mecanica de suelos altamira

8/9/2019 MECANICA DE SUELOS ALTAMIRA

1/143

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONREPORT

Doc. No 2586-0-CV-RP-001

Revision No 0

Revision Date Mar. 12, 2013

Page

This document, including any patented or patentable features, embodies confidential information of Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd. and its use isconditioned upon the user’s agreement not to reproduce the document in whole or in part. Nor the material described thereon nor to use the document

DISTRIBUTION

CLIENT

Seoul

Site

SAMSUNG

Project

system

Piping

Machinery

Stationary

Electrical

I & C

Civil

Architecture

Procurement

Construction

QA / QC

HSE

ISSUE PURPOSE

Gas Compression Station Project REVIEW

APPROVAL

CONST.

3

2

1

0 Mar. 12. 2013 Issued for Information Geo Grupo W.S.SUH J.W.JUN S. J. CHOI

Rev. Date Description Made by Checked by Reviewed by PM

Department : Project No. : Document No.: Rev. No.

Civil SP2586 2586-0-CV-RP-001 0

GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION REPORT


2/143

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

Doc. No 2586-0-CV-RP-001

Revision No 0

Revision Date Mar. 12, 2013

Page

This document, including any patented or patentable features, embodies confidential information of Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd. and its use isconditioned upon the user’s agreement not to reproduce the document in whole or in part. Nor the material described thereon nor to use the document

REVISION HISTORY

Notes :

This page records all revisions on the report.

REV. NO. DATE MADE BY PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION

0 Mar. 12, 2013 Geo Grupo All Originally Issued


3/143

Control SheetFO-7.5.3-04.1

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPOR

I NTERGEN ALTAM IRA COMPRESSION STATION

(ACS)

ALTAMIRA , TAMAULI PAS

SAMSUNG ENGINEERING CO.

TITLE:

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT EFERENCE No: PROJECT:

1992 GMS INTERGEN ALTAMIRA COMPRESSION STATION (ACS)

PREPARED BY: OCATION: Eng. Samuel Musobozi Rwakijuma

Prof. Lic. No.: 43694 ALTAMIRA, TAMAULIPAS

EVIEWED BY : ECEIVED BY: ATE: Eng. Pedro Ramírez Molina

Prof. Lic. No.: 3018470 ENG. OSCAR MENDOZA MUÑOZ MAR.-2013

PPROVED Y: Eng. Gerardo Gallo Aguilar CONTROL No.: EVISION No : PAGES:

Prof. Lic. No.: 1072743 DIC-02/2013 1 52

REVISION 02


4/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1

Doc. No.: DIC_02_13 Intergen Altamira Compression Station (ACS)

Page:2

Of:52

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DIC-02/13

PROJECT: INTERGEN ALTAM IRA COMPRESSION STATI ON (ACS)

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 ANTECEDENTS1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK1.3 PROJECT LOCATION1.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS1.5 IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT STATE OF TAMAULIPAS

1.5.1 LOCATION AND SIZE1.5.2 CLIMATE1.5.3 PLANTS AND ANIMALS1.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1.6 GEOLOGY1.6.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

1.6.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY1.6.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY1.6.4 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

CHAPTER 2. FI ELD AND L ABORATORY WORK

2.1 FIELD WORK 2.1.1. STANDAR PENETRATION TESTS2.1.2. TEST PITS2.1.3. PLATE LOADING TEST2.1.4. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST

2.2 LABORATORY TESTS

2.2.1 SOIL INDEX TESTS2.2.2 QUALITY CONTROL STUDIES FOR SITE SUBGRADE SOILS2.2.3 SUBSOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 3. STRATIGRAPHY

3.1 SPT BOREHOLE LOGS3.2 TEST PIT LOGS3.3 PERIODIC MEASURING OF THE GROUND WATER LEVEL3.4 CORRECTIING SPT BLOW COUNTS N 60 VALUES

CHAPTER 4. - GEOTECHNI CAL ANALYSIS

4.1 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS4.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ANALYSIS4.3 ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENTS4.4 SLOPE STABILITY4.5 RESULTS OBTAINED


5/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:3

Of:52



CHAPTER 5. - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM ENDATIONS

REFERENCES

ANNEX A – BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS ANNEX B – LABORATORY RESULTS ANNEX C – GEOPHYSICAL REPORT ANNEX D – PLATE LOADING TEST ANNEX E - PHOTOGRAPHIC RESPORTS


6/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:4

Of:52



L ist of f igure

Figure 1.1.1 Location of the site under study

Figure 1.4.1 Plant architectural layout plan. Figure 2.1.1 Location of exploration points (See plan 1992-ME-US-001)

Figure 4.1.1 Zones representing different foundation systems.

Figure 4.1.2 Foundation solution for natural gas compressors

Figure 4.2.1 Bearing capacity factors (Terzaghi)

Figure 4.5.1 Results from the slope stability analysis

L ist of tables

Table 2.1.1 Exploration tests with their corresponding depth and coordinates

Table 2.1.1.1- Relative consistency, N and qu correlations for cohesive soils

Table 2.1.1.2.- Relative density and N correlations for sands.

Table 2.2.1.1 - Reference standards for laboratory tests

Table 2.2.1.2 Results from laboratory index tests (SPT-8)






Table 2.2.1.8 Results from laboratory index tests for all the test pits executed.Table 2.2.2.1 Results from quality control tests of the site subgrade soils

Table 2.2.3.1 Chemical test results from test pits (TP-08, TP-09 and TSS-1)

Table 2.2.3.2 Requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions

Table 3.3.1Periodic measuring of ground water level

Table 3.4.1 Borehole, sampler, and rod correction factors

Table 4.1.1 Zones representing different foundation systems

Table 4.1.2 Parameter employed to design the Interconnection Station foundation system.

Table 4.1.3 Parameter employed to design the emergence generator pad.

Table 4.1.4 Parameter employed to design raw water storage tank and natural gas compressors foundations

Table 4.5.1: Results from slope stability analysis showing a security factor of 1.99.


7/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:5

Of:52



Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. - ANTECEDENTS

GRUPO SAMSUNG I NGENI ERIA MÉXICO S.A. DE C.V. contacted GEOGRUPO

DEL CENTRO S.A. de C.V to carry out geotechnical verification works on a site located in Altamira; enclosed within Circuito Mar de Cara and Bl vd. de los Rios (as illustrated in figure1.1.1), in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico, under INTERGEN ALTAM IRA COMPRESSIONSTATION (ACS) project. Our company has been tasked to carry out a geotechnical verificationworks at the mentioned site with the aim of providing necessary recommendations for foundation designs for the proposed Gas Compression Station.

Figure 1.1.1 Location of the site under study

INTERGEN ALTAMIRACOMPRESSION

STATTION


8/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:6

Of:52



1.2. - PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this subsurface exploration was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditionsin order to define the stratigraphic characteristics at the requested locations explored; primarily with respect to general subsurface characterization. As requested, we performedlaboratory testing on samples (disturbed) taken from the site with the aim of using the resultinginformation to determine the site general stratigraphy, and later determine the most appropriate foundation system from the geotechnical point of view. In this report, general recommendationsof the site under study will be provided.

In order to accomplish the exploration objectives, we undertook the following scope ofwork:

Geo Grupo identified the test positions based on the location plan provided by the client(Samsung).

Reviewed readily available geological and subsurface information related to the project site.

Execution of subsurface exploration program consisting of six Standard PenetrationTest borings (SPT), two Tests Pits (TP), four Top Soil Samples (TSS) and Plate LoadingTests (PLT). The test borings were executed up to the planned termination depth of 20mwhile the test pits presented varying exploration depth depending on existing soilconditions.

Collected soil samples (disturbed) were taken to the laboratory for execution ofcorresponding tests.

Evaluation of the results from field and laboratory tests to determine general subsurface

characterization.

Geotechnical Report summarizing our work on the project, providing generaldescriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered plus the corresponding foundationdesign systems.


9/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:7

Of:52



1.3.- PROJECT LOCATI ON

The I ntergen Altamira Compression Station (ACS) project is located in Altamira, in the

state of Tamaulipas. The project site is surrounded by Circuito Mar de Cara and Bl vd. de losRios as indicated in the previous figure 1.1.1. The proposed natural gas station will beconstructed adjacent to the existing Contretero Moctezuma . The site can also be found by usingthe following coordinates; Latitude 22˚ 29’05.59”N and Longitude 97 ̊ 54’19.43’’O.

1.4.- PROJECT CHARACTERI STI CS

The proposed Natural Gas Compression Station will contain multiple compressor unitswith corresponding pipelines. This plant will have an aim of boosting the pressure in thenatural gas pipeline and move the natural gas further on. After compression, the natural gas is

directed to the cooling facilities. As the natural gas is compressed, the heat that is generatedmust be vented and the natural gas stream cooled before reentering the mainline system. Theheat generated by the operation of the individual compressor units is dissipated via a sealed jacket (coolant) water system and through the circulating lubrication fluid system, the heat levelof which is lowered via an atmospheric cooler unit.

From the geotechnical aspect; the compressors will have a static and transient loading ofand their corresponding foundation system will be a combination of a mat foundation and aconcrete block, and this effect will be taken into account in the geotechnical designs in chapter4.

In figure 1.4.1 the architectural arrangement of the Gas Compression Station isillustrated.


10/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:8

Of:52



Figure 1.4.1.- Plant architectural layout plan.

1.5.- IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT STATE OF TAMAUL IPAS

1.5.1 LOCATION AND SIZE

Tamaulipas covers an area of 79,829 square kilometers (30,822 square miles). It lies inthe northeast corner of Mexico in the region known as the Independent North. It is bordered inthe north by the US state of Texas, on the south by the Mexican states of San Luis Potosí andVeracruz, on the east by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the west by the Mexican state of Nuevo León. Tamaulipas has forty-three municipalities. Its capital is Ciudad Victoria.

Tamaulipas has hills and plains in the northern, central, eastern, and southeasternregions. There are large mountain ranges (sierras) in the western and southwestern regions.These include the Sierra Madre Oriental, where the highest mountains in the state are located,and the San Carlos, Tamaulipas, Maratines, Pamoranes, and San José de las Rucias sierras.


11/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:9

Of:52



The most important rivers are the Bravo (or Grande), Conchos, Soto la Marina,Guayalejo, and Pánuco. All of these rivers rise in the mountains and run into the Gulf of Mexico. There are also lagoons, which are separated from the ocean by sand banks, all along

the coast. The largest lagoon in Tamaulipas is the Laguna Madre.

1.5.2 CLI MATE

The warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico contribute to the climate, which is generally warmand humid. The average temperatures range from 24°c to 28°c (76°f to 82°f). The highestmonthly average rainfall occurs in August and September. In Ciudad Victoria, the average year-round temperature is 24°c (75°f). The average rainfall in this city is 70 centimeters (28inches) per year.

1.5.3 PLANTS AND ANIMALS

Trees found in the state include mesquite, pine, and oak forests. Cacti, orchids, andbromeliads are found in some areas. Large mammals found in the state include white-taileddeer, wildcats, jaguars, and bears. Smaller mammals include hares, moles, and armadillos. Birds found in the state include turkeys, roadrunners, cockatoos, and pelicans. Tarantulas,chameleons, and several species of snakes and lizards are also found.

1.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Environmental issues such as hazardous waste disposal and safe water supplies areconcerns within the state. In 2003, the state government was considering setting up a systemthat would require industries to monitor their environmental pollutants. The El Cielo Biosphere Reserve is a protected cloud forest, which is a tropical rain forest in the mountains that hasnearly constant cloud cover. Playa Tortuguera Rancho Nuevo is a wildlife reserve that has beendesignated as a Wetland of International Importance by the international conservation groupknown as the Ramsar Convention.

1.6.- GEOLOGY

1.6.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

Gulf coastal plain

This province extends from Florida to Yucatan and is bounded on the coastal side of the

Gulf of Mexico by a number of lagoons. In the north and south of Veracruz, the coastal plain is separated respectively by the volcanic axis and the Macizo de los Tuxtlas, and finally limited onthe western side by the Sierra Madre Occidental. The plain portion is relatively a narrow belt in some parts.


12/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:10

Of:52



In different parts along the coast, the following materials of Quaternary age are found: Dunes (sands and silty sands), beach deposits (sand and silty sand), and alluvial deposits

(sands and clays). Inland away from the coast, there are formations of Tertiary andoccasionally outcrops of Cretaceous age close to the limits with this province and Sierra MadreOriental.

In the north central province (area of Ciudad Victoria, Tampico and Veracruz Upstate), therocks that can be observed from the western border to the east of the plain of the Gulf arecomposed of sediments ranging from Jurassic to Recent , and with relatively simple geological structure compared with that of the Sierra Madre Oriental.

1.6.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The rocks are represented by limestone, shale, siltstone, sandstone and gypsum from Jurassic Formations (Formations like La Joya, Novillo, Olvido and La Casita); limestone, marl, shale, siltstones and dolomites of Cretaceous Formations (formations like San Felipe, El Abra,Tamabra , Tamaulipas, Mendez, Cardenas, etc..) sandstones, shale, limestone, sands, clays andconglomerates of the Tertiary Formations (Vicksburg, Catahoula, Sorrel Chapopote, Aragon, Midway, Tuxpan, etc..) and conglomerates, gravels, sands and clays Quaternary caliche(Reynosa Formations, Lissie, Goliad, Acatlapa, etc.).

Tertiary sediments in this province include conglomerates, sands, clays, shale, siltstonesand sandstones ranging in age from Eocene to Pliocene, and these are roughly oriented parallel

to the Gulf of Mexico, such that their ages are lower as they approach the coast, they also havecharacteristic regional inclination in the direction towards the coast, with noticeable thickeningof the formations in the same direction.

Tectonically, the region shows little deformation (folding). The most notable ones areoccurring on the western side and they appear in the exposed Eocene sediments, whose structural axes are shown substantially parallel to the folds of the Sierra Madre Oriental. The faulting has a general direction NS and is of the normal type with its fallen Eastern Bloc. These features were apparently formed in the late Eocene and early Oligocene.

1.6.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY

There is a flat topography with very gentle slope towards the Gulf of Mexico, with smallundulations defining poorly drained low-lying areas that remain flooded most of the year. Nearthe coast there are also many marshes and estuaries subject to tidal variation.

Outside the study area, a materials bank can be viewed, which exposes a massive sandstoneoutcrop of medium compactness to the surface with a thickness of 2.20 m.


13/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:11

Of:52



A 1.40 m thickness unit with lenses of 2 to 10 cm follows the less consolidated sand towardsthe base of the excavation cut; a layer of 1.9 m thick formed by intercalation of massive

consolidated sandstone with medium compactness of sandstone is detected. This materials bankhas a cross-bedding stratigraphy.

1.6.4 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

The buried structures of this area have characteristic of salt domes which resembleisolated salt columns or intrusive masses of great extension. "Due to salt dissolution or theexploitation of the same can originate cavities, which can cause subsidence rate recorded in alarge area. The Laguna de Tabasco appears to be a good example of dissolution subsidence.“These domes are usually associated with the existence of sulfur and oil.

Three major crustal faults that cross the territory of the State of Veracruz and end into theGulf of Mexico just north of Coatzacoalcos, are considered major structures in the regionknown as Zacamboxo and Clarion faults, which run approximately parallel to each other in thedirection West-East and the probable fault of the Istmo de Tehuantepec, which crosses the former in the direction South-North. This fault has been associated with the epicenters whichhave generated the greatest consequential earthquakes in the region.


14/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:12

Of:52



Chapter 2

FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

2.1.- FI ELD WORK

The locations of the exploration points were identified based on a plan provided by theclient. During the course of field works, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), Top Soil Sampling(TSS), Test Pits, Plate Loading Tests (PLT) and Electrical resistivity tests (RES) were executed

at different depths presented in table 2.1.1, plus their corresponding location coordinates. Thelocations of test points are presented in figure 2.1.1 below. During the course of field works,only disturbed samples were obtained as the prevailing site conditions in the subsoil didn’t permit to do otherwise. As can be analyzed in the next chapter (see logs), the soil profiles show great presence of granular soils which usually make it complicated to extract undisturbed soils.Granular materials (type of soil encountered) tend to lose their effective stress when extractedto be tested as intact samples. Special consideration was made to obtain samples for chemicaltests at selected depths and positions, bearing in mind the type of structures that will beconstructed according to layout plan.

Table 2.1.1 Exploration tests with their corresponding depth and coordinates.

X Y

SPT-8 20.00 612,549 2,487,002

SPT-9 20.00 612,522 2,486,958

SPT 10 20.00 612,563 2'486,970

SPT 11 20.00 612,535 2'486,860

SPT 12 20.00 612,265 2'486,940

SPT 13 20.00 612,265 2'487,007

TSS-1 0.73 612,280 2,486,923

TSS-2 0.85 612,525 2,486,975

TSS-3 0.75 612,575 2,486,925TSS-4 0.55 612,525 2,486,875

TP-8 1.80 612,279 2,486,925

TP-9 1.50 612,560 2,486,904

PLT-1 1.50 612,560 2,486,904

PLT-2 1.55 612,279 2,486,925

RES 06 30 612270 2'486,931

RES 05 30 612525 2'486,855

Test Coordinates Exploration

Depth (m)


15/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:13

Of:52



Figure 2.1.1. - Location of exploration points (See plan 1992-ME-US-001)

Note: A drawing containing the previous and current positions of SPT, RES and TPlocations is attached with code name 1992-ME-US-001-PREVIOUS.

2.1.1. STANDARD PENETRATI ON TESTS

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were carried out using the drill rigdescribed below, according to the ASTM 1586D standards. These SPT borings were performedup to the planned termination depth of 20m.

These tests were executed with a BK-51 rig mounted on a Hino 500 truck.

Subsurface water level readings were taken in each of the borings immediately uponcompletion of the drilling process. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled

with auger cuttings (soil). Periodic observation and maintenance of the boreholes were performed due to potential subsidence at the ground surface, as the borehole backfill could settle over time.


16/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:14

Of:52



Representative portions of the split-spoon soil samples obtained throughout theexploration program were placed in special plastic bags and transported to our laboratory. Inthe laboratory, the soil samples were evaluated by a member of our professional staff in general

accordance with techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D2488) and the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil descriptions and classificationsdiscussed in this report and shown on the attached boring logs are based on visual observationand laboratory tests. Corresponding boring logs are provided in Annex A.

Split-spoon and bulk soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at Geogrupolaboratory for a period of thirty days. After thirty days, the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is provided to us in writing.

At the start of Standard Penetration Tests a drilling platform is prepared prior to thecommencement of any drilling works.

Test procedures

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), involves driving a standard thick-walled sample tubeinto the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with standard weightand falling distance. The sampler is driven by a drop hammer weighing 64 kg falling through aheight of 76 cm. The sample tube is driven 150 mm into the ground and then the number ofblows needed for the tube to penetrate each 150 mm (6 in) up to a depth of 450 mm (18 in) isrecorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 in. of penetrationis reported as SPT blow-count value, commonly termed as "standard penetration resistance" orthe "N-value".

The hammer weight, drop height, spoon diameter, rope diameter etc. are standarddimensions. After the test, the sample remaining inside the split spoon is preserved in an airtightcontainer for inspection and description.

The N-value provides an indication of the relative density of the subsurface soil, and it isused in empirical geotechnical correlation to estimate the approximate shear strength properties of the soils in conjunction with other relevant tests.

The boring logs for each standard penetration test are shown in Annex A and theexecution process is shown in the photographic report in Annex E.


17/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:15

Of:52



Table 2.1.1.1- Relative consistency, N and qu correlations for cohesive soils

COHESIVE SOILS

Number of

blowsConsistency

qu

kg/cm 2

Angle of

Internal

friction

Modulus of

elasticity

kg/cm 2

< 2 Very soft < 0.25 0° 32 - 4 soft 0.25 - 0.5 0 – 2° 305 - 8 Medium 0.5 – 1.0 2 – 4° 45 - 90

9 - 15 stiff 1.0 – 2.0 4 – 6° 90 -20016 - 30 Very stiff 2.0 – 4.0 6 – 12° >200> 30 Hard >4.0 > 14°

Table 2.1.1.2.- Relative density and N correlations for sands.

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Number of

blowsDescription

Relative

density

Angle of

Internal

friction

Modulus of

elasticity

kg/cm 2

0 - 4 Very loose 0 – 15 % 28° 1005 - 10 Loose 16 – 35 % 28 – 30° 100 - 250

11 - 30 Medium Dense 36 – 65 % 30 – 36° 250 - 50031 - 50 Dense 66 – 85 % 36 – 41° 500 - 1000> 50 Very dense 86 – 100% > 41° >1000

2.1.2. TEST PITS (TP)

Test pits permit a direct inspection of the soil strata in place plus the extraction ofdisturbed and undisturbed soil samples; however the later was not performed due to the existing subsoil conditions as mentioned in section 2.1 above. Test pits are the most satisfactory methodof disclosing the soil strata conditions. The execution of test pits was carried out using anexcavator. The excavation dimensions of the test pits were approximately 1.5m width and 2.5mlength, with varying depths, as shown in the previous subsections.

Test pit logs are presented in Annex A and the field execution process is illustrated in the photographic report (Annex E).


18/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:16

Of:52



2.1.3 PLATE BEARING TEST

The execution of the plate loading tests consisted in initially preparing the bottom

horizontal surface of the test pit in question. To start with the loading stage, a pre-load of 0.2 twas applied in order to harden the reaction elements, and subsequently 1.0 t increments wereapplied measuring deformation for each increment until a total load of 10.0 t. This procedurewas performed in three cycles of loading and unloading. The location of the test positions wasdefined by the client, and the execution process is illustrated in the photographic report (Annex E).

We determined stress and strain for each loading and unloading cycles applied to the soil,thereby obtaining the stress-strain graphs shown in Annex D.

According to the results and following the analysis procedure contained in Book 06/01/01

(Carreteras y Aeropistas de la SCT), we determined the vertical reaction modulus of the tested subgrade (k), and the results are presented in Annex D.

2.1.3 ELECTRICAL RESISTIV ITY TESTS

This exploration was executed with the aim of determining the electrical resistivitycharacteristics of the subsoil, with the aim of discovering the type of material the latter is madeof, in order to determine the corresponding Ohmic resistance in 2 proposed points, throughvertical electrical soundings, marked as RES05 and RES06, employing the Wenner electrodicarrangement, as this is suitable for the construction of the earthling system. The resultsobtained are presented in Annex C.

2.2.- LABORATORY TESTS

2.2.1. SOIL INDEX TESTS

Soil index properties are used extensively to distinguish between the different kinds of soilwithin a broad category. Classification tests to determine index properties provided us withvaluable information on the soil characteristics.

Samples from the exploration works were labeled, protected and taken to the laboratory

with the aim of carrying out the following tests referenced in the table below, according thecharacteristics of each sample.


19/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:17

Of:52



Table 2.2.1.1 - Reference standards for laboratory tests

The results obtained from the laboratory index tests are presented in the tables below in a summarized manner and the details are presented in Annex B.



NMX ASTM

Visual and tactile identification of soils NMX-C416-ONNCCE-2003 D 2488-00

Water content in earth materials NMX-C416-ONNCCE-2003 D 22216-98

Liquid limit, plastic and index plasticity NMX-C416-ONNCCE-2003 D 4318-00

Sieve analysis NMX-C416-ONNCCE-2003 D 422-63

TEST EMPLOYED STANDARDS

FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-4 1.80 2.40 7.5% 0.0% 72.0% 28.0% SM

M-7 3.60 4.20 4.8% 0.0% 73.0% 27.0% SM

M-11 6.00 6.60 18.2% 5.0% 48.0% 47.0% 21.0% 18.0% 3.0% SM

M-13 7.20 7.80 20.1% 0.0% 67.0% 33.0% SM

M-17 9.60 10.20 10.8% 0.0% 73.0% 27.0% SM

M-22 12.60 13.20 11.7% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% SM

M-24 13.80 14.40 14.1% 1.0% 54.0% 45.0% SM

M-28 16.20 16.80 13.2% 0.0% 64.0% 36.0% SM

M-32 18.60 19.20 17.1% 0.0% 71.0% 29.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-8

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL

FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-4 1.80 2.40 3.7% 7.0% 62.0% 31.0% SM

M-8 4.20 4.80 9.4% 0.0% 17.0% 83.0%

M-11 6.00 6.60 22.9% 0.0% 51.0% 49.0% 33.0% 26.0% 7.0% SM

M-13 7.20 7.80 21.5% 0.0% 83.0% 17.0% SMM-14 7.80 8.40 9.7% 9.0% 71.0% 20.0% SM

M-18 10.20 10.80 9.1% 11.0% 64.0% 25.0% SM

M-21 12.00 12.60 10.4% 5.0% 66.0% 29.0% SM

M-24 13.80 14.40 14.4% 0.0% 53.0% 47.0% SM

M-32 18.60 19.20 16.5% 0.0% 68.0% 32.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-9

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL


20/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:18

Of:52





FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-4 1.80 2.40 8.1% 6.0% 71.0% 23.0% SM

M-7 3.60 4.20 2.9% 5.0% 68.0% 27.0% SM

M-11 6.00 6.60 24.3% 0.0% 16.0% 84.0% 53.0% 35.0% 18.0% MH

M-14 7.80 8.40 20.3% 0.0% 86.0% 14.0% SM

M-17 9.60 10.20 12.1% 4.0% 67.0% 29.0% SM

M-20 11.40 12.00 8.1% 10.0% 64.0% 26.0% SM

M-23 13.20 13.80 13.8% 2.0% 73.0% 25.0% SM

M-27 15.60 16.20 16.0% 1.0% 79.0% 20.0% SM

M-31 18.00 18.60 17.0% 1.0% 85.0% 14.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-10

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL

FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-3 1.20 1.80 10.9% 1.0% 79.0% 20.0% SM

M-7 3.60 4.20 4.2% 7.0% 71.0% 22.0% SM

M-9 4.80 5.40 12.2% 2.0% 40.0% 58.0% ML

M-11 6.00 6.60 28.8% 0.0% 11.0% 89.0% 70.0% 41.0% 29.0% MH

M-14 7.80 8.40 16.1% 10.0% 66.0% 24.0% SM

M-17 9.60 10.20 14.1% 2.0% 78.0% 20.0% SM

M-20 11.40 12.00 8.4% 15.0% 62.0% 23.0% SM

M-23 13.20 13.80 15.5% 0.0% 64.0% 36.0% SM

M-26 15.00 15.60 16.4% 0.0% 83.0% 17.0% SM

M-30 17.40 18.00 17.2% 2.0% 84.0% 14.0% SM

M-34 19.80 20.40 21.3% 0.0% 59.0% 41.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-11

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL


21/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:19

Of:52





FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-2 0.60 1.20 7.5% 0.0% 84.0% 16.0% SC

M-5 2.40 3.00 8.4% 0.0% 84.0% 16.0% SC

M-7 3.60 4.20 5.4% 0.0% 69.0% 31.0% SM

M-11 6.00 6.60 9.3% 24.0% 43.0% 33.0% SM

M-15 8.40 9.00 8.4% 0.0% 70.0% 30.0% SM

M-19 10.80 11.40 11.5% 0.0% 58.0% 42.0% SM

M-22 12.60 13.20 14.3% 0.0% 67.0% 33.0% SM

M-25 14.40 15.00 14.6% 0.0% 66.0% 34.0% 25.0% 22.0% 3.0% SMM-28 16.20 16.80 23.6% 0.0% 82.0% 18.0% SM

M-29 16.80 17.40 11.9% 0.0% 38.0% 62.0% 24.0% 20.0% 4.0% ML

M-31 18.00 18.60 17.1% 0.0% 88.0% 12.0% SP-SM

M-34 19.80 20.40 10.5% 0.0% 52.0% 48.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-12

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL

FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-4 1.80 2.40 4.7% 25.0% 57.0% 18.0% SM

M-9 4.80 5.40 4.2% 9.0% 60.0% 31.0% SM

M-14 7.80 8.40 6.9% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% SM

M-17 9.60 10.20 13.4% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0% SM

M-20 11.40 12.00 19.2% 0.0% 29.0% 71.0% 43.0% 34% 9.0% ML

M-25 14.40 15.00 13.2% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 27.0% 24.0% 3.0% ML

M-26 15.00 15.60 22.6% 0.0% 73.0% 27.0% SM

M-30 17.40 18.00 18.6% 0.0% 85.0% 15.0% SM

M-34 19.80 20.40 12.2% 0.0% 77.0% 23.0% SM

PL PI

SPT-13

USCS

G A F

BORING SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL


22/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:20

Of:52



Table 2.2.1.8 Results from laboratory index tests for all the test pits executed.

2.2.2. - QUAL ITY CONTROL STUDI ES FOR SITE SUBGRADE SOILS

The disturbed samples obtained from the test pits were taken to the laboratory for qualitycontrol tests. The aim of doing these tests on the subgrade soils is to assess the quality of thematerials and later recommend their application in the construction process. The following principal parameters were tested; moisture content, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, maximumdry density, and CBR. It is important to mention that according to the results obtained, theexisting subsoil is not suitable for use in the construction of bases and subbases. The materialcan be used for earthworks and underlying layers as can be reviewed in Annex B. Table 2.2.2.1below presents a summary of some of the most important parameters.

Table 2.2.2.1 Results from quality control tests of the site subgrade soils

FROM TO

No. No. m m -

M-1 0.20 0.30 4.8% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% SC

M-2 0.60 0.80 7.7% 0.0% 82.0% 18.0% SC

M-3 1.40 1.60 10.9% 8.0% 69.0% 23.0% SC

(T-S-S-1) M-1 0.50 0.70 6.8% 0.0% 84.0% 16.0% SM

(T-S-S-2) M-1 0.50 0.70 9.7% 0.0% 79.0% 21.0% SM

(T-S-S-3) M-1 0.50 0.70 11.7% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% SM

(T-S-S-4) M-1 0.35 0.55 10.6% 0.0% 78.0% 22.0% SM

M-1 0.50 0.70 4.0% 0.0% 63.0% 37.0% SM

M-2 0.90 0.95 9.6% 0.0% 82.0% 18.0% SM

M-3 1.20 1.30 9.9% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% SM

F

(TP-08)

(TP-09)

USCSTEST PIT SAMPLE

DEPTH

w

% OF PARTICLES

LL PL PIG A

TSS-1 0.50 TO 0.70 17% -- 21% 10.1%

TSS-2 0.50 TO 0.70 19% 5% 17% 4.0%

TSS-4 0.35 TO 0.55 19% 5% 15% 15.0%

TP-08 1.40 TO 1.60 26% -- 15% 12.3%

TEST DEPTH (m)LIQUID

LIMIT

PLASTIC

INDEX

SAND

EQUIVALENT

SOAKED

CBR


23/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:21

Of:52



2.2.3.- SUBSOIL CHEM ICAL ANALYSIS

In order to determine the subsoil concentration levels of sulfates and chlorides that could

affect the foundation concrete, soil chemical tests were performed. In addition, the pH valueswere obtained in order to quantify the state of subsoil alkalinity and acidity.

None of the soil samples had a concentration value of chlorides and sulphates greaterthan 0.1%. According to table 4.2.1 of ACI 318S, the tested samples present a slight or remotedanger to the foundation concrete, as far as sulphate substances are concerned.

The studies were conducted on representative samples from points that were selectivelychosen with the objective of covering the whole project site. The results obtained are presentedin tables 2.2.3.1 below:

Table 2.2.3.1 Chemical test results from test pits (TP-08, TP-09 and TSS-1)

The results were compared with the sulfate concentration ranges established by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) as shown in Table 2.2.3.2 below for concrete exposed to sulfates (Reference 8).

SAMPLE CODE: B-13-81 ( SOIL " TP-09; M-3 DEPTH 1.20-1.30 m")

B-13-82 ( SOIL " TP-08; M-3 DEPTH 1.40-1.60 m")

B-13-83 ( SOIL " TSS-1; M-1 DEPTH 0.50-0.70 m")

SAMPLING EXECUTED BY GEOGRUPO

TEST REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2013

RESULT METHOD EMPLOYED OBSERVATIONS

VALUE UNIT STANDARD

TP-09 (M-3)pH 7,86 POTENTIOMETER NOM-021-RECNA T-2000

CHLORIDES 5,03 mg/Kg VOLUMETRIC NOM-021-RECNAT-2000

SULPHATES 37,99 mg/Kg SPECTROFOTOMETRIC NOM-021-RECNA T-2000

TP-08 (M-3)

pH 8,04 POTENTIOMETER NOM-021-RECNA T-2000



TSS-1 (M-1)

pH 8,05 POTENTIOMETER NOM-021-RECNA T-2000



Quant. = L im it of Quantitation N.A.**= NOT APPLICABLE N.D.***= UNDETECTEDO

THE DECIMAL SIGN MUST BE A COMA (,) NOM-008-SCFI-2000.**Standard reference NOM-021-RECNAT-2000, Specifications details for fertility, salinity and soil clasification. Studies, samp ling and analysis..

TEST


24/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:22

Of:52



Table 2.2.3.2 Requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions


25/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:23

Of:52



Chapter 3

STRATIGRAPHY

The subsurface stratigraphy was characterized based on the SPT borings and theexecuted Test Pits (TP) as can be reviewed in the boring logs presented in Annex-A.

3.1. - SPT BOREHOLE LOGS

The borehole logs contain all the information obtained based on the field and laboratory

studies plus all corresponding interpretations. It is important to mention that during the courseof field works; the water table level was measured periodically in each and every borehole save for SPT-8 where the ground water level was measured only once. In general terms, the subsoilis composed of cohesion-less soils, as can be verified in the following stratigraphic descriptionof the site.

Bori ng log SPT-08

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of light brown fine sand

From 0.6 to 4.8 m: Whitish brown dense sand with silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 48 blow counts and an average moisture content of 5%, plusa sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 72% sand and 28% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 4.8 to 9.0 m: Light brown, medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum presentsan average standard penetration resistance of 40 blow counts and an average moisture contentof 18%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 5% gravel, 48% sand and 47% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

Note: Ground water table was detected at 7.70 m.

From 9.0 to 13.2 m: Light brown medium dense to dense sand with silt. This stratum

presents an average standard penetration resistance of 40 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 12%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 73% sand and 27% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 13.2 to 20.4 m: Light brown, medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 40 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 64% sand and 36% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


26/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:24

Of:52



Bori ng log SPT-09

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of reddish brown fine sand.

From 0.6 to 3.6 m: Light brown, very loose to very dense, fine to medium silty sand withlittle gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 39 blowcounts and an average moisture content of 6%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 7% gravel, 62% sand and 31% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 3.6 to 4.8 m: Light brown, hard silt with sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 50 blow counts and an average moisture content of 7%, plusa sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 17% sand and 83% of fine material.

From 4.8 to 6.6 m: Light brown, very loose to very dense, fine to medium silty sand with

little gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 34 blowcounts and an average moisture content of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 51% sand and 49% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 6.6 to 12.6 m: Yellowish brown medium dense to dense sand with silt and little gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 42 blow counts andan average moisture content of 13%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 11% gravel, 64% sand and 25% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


From 12.6 to 14.6 m: Yellowish brown medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum

presents an average standard penetration resistance of 43 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 13%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 53% sand and 47% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 14.6 to 18.6 m: Light brown, medium dense to dense sand with silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 40 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 2% gravel, 71% sand and 27% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 18.6 to 20.4 m: Light brown dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 47 blow counts and an average moisture content of 15%,

plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 68% sand and 32% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

Bori ng log SPT-10

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of reddish brown fine sand


27/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:25

Of:52



From 0.6 to 5.4 m: Light and reddish brown very loose to dense sand with silt and little gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 34 blow counts andan average moisture content of 9%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 5% gravel, 68%

sand and 27% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 5.4 to 7.2 m: Light brown hard silt with sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 36 blow counts and an average moisture content of 19%,liquid and plastic limits of 53% and 35% respectively, plus a sieve test analysis composition of0% gravel, 16% sand and 84% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to MH.

From 7.2 to 12.0 m: Yellowish brown medium dense to very dense sand with some silt.This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 44 blow counts and anaverage moisture content of 13%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 4% gravel, 67% sand

and 29% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


From 12.0 to 15.6 m: Light brown loose to medium dense, fine to course sand with siltand little gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 24 blowcounts and an average moisture content of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 2% gravel, 73% sand and 25% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 15.6 to 20.4 m: Brown medium dense to dense fine sand with some silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 38 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 16%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 1% gravel, 79% sand and 20% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

Bori ng log SPT-11

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of dark brown fine sand

From 0.6 to 4.8 m: Light brown, very loose to dense sand with silt. This stratum presentsan average standard penetration resistance of 25 blow counts and an average moisture contentof 8%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 1% gravel, 79% sand and 20% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 4.8 to 7.2 m: Greenish gray, stiff to very stiff silt with sand. This stratum presents anaverage standard penetration resistance of 24 blow counts, liquid and plastic limits of 70% and41% respectively, and an average moisture content of 26%, plus a sieve test analysiscomposition of 0% gravel, 11% sand and 89% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classificationcorresponding to MH.


28/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:26

Of:52



From 7.2 to 12.6 m: Grayish brown, medium dense to dense sand with silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 32 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 14%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 2% gravel, 78% sand and 20% of fine

material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


From 12.6 to 15.0 m: Grayish brown, medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 35blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 15%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 64% sand and 36% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 15.0 to 19.2 m: Light brown, medium dense to dense sand with silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 40 blow counts and an average moisture

content of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 2% gravel, 83% sand and 14% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 19.2 to 20.4 m: Light brown, dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 46 blow counts and an average moisture content of 17%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 58% sand and 41% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

Bori ng log SPT-12

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of dark brown fine sand with silt.

From 0.6 to 1.8 m: Dark brown, loose to medium dense sand with clay. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 11 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 7%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 84% sand and 16% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SC.

From 1.8 to 3.0 m: Reddish brown, loose to medium dense sand with clay. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 7 blow counts and an average moisturecontent of 8%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 84% sand and 16% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SC.

From 3.0 to 5.4 m: Yellowish brown, dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average

standard penetration resistance of 50 blow counts and an average moisture content of 5%, plusa sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 66% sand and 34% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 5.4 to 13.4 m: Light brown, medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum presentsan average standard penetration resistance of 50 blow counts and an average moisture contentof 11%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 70% sand and 30% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


29/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:27

Of:52




From 13.4 to 15.6 m: Whitish brown medium dense to dense silty sand. This stratum

presents an average standard penetration resistance of 31 blow counts, liquid and plastic limitsof 25% and 22% respectively and an average moisture content of 17%, plus a sieve test analysiscomposition of 0% gravel, 66% sand and 34% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classificationcorresponding to SM.

From 15.6 to 16.8 m: Grayish brown, dense sand with silt. This stratum presents anaverage standard penetration resistance of 44 blow counts and an average moisture content of22%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 82% sand and 18% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 16.8 to 17.4 m: Greenish gray lens of sandy silt, with a sieve test analysis

composition of 0% gravel, 38% sand and 62% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classificationcorresponding to ML.

From 17.4 to 19.2 m: Grayish brown, dense sand with little silt. This stratum presents anaverage standard penetration resistance of 32 blow counts and an average moisture content of19%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 88% sand and 12% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SP-SM.

From 19.2 to 20.4 m: Brown dense silty sand. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 43 blow counts and an average moisture content of 15%, plus a sievetest analysis composition of 0% gravel, 52% sand and 48% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S.classification corresponding to SM.

Bori ng log SPT-13

From 0.0 to 0.6 m: Top layer composed of brown fine sand.

From 0.6 to 3.0 m: Reddish brown, loose to medium dense sand with gravel and silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 22 blow counts and an averagemoisture content of 10%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 25% gravel, 57% sand and18% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 3.0 to 10.80 m: Yellowish brown, medium dense to dense silty sand with very little

gravel. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 43 blow counts andan average moisture content of 9%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 60% sand and 40% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


30/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:28

Of:52




From 10.80 to 15.00 m: Greenish gray, stiff to hard silt with sand. This stratum presents

an average standard penetration resistance of 34 blow counts and an average moisture contentof 19%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 29% sand and 71% of finematerial, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to ML.

From 15.00 to 20.40 m: Whitish light brown, medium dense to dense sand with silt. This stratum presents an average standard penetration resistance of 38 blow counts and an averagemoisture content of 18%, plus a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 85% sand and15% of fine material, with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

3.2. – TEST PIT LOGS

TEST PIT (TP)-8


From 0.10 to 1.80 m: Reddish brown fine sand with silt. This stratum has a water content valueof 8%, with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 82% sand and 18% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

TEST PIT (TP)-9


From 0.10 to 0.85 m: Brown silty sand. This stratum has a water content value of 4%, with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 63% sand and 37% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

From 0. 85 to 1.50 m: Dark brown sand with silt. This stratum has a water content value of10%, with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 80% sand and 20% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

TEST PI T (TSS)-1


From 0.10 to 0.75 m: Dark brown sand with some silt. This stratum has a water content value of7%, with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 84% sand and 16% of fine material,with a U.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.


31/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:29

Of:52



TEST PI T (TSS)-2


From 0.10 to 0.85 m: Brown fine sand with silt. This stratum has a water content value of 10%,with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 79% sand and 21% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

TEST PI T (TSS)-3

From 0.00 to 0.10 m: Top layer composed of light brown fine sand.

From 0.10 to 0.85 m: Brown fine sand with silt. This stratum has a water content value of 10%,

with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 80% sand and 20% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

TEST PI T (TSS)-4

From 0.00 to 0.10 m: Top layer composed of light brown fine sand.

From 0.10 to 0.55 m: Brown fine sand with silt. This stratum has a water content value of 11%,with a sieve test analysis composition of 0% gravel, 78% sand and 22% of fine material, with aU.S.C.S. classification corresponding to SM.

3.3 PERIODIC MEASURING OF THE GROUND WATER LEVEL.

With the aim of determining the variation frequencies of the ground water levels, a periodic pattern of taking measurements was carried out (as shown in table 3.3.1 below) ondifferent days (save for SPT 8). An average value was obtained from the periodic readings takenas shown below.


32/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:30

Of:52



Table 3.3.1Periodic measuring of ground water level

3.4. - CORRECTING SPT BLOW COUNTS TO N 60VALUES

We carried out corrections on the SPT blow counts to N60 values to obtain necessary parameters for design purposes. The effect of the impact energy was considered and thedissipation around the penetrometer, plus the machinery or tools used in the testing process.

The equation used is shown below:

=

0.60

21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30

SPT-13 9.34 9.38 9.47 9.48 9.47 9.35 9.41 9.30 9.41ESTIMATED TIME OF

MEASURING GROUND WATER

LEVEL 17:00 09:00 09:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 09:00

SPT-12 - - 10.97 10.80 10.80 10.73 10.72 10.73 10.79ESTIMATED TIME OF


LEVEL

- -

09:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 09:00

SPT-11 - - - 7.46 7.47 7.41 7.52 7.43 7.43ESTIMATED TIME OF


LEVEL

- - -16:20 09:00 08:00 10:00 08:00 09:00

SPT-10 - - - - - 7.89 7.82 7.89 7.82ESTIMATED TIME OF


LEVEL

- - - - -

08:00 10:00 08:00 09:00

SPT-9 - - - - - - - 7.85 7.87ESTIMATED TIME OF


LEVEL

- - - - - - -

08:00 09:00

SPT-8 - - - - - - - - 7.7ESTIMATED TIME OF


LEVEL

- - - - - - - -

09:00

SHALLOWEST LEVEL DETECTED

DEEPEST LEVEL DETECTED

PERIODIC MEASURING OF GROUND WATER LEVELS IN THE EXECUTED BOREHOLES (DEPTH IN METERS)STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST BOREHOLES

7.86

7.86

7.70

JANUARY, 2013 AVERAGE LEVEL

(METERS)

9.40

10.79

7.45


33/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:31

Of:52



Where:

N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedures

N = measures SPT N value E m = Efficiency of the hammerC B = borehole diameter correctionC S = sampler correctionC R = rod length correction

The E m , C B , C S, and C R variations were determined according to Skempton (1986).

Table 3.4.1 Borehole, sampler, and rod correction factors

Typical hummer efficiencies

• Theoretical Energy = 4200ft-lbs• Donut = 0.45• Safety = 0.6


34/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:32

Of:52



Chapter 4

GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

4.1.- FOUNDATI ON ANALYSIS

The following foundation analysis will be carried out basing on the standard penetrationtest N values as it wasn’t possible to extract undisturbed sample due to the granular nature ofthe subsoil encountered. Bearing in mind the above mentioned, no mechanical tests wereexecuted. In this analysis, results from the physical tests were employed to determine the natureand type of soils.

The appropriate foundation system for the anticipated structures is dependent on the planned structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints, etc. The subsurfaceexploration helps in determining the soil stratum appropriate for structural support. Thisdetermination includes considerations with regard to both allowable bearing capacity andcompressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the method of construction greatly affectsthe soils intended for structural support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction.

Based on the soil stratigraphy and structural information, we envision that the proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system placed on undisturbed sandy soils

or controlled compacted fill. For r elatively l ight structures mat and/or footing f oundationwould be the best option. As for the compressor structures; these wil l be suppor ted by a blockresting on a mat foundation.

To simplify the design process, the plant layout plan has been divided into zones based onthe type of foundation system, anticipated structures and the existing subsoil characteristics.

Table 4.1.1 Zones representing different foundation systemsZONE PRI NCI PAL STRUCTURES FOUNDATI ON SOLUTI ON

ZONE-1 INTERCONNECTION STATION MAT FOUNDATION

ZONE-2A EMERGENCE GENERATOR MAT FOUNDATION

ZONE-2B MAINTENANCE SHOP AND CONTROL ROOM PAD OR STRIP FOUNDATION

ZONE-3 RAW WATER STORAGE TANK MAT AND SQUARE FOOTING

ZONE-4 NATURAL GAS COMPRESSORS CONCRETE BLOCK RESTING

ON A MAT FOUNDATION

ZONE-5 FIN-FAN DISCHARGE COOLER PAD FOUNDATION


35/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:33

Of:52



The zones indicated in table in table 4.1.1 are illustrated in figure 4.1.1. It’s important tonote that zone 1 has very loose to loose sands considering the first 2 to3 m.

Figure 4.1.1 Zones representing different foundation systems.

Zone 1: I nterconnection Station

The Interconnection Station structures will be supported by a concrete block resting on amat foundation placed on a 2.0 m thick compacted fi ll in layers of 20cm with 95% compactionof the maximum dry density. The fill material will be required to have a minimum internal

friction angle of 32̊. For relatively lighter structures, only a mat foundation laying on thecompacted subgrade may be used. The above mentioned thickness is referenced with respect to ground surface.

Square footings will be employed as another alternative. The square footings with depthof 1m and 2m will rest on compacted fill (with 95% compaction) with thickness of 2m and 1mrespectively. The footings with depths of 3m will rest on natural grade.


36/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:34

Of:52



Where compacted fill will be employed to receive foundation structures, an internal angleof friction of 33̊ has been estimated and will be employed to calculate the soil bearing capacity.

Some of the design parameters that were employed in this analysis were obtained throughcorrelations basing on the corrected standard penetration test blow counts. The resultant valuesare presented in table 4.1.2.

Table 4.1.2 Parameter employed to design the Interconnection Station foundation system.

Zone 2A: Emergence Generator

The above mentioned element will be supported by a mat foundation resting on densewhitish brown sand with silt after completely removing the top layer.

Some of the design parameters that were employed in this analysis were obtained throughcorrelations basing on the corrected standard penetration test blow counts. The resultant valuesare presented in table 4.1.3.

Table 4.1.3 Parameter employed to design the emergence generator pad.

Zone 2B: Maintenance shop and control room

The above mentioned buildings will be constructed on square foundation systems. Theminimum depth for the foundation system will be 1.0 m with respect to the ground level. The square footings will be designed to rest on natural grade at different depths of 1m, 2m and 3m.

The design parameters that were employed in this analysis were obtained throughcorrelations basing on the corrected standard penetration test blow counts. The resultant valuesare illustrated in the previously presented table 4.1.3.

FROM TO

0.0 0.6TOP LAYER-DARK BROWN FINE

SANDGRANULAR 12 1.70 28 -- -- 2500 0.3 2747

0.6 1.8DARK BROWN LOOSE TO MEDIUM

DENSE SAND WITH CLAYGRANULAR 8 1.70 28 -- -- 2000 0.3 2198

1.8 3.0REDDISH BROWN LOOSE TO

MEDIUM DENSE SAND WI TH CLAY

GRANULAR 5 1.70 28 -- -- 1500 0.3 1648

VOLUMETRIC

WEIGHT " "

(t/m3)

FRICTION

ANGLOE "φ"

(°)

SIMPLE

COMPRESION

"q" (t/m2)

COHESION

"Cu"

(t/m2)

ELASTICITY

MODULUS

"E" (T/m2)

POISSON'S

COEF. "μ"

MODULUS

OF

SUBGRADE

REACTION

"Kv"

DEPTH (m)STRATUM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF

SOIL

CORRECTED

N BLOW

COUNTS

FROM TO

0.0 0.6TOP LAYER-LIGHT BROWN FINE

SANDGRANULAR 22 1.75 33 -- -- 3660 0.3 4022

0.6 4.8WHITISH BROWN DENSE SAND

WITH SILTGRANULAR 35 1.90 36 -- -- 5640 0.3 6198

VOLUMETRIC

WEIGHT " "

(t/m3)

FRICTION

ANGLOE "φ"

(°)

SIMPLE

COMPRESION

"q" (t/m2)

COHESION

"Cu"

(t/m2)

ELASTICITY

MODULUS

"E" (T/m2)

POISSON'S

COEF. "μ"

MODULUS

OF

SUBGRADE

REACTION

"Kv"


TYPE OF

SOIL

CORRECTED

N BLOW

COUNTS


37/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:35

Of:52



Zone 3 and 4: Raw water storage tank and natural gas compressors

The air and natural gas compressors will be supported by concrete blocks resting on matfoundations placed on controlled compacted fill as shown in figure 4.1.2 below. The raw watertank could also be rested on a concrete slab resting on compacted fill. The compacted fill willhave a minimum thickness of 1.8m with respect to the ground level (surface level) and will becompacted up to 95% of its maximum dry density.

Some of the design parameters employed are illustrated in table 4.1.4. The compacted fillwill have a minimum angle of internal friction of 33̊ , which will be considered where necessaryin the design process.

Square footings will be employed as another alternative. The square footings with depthof 1m will rest on compacted fill (with 95% compaction) with min imum thickness of 1m , and

the rest of the footings (Df = 2 and 3m) will rest on natural grade .

Table 4.1.4 Parameter employed to design raw water storage tank and natural gascompressors foundations

Figure 4.1.2 Foundation solution for natural gas compressors

FROM TO

0.0 0.6TOP LAYER-REDDISH B ROWN FINE

SANDGRANULAR 20 1.70 30 -- -- 3000 0.3 3297

0.6 1.8VERY LOOSE SAND WITH SILT AND

LITTLE GRAVELGRANULAR 3 1.65 26 -- -- 1500 0.3 1648

1.8 5.4DENSE SAND WITH SILT AND

LITTLE GRAVELGRANULAR 32 1.90 35 -- -- 5640 0.3 6198

VOLUMETRIC

WEIGHT " "

(t/m3)

FRICTION

ANGLOE "φ"

(°)

SIMPLE

COMPRESION

"q" (t/m2)

COHESION

"Cu"

(t/m2)

ELASTICITY

MODULUS

"E" (T/m2)

POISSON'S

COEF. "μ"

MODULUS

OF

SUBGRADE

REACTION

"Kv"


TYPE OF

SOIL

CORRECTED

N BLOW

COUNTS


38/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:36

Of:52



Zone 5 Fin-f an discharge cooler

The control room will be constructed on square footings to a minimum depth of 1.8 m. The

design parameters employed are illustrated in the previously presented table 4.1.4.

4.2.- SHALLOW FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

Static ul timate load beari ng capacity

The ultimate load bearing capacity analysis for shallow foundations was determinedaccording to Terzaghi’s theory, by employing the following expressions.

= + +

Strip footing

= 1.3 + + 0.4 Square footing

Where:

The load bearing capacity factors (N q , and N c ), are in function of the internal angle of friction of the soil and they are obtained by using Terzaghi’s graph of load bearing capacity factors, illustrated below.

qc Ultimate load bearing capacity in t/m2

Nq Load bearing capacity factor

N γ

Ν c

Load bearing capacity factor

Load bearing capacity factorγ unit weight of material in t/m3

D f Depth of foundation in m

B

C

Width or the diameter of the foundation in m

Cohesion ( t/m2 )


39/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:37

Of:52



Figure 4.2.1 Bearing capacity factors (Terzaghi)

The choice of parameters is a critical aspect of design; one should always assess thedesirability of considering the properties associated with the most appropriate scenario, byeither considering the soil as cohesion-less or cohesive, as indicated by the local regulations.

4.3.- ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENTS

Immediate settl ements

According to the type of soils (granular material) that has been detected, the type of settlements that are expected will take place during the construction period; that is to say, the structure will suffer elastic or immediate settlements. Due to the above mentioned, the elasticitytheory was employed to analyze the settlements by applying the expression below. In theanalysis the following parameters were considered:

• Modulus of elasticity (E)• Poisson’s coefficient ( µ )• Contact pressure (p) which is equal to the admissible load bearing capacity value

E PBe )1(

2

µ −=∆


40/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:38

Of:52



Where:

∆e = Elastic settlement in cm p = Contact pressure in kg/cm2

B = Width or diameter of foundation in m

E = Modulus of elasticity in kg/cm2

µ = Poisson’s coefficient

4.4 SLOPE STABI L ITY

A slope stability analysis was realized, taking into account the maximum slopes permitted for temporary and permanent cuts and fills.

To obtain the critical height of the slope and the review of its stability, we followed acriterion established in reference 9.

The critical height that will be employed on the vertical slopes was calculated as follows:

φ γ

N c

H c4

=

)245(tan2 φ

φ +°= N

Where:

H c = Critical heightc = Cohesionφ = Angle of internal frictionγ = soil volumetric weight

This height is similarly affected by a safety factor involved in the following formula:

= φ

γ N

c

FS H c

41'


41/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:39

Of:52



The slope stability was carried out following the calculation procedures using the Swedishmethod.

The Swedish method assumes a circular failure as a sliding surface; the method is usedwith segments where the acting forces are found.

A 1.5 minimum safety factor will be employed, and therefore the following condition mustbe met for the selected hypothetical surface: SF ≥ 1.5

4.5.- RESULTS OBTAINED

Considering the analysis procedures contained in the previous subchapters, thecorresponding resistance parameters of the subsoil were taken into account to determine the

admissible load bearing capacity values plus their corresponding settlements.

Zone 1: I nterconnection Station

Mat foundation

Substituting the corresponding values and employing a security factor of 3, the admissibleload bearing capacity value of 25t/m2 for the mat foundation was obtained considering a unitwidth value. Maximum immediate settlements of 2.5cm will be experienced during theconstruction stage.

Square footing

The bearing capacity values obtained for the square footings at different depth are presented in the tables below:

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity with a maximum settlement of 2.5cm.

Depth (Df ): 1m

Df γ *t/m3 σ t/m2 φ c* t/m2

Nc Nq N γ B (m) Qa t/m2

∆e (cm)

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 1.0 24.9 0.2

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 2.0 31.7 0.6

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 3.0 38.5 1.1

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 4.0 45.3 1.8

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 5.0 52.1 2.5

Square footing


42/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:40

Of:52



Depth (Df ): 2m

Depth (Df ): 3m

Zone 2A: Emergence Generator

Substituting the corresponding values and employing a security factor of 3, the admissible

load bearing capacity value of 31t/m

2

for the mat foundation was obtained. Maximumimmediate settlements of 2cm will be experienced during the construction stage.

Zone 2B: M aintenance shop and contr ol room

Substituting the corresponding values and employing a security factor of 3, the admissibleload bearing capacity values for the square footing are presented in the tables below:


Depth (Df ): 1m



∆e (cm)

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 1.0 42.9 0.3

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 2.0 49.7 0.7

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 3.0 56.5 1.2

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 4.0 63.3 1.8

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 5.0 70.2 2.5

Square footing

Df γ *t/m3 σ t/m2 φ c* t/m2 Nc Nq N γ B (m) Qa t/m2 ∆e (cm)

3.0 1.90 5.70 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 1.0 69.3 0.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 2.0 77.4 0.8

3.0 1.90 5.70 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 3.0 85.5 1.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 4.0 93.6 1.9

3.0 1.90 5.70 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 5.0 101.7 2.5

Square footing



∆e (cm)

1.0 1.90 1.90 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 1.0 37.7 0.2

1.0 1.90 1.90 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 2.0 49.3 0.6

1.0 1.90 1.90 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 3.0 60.8 1.1

1.0 1.90 1.90 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 4.0 72.3 1.7

1.0 1.90 1.90 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 5.0 83.8 2.5

Square footing


43/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:41

Of:52



Depth (Df ): 2m

Depth (Df ): 3m

Zone 3 and 4: Ai r and natural gas compressors


load bearing capacity value of 29t/m

2

for the mat foundation was obtained. Maximumimmediate settlements of 2.5cm will be experienced during the construction stage.


Depth (Df ): 1m



∆e (cm)

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 1.0 64.0 0.3

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 2.0 75.5 0.7

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 3.0 87.0 1.2

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 4.0 98.5 1.8

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 5.0 110.0 2.5

Square footing


3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 1.0 90.2 0.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 2.0 101.7 0.7

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 3.0 113.2 1.2

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 4.0 124.8 1.8

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 5.0 136.3 2.5

Square footing



∆e (cm)

1.0 1.90 1.90 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 1.0 28.5 0.1

1.0 1.90 1.90 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 2.0 36.6 0.3

1.0 1.90 1.90 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 3.0 44.7 0.61.0 1.90 1.90 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 4.0 52.8 1.0

1.0 1.90 1.90 33 0.0 48.09 32.23 31.94 5.0 60.9 1.4

Square footing


44/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:42

Of:52



Depth (Df ): 2m

Depth (Df ): 3m

Zone 5 Fin-f an discharge cooler


load bearing capacity values for the square footings are presented in the tables below. Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity with a maximum settlement of 2.5cm.

Depth (Df ): 1m



∆e (cm)

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 1.0 64.0 0.3

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 2.0 75.5 0.7

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 3.0 87.0 1.2

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 4.0 98.5 1.8

2.0 1.90 3.80 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 5.0 110.0 2.5

Square footing


3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 1.0 90.2 0.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 2.0 101.7 0.7

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 3.0 113.2 1.2

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 4.0 124.8 1.8

3.0 1.90 5.70 35 0.0 57.75 41.44 45.41 5.0 136.3 2.5

Square footing



∆e (cm)

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 1.0 24.9 0.2

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 2.0 31.7 0.6

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 3.0 38.5 1.1

1.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 4.0 45.3 1.81.0 1.90 1.90 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 5.0 52.1 2.5

Square footing


45/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:43

Of:52



Depth (Df ): 2m

Depth (Df ): 3m

Slope stabi l ity

For permanent slopes, we carried out an analysis by considering the subsoil as purely

cohesion-less. Employing the above mentioned parameters, and assuming a slope height of 2m with a

gradient ratio of 0.75: 1 (Horizontal: Vertical), a resultant security factor of 1.99 was obtained,which confirms the stability of the slope, considering the above mentioned height. The analysisis illustrated in the figure 4.6.1 and table 4.6.1 below:



∆e (cm)

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 1.0 42.9 0.3

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 2.0 49.7 0.7

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 3.0 56.5 1.1

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 4.0 63.3 1.7

2.0 1.90 3.80 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 5.0 70.2 2.4

Square footing


3.0 1.90 5.70 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 1.0 61.0 0.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 2.0 67.8 0.8

3.0 1.90 5.70 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 3.0 74.6 1.3

3.0 1.90 5.70 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 4.0 81.4 1.8

3.0 1.90 5.70 32 0.0 44.04 28.52 26.87 5.0 88.2 2.5

Square footing


46/143

Date: MARZO 2013

Rev.:1


Page:44

Of:52



Figure 4.5.1 Results from the slope stability analysis

Table 4.5.1: Results from slope stability analysis showing a security factor of 1.99.FACTOR = 0.0 PARA "S" PRESION DE PORO RESULTANTE DE LAS PRUEBAS TRIAXIALES 22.50 16.12 16.12

ϕ =

35 ° 23.50 16.12 16.12

Cu = 0.0 t/m2

=

2 kg/m3

SLICE AREA Wi Ni Ti Ni Si Si*Li

No. SLICE OTHER m2. ton. ton. ton. Li ton/m2 ton

1 1.00 0.16 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 1.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4

mecanica de suelos altamira

Documents