Dingee Reservoir Final Seismic Report - East Bay Municipal Utility ...

Seismic Stability Evaluation Report 

Dingee Reservoir Dam 

Oakland, California 

August 2008 

Materials Engineering Section 

Engineering & Construction Department 

East Bay Municipal Utility District




August 2008 

Materials Engineering Section 

Engineering & Construction Department 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 

Yogesh Prashar, P.E., G.E. 

Associate Civil Engineer 

Atta B. Yiadom, P.E. 

Senior Civil Engineer




Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................- 1 - 

1.1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ - 1 - 

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................................... - 1 - 

1.3 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION...................................................................................................................... - 1 - 

1.4 PROJECT TEAM....................................................................................................................................... - 1 - 

1.4.1 District Staff......................................................................................................................................- 1 - 

1.4.2 Consultants .......................................................................................................................................- 2 - 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................- 3 - 

2.1 SITE SETTING ......................................................................................................................................... - 3 - 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIR AND DAM ................................................................................................. - 3 - 

2.3 RESERVOIR OUTLET AND DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................... - 4 - 

2.3.1 Emergency Spillway Structure..........................................................................................................- 4 - 

2.3.2 Reservoir Lining ...............................................................................................................................- 4 - 

2.3.3 Surface Drainage Facilities..............................................................................................................- 4 - 

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................- 5 - 

3.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION...................................................................................................... - 5 - 

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. - 5 - 

3.2.1 Previous Investigations.....................................................................................................................- 5 - 

3.2.2 Subsurface Investigation for This Study............................................................................................- 6 - 

3.2.3 Dam Surveillance Instrumentation ...................................................................................................- 7 - 

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................................... - 9 - 

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND GROUND MOTIONS STUDIES .........................................................................- 10 - 

4.1 GEOLOGIC STUDY ................................................................................................................................-10- 

4.2 GROUND MOTION STUDY..................................................................................................................... - 10 - 

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................- 11 - 

6.0 DAM MATERIAL PROPERTIES.......................................................................................................- 12 - 

6.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................................................. - 12 - 

6.2 CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTS ..................................................................................................... - 12 - 

6.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL/LOSS OF SHEAR STRENGTH....................................................................... - 13 - 

6.4 SHEAR STRENGTH ................................................................................................................................-14- 

6.4.1 Effective Shear Strength Failure Envelope.....................................................................................- 14 - 

6.4.2 Total Shear Strength Failure Envelope ..........................................................................................- 14 - 

7.0 STABILITY EVALUATIONS..............................................................................................................- 16 - 

7.1 GENERAL APPROACH TO EVALUATION ................................................................................................ - 16 - 

7.2 DAM PROFILE AND CROSS-SECTION..................................................................................................... - 16 - 

7.3 LONG-TERM STATIC STABILITY ........................................................................................................... - 17 - 

7.4 SHORT-TERM SEISMIC STABILITY ........................................................................................................ - 17 - 

7.4.1 Yield Acceleration Evaluation ........................................................................................................- 18 - 

7.4.2 Earthquake-Induced Newmark Displacements...............................................................................- 19 - 

7.5 SHORT-TERM RAPID DRAWDOWN STABILITY...................................................................................... - 20 - 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF DAM PERFORMANCE....................................................- 21 - 

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................- 22 - 

Seismic Stability Evaluation Report - i - 

Dingee Reservoir Dam August 2008




Tables 

Table 1 Boring Logs Summary Data Table 

Table 2A Laboratory Index Tests and Results Location 

Table 2B Laboratory Shear Strength Tests and Results Location 

Table 3 Average of the Index Test Results 

Table 4A Effective Shear Strength Parameters 

Table 4B Total Shear Strength Parameters 

Table 5 Long-Term Static Slope Stability Analysis Results – Factors of Safety 

Table 6 Seismic Slope Stability Analysis Results (Water El = 768 ft) Factor of Safety 

Table 7 Seismic Slope Stability Analysis Results (Water El = 772 ft) Factor of Safety 

Table 8 Seismic Slope Stability - Yield Coefficients (FS ~1.0) 

Table 9 Newmark Slope Displacement Estimates – Average of 3 Earthquakes 

Table 10 Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis Results 

Plates 

Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map and Air Photo 

Plate 2 Dam and Boring Location Map & Site Photograph 

Plate 3 Generalized Soil Profile @ Centerline of Main Dam Roadway – Profile A-A’ 

Plate 4 Section B-B’ @ Station 1+11 

Plate 5 Reservoir Storage, Piezometer Levels, and Precipitation History 

Plate 6A Reservoir Storage, Horizontal Movement, and Precipitation History 

Plate 6B Reservoir Storage, Vertical Movement, and Precipitation History 

Plate 7 Atterberg Limits of Cohesive Soils – Fill & Native Material 

Plate 8 Moisture Content Versus Elevation 

Plate 9 Total Density Versus Elevation 

Plate 10 Dry Density Versus Elevation 

Plate 11 Void Ratio Versus Elevation 

Plate 12 Effective Stress Strength Envelope – Fill Material 

Plate 13 Effective Stress Strength Envelope – Native Materials 

Plate 14 Effective Stress Strength Envelopes – Sandstone Bedrock 

Plate 15 Total Stress Strength Envelope – Fill Material 

Plate 16 Total Stress Strength Envelope – Native Materials 

Plate 17 Total Stress Strength Envelope – Sandstone Bedrock 

Plate 18 Upstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis – WSL = 768’ 

Plate 19 Downstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis – WSL = 768’ 

Plate 20 Downstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis – WSL = 768’ 

Plate 21 Upstream – Pseudo-Dynamic Slope Stability Analysis – WSL = 768’ 

Plate 22 Downstream - Pseudo-Dynamic Slope Stability Analysis – WSL = 768’ 

Plate 23 Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis – Res. Elev. = 768’ 

Plate 24 Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis – Res. Elev. = 755.9’ 

Plate 25 Newmark Displacement Analysis – Kobe, Kocaeli, and Landers Earthquake 

Seismic Stability Evaluation Report - ii - 





APPENDIX A 

Logs of Borings 

Appendices 

APPENDIX B 

APPENDIX C 

APPENDIX D 

APPENDIX E 

Laboratory Test Results 

Reference Drawings 

Geologic Evaluation Report – Joyce Associates (Subcontractor to Alan 

Kropp and Associates) 

Ground Motion Studies – Pacific Engineering & Analysis, (Subcontractor 

to Alan Kropp and Associates) 

Seismic Stability Evaluation Report - iii - 


Executive Summary 




This report presents the results of a seismic stability evaluation of the Dingee Reservoir Dam, 

located in Oakland, California. This study is part of an ongoing dam safety program by the East 

Bay Municipal Utility District (District) to assess the static and seismic performance of its dams. 

Dingee Reservoir is a 4.2-million gallon (MG) open-cut reservoir and is located south of the 

intersection of Estates Drive and Bullard Drive in Oakland, California. The reservoir is bound 

by Estates Drive to the west and Bullard Drive to the north. 

The reservoir was originally constructed in 1894 and was modified twice, once in 1931 for the 

construction of a new roof and lining, and again in 1939 for the construction of a new west curb, 

that parallels Estates Drive. The embankment fill was constructed using the excavated on-site 

native soils and Franciscan Sandstone and Shale materials. The Hayward Fault zone lies about 

1100 feet east of the reservoir (dam). 

The objective of the study is to evaluate the performance of the dam during the Maximum 

Credible Earthquake (MCE) on the Hayward Fault, the controlling seismic source for the site. 

Although the dam is not under the jurisdiction of the State of California Division of Safety of 

Dams (DSOD), similar evaluation standards were used for this dam as are used for jurisdictional 

dams. The performance goal is to ensure that the dam withstands the MCE without an 

uncontrolled release of reservoir water. 

To evaluate the performance of the dam, we conducted field investigations including drilling and 

logging of exploratory borings, and installation of an inclinometer. Laboratory testing included 

identification, index and strength tests. Using this information, we performed engineering 

analyses to estimate potential deformation of the dam when subjected to the controlling seismic 

event. 

No known active fault trace is present at the site; thus earthquake-induced ground rupture is not 

anticipated. The embankment and foundation materials of the dam are stiff and clayey in nature 

and are not likely to liquefy or undergo significant strength loss, due to a seismic event. 

We conclude from the investigations and analyses that the fill and foundation materials of the 

dam will perform satisfactorily when subjected to ground shaking from the MCE of magnitude 

7.25 on the Hayward Fault. The results of the seismic analyses indicate less than one foot of 

crest settlement under this scenario. Since the reservoir is operated with the average water level 

at least four to five feet below the spillway level, uncontrolled release of water due to 

overtopping is not expected. 

The Dam is also deemed to be stable under rapid drawdown conditions, which would occur if the 

reservoir needed to be lowered in case of natural or operational emergencies. 



1 

August 2008

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Background 

This report presents the results of a seismic stability evaluation of the Dingee Reservoir Dam, 

located in Oakland, California (see Plate 1, Site Vicinity Map and Air Photo). This study is part 

of an ongoing dam safety program by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) to assess 

the static and seismic performance of its dams. 

1.2 Scope of Work 

The objectives of this study are to evaluate the performance of the Dam during the Maximum 

Credible Earthquake (MCE) on the controlling seismic source, to ensure that the dam withstands 

the MCE without an uncontrolled release of reservoir water, and to maintain the ability to drain 

the reservoir in an emergency. An additional goal of the District is to have a functioning 

reservoir system that could be relied on to serve its customers after the MCE event. 

In order to accomplish the objectives and goals of the study, the following tasks were performed: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collected and reviewed available geotechnical reports and construction data. 

Performed geotechnical field explorations including rotary wash drilling, soil and rock 

sampling, and an inclinometer installation. 

Performed laboratory testing including identification, index, and shear strength tests. The 

District’s Materials Testing Laboratory performed these tests. 

Performed a geological evaluation of the site and developed earthquake ground motions. 

Developed representative dam cross-sections and corresponding phreatic surfaces. 

Evaluated the stability of the reservoir Dam for static, seismic, and rapid drawdown 

conditions. 

Prepared an engineering report documenting the results of the field exploration, 

engineering analyses, and conclusions regarding the performance of the dam. 

1.3 Project Authorization 

This project was approved in August 2006 and is funded under the District’s Dam Safety 

Program. 

1.4 Project Team 

1.4.1 District Staff 

Several individuals participated in the successful completion of this project. Mr. Robert 

Winterer conducted and managed a majority of the field investigations. Mr. Bill Lew performed 

the in-house laboratory testing program. Mr. Hon Fung Chan compiled the entire field and 

laboratory testing results, and Ms. Ginger Zhang performed the computer runs for the slope 

stability analyses. Mr. Yogesh Prashar performed the seismic slope deformation estimates. Mr. 



1 

August 2008

Yogesh Prashar is principal investigator and project manager and is responsible for the analyses 

and the report, which was completed under the supervision of Mr. Atta Yiadom. 

1.4.2 Consultants 

Mr. Wayne Magnusen and Ms. Dona Mann of Alan Kropp and Associates (AKA) were the 

overall consultant project managers for the study and provided geotechnical peer review services 

for the project. Mr. James Joyce, of Joyce and Associates, performed the engineering geologic 

services, and was a sub-consultant to AKA. Dr. Walt Silva of Pacific Engineering and Analysis 

was also a sub-consultant to AKA and developed earthquake ground motions which were used in 

the deformation analysis. 

The consultant scope of work consisted of reviewing existing information; providing 

geotechnical, geologic, and seismologic data. The consultant review comments have been 

incorporated into the final report and they have found the approach, the analysis, and conclusions 

of this report to be satisfactory. 



2 

August 2008

2.0 Project Description 

2.1 Site Setting 

The aerial photo of the reservoir is shown below and the general layout of the reservoir and the 

site location map are shown on Plate 1. The site is located southeast of the intersection of 

Estates Drive and Bullard Drive in Oakland, California. The reservoir is bound by Estates Drive 

to the west, Bullard Drive to the north, and McAndrews Drive to the south. The site is 

surrounded by residences. The site is accessible to foot and vehicular traffic via a gated entrance 

on Bullard Drive near the intersection of Estates Drive and Bullard Drive. 

N 

Site Aerial Photo 

2.2 Description of Reservoir and Dam 

Dingee Reservoir was originally constructed in 1894 by the Oakland Water Company (owned by 

William J. Dingee), a company that pre-dated the formation of East Bay Municipal Utility 

District (District) in 1923. The reservoir has been modified twice: once in 1931 for the 

construction of a new roof and lining, and once in 1939 for the construction of a new west curb 

and other improvements. Estates Reservoir is located about 1500 feet southeast of this reservoir. 



3 

August 2008

The Dam has a crest level at approximately Elevation 773.5 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) 

(National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929) with a crest width of 15 feet, a maximum height of 

about 18 feet, and a storage capacity of approximately 4.2 million gallons at the overflow 

elevation of 772 feet. The dam fill materials consist of excavated material from Franciscan 

Sandstone and Shale. The upstream slope of the dam embankment has a slope of about 2 

Horizontal to 1 Vertical. The maximum downstream slope of the dam embankment has a slope 

of about 1.3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. The reservoir basin floor is at Elevation 755.9 feet. The 

maximum depth of the reservoir is approximately 16 feet. 

2.3 Reservoir Outlet and Drainage 

Since 1999, the reservoir has been operated with the water surface typically ranging from 

Elevation 764 feet to 768 feet. In 2007, an additional drain valve was installed on Estates Drive 

to allow periodic drain valve exercises. Reference drawing 6318-G in Appendix C shows the 

overflow and drain system improvements. 

2.3.1 Emergency Spillway Structure 

The spillway structure is located near the southwest corner of the reservoir close to the left 

abutment of the dam. The spillway consists of a 1-foot by 2-foot drop-inlet-box. This structure 

is designed to discharge water in emergencies into a 10-inch wrought iron pipe, which leads to 

the old 10-inch outlet pipe. Spillway flow is transferred through a 12-inch cast iron pipe to a 

catch basin, and eventually drains into the storm drain. The 1939 construction improvements 

included a new location for the overflow, and the old 10-inch outlet line was converted for use as 

a drain-overflow pipe. The time required to drain the reservoir is approximately 13 hours. 

2.3.2 Reservoir Lining 

In 1931, a new lining was placed over the old lining. The 1931 lining consisted of a 3-inch 

gunite lining reinforced with 4-inch x 4-inch #10 mesh overlying approximately 2 feet of 

pneumatically tamped fill, which separates the old and new linings. 

2.3.3 Surface Drainage Facilities 

The surface drainage facilities, which primarily collect rainfall runoff from the reservoir roof, 

consist of V-Ditches with drop inlets and storm drain pipes around the reservoir perimeter. 

Rainfall on the roof runs off either east or west to the paved perimeter access road. The runoff 

flows across the access road to the V-Ditches and enters the drop inlets and the storm drain pipes 

which are connected to the City of Oakland storm drain system. Reference drawing 5553-G in 

Appendix C shows the drainage improvements, which included installation of perimeter V- 

Ditches and drop inlets that were made to the site in 1969. 



4 

August 2008

3.0 Geotechnical Exploration and Laboratory Testing 

The geotechnical exploration program consisted of exploratory borings for subsurface 

investigation and installation of a new inclinometer. The laboratory testing program consisted of 

index and strength tests on the subsurface materials. 

3.1 Review of Existing Information 

To develop the field exploration program, we reviewed available geotechnical data from the 

following reports and documents: 

U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Map published in 1969. 

U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Map published in 1975. 

Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map published in 1982. 

1971 District piezometer boring logs and laboratory testing. 

3.2 Field Exploration Program 

3.2.1 Previous Investigations 

In 1971, the District drilled several geotechnical borings in and around the dam. Open standpipe 

piezometers were constructed at boring locations XV-1, 2, 3, and 8 upon completion of the 

borings. Plate 5808-G-2 in Appendix C, shows the locations of the previous borings/piezometers 

installed by District staff. Plate 5808-G-3 shows the stick logs of the borings. 

Analysis performed by the District in 1971 concluded that the reservoir is stable under long-term 

(static) and short term (earthquake and rapid drawdown) loading conditions. In 1991, Alan 

Kropp & Associates performed an investigation at 6045 Estates Drive, west of the dam fill. 

Laboratory index test results preformed for the previous investigations included: in-situ moisture 

contents and dry unit weights of the dam fill and of the foundation materials. The test results 

from these investigations are summarized on Table B-1 in Appendix B. 

Shear strength tests, including Unconfined Compression (UC) and Consolidated Undrained 

Triaxial Compression (TXCU) tests, were also performed for the previous investigations. The 

results of the previous shear strength tests are summarized on Plates B-3 and B-4 in Appendix B. 



5 

August 2008

3.2.2 Subsurface Investigation for This Study 

The site investigation for this current study was conducted in the vicinity of the Dam in 2006. 

Three test borings were drilled along the crest (XV-11, XV-12, and XV-13), and two borings 

were drilled along the east curb of 

Estates Drive (XV-14 and XV-15) to 

obtain soil and rock samples for visual 

examination and laboratory testing. 

After we completed logging Boring 

XV-13, we installed a 3-inch diameter 

inclinometer casing and backfilled the 

hole with cement grout. All these 

borings were drilled and logged by 

District staff. Table 1 below shows a 

summary of the borings performed at 

the site along with depth, dates, tip 

elevations, type of drilling method 

used, etc. Plate 2 shows the dam and 

boring location map. 

No. 

Boring 

No. 

Photograph looking North along Dam Roadway 

Table 1: Boring Logs Summary Data Table 

Surface Depth to 

Elevation, Top Elevation, 

Elevation at Date of 

Elevation Bottom of 

of Sandstone Bottom of Fill 

Bottom (ft) Drilling 

(ft) Boring (ft) (ft) (ft) 

Type of Drilling 

1 XV-1 772.7 25.1 747.6 1971 755 758 Hollow Stem Auger 

2 XV-2 772.8 25.2 747.6 1971 Hollow Stem Auger 



5 XV-10 754 30 724 1971 725 730 Hollow Stem Auger 

6 XV-11 772.7 40.3 732.4 3/6/2006 755.7 758.2 Hollow Stem Auger 

7 XV-12 772.2 40.3 731.9 3/6/2006 744.2 750.2 Rotary Wash 

8 XV-13 773.2 50 723.2 3/7/2006 736.2 741.2 Hollow Stem Auger 

9 XV-14 754.2 30.7 723.5 3/8/2006 729.2 735.2 Rotary Wash 

10 XV-15 754.5 23.4 731.1 3/8/2006 741.5 744.5 Hollow Stem Auger 

Prior to drilling the borings, we performed the following pre-drilling activities: 

Identified and marked the proposed boring locations on site with white paint; 

Contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) Network. USA in turn alerted the various 

utility companies that a subsurface investigation was to be conducted near their utilities; 

Contacted the necessary District service centers and shops to clear any underground 

utilities within the reservoir; 

Contacted and notified the representatives of the District’s Workplace Health and Safety 

and Community Affairs groups; and 

Notified the neighbors of the proposed drilling schedule and other pertinent information. 

The borings were drilled with either CME-850 or B-53 Mobile Drill rig operated by Gregg 

Drilling and Testing Inc., of Martinez, California. Borings XV-11 and XV-13 were both 



6 

August 2008

advanced using a hollow stem auger. Borings XV-12 and XV-14 were advanced using rotary 

wash drilling to reduce sample disturbance and stabilize the boreholes. The borings were drilled 

to a maximum depth of 50 feet below the existing ground surface through the dam fill and into 

the foundation materials. 

The subsurface materials were logged in the field by a District Materials Testing Technician, 

under the review and direction of the project manager. Samples for visual classification and 

laboratory index testing were obtained using a California (CAL) split-barrel sampler (3-inch 

outside diameter and 2.44-inch inside diameter). The CAL sampler was used in accordance with 

the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 1586. The CAL sampler 

was driven 18 inches into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 

30 inches. The penetration resistance (blow counts), measured in number of hammer blows to 

advance the sampler the final 12 inches (or a fraction thereof) of the 18-inch drive, were added 

and shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depth. 

Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by using 36-inch long, thin-walled Pitcher tubes 

coated with resin (3-inch outside diameter with 0.065-inch wall thickness). The Pitcher tubes 

were used in accordance with the ASTM Method D 1587. The Pitcher tubes were advanced by 

steadily applying both hydraulic pressure and by rotary drilling appropriate to the resistance of 

the soil and rock. 

After careful withdrawal from the ground, the samples were visually inspected. Selected 

samples for index testing obtained with the CAL sampler were capped, taped, labeled, and 

transported in a padded box. The Pitcher tube samples were carefully placed upright, sealed with 

plastic caps, taped, and cleaned of disturbed soil at the ends of each tube. 

Field data and laboratory test results were used to classify the subsurface materials and to 

prepare boring logs that are presented in Appendix A. The boring logs include a visual 

classification of the soils based on the Unified Soil Classification System; an estimate of the 

relative density of cohesionless soils or consistency of fine-grained soils based on the blow 

counts; color, plasticity and moisture content. The laboratory test results for density, moisture 

content, Atterberg limits, fines content, clay content, specific gravity and triaxial compression, 

are included on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depth. The complete summary of the 

laboratory test results is included in Appendix B. 

At the completion of each borehole, the hole was backfilled with five-sack cement grout using a 

tremie pipe. The field technician observed the grouting process. Drill cuttings and fluids 

generated during drilling were temporarily stored on site in 55-gallon drums which were later 

delivered to Republic Services Inc. in Livermore, California for disposal according to applicable 

local, state, and federal regulations. 

3.2.3 Dam Surveillance Instrumentation 

Existing Piezometers 

The existing piezometers at the project dam site are the open well type, and are monitored 

monthly. No new piezometers were installed at the site during this investigation. The most 



7 

August 2008

ecent data shows the piezometers continue to follow established trends, with XV-1, XV-2, XV-3 

and XV-8 all showing seasonal fluctuations with rainfall. Plate 5 shows the variation of the 

piezometers from 1972 to date. We have also plotted variation of precipitation, cumulative 

precipitation, and reservoir elevation along the same time axis for comparison and to draw 

correlations. Reference drawing 5808-G-2, which shows the piezometer locations, has also been 

included in Appendix C. 

Survey Monuments 

On a semi-annual basis, the District monitors the vertical and horizontal movements of the dam 

crest at various locations, based on six vertical monuments and six horizontal monuments that 

were previously installed along the dam crest. Locations of these survey monuments are shown 

in Reference drawing 5808-G-1 in Appendix C. The most recent data show that the monuments 

continue to follow established trends, with minor fluctuations (about 0.02 feet) from year to year. 

Monument D-2 has settled on average about 1.3 inches since April 1999. Monuments D-3 and 

D-4 have also settled 0.5 inches and 1.1 inches, respectively, over the same time span. 

Monument D-6 has shown downstream movement of about 1.3 inches since October 1998. 

Survey monuments continue to be monitored and assessed on a semi-annual basis by our 

surveyors. Plates 6A and 6B show plots of the horizontal and vertical movements of the survey 

monuments since 1972 to date. The reservoir storage and precipitation history has also been 

plotted along the same time axis for correlation purposes. Reference drawing 5808-G-1, which 

shows the surveillance monument locations, has also been included in Appendix C. 

Inclinometer XV-13-I 

As a part of the 2006 site investigation, we installed a 3-inch diameter inclinometer casing in 

boring XV-13 upon its completion. We have been reading this inclinometer every six months to 

observe any movement within the fill or bedrock materials. We have read this inclinometer 4 

times since its installation and will continue to read it at 6-month intervals or as deemed 

necessary. We have not observed movement of any significance in this inclinometer to date. 

Seepage and Drainage 

There is no underdrain installed at this reservoir; therefore, we have no measurement of seepage 

through the dam. 

Observations after 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 

The Loma Prieta Earthquake occurred on October 17, 1989. The epicenter was about 60 miles 

south of the site. This was a moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake and resulted in moderate ground 

shaking at the site. Based on the inspections performed at the site after the earthquakes (both 

main and aftershocks), no significant noticeable damage was observed. The estimated range of 

peak ground accelerations at the site was 0.2 to 0.25g (http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/). 

The dam survey monuments, piezometers, and toe drains were monitored after the earthquake. 

No significant changes were observed to the piezometer data around and after the event. During 

this type of monitoring, District staff pays close attention to changes to monument movement, 

and piezometer levels to ensure proper performance of the dam. Dingee Dam performed 

satisfactorily during and after this earthquake. 



8 

August 2008

3.3 Laboratory Testing 

Soil and rock samples obtained from the subsurface investigation were carefully packaged and 

sealed to prevent disturbance and to reduce moisture loss. The soil and rock samples were 

carefully inspected and reviewed for verification of the field classification by an engineer from 

the Materials Engineering Section before representative samples from the various strata were 

selected for laboratory testing. Appropriate tests were selected to assist in subsequent evaluation 

of material properties for use in the stability evaluation. The tests performed are listed in Table 

2A and 2B along with their ASTM designations. 

Table 2A: Laboratory Index Tests and Results Location 

Test Description ASTM Designation Results Location 

In-situ moisture-density ASTM D2216, D2937 Plate B-1 & B-2 {App. B} 

Sieve analysis ASTM D422 Plate B-1 & B-2 {App. B} 

Hydrometer analysis ASTM D422 Plate B-1 & B-2 {App. B} 

Atterberg limits ASTM D4318 Plate 7 & Plate B-2 {App. B} 

Index tests were performed on all samples that were tested for shear strength determination. The 

results of these index tests are also summarized together with the strength test results. All testing 

was performed at the District’s Materials Testing Laboratory. The laboratory tests were 

performed in general accordance with the noted ASTM standards. Consolidation pressures for 

the Isotropically Consolidated Undrained (ICU) tests were selected based on the estimated 

overburden pressure at each sample depth. Abbreviated test results for each sample are also 

included in the boring logs at the appropriate depth. Plates 8, 9, 10, and 11 provide a summary 

of the in-situ moisture contents, total and dry unit weights, and estimated void ratios for the 

samples from borings XV-1 to XV-15. 

Table 2B: Laboratory Shear Strength Tests and Results Location 

ASTM 

Test Description 

Results on 

Designation 

Isotropically consolidated undrained 

(ICU) triaxial compression test with 

pore pressure measurements 

Unconsolidated consolidated (UU) 

triaxial compression test 

Direct Shear Test (DS) 

ASTM D2166 

ASTM D2166 

ASTM D3080 

Plates B-3 

& Appendix B 

Plates B-4 

& Appendix B 

Plate B-5 

& Appendix B 

The results from the 1971 investigation program are included in Plates 8 through 11. As shown 

on these plates, the in-situ moisture contents, unit weights, and void ratios (1971 lab data vs. 

2006 lab data) are comparable. Table B-2 in Appendix B, provides a summary of the Atterberg 

Limits tests for fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. The 

interpretation of the laboratory data is presented in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. 



9 

August 2008

4.0 Geologic and Ground Motions Studies 

4.1 Geologic Study 

A site-specific geologic evaluation study was prepared for the District by Mr. James M. Joyce, 

PG, CEG, of Joyce Associates, who performed the work as a subcontractor for the prime review 

consultant for this project, Alan Kropp & Associates. This geologic study is included in 

Appendix D of this report. The purpose of the geologic study is to provide pertinent regional and 

local geologic information for use in the seismic stability evaluation of the embankment. 

The geologic report states that the seismic activity within the northern Coast Ranges is generally 

associated with active faults of the San Andreas system, including major active faults both east 

and west of the site. The principal active fault in the region is the Hayward Fault, the main trace 

of which is approximately 1,100 feet east of the fill embankment. In the year 2002, the U.S. 

Geological Survey estimated there was a 62 percent or higher chance of a large earthquake 

occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region by the year 2032. 

The geologic study found that within the region, many valleys have been partially filled with 

unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of Quaternary age. These deposits, which include alluvium 

and colluvium, underlie the gently sloping valley bottoms and hillside swales, and consist of 

clay, silt, and gravel. The regional evaluation found that the site is principally underlain by 

sandstone bedrock throughout the reservoir area. The western side of the reservoir consists of a 

fill embankment consisting mainly of silty clay. The fill overlies a layer of native soil consisting 

principally of sandy to silty clay. 

The geologic evaluation found no evidence of landsliding around the reservoir, and found no 

evidence of creep or movement within the fill embankment along the west side of the reservoir. 

Additionally, the study found no indications that active faults cross or project towards the site 

and conclude that the risk of fault-related ground rupture in the reservoir area is very low. 

4.2 Ground Motion Study 

The site-specific ground motion study was developed by Dr. Walt Silva of Pacific Engineering, 

who was a subcontractor to AKA. The study is included in Appendix E of this report. The 

purpose of this study was to develop the design response spectrum, and three spectra matched 

time histories for the Dingee site. The design response spectrum was based on the 84 th 

percentile, fault average component of ground motion level. Three time histories were 

developed and were matched to the target spectrum. The three time histories were developed 

from the 1) Kobe, 2) Kocaeli, and 3) Landers earthquakes. The time histories were used to 

estimate the earthquake-induced slope displacements which are presented in Section 7.4.2. 



10 

August 2008

5.0 Subsurface Conditions 

Based on the materials encountered in the borings, the site consists of dam fill overlying a 2-to 5- 

foot-thick layer of native surficial soils and material that transition from 2 to 3 feet of completely 

to moderately weathered bedrock. Underlying bedrock is composed of a moderately weathered 

siltstone/sandstone of the Franciscan Assemblage. The dam fill materials generally consist of 15 

to 22 feet of medium dense to dense clayey gravelly sand and stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay 

with gravel. The native soils consist of medium dense clayey sand and stiff to very stiff sandy 

clay. 

Groundwater was not recorded for this study within the rotary wash borings and was also not 

encountered in the hollow stem auger borings. All borings were grouted at the end of drilling. 

Based on our review of the historic piezometer data obtained in the Dam area, as well as the 

index properties (moisture content and degree of saturation) of samples retrieved from this 

investigation, we conclude that groundwater is located about 9 feet below the crest roadway 

elevation. Plate 4 shows the approximate phreatic surface which is based on more recent 

piezometric data (See Plate 5). 

We observed that the in-situ moisture content of the samples tested above the phreatic surface 

were around 90 percent, and therefore for our stability analysis we assumed the materials to 

behave in an undrained manner under short term loading conditions. 



11 

August 2008

6.0 Dam Material Properties 

6.1 General 

The dam and its foundation soils consist primarily of three types of materials: 

1. Dam Fill 

2. Native Material 

3. Sandstone Bedrock 

Plates 2, 3, and 4 show the site plan, profile, and cross-section of the dam along with the subsurface 

stratigraphy. The dam fill materials consist of interbedded medium dense to dense 

clayey sand and stiff to very stiff lean clay and sandy clay. As mentioned; this dam was built in 

1894, making it 114 years old. Because the dam was constructed by the Oakland Water 

Company, the District does not have plans or specifications used for the construction of this dam. 

The dam fill materials were likely obtained from the native on-site materials. 

Table 3 provides the average moisture contents, densities, void ratio, and saturation values for 

the fill, native material, and sandstone. Based on these average material parameters, the degree 

of compaction of the Dam fill materials is estimated to be 85 percent. Although considered low 

for current state of practice (90 percent or higher), the relative compaction of the dam fills was 

typical for construction performed in the late 1890's. The actual soil properties were used in the 

analyses so that a determination of adequacy could be made. Shear strength results are presented 

in 6.4 of this report. 

6.2 Classification and Index Tests 

Grain size distribution and Atterberg limits determinations were performed on numerous samples 

of the dam fill, native material, and sandstone bedrock in both previous and present studies. The 

results indicate that the dam fill materials predominantly consist of medium dense to dense 

clayey gravelly sand and stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay. The native material deposits 

represent both alluvial deposits as well as residual soils that have been weathered in place. 

Distinguishing the two is practically not feasible at the site, and therefore, the alluvial soils and 

residual soils have been combined and are referred to as native materials. The term native 

material is also consistent with the term used by the consultants AKA for projects they have done 

in the vicinity. These native materials have a moisture content that is slightly higher than the fill 

materials and an in-situ unit weight that is lower than the Sandstone Bedrock. Index properties 

of the three materials are described below. 

Dam Fill Material 

The in-situ moisture contents of the dam fill varied from 9.2% to 27.6%, with an average of 

19.7% and a standard deviation of 4.5%. In-place dry unit weights of the dam fill ranged from 

96.6 to 117.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), with an average of 106.9 pcf and a standard deviation 

of 5.6 pcf. The average void ratio and degree of saturation are 0.6 and 90.2 %, respectively. 



12 

August 2008

Native Material 

The in-situ moisture contents of the native materials varied from 15.3% to 28.9%, with an 

average of 19.3% and standard deviation of 3.1%. In-place dry unit weights of the native 

materials ranged from 97.3 to 117.5 pcf, with an average of 109.9 pcf and standard deviation of 

5.0 pcf. The average void ratio and degree of saturation are 0.5 and 95.3 %, respectively. 

Sandstone Bedrock / Franciscan Assemblage 

The in-situ moisture contents of the Sandstone Bedrock / Franciscan Assemblage varied from 

15.2% to 34.6%, with an average of 27.4% and a standard deviation of 5.9%. In-place dry unit 

weights of the Formation ranged from 83.8 to 120.0 pcf, with an average of 97.1 pcf and a 

standard deviation of 10.2 pcf. The average void ratio and degree of saturation are 0.8 and 99%, 

respectively. Table 3 below summarizes these averaged properties. 

Table 3: Average of the Index Test Results 

MC % 

Total 

Density 

(PCF) 

Dry Density 

(PCF) 

Void Ratio 

Saturation 

(%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Dam Fill 18.7 126.8 106.8 0.55 90.5 2.65 

Native Materials 21.2 127.3 105.0 0.60 94.7 2.70 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

18.0 132.2 112.0 0.49 98.6 2.67 

Based upon review of the laboratory testing results, the native materials are expected to exhibit 

shear strength properties lower than the dam fill materials. Plates 8 through 11 show the 

variation of moisture content and total unit weight of the materials encountered in the borings 

XV-1 through XV-15. 

6.3 Liquefaction Potential/Loss of Shear Strength 

Plate 7 and Plate B-2 in Appendix B show the results of the Atterberg limits tests. Data points 

shown on this plate indicate that the materials fall under the CL (lean clay) and CH (fat clay) 

classification. Table B-2 in Appendix B includes results of the Atterberg limits tests and the insitu 

moisture content of the samples tested. The plasticity chart also shows three zones: A, B, 

and C. According to Seed (2003), soils in these zones are defined as follows: 

Zone A: 

Zone B: 

Zone C: 

Considered potentially susceptible to classic cyclically induced liquefaction. 

In some cases, can be susceptible to liquefaction (especially if their in-situ water 

content is greater than about 85 % of their liquid limit). 

Generally not susceptible to cyclically induced liquefaction. 

Table B-2 in Appendix B includes results of the Atterberg limits tests and the in-situ moisture 

content of the sample tested. Boring number, sample number, and elevation of the sample have 

also been provided. As the table indicates, of all the samples tested, none are susceptible to 

liquefaction. 



13 

August 2008

Based on our above evaluations of the Dam fill and native materials, we do not anticipate that the 

onsite materials will undergo liquefaction or significant strength loss during seismic loading. 

6.4 Shear Strength 

To estimate the shear strength of fill, native, and sandstone bedrock materials, three types of 

testing were conducted: 

1. Isotropically consolidated undrained (ICU) triaxial compression test with pore pressure 

measurement. 

2. Unconsolidated consolidated (UU) triaxial compression test. 

3. Direct Shear Test (DS). 

In general, the results of the ICU tests provided the most appropriate results and were most 

suitable for use in the analysis. UU and DS tests were also considered; however, due to the 

larger scatter in the results, these were not used. Direct shear test results were conducted mostly 

on the fill materials. Results from the ICU tests were used in developing shear strength 

parameters for the fill, native materials, and sandstone bedrock. 

6.4.1 Effective Shear Strength Failure Envelope 

The static shear strengths of the dam fill and foundation materials were estimated using 

Isotropically Consolidated Undrained (ICU) Triaxial Compression tests with pore water pressure 

measurements. Plates 12, 13, and 14 show the effective strength failure envelope for the dam 

fill, native material, and sandstone bedrock, respectively. The effective material strength 

parameters used in the analysis are shown in Table 4A. 

Material 

Table 4A: Effective Shear Strength Parameters 

Moist 

Unit 

Weight m 

(pcf) 

Cohesion 

Intercept c’ 

(psf) 

Friction 

Angle’ 

(degree) 

Ref. Plate 

No. 

Dam Fill 126.8 172 29.0 12 

Native Materials 127.3 616 13.0 13 

Sandstone Bedrock 132.2 1223 19.9 14 

6.4.2 Total Shear Strength Failure Envelope 

For the seismic (pseudo-dynamic) analysis, undrained shear strength was used. For this study, 

we used the static total strength parameters from the ICU tests. Plates 15, 16, and 17 show the 

total strength failure envelope for the dam fills materials, native materials, and weathered 

bedrock, respectively. The total material strength parameters used in the analysis are shown in 

Table 4B. Results of the ICU triaxial tests are summarized in Table B-3 in Appendix B. 



14 

August 2008

For slope stability analyses, both the effective and total strength parameters derived from the 

“best fit” line were used. Table 4B summarizes the “best fit” material total strength parameters. 

Clayey soils exhibit an increase in shear strength during rapid or seismic loading cases. The 

phenomenon of increase in strength for clayey materials has been well-documented by previous 

studies and is a generally accepted standard of practice (Duncan and Wright, 2005). Typically, a 

shear strength increase of 20 percent or greater can be used for earthquake loading conditions for 

clayey soils. In this report, we took a more conservative approach, and did not apply any shear 

strength increase due to the size of the embankment and the anticipated embankment 

deformations. Stability analyses were performed using no strength increase and are presented in 

Section 7. 

Material 

Table 4B: Total Shear Strength Parameters 

Moist 

Unit 

Weight m 

(pcf) 

Cohesion 

Intercept c 

(psf) 

Friction 

Angle 

(degree) 

Ref. Plate 

No. 

Dam Fill 126.8 416 16.0 15 

Native Materials 127.3 806 6.9 16 

Sandstone Bedrock 132.2 851 19.9 17 



15 

August 2008

7.0 Stability Evaluations 

7.1 General Approach to Evaluation 

Conventional limit equilibrium slope stability and earthquake-induced deformation methods 

were used to assess the performance of the dam. Static and pseudo-dynamic stability evaluations 

were carried out for both the upstream and downstream slopes of the dam. Effective shear 

strength parameters were used in the static stability analysis. Undrained shear strength 

parameters, developed as described in Section 6.4.2, were used in the pseudo-dynamic stability 

analysis. 

Slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program SLOPE/W, Version 5 

(GEO-SLOPE International, 2002). The program uses two-dimensional limit equilibrium 

technique and the method of slices, and allows the user to select various methods including 

simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Spencer, Morgenstern-Price, etc., to calculate the minimum 

factors of safety for both circular and block failure surfaces. The results presented for the 

upstream and downstream cases represent the surface type yielding the least factor of safety. 

Slope stability analyses presented in this report were performed using the Spencer Method. In 

the Spencer Method, compatibility of both moment and force equilibrium is enforced, which 

provides a higher level of reliability than methods that compute moment or force equilibrium 

separately. 

7.2 Dam Profile and Cross-Section 

A representative dam profile and cross-section was chosen to best represent the surface and 

subsurface conditions over the entire site. Plates 3, 4, and 5, respectively, show the plan, profile 

and cross-section for the dam. The cross-section analyzed and shown in Plate 5 is considered to 

represent the most critical and maximum height of the embankment. 

Based on our review of the historic reservoir surface elevations and piezometric levels, two 

different water surfaces and corresponding phreatic surfaces were evaluated: Elevation 772 feet 

and 768 feet. High water storage elevation of 768 is more representative of the storage levels for 

the past 8 years, or since about year 2000. Prior to year 2000, high water storage levels were 

around 772 feet. The high water storage level of 768 was selected since this level represents the 

upper bound elevation of the reservoir, in the more recent past, present, and most likely and 

anticipated future use. The phreatic surface was developed by reviewing the piezometric levels 

shown in Plate 5. The piezometric levels fluctuate directly with the reservoir storage levels. The 

data shows that piezometric levels were higher prior to year 2000, when the upper bound of 

reservoir storage level was around 772 feet, and then decreased after year 2000 as the reservoir 

storage levels decreased to upper bound of 768 feet. 

The limit equilibrium stability evaluations presented in Section 7.2 were performed using these 

two possible water storage and corresponding phreatic surfaces. The plates only contain the 

graphical results corresponding to reservoir storage elevation of 768 feet, and not for 772 feet. 



16 

August 2008

We have tabulated the results for both reservoir surface levels in this section. For estimating the 

long-term and current and future seismic stability, we have elected to use storage elevation of 

768 feet. 

7.3 Long-Term Static Stability 

For long-term static stability, a drained analysis with steady state seepage was analyzed for both 

upstream and downstream slopes of the dam. For each slope condition, both deep and shallow 

failure conditions were evaluated. The analyses were performed using unit weights and effective 

strength parameters of the materials shown in Table 4A and 4B, an assumed phreatic line based 

on maximum recorded data (since year 2000) of the existing piezometers, and an average-high 

reservoir water level (at Elevation +768 feet). 

The results of the long-term static stability analysis are shown in Plate 18 for the upstream and 

Plate 19 for the downstream slopes. The lowest factors of safety against long-term static stability 

for the upstream and downstream slopes are presented in Table 5 below. 

Table 5: Long-Term Static Slope Stability Analysis Results – Factors of Safety 

Section Upstream Downstream 

A-A’ (Water EL = 772 ft) 2.74 1.45 

A-A’ (Water EL =768 ft) 

1.57 

2.31 

Block Surface 

(See Plate 18) 


A-A’ (Water EL =768 ft) NA 

1.67 

Circular Surface 


7.4 Short-Term Seismic Stability 

A pseudo-dynamic approach was utilized for evaluation of slope stability under seismic 

conditions. In this approach, earthquake forces are represented by an equivalent dynamic 

horizontal force which consists of the estimated effective horizontal ground acceleration 

multiplied by the mass of the potential slide material. For earthquake loading conditions, the 

analyses were performed using static total strength parameters as the undrained shear strength for 

the materials as shown in Table 4B. No phreatic line was used in these undrained loading 

analyses. 

Based on the in-situ blow-counts and strength test results, the dam fill materials, native materials, 

and the sandstone bedrock are not anticipated to undergo strength loss during cyclic or seismic 

loading. As mentioned previously, typical strength increases for rapid loading can be 20 percent 

or greater; however, a conservative approach of no strength increase was used for this project. 

In the pseudo-dynamic stability analysis, the result is the yield acceleration, K y , an effective 

horizontal ground acceleration at which a potential sliding surface would develop a factor of 

safety equal to unity. The results of the pseudo-dynamic stability analysis are shown on Plates 



17 

August 2008

21 and 22 for the upstream and downstream slopes, respectively. The yield acceleration under 

seismic conditions is 0.45g for upstream slope and 0.15g for the downstream slopes. Tables 6 

and 7 provide a summary of the upstream and down stream factor of safety and its variation with 

applied horizontal seismic coefficient. 

Table 6: Seismic Slope Stability Analysis Results 

(Water El = 768 ft) Factor of Safety 

Downstream Upstream 

Seismic Coefficient 

0.10 1.12 2.22 

0.15 1.00 1.83 

0.20 0.92 1.75 

Table 7: Seismic Slope Stability Analysis Results 

(Water El = 772 ft) Factor of Safety 

Downstream Upstream 

Seismic Coefficient 

0.10 1.04 2.35 

0.15 0.92 2.00 

0.20 0.83 1.70 

It should be noted that on the two plates, the failure plane has an average slope of about 0.5. 

This slope will be discussed in Section 7.4.2, where vertical deformation estimates are made for 

the slope deformation estimates. Typically this would imply the vertical component of 

deformation is about ½ of the estimated horizontal component. 

7.4.1 Yield Acceleration Evaluation 

The yield acceleration, K y , for a slope is defined as the value of estimated effective horizontal 

ground acceleration at which a potential sliding surface would develop a factor of safety equal to 

unity. This value is the minimum pseudo-static acceleration required to produce instability and 

any earthquake-induced deformation of the slope. 

The yield accelerations for the various scenarios were calculated from pseudo-static slope 

stability analyses. Initially, the potential sliding surface searches were performed without any 

earthquake forces to find the sliding mass with the minimum factor of safety. Then earthquake 

forces, represented by equivalent static horizontal force, were applied incrementally to the 

sliding mass until a minimum factor of safety of unity was obtained. The critical slip section 

associated with the minimum factor of safety of unity and the corresponding yield acceleration 

for each section are shown on Plates 22 and 21 for downstream and upstream slopes, 

respectively. Table 8 summarizes the results of the yield acceleration for the critical section for 

downstream and upstream slopes. 



18 

August 2008

Table 8 

Seismic Slope Stability Analysis Results 

Yield Coefficients (FS ~1.0) 

Section Downstream, K y Upstream, K y 

A-A’ 0.15 g 0.45 g 

7.4.2 Earthquake-Induced Newmark Displacements 

The seismic slope deformations were evaluated using a simplified Newmark sliding block 

analysis (1965). The method is based on the assumption of rigid-perfectly plastic stress-strain 

behavior and potential failure surface using a sliding-block type approach. In the sliding-block 

approach, a slope is idealized as a rigid mass above a plane of sliding with specified yield 

acceleration. If design acceleration levels of the block are lower than the yield acceleration, no 

movement will occur along the sliding plane. If the design accelerations are higher than the 

yield acceleration, there will be net movement between the block and the base, i.e. 

displacements. The horizontal displacements of the sliding block are calculated by double 

integrating the difference between the earthquake-induced average acceleration of the slide mass 

and its yield acceleration with respect to time. 

These time histories were then double integrated using the computer program SHAKE2000 to 

develop the displacement time history for a yield coefficient of 0.15g. Plate 25 shows a plot of 

the estimated deformation on the downstream slope of the dam for the three time histories 

considered for both normal and reverse polarity cases that can be either the maximum or 

minimum. 

Table 9: Newmark Slope Displacement Estimates 

Average of 3 Earthquakes 

Yield Accel. Max Average Min 

0.10 4.01 3.45 2.90 

0.15 2.23 1.82 1.40 

0.20 1.28 1.05 0.82 

0.25 0.73 0.63 0.52 

0.30 0.40 0.37 0.34 

The figure below and Table 9 summarize the results of the Newmark slope deformation 

estimates for the downstream slope verses different values of yield acceleration. The minimum, 

maximum, and arithmetic average values of displacements are shown in Table 9. The maximum 

refers to the higher of the normal or reverse polarity values from the site specific time history. A 

conservative best estimate for the yield acceleration for the downstream slope from our stability 

evaluations was 0.15g. We calculated the range for the average horizontal deformations to be 

1.4 to 2.2 feet. We computed the average horizontal displacement to be about 3½ feet and the 

corresponding crest settlement to be less than 2 feet for the historic high reservoir storage levels 

of 772-feet. 



19 

August 2008

84TH % - Fault Average Component 

Horizontal Displacment (ft) 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

2.2’ 

1.4’ 

Maximum 

Average 

Minimum 

0.5 

0.0 

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 

Yield Acceleration (g's) 

Newmark Deformation versus Yield Acceleration 

7.5 Short-Term Rapid Drawdown Stability 

Total shear strength parameters were used in evaluation of the rapid drawdown stability using 

SLOPE/W. The analysis was carried out by changing the position of the phreatic surface in the 

cross-section to model the change or removal of the reservoir water level. The total strength 

parameters as the undrained shear strength for the materials as shown in Table 4B were used. 

The results of the rapid drawdown stability analysis for the upstream slopes for reservoir water 

levels of 755.9 feet or fully drained is shown on Plates 23 and 24 and is also summarized in 

Table 10 below. As shown in Table 10, the minimum temporary factors of safety are above 1.2 

which is typically the minimum required factor of safety (USACOE, Slope Stability Manual, 

2003). It should be noted that the material parameters used in the seismic stability evaluations 

were used in this analysis, i.e. a no strength increase was applied to the Dam fill and alluvial 

deposits. 

Table 10: Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis Results 

Reservoir Water Level 

Elevation (ft) 

Min. Factor of 

Safety 

Ref. Plate 

No. 

772.0 3.37 No Plate 

768.0 2.75 23 

755.9 1.86 24 


Dingee Reservoir Dam August 2008 

20

8.0 Conclusions and Summary of Dam Performance 

The dam fill materials consist of medium dense to dense clayey gravelly sand and stiff to very 

stiff sandy silty clay with gravel. Based on our material characterization and liquefaction 

potential evaluations, the dam fill materials and native materials within the Dam are not likely to 

liquefy and will not undergo significant strength loss due to a seismic event. 

The survey monument data at the site indicate some movement of survey monuments D-2, D-3, 

and D-4. Some of the piezometer water level readings have increased over time. So far, the 

changes in the survey monuments and piezometer levels are within tolerable levels. These 

instruments are being monitored and evaluated as part of the District’s routine dam inspection 

program. 

No known active fault trace is present at the site, thus earthquake-induced ground rupture is not 

anticipated. Landslide maps do not indicate any areas of instability at the site, nor were any 

observed. Minimum factors of safety for long-term steady state conditions range from 2.3 and 

above for the upstream slope to 1.45 to 1.57 for the downstream slope. 

The results of the seismic stability analyses show that the dam will perform satisfactorily when 

subjected to ground shaking from the maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 7.25 on the 

Hayward Fault. The results also indicate about 2-feet of slope deformation and less than 1 foot 

of crest settlement. The reservoir is operated about (El. =768’) 5.5 feet below the dam crest 

elevation (El. 773.5 feet). Uncontrolled release of water is not expected from a major seismic 

event. Crest settlements of less than 2 feet could occur for water storage elevations of 772 feet. 

The reservoir water storage is typically held to Elevation 768 feet due to operational needs. 

The results of rapid drawdown stability analyses also indicate satisfactory performance of the 

upstream slope of the Dam in case of rapid reservoir drainage. Minimum factors of safety for the 

short-term rapid drawdown condition range from 3.4 and 2.8 when the reservoir water level is 

dropped from Elevation 772 to 768 feet to a factor of safety of 1.9 when the reservoir is fully 

drained to elevation 755.9 feet. 



21 

August 2008

References 

1. Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map (1982). 

2. ASTM (2003). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 – Construction, Volume 

04.08: Soil and Rock (I): D 420 – D 5611, American Society for Testing and 

Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 

3. Duncan, J.M. and Buchignani, A.L. and DeWet, M. (1987). An Engineering Manual 

for Slope Stability Studies, Virginia Tech Center for Geotechnical Practice and 

Research, Department of Civil Engineering. 

4. Duncan, J.M. and Wright, S.G. (2005). Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 

5. Duncan, J.M., Wright, S.G., and Wong, K.S. (1990). “Slope Stability during Rapid 

Drawdown,” Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, University of 

California, Berkeley. 

6. FHWA-IF-02-034 (2002). Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.5: Evaluation of 

Soil and Rock Properties, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

7. GEO-SLOPE International (2002). User’s Guide – SLOPE/W for Slope Stability 

Analysis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 

8. Ghram, J., Crooks, J.H.A., and Bell, A.L. (1983). “Time Effects on the Stress Strain 

Behavior of Natural Soft Clays”, Geotechnique, Vol. 35, N.3, September 1983, pp. 

327-340. 

9. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, 

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

10. Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper 

Saddle River, New Jersey. 

11. Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B. (1978). “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and 

Embankment Earthquake-Induced Deformations,” Journal of Geotechnical 

Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, Proceedings Paper 13, pp. 898, pp. 

849-867. 

12. Newmark, N.M. (1965). “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,” 

Geotechnique, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, England, Vol. XV, No.2. 

13. Ordonez, G.A. (2005). User’s Manual – SHAKE 2000: A Computer Program for the 

1-D Analysis of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Problems, revised April 2005. 

14. Seed, R. B., et. al., (2003). Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: a 

unified and consistent framework, Report No. EERC 2003-06, EERI, University of 

California, Berkeley, June. 

15. Southern California Earthquake Center (2002). Recommended Procedures for 

Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Analyzing and 



22 

August 2008

Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake 

Center. 

16. Stark, T.D., Eid, H.T. (1998). “Performance of Three-Dimensional Slope Stability 

Methods in Practice,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 

124, No. 11, p. 1049. 

17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Engineering and Design: Slope Stability 

Engineering Manual, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1902, 

Washington DC, October. 

18. U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Map (1975). 

19. U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Map (1969). 

20. Wong, K.S., Duncan, J.M., and Seed, H.B. (1983). “Comparison of Methods of 

Rapid Drawdown Stability Analysis,” Report No. UCB/GT/82-05, Department of 

Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, December 1982, revised July, 

1983. 



23 

August 2008

N 

DINGEE RESERVOIR DAM SEISMIC STABILITY EVAL. Date: June 2008 

Site Vicinity Map and Air Photo 

PLATE 1

Reservoir Roof 

B 

A A’ 

XV-11 

(Sta. 1+86) 

XV-12 

(Sta. 1+49) 

XV-13-I 

(Sta. 0+81) 

1:1 Slope 

Stone Retaining Wall 

XV-14 

(Sta. 1+11) 

Sidewalk/Curb 

XV-15 

(Sta. 0+36) 

XV-10 

(Sta. 1+17) 

B-1 

(Sta. 0+66) 

1971 Piezometer Borings 

(XV-1, 2, 3, 8, 10) 

90’ (From curb edge 

on Estates Dr.) 

2006 Borings 

(XV-11, 12, 14, 15) 

1991 Borings (B-1 and B-2) 

B’ 

2006 Borings & Inclinometer 

(XV-13-I) 

B-2 (Sta. 0+90) 

Photograph View due North on Estates Dr. SCALE: 1”=20’ 

DINGEE RESERVOIR DAM SEISMIC STABILITY EVALUATION 

Dam and Boring Location Map & Site Photograph 

Date: June 2008 

PLATE 2

A A’ 

780 

780 

760 

740 

720 

760 

740 

720 

Elevation (feet) 

XV-11 

XV-1 

XV-12 

XV-10 (Toe) 

XV-2 

XV-8 & 14 (Toe) 

XV-13 

XV-15 (Toe) 

XV-3 

Ground Surface 

Phreatic Line 

Native Materials 

Dam Fill 

Sandstone Bedrock 

220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 

Horizontal Distance (feet) 

Notes: 

1. Refer to Plate 2 for Monument Line and Dingee Reservoir Baseline for station location. 

2. Phreatic Line shown is representative of levels at centerline of Dam crest roadway and 

corresponds to reservoir storage elevation level of 768’ SCALE: 1”=20’ 


Generalized Profile @ Centerline of Main Dam Roadway –Profile A-A’ 


PLATE 3


Section B-B’ @ Station 1+11 


PLATE 4 

XV-2 & 12 

XV-8 & 14 

XV-10 

B-1 (AKA) 

B-2 (AKA) 

Estates Dr. 

WSL = 768’ 

Phreatic Surface (WSL = 768’)

Elevation (Feet) 


780 

770 

760 

750 

780 

770 

760 

750 


XV-1A 


780 

770 

760 

750 

XV-2A 


780 

770 

760 

750 

XV-3A 


760 

750 

740 

730 

XV-8A 

Precipitation 

(Inches) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Precipitation Data 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Annual 

Cum. Precip. (in.) 

1/1/72 

1/1/73 

1/1/74 

1/1/75 

1/1/76 

1/1/77 

1/1/78 

1/1/79 

1/1/80 

1/1/81 

1/1/82 

1/1/83 

1/1/84 

1/1/85 

1/1/86 

1/1/87 

1/1/88 

1/1/89 

1/1/90 

1/1/91 

Date 

1/1/92 

1/1/93 

1/1/94 

1/1/95 

1/1/96 

1/1/97 

1/1/98 

1/1/99 

1/1/00 

1/1/01 

1/1/02 

1/1/03 

1/1/04 

1/1/05 

1/1/06 

1/1/07 

1/1/08 


Reservoir Storage, Piezometer Levels 

and Precipitation History 

PLATE 5


780 

770 

760 

750 


0.05 

Horizontal Movement 

0.00 

-0.05 

Horizontal Movement (Feet) 

-0.10 

-0.15 

-0.20 

-0.25 

-0.30 

D-1H 

D-2H 

D-3H 

D-4H 

D-5H 

D-6H 

Precipitation 

(Inches) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Annual 


1/1/72 

1/1/73 

1/1/74 

1/1/75 

1/1/76 

1/1/77 

1/1/78 

1/1/79 

1/1/80 

1/1/81 

1/1/82 

1/1/83 

1/1/84 

1/1/85 

1/1/86 

1/1/87 

1/1/88 

1/1/89 

1/1/90 

1/1/91 

1/1/92 

1/1/93 

1/1/94 

Date 

1/1/95 

1/1/96 

1/1/97 

1/1/98 

1/1/99 

1/1/00 

1/1/01 

1/1/02 

1/1/03 

1/1/04 

1/1/05 

1/1/06 

1/1/07 

1/1/08 


Reservoir Storage, Horizontal 

Movement, and Precipitation History 

PLATE 6A


780 

770 

760 

750 


0.05 

Vertical Movement 

0.00 

-0.05 

Vertical Movement (Feet) 

-0.10 

-0.15 

-0.20 

-0.25 

-0.30 

D-1V 

D-2V 

D-3V 

D-4V 

D-5V 

D-6V 

Precipitation 

(Inches) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Annual 


1/1/72 

1/1/73 

1/1/74 

1/1/75 

1/1/76 

1/1/77 

1/1/78 

1/1/79 

1/1/80 

1/1/81 

1/1/82 

1/1/83 

1/1/84 

1/1/85 

1/1/86 

1/1/87 

1/1/88 

1/1/89 

1/1/90 

1/1/91 

1/1/92 

1/1/93 

1/1/94 

1/1/95 

1/1/96 

1/1/97 

1/1/98 

1/1/99 

1/1/00 

1/1/01 

1/1/02 

1/1/03 

1/1/04 

1/1/05 

1/1/06 

1/1/07 

1/1/08 

Date 


Reservoir Storage, Vertical Movement, 

and Precipitation History 

PLATE 6B

U-Line: PI =0.9*(LL-8) 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

ML - Silt 

MH - Elastic Silt 

CL - Lean Clay 

CH - Fat Clay 

CL-ML - Silty Clay 

OL or OH - Organic Soils 

XV-11 @ 769.7 

A-Line: PI = 0.73*(LL-20) 

CL - ML 

CL 

ML 

CH 

MH 

XV-11 @ 761.7 

XV-12 @ 766.7 

XV-12 @ 761.7 

XV-12 @ 759.2 

XV-12 @ 756.7 

XV-13 @ 759.7 

XV-13 @ 755.2 

XV-13 @ 745.7 

XV-14 @ 733.8 

XV-15 @ 749.5 

XV-15 @ 748.5 

XV-15 @ 744.5 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Liquid Limit (%) 

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 

DINGEE RESERVOIR DAM SEISMIC STABILITY EVALUATION Date: June 2008 

Atterberg Limits of Cohesive Soils – Fill & Native Material 

PLATE 7 

Plasticity Index, PI

Moisture Content (%) 

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

775.0 

XV-1 

XV-2 

770.0 XV-3 

XV-4 

XV-5 

765.0 XV-6 

XV-7 

XV-8 

760.0 

XV-9 

XV-10 

755.0 

XV-11 

XV-12 

XV-13 

750.0 XV-14 

XV-15 


745.0 

740.0 

735.0 

730.0 

725.0 

720.0 

715.0 

710.0 


Moisture Content Versus Elevation 

PLATE 8

Total Density (PCF) 

775.0 

770.0 

765.0 

760.0 

755.0 

750.0 

100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 

XV-1 

XV-2 

XV-3 

XV-4 

XV-5 

XV-6 

XV-7 

XV-8 

XV-9 

XV-10 

XV-11 

XV-12 

XV-13 

XV-14 

XV-15 


745.0 

740.0 

735.0 

730.0 

725.0 

720.0 

715.0 

710.0 


Total Density Versus Elevation 

PLATE 9

Dry Density (PCF) 

70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 

775.0 

XV-1 

XV-2 

770.0 XV-3 

XV-4 

XV-5 

765.0 

XV-6 

XV-7 

XV-8 

760.0 

XV-9 

XV-10 

755.0 

XV-11 

XV-12 

XV-13 

750.0 XV-14 

XV-15 


745.0 

740.0 

735.0 

730.0 

725.0 

720.0 

715.0 

710.0 


Dry Density Versus Elevation 

PLATE 10

0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 

775.0 

XV-1 

770.0 

765.0 

760.0 

755.0 

750.0 

XV-2 

XV-3 

XV-4 

XV-5 

XV-6 

XV-7 

XV-8 

XV-9 

XV-10 

XV-11 

XV-12 

XV-13 

XV-14 

XV-15 

Void Ratio 


745.0 

740.0 

735.0 

730.0 

725.0 

720.0 

715.0 

710.0 


Void Ratio Versus Elevation 

PLATE 11

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 

Effective Stress Strength Envelope 

’= Q-Prime 29-deg (PSF) 

c’ = 172-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p', psf 


Effective Stress Strength Envelope – Fill Material 

PLATE 12 

q, (psf)

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 


’= Q-Prime 13.0-deg 

(PSF) 

c’ = 616-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p', psf 


Effective Stress Strength Envelope – Native Materials 

PLATE 13 

q, (psf)

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 


’= Q-Prime 19.9-deg 

(PSF) 

c’ = 1223-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p', psf 


Effective Stress Strength Envelope – Sandstone Bedrock 

PLATE 14 

q, (psf)

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 

Total Stress Strength Envelope 

Q-TOT (PSF) 

= 16.0-deg 

c T = 416-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p, psf 


Total Stress Strength Envelope – Fill Material 

PLATE 15 

q, (psf)

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 


= Q-TOT 6.9-deg (PSF) 

c T = 806-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p, psf 


Total Stress Strength Envelope – Native Materials 

PLATE 16 

q, (psf)

5000.0 

4500.0 

4000.0 

3500.0 

3000.0 

2500.0 

2000.0 

1500.0 

1000.0 

500.0 

0.0 


= Q-TOT 19.9-deg 

(PSF) 

c T = 851-psf 

0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 

p, psf 


Total Stress Strength Envelope – Sandstone Bedrock 

PLATE 17 

q, (psf)

Material m 

(pcf) sat 

(pcf) c’ (psf) ’ (degree) 

Dam Fill 126.8 128.8 172 29.0 

FSmin = 2.31 

Native 

Materials 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

127.3 

132.2 

128.7 

132.3 

616 

1223 

13.0 

19.9 


Upstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis - 

WSL = 768’ 

PLATE 18

Material m 

(pcf) 

Dam Fill 126.8 

Native 

Materials 

127.3 

FSmin = 1.57 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

132.2 


Downstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis - 

WSL = 768’ 

sat 

(pcf) 

128.8 

128.7 

132.3 

c’ (psf) ’ (degree) 

172 29.0 

616 

13.0 

1223 

19.9 


PLATE 19

Material 

m 

(pcf) 

Dam Fill 

126.8 

FSmin = 1.67 

Native 

Materials 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

127.3 

132.2 


Downstream - Long Term Slope Stability Analysis - 

WSL = 768’ 

sat 

(pcf) 

128.8 

128.7 

132.3 

c’ (psf) 

’ (degree) 

172 

29.0 

616 

13.0 

1223 

19.9 


PLATE 20

Material m 

(pcf) sat 

(pcf) c (psf) (degree) 

Dam Fill 126.8 128.8 416 

16.0 

Native 

Materials 

127.3 

128.7 

806 

6.9 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

132.2 

132.3 

851 

19.9 

Ky = 0.45 FS=1.09 


Upstream – Pseudo-Dynamic Slope Stability Analysis - 

WSL = 768’ 

* (degree) 

18.9 

5.9 

-- 


PLATE 21

Material m 

(pcf) sat 

(pcf) c (psf) (degree) * (degree) 

Dam Fill 126.8 128.8 416 

16.0 

18.9 

Native 

Materials 

127.3 

128.7 

806 

6.9 

5.9 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

132.2 

132.3 

851 

19.9 

-- 

Ky = 0.15 FS=1.00 


Downstream – Pseudo-Dynamic Slope Stability Analysis - 

WSL = 768’ 

PLATE 22

Material m 

(pcf) sat 

(pcf) C T (psf) T (degree) T (degree) 

Dam Fill 126.8 128.8 416 16.0 18.9 

Native 

Materials 

127.3 

128.7 

806 

6.9 

5.9 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

132.2 

132.3 

851 

19.9 

-- 

FSmin = 2.75 



Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis – Res. Elev. = 768’ 

PLATE 23

850 

830 

810 

790 

770 

750 

730 

710 

690 

670 

650 

Material m 

(pcf) sat 

(pcf) C T (psf) T (degree) T (degree) 

Dam Fill 126.8 128.8 416 16.0 18.9 

Native 

Materials 

127.3 

128.7 

806 

6.9 

5.9 

Sandstone 

Bedrock 

132.2 

132.3 

851 

19.9 

-- 

FSmin = 1.86 

1.859 

Dam Fill 

Native Materials 

Sandstone Bedrock 

-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 

Horizontal Distance (ft) 



Rapid Drawdown Slope Stability Analysis – Res. Elev. = 755.9’ 

PLATE 24 

Elevation (ft)

1.5 

Displacement 

(ft) 

1.0 

0.5 

Kobe Normal Polarity 

0.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.5 

Time (sec) 

Displacement 

(ft) 

1.0 

0.5 

Kobe Reverse Polarity 

0.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time (sec) 

2.0 

Displacement 

(ft) 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

Kocaeli Normal Polarity 

0.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

1.5 

Time (sec) 

Displacement 

(ft) 

1.0 

0.5 

Kocaeli Reverse Polarity 

0.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Time (sec) 

2.0 

Displacement 

(ft) 

Displacement 

(ft) 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

4 

Time (sec) 

3 

2 

1 

Landers Normal Polarity 

Landers Reverse Polarity 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time (sec) 


Newmark Displacement Analysis 

Kobe, Kocaeli , and Landers Earthquake 

PLATE 25

Appendix A 

Logs of Borings 

LIST OF PLATES 

Plate A-0A 

Plate A-0B 

Plate A-1 

Plates A-2 to A-7 

Soil Classification Properties Legend 

Formational Material Description, Legend for Report Boring Logs 

Site Plan and Boring Locations 

Logs of Borings (XV-11 through XV-15) 



Appendix B 

Laboratory Test Results 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table No. 

Title 

B-1 Summary of Laboratory Index Test Results 

B-2 Summary of Index Tests – Previous Borings 

B-3 Summary of Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test Results 

B-4 Specific Gravity Test Result 

Group Particle Size Distribution Reports 

Group Direct Shear Test Results 

Group Unconsolidated Undrained Test 



9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

TABLE B-1 

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 

A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Lab No Boring 

Surface 

Elevation (FT) 

Sample No Elevation (FT) Depth(FT) MC % 

Total Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 

Void Ratio Saturation 

(%) 

57397 XV-1 772.7 1-III 769.7 3.0 18.4 134.0 113.2 0.505 99.5 2.73 

57398 XV-1 772.7 1-II 769.4 3.3 18.2 122.0 103.2 0.651 76.4 2.73 

57399 XV-1 772.7 1-I 769.0 3.7 20.3 132.0 109.7 0.553 100.2 2.73 

57400 XV-1 772.7 2-III 765.7 7.0 23.6 129.0 104.4 0.632 102.0 2.73 

57401 XV-1 772.7 2-II 765.4 7.3 21.0 129.0 106.6 0.598 95.9 2.73 

57402 XV-1 772.7 2-I 765.0 7.7 16.6 129.0 110.6 0.540 83.9 2.73 

57403 XV-1 772.7 3-II 761.4 11.3 19.3 131.0 109.8 0.551 95.5 2.73 

57404 XV-1 772.7 3-I 761.0 11.7 22.6 125.1 102.0 0.670 92.1 2.73 

57405 XV-1 772.7 5-II 755.4 17.3 17.2 131.0 111.8 0.524 89.7 2.73 

57406 XV-1 772.7 5-I 755.0 17.7 14.2 140.0 122.6 0.389 99.5 2.73 

57408 XV-1 772.7 6-I 752.2 20.5 9.7 150.0 136.7 0.232 112.7 2.7 

57377 XV-2 754.5 1-II 751.2 3.3 16.4 71.0 61.0 1.762 25.1 2.7 

57378 XV-2 754.5 1-I 750.8 3.7 14.4 94.0 82.2 1.050 37.0 2.7 

57379 XV-2 754.5 2-II 747.2 7.3 22.7 85.0 69.3 1.431 42.8 2.7 

57380 XV-2 754.5 2-I 746.8 7.7 22.8 85.0 69.2 1.435 42.9 2.7 

57382 XV-2 754.5 3-I 744.8 9.7 20.5 94.0 78.0 1.160 47.7 2.7 

57384 XV-2 754.5 4-II 743.2 11.3 19.7 83.0 69.3 1.431 37.2 2.7 

57385 XV-2 754.5 4-I 742.8 11.7 20.4 89.0 73.9 1.280 43.0 2.7 

57386 XV-2 754.5 5-III 739.5 15.0 17.4 86.1 73.3 1.298 36.2 2.7 

57387 XV-2 754.5 5-II 739.2 15.3 18.6 88.1 74.3 1.268 39.6 2.7 

57388 XV-2 754.5 5-I 738.8 15.7 23.1 92.0 74.7 1.255 49.7 2.7 

57389 XV-2 754.5 6-IV 735.8 18.7 22.6 87.0 71.0 1.373 44.4 2.7 

57390 XV-2 754.5 6-III 735.5 19.0 19.3 90.0 75.4 1.234 42.2 2.7 

57391 XV-2 754.5 6-II 735.2 19.3 20.8 91.0 75.3 1.237 45.4 2.7 

57392 XV-2 754.5 6-I 734.8 19.7 22.2 94.9 77.7 1.168 51.3 2.7 

57393 XV-2 754.5 7-IV 730.8 23.7 20.2 125.0 104.0 0.620 88.0 2.7 

57394 XV-2 754.5 7-III 730.5 24.0 20.7 126.0 104.4 0.614 91.1 2.7 

57395 XV-2 754.5 7-II 730.2 24.3 25.4 121.0 96.5 0.746 91.9 2.7 

57396 XV-2 754.5 7-I 729.8 24.7 25.0 122.0 97.6 0.726 92.9 2.7 

57364 XV-3 754.5 1-II 751.2 3.3 18.4 122.9 103.8 0.623 79.7 2.7 

57365 XV-3 754.5 1-I 750.8 3.7 14.3 127.9 111.9 0.506 76.4 2.7 

57366 XV-3 754.5 2-III 747.5 7.0 20.1 129.0 107.4 0.569 95.4 2.7 

57367 XV-3 754.5 2-II 747.2 7.3 22.3 123.9 101.3 0.663 90.8 2.7 

57368 XV-3 754.5 2-I 746.8 7.7 18.1 135.9 115.1 0.464 105.4 2.7 

75370 XV-3 754.5 3-I 742.7 11.8 19.7 128.3 107.2 0.572 93.0 2.7 

57371 XV-3 754.5 4-III 740.0 14.5 15.5 129.9 112.5 0.498 84.1 2.7 

57372 XV-3 754.5 4-II 739.7 14.8 15.8 140.9 121.7 0.384 111.0 2.7 

57373 XV-3 754.5 4-I 739.3 15.2 16.6 151.0 129.5 0.301 148.9 2.7 

57997 XV-4 754.5 1-VNF 750.2 4.3 12.5 2.7 

57998 XV-4 754.5 1-IV 749.8 4.7 10.8 2.7 

57999 XV-4 754.5 1-III 749.5 5.0 14.3 130.3 114.0 0.478 80.8 2.7 

58000 XV-4 754.5 1-II 749.2 5.3 11.4 123.7 111.0 0.518 59.4 2.7 

58001 XV-4 754.5 1-I 748.8 5.7 11.6 133.9 120.0 0.404 77.5 2.7 

58002 XV-4 754.5 2-III 743.5 11.0 15.1 108.2 94.0 0.792 51.5 2.7 

58003 XV-4 754.5 2-II 743.2 11.3 22.3 128.4 105.0 0.605 99.6 2.7 

58004 XV-4 754.5 2-I 742.8 11.7 22.0 131.8 108.0 0.560 106.1 2.7 

58005 XV-4 754.5 3-IIINF 737.5 17.0 20.9 2.7 

58006 XV-4 754.5 3-II 737.2 17.3 23.0 127.9 104.0 0.620 100.2 2.7 

58007 XV-4 754.5 3-I 736.8 17.7 20.0 129.6 108.0 0.560 96.4 2.7 

58008 XV-4 754.5 4-II 731.2 23.3 21.9 123.1 101.0 0.668 88.5 2.7 

58009 XV-4 754.5 4-I 725.8 28.7 24.7 118.5 95.0 0.773 86.2 2.7 

58010 XV-4 754.5 5-IV 725.5 29.0 26.5 116.4 92.0 0.831 86.1 2.7 

58011 XV-4 754.5 5-III 725.2 29.3 31.2 118.1 90.0 0.872 96.6 2.7 

58012 XV-4 754.5 5-II 724.8 29.7 28.6 123.5 96.0 0.755 102.3 2.7 

58013 XV-4 754.5 5-I 720.2 34.3 24.2 130.4 105.0 0.605 108.1 2.7 

58014 XV-4 754.5 6-VNF 719.8 34.7 19.4 2.7 

58015 XV-4 754.5 6-IV 719.5 35.0 18.4 127.9 108.0 0.560 88.7 2.7 

58016 XV-4 754.5 6-III 719.2 35.3 17.6 139.9 119.0 0.416 114.3 2.7 

58017 XV-4 754.5 6-II 718.8 35.7 16.9 128.6 110.0 0.532 85.8 2.7 

Specific 

Gravity 

W:\WORKGRP\DATA\Yprashar\Projects\Dingee\Lab_Data\MAIN_Dingee Reservoir - Summary for Laboratory Testing Program.xls 7/30/2008

2 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

TABLE B-1 



Lab No Boring 

Surface 



Total Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 


(%) 

58018 XV-4 754.5 6-I 718.8 35.7 16.3 139.6 120.0 0.404 108.9 2.7 

58019 XV-4 754.5 7-IIINF 713.5 41.0 11.2 2.7 

58020 XV-4 754.5 7-II 713.2 41.3 13.7 139.9 123.0 0.370 100.0 2.7 

58021 XV-4 754.5 7-I 712.8 41.7 10.1 146.4 133.0 0.267 102.2 2.7 

58092 XV-5 754.5 1-V 750.2 4.3 13.6 121.6 107.0 0.575 63.9 2.7 

58093 XV-5 754.5 1-IV 749.8 4.7 11.3 120.2 108.0 0.560 54.5 2.7 

58094 XV-5 754.5 1-III 749.5 5.0 7.5 121.5 113.0 0.491 41.2 2.7 

58095 XV-5 754.5 1-II 749.2 5.3 12.5 126.0 112.0 0.504 66.9 2.7 

58096 XV-5 754.5 1-I 748.8 5.7 15.9 127.5 110.0 0.532 80.8 2.7 

58097 XV-5 754.5 2-IIINF 743.5 11.0 21.2 2.7 

58098 XV-5 754.5 2-II 743.2 11.3 20.1 108.1 90.0 0.872 62.2 2.7 

58099 XV-5 754.5 2-I 742.8 11.7 21.1 112.6 93.0 0.812 70.2 2.7 

58100 XV-5 754.5 3-III 737.5 17.0 23.1 109.6 89.0 0.893 69.8 2.7 

58101 XV-5 754.5 3-II 737.2 17.3 22.6 121.4 99.0 0.702 86.9 2.7 

58102 XV-5 754.5 3-INF 736.8 17.7 20.3 2.7 

58103 XV-5 754.5 4-III 731.5 23.0 20.4 106.0 88.0 0.915 60.2 2.7 

58104 XV-5 754.5 4-II 731.2 23.3 21.3 120.1 99.0 0.702 81.9 2.7 

58105 XV-5 754.5 4-I 730.8 23.7 22.6 130.0 106.0 0.589 103.5 2.7 

58106 XV-5 754.5 5-III 725.5 29.0 23.4 116.0 94.0 0.792 79.7 2.7 

58107 XV-5 754.5 5-IINF 725.2 29.3 22.9 2.7 

58108 XV-5 754.5 6-IV 719.8 34.7 24.7 117.2 94.0 0.792 84.2 2.7 

58109 XV-5 754.5 6-III 719.5 35.0 18.9 128.4 108.0 0.560 91.1 2.7 

58110 XV-5 754.5 6-II 719.2 35.3 18.4 136.2 115.0 0.465 106.8 2.7 

58111 XV-5 754.5 6-I 718.8 35.7 17.6 132.9 113.0 0.491 96.8 2.7 

58112 XV-5 754.5 7-IINF 714.3 40.2 18.3 130.1 110.0 0.532 92.9 2.7 

58062 XV-6 754.5 1-IV 747.8 6.7 13.8 115.1 101.1 0.666 55.9 2.7 

58063 XV-6 754.5 1-III 747.5 7.0 17.0 123.0 105.1 0.603 76.1 2.7 

58064 XV-6 754.5 1-II 747.2 7.3 22.9 126.0 102.5 0.644 96.1 2.7 

58065 XV-6 754.5 1-I 746.8 7.7 26.7 124.0 97.9 0.721 100.0 2.7 

58066 XV-6 754.5 2-III 741.5 13.0 28.9 124.0 96.2 0.751 103.9 2.7 

58067 XV-6 754.5 2-II 741.2 13.3 19.1 129.0 108.3 0.556 92.8 2.7 

58069 XV-6 754.5 3-III 735.5 19.0 22.4 124.0 101.3 0.663 91.2 2.7 

58070 XV-6 754.5 3-II 735.2 19.3 21.9 123.0 100.9 0.670 88.3 2.7 

58071 XV-6 754.5 3-I 734.8 19.7 22.3 121.0 98.9 0.704 85.6 2.7 

58073 XV-6 754.5 4-II 731.2 23.3 18.8 124.0 104.4 0.614 82.7 2.7 

58074 XV-6 754.5 4-I 730.8 23.7 20.3 124.0 103.1 0.634 86.4 2.7 

58076 XV-6 754.5 5-I 726.0 28.5 10.7 140.0 126.5 0.332 87.1 2.7 

58077 XV-6 754.5 6-III 720.3 34.2 13.2 138.0 121.9 0.382 93.3 2.7 

58078 XV-6 754.5 6-II 720.0 34.5 9.8 132.0 120.2 0.402 65.9 2.7 

58079 XV-6 754.5 6-I 719.7 34.8 13.6 143.0 125.9 0.338 108.6 2.7 

58090 XV-7 754.5 1-III 749.5 5.0 17.7 123.0 104.5 0.612 78.1 2.7 

58091 XV-7 754.5 1-II 749.2 5.3 29.0 124.0 96.1 0.753 104.0 2.7 

58047 XV-7 754.5 I-I 748.8 5.7 20.9 130.0 107.5 0.567 99.5 2.7 

58049 XV-7 754.5 2-II 743.2 11.3 20.8 123.0 101.8 0.655 85.7 2.7 

58050 XV-7 754.5 2-I 742.8 11.7 18.0 128.0 108.5 0.553 87.9 2.7 

58051 XV-7 754.5 3-IV 737.8 16.7 22.3 123.0 100.6 0.675 89.2 2.7 

58052 XV-7 754.5 3-III 737.5 17.0 20.9 130.0 107.5 0.567 99.5 2.7 

58053 XV-7 754.5 3-II 737.2 17.3 18.8 134.0 112.8 0.494 102.8 2.7 

58054 XV-7 754.5 3-I 736.8 17.7 16.8 134.0 114.7 0.469 96.7 2.7 

58055 XV-7 754.5 4-V 732.2 22.3 20.5 133.0 110.4 0.526 105.2 2.7 

58056 XV-7 754.5 4-IV 731.8 22.7 22.7 129.0 105.1 0.603 101.6 2.7 

58057 XV-7 754.5 4-III 731.5 23.0 17.6 133.9 113.9 0.479 99.2 2.7 

58058 XV-7 754.5 4-II 731.2 23.3 18.5 132.0 111.4 0.512 97.5 2.7 

58092 XV-8 754.5 1-III 747.5 7.0 23.6 129.0 104.4 0.614 103.8 2.7 

58093 XV-8 754.5 1-II 747.2 7.3 27.7 118.9 93.1 0.810 92.4 2.7 

58094 XV-8 754.5 1-I 746.8 7.7 27.0 121.0 95.3 0.768 94.9 2.7 

58098 XV-8 754.5 3-IV 742.2 12.3 23.4 128.0 103.7 0.625 101.1 2.7 

Specific 

Gravity 


2 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

TABLE B-1 



Lab No Boring 

Surface 



Total Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 


(%) 

58095 XV-8 754.5 2-III 741.5 13.0 20.5 118.0 97.9 0.721 76.8 2.7 

58096 XV-8 754.5 2-II 741.2 13.3 20.2 122.0 101.5 0.660 82.6 2.7 

58097 XV-8 754.5 2-I 740.8 13.7 19.9 122.1 101.8 0.655 82.0 2.7 

57374 XV-8 754.5 5-I 736.3 18.2 10.4 158.0 143.1 0.177 158.3 2.7 

58099 XV-8 754.5 3-III 735.5 19.0 23.7 128.0 103.5 0.628 101.9 2.7 

58100 XV-8 754.5 3-II 735.2 19.3 25.2 123.9 99.0 0.702 96.9 2.7 

58101 XV-8 754.5 3-I 734.8 19.7 25.0 123.0 98.4 0.712 94.8 2.7 

58103 XV-8 754.5 5-I 724.3 30.2 11.6 139.9 125.4 0.344 91.2 2.7 

58080 XV-9 754.5 1-III 749.5 5.0 24.4 126.0 101.3 0.663 99.3 2.7 

58081 XV-9 754.5 1-II 749.2 5.3 23.2 126.0 102.3 0.647 96.8 2.7 

58082 XV-9 754.5 1-I 748.8 5.7 24.6 126.0 101.1 0.666 99.7 2.7 

58083 XV-9 754.5 2-IV 743.8 10.7 21.1 125.9 104.0 0.620 91.9 2.7 

58084 XV-9 754.5 2-III 743.5 11.0 23.4 125.0 101.3 0.663 95.3 2.7 

58085 XV-9 754.5 2-II 743.2 11.3 22.4 131.9 107.8 0.563 107.4 2.7 

58086 XV-9 754.5 2-I 742.8 11.7 26.3 126.0 99.8 0.688 103.2 2.7 

58088 XV-9 754.5 3-I 737.8 16.7 10.9 140.0 126.2 0.335 87.8 2.7 

58089 XV-9 754.5 4-I 732.3 22.2 11.5 131.0 117.5 0.434 71.6 2.7 

58104 XV-10 754 1-III 749.0 5.0 9.1 121.0 110.9 0.519 47.3 2.7 

58105 XV-10 754 1-II 748.7 5.3 9.4 137.0 125.2 0.346 73.4 2.7 

58106 XV-10 754 1-I 748.3 5.7 8.0 131.0 121.3 0.389 55.5 2.7 

58107 XV-10 754 3-II 736.7 17.3 16.4 133.0 114.3 0.474 93.4 2.7 

58108 XV-10 754 3-I 736.3 17.7 16.7 117.1 100.3 0.680 66.3 2.7 

58109 XV-10 754 4-IV 731.3 22.7 20.0 129.0 107.5 0.567 95.2 2.7 

58110 XV-10 754 4-III 731.0 23.0 19.1 132.0 110.8 0.521 99.1 2.7 

58111 XV-10 754 4-II 730.7 23.3 18.3 131.0 110.7 0.522 94.7 2.7 

58112 XV-10 754 4-I 730.3 23.7 19.0 133.0 111.8 0.507 101.2 2.7 

58113 XV-10 754 5-V 725.7 28.3 17.3 134.0 114.2 0.475 98.3 2.7 

58114 XV-10 754 5-IV 725.3 28.7 15.4 137.0 118.7 0.419 99.1 2.7 

58115 XV-10 754 5-III 725.0 29.0 16.8 136.0 116.4 0.447 101.4 2.7 

58116 XV-10 754 5-II 724.7 29.3 19.0 137.0 115.1 0.464 110.6 2.7 

58117 XV-10 754 5-I 724.3 29.7 12.2 134.0 119.4 0.411 80.1 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-1-I 769.7 3.0 17.1 123.3 105.3 0.600 77.0 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-2-I 767.2 5.5 15.0 - - - - 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-3-I 764.7 8.0 15.0 126.6 110.1 0.530 76.4 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-4-II 762.2 10.5 20.8 125.1 103.6 0.626 89.7 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-4-I 761.7 11.0 22.3 124.3 101.6 0.658 91.5 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-5-I 759.2 13.5 21.8 125.8 103.3 0.631 93.3 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-6-I 756.7 16.0 12.8 137.6 122.0 0.381 90.7 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-7-I 754.7 18.0 8.2 140.2 129.6 0.300 73.8 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-8-I 752.2 20.5 6.4 122.1 114.8 0.468 37.0 2.7 

2007 XV-11 772.7 MC-9-I 746.7 26.0 8.0 141.3 130.8 0.288 75.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-1-1 768.9 3.3 15.2 136.3 118.3 0.424 96.8 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-2-I 766.7 5.5 16.4 134.2 115.3 0.461 96.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-3-I 764.2 8.0 15.0 136.9 119.0 0.416 97.4 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-4-I 761.7 10.5 15.1 135.0 117.3 0.436 93.4 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-5 760.7 11.5 18.9 126.6 106.5 0.582 87.7 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-6 759.2 13.0 21.1 129.6 107.0 0.575 99.2 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-6 758.7 13.5 17.2 134.9 115.1 0.464 100.1 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-6 758.2 14.0 19.6 130.8 109.4 0.540 98.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-7 756.7 15.5 21.1 130.9 108.1 0.559 102.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 752.2 20.0 20.1 129.9 108.2 0.557 97.4 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-9 749.7 22.5 20.9 131.1 108.4 0.554 101.8 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-9 749.5 22.7 20.9 130.6 108 0.560 100.8 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-9 749.2 23.0 19.0 132.3 111.2 0.515 99.6 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-10 747.2 25.0 13.8 139.3 122.4 0.376 99.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-10 747.0 25.2 21.5 130.0 107.0 0.575 101.0 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-10 746.8 25.4 17.4 134.8 114.8 0.468 100.5 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 PT-10 746.7 25.5 16.7 135.0 115.7 0.456 98.8 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-13-I 741.7 30.5 8.7 149.1 137.2 0.228 103.0 2.7 

Specific 

Gravity 


TABLE B-1 


2 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 


Lab No Boring 

Surface 



Total Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 


(%) 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-14-I 736.7 35.5 10.9 145.2 130.9 0.287 102.5 2.7 

2007 XV-12 772.2 MC-15-I 732.2 40.0 9.9 147.3 134 0.257 103.9 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-1-I 767.2 6.0 19.8 123.5 103.1 0.634 84.3 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-2-I 762.7 10.5 18.0 127.7 108.2 0.557 87.2 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-3-II 760.2 13.0 23.3 124.5 101 0.668 94.2 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-3-I 759.7 13.5 23.0 154.6 125.7 0.340 182.5 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-4 758.2 15.0 22.5 128.6 105.0 0.605 100.5 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-4 757.7 15.5 21.3 130.0 107.2 0.572 100.6 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-4-I 757.7 15.5 21.3 130.0 107.2 0.572 100.6 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-5 755.7 17.5 22.0 130.4 106.9 0.576 103.1 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-5-II 755.7 17.5 22.9 129.5 105.4 0.598 103.3 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-5 755.5 17.7 23.8 128.6 103.9 0.622 103.4 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-5-I 755.2 18.0 20.3 129.7 107.8 0.563 97.4 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-7 749.4 23.8 21.3 131.5 108.4 0.554 103.8 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-7 749.2 24.0 22.8 126.0 102.6 0.642 95.9 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-7 749.0 24.2 20.1 133.6 111.2 0.515 105.4 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-7 748.8 24.4 22.8 129.4 105.4 0.598 102.9 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-8-I 747.2 26.0 24.7 121.8 97.7 0.724 92.1 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-9-III 745.7 27.5 21.3 123.5 101.8 0.655 87.8 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-9-II 745.2 28.0 19.8 127.1 106.1 0.588 90.9 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-10 742.2 31.0 21.3 130.4 107.5 0.567 101.4 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-10 742.0 31.2 21.9 127.9 104.9 0.606 97.6 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-10 741.8 31.4 21.1 129.9 107.3 0.570 99.9 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-11-II 737.8 35.4 21.4 128.7 106.0 0.589 98.0 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-12-I 734.2 39.0 11.6 135.3 121.2 0.390 80.3 2.7 

2007 XV-13 773.2 MC-13-I 730.7 42.5 10.3 138.0 125.1 0.347 80.2 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 MC-1-I 749.7 4.5 20.1 130.3 108.5 0.553 98.2 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-2 747.7 6.5 27.0 119.4 94.0 0.792 92.0 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-2 747.7 6.5 27.0 119.4 94.0 0.792 92.0 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-2 747.5 6.7 27.9 120.0 93.8 0.796 94.6 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-4 742.2 12.0 20.7 130.6 108.2 0.557 100.3 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-4 741.7 12.5 19.6 131.3 109.8 0.534 99.0 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 MC-5-I 736.7 17.5 18.8 133.5 112.4 0.499 101.7 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 MC-5-I 736.7 17.5 18.8 133.5 112.4 0.499 101.7 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-6 733.8 20.4 22.1 129.2 105.8 0.592 100.7 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-6 733.2 21 23.5 127.1 102.9 0.637 99.6 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-7 731.2 23.0 19.8 131.3 109.6 0.537 99.5 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-7 731.0 23.2 18.3 132.0 111.6 0.510 96.9 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-7 730.8 23.4 19.2 131.6 110.4 0.526 98.5 2.7 

2007 XV-14 754.2 SH-7 730.7 23.5 18.3 133.0 112.4 0.499 99.0 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-1-III 749.5 5.0 21.5 121.6 100.1 0.683 85.0 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-1-II 749.0 5.5 25.8 122.3 97.2 0.733 95.0 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-1-II 748.8 5.7 21.5 128.3 105.6 0.595 97.5 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-1-II 748.6 5.9 24.4 125.0 100.5 0.676 97.4 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-1-I 748.5 6.0 17.2 133.3 113.7 0.482 96.4 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-2-II 745.0 9.5 17.2 135.5 115.6 0.457 101.5 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-2-II 744.8 9.7 23.5 126.5 102.4 0.645 98.3 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-2-II 744.6 9.9 25.0 127.0 101.6 0.658 102.5 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-2-I 744.5 10.0 24 125.7 101.4 0.662 98.0 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-3-II 742.0 12.5 7.8 134.1 124.4 0.354 59.4 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-3-I 741.5 13.0 15.2 137.4 119.3 0.412 99.6 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 MC-4-I 739.0 15.5 8.4 133.5 123.2 0.368 61.7 2.7 

2007 XV-15 754.5 SPT-6 731.5 23.0 9.0 - - - - 2.7 

Specific 

Gravity 


TABLE B-2 

SUMMARY OF ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS 

Lab No Boring LED 

Surface 



Total Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 


(%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Passing #200 

Sieve (%) 

2007 XV-11 @ 772.7 MC-1-I 769.7 3.0 17.1 123.3 105.3 0.600 77.0 2.7 62.5 40 19 21 

2007 XV-11 @ 772.7 MC-2-I 767.2 5.5 15.0 - - - - 2.7 45.3 - - - 

2007 XV-11 @ 772.7 MC-4-II 762.2 10.5 20.8 125.1 103.6 0.626 89.7 2.7 63.0 - - - 

2007 XV-11 @ 772.7 MC-4-I 761.7 11.0 22.3 124.3 101.6 0.658 91.5 2.7 65.8 47 22 25 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 MC-1-1 768.9 3.3 15.2 136.3 118.3 0.424 96.8 2.7 48.1 - - - 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 MC-2-I 766.7 5.5 16.4 134.2 115.3 0.461 96.0 2.7 45.4 34 18 16 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 MC-4-I 761.7 10.5 15.1 135.0 117.3 0.436 93.4 2.7 66.5 48 21 27 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 PT-6 759.2 13.0 21.1 129.6 107.0 0.575 99.2 2.7 63.2 36 19 17 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 PT-6 758.7 13.5 17.2 134.9 115.1 0.464 100.1 2.7 47.7 - - - 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 PT-6 758.2 14.0 19.6 130.8 109.4 0.540 98.0 2.7 65.3 - - - 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 PT-7 756.7 15.5 21.1 130.9 108.1 0.559 102.0 2.7 65.3 37 19 18 

2007 XV-12 @ 772.2 PT-9 749.2 23.0 19.0 132.3 111.2 0.515 99.6 2.7 70.5 - - - 

2007 XV-13 @ 773.2 MC-1-I 767.2 6.0 19.8 123.5 103.1 0.634 84.3 2.7 64.0 - - - 

2007 XV-13 @ 773.2 MC-3-I 759.7 13.5 23.0 154.6 125.7 0.340 182.5 2.7 61.8 29 17 12 

2007 XV-13 @ 773.2 MC-5-I 755.2 18.0 20.3 129.7 107.8 0.563 97.4 2.7 67.6 40 20 20 

2007 XV-13 @ 773.2 MC-8-I 747.2 26.0 24.7 121.8 97.7 0.724 92.1 2.7 72.4 - - - 

2007 XV-13 @ 773.2 MC-9-III 745.7 27.5 21.3 123.5 101.8 0.655 87.8 2.7 64.4 31 20 11 

2007 XV-14 @ 754.2 SH-4 741.7 12.5 19.6 131.3 109.8 0.534 99.0 2.7 60.4 - - - 

2007 XV-14 @ 754.2 SH-6 733.8 20.4 22.1 129.2 105.8 0.592 100.7 2.7 78.8 45 21 24 

2007 XV-14 @ 754.2 SH-6 733.2 21 23.5 127.1 102.9 0.637 99.6 2.7 81.3 - - - 

2007 XV-14 @ 754.2 SH-7 730.7 23.5 18.3 133.0 112.4 0.499 99.0 2.7 62.5 - - - 

2007 XV-15 @ 754.5 MC-1-III 749.5 5.0 21.5 121.6 100.1 0.683 85.0 2.7 59.5 29 18 11 

2007 XV-15 @ 754.5 MC-1-I 748.5 6.0 17.2 133.3 113.7 0.482 96.4 2.7 57.5 27 17 10 

2007 XV-15 @ 754.5 MC-2-I 744.5 10.0 24 125.7 101.4 0.662 98.0 2.7 80.3 53 22 31 

2007 XV-15 @ 754.5 MC-3-I 741.5 13.0 15.2 137.4 119.3 0.412 99.6 2.7 67.1 - - - 

Liquid 

Limit 

(%) 

Plastic 

Limit (%) 

Plasticity 

Index 

W:\WORKGRP\DATA\Yprashar\Projects\Dingee\Lab_Data\MAIN_Dingee Reservoir - Summary for Laboratory Testing Program.xls 

TALBE B-2 - PI 7/30/2008

TABLE B-3 

SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS 

Boring Led Elevation Sample Surface Elevation Depth Test Soil Unit 

Fill or 

Bedrock 

Soil Symbol MC % 

Total 

Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 

Void 

Ratio 

Saturatio 

n (%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Sigma 3 

(PSF) 

Deviator 

Stress 

(psf) 

Delta U 

(psf) 

Sigma 1 

(psf) 

Sig1/ 

Sig3 

Strain Eff. sig1 Eff. sig3 

XV-12 @ 766.5 MC-2-I 772.2 766.5 5.8 TXCU-I Clayey Sand w/ gravel _Fill CL 16.4 134.2 115.3 0.46 96.0 2.70 1500.0 2200.0 780.0 3700.0 4.06 2.90 2920.0 720.0 1820.0 1100.0 2600.0 1100.0 

XV-12 @ 759.0 PT-6 772.2 759.0 13.3 TXCU-I Br. Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 21.1 129.6 107.0 0.57 99.2 2.70 2000.0 2410.0 930.0 4410.0 3.25 5.00 3480.0 1070.0 2275.0 1205.0 3205.0 1205.0 

XV-12 @ 758.5 PT-6 772.2 758.5 13.8 TXCU-I Br and gr sandy clay _Fill CL 19.6 130.8 109.4 0.54 98.0 2.70 4500.0 4410.0 2510.0 8910.0 3.22 4.50 6400.0 1990.0 4195.0 2205.0 6705.0 2205.0 


XV-12 @ 751.9 PT-8 772.2 751.9 20.3 TXCU-I Olv sandy lean clay _Fill CL 20.1 129.9 108.2 0.56 97.4 2.70 4000.0 4010.0 2620.0 8010.0 3.91 3.90 5390.0 1380.0 3385.0 2005.0 6005.0 2005.0 

XV-13 @ 759.5 MC-3-I 773.2 759.5 13.8 TXCU-I Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 19.6 125.7 105.1 0.60 87.8 2.70 3000.0 8000.0 1850.0 11000.0 7.96 2.64 9150.0 1150.0 5150.0 4000.0 7000.0 4000.0 

XV-13 @ 745.5 MC-9-III 773.2 745.5 27.8 TXCU-I Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 21.3 123.5 101.8 0.66 87.8 2.70 6000.0 4700.0 4420.0 10700.0 3.97 4.79 6280.0 1580.0 3930.0 2350.0 8350.0 2350.0 

XV-13 @ 747.5 MC-8-II 773.2 747.5 25.8 TXCU-I lean clay w/ sand _Fill CL 20.1 131.3 109.3 0.54 100.2 2.70 2500.0 5600.0 1570.0 8100.0 7.02 2.72 6530.0 930.0 3730.0 2800.0 5300.0 2800.0 

XV-13 @ 748.0 MC-8-III 773.2 748.0 25.3 TXCU-I lean clay w/ sand _Fill CL 23.4 125.7 101.9 0.65 96.7 2.70 5000.0 6700.0 3270.0 11700.0 4.87 4.22 8430.0 1730.0 5080.0 3350.0 8350.0 3350.0 

XV-14 @ 742.0 SH-4 754.2 742.0 12.3 TXCU-I Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 20.7 130.6 108.2 0.56 100.3 2.70 3600.0 5900.0 2470.0 9500.0 6.22 3.15 7030.0 1130.0 4080.0 2950.0 6550.0 2950.0 


XV-1 @ 765.7 2-III 772.7 765.7 7 TXCU-I Gravelly clay, some sand _Fill CL 22.0 130.3 106.8 0.58 102.9 2.70 432.0 1046.9 216.0 1478.9 5.88 10.60 216.0 1262.9 739.4 523.4 955.4 523.4 

XV-1 @ 765.4 2-II 772.7 765.4 7.3 TXCU-I Gravelly clay, some sand _Fill CL 19.3 132.9 111.4 0.51 101.7 2.70 1008.0 1873.4 216.0 2881.4 3.37 10.70 792.0 2665.4 1728.7 936.7 1944.7 936.7 

XV-1 @ 765.0 2-I 772.7 765.0 7.7 TXCU-I Gravelly clay, some sand _Fill CL 19.6 131.0 109.5 0.54 98.2 2.70 1584.0 2285.3 288.0 3869.3 2.76 10.20 1296.0 3581.3 2438.6 1142.6 2726.6 1142.6 



XV-2 @ 757.1 5-I 772.8 757.1 15.7 TXCU-I Sandy clay _Fill CL 19.5 130.3 109.0 0.55 96.5 2.70 1872.0 3065.8 216.0 4937.8 2.85 11.00 1656.0 4721.8 3188.9 1532.9 3404.9 1532.9 

XV-2 @ 749.1 7-IV 772.8 749.1 23.7 TXCU-I Sandy clay _Fill CL 22.0 127.9 104.8 0.61 97.8 2.70 1152.0 1882.1 504.0 3034.1 3.90 10.60 648.0 2530.1 1589.0 941.0 2093.0 941.0 

XV-2 @ 748.8 7-III 772.8 748.8 24 TXCU-I Sandy clay _Fill CL 21.3 129.3 106.6 0.58 99.1 2.70 1728.0 2861.3 144.0 4589.3 2.81 10.60 1584.0 4445.3 3014.6 1430.6 3158.6 1430.6 

XV-2 @ 748.5 7-II 772.8 748.5 24.3 TXCU-I Sandy clay _Fill CL 22.6 121.3 98.9 0.70 86.7 2.70 2304.0 2786.4 1008.0 5090.4 3.15 10.00 1296.0 4082.4 2689.2 1393.2 3697.2 1393.2 

XV-3 @ 766.1 2-III 773.1 766.1 7 TXCU-I Sandy silty clay, sm. grav. _Fill CL 17.8 132.9 112.8 0.49 97.4 2.70 432.0 1418.4 216.0 1850.4 7.57 9.20 216.0 1634.4 925.2 709.2 1141.2 709.2 

XV-3 @ 765.8 2-II 773.1 765.8 7.3 TXCU-I Sandy silty clay, sm. grav. _Fill CL 20.2 125.2 104.2 0.62 88.4 2.70 1008.0 1749.6 648.0 2757.6 5.86 10.60 360.0 2109.6 1234.8 874.8 1882.8 874.8 

XV-3 @ 765.4 2-I 773.1 765.4 7.7 TXCU-I Sandy gravelly clay _Fill CL 16.4 133.3 114.5 0.47 93.9 2.70 1584.0 3598.6 504.0 5182.6 4.33 10.60 1080.0 4678.6 2879.3 1799.3 3383.3 1799.3 

XV-8 @ 736.4 3-IV 754.7 736.4 18.33 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 19.9 131.8 109.9 0.53 100.8 2.70 1440.0 3582.7 576.0 5022.7 5.15 10.00 864.0 4446.7 2655.4 1791.4 3231.4 1791.4 

XV-8 @ 736.0 3-III 754.7 736.0 18.67 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 22.7 129.1 105.2 0.60 101.9 2.70 2160.0 4390.6 864.0 6550.6 4.39 10.40 1296.0 5686.6 3491.3 2195.3 4355.3 2195.3 

XV-8 @ 735.4 3-II 754.7 735.4 19.33 TXCU-I Silty sand _Fill SM 25.5 125.9 100.3 0.68 101.3 2.70 2880.0 4001.8 864.0 6881.8 2.99 9.20 2016.0 6017.8 4016.9 2000.9 4880.9 2000.9 

XV-8 @ 735.0 3-I 754.7 735.0 19.67 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 24.6 127.0 101.9 0.65 101.7 2.70 2880.0 4875.8 864.0 7755.8 3.42 10.00 2016.0 6891.8 4453.9 2437.9 5317.9 2437.9 




XV-12 @ 748.9 PT-9 772.2 748.9 23.3 TXCU-I Olv gry lean clay w/ sand Native CL/CH 19.0 132.3 111.2 0.52 99.6 2.70 3000.0 2400.0 1280.0 5400.0 2.40 4.80 4120.0 1720.0 2920.0 1200.0 4200.0 1200.0 

XV-12 @ 746.5 PT-10 772.2 746.5 25.8 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 16.7 135.0 115.7 0.46 98.8 2.70 5950.0 3500.0 2420.0 9450.0 1.99 7.92 7030.0 3530.0 5280.0 1750.0 7700.0 1750.0 

XV-14 @ 733.5 SH-6 754.2 733.5 20.8 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 22.1 129.2 105.8 0.59 100.7 2.70 2500.0 2900.0 1180.0 5400.0 3.20 3.35 4220.0 1320.0 2770.0 1450.0 3950.0 1450.0 



XV-15 @ 744.3 MC-2-I 754.5 744.3 10.3 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 24.0 125.7 101.4 0.66 98.0 2.70 2500.0 3700.0 500.0 6200.0 2.85 3.13 5700.0 2000.0 3850.0 1850.0 4350.0 1850.0 


XV-7 @ 750.3 4-IV 773.0 750.3 22.7 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 21.8 129.8 106.6 0.58 101.4 2.70 1440.0 2103.8 360.0 3543.8 2.95 9.00 1080.0 3183.8 2131.9 1051.9 2491.9 1051.9 

XV-5 @ 738.3 6-IV 773.0 738.3 34.7 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 19.5 132.6 111.0 0.52 101.7 2.70 2160.0 5446.1 1152.0 7606.1 6.40 10.60 1008.0 6454.1 3731.0 2723.0 4883.0 2723.0 

XV-5 @ 738.0 6-III 773.0 738.0 35 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 19.3 132.4 111.0 0.52 100.6 2.70 3600.0 6701.8 1368.0 10301.8 4.00 10.50 2232.0 8933.8 5582.9 3350.9 6950.9 3350.9 

XV-5 @ 737.7 6-II 773.0 737.7 35.3 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 18.0 134.4 113.9 0.48 101.4 2.70 5040.0 8402.4 1152.0 13442.4 3.16 10.40 3888.0 12290.4 8089.2 4201.2 9241.2 4201.2 

XV-5 @ 737.3 6-I 773.0 737.3 35.7 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 17.8 135.2 114.8 0.47 102.8 2.70 5040.0 8455.7 864.0 13495.7 3.02 10.70 4176.0 12631.7 8403.8 4227.8 9267.8 4227.8 

XV-7 @ 750.7 4-V 773.0 750.7 22.3 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 18.1 135.5 114.7 0.47 104.2 2.70 2880.0 5906.9 1152.0 8786.9 4.42 10.00 1728.0 7634.9 4681.4 2953.4 5833.4 2953.4 



P-Prime 

(PSF) 

Q-Prime 

(PSF) 

P-TOT 

(PSF) 

Q-TOT 

(PSF) 

PT Pitcher Tube Sampler 

MC Modifyed California Sampler 

SH Shelby Tube Sampler 

TXCU-I Triaxial Test - Consolidated Undrained (Isotropic) 

W:\WORKGRP\DATA\Yprashar\Projects\Dingee\Lab_Data\SHEAR STRENGTH_Results_1.xls 

TABLE B-3 TXCU-I 

7/30/2008 

3:39 PM

TABLE B-3 

SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS 

Boring Led Elevation Sample Surface Elevation Depth Test Soil Unit 

Fill or 

Bedrock 

Soil Symbol MC % 

Total 

Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 

Void 

Ratio 

Saturatio 

n (%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Sigma 3 

(PSF) 

Deviator 

Stress 

(psf) 

Delta U 

(psf) 

Sigma 1 

(psf) 

Sig1/ 

Sig3 

Strain Eff. sig1 Eff. sig3 

XV-12 @ 766.5 MC-2-I 772.2 766.5 5.8 TXCU-I Clayey Sand w/ gravel _Fill CL 16.4 134.2 115.3 0.46 96.0 2.70 1500.0 2200.0 780.0 3700.0 4.06 2.90 2920.0 720.0 1820.0 1100.0 2600.0 1100.0 


XV-12 @ 758.5 PT-6 772.2 758.5 13.8 TXCU-I Br and gr sandy clay _Fill CL 19.6 130.8 109.4 0.54 98.0 2.70 4500.0 4410.0 2510.0 8910.0 3.22 4.50 6400.0 1990.0 4195.0 2205.0 6705.0 2205.0 


XV-12 @ 751.9 PT-8 772.2 751.9 20.3 TXCU-I Olv sandy lean clay _Fill CL 20.1 129.9 108.2 0.56 97.4 2.70 4000.0 4010.0 2620.0 8010.0 3.91 3.90 5390.0 1380.0 3385.0 2005.0 6005.0 2005.0 

XV-13 @ 759.5 MC-3-I 773.2 759.5 13.8 TXCU-I Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 19.6 125.7 105.1 0.60 87.8 2.70 3000.0 8000.0 1850.0 11000.0 7.96 2.64 9150.0 1150.0 5150.0 4000.0 7000.0 4000.0 

XV-13 @ 745.5 MC-9-III 773.2 745.5 27.8 TXCU-I Sandy lean clay _Fill CL 21.3 123.5 101.8 0.66 87.8 2.70 6000.0 4700.0 4420.0 10700.0 3.97 4.79 6280.0 1580.0 3930.0 2350.0 8350.0 2350.0 

XV-13 @ 747.5 MC-8-II 773.2 747.5 25.8 TXCU-I lean clay w/ sand _Fill CL 20.1 131.3 109.3 0.54 100.2 2.70 2500.0 5600.0 1570.0 8100.0 7.02 2.72 6530.0 930.0 3730.0 2800.0 5300.0 2800.0 

XV-13 @ 748.0 MC-8-III 773.2 748.0 25.3 TXCU-I lean clay w/ sand _Fill CL 23.4 125.7 101.9 0.65 96.7 2.70 5000.0 6700.0 3270.0 11700.0 4.87 4.22 8430.0 1730.0 5080.0 3350.0 8350.0 3350.0 





XV-1 @ 765.0 2-I 772.7 765.0 7.7 TXCU-I Gravelly clay, some sand _Fill CL 19.6 131.0 109.5 0.54 98.2 2.70 1584.0 2285.3 288.0 3869.3 2.76 10.20 1296.0 3581.3 2438.6 1142.6 2726.6 1142.6 



XV-2 @ 757.1 5-I 772.8 757.1 15.7 TXCU-I Sandy clay _Fill CL 19.5 130.3 109.0 0.55 96.5 2.70 1872.0 3065.8 216.0 4937.8 2.85 11.00 1656.0 4721.8 3188.9 1532.9 3404.9 1532.9 




XV-3 @ 766.1 2-III 773.1 766.1 7 TXCU-I Sandy silty clay, sm. grav. _Fill CL 17.8 132.9 112.8 0.49 97.4 2.70 432.0 1418.4 216.0 1850.4 7.57 9.20 216.0 1634.4 925.2 709.2 1141.2 709.2 

XV-3 @ 765.8 2-II 773.1 765.8 7.3 TXCU-I Sandy silty clay, sm. grav. _Fill CL 20.2 125.2 104.2 0.62 88.4 2.70 1008.0 1749.6 648.0 2757.6 5.86 10.60 360.0 2109.6 1234.8 874.8 1882.8 874.8 

XV-3 @ 765.4 2-I 773.1 765.4 7.7 TXCU-I Sandy gravelly clay _Fill CL 16.4 133.3 114.5 0.47 93.9 2.70 1584.0 3598.6 504.0 5182.6 4.33 10.60 1080.0 4678.6 2879.3 1799.3 3383.3 1799.3 

XV-8 @ 736.4 3-IV 754.7 736.4 18.33 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 19.9 131.8 109.9 0.53 100.8 2.70 1440.0 3582.7 576.0 5022.7 5.15 10.00 864.0 4446.7 2655.4 1791.4 3231.4 1791.4 

XV-8 @ 736.0 3-III 754.7 736.0 18.67 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 22.7 129.1 105.2 0.60 101.9 2.70 2160.0 4390.6 864.0 6550.6 4.39 10.40 1296.0 5686.6 3491.3 2195.3 4355.3 2195.3 

XV-8 @ 735.4 3-II 754.7 735.4 19.33 TXCU-I Silty sand _Fill SM 25.5 125.9 100.3 0.68 101.3 2.70 2880.0 4001.8 864.0 6881.8 2.99 9.20 2016.0 6017.8 4016.9 2000.9 4880.9 2000.9 

XV-8 @ 735.0 3-I 754.7 735.0 19.67 TXCU-I Silty clay _Fill CL 24.6 127.0 101.9 0.65 101.7 2.70 2880.0 4875.8 864.0 7755.8 3.42 10.00 2016.0 6891.8 4453.9 2437.9 5317.9 2437.9 




XV-12 @ 748.9 PT-9 772.2 748.9 23.3 TXCU-I Olv gry lean clay w/ sand Native CL/CH 19.0 132.3 111.2 0.52 99.6 2.70 3000.0 2400.0 1280.0 5400.0 2.40 4.80 4120.0 1720.0 2920.0 1200.0 4200.0 1200.0 

XV-12 @ 746.5 PT-10 772.2 746.5 25.8 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 16.7 135.0 115.7 0.46 98.8 2.70 5950.0 3500.0 2420.0 9450.0 1.99 7.92 7030.0 3530.0 5280.0 1750.0 7700.0 1750.0 






XV-7 @ 750.3 4-IV 773.0 750.3 22.7 TXCU-I Lean to Fat Clay with Sand Native CL/CH 21.8 129.8 106.6 0.58 101.4 2.70 1440.0 2103.8 360.0 3543.8 2.95 9.00 1080.0 3183.8 2131.9 1051.9 2491.9 1051.9 

XV-5 @ 738.3 6-IV 773.0 738.3 34.7 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 19.5 132.6 111.0 0.52 101.7 2.70 2160.0 5446.1 1152.0 7606.1 6.40 10.60 1008.0 6454.1 3731.0 2723.0 4883.0 2723.0 



XV-5 @ 737.3 6-I 773.0 737.3 35.7 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 17.8 135.2 114.8 0.47 102.8 2.70 5040.0 8455.7 864.0 13495.7 3.02 10.70 4176.0 12631.7 8403.8 4227.8 9267.8 4227.8 

XV-7 @ 750.7 4-V 773.0 750.7 22.3 TXCU-I Moderately Weathered BR Sandstone SS 18.1 135.5 114.7 0.47 104.2 2.70 2880.0 5906.9 1152.0 8786.9 4.42 10.00 1728.0 7634.9 4681.4 2953.4 5833.4 2953.4 



P-Prime 

(PSF) 

Q-Prime 

(PSF) 

P-TOT 

(PSF) 

Q-TOT 

(PSF) 

PT Pitcher Tube Sampler 

MC Modifyed California Sampler 

SH Shelby Tube Sampler 

TXCU-I Triaxial Test - Consolidated Undrained (Isotropic) 


TABLE B-3 TXCU-I 

7/30/2008 

3:39 PM

TABLE B-4 

UNCONFINED COMRESSION TEST RESULTS 

Lab No Boring Led Elevation Sample 

Fill or 

Bedrock 

Soil 

Symbol 

MC % 

Total 

Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 

Void 

Ratio 

Saturatio 

n (%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Sigma 3 

(PSF) 

Deviator 

Stress 

(psf) 

Sigma 1 

(psf) 

Strain P-TOT 

(PSF) 

NA XV-11 @ 762.2 MC-4-II Fill 20.8 125.1 103.6 0.63 89.7 2.70 2000.0 950.0 2950.0 5.00 2475.0 475.0 475 

NA XV-11 @ 761.7 MC-4-I Fill 22.3 124.3 101.6 0.66 91.5 2.70 1500.0 1200.0 2700.0 5.00 2100.0 600.0 600 

NA XV-11 @ 756.7 MC-6-I Native 12.8 137.6 122.0 0.38 90.7 2.70 5000.0 7500.0 12500.0 5.00 8750.0 3750.0 3750 

NA XV-12 @ 764.2 MC-3-I Fill 15.0 136.9 119.0 0.42 97.4 2.70 1500.0 3600.0 5100.0 5.00 3300.0 1800.0 1800 

NA XV-12 @ 760.7 PT-5 Fill 18.9 126.6 106.5 0.58 87.7 2.70 2510.0 2000.0 4510.0 5.00 3510.0 1000.0 1000 

NA XV-13 @ 760.2 MC-3-II Fill 23.3 124.5 101.0 0.67 94.2 2.70 3000.0 1600.0 4600.0 5.00 3800.0 800.0 800 

NA XV-13 @ 747.2 MC-8-I Fill 24.7 121.8 97.7 0.72 92.1 2.70 5000.0 1950.0 6950.0 5.00 5975.0 975.0 975 

NA XV-13 @ 745.2 MC-9-II Native 19.8 127.1 106.1 0.59 90.9 2.70 6000.0 2800.0 8800.0 5.00 7400.0 1400.0 1400 

NA XV-12 @ 733.2 MC-12-I Sandstone 11.6 135.3 121.2 0.39 80.3 2.70 8000.0 5400.0 13400.0 1.90 10700.0 2700.0 2700 

NA XV-14 @ 736.7 MC-5-I Fill 18.8 133.5 112.4 0.50 101.7 2.70 2000.0 3150.0 5150.0 5.00 3575.0 1575.0 1575 

NA XV-15 @ 749.5 MC-1-III Fill 21.5 121.6 100.1 0.68 85.0 2.70 990.0 700.0 1690.0 5.00 1340.0 350.0 350 

NA XV-15 @ 742.0 MC-3-II Sandstone 7.8 134.1 124.4 0.35 59.4 2.70 3000.0 5400.0 8400.0 5.00 5700.0 2700.0 2700 

Q-TOT 

(PSF) 

Shear 

Strength 

(PSF) 


TABLE B-4 - UU TEST 

7/30/2008 

3:40 PM

TABLE B-5 

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 

Lab No Boring Led Elevation Sample Surface Elevation Depth Test 

Fill or 

Bedrock 

Soil 

Symbol 

NA XV-13 @ 757.7 MC-4-I 773.2 757.7 15.5 DS Fill 21.3 130.0 107.2 0.57 100.6 2.70 4.0 1.8 4000 1830 

NA XV-13 @ 758.2 MC-4-II 773.2 758.2 15.0 DS Fill 22.5 128.6 105.0 0.60 100.5 2.70 1.6 0.9 1600 900 



NA XV-13 @ 748.9 MC-7-I 773.2 748.9 24.3 DS Fill 22.8 129.4 105.4 0.60 102.9 2.70 5.5 1.8 5500 1780 




NA XV-14 @ 747.7 SH-2 754.2 747.7 6.5 DS Fill 27.0 119.4 94.0 0.79 92.0 2.70 1.0 0.9 1000 940 

NA XV-14 @ 747.7 SH-2 754.2 747.7 6.5 DS Fill 27.9 120.0 93.8 0.80 94.6 2.70 4.0 2.0 4000 2020 




MC % 

Total 

Density 

(PCF) 

Dry 

Density 

(PCF) 

Void 

Ratio 

Saturatio 

n (%) 

Specific 

Gravity 

Normal 

Stress 

(ksf) 

Failure 

Stress 

(ksf) 

Normal 

Stress 

(PSF) 

Failure 

Stress 

(PSF) 


TABLE B-5 - DIRECT SHEAR 

7/30/2008 

3:42 PM

Appendix C 

Reference Drawings: 

LIST OF PLATES 

Plate 5808-G-01 

Plate 5808-G-02 

Plate 5808-G-03 

Plate 5553-G 

Plate 6318-G 

1503B488 

Surveillance Monument Locations 

Piezometer Location 

Piezometer Boring Logs 

Site Drainage Improvements 

Overflow and Drain System Improvements, Plan, Profile & Details. 

Dingee Reservoir - B-Maps 



Appendix D 

Geologic Evaluation Report: 

Joyce Associates 

(Subcontractor to Alan Kropp and Associates) 



Appendix E 

Ground Motion Studies 

Pacific Engineering & Analysis 

Subcontractor to Alan Kropp and Associates 



856 Seaview Drive PACIFIC ENGINEERING and ANALYSIS 

El Cerrito, CA 94530 

(510) 528-2821 

Fax 528-2135 

pacificengineering@juno.com 

August 1, 2008 

Dona Mann, C.E. 

Senior Engineer 

Alan Kropp & Associates 

2140 Shattuck Ave., 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

RE: DINGEE Project 

Dear Miss Mann, 

Following your request we have developed a horizontal component deterministic design response 

spectrum (5% damped) at the 84 th percentile and three spectrally matched time histories for 

embankment analyses at the Dingee Dam. The Dingee Reservoir is located in Piedmont, California 

(37.8295 o , -122.2176) 0.3 km west of the Hayward fault and over 20 km east of the San Andreas fault. 

To assess controlling earthquake sources, since the Dingee Dam is quite small with an average height of 

about 20 ft, the deaggregation of the recent USGS National Hazard Maps was examined at peak 

acceleration (e.g. about 30 Hz) as well as 1.0 Hz. 

This frequency range was taken to cover the 

frequency range of dominant response of the dam and clearly showed the Hayward fault as the 

controlling source. The deterministic MCE is considered to rupture the entire Hayward - Rogers Creek 

system with a magnitude of M 7.25 (Hanks and Bakun, 2002). 

Dingee Dam rests on a few feet of native soils overlying sandstone bedrock. For the planned analyses 

of the embankment, ground motions were computed for a soft rock outcrop site. Based on an analysis 

of values at rock sites which have recorded strong ground motions, a typical V 

S 

(30m) value for soft 

rock is about 600m/sec (Silva et al., 1999). While measured shear-wave velocities at the site were not 

available, nearby Estates Dam, about 0.25 km (800 ft) southeast from Dingee Dam, had suspension log 

profiles from two boreholes that penetrate into shallow bedrock (URS, 2006). Based on these 

suspension surveys, depth to 1 km/sec material is estimated to occur at about 5m (15 ft) at the Dingee 

Dam site. 

1

The next Generation Attenuation relations (NGA, 2008) developed by Abrahamson and Silva, Boore 

and Atkinson, Campbell and Bozorgnia, and Chiou and Youngs were used to compute estimates of 

median plus 1-sigma ground motions. These four relations were selected as they have characterized site 

conditions in terms of V 

S 

(30m) in a consistent manner. Additionally, several of the relations have 

included depth to 1 km/sec (or 2.5 km/sec) material as independent variables to more accurately 

characterize strong ground motions at sites with shallow depths to bedrock materials, as occurs at 

Dingee Dam. The NGA relations (NGA, 2008) provide median as well as median plus 1 standard 

deviation estimates of 5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra over the period range of 0.01 sec to 

10.00 sec. The estimates are for an average horizontal component termed GM roti which was developed 

to be independent of orientation of the horizontal component (NGA, 2008) and very closely reflects a 

geometrical average horizontal component. Figure 1 compares median plus 1 sigma estimates 

computed with the four selected relations for M 7.25 at a rupture distance of 0.3 km, a V 

S 

(30m) of 600 

m/sec, and depth to 1 km/sec material of 5m. Also shown is the weighted average (log average) 

spectrum (Table 1), assuming equal weights. It should be noted the range in 84 th percentile estimate 

(epistemic variability) is not large and may be underestimated as a result of the close cooperation 

between the NGA developers. This consideration typically does not impact deterministic assessments 

of 84 th percentile motions as it is usually neglected in the averaging process. For probabilistic hazard 

analyses, the lack of adequate epistemic variability for source and site location conditions poorly 

reflected in the strong motion database can result in motions at a higher exceedence frequency than 

desired. In computing the average (log) median plus 1 sigma spectrum shown in Figure 1, the epistemic 

variability (differences between the four estimates of the 84 th percentiles) has been included. This 

process results in an average 84 th percentile motion that includes both aleatory (randomness defined by 

the standard deviation of each ground motion relation) and epistemic variability. 

To develop time histories, the spectral matching criteria prescribed in ASCE 43-05 (2005) was 

followed. Input (basis) time histories (Table 2) were selected which displayed strong forward 

directivity pulses, considered appropriate for 84 th percentile motions. The spectral matching used a 

frequency 

PACIFIC ENGINEERING and ANALYSIS 2

Reference: 

American Society of Civil Engineers (2005). “Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and 

components in nuclear facilities.” ASCE/SEI-4305. 

Hanks, T.C., and W.H. Bakun. (2002). “A bilinear source-scaling model for M-log A observations 

of Continental earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92(5), 1841-1846. 

NGA (2008) “Special Issue On The Next Generation Attenuation Project” Earthquake Spectra, 

24(1), Technical editors: J. Stewart, R. Archuleta, and M. Power. 

Silva, W. J.,S. Li, B. Darragh, and N. Gregor (1999). "Surface Geology Based Strong Motion 

Amplification Factors for the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Areas."A PEARL report to 

PG&E/CEC/Caltrans, Award No. SA2120-59652. 

Silva, W.J., Lee, K. (1987) "WES RASCAL code for synthesizing earthquake ground motions" 

State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 24, U.S. 

Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Misc. Paper S-73-1. 

URS Corporation (2006) “Dynamic stability analysis of Estates Dam.” Prepared for East Bay 

Municipal Utility District, Final Report, volume 1: Main Report. 


Table 1 

Target Response Spectrum: Average Horizontal Component, 84 th percentile 

Frequency (Hz) 

84th 

.10000 .05357 

.13333 .09307 

.20000 .16393 

.25000 .20520 

.33333 .28713 

.50000 .45474 

.66667 .62946 

1.00000 .92656 

1.33333 1.19524 

1.66667 1.41412 

2.00000 1.62141 

2.50000 1.87789 

3.33333 2.13510 

5.00000 2.27501 

6.66667 2.18103 

10.00000 1.83484 

13.33333 1.57392 

20.00000 1.26975 

33.33333 1.06524 

100.00000 .96089 


Earthquak 

e 

Table 2 

Basis Time Histories 

Year M Rupture Site 

Mechanism 

Rupture 

Dist.(km) 

V 

S 

(30m) 

(m/sec) 

Component 

Landers 1992 7.3 SS* Lucerne 2.2 684.9 260 

Kobe 1995 6.9 SS Takarazuk 0.3 312.0 090 

a 

Kocaeli 1999 7.5 SS Arcelik 13.5 297.0 090 

* Strike slip 


Figure 1. Median plus 1-sigma response spectra (5% damping) computed for M 7.25 at 

a rupture distance of 0.3 km using four recent empirical relations (NGA, 2008) and the 

weighted average. V 

S 

(30m) is taken as 600m/sec with depth to 1 km/sec material as 

5m. 


Figure Set 2. Spectrally matched acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories 

using the M 7.3, 1992 Landers earthquake site Lucerne (Table 1) as a basis time history. 

The following Figures show the spectral match (linear and logarithmic axes) as well as the 

spectral match-to-target ratios. 


Figure Set 2 (cont.) 







using the M 7.5, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake site Arcelik (Table 1) as a basis time 

history. The following Figures show the spectral match (linear and logarithmic axes) as 

well as the spectral match-to-target ratios. 









using the M 6.9, 1995 Kobe earthquake site Takarazuka (Table 1) as a basis time history. 

The following Figures show the spectral match (linear and logarithmic axes) as well as the 

spectral match-to-target ratios.

Dingee Reservoir Final Seismic Report - East Bay Municipal Utility ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?