PE1007-FINAL REPORT-Final Seismic Hazard Analysis and Geotechnical Evaluation

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS AND
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
SANTO DOMINGO DE LOS OLLEROS POWER PLANT
CHILCA
LIMA, PERU
PREPARED FOR:
Siemens Energy, Inc.
Plant Layout and Civil Engineering
4400 Alafaya Trail
Orlando, Florida 32826
PREPARED BY:
Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants
475 Goddard, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92618
July 18, 2012

Project No. 208566001
July 18, 2012
Project No. 208566001
Mr. Ravinder Singh

Siemens Energy, Inc.
Plant Layout and Civil Engineering
4400 Alafaya Trail
Orlando, Florida 32826
Subject: Seismic Hazard Analysis and Geotechnical Evaluation

Santo Domingo de los Olleros Power Plant
Chilca, Lima, Peru
Dear Mr. Singh:
In accordance with our proposal dated March 23, 2012, Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this
seismic hazard analysis and geotechnical evaluation report for the proposed Santo Domingo de
los Olleros Power Plant for Thermochilca S.A.C. in Chilca, Lima, Peru. This report presents our
findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project.
Sincerely,
NINYO & MOORE
Michael Putt, PG, CEG Soumitra Guha, PhD, PE, GE

Senior Geologist Principal Engineer
Carol A. Price, PG, CEG

Principal Geologist
MLP/SG/CAP/sc/mlc
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)

Santo Domingo de los Olleros Power Plant July 18, 2012
Chilca, Lima, Peru Project No. 208566001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................1
3. SITE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................3
4. PROPOSED GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION .................................................................4
5. GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE .........................................................................................4
6. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................5
7. LABORATORY TESTING .....................................................................................................6
8. GEOPHYSICAL TESTING .....................................................................................................6
9. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................7
9.1. Regional Geologic Setting ............................................................................................7
9.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................8
9.2.1. Fill and Eolian Deposits ......................................................................................8
9.2.2. Older Alluvium ...................................................................................................8
9.2.3. Groundwater ........................................................................................................9
10. SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .........................................................................9
10.1. Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................................10
10.2. Strong Ground Motion ................................................................................................10
10.3. Liquefaction, Dynamic Settlement and Lateral Spread Hazards ................................10
10.4. Dynamic Compaction of Dry Soils.............................................................................11
10.5. Landsliding and Slope Stability ..................................................................................11
10.6. Erosion ........................................................................................................................12
11. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................................12
11.1. Seismic Hazards..........................................................................................................12
11.2. Unsuitable Materials ...................................................................................................13
11.3. Static and Dynamic Settlement ...................................................................................13
11.4. Excavatibility and Oversize Material .........................................................................14
11.5. Corrosive/Deleterious Soils ........................................................................................14
12. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................15
13. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................17
13.1. Earthwork ...................................................................................................................17
13.1.1. Pre-Construction Conference ............................................................................18
13.1.2. Construction Observation and Testing ..............................................................18
13.1.3. Site Preparation .................................................................................................18
13.1.4. Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................18
13.1.5. Remedial Grading .............................................................................................19
208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

i
13.1.6. Major Structure Pad Preparation .......................................................................19

13.1.7. Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................20
13.1.8. Excavation Bottom Stability .............................................................................20
13.1.9. Fill and Backfill Material ..................................................................................20
13.1.10. Fill Placement and Compaction ........................................................................21
13.1.11. Shrinkage ..........................................................................................................21
13.1.12. Slopes ...............................................................................................................22
13.1.13. Trench Excavations ...........................................................................................22
13.1.14. Pipe Bedding .....................................................................................................23
13.1.15. Modulus of Soil Reaction for Pipe Design .......................................................23
13.2. Foundations.................................................................................................................24
13.2.1. Spread Footings .................................................................................................24
13.2.2. Lateral Resistance .............................................................................................25
13.2.3. Mat Foundations ...............................................................................................25
13.3. Slabs-On-Grade ..........................................................................................................26
13.4. Foundation Stiffness ...................................................................................................27
13.5. Dynamic Soil Properties .............................................................................................28
13.6. Retaining Walls ..........................................................................................................29
13.7. Concrete ......................................................................................................................29
13.8. Grounding Characteristics ..........................................................................................30
13.9. Site Drainage ..............................................................................................................31
13.10. Design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value for Pavement Design .......................31
14. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................31
15. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................34
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location
Figure 2 – Aerial View of Site
Figure 3 – Site Plan
Figure 4 – Boring and Field Test Locations
Figure 5 – Regional Geology
Figure 6 – Seismic Hazard Zones
Figure 7 – Design Response Spectrum
Figure 8 – Schematic on Footing Location with Respect to Utility Trench
Figure 9 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls
Figure 10 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls
Figure 11 – Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
Appendices
Appendix A – Exploration Logs
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Geophysical Survey
Appendix D – Field Electrical Resistivity

ii
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our seismic hazard analysis and geotechnical evaluation for the
proposed Santo Domingo de los Olleros Power Plant project located in Chilca, Lima, Peru. The
objectives of this evaluation were to: 1) assess the soil and geologic conditions at the site, 2)
evaluate the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock materials encountered, and 3) provide
recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed facility. The geotechnical
evaluation included field exploration, geophysical testing, laboratory testing of selected samples,
engineering analyses, preparing a seismic hazard analysis of the site, and development of ge-
otechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. Our services also
included survey work to establish benchmarks, delineate site boundaries, and stake exploration lo-
cations.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services included:
Review of readily available background materials, geologic maps and literature, aerial im-
agery, and engineering specifications prepared by Siemens for the proposed structural
improvements on site.
Review of a previous geotechnical report by the National University of Engineering, Lima

(Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, 2009), for the site.
Performance of surveying to delineate the project boundary, locate the borings and geophys-
ical survey locations, and preparation of AutoCAD and MicroStation drawings for the site.
Site reconnaissance, staking of exploration point locations, and coordination with Ther-
mochilca representatives for clearing underground utilities prior to drilling.
Performance of a geologic reconnaissance in the area of proposed construction and sur-

rounding accessible areas.
Performance of a subsurface exploration program consisting of the drilling, sampling and

logging of five exploratory borings to depths of up to approximately 20 meters below the
ground surface. The borings were logged by the representatives of our drilling subcontrac-
tors GEOS Consultores Asesores S.A.C. and EyP de Ingeniería S.R.L. based in Lima, Peru.
The borings were also observed by our subcontractor Civil Engineering & Architectural
Services (CEAS) based in Cordoba, Argentina. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples
were collected at selected intervals for laboratory testing.

1
Performance of a seismic refraction survey to evaluate seismic velocities of compression

and shear waves, to estimate the thicknesses of surficial layers and the depth to bedrock, and
to evaluate the excavation characteristics of the site soil and bedrock materials based on the
wave velocities.
Field resistivity testing of site soils at four locations within the project area designated by
Siemens. The resistivity tests were performed in general accordance with the Wenner four-
point method, and a total of sixteen readings were obtained at each location at probe spacing
ranging from 0.3 to 50 meters.
Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected samples including in-situ moisture content and
dry density, gradation, Atterberg limits, soil corrosivity, constant head and falling head per-
meability, and unconsolidated undrained (UU) and consolidated isotropically undrained
(CIU) triaxial compression tests.
Data compilation and geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data. Our services
included analyses to evaluate and provide recommendations pertaining to the following:
 Evaluation of the seismicity, liquefaction potential and secondary seismic hazards of the
site.
 Evaluation of design infiltration rate using permeability and gradation test data.
 Excavation and compaction requirements, including suitability of site soil as subgrade

materials for structural foundations.
 Evaluation of temporary stability of excavations.
 Suitability of site soils as pipe bedding materials and engineered fill.
 Geotechnical engineering design parameters for structural slabs and foundations, in-
cluding allowable and ultimate bearing capacity values for shallow foundations, total
and differential settlement estimates, lateral earth pressures, frictional and passive re-
sistance values, dynamic stiffness, and subgrade modulus values.
 Evaluation of the corrosion potential of site soils including an assessment of in-situ re-
sistivity and the type of concrete to be utilized during construction.
Preparation of this report presenting the results of our site reconnaissance, review of previ-
ous geotechnical reports for the site, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering
analyses as well as our recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed
structure foundation design and construction.

2
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Santo Domingo de los Olleros Power Plant project is located approximately 3 kilometers
northeast of the town of Chilca, in the Cañete Province in the Lima region of Peru (Figure 1).
The area of proposed construction is located to the south of an unpaved road that is accessed
from the Pan-American Highway South located approximately 3 kilometers southwest of the
site. Existing power plants ChicaUno and Kallapa are located approximately 1.7 and 1.4 kilome-
ters southwest of the site (Figure 2).
Regionally, the site lies within a relatively broad, northeast to southwest-trending alluvial valley
that is a relatively large drainage for the mountainous terrain to the east of the site. The site lies
about 5 to 10 meters above the valley floor that is being used for agricultural purposes to the
north and northeast of the site. Near the northeast corner of the site, an unimproved road de-
scends from the road to the north of the site to the lower portions of the valley and agricultural
land. Slopes adjacent to this road are near-vertical to inclined at slope ratios of approximately 2:1
(horizontal to vertical). Stream flow is channelized at the base of the slope for irrigation run-off
from the agricultural properties and from perennial stream flow from the mountains. The channel
slopes are unimproved and contained loose soil and debris on the surface.
The project site is relatively flat to gently descending to the southwest with elevations ranging
from approximately 59 to 65 meters above mean sea level. The site is surrounded by a relatively
high perimeter security wall constructed of brick and concrete with barbed-wire fencing at the
top and two surveillance towers. During the time of our site reconnaissance and subsurface ex-
ploration, grading including placement of fill from an offsite source was being performed in the
southwest portion of the site by the owner, and there were several residential structures near the
northeastern portion of the site that were being demolished. There was little vegetation at the site
with the exception of some trees and shrubs where the residential structures were being demol-
ished, some trees near the eastern property boundary, and a tree near the northwest corner of the
site. Topographic maps provided by the owner indicate that a well and well-house were present
near the west boundary of the site where grading was ongoing. The well or the well-house were

3
not observed during our site work. The residential structures at the site may have associated
wastewater disposal systems (e.g., septic tanks, leach fields, or seepage pits).
4. PROPOSED GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION

A grading plan for the site was not available for our review at the time of preparation of this re-
port. However, it is our understanding that proposed grading within the site will consist of
relatively minor cuts and fills to create the building pads for future foundations and to establish
appropriate drainage gradients.
We understand that the proposed improvements will consist of the construction of a new power
generation facility (Figure 3). Major equipment that will be installed includes a combustion tur-
bine generator, bypass stack, transformers, water storage tanks, and related structures and
equipment. The preliminary design concept indicates that the combustion turbine generator will
be supported on an approximately 1.8- to 3-meter-thick mat foundation that is anticipated to be
approximately 7 meters wide by 29 meters long with an anticipated contact pressure of approxi-
mately 1.13 kilogram per square centimeters or 11.3 tons per square meter (tsm). The bypass
stack may be supported on an approximately 1.5-meter-thick mat foundation that is approximate-
ly 16.5 meters wide by 14.6 meters long with an anticipated contact pressure of approximately
8.8 tsm. The generator step-up transformer foundation will be approximately 1-meter-thick with
a footprint of approximately 10 meters wide by 14 meters long with an anticipated contact pres-
sure of approximately 7.8 tsm. The raw and fire water storage tank foundations may be
approximately 1-meter-thick with a footprint that is approximately 10.7 meters square with an
anticipated contact pressure of approximately 8.3 tsm. We understand that additional pressures of
approximately 5 tsm may be considered in design for wind loading. Other improvements at the
site may include an administrative control building, a guard house, an emergency diesel genera-
tor, a site road and associated parking.
5. GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE
Our site exploration included a field geologic reconnaissance by our engineering geologist on
April 19, 2012. The geologic reconnaissance was performed to observe the general geologic en-

4
vironment including an evaluation of active faulting and landsliding that could impact the pro-
posed construction, to locate the contacts between the geologic units at the site, and to document
the general site conditions.
6. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Our subsurface evaluation at the subject site was performed between April 28 and June 22, 2012,
and consisted of the drilling, logging, and sampling of five exploratory borings (Borings S1
through S5). Boring S5 was drilled to a depth of approximately 6.2 meters below the existing
ground surface with a tri-pod drill rig and manual excavation. Due to the presence of gravel and
cobbles at the boring location, a cased manual excavation was performed to advance the bore-
hole past the gravel and cobble zone. To reduce the amount of manual excavation due to the
presence of gravel, Borings S1 through S4 were drilled with a Boyles BBS-1 diamond core drill
rig to depths ranging from 10 to 20 meters below the existing ground surface. The purpose of the
borings was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and to collect soil samples for laboratory test-
ing. The locations of the exploratory borings and the geophysical tests (discussed in Section 8)
were provided to us by Siemens and located in the field by our survey team.
Bulk, Standard Penetration Test (SPT), and relatively undisturbed (Shelby tube) samples were
obtained at selected depths within the exploratory borings for laboratory testing. Due to the rela-
tively dense, coarse grained, gravelly nature of the on-site soil, relatively undisturbed samples
were only possible from zones where less gravel was present. The relatively undisturbed samples
were obtained using 6-centimeter-diameter Shelby tubes. SPT samples were obtained using a
standard SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sampler was driven with succes-
sive drops of a 63.5-kilogram hammer with an approximately 76-centimeter fall height. The
number of blows required to advance the SPT sampler was recorded for each 15 centimeters of
advancement and is recorded on the boring logs. The ends of the undisturbed Shelby tubes sam-
ples were sealed and the bulk samples were placed in plastic bags and transported to the
laboratory for analyses.

5
The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A. The locations of the exploratory borings
and geophysical tests are shown on Figure 4.
7. LABORATORY TESTING
The materials encountered in our borings were visually classified in the field and collected
samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. Laboratory testing was performed to
evaluate the soil in-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation, Atterberg limits, soil
corrosivity, constant head and falling head permeability, and UU and CIU triaxial compression
tests. Laboratory results are presented in Appendix B.
8. GEOPHYSICAL TESTING
On May 2, 2012, representatives of CEAS conducted a seismic refraction survey on site. The
seismic refraction method of shear wave velocity measurement consists of generating refraction
waves and other surface waves and evaluating their propagation velocity for each wave length.
Once the velocities and the different wavelengths are known, the shear wave velocity profile of
the system can be inferred. The refraction test was performed utilizing several geophones, a
seismograph, and an 8.5-kilogram sledge hammer used for generating the impact. The geophones
were placed in both east-west and north-south directions and at spacings that allowed the evalua-
tion of the dynamic conditions of the soil to a depth of approximately 26 meters below the
surface. The data captured were stored in a 12-channel digital seismograph for subsequent analy-
sis. The approximate location of the seismic refraction (geoseismic) test is shown on Figure 4. A
detailed discussion of the test method, data collection and interpretation are presented in Appen-
dix C.
Field measurement of electrical resistivity of site soils was performed at four locations (R1
through R4). The approximate resistivity test locations are shown on Figure 4. The data were
collected in general accordance with ASTM G57 using a Syscal Pro Resistivity Meter in a
Wenner configuration. Soil resistivity measurements were made at electrode spacings ranging
from 0.3 to 50 meters. The results of the resistivity survey and details regarding the data col-
lection are presented in Appendix D.

6
9. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following sections provide information regarding the geologic conditions relative to the pro-
ject site.
9.1. Regional Geologic Setting

The site is located in the coastal region of Peru and is situated approximately 9 kilometers
from the west coast and approximately 3 kilometers northeast of the city of Chilca. The site
lies within a relatively broad alluvial valley that descends from the Andean highlands to the
east. The Lima, Peru, area is a sub-tropical to desert region that receives little rainfall with
an average annual rainfall of about 15 millimeters per year that occurs during the months of
June through October.
The regional tectonic setting of Peru is dominated by the subduction of the Nazca Plate be-
neath the South American Plate. The subduction zone is located off the coast approximately
75 kilometers southwest of the site. Quaternary deformation from the subduction is concen-
trated in the Andean mountains (Andes) and related zones. The Andes extend from
Venezuela to southern Chile. The Peruvian Andes belong to the northern sector of the Cen-
tral Andes. Relatively shallow subduction resulted in over-thickening of the crust which
gave rise to the regional tectonic uplift that contains some of the higher elevations in the
Andes and where significant active normal faults are associated with recent episodes of sur-
face faulting. An atypical characteristic of the shallow-dipping subduction zone is a lack of
active volcanism in the area (United States Geological Survey [USGS], 2003).
Regional geologic mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary-age alluvial
sediments, and the surrounding hillside terrain in the vicinity of the site is composed of Cre-
taceous limestone and volcanic rocks of the Chilca Formation (Instituto Geologico Minero y
Metalurgico, 1998 and 1999) (Figure 5). The alluvial sediments and bedrock are mantled in
some areas by eolian deposits. The eolian deposits are reported to have a high salt and sul-
fate content (Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, 2009).

7
The bedrock in the area of the site exhibits stratification that dips to the northeast at approx-
imately 35 to 55 degrees. Stratification is relic layering or bedding formed when the
limestone was deposited and when the volcanic rocks erupted and flowed onto the surface.
The bedrock has been intruded by cross-cutting felsic dikes and sills.
9.2. Site Geology

Based on our field mapping and subsurface exploration, the Santo Domingo de los Olleros
Power Plant project site is underlain by older alluvial deposits that are underlain at depth by
bedrock materials of the Chilca Formation. The older alluvial soils are overlain in some are-
as by inter-layered, loose fill and recent eolian deposits. Bedrock materials were not
encountered during our subsurface exploration. However, these materials could be encoun-
tered at depth, particularly near the southwest corner of the site. A summary of the materials
observed during our geologic reconnaissance and encountered in the exploratory borings and
the previous site exploration is presented below.
9.2.1. Fill and Eolian Deposits

The near-surface soil consists of interlayered fill and recent eolian deposits. These mate-
rials generally consist of silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt that are dry and
relatively loose to medium dense. The fill materials contained debris, varying amounts
of gravel, cobbles, and roots. The presence of gravel and cobbles resulted in difficult
drilling conditions and drilling refusal was encountered. The fill and eolian deposits
were about 1 to 2 meters in thickness. However, these materials may be encountered at
deeper depths in other areas of the site, or may not be present. The fill and eolian depos-
its will be compressible under new fill or foundation loads.
9.2.2. Older Alluvium

Older alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill and eolian deposits to the depth
explored of approximately 20 meters. The older alluvium generally consisted of inter-
bedded poorly graded sand and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, and
small boulders. Large boulders were not encountered, but their presence cannot be ruled
out. The material was generally dry to moist, loose to very dense, and some of the allu-

8
vial soils contain up to approximately 35 percent gravel. Much of the soil has little fines
and negligible cohesion. Near the contact with the overlying fill and eolian deposits,
some of the alluvial soil has weathered into a residual soil. Some of the residual soil
contained numerous roots.
The older alluvial soils are well exposed in the road cut that descends to the lower val-
ley area north of the site. In some areas where the soil contained some fines content, the
road cut exposure was near vertical. In other areas where little fines were present, the
soil was observed to be very loose and had sloughed from the road cut and was deposit-
ed at the angle of repose at the base of the slope.
9.2.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings at the time of drilling to
the explored depth of approximately 20 meters. It is our understanding that groundwater
is at a depth of approximately 45 meters in the site vicinity (Universidad Nacional de
Ingenieria, 2009). Perched groundwater may occur, particularly near the contact be-
tween the alluvial soil and underlying Chilca Formation bedrock. The depth to
groundwater will vary in response to seasonal precipitation, irrigation, surface topogra-
phy, groundwater pumping, fracture systems, or other subsurface conditions not evident
at the surface.
10. SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

The project site is located in an area of relatively high seismic activity, as is the majority of west-
ern Peru, and the potential for strong ground motion in the project area is considered significant
during the design life of the proposed power plant. Based on our field observations and review of
pertinent geologic literature, there are no known active faults crossing the site (USGS, 2003).
The country is divided into three zones based on the special distribution of the seismicity that has
been observed, the general characteristics of the seismic movements, their attenuation with the
epicentral distance, and the neotectonic data. The site lies within Earthquake Zone 3 (Figure 6).

9
The regional subduction of the Nazca plate beneath the South American plate has resulted in a
long history of damaging earthquakes in Peru. Some of the major earthquakes in Peru include the
May 31, 1970, Magnitude 7.8 earthquake that struck west-central Peru (USGS, 2003), the Mag-
nitude 7.6 Lima, Peru, earthquake of 1974 (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1975),
and more recently, a Magnitude 8.4 earthquake near the southern coast of Peru. In general, seis-
mic hazards may include strong ground motion, ground surface rupture, liquefaction and
seismically induced settlement, and landsliding. These potential hazards and other potential geo-
logic hazards are discussed in the following sections.
10.1. Surface Fault Rupture

Surface fault rupture is the offset or rupturing of the ground surface by relative displacement
across a fault during an earthquake. Evidence of active faults such as aerial photograph line-
aments or topographic expressions of recent faulting were not observed during our review of
aerial imagery or our site reconnaissance, respectively. No active faults are known to under-
lie the project site. Therefore, the probability of damage from surface fault rupture is
considered to be low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of
nearby seismic events is possible.
10.2. Strong Ground Motion

The site is located in an area of high seismicity, and relatively high earthquake ground shak-
ing is anticipated to occur at the site. Based on the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Figure 6) as
published in the Technical Building Standard (Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sani-
tation, 2003), the project site is located in Zone 3. This zone is indicated to have a peak
ground acceleration of 0.40g (40 percent of the acceleration of gravity) that has a 10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years. This estimated ground acceleration is based on proba-
bilistic assessments typical for design purposes. Further discussion is provided in
Section 11.1.
10.3. Liquefaction, Dynamic Settlement and Lateral Spread Hazards

Liquefaction of soils can be caused by relatively strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Earthquake-induced liquefaction causes soil to temporarily behave as a liquid, which in turn

10
can result in soil settlement. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils
with silt and clay contents of less than 35 percent are susceptible to liquefaction and dynam-
ic settlement. The majority of fine-grained soils, such as clayey silts, silty clays, and clays
are not adversely affected by vibratory earthquake motion. Liquefaction is generally known
to occur in saturated or near-saturated, cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about
15 meters. Under some conditions, liquefaction may also result in horizontal movement of
soil masses, which is referred to as lateral spreading. The static groundwater is anticipated to
be at a depth of about 45 meters below the ground surface. Liquefaction hazards are not a
design consideration for the project.
10.4. Dynamic Compaction of Dry Soils

Relatively dry soils (e.g., soils above the groundwater table) with low density or softer con-
sistency tend to undergo a degree of compaction during a seismic event. Earthquake shaking
often induces significant cyclic shear strain in a soil mass, which responds to the vibration
by undergoing volumetric changes. Volumetric changes in dry soils take place primarily
through changes in the void ratio (usually contraction in loose or normally consolidated soft
soils, and dilation in dense or over consolidated stiff soils) and secondarily through particle
reorientation. Such volumetric changes are generally non-recoverable.
The anticipated settlement induced by dynamic compaction of relatively dry soil layers
above the historic high groundwater level (i.e., within the upper approximately 2 meters of
relatively loose fill and eolian deposits) was calculated using the method proposed by
Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Under the current conditions, the site soils up to a depth of
2 meters are estimated to undergo a total post-earthquake settlement of 3 centimeters and
differential settlement on the order of 1.5 centimeters over a horizontal distance of 15 me-
ters.
10.5. Landsliding and Slope Stability

During our review of site topographic maps and our geologic mapping, we did not observe
evidence of existing deep-seated landslides on site. The hillside terrain located near the
southwest corner of the site is comprised of hard bedrock materials of the Chilca Formation.

11
The potential for deep-seated landslides in these materials is considered low. However, strat-
ification, fracturing and jointing of bedrock materials can contribute to rock falls. Periodic
rock falls in fractured rock may occur in the future; however, the power plant will be located
100 meters or more from the exposures of jointed bedrock. Furthermore, the existing 3 to
4-meter-high perimeter wall will provide added protection. As such, geologic hazards asso-
ciated with landsliding and rock falls are considered low.
The stability of future excavated slopes and constructed fill slopes will depend on the incli-
nation and height of slopes, the material types and quality of construction, and geologic
structure. Compacted fill slopes comprised of on-site or imported granular soils should be
stable at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Cut slopes in the site soils may be rela-
tively unstable and may involve excavation and recompaction to mitigate.
10.6. Erosion
The majority of the on-site soils are unconsolidated granular soils and have a strong poten-
tial for erosion. The erosion potential of these materials is increased on steep slopes and
where there is a potential for concentrated water flow. Although the area of Lima, Peru, re-
ceives very little rainfall, the design and construction of the project shall include
implementation of appropriate erosion control measures as designed by the project civil en-
gineer.
11. DISCUSSION
In this study, we have considered a number of geotechnical design issues relevant to the pro-
posed construction, including seismicity, settlement of compressible soil layers from static
loading, excavatability of the on-site materials and the presence of oversize material, and the cor-
rosion potential of the site soils to ferrous metals and concrete. These issues are discussed in the
following subsections.
11.1. Seismic Hazards

Peru is divided into three seismic hazard zones based on the historic evidence of seismic ac-
tivities and the probability of occurrence of future events. These zones are designated as

12
Zones 1, 2, and 3; the higher the zone number, the higher the probability of future seismic
activity. The Chilca area of Lima, Peru, (along with the majority of the western portion of
the country) is located in Zone 3 (Figure 6). The project site is, therefore, considered to be
located in a highly active seismic area. As such, our seismic evaluation was based on E-030
Diseño Sismorresistente, the Technical Building Standard E-030 Earthquake Resistant
Standards (2003) by the Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation, and the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC) published by the International Conference of Building Offi-
cials (ICBO).
We understand that the proposed project is subject to the more stringent standard between
the Peruvian building code and the 1997 UBC. Our evaluation indicates that the 1997 UBC
seismic parameters for a seismic Zone 4 provide a more stringent design standard for the
project. The recommended seismic design parameters, along with the design acceleration re-
sponse spectrum, are presented on Figure 7. A soil profile type SD (stiff soil profile) was
used in our evaluation according to the UBC standard. A peak ground acceleration (PGA) of
0.44g should be used for the project.
11.2. Unsuitable Materials

Fill containing trash and debris, as well as eolian deposits and near-surface older alluvial
soils containing roots or other organic matter are not suitable as subgrade for the placement
of fill, or for use as engineered fill in their present condition. Surficial soils containing trash,
debris, roots or other organic matter will need to be removed from the site as part of the
clearing and grubbing operations prior to the commencement of site grading or these materi-
als will need to be cleared of deleterious materials prior to use as structural fill.
11.3. Static and Dynamic Settlement

As discussed previously, the project site is underlain by loose fill, eolian deposits, and loose
to medium dense older alluvium up to a depth of approximately 2 meters below the existing
ground surface. The underlying older alluvial soil is relatively dense. We anticipate that the
planned improvements for the project include cut and fill grading to construct the pad areas
for future foundations. Therefore, removal and recompaction of near-surface soils will be

13
needed to provide suitable foundation bearing soils for the proposed improvements. Rec-
ommendations for remedial grading of near-surface soils are presented in Sections 13.1.5
and 13.1.6 of this report.
11.4. Excavatibility and Oversize Material

We anticipate that excavation within the site soils will be feasible with grading equipment in
good working condition. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, we anticipate
that the subsurface soils will generally consist of sand and silty sand with some gravel, cob-
bles, and occasional boulders. Oversize materials (materials larger than 15 centimeters in
diameter) shall be anticipated within the site soil and will involve special handling as dis-
cussed later in this report.
Bedrock material was not encountered in our borings, but was observed in outcrops in the
hillside area southwest of the site. This material was also modeled in our seismic refraction
survey. Our seismic refraction survey indicates that hard bedrock-like materials are antici-
pated at a depth of approximately 26 meters below the surface at the location of the seismic
refraction survey. Excavations in this material are anticipated to involve special excavating
techniques.
A preliminary grading concept for the site was not available. We do not anticipate that bed-
rock material will be encountered during grading of the site provided grading involves
relatively shallow cuts of 2 to 3 meters in depth or less. However, bedrock material could be
encountered if deeper excavations are performed near the southwest side of the site where
bedrock is present on the hillside terrain adjacent to the site. Excavation in the bedrock will
generate oversize rock fragments that will be difficult to reduce in size and may involve spe-
cial handling.
11.5. Corrosive/Deleterious Soils

An evaluation of the corrosivity of the on-site materials was performed to evaluate its effect
on concrete and metals. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of limited
laboratory testing on samples obtained during our subsurface exploration and by performing

14
field electrical resistivity tests. Laboratory testing to evaluate pH, total water-soluble salt
content, soluble sulfate content, soluble chloride content, oxidation/reduction (Redox) po-
tential, alkalinity, and resistivity were performed on four representative samples of soils
underlying the site. The results of the corrosivity tests are summarized below and presented
in Appendix B. The field electrical resistivity test procedures and results are presented in
Appendix D.
The results of our laboratory testing of representative soil samples indicated that the total
salt measurement ranged from approximately 0.02 percent to approximately 0.28 percent by
weight. The soluble sulfate content ranged from approximately 0.005 percent to approxi-
mately 0.029 percent by weight. The chloride content in the tested soil samples ranged from
approximately 47 to 1,270 parts per million (ppm). The redox potential ranged from +3 to
+32. The alkalinity ranged from approximately 20 to 30 ppm. The minimum electrical resis-
tivity values measured in the laboratory tested samples ranged from approximately 79 to
1,100 ohm-centimeters. The minimum electrical resistivity values measured in the field
ranged from approximately 1,500 to 225,500 ohm-centimeters. Based on these findings, the
site soils are considered to be generally corrosive to ferrous metals.
12. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed project is
feasible from a geotechnical perspective. There are no known geotechnical conditions that would
preclude the construction of the proposed facility provided the recommendations of this report
and appropriate construction practices are followed. In general, the following conclusions were
made:
Based on our subsurface evaluation, the project site is generally underlain by 1 to 2 meters
of loose fill and eolian deposits that overlie older alluvial soil, which overlies bedrock mate-
rials of the Chilca Formation at depth. The fill, eolian deposits, and the upper weathered
portion of the older alluvial soils are generally comprised of sand and silty sand and were
typically observed to be loose to medium dense and exhibit a moderate potential for com-
pressibility under the anticipated loading conditions. These materials are considered
unsuitable for foundation support. These materials will involve remedial grading to improve
the foundation bearing characteristics.

15
The fill materials contained trash and debris. The fill, eolian deposits, and the upper portions
of the older alluvium contained roots and other organic material. The on-site soil shall be
cleared of deleterious material prior to use as structural fill.
The on-site soil materials contain gravel, cobbles and boulders. Excavations into the on-site
soils will generate oversize material that shall be screened out prior to re-use as fill. Contrac-
tors shall anticipate handling oversize materials.
The granular materials at the site are comprised predominantly of unconsolidated material
with little cohesion and are subject to caving. These materials shall be considered Type C
soils in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration soil classifications.
Appropriate sloped excavations or shoring systems for these types of materials shall be con-
sidered during planning.
Buried building foundations associated with existing and previous residential structures may
exist at the site. Furthermore, the residential structures may have wastewater disposal sys-
tems such as septic tanks, leach fields, or seepage pits. Existing foundation remnants or
materials associated with wastewater disposal systems shall be removed from the site and
the voids filled with engineered fill compacted in accordance with Section 13.1.10. of this
report.
Bedrock materials were not observed at the ground surface within the site and were not en-
countered during our subsurface exploration. However, these materials could be buried by
the older alluvial sediments at relatively shallow depths, particularly near the southwest cor-
ner of the site. Due to the hard nature of the bedrock materials, excavation with conventional
trenching equipment (e.g., backhoes and excavators) may be very difficult or may encounter
refusal and may result in low production rates.
Grading, including the placement of fill, was being performed in the southwest portion of
the site by the owner during our geologic reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. A
grading report shall be requested from the owner documenting the fill placement and com-
paction. If a report is not provided, the fill shall be considered non-engineered and shall not
be relied upon for foundation support if improvements are planned within the area the fill
was placed.
There are no known active faults crossing the site, and the potential for surface ground rup-
ture is considered low.
The site is located in a highly active seismic zone. Based on the more stringent 1997 UBC
criteria, the design PGA for the site is 0.44g.
No deep-seated landslides were mapped on site. Minor rock falls from the hillside terrain
near the southwest corner of the site may occur. However, rock falls are not anticipated to
impact the proposed construction.

16
Near-surface site soils are considered to be non-expansive.
Permeability of site soils tested ranged from 2.66x10-5 to 9.82x10-3 centimeters per second.
The site soils are considered to have a moderate permeability.
Based on the results of our field electrical resistivity testing and chemical analyses, the on-
site soils are anticipated to be corrosive to ferrous metals.
The shear wave velocity of subsurface soils evaluated by the seismic refraction method
ranges from 150 meters per second (mps) near the surface to 700 mps at depth. The shear
wave velocity data are discussed and presented in Appendix E.
Groundwater in the site vicinity is anticipated to be relatively deep and is not anticipated to
significantly impact proposed construction. Seasonal precipitation could result in relatively
shallow perched groundwater, particularly near the contact between the older alluvial soil
and underlying bedrock, or on less-permeable layers of the alluvial soil.
13. RECOMMENDATIONS
In the following sections, we provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construc-
tion of the proposed power project. These recommendations are based on our evaluation of the
site geotechnical conditions and our understanding of the planned development to date. The loca-
tion, size and footprint area of various structures associated with the proposed facility are based
on the project plans and structural loads provided to us at the time of this report. We recommend
that Ninyo & Moore is contacted when the final project details become available. Based on our
review of final project plans and specifications, additional geotechnical evaluation may be need-
ed and recommendations presented in this report may be modified.
13.1. Earthwork
The following earthwork recommendations are based on our review of the project plans pro-
vided to us and our understanding of the preliminary grading concept. Earthwork is expected
to consist of relatively shallow cut-and-fill grading of 2 meters or less to construct the build-
ing pads for the proposed foundations and other site improvements, remedial grading within
the proposed improvement area to remove relatively loose or compressible soils, trenching
and backfilling of pipelines, and establishment of drainage around the new facilities. The

17
proposed earthwork shall also be performed in accordance with the requirements of the ap-
plicable governing agencies.
13.1.1. Pre-Construction Conference

We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held. Representatives of the own-
er, civil engineer, the project geotechnical engineer, and the contractor shall be present
to discuss the plans and the project.
13.1.2. Construction Observation and Testing

During construction operations, we recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer
perform observation and testing services for the project. These services shall be per-
formed to evaluate exposed subgrade conditions, including the extent and depth of
overexcavation, observation and evaluation of temporary and long-term slope condi-
tions, and placement and testing of fill soils compaction. Construction of proposed
improvements shall be performed by qualified subcontractors using appropriate tech-
niques and construction materials.
13.1.3. Site Preparation

Prior to performing site excavations, the work area shall be cleared of existing vegeta-
tion and surface obstructions, including foundation remnants and abandoned utilities, if
present, as well as other deleterious materials. Vegetation and debris from the clearing
operations shall be disposed of off-site. If wastewater disposal facilities are encoun-
tered, these systems shall be removed to competent older alluvial soil and the voids
filled with engineered fill compacted in accordance with Section 13.1.10. or controlled
low strength material.
13.1.4. Excavation Characteristics

Removal of existing non-engineered fill, eolian deposits, and loose older alluvial soils
to competent older alluvial soils is recommended within the areas of the proposed struc-
tures. The earth materials are generally anticipated to consist of varying amounts of
sand and silty sand with lesser amounts of sandy silt. Some of the soil materials contain

18
gravel, cobbles, and boulders. If excavations encounter bedrock, the materials are antic-
ipated to generate cobble and boulder-size rock fragments that may not be readily
reducible to sizes suitable for use in compacted fills.
13.1.5. Remedial Grading

As discussed previously, the near-surface fill, eolian deposits, and the upper weathered
portions of the older alluvial soils to depth of approximately 2 meters are loose to medi-
um dense, and are prone to static and dynamic settlement. In areas to receive fill and in
areas where these materials are not removed by the proposed cuts, we recommend that
the loose to medium dense near-surface soils be removed and replaced as compacted fill
up to a depth of 2 meters or more below the existing grade. The removal work shall
consist of a) removing existing fill and eolian deposits, and the upper portions of the
older alluvial soil that is loose to medium dense and compressible to competent older al-
luvium, b) scarifying, moisture-conditioning, and compacting the exposed subgrade
soil, c) screening of oversize material larger than 15 centimeters in diameter, and d) re-
placing the overexcavated material with compacted fill to a relative compaction of 95
percent as evaluated by ASTM International (ASTM), formerly known as American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, test method D 698. The limits of removal and
recompaction shall generally extend beyond the proposed pad area a distance equal to
or greater than the depth of remedial removal. We recommend that the actual limits are
evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.
The materials exposed at the bottom of the removal area shall also be checked by the
geotechnical consultant following excavation and prior to processing of the removal
bottom for fill placement.
13.1.6. Major Structure Pad Preparation

In order to provide suitable support for the major structure foundations, we recommend
that the major structure foundations be supported on compacted fill. If grading exposes
competent older alluvial materials at foundation subgrade, additional overexcavation
may not be needed. However, the site soils have little fines content and have little to no

19
cohesion. Therefore, in order to provide a stable subgrade for foundation construction,

we recommend that the major structure foundation pads are overexcavated to a depth of
2 meters or more below the existing grade or 1 meter below the bottom of the founda-
tions, whichever is deeper.
13.1.7. Temporary Excavations

Temporary slopes in sandy soil materials shall be cut no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to
vertical). We recommend that temporary slopes be evaluated by the geotechnical con-
sultant for evidence of instability. Since there is sufficient area within the project site to
construct temporary slopes, utilization of shoring is not anticipated. Water shall not be
allowed to flow over the top of excavations in an uncontrolled manner. Stockpiled mate-
rial and/or equipment shall be kept back from the top of excavations a distance
equivalent to the depth of the excavation or more.
13.1.8. Excavation Bottom Stability

As stated above, we anticipate that the bottom of the excavations for major foundations,
pipeline trenches, and for minor structures will expose sandy soils with little to no cohe-
sion. These materials may become disturbed during excavation or by foot traffic from
workers. In order to provide a more stable subgrade, we recommend unstable bottom
conditions are mitigated by overexcavation and replacement with crushed aggregate
base or compacted fill beneath the bottom of the excavation to thicknesses of 0.3 to 0.5
meter. The total thickness of compacted fill beneath the foundation should be in accord-
ance with Section 13.1.6. Fill shall be compacted in general accordance with Section
13.1.10 of this report. Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms shall be
based on evaluation in the field by the geotechnical consultant at the time of construc-
tion.
13.1.9. Fill and Backfill Material

In general, the on-site earth materials are suitable for reuse as fill materials provided
they are free of trash, debris, roots, vegetation, or other deleterious materials. Fill shall
generally be free of rocks or lumps larger than 15 centimeters in diameter. Rocks or

20
hard lumps larger than 15 centimeters in diameter shall be broken down into smaller
pieces or removed from the site. Due to the presence of cobble to boulder size material
on site, the contractor shall anticipate screening oversize cobbles and boulders from
structure fill and/or selective grading. Depending on the relative concentration of over-
size materials, imported structural fill can be used.
Imported materials, if needed, shall consist of clean, granular material with a very low
expansion potential, corresponding to an expansion index of 20 or less. The corrosion
potential of proposed imported soils shall also be evaluated if structures or ferrous metal
pipelines will be in contact with the imported soils. Import material shall be submitted
for review prior to importing to the site. The contractor shall be responsible for the uni-
formity of import material brought to the site.
13.1.10. Fill Placement and Compaction

Areas to receive compacted fill shall be prepared in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the preceding sections. Structural fill, foundation subgrade fill, slopes, trench
backfill, and wall backfill shall be compacted in horizontal lifts to a relative compaction
of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 698. The lift thickness for fill soils will vary de-
pending on the type of compaction equipment used, but shall generally be placed in lifts
not exceeding 20 centimeters in loose thickness. Special care shall be taken to avoid
pipe damage when compacting trench backfill above pipes. Prior to scarifying the exca-
vation and placing fill, it is recommended that the bottoms of remedial excavations are
evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant. Placement and compaction
of the fill soils shall be in general accordance with appropriate grading ordinances and
good construction practice.
13.1.11. Shrinkage
Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, we estimate that compac-
tion of structural fill derived from fill, eolian deposits, and loose older alluvial soils may
result in approximately 5 to 10 percent shrinkage. However, screening of oversize mate-

21
rial could increase our estimate. Actual shrinkage will vary significantly depending on
the compactive effort, actual amounts of oversize material, and grading equipment.
13.1.12. Slopes
We recommend that slopes for the project be constructed at inclinations no steeper than
2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The project plans and specifications shall contain design fea-
tures and construction requirements to reduce the potential for erosion of the on-site
soils both during and after construction. Fill slopes shall be constructed in a manner
(e.g., overfilling and cutting to grade) such that the recommended degree of compaction
is achieved to the finished slope face.
Fill slopes constructed at the recommended slope ratio of 2:1 are anticipated to be stable
provided that grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations provided
in this report. Cut slopes exposing competent older alluvium are also anticipated to be
stable at inclinations of up to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). However, fill slopes construct-
ed with on-site granular, non-cohesive soils and cut slopes exposing granular, non-
cohesive older alluvial soils will be sensitive to surficial erosion and are anticipated to
involve maintenance after significant rain events. It is recommended that the project
plans and specifications contain design features and construction requirements to reduce
the potential for erosion of the on-site soils both during and after construction. A
maintenance program shall include repair of rilling and other slope erosion that may oc-
cur. Appropriate drainage devices shall be provided to direct surface runoff away from
slope faces.
13.1.13. Trench Excavations

The trench excavations shall be sloped back or shored for stability in general accord-
ance with appropriate grading ordinances and good construction practice. Trench
backfill shall be compacted by mechanical means. Compaction by flooding or jetting
shall not be permitted. Loose material that has sloughed off of trench sidewalls during
pipeline installation, backfill placement, or compaction shall be removed before placing
and compacting additional fill. Special care shall be exercised to avoid damaging the

22
pipe during compaction of the backfill. Before allowing vehicles or typical construction
equipment to cross over pipes, 1 meter of embedment cover shall be placed and com-
pacted over the pipe. Hydro-hammers shall not be used for compaction.
13.1.14. Pipe Bedding

Pipe placement, pipe bedding and pipe zone backfill shall conform to the current speci-
fications for excavation and backfill of utility trenches. We recommend that pipes be
supported on 15 centimeters or more of granular bedding material such as sand with a
sand equivalent value of 30 or more. We do not recommend crushed rock. It has been
our experience that the voids within a crushed rock material are sufficiently large to al-
low fines to migrate into the voids, thereby creating the potential for pipe settlement or
settlement of the ground surface. Where loose soil conditions are encountered, the
trench excavation shall be moisture-conditioned and recompacted to a depth of 0.3 to
0.5 meter or more below the pipe invert. Bedding material shall be placed around the
pipe, and 30 centimeters or more above the top of the pipe. Special care shall be taken
not to allow voids beneath and around the pipe. Bedding material and compaction re-
quirements shall be in accordance with the recommendations of this report, the project
specifications, and applicable requirements of the appropriate agencies. Based upon our
subsurface evaluation, some excavated materials may be suitable for use as bedding ma-
terial after removal of oversize material. If on-site material is used for bedding material,
it shall be tested for its sand equivalent and gradation.
13.1.15. Modulus of Soil Reaction for Pipe Design

The modulus of soil reaction is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed
at the sides of buried flexible pipelines for evaluating deflection caused by the weight of
the backfill above the pipe. A soil reaction modulus of 650 tsm shall be used for an ex-
cavation depth of up to about 1.5 meters when backfilled with on-site soil and
compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 698. A soil
reaction modulus of 800 tsm shall be used for trenches deeper than 1.5 meters.

23
13.2. Foundations
Based on our understanding of the project, the proposed structural improvements shall be
supported on relatively shallow, spread footings bearing on engineered fill compacted in ac-
cordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report.
Foundations shall be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the follow-
ing recommendations. In addition, requirements of the appropriate governing jurisdictions
and applicable building codes shall be considered in the design of the structures.
13.2.1. Spread Footings

Isolated square spread footings with a dimension of 1 meter by 1 meter and founded at a
depth of 0.5 meter in compacted fill shall be designed using a net allowable bearing ca-
pacity of 17 tsm. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 0.5 tsm for every
0.1 meter increase in width or depth up to a value of 22 tsm. The total and differential
settlements corresponding to these allowable bearing pressures are estimated to be less
than 1.5 centimeters and 0.7 centimeter over a horizontal span of 10 meters, respective-
ly. For an isolated spread footing with larger dimension, the contact pressure shall be
reduced proportionately so that the settlement values do not exceed the tolerable limits.
Continuous spread footings that are 1 meter wide and founded at a depth of 0.5 meter in
compacted fill shall be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 15 tsm. The
allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 0.5 tsm for every 0.1 meter increase in
width or depth up to a value of 22 tsm. The total and differential settlements corre-
sponding to these allowable bearing pressures are estimated to be less than 1.5
centimeters and 0.7 centimeter over a horizontal span of 10 meters, respectively. For a
continuous spread footing with larger width, the contact pressure shall be reduced pro-
portionately so that the settlement values do not exceed the tolerable limits.
Based on the footing dimensions proposed for the various structures (as provided to us
by Siemens), we recommend a net allowable bearing capacity of 15 tsm for the combus-
tion turbine generator, exhaust stack, generator step up transformer and raw/fire water

24
storage tank. A net allowable bearing capacity of 22 tsm should be used for the demin-
eralized water storage tank.
The allowable bearing values provided above may be increased by one-third when con-
sidering loads of short duration, such as wind forces. Footings located adjacent to utility
trenches shall have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench
(Figure 8). Spread footings shall be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars,
two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footings, and further de-
tailed in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer.
13.2.2. Lateral Resistance

Foundations bearing on compacted fill shall be designed using a coefficient of friction
of 0.40, where the total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the
dead load. Foundations shall be designed using a passive resistance of 1.6 tsm per meter
of depth increasing linearly up to a value of 16 tsm. The allowable lateral resistance can
be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance, provided the pas-
sive resistance does not exceed one-half of the total allowable resistance. The passive
resistance may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such
as wind forces.
13.2.3. Mat Foundations

A mat foundation is a large concrete slab, designed by a structural engineer for specific
use, to interface one or more columns or pieces of equipment with the foundation soil. It
may encompass the foundation footprint or a portion of the footprint. The mat contact
stresses are generally lower than other shallow foundation types due to distribution of
stress over a larger area and stress compensation from excavated soil.
Mat foundations for the proposed facilities shall be supported on compacted fill pre-
pared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. A net allowable
bearing capacity of 15 tsm shall be used for designing a mat that is 0.5 meter thick, 10

25
meters wide and 20 meters long. The total and differential settlements corresponding to
this allowable bearing pressure are estimated to be on the order of 1.5 centimeters and
0.7 centimeter over a horizontal span of 10 meters, respectively.
The allowable bearing value provided above may be increased by one-third when con-
sidering loads of short duration, such as wind forces. Mat foundations located adjacent
to utility trenches shall have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1:1
(horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent
utility trench (Figure 8).
Mat foundations typically experience some deflection due to loads placed on the mat
and the reaction of the soils directly underlying the mat. A design modulus of vertical
subgrade reaction (K) of 4,200 tons per cubic meter (tcm) shall be used for the com-
pacted subgrade soils in evaluating such deflections. This value is based on a unit
square meter area and shall be adjusted for large mats. Adjusted values of the modulus
of subgrade reaction, Kv, can be obtained from the following equation for mats of vari-
ous widths:
Kv = K[(B+1)/2B]2 (tcm)
B is the width of the mat in meters. A design modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction
(Kn) of 5,500 tcm will be appropriate for the compacted site soils.
13.3. Slabs-On-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade shall be designed by the structural engineer for the anticipated load-
ing conditions assuming a short-term modulus of subgrade reaction of 5,400 tcm. We
recommend that conventional, slab-on-grade floors, underlain by compacted fill with very
low expansion potential, be 12.5 centimeters or more in thickness and be reinforced with
No. 3 or larger reinforcing bars spaced 45 centimeters on center each way. The reinforcing
bars shall be placed near the mid-point of the slabs. As a means to help reduce shrinkage
cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with expansion joints at intervals of ap-

26
proximately 10 meters, each way or as recommended by the structural engineer. The slab re-
inforcement and expansion joint spacing shall be designed by the structural engineer.
If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain

by a vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene (or
equivalent) membrane placed over 10 centimeters of medium to coarse, relatively clean sand
or pea gravel, and overlain by an additional 5 centimeters of sand to help reduce the poten-
tial for puncturing the membrane during placement and to aid in concrete curing.
Prior to pouring concrete, the subgrade soils shall be moisture conditioned to 2 percent over
optimum moisture conditions to a depth of 30 centimeters. Exterior concrete flatwork shall
be 10 centimeters or more in thickness and shall be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars
placed at 60 centimeters on-center both ways. A vapor retarder may be omitted for exterior
flatwork.
13.4. Foundation Stiffness

The dynamic stiffness or the spring constant of a structural foundation depends on the nature
and deformability of the supporting soils, the geometry and inertia of the foundation and su-
perstructure, and the nature of the dynamic excitation. Dynamic stiffness values are useful in
the evaluation of soil-structure interaction of embedded structures under dynamic loads.
Since soil deformation and structural response are different in vertical and lateral directions
under a given load cycle, the stiffness values are also different in these directions.
We anticipate that the plant equipment subjected to dynamic loading will be supported on
relatively shallow spread (continuous and isolated) footings founded in compacted fill. The
final design depth and dimension of these footings are not available at this time. The dynam-
ic vertical (Kzf) and lateral (Kxf and Kyf) stiffness values of compacted fill in the vertical
(i.e., z) and two horizontal directions (i.e., x and y, respectively) are, therefore, presented be-
low as functions of depth, width and length:
Kzf = Kzs[1 + 0.05{(D/B) + 1.3(D/L)}].[1 + 0.2{(D/B) + (D/L)}0.7], (tons/meter)
Kxf = Kxs[1 + 0.15(D/B)0.5].[1 + 0.52{D2(2B + 2L)/(BL2)}0.4], (tons/meter)

27
Kyf = Kys[1 + 0.15(D/B)0.5].[1 + 0.52{D2(2B + 2L)/(BL2)}0.4], (tons/meter)
Where,
Kzs = 1.1G.L + 2.4G.L0.25B0.75, (tons/meter)
Kxs = 1.0G.L + 0.3G.B + 1.5G.L0.15B0.85, (tons/meter)
Kys = 1.2G.L + 1.5G.L0.15B0.85, (tons/meter)
D = depth of footing below the finish grade (meters)
2B = width of footing (meters)
2L = length of footing (meters)
G = low-strain shear modulus of foundation soils (tsm)
Considering an average shear wave velocity of 330 mps for the compacted fill and/or the
near-surface earth materials, we estimate a low-strain shear modulus of 19,980 tsm. It shall
be noted that the x-direction corresponds to the long direction (i.e., parallel to the longer side
of the footing), the y-direction corresponds to the short direction (i.e., parallel to the shorter
side of the footing), and the z-direction corresponds to the vertical direction (i.e., perpendic-
ular to the plane of the footing bottom surface).
13.5. Dynamic Soil Properties

The dynamic soil properties evaluated during this study included shear wave velocity, shear
modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and material damping ratio. As discussed previously, the seismic
refraction survey method was utilized for this purpose. The dynamic soil properties recom-
mended below are based on the results of the refraction survey analyses, our experience with
fill, eolian soil, older alluvium and bedrock materials similar to those underlying the project
area, and engineering judgment.
Shear wave velocities of 150, 330, 420, 540, 620 and 700 mps shall be considered for
earth materials located between depths of 0 to 2 meters, 2 to 8 meters, 8 to 15 meters,
15 to 20 meters, 20 to 26 meters, and below 26 meters, respectively. Fill compacted to a
relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 698 shall be considered to
have a shear wave velocity of 330 mps.

28
Low-strain shear modulus values of 3,800, 19,980, 35,800, 59,770, 80,720, and 104,860
tsm shall be used in design for earth materials located between depths of 0 to 2 meters,
2 to 8 meters, 8 to 15 meters, 15 to 20 meters, 20 to 26 meters, and below 26 meters, re-
spectively. A shear modulus value of 19,980 tsm shall be considered for the compacted
fill.
A Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 shall be considered in design for the compacted fill. Poisson’s
ratio of older alluvium and bedrock shall be considered as 0.30.
A material damping ratio of 3 percent shall be used in design for the compacted fill. The
damping ratio values may be decreased to 2.5 percent for the older alluvium and bed-
rock underlying the site.
13.6. Retaining Walls

Retaining walls and other below-grade structures that are supported on foundations designed
in accordance with the preceding recommendations shall be backfilled with non-expansive
granular soils and shall be designed for lateral earth pressures presented on Figures 9 and 10.
Appropriate drainage systems shall be provided behind the retaining walls to reduce the po-
tential build-up of hydrostatic pressure. Drainage design shall include free-draining backfill
materials and perforated drains as shown on Figure 11. To reduce the potential for pipe-to-
wall differential settlement, which could cause pipe shearing, we recommend that a pipe
joint be located close to the exterior of the wall. The type of joint shall be such that minor
relative movement can be accommodated without distress. The pipe connections shall be
sufficiently flexible to withstand differential settlement of 13 millimeters.
13.7. Concrete
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates
can be subject to chemical and/or physical deterioration. In accordance with the directives of
the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), Section 1904-3, concrete exposed to sulfate-
containing solutions or soils shall comply with the maximum water-cementitious materials
ratios and/or minimum specified compressive strength and be made with the appropriate
type of cement in accordance with the provisions of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318
building code, Section 4.3. Based on the ACI criteria (ACI, 2011), the potential for sulfate
attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate contents in soil ranging from 0.00 to

29
0.10 percent by weight (0 to 1,000 parts per million [ppm]), and moderate for water-soluble
sulfate contents ranging from 0.10 to 0.20 percent by weight (1,000 to 2,000 ppm). The po-
tential for sulfate attack is severe for water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.20 to
2.00 percent by weight (2,000 to 20,000 ppm), and very severe for water-soluble sulfate con-
tents over 2.00 percent by weight (20,000 ppm).
The representative samples of site soils tested for this evaluation indicated water-soluble sul-
fate contents ranging from 0.005 percent to 0.029 percent by weight indicating a negligible
potential for sulfate attack. Therefore, Type II cement may be utilized with a water/cement
ratio of 0.50 or less for the project.
In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we rec-
ommend that for slabs-on-grade the concrete be placed with a slump in accordance with
specifications provided by the project structural engineer. If a higher slump is needed for
screeding and leveling, a super plasticizer is recommended to achieve the higher slump
without changing the required water-to-cement ratio. The slump shall be checked periodical-
ly at the site prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that crack control joints be
provided in slabs in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to re-
duce the potential for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We
further recommend that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs-on-grade and founda-
tions shall be in accordance with IBC 1907.7.1. The structural engineer shall be consulted
for concrete specifications.
13.8. Grounding Characteristics

We anticipate that the proposed facility will be grounded by installation of ground rods ex-
tending to a depth of approximately 2 meters below the finish grade. The suitability of the
site soils for electrical grounding is dependent on the resistivity of the soil in contact with
the ground rods.
In general terms, clayey soils tend to have relatively low resistivity at natural moisture con-
tent, high corrosivity, and good grounding characteristics. Silty soils generally have

30
moderate resistivity and corrosivity, and may be considered to have fair grounding charac-
teristics. Clean sand and gravel generally have high resistivity, low corrosivity, and may be
considered to have poor grounding characteristics. When a soil consists of relatively coarse
material (sand or gravel) embedded in a fine-grained matrix (silt or clay), the fine-grained
matrix material will tend to control the soil resistivity and associated engineering properties.
The results of our resistivity survey, as presented in Appendix D, indicate that the apparent
resistivity of the site soils ranges from 1,500 to 225,500 ohm-meters. Based on the resistivity
survey data and our observation of the site soil characteristics, these materials can be con-
sidered to have relatively poor grounding characteristics.
13.9. Site Drainage

Surface drainage shall be provided to direct water away from structures and off of pavement
surfaces. Surface water shall not be permitted to drain toward the structures or to pond adja-
cent to footings or on paved areas. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 2 percent or
more over a distance of 3 meters or more away from the structures.
13.10. Design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value for Pavement Design
The pavement sections may be supported on on-site soil material prepared in accordance
with the preceding remedial grading recommendations. Based on our subsurface evaluation,
laboratory testing, and on our review of the laboratory test results, we recommend that a
CBR value of 12 be used in design of structural pavements for the project. Final pavement
design shall be based on laboratory testing of the actual subgrade soils exposed at the com-
pletion of grading.
14. LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have
been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by
geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or
implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this re-
port. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may

31
exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during con-
struction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional
subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. In ad-
dition, it shall be noted that locations of geotechnical borings and geophysical testing were
selected by Siemens. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the ge-
otechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues,
environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
shall be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for preliminary design purposes only and may not provide sufficient data
to prepare an accurate bid by some contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotech-
nical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project
areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotech-
nical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and
laboratory testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,
our office shall be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon
request. It shall be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of
natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to
the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac-
tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over
time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.

32
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu-
sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said
parties’ sole risk.

33
15. REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.

Audin, L., David, C., Hall, S., Farber, D., and Herail, G., 2006, Geomorphic Evidences of Recent
Tectonic Activity in the Forearc, Southern Peru, in Revista de la Asociacion Geologica
Argentina
Barrows, L., and Edwards, M., 1995, Backus-Gilbert Inversion of Electrical Resistivity Sound-
ings and Its Application to Solid-Waste Landfills, Proceedings of the Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP ‘95),
Orlando, Florida: pages 679-688, dated April 23-26.
Campbell, K.W., Chieruzzi, R., Duke, C.M., Lew, M., 1979, Correlations of Seismic Velocity
with Depth in Southern California, Earthquake Laboratory, School of Engineering and
Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California, dated October.
Custodio, L y M. R. Llamas, 1976. Hidrología Subterránea. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona. 1156
p. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 2001, California Building
Code.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1975, Engineering Aspects of the Lima, Peru Earth-
quake of October 3, 1975, dated January.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2007, The Pisco, Peru, Earthquake of August 15,
2007, in EERI Special Earthquake Report, dated October.
Fang, H.-Y., 1991, Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Google Earth, 2010, Site Location at -12.493237 Degrees Latitude, -76.715944 Degrees Longi-
tude, http://earth.google.com.
Instituto Geologico Minero y Metalurgico, 1975, Mapa Geologico del Peru
Instituto Geologico Minero y Metalurgico, 1998, Mapa Geologico del Cuadrangulo de Lurin.
Instituto Geologico Minero y Metalurgico, 1999, Mapa Geologico del Cuadrangulo de Mala.
International Code Council, Inc., 2006, International Building Code.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code.
International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering, Codes, Programs, and Examples, 1995 -
Chapter 6 (Argentina - Authors: Fernando A.M. REYNA, Bibiana M. LUCCIONI and
Ricardo D. AMBROSINI).
Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, 2003, Technical Building Standard E.030
Earthquake Resistant Standards (E-030 Diseno Sismorresistente (in Spanish)).
Monroy, M.C., Bolanos, A.L., Munoz, A.P., and Blondet, M.S., Demandas Sismicas con Peligro
Uniforme en el Peru, undated.

34
Ninyo & Moore, 2012, Revised Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation and Topographic Survey,
Santo Domingo de los Olleros Power Plant, Chilca, Peru: dated March 23.
Siemens Energy, Inc., 2005, Engineering Specification, Geotechnical Investigation for Founda-
tion Design, February 29.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
113(8), 861.878.
United States Geological Survey, 2003, Database and Map of Quaternary Faults and Folds in Pe-
ru and Its Offshore Regions, Open File Report 03-45.
Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, 2009, Estudio Geotecnico con Fines de Cimentacion, Cen-
tral Termica Santo Domingo de los Olleros, dated March.

35
DESIGN RESPONSE DESIGN RESPONSE
PERIOD PERIOD
SPECTRUM SPECTRUM
(seconds) (seconds)
Sa, (g) Sa, (g)
0.000 0.440 1.200 0.533

0.116 1.100 1.400 0.457
0.500 1.100 1.600 0.400
0.582 1.100 1.800 0.356
0.600 1.067 2.000 0.320
0.700 0.914 2.500 0.256
0.800 0.800 3.000 0.213
0.900 0.711 3.500 0.183
1.000 0.640 4.000 0.160
To = 0.116 sec. Ts = 0.582 sec.
2.0
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION, Sa (g
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
PERIOD, T (seconds)
NOTES:
Design Response Spectrum is based on Figure 16-3 of 1997 UBC. The design site parameters are as follows:
Seismic Zone = 4
Soil Profile Type = SD (Stiff Soil Profile)
Seismic Zone Factor, Z = 0.40
Near-Source Factor, Na =1.0; Near-Source Factor Nv = 1.0
Seismic Coefficient Ca = 0.44; Seismic Coefficient Cv = 0.64
Importance Factor = 1.2
Design Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.44g
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATION LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples

Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings.
The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler

Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetra-
tion Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 5.1
centimeters and an unlined internal diameter of 3.5 centimeters. The sampler was driven into
the ground approximately 30 to 45 centimeters with a 63.5-kilogram hammer falling freely
from a height of 76 centimeters in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts
were recorded for every 15 centimeters of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs
are those for the last 30 centimeters of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed
from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Shelby Tube
The Shelby tube is a seamless, thin-walled, steel tube having an internal diameter of approx-
imately 7.1 centimeters. The tube was connected to the drill rod pushed into an undisturbed
soil mass to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample of soil in general accordance with ASTM
D 1587. When the tube was almost full (to avoid overpenetration), it was withdrawn from
the excavation, removed from the drill rod, sealed at both ends, and transported to the labor-
atory for testing.

APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on
the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests

The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex-
ploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The results of the
tests are presented on Figure B-1.
Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general ac-
cordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-2
through B-14. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance
with the USCS.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid
limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test re-
sults were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test
results and classifications are shown on Figure B-15.
Soil Corrosivity Tests

Soil pH tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D
1293. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of selected samples were evaluated in general ac-
cordance with ASTM D 516 and ASTM D 512, respectively. Total soluble salts were evaluated in
general accordance with ASTM D 1889. The test results are presented on Figure B-16.
Constant Head Permeability Tests

Constant head permeability tests were performed on selected remolded soil samples in general
accordance with ASTM D 2434. The samples were placed in the apparatus and saturated. Water
flow through the soil was sustained using a pneumatically induced head at specified pressures.
The quantity of flow, the elapsed time, and the hydraulic gradient were recorded. The permeabil-
ity was then calculated using Darcy’s equation. The results of the tests are presented on Figures
B-17 through B-20.
Variable Head Permeability Tests

Variable head permeability tests were performed on selected remolded soil samples in general
accordance with ASTM D 5084. The samples were placed in the apparatus and saturated. The

1
drop in hydraulic head was recorded at each time interval as water flowed through the soil. The
quantity of flow, the elapsed time, and the hydraulic gradient were recorded. The permeability
was then calculated using Darcy’s equation. The results of the tests are presented on Fig-
ures B-21 through B-24.
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests

Triaxial compression tests were performed on selected samples remolded to the approximate in-
site density in general accordance with ASTM D 2850. The test results are shown on Fig-
ures B25 through B-27.
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test

Consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests were performed on a selected sample in gen-
eral accordance with ASTM D 4767. Cylindrical specimens with a length-to-diameter ratio of
approximately 2:1 were saturated by back pressures until a minimum degree of saturation of 95
percent was achieved. Then the specimen was consolidated isotropically under a predetermined
confining pressure. After completion of consolidation, the sample was sheared undrained under
compression at a constant rate of axial deformation with measurements of pore pressure. The test
results are shown on Figures B-28 through B-30.

2
APPENDIX C
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

SANTO DOMINGO THERMOELECTRIC POWER PLANT WORK
(DISTRICT OF CHILCA - PROV. OF CAÑETE – DEPARTMENT OF LIMA)
1. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS, DATA PROCESSING WITH SEISMIC

TOMOGRAPHY
The purpose of this seismic tomography work conducted through the

generation of seismic refraction waves and other surface ones is to determine a
model of wave propagation velocities based on the depth and an estimation of
the thickness of surface layers. Seismic velocities determined are correlated to
different compositions and/or mechanical properties of the materials that make
up the subsoil thus allowing the elaboration of compositional geotechnical
models along the profiles (layings) to be conducted.
1.1. DESIGN OF SEISMIC LAYOUTS
Each Layout (geophones from 0 to 12) includes 15 seismic profiles

registered for Shot positions (T1) in a progressive downward direction. Counter
shot with shout point in (T5) of record in the opposite direction and other three
profiles locating the energy emission point at intermediate points (T2, T3 and
T4) and the record on each side of this point.. Note that all layouts are carefully
located in the studied area so as to obtain the best information on subsoil
conditions (Fig. 1). Generated waves (S) will be considered in this case for the
determination of the subsoil model.
1.2. SEISMIC REFRACTION

The seismic refraction method proves to be invaluably efficient for the
determination of alluvium thickness and shallow poorly consolidated materials,
as well as bedrock depths. Currently, it is the most used method in oil
prospecting for the determination of surface layer thickness known as
“weathering” or weathered layer, and for engineering applications.
This test consists of a cable with sensors called Geophones located

along the layout to be tested. The distance between geophones depends on the
prospecting depth required for each case and on the detail intended below
them. In general, the testing depth can be estimated as the equivalent to a third
1
of the total length of the layout conducted. This depth can significantly increase
as the contrast between seismic velocities of the materials that exposes the
discontinuity to be detected decreases. At both ends of the layout, dynamic
impacts of different nature (explosions, hammer blows or plate vibrations) are
conducted. During the test, arrival times of compression waves(P) are
measured, since the signal is emitted until it arrives to each geophone aligned
according to a preset distance. The identification of different arrival times
corresponding to the strata or layers where they are generated, are carried out
on the record. The level of detail of the subsoil velocity change drawings
obtained (especially the stratigraphy) depends on the distance between
reception geophones used. Figure 2 shows, by means of a plan view, the
outline of a 12- channel seismic line used in the field test of this study.
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
* + + + *+ + + * + + + * + + + *
a g1 g12
Figure 2: Outline of a seismic line on plan view.

Symbols represent: [T] shot on different seismic
energy emission points; [*] location of shot; [+]
location of receptor (geophone); [g1] geophone
Nº1; [g12] geophone Nº12; [a] off-set equivalent
to the distance between the shot point and
geophone 1.
By means of the device indicated in Figs. 2 and 3, a comprehensive

record with the 5 shot points is obtained, which allows applying the seismic
tomography method explained below. The combination of the information
obtained for the arrival time of the layout of Shot (corresponding to shot point
T1), Countershot (corresponding to shot point T5), and other shots
(corresponding to shots T2, T3, and T4) below a determined geophone allows
obtaining the depth beneath. This is because the energy comes from a common
refractor located in depth, which is lit from multiple seismic wave ways on both
sides of the geophone by the shot, countershot and other lines that used shot
2
points in opposite direction. The record displayed on the equipment monitor and
on paper allows detecting accurately the first arrivals of the seismic waves
generated in the source during field tasks; this allows redesigning the planned
work and conducting preliminary estimations on the subsoil parameters. These
records are essential for post-processing and interpretation lab tasks.
X
x
g1 g2 g3 gi T5
∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ T4 ∇ ∇
∗ ∗
T1
∗
surface
A’ B’ C’
D’
V2 > V1
ZT1 ZT5
ic ZT4
V1
Zg3 refractor horizon
h i t f t
A D
B C
V2
Figure 3: Cross-section for the diagram of seismic line shown in Figure 2,

assuming only one layer of irregular depth and velocity V1 supported on a semi-
space of velocity V2. For the sake of simplicity, only rays arriving at geophone
three [g3] are shown for Shot [T1], Countershot [T5] and intermediate [T4]
positions; ZT1, ZT4, ZT5 and Zg3 represent the depths below each element of
the seismic line. X symbolizes the distance from the source T1 to each
geophone and X is the total length of the layout; ic is a critical
incidence/emergency angle, for which refraction in medium 2 occurs with a 90°
angle according to Snell’s law.
The measuring equipment to be used in this study is a 12-channel

GEOMETRICS EG-S 1225 Seismograph (see Fig. 4).
For the generation of shear waves, vertical hammer blows on a plate

fixed to the ground were used. Each shot should be connected to the recording
equipment to take a reference signal of time zero from which the arrival times of
the different seismic waves are measured. Impacts were repeated for the same
shot point in order to superimpose the energy in the seismic source and to
increase the signal/noise relation in the channels registered.
3
Digital Seismograph and Data Acquisition Computer
E.g. Assembly of Seismic Line N° 1 (Direction E-W/ Cistern sector)
4
Detail of sensors; vertical and horizontal components Geophones
1.3. SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY
The travel time of a seismic wave generated in a seismic source S and

registered by a receiver R, can be expressed in terms of trajectory and velocity
of the medium V as follows:
R
dl
dl
S* T =∫ = ∫ u dl
V
where (u) is the inverse of the seismic velocity and is known as slowness. The
r
tomography allows obtaining an image of the slowness u = u( v ) of the subsoil
and therefore, velocity. For this purpose, the velocity model parameters of the
subsoil are chosen, the corresponding seismic rays are drawn, the solution to
the resulting equation system is calculated and an analysis of results, errors
and solution is conducted. Seismic tomography involves straight ray trajectories
5
r
in small constant velocity ( v ) cells. So, for example, for a model of initial
velocity, divided into cells as the one shown below, the model has been
configured into nine cells. In each cell, velocity V (and slowness u) is constant.
u1 u2 u3
u4 u5 u6
u7 u8 u9
There are 9 cells in this model. In each cell, slowness is constant.
For a ray i, the total travel time (T) from the source (S) and the receiver (R) ,
can be represented as follows:
lij R
uj ray i
*
S
cell j
Ti = ∑ lij u j where i represents ray and j is the cell
Ti is the travel time of ray i

lij is the length of the path travelled by ray i in cell j
uj is the slowness of cell j.
Considering all rays available, in matrix form, the following is obtained:
⎡T1 ⎤ ⎡l11 l12 .. .. l1m ⎤ ⎡u1 ⎤

⎢T ⎥ ⎢l l .. .. l ⎥ ⎢u ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 21 22 2m
⎥ ⎢ 2⎥
⎢.. ⎥ = ⎢.. .. .. .. .. ⎥ ⎢.. ⎥ I
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢.. ⎥ ⎢.. .. .. .. .. ⎥ ⎢.. ⎥
⎢⎣Tn ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ln1 ln 2 .. .. lnm ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣um ⎥⎦
n rays, m cells
6
The objective is to solve u.
The ideal situation would be to have more rays than u components to
determine. The objective is then to reach a solution that minimizes the
difference between time calculated Tcalc for the model proposed and time
observed Tobs for each ray.
In general, we start from a constant velocity (v = cte) as for example,

the average of v, for the medium between the source and the receptor
corresponding to distance L, for which travel time T has been observed. Then,
rays are straight and to start the process, travel time T is calculated; the
differences obtained between the time calculated Tcalc and time observed Tobs,
will be interpreted as responding to the estimation of velocity v; therefore,
velocity will become inconstant and rays will not be straight any more,
increasingly adjusting the problem to reality. For a determined cell, slowness is
calculated as follows:
⎛T⎞
∑ ⎜ i ⎟ lij
i ⎝ Li ⎠
uj =
∑ lij
i
where T represents the total time that ray i uses to travel the total path L. If the
ray does not pass cell j, then lij = 0.
The previous equation is known as inverse projection formula.
For a cell j, let us suppose that there are three rays passing through it,
each one of which uses a total time Ti along the entire path Li:
cell j
S
* R (T1, L1)
l1
S
* l3 ray 1
S*
R (T2, L2)
l2
R (T3, L3)
7
Slowness for this cell will be according to the inverse projection formula:
⎛ T1 ⎞ ⎛T ⎞ ⎛T ⎞
⎜ ⎟ l1 + ⎜ 2 ⎟ l2 + ⎜ 3 ⎟ l3
⎝L⎠ ⎝ L2 ⎠ ⎝ L3 ⎠
u= 1
l1 + l2 + l3
As one can see, it is given more weight to the ray with the longest way in the
cell.
The working method can be summarized in the following steps:

1) after choosing the grid for the initial model proposed, from the distances
traveled by each ray and from the dimensions of each cell, it is possible to
calculate uj using the inverse projection formula.
2) for each ray, total time Tic = ∑ lij u j can be calculated, i.e., the time
j
calculated based on the solution of uj given in item 1).

3) in general, the time calculated Tic for each ray will be different from the time
observed Ti, , that is, Ti = ∑ lij (u j + Δu j ) . These differences in time are

j
assigned to the “poor choices” taken for velocity, that is, to slowness:
ΔTi = Ti − Tic = ∑ lij Δu j
j
4) there is then a difference in slowness that can be calculated considering the

inverse projection formula:
⎛ ΔTi ⎞
∑⎜ ⎟ lij
i ⎝ Li ⎠
Δu j =
∑ lij
i
5) therefore, slowness is being adjusted now to: u j = u j + Δu j
From item 5) we go back to item 2) obtaining an iterative process, which ends

according to certain approximation criterion.
Between steps 1) and 2), if velocity v ≠ cte. we should consider
calculating lij according to a velocity ≠ homogeneous.
8
From the field data registered, we proceeded to carry out the readings of
arrival times for each seismic line. Subsequently, we made the dromochrones
corresponding to waves P and waves S. Then, an initial model of layer
velocities was generated below the physical seismic layouts of 84 m (including
end line shots) of total horizontal length. The final model resulting from the
iterative process (defines 78 m of calculation length) is presented with profiles,
including in them, isolines indicating the seismic velocity ranges (Vp) obtained.
These velocities can be related to different types of materials and rocks. This
correlation should be interpreted carefully, and with rock mechanics criteria,
since different materials may have similar velocities (e.g. some well
consolidated alluvia and sandstones).
PROCESSING OF SEISMIC DATA

The records obtained in the field are processed and interpreted in the
lab. For this, the following activities were conducted for each seismic line:
¾ Analysis of seismic records: each seismogram had a channel by channel
inspection so as to assess their quality of signal and the coherence
among them.
¾ Determination of arrival times: for the records obtained, the arrival times
of the first arrivals corresponding to compressional waves were read
again.
¾ Graph of path-time curves: from the arrival times of the first arrivals and
the distances from the shot point where they were detected,
dromochrone graphs with path-time curves are developed.
¾ Transverse seismic profiles: from the previous analysis, the values of

seismic velocities for the different layers of the subsoil and the depths of
these velocity changes along the profile are obtained.
9
LAYOUT Nº 1- ALIGNED WITH R04 AND S04 STAKES
CISTERN SECTOR
RESULTS OF DATA HANDLING
COMPRESSIONAL WAVES SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY (VP)
IN-SITU CONDITIONS; the sector of study within the work premises has a
transect from east to west in the progressives of the cisterns layout; it consists
of loose sandy outcropping deposits (wind/eolian alluvial), with no cohesion with
class type (SW – SP), contaminated in parts with clasts of basaltic andesite-
type volcanic rocks, from shallow levels. At the moment of execution of this
device, the STP survey, located 7 m to the East of the beginning of the seismic
line, was interrupted due to rejection at clastic levels.
In the following seismic tomographic outputsalida, we can define:

.- From 0 to -5 m of depth, Vp velocity stratum between 250 and 625 m/sec. It
would correspond to poorly compacted levels with some clastic contamination.
.- From -5 to -8 m of depth, more compact level, possibly due to higher density

of clasts in the sandy matrix. With Vp velocities between 625 and 1000 m per
second.
.- From -8 to -16 m of depth, more compact level, with Vp velocities between

1000 and 2000 m per second.
.-From -16 to -26 m of depth, levels with Vp velocities between 2000 and 2499
m/sec. This last velocity stratum studied could correspond to compact clastic
levels or to an altered unconfined bedrock.
.-If we consider the possibility of levels with important saturation or water table
after -20 m, this condition may increase the compressional velocity to the
indicated values, with no relationship with a change in lithologic conditions. In
these levels, in order to interpret compactness and geotechnical condition
ranges, it is necessary to be certain of the natural % or possibility of freatic
levels, since Vp in water is 1450 m/sec.
.- With these Vp velocity ranges and considering the existing lithology of SW –

SP-type sandy and gravel subsoils, together with the geologic frame of the
premises, the presence of saturated layer or soil up to -20 m of depth is
unlikely, though this should be necessarily verified; the inventory
documentation analyzed indicates for the area of Chilca-Cañete, the possibility
of water table between -15 m and -60 m.
10
LAYOUT Nº 1- ALIGNED WITH R04 AND S04 STAKES- DROMOCHRONES
(Vp)
Study: Projected Plant – Thermoelectric Power Plant, Lima (PERU)

Date: 05/02/2012
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
110
100
90
80
70
e
ltimm
( )
s
60
T
rae
v
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
11
Escala 1/500
LAYOUT Nº 1- ALIGNMENT WITH R04 Y S04 STAKES
(Vp)
0
-2
-4
-6
Elevation (m)
2499
-8
-10 2125
-12 1750
-14
-16 1375
-18 1000
-20
-22 625
-24 250
-26
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 (m/s)
Distance(m)
Scale = 1 / 500
12
ILLUSTRATIONS
SEISMIC LAYOUT TRANSECT Nº 1
13
LAYOUT Nº 2- ALIGNED WITH S01 AND S02 STAKES
TURBINE AND AUXILIARY UNITS SECTOR
RESULTS OF DATA HANDLING
SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY COMPRESSIONAL WAVES (VP)
IN-SITU CONDITIONS: the sector of study within the work premises has a
transect from North to South in the sector where the turbine and auxiliary units
are located; it consists of very loose sandy outcropping deposits (wind/eolian
alluvial), with no cohesion with class type (SW – SP); there is no surface
contamination of vulcanite clasts as in the sector of device N°1.
In the following seismic tomographic output we can define:
.- From 0 to -7 m of depth, stratum with Vp velocities, in general, of < a 500

m/sec. This corresponds to poorly compact levels, in case of having low %
natural H conditions.
.- From -7 to -12mts of depth, somewhat more compact thickness. With Vp

velocities of up to 700 m per second. Up to -9 m, Vp velocities of < a 600 m/sec,
if the condition is dry stratum, the Vps measured correspond to sands of
medium to high compactness. But the degree of % natural H or the presence of
water, as well as the % of crystalline gravel or fine gravel-size clasts may
increase Vp velocity without implying rigid and resistant behavior of these
thicknesses of massif.
.- From -12 to -25 m of depth, semi-compact to compact thicknesses with Vp

velocities up to 1400 m; at these levels, in order to interpret compactness and
geotechnical conditions ranges, it is necessary to be certain of % natural H or
possibility of freatic levels (Vp in water is 1450 m/sec).
.- Considering the shear waves velocities up to -12 m, velocities < a 400 m/sec
are obtained; in this condition, if in situ densities of 1.6 (g/cm3) or 1600 (tn/m3),
are inferred, < 260 (Kg/cm2) shear modulus are obtained.
.- It is important to note the thickness of up to -12 o -13 mts of depth with < a
700 m /sec Vp, where even though there is low % of natural H, carefully
assessing the seismic effect for VII or VIII intensity events, that correspond to
the coastal strip sector of Perú (subduction zone).
14
Study: Projected Plant – Thermoelectric Power Plant, District of Chilca
DROMOCHRONES SEISMIC LAYOUT Nº2 – (Vp)
110
100
90
80
70
e
ltimm
( )
s
60
T
rae
v
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
15
LAYOUT Nº 2 – ALIGNED WITH S01 AND S02 STAKES
(Vp)
-1
-3
-5 1599
Elevation (m)
-7
-9 1392
-11 1183
-13
-15 975
-17 767
-19
-21 558
-23 350
-25
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 (m/s)
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
16
ILLUSTRATIONS LAYOUT Nº 2- ALIGNED WITH S01 AND S02 STAKES
N-S DIRECTION
17
SEISMIC LAYOUT 1- (S WAVES) – DROMOCHRONIC ANALYSIS
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
e
ltimm
( )
s
100
T
rae
v
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 : Observed
: Calculated
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
18
SEISMIC LAYOUT I – TOPOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS (S WAVES)
-1
-3
-5
799
Elevation (m)
-7
-9
700
-11
-13 600
-15
-17 500
-19 400
-21
-23 300
-25 200
-27
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 (m/s)
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
19
SEISMIC LAYOUT II (S WAVES)- DROMOCHRONIC ANALYSIS
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
e
ltimm
( )
s
110
T
rae
v
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 : Observed
: Calculated
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
20
SEISMIC LAYOUT II (S WAVES)- TOMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
-1
-3
-5
699
Elevation (m)
-7
-9
608
-11
-13 517
-15
-17 425
-19 333
-21
-23 242
-25 150
-27
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 (m/s)
Distance (m)
Scale = 1 / 500
21
CALCULATION OF DYNAMIC PARAMETERS
For the calculation of the dynamic parameters of each of the strata identified, the
following expressions can be used:
Shear modulus:
G = V s2 ρ (11)
Confined Elasticity Module:
D = V p2 ρ (12)
Poisson’s Coefficient:
2
⎡V p ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1
ν= ⎣ s⎦2
V
(10)
⎡V p ⎤
2⎢ ⎥ − 1
⎣ Vs ⎦
Longitudinal Elasticity Modulus: Shear modulus:
D (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν )
E= (10)
(1 − ν )
NOTE; for determinations or approximations of ( ρ ), it is necessary to have at

least a survey in each sector, expressing the Unified Classification, each
horizon change and penetrometric data. The collection of undisturbed samples
with thin wall tubes or Shelby-type core driller may be difficult according to what
could be inferred in situ, eolian alluvial sandy deposit areas, with vulcanite
clastic contamination.
As regards the seismicity of the area, it is a subduction area, where strong 7 or

8- intensity earthquake may occur. In this type of subsoils, in the dynamic effect,
the velocity of S seismic waves in the ground decreases, particularly when the
sediment deposit is located on the most rigid or crystalline substrate, thus
increasing the impedance contrast. This way, the soil deposits act as filters for
high frequency energy (or short period) but the amplification of low frequencies
can cause potential damage to structures, especially those having low natural
frequencies, as for example, large buildings, among others.
22
APPENDIX D
FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

PE1007-FINAL REPORT-Final Seismic Hazard Analysis and Geotechnical Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

PE1007-FINAL REPORT-Final Seismic Hazard Analysis and Geotechnical Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS AND

July 18, 2012

Mr. Ravinder Singh

Subject: Seismic Hazard Analysis and Geotechnical Evaluation

Dear Mr. Singh:

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project.

Michael Putt, PG, CEG Soumitra Guha, PhD, PE, GE

Carol A. Price, PG, CEG

Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

13.1.6. Major Structure Pad Preparation .......................................................................19

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

Review of a previous geotechnical report by the National University of Engineering, Lima

Performance of a geologic reconnaissance in the area of proposed construction and sur-

Performance of a subsurface exploration program consisting of the drilling, sampling and

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

Performance of a seismic refraction survey to evaluate seismic velocities of compression

 Excavation and compaction requirements, including suitability of site soil as subgrade

 Evaluation of temporary stability of excavations.

 Suitability of site soils as pipe bedding materials and engineered fill.

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

4. PROPOSED GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

9. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

9.1. Regional Geologic Setting

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

9.2. Site Geology

9.2.1. Fill and Eolian Deposits

9.2.2. Older Alluvium

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

10. SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

10.1. Surface Fault Rupture

10.2. Strong Ground Motion

10.3. Liquefaction, Dynamic Settlement and Lateral Spread Hazards

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

10.4. Dynamic Compaction of Dry Soils

10.5. Landsliding and Slope Stability

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

11.1. Seismic Hazards

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

11.2. Unsuitable Materials

11.3. Static and Dynamic Settlement

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

11.4. Excavatibility and Oversize Material

11.5. Corrosive/Deleterious Soils

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

Near-surface site soils are considered to be non-expansive.

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

13.1.1. Pre-Construction Conference

13.1.2. Construction Observation and Testing

13.1.3. Site Preparation

13.1.4. Excavation Characteristics

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

13.1.5. Remedial Grading

13.1.6. Major Structure Pad Preparation

208566001 R Geo Eval.doc

cohesion. Therefore, in order to provide a stable subgrade for foundation construction,

13.1.7. Temporary Excavations