project-wide geotechnical summary report – 65% engineering

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

B0811-F071

Project-wide

Geotechnical Summary Report – 65% Engineering Design

December 3, 2008Issued for Review

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

B0811-F071

Project-wide

Geotechnical Summary Report – 65% Engineering Design

December 3, 2008Issued for Review

PLACE COMPANY

LOGO HERE

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project – Project-wide Geotechnical Summary Report – 65% Engineering Design

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 ii 12/3/2008 Rev. A

This page is intentionally left blank.

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project - Project-wide Geotechnical Summary Report

GEOTECHNICAL SUMMARY REPORT

FOR

65% ENGINEERING PHASE

Contract No. S03099

Submitted by: HMMlBechtel SVRT, a Joint Venture

12/03/0?:> Date

~

Andrew Liu, P.E., G.E. Date Geotechnical Lead

~ Lv~ Ching Wu, ~E. Engineering Manager

John awley. P.E. Central Area Guideway Des

e Prepared by HMMlBechtel SVRT, a

& Joint Venture HMM/Bechtel

P050 1-D300-RPT-GE-002. HI 12/3/2008 Rev. A

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project - Project-wide Geotechnical Summary Report


POSO 1-D300-RPT-GE-002. II 12/3/2008 Rev. A


P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 v 12/3/2008 Rev. A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................1

2.0 Report Objectives, Organization, and Sources of Data................................2

2.1 Scope and Objectives.....................................................................................................2

3.0 Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions .......................................................3

3.1 General...........................................................................................................................3

3.2 Geologic Faulting...........................................................................................................5

3.3 Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................................................7

3.4 Seismic Design Ground Motions ...................................................................................8

4.0 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................9

4.1 Climate.........................................................................................................................10

4.2 Precipitation .................................................................................................................10

5.0 Ground-Water Conditions.............................................................................11

6.0 Field Investigations.........................................................................................12

6.1 General.........................................................................................................................12

6.2 Borings and CPTs ........................................................................................................14

6.3 Geophysical Surveys....................................................................................................18

6.4 Monitoring Wells and Slug Test Wells........................................................................18

6.5 Vibrating Wire Piezometers.........................................................................................18

6.6 Pumping Tests..............................................................................................................19

6.7 Grouting Trial ..............................................................................................................19

7.0 Laboratory Investigations..............................................................................19

7.1 Classification and Index Tests .....................................................................................21

7.1.1 Laboratory Visual Classification..............................................................21

7.1.2 Moisture Content......................................................................................21

7.1.3 Unit Weight ..............................................................................................21

7.1.4 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................21

7.1.5 Specific Gravity........................................................................................21

7.1.6 Sieve Analysis ..........................................................................................21

7.1.7 Sieve and Hydrometer Analyses ..............................................................22


12/3/2008 vi P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

7.1.8 Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve ...........................................................22

7.1.9 Moisture/Density (Laboratory Compaction)............................................22

7.2 Strength Tests...............................................................................................................22

7.2.1 Unconfined Compression.........................................................................22

7.2.2 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial .........................................................22

7.2.3 Static Direct Simple Shear .......................................................................22

7.2.4 “R” Values................................................................................................22

7.3 Compressibility Tests...................................................................................................23

7.3.1 Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation .....................................................23

7.4 Chemical Tests.............................................................................................................23

7.4.1 Corrosion ..................................................................................................23

7.4.2 Water Quality ...........................................................................................23

7.5 Specialty Geotechnical Tests .......................................................................................23

7.5.1 Cyclic Simple Shear for Volumetric Strain Determination .....................23

7.5.2 Maximum and Minimum Dry Densities ..................................................24

7.5.3 Direct Shear (Conventional).....................................................................24

7.5.4 Large Scale Direct Shear..........................................................................25

7.5.5 Sticky Limit..............................................................................................25

7.5.6 Sample Quality Evaluation with X-Ray Photography .............................25

7.5.7 Cyclic Triaxial Compression Shear Tests ................................................25

7.5.8 Cyclic Simple Shear Test to Determine Strain Rate Influence ................26

ANNEXES


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Supplemental General Discussions on Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions, 65% Engineering Design Table 3.2 Supplemental Discussions on Faulting, 65% Engineering Design Table 3.3 Supplemental Discussions on Seismic Design Criteria and Ground Motions, 65% Engineering Design Table 4.1 Mean Monthly Temperatures in San Jose Table 4.2 Monthly Average Precipitations in Downtown San Jose Table 5.1 Supplemental General discussions on Ground Water Conditions 65% Engineering Design Table 6.1 Field and Laboratory Subcontractors Table 6.2 Number of Borings and CPTs, 65%Engineering Design Table 6.3 Boring Logs and Borehole Locations, 65% Engineering Design Table 6.4 CPT Locations and Traces, 65% Engineering Design Table 6.5 Borings: Equipment Description and Test Methods, 65% Engineering Design Table 6.6 CPTs: Equipment Descriptions and Test Methods, 65% Engineering Design Table 7.1 Laboratory Testing Programs

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 vii 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 viii P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANEX 1 SVRT PROJECT ALIGNMENT

ANEX 2 TABLES SUMMARIZING SCOPE OF WORK OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS (BORINGS AND CPTs 65% ENGINEERING DESIGN)

ANEX 3 COPIES OF THE APPENDICES’s TABLES OF

CONTENTS DOCUMENTING FIELD AND

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS


1.0 Introduction The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is currently in the 65% Engineering Design (ED) phase of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Project in Santa Clara County, California. The project consists of a 16.1-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) heavy rail rapid transit system from the end of BART’s Warm Springs Extension in Warm Springs, to the Santa Clara Station in Santa Clara. During the 35% Preliminary Engineering phase of the project, the alignment was organized in four separate study areas: Line Segment approximately 9.7 miles (51,211 ft) long from Warm Springs to northeast San Jose; Tunnel Segment approximately 5.3 miles (27,900 ft) long, consisting of twin-bored tunnels, cut-and-cover excavations and other structures; a 1.1 mile long Yard and Shops Segment, extending from the west end of the Tunnel Segment to Santa Clara Station; and the Stations Segment (three underground and three above-ground stations). Annex 1 shows the distribution of the study sections along the project alignment. A system-wide Systems Group oversaw the design of systems for all of the above-mentioned Segments.

For the 65% ED Phase, the project alignment was re-organized in three study areas as follows: the Line Segment became “Northern Area Guideway;” the Tunnel Segment became “Central Area Guideway,” and the Yard & Shops Segment became “Western Area Guideway”. The stations within each of the new areas became “Northern Area Stations”, “Central Area Stations”, and “Western Area Stations”, respectively. No changes were made to the system-wide Systems Group during the reorganization.

The Northern Area Guideway starts at approximately Sta. 45+00 (north of Agua Caliente Creek) and ends at Sta. 562+00 (south of Mabury Road in San Jose). It includes at-grade tracks, embankment fills, cuts, underpass structures, reinforced concrete boxes, box culverts, retaining walls and “U” walls, railroad bridges, two above-ground stations: Milpitas and Berryessa; and the proposed future South Calaveras Station.

The Central Area Guideway extends from Sta. 562+00 to Sta. 833+00. It includes two portals constructed using cut-and-cover construction, U-wall, and retaining wall methods; three cut-and-cover temporary station ”shells”; a cut-and-cover temporary track crossover ”shell”; and underground twin-bored circular tunnels. The total length of the bored tunnels along the S1 track alignment is 4.3 miles (based on the 65% design alignment drawings). The three underground box stations are Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, and Diridon/Arena. Two mid-tunnel ventilation shafts, several traction power substations are also proposed along the tunnel alignment.

The Western Area Guideway is a 50-acre strip of land starting approximately at Sta. 833+00 (Newhall Street) extending to the northwest to the intersection with De la Cruz Boulevard. Site development includes a mainline track alignment, tail tracks, and a maintenance and service yard which will include multiple shops and operations buildings. Buildings will include a blow-down facility with maintenance and inspection pits, car cleaner facility, a rolling stock and shop-service building. It also covers the construction of a train station platform and a retained cut structure.

The “Northern Area Stations” covers the permanent design of two above-ground stations: Milpitas and Berryessa. The “Central Area Stations” covers the permanent design of three

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 1 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 2 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

below-ground stations: Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose (including crossover), and Diridon/Arena Stations. The “Western Area Stations” covers the permanent design of above-ground Santa Clara station.

2.0 Report Objectives, Organization, and Sources of Data 2.1 Scope and Objectives The geology, seismology, hydrology, hydrogeology, and geotechnical engineering data gathered during the 35% Preliminary Engineering (PE) were summarized in the report “Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project: Project-wide Summary Geotechnical Report” P0501-D300-RPT-GE-001, Rev C, issued on August 10, 2006.

Additional field and laboratory data were obtained during the 65% Engineering Design Phase of the Project by the various design teams.

The objectives of this report are to summarize in a single document the scope of the investigations accomplished during the 65% ED Phase, and to prepare tables referencing sections of the separate reports prepared by the three Area Guideways and the three Area Stations where results of the investigations can be found. Evaluations of the data are not included in this report. It is noted that the report with the results of the field and laboratory investigations carried out by the “Central Area Stations” during the 35% PE was not available at the time the PE Project-wide summary report was issued. For completeness, the 35% scope of the geotechnical investigations summarized in the Central Area Stations report is referenced (see below) in this 65% Project-wide Report. No additional field investigations were conducted for the Central Area Stations during 65% ED Phase.

Geotechnical documents consulted for the preparation of this report are:

Northern Area Guideway – Freight Railroad Relocation

“Geotechnical Data Report for Horizontal Directional Drilling Installation for Utility Relocation,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-08, April 15, 2008, Text and Appendices A, B and C.

Northern Area Guideway

“65% Design-Zone 1 (Sta. 45+00 to 115+00): Geotechnical Report,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-009 Rev. A, May 16, 2008, Text and Appendices A and B. “65% Design- Zone 2 (Sta. 115+00 to 175+00): Geotechnical Report,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-010 Rev. A, May 16, 2008, Text and Appendices A, and B. “65% Design- Zone 3 (Sta. 175+00 to 215+00): Geotechnical Report,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-011 Rev. A, May 16, 2008, Text and Appendices A and B.


“65% Design- Zone 4 (Sta. 215+00 to 329+00): Geotechnical Report,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-012 Rev. A, May 16, 2008, Text and Appendices A and B. “65% Geotechnical Design Report- Below-Grade Structures-Areas C202 and C203,” Report P0502-D200-RPT-GEO-013 Rev A, Text and Appendices A through E.

Central Area Guideway

“Geotechnical Data Report-Phase Two, 65% Engineering Design Investigation,” Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-004, Rev.0, May 14, 2008 (Issued for use). Text and Appendices 1 through 9.

“Hydrogeology Report,” Report P0503-D300-RPT-DE-020, Rev. 1, June 12, 2008, Text and Appendices A, B and C.

“Pumping Test Data Report, Volumes 1 and 2,” Report P0-503-RPT-GEO-005, Rev. 0.

Western Area Guideway

“Geotechnical Report Supplement,” Report P0504-D400-RPT-DE-008, Rev.0, August 29, 2008, Text and Appendices A and B.

Central Area Stations

“Geotechnical and Seismic Design Criteria Report for Parking Garages and Ancillary Facilities,” Report P0507-D425-RPT-GEO-002, Rev.0 June 26, 2006:

Volume 1: Geotechnical, Text and Appendices A, B and C;

Volume 2: Seismic, Text and Appendices A, B and C.

Project-wide

“Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project: Project-wide Summary Geotechnical Report,” Report P0501-D300-RPT-GE-001, Rev C, August 10, 2006.

3.0 Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions 3.1 General The SVRT Project is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the north, the Diablo Range to the northeast and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The valley is covered by alluvial fan, levee, and active stream channel deposits with marine estuary deposits along the Bay margins. The alluvium is Holocene-age (less than 10,000 years old) and can be classified as:

• Alluvial fan deposits (Qhf). These deposits consist of sand, gravel, silt, and clay,deposited by mountain canyon streams onto alluvial valley floors or plains.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 3 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 4 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

• Fine-grained alluvial fan deposits (Qhff). These deposits occur on the flatter distal portion of fans and consist primarily of silt- and clay-rich sediments with interbedded lobes of coarser sand and occasional gravel.

• Alluvial-fan levee deposits (Qhl). These deposits have formed naturally where streams have overtopped their banks and deposited sand, silt, and clay adjacent to the channel.

Supplemental discussions about geology and subsurface conditions encountered in each Area Guideway can be found in the sections of the reports listed in Table 3.1.


SEGMENT REPORT SECTIONS FIGURES

Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 6.0; 7.0 2A and 2B

Zone 1 6.0; 7.0 3A and 3B

Zone 2 6.0; 7.0 3A and 3B

Zone 3 6.0; 7.0 3A and 3B

Zone 4 6.0; 7.0 3A and 3B

Below-grade StructuresAreas C2O2 and C2O3 3.0 Plate 5

Central Area Guideway Geotechnical Data Report- -- 5.1 through

Phase 2 5.43

Western Area Guideway Geotechnical Report Supplement 2.3 6 and 7

Central Area-Stations Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% 6.0; 7.0 2; 2A through 2E

Preliminary Engineering)

GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL DISCUSSIONS ON

65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 3.1

3.2 Geologic Faulting The SVRT project is located in a highly active seismic region, bounded by the San Andreas Fault to the west, and the Hayward and Calaveras Faults to the east. Each of these faults has produced damaging earthquakes in the past. Belts of active thrust faults that outline the valley margins are the Foothills Fault system to the southwest and the East Valley Thrusts (the southeast extension of the Hayward Fault) to the northeast.

The three active fault sources with the greatest contribution to the ground motion-shaking hazard of the SVRT project are the Hayward, San Andreas, and Calaveras Faults.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 5 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 6 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

The one known possible occurrence of a fault intersection with the SVRT Project occurs at the intersection of the tunnel alignment with the northern reach of the Silver Creek Fault which is considered to have a low probability of activity. A thorough study concluded that the potential for fault offset through the alignment along the Silver Creek North fault is negligible. This result is consistent with the assessments of the California Geological Survey, California Department of Transportation, Santa Clara County, and the City of San Jose who do not consider the Silver Creek North Fault, as defined in this report, to be a rupture hazard.

A description of the project seismic design criteria and corresponding expected characteristics of the earthquake ground motions as well as a more detailed discussion of the three fault sources mentioned above are presented in Chapter 3 of the 35% PE Geotechnical Data Report (GDR), in “Tunnel Segment: Report on Seismic Ground Motions,” Report P0503-D300-RPT-DE-012, Rev. 0, May 3, 2005; and in Volume 2 of “Geotechnical and Seismic Design Criteria Report for Parking Garages And Ancillary Facilities,” Report P0507- D425-RPT-GEO-002 Rev.0, June 26, 2006.

Supplemental discussions on faulting from 65% ED phase reports can be found in the sections of the reports listed in Table 3.2.


SEGMENT REPORT SECTIONS FIGURES/TABLES

Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 8.1 Figure 3; Table 3

Zone 1 8.1 Figure 4; Table 2




Below-grade Structures 3.2.1; 4.0 Plates 13 and 14Areas C2O2 and C2O3

Central Area Guideway -- -- --

Western Area Guideway -- -- --

Central Area-Stations*

Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary Engineering) 8 Figure 3; Table 6

Volume 2: Seismic (35% Preliminary Engineering)

All --

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSIONS ON FAULTING65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 3.2

* This report is a 35% Preliminary Engineering report but was not received for the 35% Project-wide Summary Geotechnical Report.

3.3 Seismic Design Criteria The SVRT Project Seismic Design Criteria state:

The higher from a site-specific 10% in 50-year probabilistic analysis ground motion or the median deterministic ground motions from the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras Faults maximum magnitude events shall be used in the design of bridges and revenue structures.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 7 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 8 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

Revenue structures are those whose structural integrity is necessary for continued operation of trains, and include aerial guideways, passenger stations, tunnels, portals, cut-and-cover subway structures, ventilation structures, and earth retaining structures.

The maximum magnitude events shall be as follows:

San Andreas - magnitude 8.0

Hayward - magnitude 7.25

Calaveras - magnitude 7.0

The design of the temporary excavation support structures of the SVRT Tunnel Segment [and other segments], erected for the construction of permanent structures, shall use a reduced design ground motion level based on the 10% in 10 year probabilistic ground motion with peak horizontal ground acceleration not less than 0.2g.

Two horizontal (fault normal [FN] and fault parallel [FP]) and vertical response spectra shall be developed.

3.4 Seismic Design Ground Motions The ground motions are subdivided into three spectra according to geography. The “North” and “Central” spectra are applicable to the Northern Area Guideway. The “South” spectra are applicable to the Central and Western Area Guideways. The spectra correspond to NEHRP soil type ‘D’ ground motions. In addition, NEHRP soil type ‘C’ spectra were also generated to account for differences between motions near the surface and at depth.

Adopting NEHRP soil type ‘D’ baseline, probabilistic and deterministic ground motion estimates were made for the free-field ground surface. Modifications of this baseline estimate were made as appropriate either to account for detailed knowledge of site-specific foundation conditions indicating departure from NEHRP soil type ‘D’ conditions at the ground surface, or to account for differences between surface motions and the depth of subsurface facilities.

Supplemental discussions on seismic design criteria and ground motions can be found in the sections of the Area Guideway and Area Station reports listed in Table 3.3.



Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 8.0 --

Zone 1 9.6 Figures 7 and 8

Zone 2 9.3 --

Zone 3 9.3 Figures 9 and 10

Zone 4 9.3 Figure 6

Below-grade Structures 4.0 --Areas C202, C203


Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2 -- --

Western Area Guideway Geotechnical Report Supplement 3.7 --


Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary Engineering) 8.0; 9.9 Figure 6; Table 7

Volume 2: Seismic (35% Preliminary Engineering) All --


SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSIONS ON


TABLE 3.3

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA AND GROUND MOTIONS

4.0 Hydrology

Discussion of Hydrology and Hydraulics from 65% ED reports are available for the Northern and Central Area Guideways:

“Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for Line A (65% Design- SVRT Line Segment Project),” Technical Memorandum P0502-D200-TM-HH-005, July 7, 2008.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 9 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 10 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

“Central Area Guideway Hydrogeology Report” Report PO503-D300-RPT-DE-020 Rev. 1, June 12, 2008.

4.1 Climate The climate in San Jose is characterized by warm, dry summers dominated by sea breezes, which are caused by the temperature difference between the ocean and the inland valleys. The winters are moderately wet, with large rainfalls usually associated with storms from the Pacific Northwest. The table below shows the mean monthly temperatures based on data obtained from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for 130 years of records from 1873 to 2004. The temperature data were recorded at Station E60 7821 000 located near the existing Civic Center at Hedding and 1st Streets in San Jose.

Table 4.1 Mean Monthly Temperature in San Jose (°F)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Avg 49.0 52.1 54.8 57.7 61.4 65.8 68.1 67.8 66.7 61.9 54.8 49.5

Max 57.7 59.0 61.5 63.9 70.6 76.1 73.6 74.4 72.9 67.2 60.8 57.9

Min 40.4 45.3 48.5 50.9 50.1 59.7 63.8 62.4 60.9 55.8 48.5 43.9

4.2 Precipitation

Precipitation over the drainage basins for the streams crossing the proposed SVRT alignment is highly variable. The average annual precipitation in downtown San Jose is approximately 14 inches, but may be as high as 44 inches in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which contribute to runoff in the Guadalupe River. The rainfall distribution for the Guadalupe River watershed is highly variable over the basins contributing to flooding for the SVRT Project.

Mean monthly precipitation is distributed as shown in the table below. Approximately 81% of the total annual rainfall occurs between November and March, with 94% occurring between October and April.

Table 4.2 Monthly Average Precipitation in Downtown San Jose Annual Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Percent of Average 100% 4.9% 10.7% 17.0%20.0%17.5%16.2%7.7% 3.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% 1.6%

Average in 14.32 0.70 1.53 2.44 2.86 2.51 2.32 1.10 0.46 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.23


inches

Percent of average annual precipitation in inches, period of record 1874-2004

5.0 Ground-Water Conditions The conceptual hydro-stratigraphy model along the Central Area Guideway consists of the layers mentioned below, defined from ground surface downward. This general model is considered to be representative of the entire SVRT project alignment with slight localized variations:

• Confining Layer. Composed of clays and silts, with some ancient channels of sand. The

pervious channels are most common near Guadalupe River and Los Gatos Creek. The layer thickness varies from 50 to 80 ft at the Central Area Station locations.

• Upper Aquifer. Composed of silty sand, sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel. It includes intersecting and coalescing channels of varying thickness and differing permeability. The top of this unit varies from 50 to 80 ft below ground surface.

• Major Aquitard. Primarily clays and silts, but can include deposits of sand and silty sand. The top of this unit may be approximately 80 to 150 ft below ground surface (about 110 to 150 ft at the station locations).

• Lower Aquifer. Zone of major groundwater withdrawals, composed of sand and gravel deposits with intervening clay and silt layers. The top of this unit may be about 200 to 250 ft below ground surface. The thickness may be approximately 800 ft or more.

Supplemental discussions on ground water conditions can be found in the sections of the Area Guideways reports listed in Table 5.1.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 11 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 12 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A


Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 7.0 Table 2

Zone 1 7.0; Appendix D Table 1

Zone 2 7.0 Table 1

Zone 3 7.0 Table 1

Zone 4 7.0 --

Below-grade Structures 3.4 Plates 6 throughAreas C2O2 and C2O3 12; Tables 3

and 4

Central Area Guideway Hydrogeology Report Rev. 1


Geotechnical Report Supplement (August 29, 2008) 2.1.3; 2.4 --


Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary Engineering) 7.0 --

TABLE 5.1


GROUND WATER CONDITIONS SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL DISCUSSIONS ON


6.0 Field Investigations 6.1 General The scope of the 65% Engineering Design field investigations consisted of drilling geotechnical sampled borings, carrying out cone penetration probes, determination of shear wave velocity profiles, installation and development of monitoring wells, slug tests, installation of vibrating wire piezometers, installation and development of wells to carry out pumping tests, and a trial grouting test. Table 6.1 lists the names of the various subcontractors that carried out the field and laboratory investigations.


SEGMENT SUBCONTRACTOR SCOPE

Parikh Consultants Project geotechnical consultants; laboratory testingKleinfelder Geotechnical consultingPitcher Drilling Co. Borings, monitoring well installationGregg Drilling & Testing Cone penetration testingAccess Soil Drilling BoringsIntegrated Waste Management Spoil disposalOfiaro Co. BoringsSunland Analytical Chemical testingUniversity of California at Berkeley (UCB) Cyclic shear testingConeTec Cone penetration testingExploration Geoservices Borings

Parikh Consultants Field and laboratory investigations, field logs and coordination

Fugro West Cone penetration testing; laboratory testingPitcher Drilling Co. Drilling servicesURS Corporation Field engineering oversights; well developmentJDH Consultants Chemical and corrosion analysesIntegrated West Management Processing investigation-derived wasteABE Engineering SPT hammer calibrationsSGI Testing Services Laboratory testsShannon & Wilson, Inc. Laboratory testsCooper Testing Laboratory Laboratory testsPraad Geotechnical Laboratory testsSINTEF Laboratory testsUni. of Texas at Austin - Geotech Lab. Laboratory testsJensen Drilling Company Test well installationRain for Rent Settling tanksBoart Longyear Exploratory borings and monitoring wellsCVC Environmental Piezometers, monitoring wellsClear Water Environmental Mgmt Tanks, waste disposalURS Corporation Detailed logsTowill SurveyingLocus Technology Water samplingCal. Science Environmental Water quality testing

ENGEO, Incorporated Project geotechnical consultants; laboratory testingPitcher Drilling Co. Drilling servicesJohn Sarmiento & Assoc. Cone penetration testing

Parikh Consultants Project geotechnical consultants; laboratory testingPitcher Drilling Co. Drilling servicesSunland Analytical Chemical testingExploration Geoservices Drilling servicesIntegrated Waste Management Spoil disposal

TABLE 6.1

FIELD AND LABORATORY SUBCONTRACTORS



Central Area Stations*


Western

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 13 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 14 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

6.2 Borings and CPTs Table 6.2 summarizes the number of borings and CPT probes carried out during the 65% studies. Reports prepared by the Areas contain summary tables documenting locations, coordinates, depths and tests performed. These tables are contained in Annex 2. Boring Logs and CPT traces are presented in sheets, figures and pages of the reports listed in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. Drilling and cone penetration test methodologies are presented in the reports sections summarized in Tables 6.5 and 6.6.

SEGMENT REPORT BORINGS CPTs

Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 14 --

Zone 1 5 --

Zone 2 2 --

Zone 3 3 --

Zone 4 -- --

Below-grade Structures Area C2O2 1 6

Below-grade Structures Area C2O3 1 6


Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2

19 Conventional, 6

Sonic

25 Conventional, 12 Seismic


Geotechnical Report Supplement 7 3


Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary

Engineering)31 --

TABLE 6.2

NUMBER OF BORINGS AND CPTs 65% ENGINEERING DESIGN



REPORT TEXT,SEGMENT REPORT APPENDIX SHEETS, FIGURES, PAGES

Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation A Sheets 1 through 24; Sheets 1

through 16

Zone 1 A Sheets 1 through 3; (1)

Zone 2 A No numbering

Zone 3 A Sheets 1 through 3; Sheets 1through 4

Zone 4A

Sheets 1 through 5; Sheets 1 through 8

Below-grade Structures A --Areas C2O2 and C2O3


Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2 1 Section 3.2; Table 3-1; Fig 3-1;

Figures 5-1 through 5-43


Geotechnical Report Supplement A Table on Page 2-1; Figures 2

through 5

Central Area Stations*

Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary Engineering) A Text Section 5.0

(1) 4 Boring Logs from 2008 investigations

BORING LOGS AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 6.3


P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 15 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 16 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

REPORTSEGMENT REPORT APPENDIX TEXT, TABLES


Below-grade Structures Areas C2O2 and C2O3 B-2 --


Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2 2, 3 Table 3-2; Sections

3.3.2.3 and 3.3.3.3


Geotechnical Report Supplement B Table on Page 2-1;

Figures 3 through 5

CPT LOCATIONS AND TRACES65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 6.4


SEGMENT REPORT SECTIONS

Northern Area Guideway Freight Railroad Relocation 5.0; 9.2

Zone 1 5.0

Zone 2 5.0

Zone 3 5.0

Zone 4 5.0

Below-grade Structures --Areas C2O2 and C2O3

Central Area Guideway Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2 3.2

Western Area Guideway Geotechnical Report Supplement 2.1.1; Appendix A

Central Area Stations* Volume 1: Geotechnical (35% Preliminary Engineering) 5.0

BORINGS: EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION AND TEST METHODS65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 6.5


P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 17 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 18 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

SEGMENT REPORT SECTIONS


Below-grade Structures Areas C2O2 and C2O3 Appendix B-2


Geotechnical Data Report Phase 2 3.3


Geotechnical Report Supplement 2.1.2 and Appendix B

CPTs: EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND TEST METHODS--65% ENGINEERING DESIGN

TABLE 6.6

6.3 Geophysical Surveys Twelve Down-hole shear wave velocities were obtained at locations within the Central Area Guideway with a Seismic Cone Penetration Test probe. Locations are listed and shown in Section 3.3.3.3 and Figure 3-1 of Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-004, respectively. Test equipment, procedures and results are documented in Sections 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2 and Appendix 3, respectively, of the same report.

6.4 Monitoring Wells and Slug Test Wells Purpose, locations and construction details of 30 monitoring wells within the Central Area Guideway are documented in the Pumping Test Data Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-005.

Sections 4.2 and 5.3.2 of Report P0503-D300-RPT-DE-020 provide construction details of the wells prepared for the Slug tests. Test results are included in Table 5-3 of the same report.

6.5 Vibrating Wire Piezometers Purpose and locations within the Central Area Guideway, and construction details of 36 Slope Indicator piezometers are described in Section 4.3 of Report P0503-D300-RPT-DE-020 and in more detail in Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-005.

Purpose and location within the Western Area Guideway of one piezometer are presented in Section 2.1.3 and Figure 2 of Report PO504-D400-RPT-DE-008


6.6 Pumping Tests Data from the six pumping tests carried out within the Central Area Guideway are presented in Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-005.

6.7 Grouting Trial The primary objective of the Central Area Guideway grout trial performed at the VTA’s Newhall Yard near the tunnel West Portal was to establish and document whether granular soils, representative of those along the tunnel alignment, can be effectively grouted using permeation grouting techniques. The scope of the grout trial included the following:

• A cored borehole used for identification of potential testing horizons

• Multiple grout holes equipped with sleeve-port grout pipe for testing

• Grouting of selected testing horizons

• Testing of ultra-fine cement grout and sodium silicate, including tests of uniaxial compressive strength

• Recording of grout flow rates, effective pressures and apparent Lugeon values

• Cored boreholes and Lugeon testing for verification

The results of the grout trial have been presented in the following Central Area Guideway reports:

• Cross Passages Ground Treatment – Grout Trial: Data Report

P0503-D300-RPT-DE-051, Rev. A

• Cross Passages Ground Treatment – Grout Trial: Interpretive Report

P0503-D300-RPT-DE-052, Rev. A

7.0 Laboratory Investigations Laboratory test programs were carried out with samples collected during 65% Engineering Design field investigation to provide laboratory test data additional to those obtained in the 35% Preliminary Engineering phase. Table 6.1 in the previous section listed the names of the various subcontractors that carried out the field and the laboratory investigations.

Table 7.1 shows the various types of tests classified according to their nature: Index, Strength, Compressibility, Chemical and Specialty tests.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 19 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 20 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

Classification Sieve analysisMoisture control HydrometerUnit weight Minus N.200 sieveAtterberg limits Moisture/density relationshipSpecific gravity

Unconfined compressionUnconsolidated Undrained triaxialStatic direct simple shear"R" valueDirect shear (conventional) Direct shear (large scale shear box)

One-dimensional consolidation

CorrosionWater quality

Central Area Guideway, 65% Geotechnical Data Report: Cyclic simple shear: Strain-rate influence Maximum and minimum density Sticky limit Soil Abrasion Mineralogy

Central Area Stations Report, Volume 2: Sample quality evaluation with x-ray photography Cyclic triaxial tests Cyclic simple shear: Volumetric strain

*Results presented in Appendices to the several Area Guideway Reports.

7.3 Compressibility Tests*

7.4 Chemical Tests*

7.5 Specialty Tests

TABLE 7.1

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAMS

7.1 Index Tests*

7.2 Strength Tests*


The Area Guideways presented the test results in appendices. Annex 3 contains copies of the tables of content of the appendices in the Area Guideways reports where description of the samples tested and the tests results can be found. Tests procedures are summarized below.

7.1 Classification and Index Tests Classification and index testing consisted of laboratory visual classification of soils and a suite of tests, including moisture content, unit weight, specific gravity, sieve analyses, sieve and hydrometer analyses, materials finer than No. 200 sieve, and Atterberg Limits.

7.1.1 Laboratory Visual Classification Laboratory classification of soils was carried out in general accordance with ASTM D2487, Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM D2488, Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).

Field classifications were adjusted based on laboratory visual classifications and supplemented with laboratory testing.

7.1.2 Moisture Content

Moisture content tests were carried out on selected portions of samples from each boring so that values representative of each soil type could be determined. The testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D2216, Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures.

7.1.3 Unit Weight Unit weight tests were carried out on selected portions of the samples from each boring so that values representative of each soil type could be determined. The tests were performed in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Engineer Manual", EM 1110-2-1906 (1970).

7.1.4 Atterberg Limits The Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index were determined in accordance with ASTM D4318, Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

7.1.5 Specific Gravity Tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D854, Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils.

7.1.6 Sieve Analysis

All sieve analysis tests of soils were carried out in accordance with ASTM D422, Standard Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. As applicable, test results included percentage by weight finer than each of the ASTM Sieves 3 in., 2 in., 1-1/2 in., 1 in., 3/4 in., 1/2 in., 3/8 in., No. 4, No. 10, No. 20, No. 40, No. 60, No. 100, and No. 200 for each sample tested.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 21 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 22 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

7.1.7 Sieve and Hydrometer Analyses Combined sieve and hydrometer analyses were performed on a limited number of fine-grained and coarse-grained samples. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D422, Standard Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.

7.1.8 Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve The determination of the total amount of material in soils finer than the No. 200 Sieve was performed in accordance with ASTM D1140, Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve.

7.1.9 Moisture/Density (Laboratory Compaction) Tests were performed on representative bulk samples recovered from the borings. Tests were done in general conformance with ASTM D 1557-02.

7.2 Strength Tests 7.2.1 Unconfined Compression

Strength tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples using uni-axial compression loading equipment. Tests were performed in general agreement with ASTM Test Method D2166-91.

7.2.2 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

Tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples. Tests were done following ASTM Test Method D 2850-03a.

7.2.3 Static Direct Simple Shear

Static Direct Simple Shear (DSS) tests were conducted to measure constant volume (undrained) shear strength and stress-strain characteristics of the clays at depths corresponding to the bottom of cut-and cover station boxes.

All DSS tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D6528. The test specimens were taken from relatively undisturbed x-rayed Shelby Tubes and tested for general index properties such as unit weight, moisture content, and Atterberg Limits.

7.2.4 “R” Values

“R” Value tests were performed on representative bulk samples recovered from the borings. Tests followed ASTM D 2844-01.


7.3 Compressibility Tests 7.3.1 Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) consolidation tests were conducted on clayey specimens to determine the rate and total compressibility, and the stress history of the tested materials. The tests provided data on the load versus strain behavior and the coefficient of consolidation of the soils. The consolidation test data were utilized to estimate pre-consolidation stress using various methods reported in Section 8 of the GDR.

All CRS consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4186. The test specimens were taken from x-rayed thin-wall Shelby Tubes and tested for general index properties such as unit weight, moisture content, and Atterberg Limits.

7.4 Chemical Tests 7.4.1 Corrosion Both soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for chemical analyses to identify the presence or absence of potentially corrosive substances that could affect underground structures. Test procedures followed CA DOT Test # 643 (pH and resistivity); CA DOT Test # 417 (Sulphate) and CA DOT Test # 422 (Chloride).

7.4.2 Water Quality Ground water quality tests were performed during 65% ED for pumping test discharge permits. A summary of testing performed can be found in Appendix J of the “Central Area Guideway Pumping Test Data Report,” Report P0503-D300-RPT-GEO-005 and Table 5-7 of the “Central Area Guideway 65% Hydrogeology Report,” Report P0503-D300-RPT-DE-020.

7.5 Specialty Geotechnical Tests

Specialty geotechnical testing consisted of cyclic simple shear tests to determine volume changes after liquefaction of silty sands; maximum/minimum index densities of sandy and gravelly soils; conventional and large scale direct shear tests to determine effective strength parameters of sands and gravels; sticky limit to estimate adhesive properties of high-plasticity clays; sample quality evaluation by X-ray photography; cyclic triaxial to determine cyclic strength of sandy materials, and cyclic simple shear to find the influence of test-rate on the modulus reduction and damping ratio variation with cyclic strain.

7.5.1 Cyclic Simple Shear for Volumetric Strain Determination Cyclic simple shear testing was carried out on saturated undrained specimens to evaluate the potential vertical settlement that might be expected following seismic loading along a portion of the alignment. Testing was carried out at the University of California, Berkeley. After extrusion from the sample tubes and set in the test device the specimens were saturated and consolidated under a Ko condition. Following consolidation to the desired testing stress, the specimens were sheared under stress-controlled undrained conditions at a frequency of 1 Hz. Recorded data included the shear load, shear deformation, vertical load, 3 measures of vertical deformation, and the excess pore water pressure generated within the specimen.

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 23 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 24 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

One of the primary goals of the investigation was to assess the degree of settlement or one- dimensional volumetric strain that would take place following liquefaction of the soils. To measure this, an additional reconsolidation test was performed after the completion of the cyclic

test. This consisted of first returning the specimen back to its original lateral position without allowing drainage. Once in position, the applied loads were unchanged and the drainage valve was opened to allow excess pore water pressure to dissipate. Both vertical height and volume changes were measured.

7.5.2 Maximum and Minimum Dry Densities Maximum and minimum index density tests were performed on sand and gravel samples prior to performing the direct shear tests by Cooper and SGI, respectively. For test specimens (3) at Cooper, gravel size particles retained on No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve were removed. For test specimens (3) at SGI, particles retained on 1.25-inch sieve were removed. The maximum index density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4253, Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. The minimum index density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4254, Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density.

7.5.3 Direct Shear (Conventional) Direct shear tests were performed on sand samples to measure the drained shear strength parameters, friction angle (φ’) and cohesion (c’). The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3080, Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions.

Three (3) disturbed sand samples were collected from borings performed for the pumping test program. The samples were then transported to Cooper Laboratories for testing. Maximum and Minimum index density tests and sieve analyses were performed on the samples before performing direct shear tests. A total of 27 initial direct shear tests were performed: three (3) samples at three (3) relative densities under (3) confining pressures. Two additional tests are in the process of being performed for one sample at two different confining pressures. Gravel size particles greater than 4.75 mm were sieved out from the specimens to eliminate boundary effects of test apparatus. Each specimen was prepared by compacting to a specified relative density ranging from 65 % to 95 % based on the minimum and maximum densities determined. The specimen was then subjected to a specified surcharge pressure before testing at a constant rate of strain. It should be noted that one of the samples (MW-6K) yielded a fines content greater than 15%, thus invalidating the maximum density. Thus, the relative density values for this sample will be biased and therefore correlations between relative density and strength should not be used.

Additionally, one (1) disturbed sand sample obtained using Modified California sampler was also shipped to Cooper Laboratories to perform three (3) direct shear tests at different normal pressures.


7.5.4 Large Scale Direct Shear Larger scale direct shear tests were performed on gravel samples to measure the drained shear strength parameters, friction angle (φ’) and cohesion (c’). The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3080. The difference between conventional and large-scale direct shear tests is the size of the test specimens. The test specimens in large-scale direct shear tests were 1-foot square in cross-section and 5 inches thick. The larger specimen size allowed the testing of gravel size particle up to 1.25 inches.

Testing of specimens containing larger than 1.25 inches gravel size particles is not conventionally performed in United States.

Three (3) disturbed gravel samples (approximately 100 pounds) from the borings performed for the pumping test program were transported to SGI Laboratories for testing. Maximum/Minimum index density tests, and sieve analyses were performed on the samples before performing 11 direct shear tests. Each specimen was prepared by compacting to a specified relative density ranging from 65 % to 95 %. The specimen was then subjected to a specified surcharge pressure before testing at constant rate of strain.

7.5.5 Sticky Limit High plasticity (fat) clays are expected to adhere or stick to metal surfaces under certain conditions of plasticity and water content, thus affecting tunneling and excavation operations. To estimate the phenomenon, the concept of adhesion or sticky limit has been introduced and is defined as the lowest water content at which soil adheres to metal tools. The test is not standardized by the ASTM and is uncommon in typical geotechnical applications. The tests were performed following the procedure developed by Shannon and Wilson, Inc, (S&W).

A total of 15 samples from the 35% PE and Phase 2 65% Engineering Design investigations that classified as lean and fat clay visually and/or by laboratory tests were sent to S&W who also determined Atterberg Limits. Lean clay samples were included for comparison with fat clays.

7.5.6 Sample Quality Evaluation with X-Ray Photography

Relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples were sent to Praad Geotechnical/UCLA in Los Angeles and Fugro Geosciences in Houston, Texas. Six (6) sealed Shelby Tubes were shipped by car to Praad and UCLA, and three (3) were shipped via air to Fugro in specially fabricated, padded containers designed to minimize disturbance of the samples and that maintained the tubes in a vertical position. The soil samples sent to Fugro consisted of silty sand to clayey sand, and sandy silt to sandy lean clay. The Shelby tubes received by Fugro were X-rayed to determine the availability and quality of the material inside the tubes. Interpretation of soils using X-ray radiographs were performed in accordance with ASTM D4452, Methods for X-Ray Radiography of Soil Samples, with the slight modifications.

7.5.7 Cyclic Triaxial Compression Shear Tests

Nine cyclic triaxial shear tests were performed on silty or clayey sand to sandy silt to sandy lean clay samples to evaluate their resistance to cyclic shear stresses. The tests were performed in

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 25 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 26 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

general accordance with ASTM D 5311, Standard Test Method for Load Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Strength of Soil.

Prior to consolidation under isotropic conditions, test specimens were water-saturated. Each specimen was then subjected to sinusoidally varying axial loading at a specified cyclic stress ratio. Pore water pressures generated under undrained conditions during the tests were recorded.

7.5.8 Cyclic Simple Shear Test to Determine Strain Rate Influence

Monotonic and cyclic simple shear tests were performed on clay samples to measure the rate of straining effect on the undrained cyclic shear strength. Index and classification tests: natural moisture content, unit weight, Atterberg Limits and fine contents were also performed on the samples.

To increase saturation levels, the soil samples were soaked for 24 to 48 hours under a vertical stress corresponding to the in-situ vertical stresses. However, equipment limitations did not permit to fully saturate the specimens under backpressure. For this reason, the validity of the results is questionable and they should not be taken into consideration for design purposes.


P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 27 12/3/2008 Rev. A



ANNEX 1

SVRT PROJECT ALIGNMENT

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002

ANNEX 2

TABLES SUMMARIZING SCOPE OF WORK OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS (BORINGS AND CPTs 65% ENGINEERING DESIGN)

Table A2-1

Rev. A


Table A2-2 Summary of Exploratory Borehole Program Central Area Guideway, 65% Engineering Design

Boring Station

Depth (ft) (ft) (ft) R/L

BH-101 6/4/2007 52.5 564+38 22 L Portal RW Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.BH-82 6/18/2007 92.5 570+08 22 L Portal RW Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.

No borings performed. Tunnel

BH-83 8/28/2007 200.0 599+84 26 R Station S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.BH-84 7/16/2007 207.5 603+12 148 L Station RW Explore deeper strata.BH-85 7/10/2007 202.5 606+32 51 L Station RW Explore deeper strata. Define sand layer at El. +10. MW location.BH-86 7/31/2007 190.0 609+08 83 R Station S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.

BH-87 7/20/2007 201.5 648+42 103 L Tunnel RW Explore deeper strata near proposed vent structure.BH-88 6/18/2007 112.5 645+03 66 R Tunnel RW Obtain info for potential southern tunnel alignment at Coyote Creek.

BH-89 6/8/2007 201.5 693+74 72 R Station RW Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.BH-90 6/15/2007 211.5 699+59 16 L Station RW Explore deeper strata.BH-105 6/23/2007 51.5 701+51 2 R Station RW Investigate for liquefaction at 1st St.BH-104 10/4/2007 200.0 703+72 78 R Station S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.BH-91 6/22/2007 196.5 704+16 13 L Station RW Explore deeper strata.

No borings performed. Tunnel

BH-92 11/17/2007 200.0 736+62 35 R Station S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.BH-93 6/27/2007 211.5 738+61 84 L Station RW Station entrances and deeper stratigraphy.BH-94 8/10/2007 200.0 741+61 82 R Station S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.

BH-81** 7/22/2005 150.5 789+62 19 L Tunnel RW Explore deeper strata for stratigraphy and perform vibration monitoring.BH-95 7/24/2007 101.5 774+14 49 R Tunnel RW Unexplored length of tunnel alignment.BH-102 6/25/2007 80.0 796+49 19 L Tunnel RW Explore deeper strata for stratigraphy and grain size info.BH-103 6/27/2007 90.5 798+17 19 L Tunnel RW Explore deeper strata for stratigraphy and grain size info.BH-106 6/27/2007 90.0 800+21 31 L Tunnel RW Explore deeper strata for stratigraphy and grain size info.

BH-96 9/12/2007 135.0 831+98 5 R Portal S Explore deeper strata and obtain info for pumping test program.BH-97 6/11/2007 91.5 833+53 6 R Portal RW Obtain info where portal moved north.BH-98 7/3/2007 61.5 836+41 42 R Portal RW Obtain info where portal moved north.BH-99 6/29/2007 81.5 838+21 9 L Portal RW Obtain info where portal moved north.

BH-100*** 7/3/2007 41.5 842+89 15 L Portal RW Obtain info where portal moved north.Note: Stations and offsets based on the April 25, 2008 S1 track alignment.* RW = Rotary Wash Boring, S = Sonic Boring. Sonic boring logs are included in the Pumping Tests Data Report (HMM/Bechtel, 2008).** BH-81 was completed near the end of 35% design phase and therefore could not be included in the 35% GDR. Information from BH-81 is included in this Phase Two - 65% Engineering Design - Geotechnical Data Report. *** Stationing for BH-100 shown is based on Western Area Guideway alignment stationing (outside of Central Area Guideway alignment stationing).

West Portal

Crossover/Downtown Station

Tunnel from Crossover/Downtown Station to Diridon/Arena Station

Diridon/Arena Station

Tunnel from Diridon/Arena Station to West Portal

East Portal

Tunnel from East Portal to Alum Rock Station

Alum Rock Station

Tunnel from Alum Rock Station to Crossover/Downtown Station

Exploration Offset Structure Type PurposeRW or S* Completion

Date

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


Table A2 –2 B Summary of Exploratory Cone Penetration Testing Program Central Area Guideway, 65% Engineering Design

CPT Station Depth (ft) (ft) (ft) R/L

CPT-158 04/03/07 45.0 562+47.2 30.3 L Portal Y Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.CPT-159 04/04/07 45.4 563+47.5 29.3 L Portal N Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.CPT-160 04/04/07 45.4 565+38.8 36.8 L Portal N Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.CPT-161 04/03/07 105.0 568+89.3 26.0 L Portal Y Obtain info where portal and alignment shifted north and east.

No CPTs performed. Tunnel

CPT-162 08/13/07 73.2 600+71.5 139.5 L Station Y Obtain additional deeper info on soil stratigraphy.CPT-172 08/16/07 113.4 607+63.3 65.5 R Station Y Obtain additional info at station entrance location.

CPT-163 03/31/07 95.1 636+29.4 181.7 L Tunnel N Obtain info for potential southern tunnel alignment at Coyote Creek.CPT-164 03/28/07 86.0 639+53.6 203.5 L Tunnel N Obtain info for potential southern tunnel alignment at Coyote Creek.CPT-165 08/16/07 77.4 642+20.2 205.4 L Tunnel Y Obtain info for potential southern tunnel alignment at Coyote Creek.CPT-166 03/29/07 89.2 649+27.5 193.6 L Tunnel N Obtain info for potential southern tunnel alignment at Coyote Creek.

No CPTs performed. Station

CPT-167 04/02/07 90.7 701+08.6 10.8 R Station Y Investigate for liquefaction at 1st St.CPT-169 08/17/07 85.4 706+79.2 145.1 L Station Y Obtain additional info at station entrance location.

No CPTs performed. Tunnel

CPT-168 04/05/07 149.9 734+51.2 100 L Station Y Obtain additional deeper info on soil stratigraphy.CPT-179 08/14/07 115.5 740+58.3 109 L Station Y Obtain additional info at station entrance location.

CPT-170 03/30/07 43.7 793+76.9 48.2 R Tunnel N Investigate deeper stretch of alignment along Taylor St. CPT-171 03/30/07 74.8 794+95.9 41.8 R Tunnel Y Investigate deeper stretch of alignment along Taylor St.

CPT-173 03/29/07 38.4 828+05.7 91.3 L Portal Y Investigate stretch of alignment with limited data.CPT-173A 03/31/07 33.8 828+02.5 92.6 L Portal N Investigate stretch of alignment with limited data.CPT-173B 03/31/07 81.5 828+00.0 94.9 L Portal N Investigate stretch of alignment with limited data.CPT-174 03/31/07 55.6 834+47.1 20.8 L Portal Y Obtain info where portal moved north.

CPT-174A 03/31/07 33.8 834+50.1 20.8 L Portal N Obtain info where portal moved north.CPT-175 03/28/07 80.5 835+67.9 20.0 L Portal N Obtain info where portal moved north.CPT-176 03/28/07 45.5 837+51.4 16.4 L Portal N Obtain info where portal moved north.CPT-177 03/30/07 45.5 838+85.9 18.7 L Portal N Obtain info where portal moved north.CPT-178* 03/29/07 45.5 841+50.2 15.4 L Portal N Obtain info where portal moved north.

Note: Stations and offsets based on the April 25, 2008 S1 track alignment.* Stationing shown is based on Western Area Guideway alignment stationing (outside of Central Area Guideway alignment stationing).

Tunnel from Diridon/Arena Station to West Portal

West Portal

Crossover

Downtown Station (Note: See below; additional CPTs planned based on finalized station entrance locations)

Tunnel from Crossover/Downtown Station to Diridon/Arena Station

Diridon/Arena Station

East Portal

Tunnel from East Portal to Alum Rock Station

Alum Rock Station

Tunnel from Alum Rock Station to Crossover/Downtown Station

Exploration Offset Structure Type

Seismic Cone?

Completion Date Purpose

12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A


TABLE A2-3Western Area Guideway Boring and CPT Numbers and Depths, 65% Engineering Design

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

TABLE A2-4Number of Borings and LocationsCentral Area Stations

Montague/Capitol Station: three borings (100 feet) for the parking garage and two borings (10 feet) for Milpitas Blvd. extension.

Berryessa Station: three borings (100 feet) for the parking garage, three borings (10 feet) for the planned Berryessa Station Way (accessing from Mabury Road), and one boring (100 feet) for the roadway bridge at Upper Penitencia Creek.

Alum Rock Station: three borings (100 feet) for the parking garage, three borings (10-15 feet) for widening of N. 28th Street, and two borings (10 feet) for the parking lot.

Diridon/Arena Station: three borings (100 feet) for the parking garage, and two borings (100 feet) for the pedestrian bridge crossing Santa Clara Street.

Santa Clara Station: two borings (100 feet) for the pedestrian bridge crossing Caltrain/JPB, and four borings (10 feet) for parking lot next to Brokaw Road.


ANNEX 3

COPIES OF THE APPENDICES’ TABLES OF CONTENTS DOCUMENTING FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

65% Engineering Design Phase

Annex Pages

1. Northern Area Guideway A3-1 through A3-6

2. Central Area Guideway A3-7

3. Western Area Guideway A3-8

4. Central Area Stations A3-9

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

1. Northern Area Guideway

65% Design - Geotechnical Data Report for Freight Railroad Relocation

A3-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Site Plans for HDD Installation Logs of Test Borings for HDD Installation APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Test Results* APPENDIX C Additional Boring Program (2008) Request of Additional Geotechnical Borings for HDD Installation (January 25, 2008) *See also Section 9.6 of the text

A3-2

65% Design—Zone 1 (Sta. 45+00 to 115+00) Geotechnical Report

APPENDIX A Exploratory Borehole Program Geotechnical Site Plans (Zone 1—Sta. 45+00 to 115+00) Logs of Test Borings (Zone 1) APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Test Results*


Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests R-value Tests Compaction Tests pH of Lime Treated Material

* See also Section 9.12 and Table 5 of the text

A3-3

65% Design—Zone 2 (Sta. 115+00 to 175+00) Geotechnical Report

APPENDIX A Exploratory Borehole Program Geotechnical Site Plans (Zone 2—Sta. 115+00 to 175+00) Logs of Test Borings (Zone 2) APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Test Results* Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests R-value Tests Compaction Tests pH of Lime Treated Material *See also Section 9.9 and Table 5 of the text

A3-4 65% Design—Zone 3 (Sta. 175+00 to 215+00) Geotechnical Report

APPENDIX A Exploratory Borehole Program Geotechnical Site Plans (Zone 3—Sta. 175+00 to 215+00) Logs of Test Borings (Zone 3) APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Tests*

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests R-value Tests Compaction Tests pH of Lime Treated Material *See also Section 9.9 and Table 5 of the text

A3-5

65% Design—Zone 4 (Sta. 215+00 to 329+00) Geotechnical Report APPENDIX A Exploratory Borehole Program Geotechnical Site Plans (Zone 4—Sta. 215+00 to 329+00) Logs of Test Borings (Zone 4) Cone Penetration Test Data (SCPT – 49, CPT – 53, 58, 61,62, 63) APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Test Results Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests R-value Tests Compaction Tests

A3-6 Geotechnical Design Report Below-Grade Structures Areas C202 and C203 Phase two 65% Engineering Design Phase APPENDICES A Log of Test Boring (LOTB) Sheets with Geotechnical Site Plans by Parikh Consultants B-2 CPT Data Report from 65% Engineering Design Phase by Gregg In Situ, Inc. C-2 Laboratory Test Results from 65% Engineering Design Phase by Parikh Consultants D Summary Plots of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Data E Report of Cyclic Simple Shear Testing by University of California at Berkeley


2. Central Area Guideway

A3-7 Geotechnical Design Report 65% Engineering Design Investigation Appendix 1: Log of Borings Appendix 2: Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Results Appendix 3: Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) Results Appendix 4: Parikh Laboratory Classification Tests Appendix 5: Fugro Laboratory Dynamic Tests Appendix 6: SGI Testing Services Large-Scale Shear Box Tests Appendix 7: Shannon and Wilson Laboratory Sticky Limit Tests Appendix 8: Cooper Testing Laboratory Direct Shear Tests Appendix 9: Praad Geotechnical/UCLA Consolidation and Dynamic Tests 3. Western Area Guideway

A3-8

Yard & Shops PO504-D400-RPT-DE-008 Geotechnical Report-Supplement 65% Engineering Design Phase APPENDIX A –ENGEO Incorporated, Logs of Borings

APPENDIX B – John Sarmiento and Associates, Cone Penetration Test Data APPENDIX C—ENGEO Incorporated, Laboratory Test Results

• Natural Unit Weight and Moisture Content • Unconfined Compressive Strength • Atterberg Limits • Grain Size Distribution • Consolidation

P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 12/3/2008 Rev. A


12/3/2008 P0501-D300-RPT-GE-002 Rev. A

• Triaxial Compression • Direct Shear

4. Central Area Stations

A3-9 Final Geotechnical and Seismic Design Criteria Report (Vol. 1—Geotechnical) 35% Preliminary Engineering

APPENDIX A Geotechnical Site Plans, Logs of Test Borings and Existing Soil Boring Data of Montague/Capitol Station Site Berryessa Station Site Alum Rock Station Site Diridon/Arena Station Site Santa Clara Station Site APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Plasticity Chart Gradation Distribution Curves Corrosion Test Results Consolidation Tests Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests R-Value Tests

project-wide geotechnical summary report – 65% engineering

Documents