modeling Picks
APPENDIX B
DYNAMIC LIQUEFACTION LABORATORY

TESTING
APPENDIX B – DYNAMIC LIQUEFACTION LABORATORY TESTING
Five samples were obtained from the exploration program to use for cyclic triaxial testing
for liquefaction evaluation. Testing was performed by University of Nevada in Reno,
Nevada, SEA Geotechnical Laboratory. Testing used procedures outlined in Seed and
Lee (1966). Samples were subject to constant-magnitude, sinusoidal, cyclic stress
loading, and displacement (strain) and pore water pressure were measured on a continual
basis. Testing was run at 0.03 Hertz (30 seconds per cycle). Failure was defined as when
the sample deformation exceeded 10 percent axial strain.
Triaxial samples were obtained from intact samples obtained from field exploration,
collected with Shelby Tube and Modified California (MC) samplers. Soils were lean clay
to non-plastic silt, and some barely had sufficient cohesion to stand intact when extruded.
B-04G had too low cohesion, fell apart during sampling, and was reconstituted to similar
density to the in situ density. Silt tests were run at the same diameter as obtained from
the field to avoid trimming (to minimize disturbance), where clay samples were trimmed
to minimize consolidation/pore pressure generation time.
The field cyclic stress ratio (CSR) due to an earthquake of a given magnitude is
τ avg a σ
CSR = = 0.65 ⋅ max ⋅ o ⋅ rd
σ ' vo g σ '0
Where amax is 0.40 g, σ (sigma) are stresses at the depth of the layer being investigated,
and rd is a reduction factor with depth determined from Plate C-3. Using these
parameters, the CSR for the various test depths are shown on Table C-1. For an assumed
magnitude 7.5 earthquake, samples should experience on average 15 cycles of earthquake
shaking at this CSR.
The remolded sample (B-04G) would have had no stress history, and therefore would be
weaker and a more conservative estimate of the soil strength than the initial sample tests.
The pore pressure ratios at failure are higher and undrained strengths at failure are also
lower than for the relatively undisturbed soils.
Results of cyclic triaxial testing are summarized on Table B-1, and detailed results
follow. Index tests on the samples are included in the main plates. The clays were highly
resistant to both cyclic strength degradation and cyclic pore pressure generation. The
undisturbed silts were slightly susceptible to cyclic strength degradation and cyclic pore
pressure generation, but did not reach liquefiable conditions or cyclic failure for in excess
of 90 cycles. The remolded specimen (B-04G) showed less cyclic resistance but did not
reach failure (axial strain of 10 percent of the sample length) until 49 cycles.
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. By: JWP
Project No.: 0478-09-1 Date: 08/06/2008
Project: East Brawley Geothermal Plant
TABLE B-1 - DYNAMIC TRIAXIAL TESTING RESULTS

Su at
Confining No. Cycles End PWP
Deviatoric PWP ratio failure
Sample Pressure, CSR to 10% at 10% Comments
Stress, psf at failure (10%
psf strain strain
strain)
Hard lean clay 96% fines PI=22 CPT generally predicts non-
B-03 E at 10' 1100 515 0.234 >100 200 0.18* NA liquefiable clay (closest CPT within 300 feet)
B-01 J at 26' 2000 936 0.234 >100 100 0.05* NA Hard fat clay 99% fines PI=45 CPT predicts non-liquefiable clay
B-08F1 at 15.5' 1500 702 0.234 >100 800 0.533 NA Silt 92% fines non-plastic CPT predicts liquefaction
B-08F2 at 16' 2800 1310 0.234 90 2200 0.786 450 Silt 92% fines non-plastic CPT predicts liquefaction
B-04G at 15.5' 1600 748 0.234 54 1260 0.788 450 Lean Clay 98% fines PI=11 CPT predicts liquefaction
* These results represent pore water pressure ratio at end of test, not at failure
Fig. 11: The plot of diviatoric stress v.s. axial strain for B-01 J specimen.
Fig. 12: The plot of stress path for B-01 J specimen.
Fig. 13: The plot of pore water generation, effective stress v.s. time for B-01 J specimen.
Fig. 14: The plot of diviatoric stress v.s. axial strain for B-03 E specimen.
Fig. 15: The plot of stress path for B-03 E specimen.
Fig. 16: The plot of pore water generation, effective stress v.s. time for B-03 E specimen.
Fig. 17: The plot of diviatoric stress v.s. axial strain for B-08-F1 specimen.
Fig. 18: The plot of stress path for B-08-F1 specimen.
Fig. 20: The plot of diviatoric stress v.s. axial strain for B-08-F2 specimen.
Fig. 21: The plot of stress path for B-08-F2 specimen.
Fig. 22: The plot of pore water generation, effective stress v.s. time for B-08-F2 specimen.
Fig. 23: The plot of diviatoric stress v.s. axial strain for B-12 L specimen.
Fig. 24: The plot of stress path for B-04 G specimen.
Fig. 25: The plot of pore water generation, effective stress v.s. time for B-12 L specimen.
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
APPENDIX C – LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
Based on the results of field penetration testing and laboratory cyclic testing, site soils are
not liquefiable or subject to significant cyclic softening. To come to this conclusion, we
evaluated site seismic propagation modeling (using the results of analysis for the North
Brawley Plant [BEC, 2007]), Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data, and cyclic laboratory
testing results. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data were compromised by inconsistent
drive hammer operation and were not used.
Site Seismic Propagation Modeling
Earthquake wave propagation was analyzed using the program DMOD-2000

(Geomotions, 2006). The program models nonlinear, time-dependent soil response
including pore water pressure generation. The soil profile was modeled based on stiff
clays with undrained strength, isolated zones of medium dense sandy silt to silty sand
(allowing for potential liquefaction), and the site shear-wave velocity profile. Two input
bedrock motions were used, which were obtained from near-source, large-magnitude,
firm-ground to bedrock measurement sites of strike-slip earthquakes, which would also
be typical for the nearby sources for the project site (the San Andreas Fault and the
Brawley fault zone). These bedrock records, which had peak ground accelerations of
0.39 and 0.88g, were scaled to a range of peak bedrock accelerations to observe a typical
bedrock-surface amplification curve shown on Plate C-1.
The results on Plate C-1 indicate that softening of stiff lake clays and silts of ancient Lake
Cohuilla results in attenuation of short-period ground motions above 0.10g, and for
bedrock accelerations of 0.50 to 0.9g, the peak ground acceleration at the ground surface
is more or less constant between 0.25 and 0.30g. Using a slightly stiffer model, the peak
ground acceleration is no higher than 0.39g. A generic recommendation for ground
surface motion attenuation from Seed and Idriss (1983) is shown on Plate C-2. The
maximum ground surface acceleration for deep stiff soil sites is 0.35g, and the maximum
ground surface acceleration for soft to medium stiff clay and sand sites is recommended
as 0.25g.
Plate C-3 shows the peak ground accelerations developed in the DMOD-2000 models
versus depth. Significant soil softening and reduction of peak ground acceleration occur
in the stiff, deep clay deposits at depth which are less over-consolidated than the surface
silts and clays. Substantial softening also occurs in saturated silts and silty sands. The
peak surface acceleration of 0.4g (consistent with site-specific and generic
recommendations on Plates C-1 and C-2), and reductions in peak ground acceleration
with depth (rd)on Plate C-3, were used for liquefaction and laboratory test evaluation
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION USING PENETRATION TESTS
Liquefaction evaluation using SPT or CPT are only applicable to soils with less than
about 35 percent fines content, and are certainly not applicable for soils with greater than
50 percent fines content (NCEER, 1997; Robertson and Wride, 1998; Youd et al., 2001).
For most soils with higher than 35 percent fines content, and for all soils with greater
than 50 percent fines content, SPT and especially CPT liquefaction prediction methods
are invalid and typically too conservative (overly predicting liquefaction).
No soils with 35 percent fines or less were encountered in the samples in our borings.
We consider that some thin cleaner sand layers could exist that were not encountered at
the limited sampling intervals, and were potentially identified in the CPT soundings. Our
CPT soundings were performed in close proximity to the borings in order to evaluate
whether the CPT soil correlations were suitable to determine potentially liquefiable layers
that were not sampled.
The standard CPT-soil consistency correlation is shown on Plate C-4. The NCEER
liquefaction analysis procedure estimates the fines content of a soil using the parameter
Ic, which is a comparison of the tip and side resistance at the same depth in the soil. To
use the chart, soil data at a certain depth would be used to calculate Ic. The NCEER
method uses the dashed curved line by Robertson and Wride (1998) to determine soil
fines content. If Ic were 2.6 for a soil layer, the Ic values (determined from the vertical
axis) is drawn horizontally to where this value crosses the curve. Descending vertically,
the correlation indicates this layer has about 35 percent fines, or a silty to clayey sand at
the boundary between liquefaction-susceptible and non-liquefiable consistency.
We plotted data for the project site, comparing Ic from the CPT and soil consistency from
the laboratory samples, to result in the solid data points and the solid line correlation on
Plate C-4 (Data from the North Brawley site is shown by open circles for comparison).
Because the site was characterized almost exclusively by non-plastic silts to fat clays
with greater than 90 percent fines, a poor correlation trend was shown which runs counter
to Robertson and Wride’s correlation. At best we can conclude that the standard
correlation is not useful for this site for differentiating between soils with less than 35
percent fines which are conventionally liquefiable, and those with greater than 35 percent
fines which are not conventionally liquefiable. Also, the correction factor to obtain
corrected normalized, equivalent clean sand penetration resistance (Qc1Ncs) will not be
applied correctly, Qc1Ncs will be lower than if accurately predicted, and the method will
tend to overestimate liquefaction potential.
We also compared sample plasticity index with Ic on the lower portion of Plate C-4. The
least plastic material was a very fine sand/very coarse silt with 92 percent non-plastic
fines. Based on Boulanger and Idriss (2006), soils with a plasticity index of 7 or greater
will not liquefy, but may be subject to cyclic softening. There appears to be some
positive trend, but given the band of scatter and minimal slope of this trend, this method
did not appear to be useful to predict or deny liquefaction potential.
Liquefaction evaluation for the four cone penetration soundings is shown on Plates C-5,
C-6, C-7, and C-8. The soil consistency was determined in accordance with Robertson
and Wride (1998). The variations of soil consistency, penetration resistance, and
liquefaction threshold with depth are shown on the plates. The figure shows the
corrected penetration resistance in blows per foot versus depth, with the predicted
liquefaction threshold for the design earthquake. Different symbols are used to identify
the varying soil consistency identified in the samples at each depth. Soil samples
designated by an “X”, including silts and clays with greater than 35 percent fines, are
either not liquefiable regardless of the indicated blowcount, or cannot accurately be
determined as liquefiable or not due to the high fines content. The threshold shown on
the figure is the penetration resistance below which liquefaction will occur; penetration
values plotting to the left of the threshold line (except for those indicated by an “X”)
indicate liquefaction. Significant layers of silts, interpreted using the Robertson and
Wride (1998) Ic soil correlation as sand with some silt, appear to be liquefiable. As noted
above, the Robertson and Wride (1998) method is not very accurate for this site and so
severely over-predicts liquefaction potential.
Site specific interpretation of the CPT data was performed as follows. Of the five
dynamic liquefaction tests in Appendix B, three were on low plasticity to non-plastic silts
at a depth of 15.5 feet to 16.5 feet near CPT-2. These samples showed some cyclic
degradation, but at a greater number of cycles of shaking than would correspond to
typical earthquake. NCEER (1997) and Youd et al. (2001) show that a 7.5 magnitude
earthquake is expected to have 15 cycles of strong ground shaking, and an 8.5 magnitude
earthquake is expected to have 26 cycles of strong ground shaking. The disturbed,
remolded sample, for which soil stress history would have been lost, failed at no less than
49 cycles of shaking. The other two, less disturbed samples at this depth showed failure
at no less than 90 to 100 cycles of shaking. CPT-2 at this depth had a corrected
equivalent clean sand penetration resistance of 80. Therefore we concluded that
liquefaction will not occur for these non-plastic silts for soils with normalized penetration
of 80 or greater. The actual penetration resistance at which liquefaction will occur is
likely considerably lower than 80.
Based on the site-specific interpretation, a dashed line indicated the 80 value is shown on
Plates C-5 through C-8. A few 1- to 2-foot-thick layers are present in each CPT which
have corrected, normalized equivalent clean sand of 80 or slightly higher, typically at 16
to 22 feet. None of these layers are significantly less than 80. We therefore consider that
liquefaction potential is negligible.
The project site was in an area affected by the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake.
Significant amounts of sand boils, ground cracking, lateral spreading, and other damage
likely associated with liquefaction were noted in the recent alluvium of the New River
and Alamo River flood plains throughout the Brawley area, including at a sewage
treatment plant as close as 1000 feet west of the site (USGS, 1982). No liquefaction
damage was noted for the project site, or for any of the adjacent fields that are on
intermediate-age lake desposits. We note that one of the best-documented liquefaction
sites worldwide is located about 6 miles north from the site. Liquefaction was observed
and measured at the Wildlife Liquefaction Array in the 5.9 Magnitude 1981
Westmoreland and the 6.6M 1987 Superstition Hills earthquakes (Youd and Holzer,
1994). The Wildlife site is located in recent river floodplain deposits, whereas the project
site is 2 miles from the river in older lacustrine (lake) deposits. We doubt that any
liquefaction or significant ground failure effects were observed on this site in either of
those earthquakes.
SITE SOFTENING EFFECTS
Cyclic testing on clays revealed no tendency for pore pressure buildup or softening of
these materials at this site. Cyclic testing on silts revealed a tendency for pore pressure
build-up well short of complete liquefaction, and some reduction in effective
stresses/apparently loss of strength at cycles of shaking far greater than expected for a
earthquake ground motions.
1
Peak Ground Surface Acceleration for North Brawley
0.8
Siteusing DMOD-2000, g
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Peak Bedrock Acceleration, g
Capitola Record, 7.0M 1989 Loma Prieta EQ, original

record amax=0.36g on firm alluvium 16 km from source
Superstition Mtn Camera, 1987 6.6M Superstition Hills EQ,
original record amax=0.88g on bedrock 6 km from source
Analysis developed for the North Brawley Geothermal Power Plant site.
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc.

ORMAT, INC. Project No:
Geotechnical and Construction Services
1345 Capital Boulevard Suite A EAST BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL PLANT 0478-09-1
Reno, Nevada, 89502-7140 GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION FOR NORTH BRAWLEY SITE
Telephone: (775) 359-6600 IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Fax: (775) 359-7766
Plate C-1
Figure from Idriss and Seed, 1983

Reno, Nevada, 89502-7140 GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION WITH DEPTH
Fax: (775) 359-7766
Plate C-2
Analysis developed for the North Brawley Geothermal Power Plant site.

Reno, Nevada, 89502-7140 GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION WITH DEPTH
Fax: (775) 359-7766
Plate C-3
4
Robertson and Wride (1998)
Recommended Ic/fines content
Soil Behavior Index Type Ic correlation
3
2
East Brawley Site Best Fit (Linear)
Ic > 2.6 for >35 % fines Robertson and Wride state:
1 or some other criteria Ic < 1.31 Gravelly to Dense Sands
1.31 < Ic < 2.05 Sands: Clean to Silty Sand
2.05 < Ic < 2.60 Sand Mixtures: Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
Ic >2.60 Silt Mixtures, Clays (non-liquefiable)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fines Content, percent
Site Specific Correlation Data (Ic and % fines)

North Brawley Site Correlation
4
Soil Behavior Index Type Ic
2
Fit Results
1 Best Fit (Linear)

Y = 0.015 * X + 2.4
Number of data points used = 41
Coef of determination, R-squared = 49%
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Plasticity Index
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. Project No:

ORMAT, INC.
1345 Capital Boulevard Suite A NORTH BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL PLANT 0478-09-1
Reno, Nevada, 89502-7140 CPT CORRELATION OF FINES CONTENT WITH
Telephone: (775) 359-6600 CPT NORMALIZED SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE INDEX Ic
Fax: (775) 359-7766 IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Plate C-4
0
Lab tests at 15 feet depth not

Depth below Ground Surface (feet)
20 liquefiable at Qc1Ncs=80
(dashed lines indicates this
Liquefiable for value)
Design Event
Not Liquefied
Not Liquefied based on

Site Specific Correlation
40
Liquefaction Threshold for

a= 0.50 g M = 7.5 earthquake
as per Robertson & Wride, 1998)
60
0 100 200 300
Corrected, Normalized, Equivalent Tip Resistance Qc1,N,cs
CPT Tip Resistance Profile Note:

Where granular soil CPT data are present singly below
Clean Sand (SP, SW) the liquefaction threshold, apparent prediction of
Sand with Silt (SP-SM) liquefaction likely results from thin layer effects where
Silty Sand (SM) the full penetration resistance of a thin layer cannot be
measured, or from transition zone effects, where the
Clayey Sand (SC) cone tip and side resistance readings are misaligned in a
questionable liquefaction rapidly changing transition zone from sands to clays.
potential These single points are not considered liqeufiable.
Cohesive Soils - Non-liquefiable
Robertson and Wride Ic correlation used to determine
Liquefaction Threshold
non-liquefiable soils. This correlation is not accurate
Site-Specific Threshold for the subject site due to fine grain characteristics.
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. ORMAT, INC. Project No:

Geotechnical and Construction Services LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
1345 Capital Boulevard Suite A 0478-09-1
VERSUS DEPTH, CPT-1
Reno, Nevada, 89502-7140
Telephone: (775) 359-6600
Plate C-5
0

Design Event Not Liquefied
Not Liquefied Based on

40 Site Specific Correlation

60
0 100 200 300

Site specific Ic correlation used to determine non-liquefiable soils.
Line/Scatter Plot 14

VERSUS DEPTH, CPT-2
Telephone: (775) 359-6600
Plate C-6
0


40

60
0 100 200 300

Site Specific Threshold

VERSUS DEPTH, CPT-3
Telephone: (775) 359-6600
Plate C-7
0


40

60
0 100 200 300

Site Specific Threshold

VERSUS DEPTH, CPT-4
Telephone: (775) 359-6600
Plate C-8
APPENDIX D
DYNAMIC FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

32apph Geotechnical Investigation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

32apph Geotechnical Investigation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPENDIX H - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2

SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3

LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................. 6

GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 7

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 11

Erosion Control ........................................................................................................................ 24

ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS......................................................................... 27

QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 27

STANDARD LIMITATIONS CLAUSE ........................................................................................ 28

Table 1 - Percolation Test Results

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc ii

A - Microtremor Shear-Wave Velocity Analysis

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc iii

EAST BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT

IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

2. Provide recommendations for design and construction of the project, as related to

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 1

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 2

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 3

Test Pit Excavation

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 4

TABLE 1 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS

Soil Resistivity Testing

(6.28) x (spacing) x (meter reading) = Resistivity in Ohm-cm.

Seismic Refraction Survey

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 6

Direct Shear Tests

Cyclic Strength Tests

GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 8

Ground Motion and Liquefaction

Table 3 provides the peak bedrock acceleration predicted by the USGS

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 9

TABLE 3 - PEAK BEDROCK AND SURACE ACCELERATIONS FOR THE EAST

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley rpt pg 10 03 10 11.doc 10

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 11

Seismic Design Criteria

TABLE 4 - SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA USING THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 12

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 13

TABLE 5 - MINIMUM AVERAGE ROLL STRENGTH PROPERTIES FOR GEOTEXTILE

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 14

Trenching and Excavation

Temporary trenches with near-vertical sidewalls should be stable to a depth of approximately 5

TABLE 6 - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SLOPES

Grading and Filling

TABLE 7 - SPECIFICATION FOR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL

These recommendations are intended as guidelines to specify a readily available, prequalified

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 16

Subsidence and Shrinkage

TABLE 8 - SETTLEMENTS COMPUTED FOR TYPICAL HEAVILY- LOADED

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 18

TABLE 9 - RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 19

Dynamic Foundation Analyses

Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. N:\projects\0478\09-1\geo\Ormat East Brawley.rpt.doc 21

Vibration analysis has six primary degrees of freedom:

• sliding along the length

• sliding along the width

• rocking along the length

• rocking along the width