RWG 025.04.21 Neo 061

GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR THE WATER
PROTECTION DAM OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT

“ITZOTENO” LOCATED IN PUEBLA, MÉXICO
PROJECT: RWG-025.4.21-NEO-061
CLIENT: ENR NL S.A. de C.V.
GEOINTEC WORLDWIDE EXPERIENCE PROJECTS SERVICES
• Solar PV plants • Geotechnical studies
• Wind farms • Geophysical surveys
• Transmissions lines & substations • Hydrological studies
• Civil projects • Topographical works
• Buildings • Ramming & Pull out test
Europe Head office: Edificio Hexágono. Princesa 25, 3rd floor, Office 5, 28008 Madrid. • (+34) 91 7154485 • info@geointec.com
LatAm: Avenida Nueva Tajamar 481, Oficina 1403, Las Condes, 7550099 Santiago de Chile. • (+562) 24053662 • chile@geointec.com
PROJECT CODE: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061
GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR THE WATER PROTECTION DAM OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT “ITZOTENO” LOCATED IN PUEBLA, MÉXICO
QUALITY CONTROL (QA)
SIGNATURE MCA
PREPARED BY
DATE 19/07/2021
SIGNATURE AVC
REVIEWED
POR DATE 19/07/2021
SIGNATURE FPI
APROVED BY
DATE 19/07/2021
PREPARED BY: GEOINTEC

GEOTECNIA E INGENIERIA DEL TERRENO S.L.
Head Office Madrid

C/ Princesa 25, 3 P., Of 5
28008 Madrid.
T: (+34) 91 715 4485
E: info@geointec.com
CIF: B83410548
Geointec México
Granada 193. Nueva España
25210 Saltillo, Coahuila, México.
T: (+52) 55 84219616
E: mexico@geointec.com
Geointec Chile
Av. Nueva Tajamar 481, Oficina 1403
7550099 Las Condes, Santiago de Chile.
T: (+562) 24053662
E: chile@geointec.com
Geointec France
2 Place Gailleton
Centre d’Affaires E.G.
69002 Lyon - France
+33 (0) 4 87 38 76 73
www.geointec.com
PREPARED FOR: NEOEN

Avenida de Liberdade
92B/100-5º Andar
1250-145 Lisboa
Portugal
M +351 914 495 481
2 de 207
Attn: Mr. Paul Collange

Mailto: paul.collange@neoen.com
Re: GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR THE WATER PROTECTION DAM OF

PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT “ITZOTENO” LOCATED IN PUEBLA, MÉXICO.
Project code: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061
Ms. Collange,
GEOINTEC has completed the geotechnical investigation and assessment report RWG-025.04.21-
NEO-061. This services were performed in general accordance with the contract PRW-156-
NEO-03.21-050 v4 dated 31/05/2021.
This geotechnical evaluation report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical
recommendations on ground movement and water protection dam construction.
Please, do not hesitate to contact us in case of any question.
Sincerely,
GEOINTEC
Francisco Parra Idreos

Chief Technical Officer
Geotechnical Advisor, M.Sc. B.Sc.
Chartered ES-ICOG #4770
3 de 207
INDEX
I. REPORT
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................12
2 AIM AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................13
2.1 Background 15
2.2 Regularity Framework 16
2.3 Project Planning Schedule 17
3 REGIONAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................................................18
3.1 Geographical settings and site access conditions 18
3.2 Climate 19
3.3 Geology 21
3.4 Geomorphology 22
4 FIELD EXPLORATION........................................................................................................27
4.1 Geotechnical investigation survey 27
4.1.1 Geotechnical boreholes and trial pits 30
4.1.2 Panda2 Dynamic Penetration Test 32
4.1.3 Thermal Resistivity Test 33
4.1.4 Lefranc permeability test 34
4.2 PREVIOUS SURVEY ANALYSIS 35
4.2.1 Trial Pits
4.2.2 Dynamic penetration test
4.2.3 Electrical Resistivity Test ERT
4.3 Laboratory testing 42
4.3 Planning deviations 43
5 TERRAIN GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES .......................................................................44
6 WATER TABLE ...................................................................................................................54
7 DISTRIBUTION OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS....................................................................56
8 HAZARD ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................57
8.2 LIQUEFACTION RISK 60
8.2.1 Wang, 1979 61
8.2.2 Andrews and Martins, 2000 62
8.2.3 Luis I. González de Vallejo, 2002 63
8.2.4 Seed et al, 2003 64
8.2.5 Bray y Sancio, 2006 66
8.2.6 Soil liquefaction conclusions 68
4 de 207
9 FOUNDATIONS AND EARTHWORKS ...............................................................................69

9.1 Structures and foundation solutions 69
9.2 Dimension and foundation solutions 71
9.3 Uncertainty in geotechnical engineering 72
9.3.1 Allowable Strength Design (ASD) 72
9.3.2 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) 73
9.3.3 Selection of the design philosophy 73
9.4 Eurocode 74
9.4.1 EC-0 y EC-1 75
9.4.2 Eurocode 7 76
10 CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS IN SITE´S MATERIALS .....................................................90
10.1 Aggressiveness of the soil against concrete 90
10.2 Excavatability 91
10.3 Backfill 92
10.3.1 Classification for backfill 92
12.3.2 Recommendations and construction 94
12.4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 96
LIMITATIONS / LIMITACIONES: .............................................................................................97
COPYRIGHT: ...........................................................................................................................98
BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................99
II. ANNEXES
ANNEX A1: GEOTECHNICAL TEST LOCATION & GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAP 102
ANNEX A2: FIELD TESTS 104
SUB-ANNEX A2.1: REGISTRATION AND SAMPLING OF SOILS AND ROCKS 105
A2.1.1 TRIAL PITS 106
A2.1.2 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLES 116
SUB-ANEXX A2.2: DYNAMIC PENETRATION TESTS 126
A2.2.1: DYNAMIC PENETRATION PANDA TEST 127
SUB-ANNEX A2.5: THERMAL RESISTIVITY TESTS 139
SUB-ANNEX A2.6: LEFRANC PERMEABILITY TEST 149
ANNEX A3: GEOLOGICAL-GEOTECHNICAL PROFILES 153
ANNEX A4: LABORATORY RESULTS 158
ANNEX A5: EUROCODE 0, 1 y 7 169
A5.1 EC-0 AND EC-1 171
A5.2 EC-7 172
A5.2.1 Introduction 172
5 de 207
A5.2.2 Limit state method 172

A5.2.3 Ultimate limit states 173
A5.2.4 Service limit states 177
A5.2.5 Design Approach 179
A5.2.6 Methodology of calculation 183
A5.2.7 Design value of soil parameters 186
A5.2.8 Shallow foundation 187
A5.2.10 Slope stability 195
ANNEX A6: GRAPHICAL DATA OUTPUT 196
SUB-ANNEX A.6.1. SLIDE 2D GRAPHICAL OUTPUTS 197
SUB-ANNEX A.6.2. SHETTLE GRAPHIC OUTPUTS 200
6 de 207
FIGURES INDEX
Figure 1.1 Location of the area of study ...................................................................................................................12

Figure 3.1.1 Site access conditions ...........................................................................................................................18
Figure 3.2.1 Climate classification Köppen-Geiger ..................................................................................................19
Figure 3.2.2 Monthly average temperature and rainfall graph of the study area ..................................................19
Figure 3.3.1 Geological framework ............................................................................................................................21
Figure 4.1.1 Geotechnical test location .....................................................................................................................29
Figure 4.1.3.1 Test scheme and procedure ...............................................................................................................34
Figure 7.1 Cross section SW-NE ................................................................................................................................56
Figure 8.2.2.1 Liquefaction risk parameters according to Andrews and Martin (2000) ........................................62
Figure 8.2.4.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility (Seed et al, 2003) ............................................................................64
Figure 8.2.4.2 Casagrande’s plasticity chart modified by Seed et al (2003) showing the studied samples .......64
Figure 8.2.5.1 Soil liquefaction chart (Bray y Sancio, 2006)....................................................................................66
Figura 8.2.5.2 Soil liquefaction chart by Bray y Sancio (2006) with the studied samples....................................66
Table 8.2.5.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility according to Bray y Sancio (2006) ..................................................67
Figure 9.2 Dam projected design. ..............................................................................................................................70
Figure 9.3.1 Method LRFD y ASD...............................................................................................................................72
Figure 9.4.1 EC-0, 1 y 7 ...............................................................................................................................................74
Figure 9.4.2.2.1 DA-2 (up) and DA-3 (down) summary .............................................................................................77
Figure A2.1.1.1 Execution of trial pits by means of backhoe and collection of the extracted materials ..........107
Figure A2.1.2.1 Geotechnical borehole performed in an urban environment......................................................118
Figure A2.2.1.1 Tests for dynamic penetration of variable energy DCP ..............................................................128
Figure A2.4.5 Thermal resistivity test being carried out in a trial-pit ...................................................................140
Figure A5.1 EC-0, 1 y 7 ..............................................................................................................................................170
Figure A5.2.1.1 EC-7 ..................................................................................................................................................172
Figure A5.2.3.1 Examples of limit state of equilibrium loss EQU with the rigid rollover of a structure............173
Figure A5.2.3.2 Examples of different limit states last STR and GEO ..................................................................174
Figure A5.2.3.3 Ultimate limit state example UPL. .................................................................................................175
Figure A5.2.3.4 Examples of HYD situations in which tubing or siphoning can be critical. ..............................175
Figure A5.2.4.1 Examples of limit state of service SLS. ........................................................................................177
Figure A5.2.5.3.1 - DA according to and ULS verification .....................................................................................181
Figure A5.2.5.3.2 - Eurocode use. World Map .........................................................................................................182
Figure A5.2.6.1 Flowchart DA-2. ULS ......................................................................................................................183
Figure A5.2.6.2 Flowchart DA-3. ULS ......................................................................................................................184
Figure A5.2.6.3 Flowchart DA-2 & DA-3. SLS..........................................................................................................185
Figure A5.2.8.1.1 Tipos de cimentaciones superficiales .......................................................................................187
Figure A5.2.8.2.1 Limit states. Shallow foundation ................................................................................................188
Figure A5.2.8.2.1 Brinch-Hansen Formula ..............................................................................................................189
Figure A5.2.8.2.2 Bearing capacity diagram ...........................................................................................................190
7 de 207
Figure A5.2.8.2.3 Characteristic sliding resistance formula .................................................................................191

Figure A5.2.8.2.2.1 Settlement drawing ...................................................................................................................193
8 de 207
TABLE INDEX
Figure 2.1. Longitudinal section. Feasibility design of the water protection dam. ...............................................14
Figure 2.1. Plan view. Feasibility design of the water protection dam. ..................................................................14
Table 2.1.1 Information consulted .............................................................................................................................15
Table 2.2.1 Regularity Framework .............................................................................................................................16
Table 2.3.1 Geotechnical investigation schedule .....................................................................................................17
Table 3.2.1 Climate data regarding monthly rainfall and temperatures .................................................................20
Table 3.4.8 Assessment of geological and geomorphologic risk ...........................................................................26
Table 4.1.1 Field tests carried out ..............................................................................................................................27
Table 4.1.2 In-situ test locations ................................................................................................................................28
Table 4.1.1.1 Boreholes ...............................................................................................................................................30
Table 4.1.1.1 Trial pits summary ................................................................................................................................31
Table 4.1.2.1 Profile of penetration resistance with depth ......................................................................................32
Table 4.1.5.1 Thermal resistivity test results ............................................................................................................33
Table 4.1.3.1 Variable load Lefranc test results ........................................................................................................34
Table 4.2.1 Field tests carried out a part of the 2017 investigation ........................................................................35
Table 4.1.2 In-situ test locations for the 2017 investigation ....................................................................................37
Table 4.2.1.1 Test pits results .....................................................................................................................................38
Table 4.2.2.1 Profile of penetration resistance with depth ......................................................................................39
Table 4.3.1 Laboratory tests permorfed ....................................................................................................................42
Table 5.1 Appearance of the G.U. TS in some of the investigations carried out ...................................................44
Table 5.2 Particle size distribution and Casagrande Plasticity Chart G.U. Qpt-la .................................................46
Table 5.3 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la. Part 1 ......................................................................................................47
Table 5.4 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la. Part 2 ......................................................................................................48
Table 5.5 Particle size distribution and Casagrande Plasticity Chart G.U. Qpt-la-c .............................................50
Table 5.6 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la-c. Part 1 ..................................................................................................51
Table 5.7 Laboratory Results G.U. 4 ..........................................................................................................................52
Table 5.8 Geotechnical parameters ...........................................................................................................................53
Table 6.1 Classification of permeability according to Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002) ....................................54
Table 6.2 Estimated permeability values obtained from the correlation of González de Vallejo (2002) .............55
Table 8.2.1 Liquefaction risk according to soil type, origin, grain size and age ...................................................60
Table 8.2.1.1 Liquefaction risk according to Wang (1979) .......................................................................................61
Table 8.2.2.1 Liquefaction risk according to Andrews and Martin (2000) ..............................................................62
Table 8.2.3.1 Liquefaction risk according to Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002) ....................................................63
Table 8.2.4.1 Liquefaction risk according to Seed et al (2003) ................................................................................65
Tabla 8.2.6.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility according to various authors ..........................................................68
Table 9.1 Dam Geometrical Design ............................................................................................................................69
Table 9.2.1 Foundation solutions ...............................................................................................................................71
Table 9.4.1.2.1 Calculus acceleration values ............................................................................................................75
9 de 207
Table 9.4.2.1.1 Foundations (ULS) .............................................................................................................................76

Table 9.4.2.1.2 Foundations (SLS) .............................................................................................................................76
Table 9.4.2.2.1 Design approach chosen ..................................................................................................................77
Table 9.4.2.2.2 DA-1 y DA-1 ........................................................................................................................................77
Table 9.4.2.3.1 Geotechnical parameter´s design values. DA-1 ..............................................................................78
Table 9.4.2.3.2 Geotechnical parameter´s design values. DA-1 ..............................................................................78
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.1.1 Scheme of the resultant forces actuating over a sliding soil mass ......................................80
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.2.2 Scheme of the resultant forces actuating over a vertical slide .............................................81
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.2.3. Scheme of slope sliding decomposition for circular failure over equilibrium limit analysis
with Jambu method. ....................................................................................................................................................82
Figure 9.4.2.1.3.1.- Graphic output for global stability analysis under static conditions minimum S.F.=7,449.
( represented 10 surfaces with lowest SF) ................................................................................................................84
Figure 9.4.2.1.3.2.- Graphic output for global stability analysis under dynamic conditions minimum S.F.=4,928
( represented 10 surfaces with lowest SF) ................................................................................................................84
Table 9.4.2.4.2.1 Settle 3D considered stages ..........................................................................................................85
Table 9.4.2.4.2.1.1- Settle 3D staged results and graphical outputs. ......................................................................88
Figure 9.4.2.4.2.1.1- Distance vs total settlement in a transverse cut. ...................................................................88
Table 10.1.1 EHE-08 Classification ............................................................................................................................90
Table 10.1.2 Sulphate content and type of exposure ...............................................................................................90
Table 10.2.1 Excavatability, machinery and type of excavation ..............................................................................91
Table 10.3.1.1 Classification of soil for backfill ........................................................................................................92
Table 12.3.1.2 Laboratory Results embankment materials. ....................................................................................94
Table 12.3.1.3 Classification and use of embankment materials. ...........................................................................94
Table A2.2.1.1 Correlations of the geotechnical parameters from the penetration resistance Qd from the
variable energy tests DCP Panda ............................................................................................................................129
Table A5.2.3.1 Foundations, slopes and retaining structure (ULS) ......................................................................176
Table A5.2.4.1 Foundations and retaining structures (SLS) ..................................................................................178
Table A5.2.5.2.1 Partial coefficients depending on the project approach. ...........................................................180
Table A5.2.5.3.2.1 - Design approach chosen .........................................................................................................182
Table A5.2.5.3.2.2 - DA-2 ...........................................................................................................................................182
Table A5.2.7.1 Geotechnical parameter´s design values .......................................................................................186
Table A5.2.7.2 Partial factors for geotechnical parameters...................................................................................186
Table A5.2.8.2.3 Characteristic sliding resistance (Hd,k) ......................................................................................191
Table A5.2.8.2.4 Partial factors for resistances. Shallow foundations .................................................................192
Table A5.2.8.2.2.1 Maximum allowed settlement ....................................................................................................194
Table A5.2.10.2 A5.2.10.2 Minorized geotechnical parameters. DA-3 ...................................................................195
10 de 207
I. REPORT 
11 de 207
1 INTRODUCTION
NEOEN has request to GEOINTEC, the geotechnical site investigation/assessment for the
water-management dam to protect ITZOTENO photovoltaic project, located in the Mexican
state of Puebla.
Previously a geotechnical survey was performed by GEOINTEC on 2017 for the

ITZOTENO photovoltaic project itself with project code: G-095.07-17-NEO-025-B.
The proposed area is located about 88 km northeast of the city of Puebla, and 57 km west
of Xalapa Entiquez (State of Veracruz). The study area has a total area of 1162 ha.
Figure 1.1 Location of the area of study
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of NEOEN and their consultants for design
of this project. In the event that any changes are made to the character, design or layout of
this report, the consultant must be contacted to review the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report to determine whether or not modifications are
necessary. 
12 de 207
2 AIM AND SCOPE
The geotechnical investigation, according to contract PRW-156-NEO-03.21-050 v4, aims to

determine the nature and properties of soil aspects necessary to design the earth structure who
will protect ITZOTENO photovoltaic project from flooding, considering the following objectives:
• Identify constraints and geotechnical problems of the site under study.
• Study of natural hazards. Identify and define the geological risks and assets
geomorphological processes that may affect the new project.
• Provide knowledge of geotechnical characteristics of the land, according to the project

structure.
• Existing zoning different lithologies in order to define the foundation of the dam.
• Determine the geotechnical parameters of each lithology detected for project design, where
different solutions according to the foundation load stresses are discussed.
• Recommendations for earth dam foundation. Findings in relation to the overall stability of
the earth structure, embankment foundation bearing capacity against the sinking, expected
settlements.
• Determine de levels of termal resistivity of the soil for the dimensioning and installation of
the electrical facilities.
Initially a feasibility design was provided with the following geometric characteristics. The
designed dam has a variable height between 0,00 and 1,90 m, with symmetrical 2,5H:1V
slopes. This embankment has been designed with a light traffic road on top, this road is 3,00 m
wide. On the upstream face and the embankment toe a perimetral water pond will complete de
design, with similar slopes of 2,5H:1V with 9,50 m length at its base and undefined depth.
Initially a waterproofing layer composed by a HDPE membrane has been designed to further
seal the upstream face.
The following figure illustrates the cross-section of the embankment design proposed by
NEOEN.
13 de 207
Figure 2.1. Longitudinal section. Feasibility design of the water protection dam.
The embankment plot (show red in the following figure) runs around the solar photovoltaic
project, with a height conditioned by the level of the terrain and the expected maximum water
level during flooding events.
Figure 2.1. Plan view. Feasibility design of the water protection dam.
14 de 207
2.1 BACKGROUND
The information used and consulted in the preparation of this study is shown in the
following table:
Matter Description Source
Site Limits NEOEN
Topography
Digital Elevation Model (5 m) NASA Earth Data
Regional geological cartography

Geology Servicio Geológico Mexicano (SGM)
(E.250.000)
Geotechnical site characterization G-095.07-17-NEO-025-B GEOINTEC
Table 2.1.1 Information consulted
15 de 207
2.2 REGULARITY FRAMEWORK
Test Regulations
- AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation.
- Standard Practice for Subsurface Site Characterization of Test PiTV ASTM D5921.
- Dynamic penetration test standard NF-XP-94-105.
- ASTM/G 57; EEE Std 81-2012. Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using
the Wenner Four-Electrode Method.
- ASTM D 2573-94 Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Cohesive Soil.
- ISO/TV 14688-1-2002. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of soil.
Part 1: Identification and description.
- ISO/TV 14688-2-2004. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of soil.
Part 2: Principles ando classification.
- ISO/TV 14689-1-2003. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of

rock. Part 12: Identification and description.
- ASTM D3966-07 (Standard test methods for deep foundations under lateral load)
- ASTM D3689-07 (Standard test methods for deep foundations under static axial tensile load).
Report Regulations
- EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part 1: General rules.
- EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.
- EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Part 3: Design assisted by field testing.
- DB SE-C “Seguridad estructural: Cimientos”. Código técnico de la edificación, C.T.E., R.D.

314/2006, España.
- Guía de cimentaciones en obras de carreteras. Ministerio de Fomento de España, 2004.
- ROM 0.5-05, Recomendaciones geotécnicas para obras marítimas y portuarias. Puertos del Estado,
2005.
- ETG 1.015: Diseño Sísmico
- IEEE-693-2000: Guía Diseño Sísmico para Subestaciones Eléctricas.
Table 2.2.1 Regularity Framework
16 de 207
2.3 PROJECT PLANNING SCHEDULE
The geotechnical survey was planned according to the following schedule of works.
Phase Work plan Comments
The scope of works was duly agreed upon

1 Design and scoping
with the client.
a) Previous investigations
b) Previous use The geological maps and various available
Check historical records/ c) Mining/landfill
2 bibliographic data have been studied before
sources of information: d) Geology/groundwater
campaign design.
e) Adjacent sites
f) Services records
Actual location of tests was undertaken on

Location of field tests on a site map
3 site since local climatic and environmental
Validation of test location with the client
conditions prevailed over planned locations.
Although in situ testing and surveying was

4 Define supervision requirements and organization undertaken by subcontractors, permanent
supervision was held by Geointec.
Fieldworks undertaken by local

5 Soil testing/fieldwork
subcontractors and international experts.
Soil sampling and testing following
6 Soil sample collection and delivery to laboratory international best practice including ASTM
standard.
A preliminary report shall be issued including

Preliminary report including fieldworks and preliminary soil
7 most relevant fieldworks and a preliminary soil
model
model.
Soil samples tested in a soil testing laboratory

8 Laboratory testing in accredited laboratory
in Spain.
Comprehensive geotechnical model by
9 Geotechnical soil modeling, borehole data analysis analyzing boreholes, mechanical tests, DCPs
and trench pit descriptions.
Final geotechnical report including laboratory

testing, geotechnical model, conclusion and
10 Geotechnical reporting
recommendations for the construction of the
solar plant.
Post service activities included in the scope,

11 Follow-up e.g., geotechnical assessment during
ramming in and foundation design phases.
Table 2.3.1 Geotechnical investigation schedule 
17 de 207
3 REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL SETTINGS AND SITE ACCESS CONDITIONS
The proposed area is located about 6 km west of San José de Alchichica and 5 km east of
Jalapasco, within the state of Puebla. Access to the plot is through the road SE-527 to
continue along secondary roads. A nearby dirt road provides access to the nearby villages
and to the Federal Highway 140 (Puebla-Xalapa).
Figure 3.1.1 Site access conditions 
18 de 207
3.2 CLIMATE
The climate in Alchichica is warm and temperate. In winter, there is much more rainfall in the
summer than in winter. According to Köppen-Geiger this climate is classified as Cwb. The
temperature here averages 13,9 °C. Precipitation here averages 884 mm.
Figure 3.2.1 Climate classification Köppen-Geiger
Figure 3.2.2 Monthly average temperature and rainfall graph of the study area
19 de 207
The previous graph is Alchichica’s climograph, showing each month’s median temperature and
rainfall. Precipitation is the lowest in December, with an average of 14 mm. The most
precipitation occurs in September, with an average of 165 mm. At an average temperature of
16,1 °C, May is the hottest month of the year. In January, the average temperature is 11,1 °C. It
is the lowest average temperature of the whole year.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Avg. Temperature (ºC) 11,1 12,9 14,4 15,9 16,1 15,3 14,8 15,0 14,5 13,4 12,0 11,6
Min. Temperature (ºC) 6,4 7,5 8,8 10,4 11,4 11,6 10,7 11,2 11,4 9,9 7,9 7,0
Max. Temperature (ºC) 17,4 19,7 21,2 22,4 21,7 19,9 19,6 20,0 18,8 18,0 17,3 17,7
Rainfall (mm) 16 16 32 62 84 134 95 118 165 108 40 14
Humidity (%) 65 % 59 % 55 % 60 % 69 % 78 % 77 % 77 % 84 % 81 % 75 % 68 %
Rainfall (días) 3 3 6 8 12 14 11 13 15 11 6 3
Table 3.2.1 Climate data regarding monthly rainfall and temperatures
Between the driest and wettest months, the difference in precipitation is 151 mm. The average
temperatures vary during the year by 5,0 °C.
The characteristic biogeographic features of this type of climate are:
- Mountains, being often the source of rivers, have small channels and fast currents.
- The vegetation in is varied and presents staggering with height, whose progression can
be equated to that established latitudinally and whose starting point varies according to
the characteristics of the climatic zone found in the plain.
- The soils, as you go up in height, tend to be progressively thinner, younger and poorer,
since the cold reduces the rate of chemical and biological weathering, and that, on the
other hand, the high slopes favor drainage, facilitating erosion and gravitational
processes.
20 de 207
3.3 GEOLOGY
GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Lake
Qpt Quaternary 
La Lake deposits
Qpt Quaternary 
R-Da Rhyolite-Dacite
Qpt Quaternary
B Basalts
Quaternary 
Qpt
Igmimbrites y
lg-TR
Rhyolitic tuff
Ktss Cretaceous  
Cz-Lu Siltstone-Limestone
ToD Dioritic batholith
Based on the geological cartography edited by the Mexican Geological Service (SGM), on the E14-B35 sheet
(Guadalupe Victoria), the site would be mostly emplaced on the El Salado lake/salt flat.
The geological context corresponds to the Neovolcanic Plateau and the Transmexican Volcanic Axis. The
underlying and oldest rocks in the vicinity of the site correspond to a series of Mesozoic (Mainly Creataceus)
marine siltstone and limestone formations, that are currently heavily folded (Buckling with a northern vergernce)
and fracture (Near-vertical distensive faults). Discordant with these sedimentary units, there are a series of Dioritic
batholiths that, also deformed by tectonic stress and fractured under the current distensive tectonic framework.
This distensive tectonics resulted as well in the rise of magma and the Quaternary-Pleistocene volcanic activity,
resulting in a series of volcanic edifices and deposits that currently occupy most of the surface of the areas that
surround the site. This volcanic deposits have been remodeled by gravitational and fluvial processes, resulting in
the formation of the current endorreic river courses that resulted in the formation of the El Salado and other lakes.
Figure 3.3.1 Geological framework 
21 de 207
3.4 GEOMORPHOLOGY
The following geomorphological assessment of the site has been taken from the Geotechnical
report G-095.07-17-NEO-025-B, with some of its conclusions being modified by the current
exploration. The plot is located within the region known as "El salado", a large sub-horizontal
surface susceptible to accumulate a sheet of water of about 10-15cm in large part of the plot.
The area that occupies the study plot presents certain areas more susceptible to flooding,
especially towards the south of the plot, coinciding with the appearance of more outcrops of the
cemented crust, locally known as "Tepetate". As the plot progresses northwards, the tepetate
layer disappears.
Flooded area 11/08/17
Figure 3.3.3.1 Flooded area after Franklin tropical storm
The materials of which the lake is formed, consist of gray volcanic ash, which appear to us as
saturated grayish clayey silts. 
22 de 207
Figure 3.3.3.2 Location of the Geotechnical Observation Points
Geotechnical Observation Point G.O.P.-1: Large part of the surface is soaked due to the rains
that fell during the field work and Franklin tropical storm (11/08/17). Given the clay-loamy nature
of the soil, the filtration capacity of these waters is very slow, so that the surface is soaked
easily for several days after the rains have fallen. As of 2021, the site was again fond to be
largely covered by water pools.
Picture 3.3.3.3 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-1 
23 de 207
Geotechnical Observation Point G.O.P.-2: Small and isolated erosion crack found in the plot
that has very little lateral extension and depth (3 meters long by 0,40 meters deep). The
accumulation of some more material of sand and gravel is observed and a channel of erosion
has occurred in a short time, due to the recent precipitations.
Picture 3.3.3.4 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-2
Geotechnical Observation Point G.O.P.-3: Waterlogged zone corresponding to some old

threshing floors where the neighbors of the town conducted certain agricultural works. Outcrops
of Tepetate can be observed, very cemented and forming an impermeable surface that favors
the formation of floodable areas during the rainy season. Due to the high resistance of Tepetate
in this zone, the presence of the water here will remain until its complete evaporation.
Picture 3.3.3.5 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-3 
24 de 207
Geotechnical Observation Point G.O.P.-4: Overview of part of the plot that is somewhat more
uncharacteristic (although there is no shrub or arboreal vegetation in the plot, in some areas
pasture areas are concentrated).
These areas are susceptible to flooding during the hurricane season. Although the water sheet
disappears almost immediately, the degree of saturation of the soil is so high that it causes the
preservation of humidity for a long time (after a week the vehicles that tried to access the plot by
those areas were stuck).
Picture 3.3.3.6 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-4
25 de 207
Geomorphological and geological risk assessment
It is considered stable. There is no risk considering the geomorphology of the plot as well
Slope stability
as its low slope and surrounding areas (<15%).
Due to the location of the plot within a currently active lake, most of the plot would
Flooding
normally be flooded and waterlogged.
There is no high risk of erosion under current conditions. Troughs have been observed
Erosion where water flows sporadically and the risk of expansion can produce cracks during the
dry season.
According to the seismic zoning of the Mexican Republic, the site is located in an area of
Seismic risk
medium risk, with a maximum base acceleration of 0,15·g.
There is considered to be a high potential of swelling-shrinking capacity in the soil due to

Clay expansivity it’s high fine particle content, it’s very high plasticity and the probable presence of
swelling clays and other swelling minerales (Gypsum-anhydrite).
Table 3.4.8 Assessment of geological and geomorphologic risk 
26 de 207
4 FIELD EXPLORATION
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SURVEY
The in situ geotechnical survey has included Trial pits (TP), Panda2 dynamic probings (PD),
Geotechnical boreholes (BH) and Lefranc type permeability tests (PER). Additionally, Termal
resistivity tests (TRT) were performed. Field tests have been conducted according to following
standards:
Test Test Regulations Units
Trial pits (TP) ASTM D5921 8
Dynamic penetration Panda2 test (PD) NF XP P94 105:2000 1586 7
Geotechnical borehole (BH) ASTM D1587-00, XP P94-202 7
Lefranc field permeability test (PER) ASTM D6391 - 11(2020) 3
Thermal Resistivity Test (TRT) ASTM D5334 & 442-1981-IEEE 8
Table 4.1.1 Field tests carried out
Geological, geotechnical and geophysical characterization of materials within the study area
has been conducted and a comprehensive description of such works follows hereafter. Site
actual boundaries were investigated. Coordinates are shown below.
The test’s records are located on annex A2.
27 de 207
UTM WGS 84
Investigation
Tests
point Zone X (m) Y (m) Z (m)
BH-01 Geotechnical borehole 14 Q 661687 2151533 2327,24
BH-04 Geotechnical borehole - Lefranc permeability test 14 Q 663441 2149663 2320,15
DP-01 Panda2 dynamic penetration test 14 Q 662303 2151337 2321,18
TP-TRT-01 Trial pit - Thermal resistivity test 14 Q 662854 2148623 2319,55
Table 4.1.2 In-situ test locations 
28 de 207
Figure 4.1.1 Geotechnical test location 
29 de 207
4.1.1 Geotechnical boreholes and trial pits
Seven geotechnical rotational boreholes with core extraction were performed along the trace of
the proposed embankment. This have allowed to testify, characterize the soil organoleptically
and collect samples for laboratory testing at a greater depth than that achieved by the trial pits.
G.U. and
Geotechnical Unit (G.U,) Lithology
thickness (m)
Topsoil:
TS 0,10-0,25
Very soft grey silty clay with rootlets.
Quaternary Lacustrine Deposits:

Soft clayey and sandy silts. Light to dark brown
Qpt- color with occasional greenish and grayish tones.

> 8,00
la Soft to very soft consistency. Very humid to
saturated due to the presence of a shallow water
table.
Quaternary Lacustrine Cemented Deposits:

Clayey and sandy silts with some gravel and salt
Qpt-
2,60-5,40 cementation. Light brown color with gray and
la-c
whitish tones. Firm consistency due to the soluble
cementation. Very humid to saturated.
Table 4.1.1.1 Boreholes 
30 de 207
Additionally, 7 Trial test pits were carried out for the PV project to allow the measurement of the
soil’s in-situ temperature and its thermal resistivity. This tests are described in Chapter 4.1.3,
with the following table showing the aspect and description of the geotechnical units identified
within the trial pits.
G.U. and
Geotechnical Unit (G.U.) Trial pit Lithology
thickness (m)
TOPSOIL: Soft brown silt and sand with a trace

TS 0,3-0,4 All
of clay. Unstable walls. Easy excavation.
QUATERNARY TERRACE: Firm brown slightly
Qpt- All but sandy silt and clay and medium dense light
0,4-1,9
la TP-03 brown slightly gravelly fine-medium sand with
a trace of silt. Unstable walls. Easy excavation.
MIOCENE SUBSTRATE: Firm-Stiff yellowish

brown and greenish grey carbonate clay
Qpt-
>3,0 TP-03 (marls). High plasticity. Unstable to stable
la-c
walls. Easy excavation, making it difficult at
some points with depth.
Table 4.1.1.1 Trial pits summary 
31 de 207
4.1.2 Panda2 Dynamic Penetration Test
Seven (7) variable load dynamic penetration tests (Panda 2 type) have been performed in
accordance to the NF XP P94-105:2000 regulation for this project. The following graph shows,
for each test, the relation between test depth and the dynamic penetration resistance:
PANDA DYNAMIC PENETRATION TEST
Dynamic penetration resistance (MPa)
Depth
(m)
Table 4.1.2.1 Profile of penetration resistance with depth 
32 de 207
4.1.3 Thermal Resistivity Test
Using a TLS-100 Soil Thermal Conductivitymeter (Thermtest Instruments) 7 thermal resistivity

test were carried out. Each test was done in a trial pit, at depths of around 0,50 and and 1,30 m.
The results are shown on the table below.
Test/ Depth K Rho T0

Error
(m) W/m·ºC ºC·cm/W ºC
TP-TRT-1 0,40 m 0,577 173,2 0,005100 20,29
TP-TRT-1 1,0 m 0,849 117,8 0,003300 19,62
TP-TRT-2 0,50 m 0,739 135,3 0,002200 17,84
TP-TRT-2 1,30 m 0,931 107,4 0,003300 17,18
TP-TRT-3 0,40 m 0,859 116,4 0,046600 22,49
TP-TRT-4 0,50 m 0,788 126,9 0,003400 18,03
TP-TRT-4 1,30 m 0,994 100,6 0,004000 17,22
TP-TRT-5 0,50 m 0,883 113,3 0,001700 19,68
TP-TRT-5 1,30 m 0,996 100,4 0,003800 18,51
TP-TRT-6 0,50 m 0,759 131,7 0,004900 17,83
TP-TRT-6 1,30 m 1,047 95,5 16,88
TP-TRT-7 0,50 m 0,901 111,0 0,002500 18,16
TP-TRT-7 1,30 m 1,036 96,5 0,008500 18,02
TP-TRT-8 0,50 m 0,900 111,2 0,002400 18,56
TP-TRT-8 1,30 m 0,983 101,7 0,003500 17,53
Table 4.1.5.1 Thermal resistivity test results 
33 de 207
4.1.4 Lefranc permeability test
In order to determine the permeability of the foundation soil layer, three variable load Lefranc
permeability tests have been performed within boreholes 04, 05 and 06; in this tests the water
level is elevated over the natural water table, measuring its steady fall in five minutes intervals.
Figure 4.1.3.1 Test scheme and procedure
Test results are summarized in the table below. Full results are shown on Annex A2.
Studied Test duration Water level Permeability

Borehole G.U. USCS
depth (m) (min) drop (cm) (cm/s)
BH-04 2,50 Qtp-la 44 12 5,95E-05 ML
BH-05 2,50 Qtp-la 50 147 2,98E-04 SC
BH-06 2,50 Qtp-la 50 29 1,21E-04 SC
Table 4.1.3.1 Variable load Lefranc test results 
34 de 207
4.2 PREVIOUS SURVEY ANALYSIS
As a compliment to the present investigation, the in-situ testing a data collected during a
previous geotechnical investigation carried out for NEOEN by GEOINTEC within the same site.
This previous report (G-095.07.17-NEO-025-B) is dated for the 12th of September of 2017,
focusing on the design of the main photovoltaic power plant and it’s ancillaries. The results from
this report, regarding the Dynamic penetration Panda2 tests, electrical resistivity tests and trial
pits performed are detailed below, according to the following quantities and standards:
Test Test Regulations Units
Trial pits (TP) NF-XP-94-105 Panda 2 standard 23
Dynamic penetration Panda2 test (PD) ASTM/G 57; EEE Std 81-2012 23
Electrical resistivity test (ERT) BS 5930:1999 11
Table 4.2.1 Field tests carried out a part of the 2017 investigation
Testing coordinates are shown below.  
35 de 207
UTM WGS 84
Investigation point Tests
Zone X (m) Y (m)
TP-01 Trial Pit 14 Q 662213 2151819
TP-02 Trial Pit 14 Q 663295 2151620
TP-03 Trial Pit 14 Q 664418 2151477
TP-04 Trial Pit 14 Q 664220 2150951
TP-05 Trial Pit 14 Q 663065 2151129
TP-06 Trial Pit 14 Q 661967 2151338
TP-07 Trial Pit 14 Q 661812 2150849
TP-08 Trial Pit 14 Q 662827 2150629
TP-09 Trial Pit 14 Q 663902 2150447
TP-10 Trial Pit 14 Q 663499 2149978
TP-11 Trial Pit 14 Q 662632 2150222
TP-12 Trial Pit 14 Q 661552 2150398
TP-13 Trial Pit 14 Q 661397 2150003
TP-14 Trial Pit 14 Q 662367 2149727
TP-15 Trial Pit 14 Q 663222 2149511
TP-16 Trial Pit 14 Q 661207 2149531
TP-17 Trial Pit 14 Q 662162 2149249
TP-18 Trial Pit 14 Q 662842 2148949
TP-19 Trial Pit 14 Q 661035 2149095
TP-20 Trial Pit 14 Q 661968 2148841
TP-21 Trial Pit 14 Q 662421 2148490
TP-22 Trial Pit 14 Q 663159 2148069
TP-23 Trial Pit 14 Q 663627 2148677
PD-01 Dynamic Penetration Test 14 Q 662632 2151517
36 de 207
UTM WGS 84
Investigation point Tests
Zone X (m) Y (m)
ERT-01 Electrical Resistivity Test 14 Q 663196 2151695
Table 4.1.2 In-situ test locations for the 2017 investigation 
37 de 207
4.2.1 Trial Pits
A total of 23 trial pits were performed with a backhoe excavator. They have been conducted in
order to visually characterize the soil structure, as well as to take samples for laboratory testing.
In summary, following stratigraphic sequence descriptions have been gathered from test pits.
Thickness (m) Geotechnical Unit Trial pits Stratigraphy
Topsoil. Very loose grey silty clay with many

0.20-0.85 TS All
roots.
TP-1 to TP-12 and Quaternary Pleistocene lacustrine. Volcanic

>3.00 Qptla TP-14, TP-15 and ashes. very loose silty clay. The water appears
TP-17 at 3.0 m.
Quaternary Pleistocene lacustrine. Calcrete.

TP-13, TP-16 and
0.10-2.80 Qptla-C Very hard grey silty clay. Volcanic ashes
TP-18 to TP-23
cemented by salt concentration.
Table 4.2.1.1 Test pits results
38 de 207
4.2.2 Dynamic penetration test
23 Variable energy dynamic penetrometer test Panda-2 (NF XP P94 105:2000) wete
performed in order to characterize the resistance of the terrain.
PANDA DYNAMIC PENETRATION TEST
Dynamic penetration resistance (MPa)
Depth
(m)
Table 4.2.2.1 Profile of penetration resistance with depth
39 de 207
4.2.3 Electrical Resistivity Test ERT
4 Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) have been performed with a Schumberger Array (AB/2=
1.50 m, 2.0 m, 2.5 m, 3.0 m, 3.5 m, 4.0 m, 6.0 m, 8.0 m, 10.0 m, and 10.0 m, and MN= 1.0 m for
all the measurement are presented in table below.
Figure 4.2.3.1 Vertical electrical sounding.
Several resistivity measurements have been carried out for a quality control, with a standard
deviation value lower than 3 %, so it is considered that the measurements have a high quality.
The raw data and graphical interpretation can be found in the Annex A1. 
40 de 207
Test Resistivity (Ω·m) Layer thickness (m) Depth (m)
ERT-1 1,31 2,13 2,13
964 — —
ERT-2 0,286 0,59 0,59
303 5,41 6,00
67,5 — —
ERT-3 0,429 0,91 0,91
63,2 1,41 2,32
331 — —
ERT-4 0,239 0,49 0.75
254 5,51 6,00
56,7 — —
ERT-5 1202 0,20 0,20
0,108 0,52 0,72
331 — —
ERT-6 0,26 0,44 0,44
254 5,56 6,00
56,7 — —
ERT-7 0,526 2,33 2,33
331 — —
ERT-8 1,28 1,07 1,07
0,639 1,03 2,10
480 — —
ERT-9 0,219 0,43 0,43
125 5,57 6,00
125 — —
ERT-10 0,289 0,84 0,84
286 — —
ERT-11 242 0,46 0,46
42,5 0,67 1,13
45604 — —
Table 4.2.3.2 ERT test results 
41 de 207
4.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory works mainly involved carrying out soil tests on the samples which were obtained
from the field as discussed in following sections. Samples from the exploration works were
labelled, protected and taken to the laboratory with the aim of carrying out tests referenced in
table below:
Test Test regulations Units
Opening, preparation and sample quartering UNE 103100:95 y NLT-101:72 22
Sieve granulometric analysis UNE 103101:95 y NLT 104:91 22
Determination of soil moisture UNE 103-300:93 22
Determination of bulk density UNE 103-301:94 22
Atterberg limits UNE 103103:94 y UNE 103104:93 22
Direct shear test (Consolidated and drained) UNE 103401:98 4
Oedometer Test UNE 103405:94 2
Swelling Pressure Test UNE 103602:96 4
Modified Proctor Compaction Test UNE 103501:94 y NLT 108:91 4
UNE 103502:95 & ASTM

Determination of C.B.R. Index 4
D1883-07e2*
UNE 103204: 93 y UNE 103204:93

Determination of organic matter 13
(erratum)
ISO 10390:1944 & ASTM D 4972 –

Determination of pH 13
01
UNE EN 1744-1:99 & ASTM D 512

Determination of chlorides content 13
& AASHTO T259/260*
EHE 2008 y UNE 83963:2008 &

Determination of sulphates content in soil 13
ASTM C 1580
Determination of sulphide content in soil Instrucción de ensayo PE-6: 13

Espectrofotometría Molecular de Sulfuro Total
DIN 50929-3:2016-05* y ASTM D

Determination of Buffer Capacity 13
1067 – 06**
PE-916: Electrometría. Rango: 0.0

Redox Potencial 13
- 10000 mV
EHE 2008 y norma UNE

Baumann-Gully Acidity in soil 2
83962:2008
Table 4.3.1 Laboratory tests permorfed 
42 de 207
4.3 PLANNING DEVIATIONS
There have been no notable changes in the project.
43 de 207
5 TERRAIN GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES
Through field identification and field test, the following parameters have been obtained for each
material found in the study area:
Geotechnical Unit 1. Topsoil (TS)
This formation has been recognized in all trial pits and dynamic penetration tests carried out. It
is composed of brown silt and sand with a trace of clay. It is the result of the weathering and
colonization of the underlaying lacustrine deposits. It is mainly composed of sandy silt, with a
dark brown coloration and an abundance of rootlets and organic matter.
The following shows the appearance of the material in several of the investigations carried out
in this geotechnical unit:
Geotechnical Unit: Topsoil (TS)
Table 5.1 Appearance of the G.U. TS in some of the investigations carried out
Based on the trial pits made, this unit has a thickness between 0,10 and 0,50 m. A soft to very
soft consistency has been assigned to these materials according to the Panda2 penetration
tests.
44 de 207
Geotechnical Unit 2. Quaternary lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la)
This formation has been recognized and detected in all performed boreholes, trial-pits and
dynamic penetration tests.
It constitutes the lacustrine deposits of the nearby El Salado lake, with a certain volcanic
influence from the nearby volcanic edifices. It is mainly composed of brownish and whitish silts
and clays. The material has a thickness raging from just 0,50 m, and up to 8,00 m, with its real
base not having been detected. The panda 2 and standard penetration tests indicate that this
unit has a very soft to soft consistency, with the water table appearing around 2,00 meters in
depth.
The sixteen samples analyzed show very low dry density values ranging from 0,66 to 1,22 g/
cm3 with an average humidity of 66,0%. Due to its silty nature and salt content, these material
have a high capacity for water absorption.
Based on the granulometric analysis, the soil is composed of clays and silts with variable
quantities of sand (From very sandy to traces of sand). Atterberg limit determinations show
liquid limit value from 30,8 to 140 and plastic index values of 1,5 to 54,8. Higher plasticities
correspond to samples with an abundance of soluble gypsum salts, and lower plasticities are
due to an increased lime content.
The sulphate content has ranged from 0 to 10.900 mg/kg in the seven samples analyzed. Four
pH determinations were done, resulting in very basic pH levels ranging from 8,73 to 10,13.
45 de 207
Below is a summary table with all the laboratory tests carried out at the G.U. Quaternary
lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la):
G.U. Quaternary lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la)
Particle Size Distribution:
Casagrande Plasticity Chart:
Classification
USCS MH (ML-SM) AASHTO A-7 (A-5 A-6)
PG-3 MARGINAL COMPORTAMIENTO COHESIVE
Table 5.2 Particle size distribution and Casagrande Plasticity Chart G.U. Qpt-la
*See section 12.3 (Use of materials) 
46 de 207
Below is a summary table with all the laboratory tests carried out at the G.U. Quaternary
lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la):
LABORATORY RESULTS
ATTERBERG GRANULOMETRIC
S CHEMICAL TEST
LIMITS ANALYSIS
A
M G F
W γS γap G U
P R S I S
L A A N SO4
% g/cm3 g/cm3 g/cm3 C Acidity.
V N E
E LL PL PI S Baumann- pH
E D S mg/
Gully
L kg
%
% %
BH-2 MA-5
- - - - 91,9 41,1 50,8 7,8 2,2 90,0 MH - - -
(0,45-3,00)
BH-5 MA-6
- - - - 37,2 20,8 16,4 11,6 20,4 68,0 CL - - -
(0,45-3,00)
BH-1 SHELBY-2
51,83 1,05 1,59 2,29 137,1 105,0 32,1 0,0 0,0 100,0 MH 1350 0 10,13
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
99,72 1,19 2,38 2,38 62,5 56,3 6,2 0,0 55,0 45,0 SM - - -
(6,00-6,45)
BH-2 SPT-1
- - - 2,42 65,8 46,6 19,2 0,0 4,0 96,0 MH 1350 - -
(0,00-0,45)
BH-2 SHELBY-3
58,43 1,00 1,58 2,33 88,2 59,2 29,0 5,6 31,4 63,0 MH - - 10,05
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3 SHELBY-2
51,37 0,95 1,43 2,36 87,5 59,9 28,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 MH 1450 0 9,5
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
- - - 2,61 65,4 45,5 19,9 0,0 35,0 65,0 MH - - -
(3,00-3,45)
BH-3 SHELBY-4
80,46 0,77 1,38 2,54 65,6 54,7 10,9 0,0 33,0 67,0 MH - - -
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
- - - 2,11 87,3 54,7 32,6 0,0 5,0 95,0 MH 10900 - -
(0,00-0,45)
BH-4 SHELBY-2
36,87 1,22 1,66 2,13 140,0 85,2 54,8 0,0 1,0 99,0 MH - - -
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5 SHELBY-4
42,57 1,00 1,42 2,55 37,2 25,8 11,4 4,0 32,0 64,0 ML 400 10 -
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6 SHELBY-2
106,52 0,66 1,36 2,53 63,4 52,2 11,2 1,8 33,3 64,9 MH 650 11 8,73
(2,50-3,00)
BH-7 SPT-3
- - - - - - - - - - - 675 7 -
(5,00-6,00)
AVERAGE 65,97 0,98 1,60 2,39 79,16 54,38 24,81 2,37 19,41 78,22 - 2396 11,00 9,60
MIN 36,87 0,66 1,36 2,11 37,20 20,80 6,20 0,00 0,00 45,00 - 400 - 8,73
MAX 106,52 1,22 2,38 2,61 140,00 105,00 54,80 11,60 55,00 100,00 - 10900 - 10,13
STANDARD
DEVIATION 26,34 0,19 0,33 0,17 31,67 22,05 15,13 3,80 18,31 18,79 - 3773 - 0,65
TOTAL
TESTS 8 8 8 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 - 7 5 4
Table 5.3 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la. Part 1
47 de 207
LABORATORY RESULTS
DIRECT SHEAR UNIAXIAL

IDENTIFICATION PROCTOR AND CBR
TEST COMPRESSION
Permea
bility  
SAMPLE Uniaxial Defor
φ c comprresiv Wópt γmáx CBR Swelli  
FINE TYP mation
LL PI e strenght ng m/s
S% E º
kPa kPa % % g/cm3 100% %
BH-2 MA-5
(0,45-3,00)
90,0 91,9 50,8 - - - - - 32,3 1,365 3,7 15,8 -
BH-5 MA-6 CDc

68,0 37,2 16,4 23,8 48 - - 31,8 1,450 25 1,00 -
(0,45-3,00) d
BH-2
SHELBY-3 63,0 88,2 29,0 - - - 40,0 2 - - - - 8.8· 10-10
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3
SHELBY-2 100,0 87,5 28,0 CCD 13,18 21 - - - - - - -
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3
SHELBY-4 67,0 65,6 10,9 - - - - - - - - - 4.7·10-10
(3,50-4,00)
BH-5
SHELBY-4 64,0 37,2 11,4 - - - 30,0 6 - - - - -
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6
SHELBY-2 64,9 63,4 11,2 CCD 30,01 9 40,0 3 - - - - -
(2,50-3,00)
Table 5.4 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la. Part 2
48 de 207
Geotechnical Unit 3. Cemented lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la-c)
This formation has been recognized in boreholes BH-04, BH-05, BH-06, and BH-07, as well as
in trial pit TP-03.
This unit constitutes the hardened and cemented layers of the previously described Quaternary
lacustrine deposits. This cementation is due to the natural precipitation of salts, gypsum and
lime in the nearby lake El Salado. It shares many properties with the primal lacustrine deposits,
although with a lower plasticity and higher resistance.
Few samples were collected due to the high degree of cementation, making it impossible to
perform Shelby sampling or standard penetration tests.
In the 16 samples analyzed, dry density values between 1,48 and 1,70 g/cm3 have been
obtained for an average humidity value of 18,3%.
In the three samples studied the soil was shown to be mainly silty and clayey, with fine contents
raging from 55,2 to 717%. Liquid limits of 30,8 and 40,1 were determined, with plasticity indexes
of 1,5 and 11,1 respectively. This unit is thus cohesive in nature, with a low plasticity.  
49 de 207
Below is a summary table with all the laboratory tests carried out at the G.U. Cemented
lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la-c):
G.U. Cemented lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la)
Particle Size Distribution:
Casagrande Plasticity Chart:
Clasificación
USCS MH-CH AASHTO A-7
PG-3 TOLERABLE/MARGINAL COMPORTAMIENTO COHESIVE
Table 5.5 Particle size distribution and Casagrande Plasticity Chart G.U. Qpt-la-c
*See section 12.3 (Use of materials) 
50 de 207
Below is a summary table with all the laboratory tests carried out at the Cemented lacustrine
deposits (Qpt-la-c):
LABORATORY RESULTS
ATTERBERG
S GRANULOMETRIC ANALYSIS
LIMITS
A
M G F
W γS γap G U
P R S I S
L A A N
% g/cm3 g/cm3 g/cm3 C
V N E
E LL PL PI S
E D S
L
%
% %
BH-5 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) - - - 2,513 40,1 29,0 11,1 0,0 28,0 72,0 ML
BH-5 SPT-2 (3,00-3,45) - - - 2,56 30,8 29,3 1,5 0,0 45,0 55,0 ML
BH-7 SPT-2 (3-3,45) - - - - - - - 0,0 30,7 69,3 ML
AVERAGE - - - 2,54 35,45 29,15 6,30 0,00 34,57 65,43 -
MIN - - - 2,51 30,80 29,00 1,50 0,00 28,00 55,00 -
MAX - - - 2,56 40,10 29,30 11,10 0,00 45,00 72,00 -
STANDARD DEVIATION - - - 0,03 6,58 0,21 6,79 0,00 9,14 9,14 -
TOTAL
TESTS 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 -
Table 5.6 Laboratory Results G.U. Qpt-la-c. Part 1
51 de 207
Material for Dam construction Geotechnical Unit 4.
It has been considered the inclusion of materials for dam construction inside this chapter
although they are not natural terrains.
Along present study materials coming from trial pits and boreholes have been tested to check
their use for dam construction purposes.
The purpose to do dat is to have the a balanced mass balance between excavation of water
pond, and dam foundation and the construction of the dam itself.
Test performed were done over remodeled materials and basically consist on identification
tests, proctor and CBR tests.
LABORATORY RESULTS
USCS IDENTIFICATION DIRECT SHEAR TEST PROCTOR AND CBR
SAMPLE
φ c Wópt γmáx CBR
Swelling
Class. FINES % LL PI TYPE %
º kPa % g/cm3 100%
BH-2 MA-5 OH o
(0,45-3,00)
89,6 91,9 50,8 - - - 32,3 1,365 3,7 15,8
MH
BH-5 MA-6
(0,45-3,00)
CL 68,1 37,2 16,4 CDcd 23,8 48 31,8 1,450 25 1,00
Table 5.7 Laboratory Results G.U. 4
Results obtained are described and classified based on its granulometric curve and its limits as
clays or inorganic limes to high plasticity limes.
On follow table are resumed geotechnical parameters obtained
52 de 207
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
G.U. USCS
Qd Qc γ c´ Su qu E
NSPT φ´
(MPa) (MPa) (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (Mpa)
TS MH 1,0 0,9 14,3 2 19 0,0 13,9 27,8 2,47
Qtp-la MH 2,0 1,7 16,0 4 22,3 26,0 27,8 55,6 3,13
Qtp-la-c ML 9,0 7,7 16,8 20 31,9 50,0 125,0 250,0 7,80
Dam Fill MH 1,5 1,3 14,1 3 23,8 48,0 18,8 37,5 2,70
Table 5.8 Geotechnical parameters
Qd: Dynamic penetration resistance (correlation) Nspt: Standard penetration test index (correlation)
γ: Bulk density c´: Effective cohesion
φ´: Effective friction angle qu: Uniaxial compressive strength
Su: Undrained shear strength E: Young's Modulus
Qc: Static penetration resistance (correlation)
The geotechnical parameters have been obtained through the data of the field tests carried out,
the laboratory tests performed and appropriate correlations and a calibration by GEOINTEC
based on their experience.
53 de 207
6 WATER TABLE
With an overall humid surface state for the terrain, the water table was detected in all boreholes
with depths from 2,00 to 2,60 m. These are described below:
First meassurement
Investigation point
Date Depth (m) Elevation (m)
BH-01 31/05/2021 2,00 2325,24
BH-02 29/05/2021 2,40 2321,60
BH-03 29/05/2021 2,65 2320,89
BH-04 28/05/2021 2,50 2317,65
BH-05 27/05/2021 2,50 2332,56
BH-06 31/05/2021 2,00 2318,06
BH-07 31/05/2021 2,00 2320,86
The permeability classification according to table 2.3 of chapter 2 (p. 30) of the book “Geological
Engineering”, by Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002), is as follows:
Permeability classification according to Gónzalez de Vallejo, 2002
USCS Soil Type Permeability (K cm/s)
GP Uniform and bad graded gravels 0,2 - >1
GW Well graded gravels 0,05 - 0,3
SP Uniform sand 5·10-3 - 0,2
SW Well graded sands 10-3 - 0,1
SM Silty sand 10-3 - 5·10-3
SC Clayey sand 10-4 - 10-3
ML Low plasticity silt 5·10-5 - 10-4
CL Low plasticity clay 10-5 - 10-8
Table 6.1 Classification of permeability according to Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002)
54 de 207
Thus the materials detected during the exploration would have the following permeabilities:
Geotechnical Unit USCS Permeability (K cm/s)
TS MH 10-5 - 10-8
Qtp-la MH 10-5 - 10-8
Qtp-la-c ML 5·10-5 - 10-4
Table 6.2 Estimated permeability values obtained from the correlation of González de Vallejo (2002)
55 de 207
7 DISTRIBUTION OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS
Through the information collected at the different research locations, it has been determined
that the terrain is covered by a thin layer of colonized Topsoil (TS). Below this level there is a
series of lacustrine clay and silt deposits (Qpt-la), with an undetermined thickness (Greater than
8,00 m) and soft to very soft consistency. At various depths and locations (Mainly to the
souithern edge of the site), this lacustrine deposits were found to be hardened and cemented by
the salts, gypsum and lime resulting from the seasonal evaporation of the nearby lake El
Salado. This later hardened unit has been defined as a Cemented Lacustrine Deposits (Qpt-
la-c). The water table has been detected in all boreholes, at depths of around 2,00 m.
Cross Section 1 SW-NE
Figure 7.1 Cross section SW-NE 
56 de 207
8 HAZARD ANALYSIS
8.1 SEISMIC RISK
The Mexican territory is characterized by an increased seismic activity. Thus, it has been
divided in four seismic zones defined as A, B, C and D, with an increasing seismic hazard.
Figure 8.1.1 Map of the seismic zoning and hazard in the Mexican Republic
57 de 207
For the application of the dynamic modal analysis specified by the Mexican earthquake
regulations, the seismic response spectrum must be defined. This represents the ordinate of
spectral acceleration, as a function of the oscillatory frequency, according to the following
expression:
Figure 8.1.2 Formula defining the seismic response spectra

Where:
a spectral acceleration (g) a0 maximum seismic acceleration

C maximum spectral acceleration Ta Beggining of the spectra plateau
Tb End of the spectra plateau
Tc Beginning of the descending branch in which the spectral displacements tend correctly to the <
displacement of the terrain
Te structural period in the direction of the analysis
r parameter that controls the decay of the spectral ordinates for Tb ≤ Te < Tc
k parameter that controls the decay of the spectral ordinates for Te ≥ Tc
To define the influence of the site's terrain, three types of substrate are defined:
• Type I - Rock or soils with a very firm to hard consistency, in the case of silts and
clays, or from compact to very compact in the case of granular ones.
• Type II - Soils with a consistency from soft to firm for silts and clays or sandy deposits
of medium compactness, or interbedded layers of these materials.
• Type III - Very soft to soft consistency soils for silts and clays or loose compact sandy
deposits. Recent lacustrine and alluvial deposits.
58 de 207
Based on this seismic zoning and the various possible geotechnical characterization of the
sites, the following values are provided in order to define the seismic response spectra:
Seismic Zone Soil Type a0 C Ta1 Tb1 r
I 0,03 0,12 0,20 0,60 1/2
A II 0,06 0,24 0,30 1,50 2/3
III 0,08 0,30 0,60 2,90 1
I 0,06 0,21 0,20 0,60 1/2
B II 0,12 0,45 0,30 1,50 2/3
III 0,15 0,54 0,60 2,90 1
I 0,54 0,54 0,00 0,6 1/2
C II 0,96 0,96 0,00 1,4 2/3
III 0,96 0,96 0,00 1,9 1
I 0,75 0,54 0,00 0,6 1/2
D II 1,29 0,96 0,00 1,4 2/3
III 1,29 0,96 0,00 1,9 1
Table 8.1.1 Seismic parameters according to zone and soil type
The project site is localted within Zone B, of a moderate seismicity, with a Type III soil (Soft
lacustrine deposits). The following seismic parameters are to be considered:
Seismic zone Soil type Maximum soil acceleration (g) Maximum spectral acceleration (g)
B III 0,15 0,54
Table 8.1.2 Project seismic parameters summary 
59 de 207
8.2 LIQUEFACTION RISK
The geological nature of the site is that of Holocene Lake deposits, situated in a zone of
moderate seismic risk. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs on very fine (sandy and silty)
soils that lack or have a very low plasticity, a loose density and a reduced clay fraction. Thus,
recent deposits with a very fine grain size are more prone to liquefaction, as is shown in the
following table:
Risk
Soil Conditions
High Medium Low Null
Soil type Unconsolidated deposits
Current litoral, fluvial, Coluvial and mass- Marine terrace, fluvial,

lacustrine, mass- transport deposits lacustrine, mass-
Origin of the soil transport, wind and transport and glacial
deltaic sedimentary deposits
deposits Rock
Clean sands, silty fines, Sandy gravel Variable composition.

Grain size silty sands and Silty clay to sand with
gravely-silty sands gravel.
Soil age Holocene-Pleistocene Holocene-Pleistocene Pleistocene-Pliocene
Table 8.2.1 Liquefaction risk according to soil type, origin, grain size and age
Thus the project terrains seems susceptible to liquefaction. To study this susceptability in further
detail, criteria by the following authors will be considered:
a) Wang, 1979
b) Andrews and Martins, 2000
c) Luis I. González de Vallejo, 2002
d) Seed et al, 2003
e) Bray and Sancio, 2006
With each author, the susceptibility to liquefaction risk has been weighted according to the most
determining factors considered by each one, so that if the most determining parameter indicates
susceptibility, there is greater certainty in the materialization of the risk. Thus, for example, in
the first author, the most determining factor is the fraction finer than 0.005 mm (CF0.005 mm ⩽
15%), followed by a Liquid Limit (LL) value equal to or lesser than 35%.  
60 de 207
8.2.1 Wang, 1979
One of the more widely employed methods in recent years is the “Modified Chinese criteria”
(Wang, 1979), which suggests that the soil must fulfill the following parameters in order to be
susceptible to liquefaction:
Soil fraction finer than 0,005 mm CF0,005mm ⩽ 15 %

Liquid limit LL ⩽ 35 %
Humidity content relative to said liquid limit 𝘸 ⩾ 0,9 · LL
Parameters Risk evaluation

Sample CF0,005mm ⩽ RIsk
CF0,005mm LL w LL ⩽ 35% 𝘸 ⩾ 0.9 · LL
15%
BH-1 SHELBY-2
94,7 137,1 51,83 No No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
21,15 62,5 99,72 No No Yes No
(6,00-6,45)
BH-2 SPT-1
59,35 65,8 — No No — No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-2 SHELBY-3
51,9 88,2 58,43 No No No No
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3 SHELBY-2
94,65 87,5 51,37 No No No No
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
44,45 65,4 — No No — No
(3,00-3,45)
BH-3 SHELBY-4
53,3 65,6 80,46 No No Yes No
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
60,8 87,3 — No No — No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-4 SHELBY-2
97,65 140,0 36,87 No No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5 SPT-1
34 40,1 — No No — No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-5 SPT-2
7,25 30,8 — Yes Yes — Yes
(3,00-3,45)
BH-5 SHELBY-4
37,15 37,2 42,57 No No Yes No
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6 SHELBY-2
40,25 63,4 106,52 No No Yes No
(2,50-3,00)
Table 8.2.1.1 Liquefaction risk according to Wang (1979) 
61 de 207
8.2.2 Andrews and Martins, 2000
An update to the previous criteria was published by Andrews and Martin (2000), which adapts
the Chinese Criteria to the American convention, considering the clay content to be represent by
the soil fraction finer than 0,002 mm, and slightly modifying the limits of susceptibility:
Figure 8.2.2.1 Liquefaction risk parameters according to Andrews and Martin (2000)
Parameters Risk evaluation

Sample Risk
CF0,002mm LL CF0,002mm ⩽ 10 % LL < 32 %
BH-1 SHELBY-2 (1,00-1,20) 94,0 137,1 No No No
BH-1 SPT-4 (6,00-6,45) 14,3 62,5 No No No
BH-2 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) 44,7 65,8 No No No
BH-2 SHELBY-3 (4,50-5,00) 40,2 88,2 No No No
BH-3 SHELBY-2 (1,50-2,00) 92,0 87,5 No No No
BH-3 SPT-3 (3,00-3,45) 33,5 65,4 No No No
BH-3 SHELBY-4 (3,50-4,00) 42,3 65,6 No No No
BH-4 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) 47,2 87,3 No No No
BH-4 SHELBY-2 (1,00-1,20) 96,7 140,0 No No No
BH-5 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) 28,6 40,1 No No No
BH-5 SPT-2 (3,00-3,45) 4,6 30,8 Yes Yes Yes
BH-5 SHELBY-4 (7,00-7,60) 29,3 37,2 No No No
BH-6 SHELBY-2 (2,50-3,00) 27,9 63,4 No No No
Table 8.2.2.1 Liquefaction risk according to Andrews and Martin (2000) 
62 de 207
8.2.3 Luis I. González de Vallejo, 2002
According to Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002), liquefaction phenomena occurs under the
following circumstances:
- Earthquakes with a magnitud equal or greater that 5,5 with seismic accelerations
equal or higher than 0,3·g
- A near-surface water table. IN the majority of cases the water table has been at a
depth of around 3,00 m, with the susceptibility significantly falling with a water table
deeper than 5,00 meters.
A soil prone to liquefaction usually possesses the following aspects:
- Saturation of 100%.
- Median grain size (D50) between 0,05 y 1,00 mm.
- Uniformity coefficient Cu=D60/D10<15.
- Fine content <10%.
- Loose soil density. NSPT values lower than 10 blows at depth up to 10,00 m, and
lower than 20 blows at depths greater than 10,00 m.
The following table compares the given criteria with the laboratory results:
Liquefaction risk criteria

Water
Sample USCS Risk
table (m)
N’1(60) D50 CU Clay %
BH-1 SHELBY-2 (1,00-1,20) Yes MH 2 <0,0015 — 94,7 No
BH-1 SPT-4 (6,00-6,45) Yes SM 6 0,1600 285,71 37,1 No
BH-2 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) Yes MH 3 0,0026 — 51,9 No
BH-2 SHELBY-3 (4,50-5,00) Yes MH 2 0,0040 — 68,3 No
BH-3 SPT-3 (3,00-3,45) Yes MH 3 0,0082 — 57,6 No
BH-4 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) Yes MH 7 0,0026 — 54,2 No
BH-5 SPT-1 (0,00-0,45) Yes ML 50/R 0,0164 — 42,4 No
BH-5 SPT-2 (3,00-3,45) Yes ML 50/R 0,0750 13,75 9 Yes
BH-5 SHELBY-4 (7,00-7,60) Yes ML 6 0,0300 — 50,6 No
Table 8.2.3.1 Liquefaction risk according to Luis I. González de Vallejo (2002) 
63 de 207
8.2.4 Seed et al, 2003
The following figure corresponds to the liquefaction assestment made by Seed et al (2003)
according to Casagrande’s plasticity chart. The soils contained in Zona A are considered to by
highly susceptible to liquefaction, whilst those in Zone B are less prone. The remaining soils are
not susceptible of liquefaction thanks to their high plasticity.
Figure 8.2.4.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility (Seed et al, 2003)
Figure 8.2.4.2 Casagrande’s plasticity chart modified by Seed et al (2003) showing the studied samples 
64 de 207
Liquefaction parameters
Zone B:
Sample wc ⩾ 0,85·LL
Risk
LL w CF0,074mm IP Zone Zone A:
wc > 0,8·LL
BH-1 SHELBY-2
137,1 51,83 97 32,1 No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
62,5 99,72 44 6,2 No No No
(6,00-6,45)
BH-2 SPT-1
65,8 — 94 19,2 No No No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-2 SHELBY-3
88,2 58,43 62 29,0 No No No
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3 SHELBY-2
87,5 51,37 99 28,0 No No No
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
65,4 — 64 19,9 No No No
(3,00-3,45)
BH-3 SHELBY-4
65,6 80,46 66 10,9 No No No
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
87,3 — 93 32,6 No No No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-4 SHELBY-2
140,0 36,87 99 54,8 No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5 SPT-1
40,1 — 70 11,1 Zona B Yes Yes
(0,00-0,45)
BH-5 SPT-2
30,8 — 42 1,5 Zona A Yes Yes
(3,00-3,45)
BH-5 SHELBY-4
37,2 42,57 62 11,4 Zona B Yes Yes
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6 SHELBY-2
63,4 106,52 63 11,2 No No No
(2,50-3,00)
Table 8.2.4.1 Liquefaction risk according to Seed et al (2003)
** Accordin to the formulations by Seed et al (2003):
a) FC ⩾ 20 % si IP>12%
b) FC ⩾ 35 % si IP<12%
65 de 207
8.2.5 Bray y Sancio, 2006
The following figure shows the recommendations by Bray and Sancio (2006) for liquefaction
prone fine soils. This evaluation is proposed for fine soils that, under normal considerations,
would not be prone to liquefaction by experience and direct observation were established to be
susceptible to liquefaction by Bray and Sancio.
Figure 8.2.5.1 Soil liquefaction chart (Bray y Sancio, 2006)
Figura 8.2.5.2 Soil liquefaction chart by Bray y Sancio (2006) with the studied samples
66 de 207
Liquefaction risk parameters

Sample Risk
IP Wc/LL Susceptibility
BH-1 SHELBY-2
32,1 0,38 Not susceptible No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
6,2 1,60 Susceptible Yes
(6,00-6,45)
BH-2 SPT-1
19,2 — — —
(0,00-0,45)
BH-2 SHELBY-3
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3 SHELBY-2
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
19,9 — — —
(3,00-3,45)
BH-3 SHELBY-4
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
32,6 — — —
(0,00-0,45)
BH-4 SHELBY-2
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5 SPT-1
11,1 — — —
(0,00-0,45)
BH-5 SPT-2
1,5 — — —
(3,00-3,45)
BH-5 SHELBY-4
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6 SHELBY-2
(2,50-3,00)
Table 8.2.5.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility according to Bray y Sancio (2006)
67 de 207
8.2.6 Soil liquefaction conclusions
According to the different authors and their respective criteria, the analyzed samples posses the
susceptibility to liquefaction detailed in the following table:
Liquefaction susceptibility by author
Luis I. Conclusion 
Sample Andrews and Seed et al, Bray y Sancio,
Wang, 1979 González de Susceptibility
Martins, 2000 2003 2006
Vallejo, 2002
BH-1 SHELBY-2
No No No No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
No No No No Yes No
(6,00-6,45)
BH-2 SPT-1
No No No No — No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-2 SHELBY-3
No No No No No No
(4,50-5,00)
BH-3 SHELBY-2
No No No No No No
(1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
No No No No — No
(3,00-3,45)
BH-3 SHELBY-4
No No No No Yes No
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
No No No No — No
(0,00-0,45)
BH-4 SHELBY-2
No No No No No No
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5 SPT-1
No No No Yes — Yes
(0,00-0,45)
BH-5 SPT-2
Yes Yes Yes Yes — Yes
(3,00-3,45)
BH-5 SHELBY-4
No No No Yes Yes Yes
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6 SHELBY-2
No No No No Yes No
(2,50-3,00)
Tabla 8.2.6.1 Soil liquefaction susceptibility according to various authors
Most of the samples studied have been determined to not indicate risk of liquefaction by most
authors consulted. The exception to this has been the samples from borehole BH-05, in which,
it seems, the higher degree of cementation, has reduced the plasticity of the soil. This reduction
in plasticity would be accompanied by an increase in the overall resistance of the soil. A low risk
of liquefaction is considered for the site. 
68 de 207
9 FOUNDATIONS AND EARTHWORKS
9.1 STRUCTURES AND FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS
The geotechnical study developed aims to characterize the geotechnical strata present in the
plot to give an estimate of the optimal foundation solutions for each case.
This project consists of the implementation of water protection dam around a photovoltaic plant,
so the structures to be considered for the study of the foundation are the following:
• Water protection dam.
This structure is a soil layer embankment constructed with materials form nearby excavations.
The preliminary design is composed by a water pond on upstream face covered by a waterproof
system composed by a HDPE layer.
After this water pond, the water pond will be constructed, by spreading and compacted layer by
layer of soil.
There is no recommendations, because is a preliminary design, about water pond surface

protection, but we suggest to take into account the protection of the water dam with a geotextile,
covered with a final top soil layer. Geotextile layer will protect the water pond against erosion
and piping phenomena and top soil layer will protect geotextile against UV damage.
Preliminary design has follow geometrical characteristics.
Upstream Coronation Maximum

Item Base With Downstream slope
Slope width Height / Depth
Dam 22º 3,05 m 13,00 m 1,99 m 22º
Water pond 22º 9,50 m 1,00 m 22º
Table 9.1 Dam Geometrical Design 
69 de 207
Figure 9.2 Dam projected design.
70 de 207
9.2 DIMENSION AND FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS
According to the previous section, one geomechanical model or scenario has been considered
based on the presence of soils with similar resistant characteristics at different points.
Through the information collected at the various research points, it has been determined that
the ground is covered by an altered layer of topsoil (TS). Below this level there exists a series of
lacustrine Quaternary deposits of soft clays (Qpt-la) with occasional hardened layers of
cemented lacustrine deposits (Qpt-la-c)
According to the ground resistance, the geotechnical units can be grouped into two
geotechnical scenarios:
• Scenario 1: TS + Qtp-la + Qtp-la-c
• Scenario 2: TS + Qtp-la-c
Based on the research carried out, direct ramming on the site is considered viable. In some
areas, direct ramming may become difficult due to the presence of cobbles and boulders.
A greater ramming pull out test studio is recommended to verify this hypothesis.
Geotechnical Scenario Type foundation Dam construction
Excavation compaction and

Small Dam Spread and compaction
geotextile
Table 9.2.1 Foundation solutions
71 de 207
9.3 UNCERTAINTY IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
In geotechnical practice two philosophies of design coexist in terms of how to deal with the
uncertainty associated with the calculation.
F
LRFD ASD
Load and Resistance Factor Design
Allowable Strength Design
∑𝜂.F ≤ 𝝓.Q
F ≤ (1/FS).Q

Service Load Factored Resistance
Factored Load Factored Resistance

Available Resistance
Ultimate Load Ultimate Resistance
𝜂: Load Factor (>1)
FS: Factor of Security (<1)
𝝓: Resistance Reduction Factor (<1)

Q
Figure 9.3.1 Method LRFD y ASD
9.3.1 Allowable Strength Design (ASD)
The method of Allowable Strength Design (ASD) is based on encompassing in a single factor
the imprecision associated with actions and resistances that is generated in the calculation
models called the global safety factor (FS).
This is the traditional geotechnical approach, however given the high associated conservatism
can harm the project from the economic point of view.
In addition, given that the structural calculation uses the partial safety factor method (stock
enhancement and reduction of resistance), the use of this method (service charges and global
safety factor) generates a series of inconsistencies that reveal the need to change the
calculation philosophy in the design of foundations.
72 de 207
9.3.2 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
This design philosophy addresses the uncertainty associated with actions and resistances in a
particularized way, enhancing actions or their effects and reducing the resistance of the terrain
based on factors called partial safety factors.
This method allows optimizing projects, refining knowledge of the uncertainties that the design
engineer must face and achieving coherence-cohesion with the subsequent structural
calculation.
So it can be said that it is under the philosophy of an old ASD and is the one that prevails in the
near future.
9.3.3 Selection of the design philosophy
Based on the arguments presented, the LRFD is the methodology applied in this report.
Therefore, the analysis of the techniques developed throughout the foundations chapter has
been created within the framework of the following hypothesis:
- Calculation according to the geotechnical weighted average of each layer.
- Study of drained and undrained conditions.
- Regulations: Eurocode 7 (LRFD)
73 de 207
9.4 EUROCODE
The Eurocode comprise a group of rules on the structural and geotechnical project of buildings
and civil engineering works.
The EC is an international framework regulation based on the limit states and the treatment of
uncertainty based on partial safety coefficients.
The application of any Eurocode in an EU member country cannot be understood without its
corresponding National Annex, in which each country defines the national determination
parameters.
In this report, Eurocode 7 (EC-7) has been used for geotechnical calculation and Eurocode 0
and 1 (EC-0 and EC-1) has been used for the loads combination/calculation.
Figure 9.4.1 EC-0, 1 y 7
Annex A5 details the methodology of EC-0, 1 and 7 used to calculate foundations.
74 de 207
9.4.1 EC-0 y EC-1
They provide general principles and actions for the project of building structures / foundations
and civil works.
9.4.1.1 Actions
In accordance with the methodology described in section A5.1, the calculation of the results for
actions combination for each limit State will be performed.
Two scenarios are contemplated:
9.4.1.1.1 Dead loads / Traffic load
A light traffic load is considered for the present design considered the road design on the top of
the embankment for inspection purposes.
It is considered a uniform traffic load of 9 kN/m2
9.4.1.1.2 Live loads / Seismic load
Seismic load is considered as a calculus acceleration value. Calculus values are obtained from
seismis study reflected on point 8.1.
maximum calculus acceleration considered are:
Table 9.4.1.2.1 Calculus acceleration values
Given that the charges are unknown and the scope of the study does not cover this
section, this point has not been developed nor will it be developed in Annex A5.1.3.
75 de 207
9.4.2 Eurocode 7
Its objective is to estimate the resistance of the soil, it implies moving from the methods based
on admissible stresses to the calculation methods based on the limit states and the introduction
of partial coefficients in the field of geotechnical engineering.
9.4.2.1 Limit states
In a "limit state", the foundation would reach an unwanted situation that should be avoided.
• ULS
It can cause the collapse or structural failure of the foundation. The ULSs analyzed in
this report are:
TYPE CHAPTER (EC7)* ULS DESCRIPTION TYPE ULS
VERTICAL BEARING FAILURE (6.5.2) GEO
SHALLOW FOUNDATION 6 SLIDING (6.5.3) GEO
RIGID OVERTURNING (2.4.7 y 6.5.4) EQU
Table 9.4.2.1.1 Foundations (ULS)
• SLS
It can lead to the loss of the functionality of the structure although it does not lead to an
imminent failure of the structure. The SLS analyzed in this report are:
TYPOLOGY CHAPTER (EC7)* SLS DESCRIPTION
TOTAL SETTLEMENTS (6.6.2)
DIFFERENTIALS SETTLEMENTS (6.6.2)

SHALLOW FOUNDATION 6
HYDRAULIC LIFTING (6.6.3)
VIBRATIONS (6.6.4)
Table 9.4.2.1.2 Foundations (SLS)
9.4.2.2 Design Approach
In this case, given that the project is located in Spain, the chosen project approach will be DA2
and DA3, because they are the most used.
76 de 207
Foundations 2
DA
Slopes 3
Table 9.4.2.2.1 Design approach chosen
Then the combination of the partial coefficient set combination chosen is:
Foundations & Slopes A 1 + M1 + R 2
Foundations & Slopes (A1 ó A2) + M2 + R3
Table 9.4.2.2.2 DA-1 y DA-1
Below is a figure that summarizes the methodology of DA-2 and DA-3:
Figure 9.4.2.2.1 DA-2 (up) and DA-3 (down) summary
9.4.2.3 Geotechnical parameters
• Geotechnical Scenarios
77 de 207
A single geotechnical scenario has been defined based on the resistant parameters
of the detected soils. The values of the parameters of the most unfavorable
geotechnical unit have been taken.
• Design value (Xd)
The characteristic values and the partial coefficients selected are shown in chapter
A1.2.7. The design values for the DA-2 and DA-3 are shown below:
Upper Lower DA-2 (Foundations)

G.U.
bound bound Φ c Su γ E
TS 0,00 0,50 19,31 0,00 13,89 14,28 2466,67
Qtp-la 0,50 1,50 22,33 26,00 27,78 16,00 3133,33
Qtp-la-c 0,50 3,00 31,93 50,00 125,00 16,80 7800,00
Dam Fill - - 23,80 48,00 18,75 14,08 2700,00
Units m m º kPa kPa kN/m3 kPa
Table 9.4.2.3.1 Geotechnical parameter´s design values. DA-1
Seismic Aceleration Value
Vertical acceleration
0,15*g
(av)
Horizontal acceleration
0,05*g
(ah=1/3 av)
Upper Lower DA-3 (Slopes)

G.U.
bound bound Φ c Su γ E
TS 0,00 0,50 15,66 0,00 9,92 14,28 2466,67
Qtp-la 0,50 1,50 18,19 20,80 19,84 16,00 3133,33
Qtp-la-c 0,50 3,00 26,50 40,00 89,29 16,80 7800,00
Dam Fill - - 19,43 38,40 13,39 14,08 2700,00
Table 9.4.2.3.2 Geotechnical parameter´s design values. DA-1
78 de 207
According to laboratory tests, the soil has a mostly cohesive nature. Therefore, both the short-
term (CP) and long-term (LP) situations will be analyzed and the most restrictive will be taken
for the design.
79 de 207
9.4.2.4 Dam Study
To board any kind of embankment two analysis must be performed, first must be secured the
stability of the embankment it self performing the “Global Stability analysis”
9.4.2.4.1 Global stability análisis
9.4.2.4.1.1 Limit Equilibrium Methodology. Global Failure
This analysis is referred at the global failure possibility along the slope in circular or mixed
surface.
the conditions where normally this kind of failures happens are those were soil particles
dimensions, understood as a continuous medium, are very small compared with the slope
dimensions. This usually happens in altered or very fractured rock masses or in soils.
To analice the stability of a determined slope constructed in a material with know resistance
characteristics, it is necessary to determine the position of the center and radius of the circle
that defines the sliding surface. This circle is known as critical circle, and it must satisfice the
minimum relation between the terrain’s shared properties along slide surface and tangential
forces that produce them.
Except in simple cases were the circle could be determined by analytical methods, generally the
position must be determined by iterative methods.
Forces acting on the sliding mass are reflected on the following figure, and they are weight (W),
resultant of the external gravitational forces over soil mass; A, resulting of the normal forces
acting on the break line effective stress; Tc, resulting of the tangential stress along break line;
and U, the pore pressure acting upon this surface.
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.1.1 Scheme of the resultant forces actuating over a sliding soil mass
80 de 207
There exist some general methods to study this kind of slope failure.
Most methods are based on the equilibrium of strips or slides of soil, based on the division of
the sliding mass in a number of vertical slides, where the assumed hypothesis is that the normal
stress is concentrated in one single point of the sliding arch.
On cases where the slope surface is very irregular or the failure surface intersects materials
with different geotechnical properties, is is necessary analice the slope stability with more
precise methods. Nevertheless this methods are also based on the sliding failure model, but
also without simplified hypothesis and calculations. On the other hand, studies comparing both
methods shows that those considered as approximated methods have enough accuracy.
On the slide method, sliding mass is divided in a determinate number of vertical slides, and
equilibrium is considerate in each one. Follow image shows a slide with the forces that define its
equilibrium.
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.2.2 Scheme of the resultant forces actuating over a vertical slide
The slope stability analysis has been done according with Jambu’s methodology, which is a
simplification of the slide method. In this method are supposed known the position of the normal
stress to the slide faces. Satisfying the actuating force equilibrium, but not the equilibrium of
momentum.
According to the Jambu method, the analyzed circle safety factor is defined by the relation
between resistance force moments along the arch and destabilizing forces from the centre of
the failure circle.
81 de 207
Figure 9.4.2.4.1.2.3. Scheme of slope sliding decomposition for circular failure over equilibrium limit analysis with
Jambu method.
The análisis has been performed with Rockscience’s Slide Software.
This program calculates the plastic equilibrium in a predefined break circle.
On clayey soils, for short time stability, slide allow to consider pore pressure increments
produced by the implementation of superficial loads. To evaluate this pore pressure increment
the program uses the B.Bar methodology, who assumes a direct proportional relationship
between increment of pore pressure and changes on vertical stress. According with B-Bar
method, the pore pressure increment is given by follow expression:
Where:
Δu= Pore pressure increment
B = B-bar coefficent (Skempton 1954)
Δσv= Vertical stress increment.
Where B is the B coefficient of each material (Skemptom, 1954) between 0 to 1. This value
depends on the nature and permeability of the soil and its drainage conditions.
The B coefficient value used on the calculations could have a big impact on the results, due to
pore pressure presence being an important influence on the resulting safety factor.
82 de 207
It is evident that this B coefficient is related with construction speed sequence, because there is
a time function disposition of the pore pressure. Nevertheless, for the B coefficient
determination, no water pressure dissipation has been considered, so the assumed value could
be considered to be on the side of safety.
Program data inputs are:
• Cohesion, Friction angle and specific weight of the terrains;
• Slope geometry (it is posible to adapt the geometry practically without limitations, and also
consider different soils, each one with it own geometry).
• Water table position (it is possible consider a water level with a free geometry)
• B coefficient for B-bar method, in order to calculate the pore pressure increase.
Indicate what materials cause excess pore pressure due to their weight increment over the
lower layers, like embankments, ancillary structures, etc.
The slide software calculates in a centers grid given by the designer the safety factor of all
posible failure circles, result of variance the radius from each centre. So it is possible to obtain
safety factors contours, geometrical location of the centre circles, being solved partially the
limitations for limit equilibrium method were a previous circle must be defined. But also could be
analyzed a specific circle.
9.4.2.4.1.3. Results
The geometries for the analysis have been selected considering the worst cross-section of the
dam (Taller embankment configuration). On this section two scenarios have been contemplated:
• Normal scenario. Global stability analysis with foundation materials under saturated
conditions, traffic load of 9 kN/m2 and static conditions.
• Exceptional Scenario. Global stability analysis with foundation materials under saturated
conditions, traffic load of 9 kN/m2 and under dynamic conditions.
The results from these analysis are shown in the following figures:
83 de 207
Figure 9.4.2.1.3.1.- Graphic output for global stability analysis under static conditions minimum S.F.=7,449.  
( represented 10 surfaces with lowest SF)
Figure 9.4.2.1.3.2.- Graphic output for global stability analysis under dynamic conditions minimum S.F.=4,928 
( represented 10 surfaces with lowest SF)
Both scenarios contemplated have safety factors above 1, actually the worst value obtained, for
global stability analysis under dynamic conditions throws values of SF=4,928. 
84 de 207
9.4.2.4.2 Expected settlements
The other conditioning for embankment design is the expected settlements. Generally it must be
less than 25 mm to 50 mm for Shallow foundations (spread footing or mat slab, respectively). In
this case settlement is conditioned by the embankment's purpose and use: for roads (in the top
of the embankment has bee designed a road for supervision purposes) the settlement expected
must be less than 3 cm (0,03 m) measured in a period of 3 months, for differential settlements
between two points at a distance of 20 m. This settlement limit is for a traffic speed design of
80-60 km/h (50-37 miles/h) .
To analyze settlements expected under the construction of the dam the Settle 3D software has
been used. With this software, construction stages could be implemented, obtaining the
expected settlements after each stage.
Considered stages are summarized on the following table:
SETTLE 3D CONSIDERED STAGES
STAGES DESCRIPTION
Preparation of the dam foundation. Excavation of 1,0 m under the embankment

Stage 1 Excavation
footprint, and also executing upstream water pond.
Preparation of the dam foundation by compacting the excavated surface and

Stage 2 Foundation filling executing consecutive spread and compaction of fill material layers. This step
has been represented as a load along footprint.
Construction of the dam by spread and compaction of 20 cm layers until 1,0 m

Stage 3 Dam construction
high.
Construction of the dam by spread and compaction of 20 cm layers until 1,90 m

Stage 4 Dam construction
high (maximum design height expected).
Traffic load
Stage 5 A traffic load of 9 kN/m2 has been considered.
application
Table 9.4.2.4.2.1 Settle 3D considered stages
9.4.2.4.2.1 Results
The results for each stage have been compiled on the following table where the considered
stage, construction process, maximum settlement expected and graphic outputs are shown.
85 de 207
Construction Expected
stage Figure
process settlement
Stage 1 Excavation -0,05 m
Stage 2 foundation fill -0,03 m
86 de 207
stage Figure
process settlement
1st
Stage 3 embankment -0,03 m
(1,00m)
2nd
Stage 4 embankment 0,01 m / -0,03 m
(0,99 m)
87 de 207
stage Figure
process settlement
Stage 5 Traffic load 0,01 m / -0,03 m
Table 9.4.2.4.2.1.1- Settle 3D staged results and graphical outputs.
A comparison graph has been obtained who allows us to compare how the structure is going to
being deformed along different stages and loads.
Figure 9.4.2.4.2.1.1- Distance vs total settlement in a transverse cut.
88 de 207
This graph shows how the soil in the first stage suffers a decompression, due to the
embankment toe excavation, and water pond excavation. This excavation produces negative
settlements (a rise of the excavation surface).
After that, the constructive process of the embankment foundation and its main body will
produce consecutive settlement increments, until the final stage were the weight of the
embankment and the added traffic load, where a maximum expected settlement lesser than
0,012 m (1,2 cm) will occur, with a maximum differential settlement in the final stage of 0,00125
m/m.
89 de 207
10 CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS IN SITE´S MATERIALS
10.1 AGGRESSIVENESS OF THE SOIL AGAINST CONCRETE
The aggressiveness of the foundation soil is identified by the type of environment according to
section 8.2.1 of the EHE-08 (Structural Concrete Instruction). Following the criteria of
aggressiveness based on the sulphate contents in soil and water, it is established:
Type of exposure
Weak attack Qa Medium attack Qb Strong attack Qc
Soil SO4 (mg/ kg) 2.000 a 3.000 3.000 a 12.000 >12.000

Water SO4 (mg/ l) 200 a 600 600 a 3.000 > 3.000
Table 10.1.1 EHE-08 Classification
In the particular case of sulphates, the concrete must have the additional characteristic of
sulphate resistance provided that its content is equal to or greater than 600 mg/l in the case of
water or equal to or greater than 3.000 mg/kg in the case of soils (except in the case of
seawater or the chloride content is greater than 5.000 mg/l, then the concrete to be used must
have the additional characteristic of resistance to seawater).
Below is a table with sulphate values obtained in the soil and water samples analyzed:
Type of sample SO4 Content Type of exposure

Soil SO4 (mg/ kg) 2396,4 (400 - 10900) Qa (<3.000)
Water SO4 (mg/ l) - -
Table 10.1.2 Sulphate content and type of exposure
Therefore, from the laboratory tests carried out, a soil that is highly aggressive against
concrete (Qc type exposure). The use of sulphate-resistant cements is considered is
necessary.
90 de 207
10.2 EXCAVATABILITY
The materials corresponding to the different geotechnical units that make up the study plot are
considered to be excavated using excavators and scrapers.
U.G Excavatability Machinery Type of excavation
TS Easy Backhoe Soil excavation
Qtp-la Easy Backhoe Soil excavation
Qtp-la-c Hard Heavy Ripper Cemented soil excavation
Table 10.2.1 Excavatability, machinery and type of excavation
91 de 207
10.3 BACKFILL
10.3.1 Classification for backfill
Below is a table with the different classifications of the geotechnical units based on the
laboratory tests performed on each sample:
Identification Other tests Classification Use

Sample CBR
Finos LL IP M.O H.L S.S I.C PG-3 AASHTO PG-3 AASHTO
CIMIENTO o
NÚCLEO CON
BH-2 MA-5 SUBRASANTE
(0,45-3,00) 89,6 91,9 50,8 - - - - 3,7 INADECUADO A-7 ESTUDIO
ESPECIAL O NO
MUY MALA
REUTILIZABLE
BH-5 MA-6 CIMIENTO o SUBRASANTE

(0,45-3,00) 68,1 37,2 16,4 - - - - 24,7 TOLERABLE A-6 NÚCLEO EXCELENTE
BH-1
SHELBY-2 99,6 137,1 32,1 - - - - - INADECUADO A-7 - -
(1,00-1,20)
BH-1 SPT-4
(6,00-6,45) 44,6 62,5 6,2 - - - - - MARGINAL A-5 - -
BH-2 SPT-1
(0,00-0,45) 95,5 65,8 19,2 - - - - - MARGINAL A-7 - -
BH-2
SHELBY-3 62,8 88,2 29,0 - - - - - MARGINAL A-7 - -
(4,50-5,00)
Qtp- BH-3
Ia (1,50-2,00)
BH-3 SPT-3
(3,00-3,45) 64,5 65,4 19,9 - - - - - MARGINAL A-7 - -
BH-3
(3,50-4,00)
BH-4 SPT-1
(0,00-0,45) 95,4 87,3 32,6 - - - - - MARGINAL A-7 - -
BH-4
SHELBY-2 98,8 140,0 54,8 - - - - - INADECUADO A-7 - -
(1,00-1,20)
BH-5
SHELBY-4 64,1 37,2 11,4 - - - - - TOLERABLE A-6 - -
(7,00-7,60)
BH-6
(2,50-3,00)
BH-5 SPT-1
(0,00-0,45) 71,7 40,1 11,1 - - - - - MARGINAL A-7 - -
Qtp
_Iac BH-5 SPT-2
(3,00-3,45) 55,2 30,8 1,5 - - - - - TOLERABLE A-4 - -
Unit - % - - % % % - - - - -
LL - Liquid limit IP - Plasticity index M.O -Organic matter H.L - Free swelling
S.S - Soluble salts I.C - Collapse index
Table 10.3.1.1 Classification of soil for backfill
92 de 207
Based on the tests carried out and, in the absence of some of the tests necessary for the
classification of the material according to PG-3 not included in the scope, the materials
present in the site are either “Marginal” or “Tolerable”.
Due to its high plasticity various samples of the Qpt-la-c G.U. were considered “Marginal”,
representing the 33,3% and 87,5% of these units, respectively; the rest of the samples
resulted to be “Tolerable”. The CBR index indicated that these materials can be used as the
foundation or core of embankments, but the PG-3 requieres a special study before their
utilization, due to their high plasticity.
Material for embankment construction
Added to previous materials, mixed material from boreholes has been testing during last
geotechnical study in 2021, to validate o reject this material for embankment construction.
Material obtained form boreholes BH-2 (MA-5) and BH-5 (MA-6) between 0,45 to 3,00 m were
mixed. With this mixed material Modified Proctor, permeability tests, CBR and Direct shear tests
were performed.
Results obtained shows a fine materials classified under USGS soil classification system as CL
or OH/ML.
From the construction point of view, only material obtained from BH-5 could be used in the
construction of the embankment, materials obtained form BH-2 are not useful to this purposes
due to their hight fine content, high Plasticity Index and low CRB values. But could be studied
their treatment by mixtures with calcium oxide or concrete, reducing plasticity index and
increasing CBR, and also reducing swelling values. To study this possibility new tests could be
performed adding CaO with a wealth greater than 90% in percentages between 2-7 depending
on kind of lime (slaked lime or quicklime).
Also contribution materials could be used for embankment construction.
In resume material classified as SC/CL in first 3,00 m soil deph are expected to be used for the
embankment construction, those materials classified as OH-MH must be discarded or studied
for their use.
93 de 207
The results from these samples are summarized in the table below.
LABORATORY RESULTS
PERMEABILIT
IDENTIFICATION DIRECT SHEAR TEST PROCTOR AND CBR
Y TESTS
SAMPLE
φ c Wópt γmáx CBR
FINES Swelling k
LL PI TYPE
% % (cm/s)
º kPa % g/cm3 100%
MA-5 0,45-3,00 89,6 91,9 50,8 CCD 23,8 48 32,3 1,365 3,7 15,8 5,36E-07
MA-6 0,45-3,00 68,1 37,2 16,4 - - - 31,75 1,450 24,7 1 2,18E-06
Table 12.3.1.2 Laboratory Results embankment materials.
LABORATORY
CLASSIFICATION USE
RESULTS
SAMPLE USGS PG-3 AASHTO PG-3 AASHTO
MA-5 0,45-3,00 OH-ML INADECUADO A-7 SPECIAL STUDY VERY BAD SUBBASE
MA-6 0,45-3,00 CL TOLERABLE A-6 FOUNDATION OR CORE EXCELENT SUBBASE
Table 12.3.1.3 Classification and use of embankment materials.
12.3.2 Recommendations and construction
Listed below are recommendations for the use of materials on site:
- The first step must be the preparation of the foundation. To accomplish that 1,0 m depth will
be excavated and excavation bottom will be correctly compacted, if any soft material could be
detected it will be excavated and replaced with homogenous material.
- After have a homogenous and compacted bottom excavation geotextile will be extended
along embankment surface, this geotextiles (non woven 250 gr/m2) will work as a
homogenous layer providing uniform bottom deformation.
- Over this geotextiles, 20 cm layer of embankment soils will be extended and compacted until
95% of reference proctor (this could be checked by in situ density measures) or until
compaction machine footprint could not be appreciate between one pass and the next one.
- The extension will be carried out so that the materials of each tongada are of uniform
characteristics. If not, this uniformity will be achieved by mixing them conveniently with
suitable machinery. No lift will be extended as long as it has not been verified that the
underlying surface meets the required conditions and its extension is authorized by the
Construction Manager.
- The humidity, immediately after compaction, will be within the corresponding saturation
94 de 207
degree values in the Reference Proctor test. The humidity range will be less than two percent
(-2%) and more than one percent (+ 1%) of the optimum of the Proctor Reference Test.
- Once one layes is compacted next one will be extended and compacted and so on until
complete dam hight.
- Once the dum is finish a protection layer must be performed, to avoid erosion and piping
process. To perform that geotextiles will cover all the entire surface, and this must be
protected from uv by a top soil layer on 20 cm. Water proofing layer composed by HDPE
layer could be extended over the geotextiles and also protected with top soil layer.
- Finally 30 cm of selected material will be extended and compacted for traffic road.
- Once the dum is finished it is important to carry out a periodic inspection of the state of the
dum detecting any instability and or erosion process.
95 de 207
12.4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
For spread foundations, and also embankments, all the most compressible lentils or bags of the
soil together will be excavated and replaced by a compressibility soil substantially equivalent to
that of the general soil.
Everything reflected in this report is subject to, once under construction, the characteristics of
the soil are maintained and consistent with those considered in this report. Therefore, an on-site
inspection of the soil during this phase is recommended.
It should be noted that due to the nature of the terrain, the peak periods of both the wet and dry
season should be avoided to carry out the trenches and excavations necessary for the
construction of the dam.
GEOINTEC
Francisco Parra Idreos Manuel Calleja Alonso

Chief Technical Officer Head of Geotechnical Department
Geotechnical Advisor, M.Sc. B.Sc. Geotechnical Engineer, M.Sc. B.Eng.
Chartered ES-ICOG #4770
96 de 207
LIMITATIONS / LIMITACIONES:
This report is provided for the exclusive use of the petitioner for this project only and for the purposes as
described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same
or other site or by a third party. In preparing this report GEOINTEC has necessarily relied upon
information provided by the client and/or their agents.
Este informe se proporciona para uso exclusivo del solicitante para este proyecto únicamente y para los
fines descritos en el informe. No debe ser utilizado o utilizado por otros proyectos o propósitos en el
mismo sitio u otro sitio o por un tercero. Al preparar este informe, GEOINTEC necesariamente se ha
basado en la información provista por el cliente y / o sus agentes.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information provided
regarding the proposed construction, and the results of the field and laboratory investigation.
Las conclusiones y recomendaciones presentadas en este informe se basan en la información

proporcionada sobre la construcción propuesta y los resultados de la investigación de campo y
laboratorio.
The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the
specific sampling and testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work
was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and
also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after GEOINTEC’s field testing has been
completed.
Los resultados proporcionados en el informe son indicativos de las condiciones del subsuelo, solo en los
lugares específicos de muestreo y ensayo, y solo a las profundidades investigadas y en el momento en
que se llevó a cabo el trabajo. Las condiciones bajo la superficie pueden cambiar abruptamente debido a
procesos geológicos variables y también como resultado de influencias humanas. Dichos cambios
pueden ocurrir después de que se haya completado la prueba de campo de GEOINTEC.
If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, or if conditions have changed due to natural
cause or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report should be considered invalid unless the changes are reviewed and our
conclusions and recommendations modified or approved in writing.
Si la construcción propuesta es reubicada o rediseñada, o si las condiciones han cambiado debido a

causas naturales u operaciones de construcción en o adyacentes al sitio, las conclusiones y
recomendaciones contenidas en este informe deben considerarse no válidas a menos que los cambios
sean revisados y nuestras conclusiones y recomendaciones modificado o aprobado por escrito.
Changed site conditions, or relocation of proposed structure(s), may require additional field and
laboratory investigations to determine if our conclusions and recommendations are applicable considering
the changed conditions.
La reubicación del proyecto puede requerir investigaciones adicionales de campo y de laboratorio para
determinar si las conclusiones y recomendaciones son aplicables considerando las nuevas condiciones.
This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached notes and should be kept in its entirety
without separation of individual pages or sections. GEOINTEC cannot be held responsible for
interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement,
interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report.
Este informe debe leerse junto con todas las notas adjuntas y debe mantenerse en su totalidad sin
separar páginas o secciones individuales. GEOINTEC no se hace responsable de las interpretaciones o
97 de 207
conclusiones hechas por otros a menos que estén respaldadas por una declaración, interpretación,
resultado o conclusión expresada en este informe.
This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without
review and agreement by GEOINTEC. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion
rather than instructions for construction.
Este informe, o las secciones del mismo, no se deben usar como parte de una especificación para un
proyecto, sin revisión y acuerdo por parte de GEOINTEC. Esto se debe a que este informe se ha escrito
a modo de recomendaciones en lugar de instrucciones para la construcción.
Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in
accordance with generally-accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all
other warranties either expressed or implied.
Nuestros servicios profesionales se realizaron, y nuestras recomendaciones se prepararon de acuerdo

con los principios y prácticas de ingeniería generalmente aceptados. Esta garantía sustituye a todas las
demás garantías, ya sean expresas o implícitas. COPYRIGHT:
Este informe es propiedad de GEOINTEC. El informe solo se puede utilizar para el propósito para el que
se encargó y de acuerdo con las Condiciones de participación para la comisión suministrada en el
momento de la propuesta. El uso no autorizado de este informe en cualquier forma está prohibido.
COPYRIGHT:
This report is the property of GEOINTEC. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was
commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the
time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Este informe es propiedad de GEOINTEC. El informe solo se puede utilizar para el propósito para el que
se encargó y de acuerdo con las Condiciones de participación para la comisión suministrada en el
momento de la propuesta. El uso no autorizado de este informe en cualquier forma está prohibido.
98 de 207
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- AENOR AEN/CTN 140 (2010): Eurocódigo 7: “Proyecto geotécnico”. Parte 1: “Reglas generales”.
UNE-EN 1997-1+AC.
- Bielza Feliú, A., 1999. Manual de Técnicas de Tratamiento del Terreno. Ed. UD Proyectos (E.T.S.
Minas – UPM).
- Calvo, J.P., Ordoñez, S., García del Cura, M.A., Hoyos, M, Alonso-Zarza, A.M., Sanz, E. y Rodriguez
J.P. (1989). "Sedimentología de los complejos lacustres miocenos de la Cuenca de Madrid". Acta
Geológica Hispánica, v. 24 (1989), nº3-4, pag. 281-298.
- CALVO SORANDO, J.P., SAN JOSÉ LANCHA, M.A. y PÉREZ GONZÁLEZ, A. (1983): Mapa
Geológico de España E 1:50.000, hoja Nº 559 (Madrid). IGME (Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España).
- DB SE-C “Seguridad estructural: Cimientos”. Código técnico de la edificación, C.T.E., R.D. 314/2006.
- EUROCODE 7: Geotechnical Design Worked Examples
- F.J. Ayala Carcedo, J.L. Peña Pinto, A. Sarti González, 1986. Estabilidad de taludes en las
formaciones blandas de la Comunidad de Madrid. Serie Geotecnia. Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España.
- F.J. Ayala Carcedo, C. Oteo Mazo, J.L. Ferrer Gijon, J.L. Salinas Rodriguez, 1986. Mapa previsor de
riesgos por expansividad de arcillas en España escala 1:1.000.000. Serie Geología Ambiental.
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España.
- Guía de cimentaciones en obras de carreteras. Ministerio de Fomento, 2004.
- Guía para el proyecto y la ejecución de micropilotes en obras de carretera. Ministerio de -. Fomento,

2008.
- Instrucción de hormigón estructural EHE - 08.
- Jiménez Salas, J.A. y Justo, J.L. 1975. “Geotecnia y cimientos I” Ed. Rueda, Madrid.
- Jiménez Salas, J.A., Justo, J.L. y Serrano, A. 1976. “Geotecnia y cimientos II” Ed. Rueda, Madrid.
- Leguey, S., Pozo, M., Medina, J.A. (1989) "Paleosuelos de sepiolita en el neógeno de la cuenca de
Madrid". Estudios de geología, 45:279-291.
99 de 207
- Norma de construcción sismorresistente NCSR – 07.
- Nuevos criterios para el cálculo de muros acorde con el Eurocódigo 7, VI Congreso de ACHE.
IDEAM S.A
- Parra Idreos, F., 2011. Caracterización de las arcillas sepiolitas de la Cuenca de Madrid, Proyecto de
Máster de Ingeniería Geológica y Geotecnia, U.C.M.
- Renedo Sanchez, C., 2000. Diseño, estabilidad y erosionabilidad de taludes en las formaciones del
Mioceno de Madrid. Autopista M-45. Eje O´Donnell N-IV. Tesis Master de Ingeniería Geológica.
UCM.
- Rodriguez, R., 2000. Estudio del Comportamiento de los taludes excavados en los suelos de la
Región de Madrid (Facies Madrid). Tesis Master de Ingeniería Geológica. UCM.
- Rodriguez Ortiz, J.M : Curso Aplicado de Cimentaciones 4º Edición.
- Rodriguez Ortiz, J.M., 2000. Propiedades geotécnicas de los suelos de Madrid, Revista de Obras
Públicas/ Extraordinario Diciembre 2000/nº 3405.
- ROM 0.5-05, Recomendaciones geotécnicas para obras marítimas y portuarias. Puertos del Estado,
2005.
- UNE – ENV 1997-1:1999. Eurocódigo 7. Proyecto geotécnico. Parte 1: Reglas generales.
- UNE – ENV 1997-1:1999. Eurocódigo 7. Proyecto geotécnico. Parte 2: Proyecto asistido por
ensayos de laboratorio.
- UNE – ENV 1997-1:1999. Eurocódigo 7. Proyecto geotécnico. Parte 3: Proyecto asistido por
ensayos de campo.
- Ventura, Escario 1985. Síntesis Geotecnica de Madrid y su alfoz. Ministerio de Transportes, Turismo
y Comunicaciones.
- Ventura, E., Garcia, J.M., J.F. Moya, Oteo, C.S., Sagaseta, C. 1981. "Problemas geotécnicos en
torno a la ampliación de la red de metro de Madrid". Revista de Obras Públicas Pag. 7-27.
100 de 207
II. ANNEXES
101 de 207
ANNEX A1: GEOTECHNICAL TEST LOCATION & GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAP 
102 de 207
2152000
2151500
BH-01
DP-01
2151000 DP-07 BH-02
TP-TRT-08
DP-02
TP-TRT-07
2150500 BH-03
BH-07 TP-TRT-06
DP-03
2150000 TP-TRT-05
Coordinates UTM 14 WGS-84
DP-06 TP-TRT-04
2149500 BH-04
TP-TRT-03
2149000 TP-TRT-02
BH-06
DP-04
DP-05
2148500
TP-TRT-01
LEGEND - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BH-05

2148000
BH - Geotechnical borehole
DP - Panda2 dynamic penetration test
TP-TRT - Trial pit - Thermal resistivity test
2147500
659500 660000 660500 661000 661500 662000 662500 663000 663500 664000 664500 665000
Geotecnia e Ingeniería del Terreno, S. L. Expediente: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061

Figure 1: Client:
C/ Princesa, nº 25, Planta 3, Oficina 5 Fecha: 27/05/2021
28008 Madrid
Tel. 91 715 4485 Project: In-Situ investigation points NEOEN
info@geointec.com ITZOTENO
ANNEX A2: FIELD TESTS
104 de 207
SUB-ANNEX A2.1: REGISTRATION AND SAMPLING OF SOILS AND ROCKS 
105 de 207
A2.1.1 TRIAL PITS 
106 de 207
The trial pits are excavations to open sky whose purpose is the recognizing of the most
superficial zone of the land. These ditches allow direct observation of the ground, obtain
samples for later analysis in the laboratory and perform on-site tests. They are usually carried
out by backhoe and are supervised and described by a competent technician, who records in
addition to a description of each level of terrain detected, the humidity conditions, the
consistency or compactness, excavability conditions and stability of the walls.
Generally the samples that are extracted from the calicatas are altered samples, product of the
excavation itself, although unaltered samples can also be obtained in cohesive soils.
The characteristics of this type of soil registration are set out below:
• Executable on mechanically excavatable lands.
• The presence of the water table limits its usefulness.
• The maximum depth is usually 4 m.
Figure A2.1.1.1 Execution of trial pits by means of backhoe and collection of the extracted materials 
107 de 207
Project code: Location UTM Coordinates Starting date End date Proyect leader Investigation Point
RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Alchichica, Puebla 662854 m / 2148623 m / 2319.55 m Francisco Parra Idreos TP-01
Depth Phreatic level Method of excavation Rig type Model Supervisor Comments
1.3 m m
Soil Rock Soil & Rock
Depth Key Panda2 - Qd (MPa) Unit Description Test or sample Consistency Density Strenght Weathering Wall stability Excavability Humidity Pictures
GSI
100
vs s f st vst h vl l md d vd el vl l m h vh eh ew hw mw sw fs fr d r h b d h vh st
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
0.1 m Tierra vegetal compuesta por

TS arcillas carbonatadas blancas
con trozos de raíces.
0.2 m
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
Limos arcillosos con trazas de

0.7 m Qpt-la
cemento carbonático.
0.8 m
0.9 m
1m
1.1 m
1.2 m
Suelo limo arcilloso color gris
Qpt-la
con fragmentos blancos.
1.3 m
Very soft Very loose Ext. low Extremly Very unstable Drilling Dry
Soft Loose Very low Highly Unstable Ripping Damp
Headquarters Madrid Stable Hammer bl. Humid
Medium Mod. Dense Low Moderately
C/ Princesa 25, Planta 3, Oficina 5 Stiff Dense Medium Slighly Very stable Blasting Saturated
28008, Madrid. Very stiff Very Dense High Fresh stained
T: (+34)91 715 4485 Hard Very high Fresh
E: info@geointec.com Ext. high
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
Av. Tajamar 481, Oficina 1403, Las Condes
C.P. 7550099 - Santiago de Chile. Telf.: (+562) 2 4053662
chile@geointec.com
1.4 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
Tierra vegetal limo arcillosa

0.1 m TS color marrón claro y con restos
de raices.
0.2 m
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
Arcillas color blanco.

0.8 m Qpt-la enrriquecida en bicarbonatos y
calcio.
0.9 m
1m
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
0.3 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
0.02 m
0.04 m
0.06 m
0.08 m
Arcillas compactadas. color

0.1 m TS
blanco.
0.12 m
0.14 m
0.16 m
0.18 m
0.2 m
0.22 m
0.24 m
Suelo limo arcilloso de color
Qpt-la-c
gris con fragmentos blancos.
0.26 m
0.28 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
1.5 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
0.1 m
0.2 m
Tierra vegetal limo arcillosa
TS con flora proveniente de la
zona de estudio.
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
0.9 m
Arcillas color blanco. saturadas

1m Qpt-la
de agua.
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
1.4 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
1.57 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
0.1 m Tierra vegetal compuesta por

limos y arcillas de color marrón
TS
claro asi como materia vegetal
0.2 m (pasto)
0.3 m
Arcilla humedecidas color cafe

Qpt-la
0.4 m grisaceo con trozos de raices.
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
0.9 m
1m Arcillas saturadas de agua

Qpt-la color blanco. enrriquecida en
bicarbonatos y calcio.
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
1.4 m
1.5 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
1.6 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
0.1 m
Tierra vegetal. Arcilla

humedecida. color marrón
0.2 m TS
claro con trozos de materia
vegetal.
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
0.9 m
Arcillas con trozos de raíces.

1m Qpt-la color blanco enriquecidas en
carbonatos y calcio.
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
1.4 m
1.5 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
1.65 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
Tierra vegetal. Limo-arcillosa
color marrón claro/grisáceo
0.1 m TS
con fragmentos de materia
vegetal (pasto y raíces).
0.2 m
Qpt-la Arcilla color café grisáceo.

0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
0.9 m
1m Qpt-la Arcillas color blanco.
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
1.4 m
1.5 m
1.6 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Alchichica, Puebla 662592 m / 2151055 m / 2321 m Francisco Parra Idreos TP-08
1.5 m m
GSI
100
10
vu u s vs
20
30
50
5
1
0m
Tierra vegetal limo-arcillosa
TS con trozos de materia vegetal.
color café grisáceo/oscuro.
0.1 m
Arcilla marrón con poca pero

Qpt-la
distinguible presencia de limos..
0.2 m
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
Arcilla color blanco. saturada
Qpt-la en agua. Enriquecida en
0.9 m bicarbonatos y calcio.
1m
1.1 m
1.2 m
1.3 m
1.4 m
-
GEOINTEC SpA
Chile
chile@geointec.com
ANNEX A2: FIELD TESTS
104 de 207
A2.1.2 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLES 
116 de 207
Boreholes are soil perforation up to a given depth, with the retrieval of cylindrical soil
samples (cores). This is achieved by the driving and rotation of the barrel, a hollow
cylindrical device with a perforation bit, which encases the drilled core. When a certain
depth is reached or the barrel becomes full, it is extracted in order to remove and store the
soil core.
These cores are store in a sample box, where boring depths are annotated, as well as the
depths for the tests and samples taken from the borehole. With this process the lithological
column of the soil can be defined for the investigated depth. After this the box is
photographed and described organolepticaly. The retrieval rate is defined as the
percentage of the soil core that is actually retrieved, relative to the depth reached in each
maneuver.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
To establish the characteristics of the materials that make up the subsoil drilled by the
boreholes, on the one hand, "in situ" tests have been carried out inside the borehole, and
on the other hand, laboratory tests on representative samples of these materials, taken
from boreholes at different depths.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is carried out by driving into the soil under the
borehole a standardized hollow tube of 60 cm in length. This is done by an hydraulic device
that strikes the pushrods with a 63,5 kg weight that falls from a height of 75 cm, at a
constant rate.
This is done in four consecutive stretches of 15 cm each, taking note of the blows needed
to drive those depths. The sum of the two middle streches give the characteristic SPT blow
count for the given test. This is indicative of the bearing capacity of the soil, and can be
easily correlated to other geotechnical parameters of the soil. The driving is considered to
have been rejected or failed (R) when a blow count superior to 50 is reached during any 15
cm stretch. In this case the test is ended, and no SPT value is achieved. This test and the
sample taking process depends on the lithological characteristics of the soil.
The N30 value of this test has to bee corrected if performed in soils with a low permeability
and under the soil’s water table, using Terzaghi & Peck’s formula (1948):
N30 − 15
N′30 = 15 + si N30 > 15
2
117 de 207
This correction takes into account the inability of water to escape the soil, absorbing part of
the blow energy.
Figure A2.1.2.1 Geotechnical borehole performed in an urban environment 
118 de 207
Project Number Location UTM Coordinates Start Date Final Date Project Leader Log
RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Alchichica, Puebla 661687 m / 2151533 m / 2327.24 31/05/2021 31/05/2021 Francisco Parra Idreos BH-01
m
Depth Phreatic Level Method Rig Type Model Supervisor Comments
8m 2m Rotary drilling Compact Drill Rig Deeprock DR 40 Ing. Luis Lagunas Terreno algo irregular con zonas con estancamiento de agua superficial
Depth Key Unit Description Sample or Test Consistency Compactness Strength Weathering Bit & Casing Humidity Pictures
% RQD % GSI % Recovery
vs s f st vst h vl l md d vd 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I II III IV V VI
0 100 0 100 Core barrel mm 0 100 d sh h dr wf
0m TS Topsoil. Clayey silt. Dark brown

and with rootlets. SPT-1 (1-1-1) N30
0.4 m =2
0.8 m
SHELBY
1.2 m
Clayey silt. Light brown colour.

1.6 m
2m
2.4 m
2.8 m
Clayey silt. Light greenish
brown colour.
3.2 m SPT-2 (6-5-5) N30
= 10
3.6 m
114 mm helical auger

4m Qpt-la
4.4 m
4.8 m
5.2 m
Clayey silt with some sand

5.6 m lenticules. Light brown colour.
6m
SPT-3 (R-4-2) N30
=6
6.4 m
6.8 m
7.2 m
7.6 m
SPT-4 (8-7-3) N30
= 10
GEOINTEC GEOINTEC SpA Very Soft Very Loose Ext. low GM-I Dry
Chile Soft Loose Very low GM-II Slightly Humid
Headquarters Madrid Firm Med. Dense Low GM-III Humid
Princesa 25, planta 3, Oficina 5 Av. Tajamar 481, Oficina 1403, Las Condes Stiff Dense Medium Dripping
GM-IV
CP. 28224 - Madrid C.P. 7550099 - Santiago de Chile. Very Stiff Very dense High GM-V Water Flowing
Telf.: (+34) 91 715 44 85 Telf.: (+562) 2 4053662 Hard Very high GM-VI
info@geointec.com chile@geointec.com Ext. high (Bieniawski, 1989)
m
6m 2.4 m Rotary drilling Compact Drill Rig Deeprock DR 40 Ing. Luis Lagunas Terreno algo irregular

and with rootlets.
SPY-1 (1-1-2) N30
=3
0.4 m
0.8 m
1.2 m
1.6 m
2m
2.4 m

2.8 m
Qpt-la Clayey silt. Light brown colour.

3.2 m
SPT-2 (7-10-8)
N30 = 16
3.6 m
4m
4.4 m
SHELBY
4.8 m
5.2 m
5.6 m
SPT-3 (2-1-1) N30
=2
GM-IV
m
8m 2.65 m Rotary drilling Compact Drill Rig Deeprock DR 40 Ing. Luis Lagunas -

and with rootlets. SPT-1 (2-4-4) N30
0.4 m =8
Clayey silt. Dark brown colour.
0.8 m
1.2 m
1.6 m
Clayey silt. Slight brown colour. SHELBY-1
2m
2.4 m
2.8 m
3.2 m SPT-2 (3-2-1) N30

=3
3.6 m

SHELBY-2
4m
Qpt-la
Clayey silt with some salt
cementation. White colour.
4.4 m
4.8 m
5.2 m
5.6 m
6m
SPT-3 (14-9-8)
6.4 m N30 = 16
6.8 m Clayey silt. Greenish colour.
7.2 m
7.6 m
SPT-4 (1-1-1) N30
=2
GM-IV
m
0m TS Topsoil. Sandy silt. Dark brown

and with rootlets.
Sandy silt with some SPT-1 (2-3-4) N30
fine-grained gravel. Dark =7
0.4 m brown color.
0.8 m
SHELBY
1.2 m
Qpt-la
Clayey silt. Light greyish brown
color.
1.6 m
2m
K = 5,95E-5 cm/s
2.4 m

2.8 m
SPT-2 (20-50/R)
3.2 m
3.6 m
Sandy silt with some

Qpt-la-c
cementation. Dark brown color.
4m
4.4 m
4.8 m
5.2 m
Clayey silt. Greenish brown

5.6 m
Qpt-la color.
SPT-3 (6-13-18)
N30 = 23
Silt. Light brown color.
GM-IV
m

and with rootlets. SPT-1 (5-9-50/R)
0.4 m Cemented silty fine-grained

sand with some gravel. Light
brown color.
0.8 m
1.2 m
1.6 m
2m
K = 2.98E-4 cm/s
2.4 m
2.8 m Qpt-la-c
Cemented fine to SPT-2 (30-50/R)

3.2 m medium-grained sand with
some gravel. Dark brown color.
3.6 m

4m
4.4 m
4.8 m
5.2 m
5.6 m
6m
SPT-3 (3-1-1) N30

6.4 m =2
color.
Qpt-la
6.8 m
7.2 m SHELBY
7.6 m
Fine-grained sand with some SPT-4 (12-6-3)
organic matter remains. N30 = 9
Greyish brown color.
GM-IV
m

and with rootlets. SPT-1 (1-20-50)
0.4 m N30 = 70
0.8 m
Cemented sandy silt with some

Qpt-la-c
1.2 m gravel. Dark brown color.
1.6 m
2m
K = 1.21E-4 cm/s
2.4 m
2.8 m SHELBY
3.2 m SPT-2 (3-2-2) N30

=4
3.6 m

color.
4m
4.4 m
4.8 m
Qpt-la
5.2 m
5.6 m
6m
SPT-3 (13-13-13)
6.4 m N30 = 20
Medium to fine-grained sand.

6.8 m Light whitish grey color.
7.2 m
7.6 m
SPT-4 (5-7-7) N30
= 14
GM-IV
m

and with rootlets.
SPT-1 (2-2-2) N30
=4
0.4 m
0.8 m
1.2 m
Clayey silt. Light brown color

Qpt-la
with darked lenticules.
1.6 m
2m
2.4 m

2.8 m
SPT-2 (50/R)
3.2 m
3.6 m
4m Cemented fine-grained sand

Qpt-la-c with medium-grained lenticules.
Dark brown colour.
4.4 m
4.8 m
5.2 m
5.6 m
Silt with fine-grained sand
Qpt-la SPT-3 (1-1-1) N30
lenticules. Light brown color.
=2
GM-IV
SUB-ANEXX A2.2: DYNAMIC PENETRATION TESTS 
126 de 207
A2.2.1: DYNAMIC PENETRATION PANDA TEST 
127 de 207
The Panda test works to a depth of four meters, driving metal bars with a missing conical
tip into the ground. From the blows made with the hammer on a dynamic load cell, an
electronic data device records all the information and immediately calculates the dynamic
resistance of the cone (Qd) according to the Dutch formula. The depth and impact energy
of the hammer is automatically recorded on each hit.
Figure A2.2.1.1 Tests for dynamic penetration of variable energy DCP
The variable dynamic penetration test (Panda-2) allows to obtain the resistance of the ground to
dynamic penetration (Qd), this parameter can be correlated with Nspt, φ, Qc, E, Su and the
CBR index. Regarding its correlation with the Nspt, the manufacturer recommends the following
correlation: Qd (MPa) = 0.3-0.6 Nspt. Below is a table with these correlations: 
128 de 207
Qd (MPa) Nspt φ Qc (MPa) E (MPa) Su (kPa) CBR
1,0 2,2 19,2 0,9 2,1 13,0 3,1
2,0 4,4 23,2 1,7 4,3 28,0 4,1
3,0 6,7 25,6 2,6 6,4 42,9 5,1
4,0 8,9 27,2 3,4 8,5 57,9 6,1
5,0 11,1 28,5 4,3 10,6 72,9 7,1
6,0 13,3 29,6 5,1 12,8 87,8 8,1
7,0 15,6 30,5 6,0 14,9 102,8 9,1
8,0 17,8 31,2 6,8 17,0 117,7 10,1
9,0 20,0 31,9 7,7 19,1 132,7 11,1
10,0 22,2 32,5 8,5 21,3 147,7 12,1
11,0 24,4 33,1 9,4 23,4 162,6 13,1
12,0 26,7 33,6 10,2 25,5 177,6 14,1
13,0 28,9 34,0 11,1 27,6 192,5 15,1
14,0 31,1 34,5 11,9 29,8 207,5 16,1
15,0 33,3 34,9 12,8 31,9 222,5 17,1
16,0 35,6 35,2 13,6 34,0 237,4 18,1
17,0 37,8 35,6 14,5 36,1 252,4 19,1
18,0 40,0 35,9 15,3 38,3 267,4 20,1
19,0 42,2 36,2 16,2 40,4 282,3 21,1
20,0 44,4 36,5 17,0 42,5 297,3 22,1
25,0 55,6 37,8 21,3 53,1 372,1 27,1
30,0 66,7 38,9 25,5 63,8 446,9 32,1
35,0 77,8 39,8 29,8 74,4 521,7 37,1
40,0 88,9 40,5 34,0 85,0 596,5 42,1
50,0 111,1 41,8 42,5 106,3 746,1 52,1
Table A2.2.1.1 Correlations of the geotechnical parameters from the penetration resistance Qd from the variable
energy tests DCP Panda 
129 de 207
Reconocimiento de suelos con penetrometro
dinamico a energía variable
Documento :\\Mac\Dropbox\Carpeta del equipo de GEOINTEC\GEOINTEC-DX-INFORMES GEOINTEC\2021-RW-INFORMES RENO

Sitio : itzoteno
Resistencia de punta (MPa)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
Page 1/2 Logiciel PANDA 2.7

Catalogo de sitios
sondages del archivo
Documento :\\Mac\Dropbox\Carpeta del equipo de GEOINTEC\GEOINTEC-DX-INFORMES GEOINTEC\2021-RW-INFO

Sitio Sondaje Fecha Estudio Curva
itzoteno DP5 18/05/2021 Reconocimiento de suelos


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP1
Cota : 0.00 m Prof. pre-perforacion :0.000 m Sección : 4 cm² Prof. Napa :Indeterminada
Masa :Martillo Panda 2 Cond. de interrupción :TemporalFecha : 19/05/2021 Hora :11:58:00
Operador :Javier Alejandro Rivera Organismo :
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP2
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP3
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP4
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP5
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP6
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000


Sitio : itzoteno
Sondaje : DP7
Comentarios :
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
Profundidad (m)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000

SUB-ANNEX A2.5: THERMAL RESISTIVITY TESTS 
139 de 207
Thermal Resistivity tests are performed using a KD2 Pro thermal resistivity meter
manufactured by Decagon Devices Inc. (Pullman, WA-USA):
- Thermal conductivity (K): 0.02 a 2 W/(m·ºC)
- Thermal resistance (Rho): 0.5 a 50 (ºC·cm)/W
- Specific heat: 0,5 a 4 MJ/ m3·ºC
- Thermal diffusivity: 0.1 a 1.0 mm2/s
- Accuracy: 7% of specific heat, 5% of thermal conductivity / thermal resistivity, 7% of thermal

diffusivity.
The methodology carried out consists in the measurement of the Thermal Resistivity in intervals
of 1 second during a heating and cooling cycle of 90 seconds. This measurement principle is
based on the Transient Line Heat method.
To do this, a sensor is stuck in the ground at a given depth, in this case the sensor used is the
TR-1, since the study will be carried out on the ground.
The thermal resitivimeter (KD2 Pro) used complies with the specifications of Standard IEEE
442-1981 and ASTM D5334-08.
Figure A2.4.5 Thermal resistivity test being carried out in a trial-pit 
140 de 207
THERMAL RESISTIVITY TEST
MÉTODO TRANSITORIO DEL HILO CALIENTE (SINGLE AND DUAL HEAT NEEDLE) SEGÚN NORMA ASTM D5334-08
PROYECTO: ITZOTENO EXPEDIENTE: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061

EQUIPO: K2Pro SUPERVISOR: Javier Rivera
PUNTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN: TRT-01

COORDENADAS WGS84: UTM 14 Q 662854 m E 2148623 m N
MEDIDA: 1 2
PROFUNDIDAD (m): 0,40 1,00
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,577 0,849
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 173,2 117,8
Error (%) 0,00510 0,00330
Temperatura (ºC) 0,002029 0,001962
Tiempo de medida (seg) 300 300
Rho: Resistividad térmica
K: Conductividad térmica
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,739 0,931
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 135,3 107,4
Error (%) 0,00220 0,00330
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001784 0,001718
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1
PROFUNDIDAD (m): 0,40
FECHA: 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,859
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 116,4
Error (%) 0,04660
Temperatura (ºC) 0,002249
Tiempo de medida (seg) 600
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,788 0,994
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 126,9 100,6
Error (%) 0,00340 0,00400
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001803 0,001722
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,883 0,996
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 113,3 100,4
Error (%) 0,00170 0,00380
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001968 0,001851
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,759 1,047
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 131,7 95,5
Error (%) 0,00490 0,00700
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001783 0,001688
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,901 1,036
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 111,0 96,5
Error (%) 0,00250 0,00850
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001816 0,001802
Imagen:
Observaciones:


MEDIDA: 1 2
FECHA: 10/06/2021 10/06/2021
SENSOR: TR-1 TR-1
K (W/m·K) 0,900 0,983
Rho (ºC·cm/W) 111,2 101,7
Error (%) 0,00240 0,00350
Temperatura (ºC) 0,001856 0,001753
Imagen:
Observaciones:
SUB-ANNEX A2.6: LEFRANC PERMEABILITY TEST 
149 de 207
SITIO : Itzoteno, Puebla
LOCALIZACION : Tepeyahualco.
PROYECTO : Planta Voltaica Pachamama
SONDEO : BH-4
DIAMETRO : 11.43 cm
PROFUNIDAD : 250.00 cm.
PRUEBA DE INFILTRACION ( K )
P R O F UN D ID A D
TIEMPO CAMBIO PERMEABILIDAD
D ESD E
DE EN S UP E R F IC IE CAMBIO DE PROMEDIO DE EN CAMPO
LECTURA TIEMPO H A S T A A G UA ALTURA ALTURAS K
( min : sec ) t h ( cm /sec )
( sec ) ( cm ) h (cm) ( cm )
0.00 0.00 11.00 - 250.00

2.00 120.00 12.00 1.00 238.50 1.14E-04
4.00 120.00 12.50 0.50 237.75 5.72E-05
6.00 120.00 13.00 0.50 237.25 5.73E-05
8.00 120.00 13.50 0.50 236.75 5.74E-05
10.00 120.00 14.00 0.50 236.25 5.75E-05
12.00 120.00 14.50 0.50 235.75 5.77E-05
14.00 120.00 15.00 0.50 235.25 5.78E-05
16.00 120.00 15.50 0.50 234.75 5.79E-05
18.00 120.00 16.00 0.50 234.25 5.80E-05
20.00 120.00 17.00 1.00 233.50 1.16E-04
22.00 120.00 17.50 0.50 232.75 5.84E-05
24.00 120.00 18.00 0.50 232.25 5.85E-05
26.00 120.00 18.50 0.50 231.75 5.87E-05
28.00 120.00 19.00 0.50 231.25 5.88E-05
30.00 120.00 19.50 0.50 230.75 5.89E-05
32.00 120.00 20.00 0.50 230.25 5.90E-05
34.00 120.00 20.50 0.50 229.75 5.92E-05
36.00 120.00 21.00 0.50 229.25 5.93E-05
38.00 120.00 21.50 0.50 228.75 5.94E-05
40.00 120.00 22.00 0.50 228.25 5.96E-05
42.00 120.00 22.50 0.50 227.75 5.97E-05
44.00 120.00 23.00 0.50 227.25 5.98E-05
COEFICIENTE DE PERMEABILIDAD "k", PROMEDIO = 5.95E-05

SONDEO : BH-5
DIAMETRO : 11.43 cm
P R O F UN D ID A D
D ESD E
( sec ) ( cm ) h (cm) ( cm )
0.00 0.00 0.00 - 250.00

2.00 120.00 33.00 33.00 233.50 3.84E-03
4.00 120.00 53.00 20.00 207.00 2.63E-03
6.00 120.00 68.00 15.00 189.50 2.15E-03
8.00 120.00 80.00 12.00 176.00 1.85E-03
10.00 120.00 88.00 8.00 166.00 1.31E-03
12.00 120.00 96.00 8.00 158.00 1.38E-03
14.00 120.00 102.00 6.00 151.00 1.08E-03
16.00 120.00 106.00 4.00 146.00 7.45E-04
18.00 120.00 111.00 5.00 141.50 9.61E-04
20.00 120.00 116.00 5.00 136.50 9.96E-04
22.00 120.00 118.00 2.00 133.00 4.09E-04
24.00 120.00 121.00 3.00 130.50 6.25E-04
26.00 120.00 124.00 3.00 127.50 6.40E-04
28.00 120.00 128.00 4.00 124.00 8.77E-04
30.00 120.00 130.00 2.00 121.00 4.49E-04
32.00 120.00 132.00 2.00 119.00 4.57E-04
34.00 120.00 136.00 4.00 116.00 9.38E-04
36.00 120.00 139.00 3.00 112.50 7.25E-04
38.00 120.00 140.00 1.00 110.50 2.46E-04
40.00 120.00 142.00 2.00 109.00 4.99E-04
42.00 120.00 143.00 1.00 107.50 2.53E-04
44.00 120.00 144.00 1.00 106.50 2.55E-04
46.00 120.00 145.00 1.00 105.50 2.58E-04
48.00 120.00 146.00 1.00 104.50 2.60E-04
50.00 120.00 147.00 1.00 103.50 2.63E-04
SONDEO : BH-6
DIAMETRO : 11.43 cm
P R O F UN D ID A D
D ESD E
( sec ) ( cm ) h (cm) ( cm )
0.00 0.00 0.00 - 250.00

2.00 120.00 - - 250.00 0.00E+00
4.00 120.00 3.00 3.00 248.50 3.28E-04
6.00 120.00 5.00 2.00 246.00 2.21E-04
8.00 120.00 6.00 1.00 244.50 1.11E-04
10.00 120.00 7.00 1.00 243.50 1.12E-04
12.00 120.00 8.00 1.00 242.50 1.12E-04
14.00 120.00 10.00 2.00 241.00 2.26E-04
16.00 120.00 11.00 1.00 239.50 1.14E-04
18.00 120.00 12.00 1.00 238.50 1.14E-04
20.00 120.00 14.00 2.00 237.00 2.29E-04
22.00 120.00 15.00 1.00 235.50 1.15E-04
24.00 120.00 16.00 1.00 234.50 1.16E-04
26.00 120.00 17.00 1.00 233.50 1.16E-04
28.00 120.00 18.00 1.00 232.50 1.17E-04
30.00 120.00 19.00 1.00 231.50 1.17E-04
32.00 120.00 20.00 1.00 230.50 1.18E-04
34.00 120.00 22.00 2.00 229.00 2.37E-04
36.00 120.00 22.50 0.50 227.75 5.97E-05
38.00 120.00 23.00 0.50 227.25 5.98E-05
40.00 120.00 24.00 1.00 226.50 1.20E-04
42.00 120.00 25.00 1.00 225.50 1.21E-04
44.00 120.00 26.00 1.00 224.50 1.21E-04
46.00 120.00 27.00 1.00 223.50 1.22E-04
48.00 120.00 28.00 1.00 222.50 1.22E-04
50.00 120.00 29.00 1.00 221.50 1.23E-04
ANNEX A3: GEOLOGICAL-GEOTECHNICAL PROFILES 
153 de 207
Project Coordinates 14Q UTM WGS-84
W E
660666 m 661639 m 662805 m
2149117 m 2148821 m 2148248 m
2320.06 m 2328.68 m 2335.06 m
BH-06 DP-05 BH-05

1017 m 1299 m
Qd (MPa)
20
40
0
2334 2334
2332 2332
2330 2330
2328 2328
2326 2326
2324 2324
2322 2322
2320 2320
2318 2318
LEGEND - GEOTECHNICAL UNITS

2316 2316
Qpt-la - Quaternary lacustrine deposits
2314 Qpt-la-c - Quaternary lacustrine cemented deposits 2314
2312 2312
File: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061
Geotecnia e Ingeniería del Terreno, S. L. Figure: Client:
C/ Princesa, nº 25, Planta 3, Oficina 5 Date: 27/05/2021-31/05/2021
28008 Madrid Geological-Geotechnical Profile W-E
Tel. 91 715 4485 Porject: Southern embankment NEOEN
SW NE
660666 m 660950 m 661257 m 661531 m 661687 m
2149117 m 2149789 m 2150465 m 2151177 m 2151533 m
2320.06 m 2324.22 m 2322.86 m 2323 m 2327.24 m
BH-06 DP-06 BH-07 DP-07 BH-01

730 m 742 m 763 m 389 m
Qd (MPa) Qd (MPa)
20
40
40
20
0
0
2327 2327
2326 2326
2325 2325
2324 2324
2323 2323
2322 2322
2321 2321
2320 2320
2319 2319
2318 2318
2317 2317
2316 2316
2315 2315
2314 Qpt-la - Quaternary lacustrine deposits 2314
2312 2312
File: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Figure: Client:

Geotecnia e Ingeniería del Terreno, S. L.
28008 Madrid Geological-Geotechnical Profile SW-NE
Tel. 91 715 4485 Proyect:
Western embankment NEOEN
NW SE
661687 m 662303 m 662921 m 663657 m 664196 m
2151533 m 2151337 m 2151163 m 2150973 m 2150735 m
2327.24 m 2321.177 m 2324 m 2319 m 2323.54 m
BH-01 DP-01 BH-02 DP-02 BH-03

646 m 642 m 760 m 589 m
Qd (MPa) Qd (MPa)
20
40
40
20
0
0
2327 2327
2326 2326
2325 2325
2324 2324
2323 2323
2322 2322
2321 2321
2320 2320
2319 2319
2318 2318
2317 2317
2316 2316
Qpt-la - Quaternary lacustrine deposits
File: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Figure: Client:

28008 Madrid Geological-Geotechnical Profile W-E
Tel. 91 715 4485 Porject:
Northern embankment NEOEN
N S
664196 m 663943 m 663441 m 662919 m
2150735 m 2150310 m 2149663 m 2148969 m
2323.54 m 2321.875 m 2320.15 m 2323.82 m
BH-03 DP-03 BH-04 DP-04

495 m 819 m 868 m
Qd (MPa) Qd (MPa)
20
40
40
20
0
0
2323.5 2323.5
2323 2323
2322.5 2322.5
2322 2322
2321.5 2321.5
2321 2321
2320.5 2320.5
2320 2320
2319.5 2319.5
2319 2319
2318.5 2318.5
2318 2318
2317.5 2317.5
2317 2317
2316.5 2316.5
2316 2316
2315.5 2315.5
2315 Qpt-la - Quaternary lacustrine deposits 2315
2314.5 Qpt-la-c - Quaternary lacustrine cemented deposits 2314.5
2314 2314
File: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 Figura 2.2: Cliente:

28008 Madrid Geological-Geotechnical Profile NE-SW
Tel. 91 715 4485 Proyecto:
Eastern embankment NEOEN
ANNEX A4: LABORATORY RESULTS 
158 de 207
Nº de Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Polígono Európolis
28232-Las Rozas (Madrid)
Teléfono: 916 375 881
www.laboratoriotsm.es
Nº ES116125-1
Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO
RESULTADOS DE ENSAYOS DE LABORATORIO
CLIENTE: GEOTECNIA E INGENIERÍA DEL TERRENO, S.L.
OBRA: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 PACHAMAMA (México)
Nº OBRA: 2021352
FECHA INFORME: 7 de julio de 2021
LABORATORIO ACREDITADO POR LA COMUNIDAD DE MADRID PARA EL CONTROL DE CALIDAD EN EDIFICACIÓN Y OBRA CIVIL
Área de ensayos de laboratorio de geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08:
C.2. Ensayos básicos (GTL.b)

Identificación y estado de suelos.
Resistencia y deformación de suelos.
Agresividad de aguas y suelos.
C.3.1. Ensayos complementarios primero (GTL.c1)
Resistencia y deformación de rocas.
Compactaciones.
C.3.2. Ensayos complementarios segundo (GTL.c2)
Determinación del módulo de elasticidad (Young) y del coeficiente de Poisson
Resistencia a la carga puntual
C.3.3. Ensayos complementarios tercero (GTL.c3)
Parámetros resistentes de una muestra de suelo en el equipo Triaxial.
Requisitos generales relativos a la competencia de los laboratorios de ensayo establecidos en la norma de calidad
UNE-EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017
Inscrito en el registro general de laboratorios de ensayo del Ministerio de Fomento (Lecce) con el número MAD-L-031
Tecnología del suelo

Laboratorio Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08. y materiales, S. L.
Inscrito en el registro general de laboratorios de ensayo del Ministerio de Fomento (Lecce) con el número MAD-L-031
Sistema de Gestión de Calidad aprobado por Bureau Veritas conforme con ISO 9001:2015. Nº Certificado: ES116125-1 Página 1 de 89
Laboratorio acreditado en
geotecnia (nº 03267GTL08)
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Teléfono: 916 375 881
Nº ES116125-1
GEOTECNIA E INGENIERÍA DEL TERRENO, S.L.

C/ Princesa, nº 25, Planta 3ª, Oficina 5
28008 - Madrid
Nº OBRA: 2021352
OBRA: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 PACHAMAMA (México)
1. ANTECEDENTES
El día 23 de junio de 2021 se recibe en el laboratorio Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S.L. la
petición de ensayos de la citada obra, que se compone de siete muestras inalteradas de suelo en tubo
shelby y ocho muestra SPT de suelo bolsa.
La denominación de las muestras y los ensayos realizados vienen indicados por el peticionario.
Laboratorio Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08.

Inscrito en el registro general de laboratorios de ensayo del Ministerio de Fomento (Lecce) con el número MAD-L-031 y materiales, S. L.
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Teléfono: 916 375 881
Nº ES116125-1
2. ENSAYOS REALIZADOS
2.1. Determinación de la humedad de un suelo, según normas UNE 103-300:93 & ASTM D 2216
2.2. Determinación de la densidad de un suelo, según normas UNE 103-301:94 & ASTM D 4254
2.3. Determinación de la densidad relativa de las partículas de un suelo, según norma UNE 103302:94 &
ASTM D854-83
2.4. Análisis granulométrico de suelos por tamizado, según norma UNE 103-101:95 & ASTM C 136 &
ASTM D 422
2.5. Análisis granulométrico de suelos por sedimentación. Método del densímetro, según normas UNE
103-101:95 & ASTM D422-63 (2007)
2.6. Determinación de los límites de Atterberg, según normas UNE 103-103:94 & UNE 103-104:93 &
ASTM D 4318
2.7. Ensayo de rotura a compresión de un suelo, según normas UNE 103 400:93 & ASTM D 2166
2.8. Determinación de los parámetros resistentes al esfuerzo cortante de una muestra de suelo en la caja
de corte directo: ensayo consolidado y drenado (CD), según norma UNE 103401:98 & ASTM D3080
2.9. Permeabilidad en célula triaxial con presión de cola, según normas UNE 103402:98 & ASTM D2434-
68(2006)
2.10. Determinación cuantitativa de sulfatos en suelos, según EHE 2008 y UNE 83963:2008 & ASTM C 1580
2.11. Determinación la Acidez Baumann – Gully en suelos, según EHE 2008 y norma UNE 83962:2008
2.12. Métodos de ensayo para determinar el pH en muestra de suelo, según ISO 10390:1944. Instrucción de
ensayo PEC-001: Electrometría. Rango: 2.0 - 12.0

C/ Oporto, nº 11
Teléfono: 916 375 881
Nº ES116125-1
3. RESULTADOS DE LOS ENSAYOS REALIZADOS

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Cliente: Geotecnia e Ingeniería del Terreno, S.L. 28232-Las Rozas (Madrid)
Obra: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 PACHAMAMA (México) Teléfono: 916 375881
Fecha: 7 de julio de 2021 Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.

HOJA RESUMEN DE ENSAYOS DE MECÁNICA DE SUELOS

Granulometría Límites de Compresión Triaxial o Ensayos
en % que pasa Atterberg Simple Corte Directo Químicos
Granulometría por sedimentación
Sulfatos Cuantitativos (SO42-),

Densidad húmeda, en g/cm3
Acidez Baumann-Gully, en
Agresividad del Agua EHE
Peso específico, en g/cm3
Densidad seca, en g/cm3
Tipo de Triaxial o Corte
Ángulo de Rozamiento
Permeabilidad, en m/s
Sales Solubles, en %
Cohesión, en kg/cm2
Índice de Plasticidad
Deformación, en %
Tensión, en kg/cm2
Carbonatos, en %
Humedad, en %
Tipo de muestra
#40 / 425 mm
#200 / 75 mm
Límite Plástico
#4 / 4.75 mm
#10 / 2.0 mm
Límite Líquido
3/4" / 19 mm
2" / 50 mm
pH, en mV
en mg/kg
mg/kg
Muestra ensayada
BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY 51.8 1.046 1.588 2.293 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.6 137.1 105.0 32.1 * 1350 0 10.1
BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) SPT 99.7 1.189 2.375 2.376 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 59.7 44.6 62.5 56.3 6.2 *
BH-2 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT 2.422 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 95.5 65.8 46.6 19.2 * 1350
-10
BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) SHELBY 58.4 0.999 1.583 2.325 100.0 100.0 94.4 90.6 67.6 62.8 88.2 59.2 29.0 * 8.8 x 10 0.4 2 10.1
BH-3 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1,5-2 ) SHELBY 51.4 0.945 1.430 2.357 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 87.5 59.9 28.0 * CCD 13.18 0.21 1450 0 9.5
BH-3 MUESTRA-3 SPT (3-3,45 ) SPT 2.606 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 91.7 64.5 65.4 45.5 19.9 *
BH-3 MUESTRA-4 SHELBY (3,5-4 ) SHELBY 80.5 0.765 1.381 2.544 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 84.4 66.7 65.6 54.7 10.9 * 4.7 x 10-10
BH-4 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT 2.109 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.9 95.4 87.3 54.7 32.6 * 10900
BH-4 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY 36.9 1.215 1.663 2.132 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.8 140.0 85.2 54.8 *
BH-5 MUESTRA-4 SHELBY (7-7,6 ) SHELBY 42.6 0.998 1.423 2.546 100.0 100.0 96.0 92.0 80.1 64.1 37.2 25.8 11.4 * 0.3 6 400 10
BH-6 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (2,5-3 ) SHELBY 106.5 0.657 1.357 2.533 100.0 100.0 98.2 86.1 69.5 64.9 63.4 52.2 11.2 * 0.4 3 CCD 30.01 0.09 650 11 8.7
y materiales, S. L.
Formato HRE-03/01 **No hay material suficiente para la realización de estos ensayos. * Ver hoja de resultados de ensayo en el informe. Página 5 de 89
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Fecha: 7 de julio de 2021 Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.

HOJA RESUMEN DE ENSAYOS DE MECÁNICA DE SUELOS

Granulometría Límites de Compresión Triaxial o Ensayos
en % que pasa Atterberg Simple Corte Directo Químicos
Granulometría por sedimentación
Sulfatos Cuantitativos (SO42-),

Densidad húmeda, en g/cm3
Acidez Baumann-Gully, en
Agresividad del Agua EHE
Peso específico, en g/cm3
Densidad seca, en g/cm3
Tipo de Triaxial o Corte
Ángulo de Rozamiento
Permeabilidad, en m/s
Sales Solubles, en %
Cohesión, en kg/cm2
Índice de Plasticidad
Deformación, en %
Tensión, en kg/cm2
Carbonatos, en %
Humedad, en %
Tipo de muestra
#40 / 425 mm
#200 / 75 mm
Límite Plástico
#4 / 4.75 mm
#10 / 2.0 mm
Límite Líquido
3/4" / 19 mm
2" / 50 mm
pH, en mV
en mg/kg
mg/kg
Muestra ensayada
BH-7 MUESTRA-2 SPT (3-3,45 ) SPT ** 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.7 83.7 69.3 ** ** ** **
BH-7 MUESTRA-3 SPT (5,0-6,0) SPT 675 7

y materiales, S. L.
Formato HRE-03/01 **No hay material suficiente para la realización de estos ensayos. * Ver hoja de resultados de ensayo en el informe. Página 6 de 89
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Fecha: 30 de junio de 2021
Determinación de la humedad de un suelo, según normas UNE 103-300:93 & ASTM D 2216
Determinación de la densidad de un suelo, según normas UNE 103-301:94 & ASTM D 4254
MUESTRA Humedad, en % Densidad seca, en g/cm3 Densidad aparente, en g/cm3
BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) G (// ) SHELBY 51.83 1.046 1.588

BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) G (rebote??/4/2 ) SPT 99.72 1.189 2.375
BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) G (// ) SHELBY 58.43 0.999 1.583

Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato SHD-02/02
Los resultados contenidos en el presente informe sólo afectan al material sometido a ensayo. y materiales, S. L.
El informe no podrá ser reproducido parcialmente sin la autorización por escrito del laboratorio que lo emite. Página 7 de 89
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Fecha: 6 de julio de 2021
Determinación Densidad Relativa de las Partículas de suelo, según normas UNE 103302:94 & ASTM D854-83
MUESTRA Densidad relativa, Gs
BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY 2.293

BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) SPT 2.376

BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) SHELBY 2.325



Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato SDR-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Cliente: Geotecnia e Ingeniería del Terreno, S.L. Polígono Európolis
Obra: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 PACHAMAMA (México)
Teléfono: 916 375881
Muestra: BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Fecha: 7 de julio de 2021 LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO
Análisis granulométrico de suelos, según normas ASTM C 136 & ASTM D 422*
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 100.0
1.25 99.8 10.0
0.40 99.7
0.0
0.16 99.7 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 99.6
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
Gravillas 0%
Clasificación % 0%
Arena
Arena fina
gruesa
geotécnica que pasa 0% 0%
Finos 99.6
Arena fina 0.1
Finos
Arena gruesa 0.3 100%
Gravillas 0.0
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato GGT-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
ANÁLISIS GRANULOMÉTRICO POR SEDIMENTACIÓN.

MÉTODO DEL DENSÍMETRO UNE 103 102:95 & ASTM D422-63 (2007)
DATOS DEL ENSAYO FÓRMULAS DEL ENSAYO
Masa de suelo húmedo, ma, en g 50.00 R = Rh +Cm + Ct - Cd
Humedad higroscópica , w, en % 0.0 md = ma * 100 / ( 100 + W )
Masa de suelo seco, md, en g 50.00 Rh = ( R'h - 1 ) * 1000
Pérdida por tratamiento, en g 0.00 D = 0,005531 * RAIZ (( h * Hr ) / (( rs -1 )* t )))
Densidad relativa de partículas, ps (Gs) 2.293 K = 100 * rs * R / ( md ( rs - 1 ))
Dispersante utilizado: Hexametafosfato sódico al 4 %
Lectura parte superior
Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Lectura corregida, Rh
Profundidad efectiva,
Lectura verdadera, R
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.033 33.0 76.8 28.3 0.0853 100.37 99.97
0.50 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0612 96.83 96.44
1 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0433 96.83 96.44
2 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0306 96.83 96.44
5 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0194 96.83 96.44
15 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0112 96.83 96.44
30 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 27.3 0.0079 96.83 96.44
60 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.8 0.0056 95.05 94.67
120 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.8 0.0040 95.05 94.67
240 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.8 0.0028 95.05 94.67
360 20.0 1.031 31.4 80.5 26.7 0.0023 94.70 94.32
1440 20.0 1.031 31.2 80.9 26.5 0.0012 93.99 93.61
Leyenda: Arenas finas (0.2 a 0.02) , Limos (0.02 a 0.002) y Arcillas (<0.002)
Observaciones: -
-
Este ensayo no está creditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato GSD-02/01

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

MÉTODO DEL DENSÍMETRO UNE 103 102:95
Porcentaje de partículas menores que D, K (%)
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001
Diámetro equivalente, D (mm)
--- GRANULOMETRÍA POR SEDIMENTACIÓN CALCULADA EN EL ENSAYO

--- GRANULOMETRÍA POR SEDIMENTACIÓN PARA EL TOTAL DE LA MUESTRA
Distribución de las principales secciones

granulométricas Arenas
finas
3% Limos
Denominación % granulométrico 2%
Arenas finas 3.2
Arcillas
Limos 2.1 95%
Arcillas 94.7
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
100 100.0 GRÁFICO COMBINADO DE TAMIZADO Y SEDIMENTACIÓN
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 100.0 50.0
1.25 99.8
40.0
0.40 99.7
0.16 99.7
30.0
0.08 99.6
0.0612 96.4 20.0
0.0433 96.4
10.0
0.0306 96.4
0.0194 96.4 0.0
0.0112 96.4 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0079 96.4
0.0056 94.7
0.0040 94.7
0.0028 94.7 --- GRANULOMETRÍA POR TAMIZADO
0.0023 94.3 --- GRANULOMETRÍA POR SEDIMENTACIÓN
0.0012 93.6
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) G (rebote??/4/2 ) SPT Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 99.9
1.25 89.2 10.0
0.40 59.7
0.0
0.16 50.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 44.6
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
Gravillas 0%
Clasificación % 0%
geotécnica que pasa
Arena Finos
gruesa 45%
40%
Finos 44.6
Arena fina 15.1
Arena fina
Gravillas 0.1
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.032 32.0 79.1 28.8 0.0840 99.29 44.27
0.50 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 28.3 0.0598 97.56 43.50
1 20.0 1.030 29.5 84.9 26.3 0.0435 90.65 40.42
2 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 24.8 0.0314 85.47 38.11
5 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 23.8 0.0201 82.02 36.57
15 20.0 1.023 22.5 101.0 19.3 0.0123 66.48 29.64
30 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 16.8 0.0089 57.85 25.79
60 20.0 1.018 18.0 111.4 14.8 0.0064 50.94 22.71
120 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 12.8 0.0046 44.03 19.63
240 20.0 1.015 14.5 119.5 11.3 0.0033 38.85 17.32
360 20.0 1.014 14.0 120.7 10.8 0.0027 37.13 16.55
1440 20.0 1.011 11.0 127.6 7.8 0.0014 26.76 11.93
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) G (rebote??/4/2 ) SPT LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
finas
Denominación % granulométrico Arcillas 18%
37%
Arenas finas 18.0
Limos 44.9 Limos

45%
Arcillas 37.1
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-1 MUESTRA-4 SPT (6-6,45 ) G (rebote??/4/2 ) SPT LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 99.9 50.0
1.25 89.2
40.0
0.40 59.7
0.16 50.0
30.0
0.08 44.6
0.0598 43.5 20.0
0.0435 40.4
10.0
0.0314 38.1
0.0201 36.6 0.0
0.0123 29.6 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0089 25.8
0.0064 22.7
0.0046 19.6
0.0014 11.9
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-2 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) G (1/1/2 ) SPT Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 100.0
1.25 99.9 10.0
0.40 99.1
0.0
0.16 97.7 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 95.5
Tamices UNE, en mm
Arena Gravillas
gruesa 0%
Clasificación % 1% Gravas
geotécnica que pasa Arena fina 0%
4%
Finos 95.5
Arena fina 3.7
Finos
Gravillas 0.0
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 29.3 0.0850 99.64 95.11
0.50 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 28.3 0.0609 96.23 91.85
1 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 26.3 0.0442 89.42 85.35
2 20.0 1.026 26.0 93.0 25.3 0.0317 86.01 82.10
5 20.0 1.024 24.0 97.6 23.3 0.0205 79.20 75.60
15 20.0 1.022 22.0 102.2 21.3 0.0121 72.39 69.09
30 20.0 1.021 21.0 104.5 20.3 0.0087 68.98 65.84
60 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 19.3 0.0062 65.57 62.59
120 20.0 1.018 18.0 111.4 17.3 0.0045 58.76 56.09
240 20.0 1.017 17.0 113.8 16.3 0.0032 55.36 52.84
360 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 15.3 0.0026 51.95 49.59
1440 20.0 1.013 13.0 123.0 12.3 0.0014 41.73 39.83
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-2 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) G (1/1/2 ) SPT LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
Denominación % granulométrico finas
21%
Arenas finas 20.8 Arcillas

52%
Limos
Limos 27.3 27%
Arcillas 51.9
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 100.0 50.0
1.25 99.9
40.0
0.40 99.1
0.16 97.7
30.0
0.08 95.5
0.0609 91.9 20.0
0.0442 85.4
10.0
0.0317 82.1
0.0205 75.6 0.0
0.0121 69.1 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0087 65.8
0.0062 62.6
0.0045 56.1
0.0014 39.8
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) SHELBY Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 96.6
5 94.4 20.0
2 90.6
1.25 75.3 10.0
0.40 67.6
0.0
0.16 64.4 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 62.8
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
5%
Clasificación % Gravillas
4%
geotécnica que pasa
Arena
gruesa
23%
Finos 62.8 Finos
Arena fina 63%
Arena fina 4.8 5%
Arena gruesa 23.1
Gravillas 3.8
Gravas 5.6
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 28.5 0.0868 99.84 62.72
0.50 20.0 1.031 30.5 82.6 28.0 0.0618 98.09 61.62
1 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 27.5 0.0440 96.33 60.52
2 20.0 1.030 29.5 84.9 27.0 0.0313 94.58 59.42
5 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 26.5 0.0200 92.82 58.31
15 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 25.5 0.0117 89.32 56.11
30 20.0 1.027 26.5 91.8 24.0 0.0084 84.05 52.80
60 20.0 1.026 26.2 92.5 23.7 0.0060 83.00 52.14
120 20.0 1.026 26.0 93.0 23.5 0.0042 82.30 51.70
240 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 20.5 0.0031 71.77 45.09
360 20.0 1.022 22.0 102.2 19.5 0.0026 68.26 42.88
1440 20.0 1.020 19.5 108.0 17.0 0.0013 59.48 37.37
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) SHELBY LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


finas
7%
Denominación % granulométrico
Limos
25%
Arenas finas 7.2
Arcillas
68%
Limos 24.6
Arcillas 68.3
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 96.6
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 94.4
2.0 90.6 50.0
1.25 75.3
40.0
0.40 67.6
0.16 64.4
30.0
0.08 62.8
0.0618 61.6 20.0
0.0440 60.5
10.0
0.0313 59.4
0.0200 58.3 0.0
0.0117 56.1 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0084 52.8
0.0060 52.1
0.0042 51.7
0.0013 37.4
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-3 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1,5-2 ) G (// ) SHELBY Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 100.0
1.25 100.0 10.0
0.40 100.0
0.0
0.16 99.9 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 99.9
Tamices UNE, en mm
Arena Gravillas
gruesa 0%
0%
Finos 99.9
Arena fina 0.0
Finos
Gravillas 0.0
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.031 30.7 82.1 28.5 0.0861 98.83 98.78
0.50 20.0 1.031 30.6 82.3 28.4 0.0610 98.48 98.43
1 20.0 1.030 30.4 82.8 28.2 0.0432 97.79 97.74
2 20.0 1.030 30.2 83.3 28.0 0.0307 97.09 97.04
5 20.0 1.030 30.1 83.5 27.9 0.0194 96.75 96.70
15 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 27.8 0.0112 96.40 96.35
30 20.0 1.030 29.8 84.2 27.6 0.0080 95.70 95.66
60 20.0 1.030 29.6 84.6 27.4 0.0056 95.01 94.96
120 20.0 1.029 29.4 85.1 27.2 0.0040 94.31 94.27
240 20.0 1.029 29.2 85.6 27.0 0.0028 93.62 93.57
360 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 26.8 0.0023 92.93 92.88
1440 20.0 1.029 28.5 87.2 26.3 0.0012 91.19 91.14
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-3 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1,5-2 ) G (// ) SHELBY LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


finas
Limos
3%
Arenas finas 3.3
Limos 3.8
Arcillas
93%
Arcillas 92.9
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 100.0 50.0
1.25 100.0
40.0
0.40 100.0
0.16 99.9
30.0
0.08 99.9
0.0610 98.4 20.0
0.0432 97.7
10.0
0.0307 97.0
0.0194 96.7 0.0
0.0112 96.3 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0080 95.7
0.0056 95.0
0.0040 94.3
0.0012 91.1
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 99.9
1.25 99.6 10.0
0.40 91.7
0.0
0.16 75.4 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 64.5
Tamices UNE, en mm
Arena Gravillas
gruesa 0%
geotécnica que pasa 0%
Arena fina
27%
Finos 64.5 Finos
Arena fina 27.2 65%
Arena gruesa 8.3

Gravillas 0.1
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.029 28.5 87.2 30.8 0.0816 99.79 64.35
0.50 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 30.3 0.0581 98.17 63.30
1 20.0 1.026 26.0 93.0 28.3 0.0421 91.68 59.12
2 20.0 1.025 25.0 95.3 27.3 0.0302 88.44 57.03
5 20.0 1.024 23.5 98.7 25.8 0.0194 83.57 53.89
15 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 25.3 0.0113 81.94 52.84
30 20.0 1.022 21.5 103.4 23.8 0.0081 77.08 49.70
60 20.0 1.020 19.5 108.0 21.8 0.0059 70.59 45.52
120 20.0 1.019 18.5 110.3 20.8 0.0042 67.34 43.42
240 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 18.3 0.0030 59.23 38.19
360 20.0 1.016 15.5 117.2 17.8 0.0025 57.60 37.14
1440 20.0 1.012 12.0 125.3 14.3 0.0013 46.25 29.82
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
finas
Arenas finas 16.4 Limos

Arcillas 26%
58%
Limos 26.0
Arcillas 57.6
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 99.9 50.0
1.25 99.6
40.0
0.40 91.7
0.16 75.4
30.0
0.08 64.5
0.0581 63.3 20.0
0.0421 59.1
10.0
0.0302 57.0
0.0194 53.9 0.0
0.0113 52.8 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0081 49.7
0.0059 45.5
0.0042 43.4
0.0013 29.8
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 99.7
1.25 99.4 10.0
0.40 84.4
0.0
0.16 71.3 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 66.7
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
Gravillas 0%
Clasificación % 0%
Arena
geotécnica que pasa gruesa
15%
Arena fina
18%
Finos 66.7 Finos
Arena fina 17.8 67%
Arena gruesa 15.3

Gravillas 0.3
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 30.3 0.0798 99.68 66.44
0.50 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 29.8 0.0569 98.04 65.34
1 20.0 1.031 30.5 82.6 29.3 0.0405 96.39 64.24
2 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 28.8 0.0288 94.74 63.15
5 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 27.8 0.0185 91.45 60.95
15 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 26.8 0.0108 88.15 58.75
30 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 25.8 0.0077 84.85 56.56
60 20.0 1.027 26.5 91.8 25.3 0.0055 83.21 55.46
120 20.0 1.025 24.5 96.4 23.3 0.0040 76.62 51.07
240 20.0 1.024 23.5 98.7 22.3 0.0029 73.32 48.87
360 20.0 1.023 22.5 101.0 21.3 0.0024 70.03 46.67
1440 20.0 1.019 18.5 110.3 17.3 0.0012 56.84 37.89
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


finas
9%
Denominación % granulométrico
Limos
21%
Arenas finas 8.6
Arcillas
70%
Limos 21.4
Arcillas 70.0
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 99.7 50.0
1.25 99.4
40.0
0.40 84.4
0.16 71.3
30.0
0.08 66.7
0.0569 65.3 20.0
0.0405 64.2
10.0
0.0288 63.1
0.0185 61.0 0.0
0.0108 58.8 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0077 56.6
0.0055 55.5
0.0040 51.1
0.0012 37.9
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-4 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 99.9
1.25 99.9 10.0
0.40 98.9
0.0
0.16 97.5 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 95.4
Tamices UNE, en mm
Arena Gravillas
gruesa 0%
4%
Finos 95.4
Arena fina 3.5
Finos
Gravillas 0.1
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 25.8 0.0962 97.94 93.45
0.50 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 24.8 0.0690 94.13 89.82
1 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 23.8 0.0494 90.33 86.19
2 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 22.8 0.0354 86.53 82.56
5 20.0 1.026 26.0 93.0 21.8 0.0227 82.72 78.93
15 20.0 1.025 25.0 95.3 20.8 0.0132 78.92 75.30
30 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 18.8 0.0096 71.31 68.04
60 20.0 1.022 22.0 102.2 17.8 0.0069 67.51 64.42
120 20.0 1.021 21.0 104.5 16.8 0.0049 63.71 60.79
240 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 15.8 0.0035 59.90 57.16
360 20.0 1.019 18.5 110.3 14.3 0.0029 54.20 51.71
1440 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 11.8 0.0015 44.69 42.64
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Muestra: BH-4 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
finas
Arenas finas 17.3

Arcillas Limos
54% 29%
Limos 28.5
Arcillas 54.2
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 99.9 50.0
1.25 99.9
40.0
0.40 98.9
0.16 97.5
30.0
0.08 95.4
0.0690 89.8 20.0
0.0494 86.2
10.0
0.0354 82.6
0.0227 78.9 0.0
0.0132 75.3 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0096 68.0
0.0069 64.4
0.0049 60.8
0.0015 42.6
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 100.0
1.25 100.0 10.0
0.40 99.8
0.0
0.16 99.3 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 98.8
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
Gravillas 0%
Clasificación % Arena
0% Arena fina
gruesa
geotécnica que pasa 0%1%
Finos 98.8
Arena fina 1.1
Finos
Gravillas 0.0
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0932 99.82 98.57
0.50 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0659 99.82 98.57
1 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0466 99.82 98.57
2 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0330 99.82 98.57
5 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0208 99.82 98.57
15 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0120 99.82 98.57
30 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0085 99.82 98.57
60 20.0 1.032 31.5 80.2 26.5 0.0060 99.82 98.57
120 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 26.0 0.0043 97.94 96.71
240 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 26.0 0.0030 97.94 96.71
360 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 26.0 0.0025 97.94 96.71
1440 20.0 1.031 31.0 81.4 26.0 0.0012 97.94 96.71
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


finas
0% Limos
Arenas finas 0.2
Arcillas
Limos 1.9 98%
Arcillas 97.9
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 100.0 50.0
1.25 100.0
40.0
0.40 99.8
0.16 99.3
30.0
0.08 98.8
0.0659 98.6 20.0
0.0466 98.6
10.0
0.0330 98.6
0.0208 98.6 0.0
0.0120 98.6 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0085 98.6
0.0060 98.6
0.0043 96.7
0.0012 96.7
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 99.5
1.25 98.0 10.0
0.40 92.2
0.0
0.16 83.5 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 71.7
Tamices UNE, en mm
Arena Gravillas
gruesa 1%
Arena fina
20%
Finos 71.7
Finos
Arena fina 20.5 72%
Arena gruesa 7.2
Gravillas 0.5
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.029 28.5 87.2 29.8 0.0841 98.83 70.91
0.50 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 29.3 0.0598 97.16 69.71
1 20.0 1.025 25.0 95.3 26.3 0.0439 87.20 62.56
2 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 24.3 0.0318 80.56 57.80
5 20.0 1.021 21.0 104.5 22.3 0.0206 73.91 53.03
15 20.0 1.019 18.5 110.3 19.8 0.0122 65.61 47.07
30 20.0 1.017 16.5 114.9 17.8 0.0088 58.96 42.31
60 20.0 1.015 15.0 118.4 16.3 0.0063 53.98 38.73
120 20.0 1.013 13.0 123.0 14.3 0.0046 47.34 33.96
240 20.0 1.012 12.0 125.3 13.3 0.0033 44.01 31.58
360 20.0 1.012 11.5 126.5 12.8 0.0027 42.35 30.39
1440 20.0 1.010 10.0 129.9 11.3 0.0014 37.37 26.81
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
26%
Arcillas
Arenas finas 26.1 42%
Limos
Limos 31.6 32%
Arcillas 42.4
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 99.5 50.0
1.25 98.0
40.0
0.40 92.2
0.16 83.5
30.0
0.08 71.7
0.0598 69.7 20.0
0.0439 62.6
10.0
0.0318 57.8
0.0206 53.0 0.0
0.0122 47.1 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0088 42.3
0.0063 38.7
0.0046 34.0
0.0014 26.8
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 100.0
5 100.0 20.0
2 98.9
1.25 91.7 10.0
0.40 77.7
0.0
0.16 67.3 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 55.2
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravillas
1%
Clasificación % Arena Gravas
gruesa 0%
Finos
Finos 55.2 55%
Arena fina 22.5 Arena fina
23%
Arena gruesa 21.2
Gravillas 1.1
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 19.3 0.0916 63.18 34.86
0.50 20.0 1.017 17.0 113.8 16.3 0.0669 53.33 29.43
1 20.0 1.014 14.0 120.7 13.3 0.0487 43.49 24.00
2 20.0 1.014 13.5 121.8 12.8 0.0346 41.85 23.09
5 20.0 1.011 10.5 128.8 9.8 0.0225 32.00 17.66
15 20.0 1.008 8.0 134.6 7.3 0.0133 23.79 13.13
30 20.0 1.007 7.0 136.9 6.3 0.0095 20.51 11.32
60 20.0 1.005 5.0 141.5 4.3 0.0068 13.95 7.70
120 20.0 1.005 4.5 142.6 3.8 0.0048 12.31 6.79
240 20.0 1.004 4.0 143.8 3.3 0.0034 10.67 5.89
360 20.0 1.004 3.5 145.0 2.8 0.0028 9.03 4.98
1440 20.0 1.003 3.0 146.1 2.3 0.0014 7.38 4.07
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arcillas
Limos
23%
Arenas finas 68.0
Arenas
finas
68%
Limos 23.0
Arcillas 9.0
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 100.0
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 100.0
2.0 98.9 50.0
1.25 91.7
40.0
0.40 77.7
0.16 67.3
30.0
0.08 55.2
0.0669 29.4 20.0
0.0487 24.0
10.0
0.0346 23.1
0.0225 17.7 0.0
0.0133 13.1 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0095 11.3
0.0068 7.7
0.0048 6.8
0.0014 4.1
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 99.3
30.0
6.3 97.6
5 96.0 20.0
2 92.0
1.25 87.5 10.0
0.40 80.1
0.0
0.16 67.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 64.1
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravas
4%
Clasificación % Gravillas
4%
geotécnica que pasa Arena
gruesa
12%
Finos 64.1 Arena fina Finos

16% 64%
Arena fina 16.0
Arena gruesa 11.9
Gravillas 4.0
Gravas 4.0
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.029 29.0 86.0 30.4 0.0826 99.96 64.10
0.50 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 28.4 0.0600 93.38 59.88
1 20.0 1.026 25.5 94.1 26.9 0.0432 88.43 56.71
2 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 24.4 0.0315 80.20 51.43
5 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 21.4 0.0206 70.32 45.09
15 20.0 1.017 16.5 114.9 17.9 0.0123 58.79 37.70
30 20.0 1.017 16.5 114.9 17.9 0.0087 58.79 37.70
60 20.0 1.017 16.5 114.9 17.9 0.0062 58.79 37.70
120 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 17.4 0.0044 57.15 36.64
240 20.0 1.016 15.5 117.2 16.9 0.0031 55.50 35.59
360 20.0 1.014 14.0 120.7 15.4 0.0026 50.56 32.42
1440 20.0 1.011 11.0 127.6 12.4 0.0013 40.68 26.08
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
30%
Arcillas
Limos
Limos 19.8 20%
Arcillas 50.6
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 99.3 70.0
6.3 97.6
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 96.0
2.0 92.0 50.0
1.25 87.5
40.0
0.40 80.1
0.16 67.0
30.0
0.08 64.1
0.0600 59.9 20.0
0.0432 56.7
10.0
0.0315 51.4
0.0206 45.1 0.0
0.0123 37.7 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0087 37.7
0.0062 37.7
0.0044 36.6
0.0013 26.1
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
UNE que pasa

90.0
100 100.0 80.0

80 100.0
63 100.0 70.0
50 100.0
60.0
40 100.0
% que pasa
25 100.0 50.0
20 100.0
12.5 100.0 40.0
10 100.0
30.0
6.3 99.8
5 98.2 20.0
2 86.1
1.25 78.3 10.0
0.40 69.5
0.0
0.16 67.2 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
0.08 64.9
Tamices UNE, en mm
Gravillas
Arena
gruesa
16%
Finos 64.9 Finos

Arena fina 4.6 Arena fina 65%
5%
Arena gruesa 16.6
Gravillas 12.1
Gravas 1.8
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Porcentaje sobre el
partículas menores
total de la muestra
Temperatura, T (º)
Tiempo,t (min)
equivalente, D
ensayada (%)
Porcentaje de
que D, K (%)
menisco, R'h
Diámetro
Hr (mm)
(mm)
0.25 20.0 1.031 30.5 82.6 29.8 0.0813 98.31 63.84
0.50 20.0 1.030 30.0 83.7 29.3 0.0579 96.66 62.77
1 20.0 1.028 28.0 88.3 27.3 0.0420 90.05 58.48
2 20.0 1.027 27.0 90.6 26.3 0.0301 86.75 56.33
5 20.0 1.025 25.0 95.3 24.3 0.0195 80.14 52.04
15 20.0 1.023 23.0 99.9 22.3 0.0115 73.53 47.75
30 20.0 1.022 21.5 103.4 20.8 0.0083 68.57 44.53
60 20.0 1.020 20.0 106.8 19.3 0.0060 63.61 41.31
120 20.0 1.019 19.0 109.1 18.3 0.0043 60.31 39.16
240 20.0 1.016 16.0 116.1 15.3 0.0031 50.40 32.73
360 20.0 1.016 15.5 117.2 14.8 0.0026 48.74 31.65
1440 20.0 1.012 12.0 125.3 11.3 0.0013 37.18 24.14
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001


granulométricas
Arenas
20%
Arcillas
Limos
31%
Limos 31.4
Arcillas 48.7
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11


mm % pasa
80 100.0
63 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
40 100.0
90.0
25 100.0
20 100.0 80.0
12.5 100.0
10 100.0 70.0
6.3 99.8
60.0
% que pasa
5.0 98.2
2.0 86.1 50.0
1.25 78.3
40.0
0.40 69.5
0.16 67.2
30.0
0.08 64.9
0.0579 62.8 20.0
0.0420 58.5
10.0
0.0301 56.3
0.0195 52.0 0.0
0.0115 47.7 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Tamices UNE, en mm
0.0083 44.5
0.0060 41.3
0.0043 39.2
0.0013 24.1
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tamices % 100.0
ASTM/mm que pasa

90.0
80.0
31/2"/100 mm 100.0
3"/75 mm 100.0 70.0
2" /50 mm 100.0

60.0
1½"/37.5 mm 100.0
% que pasa
1" /25 mm 100.0 50.0

3/4"/19 mm 100.0
1/2"/12.5 mm 100.0 40.0
3/8"/9.5 mm 100.0
30.0
#4/4.75 mm 100.0
#10/2.0 mm 97.7 20.0
#16/1.18 mm 87.1
#40 /425 mm 83.7 10.0
#100 /150 mm 75.5
0.0
#200 /75 mm 69.3 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0
Tamices UNE, en mm
Clasificación % Gravas
Arena
geotécnica que pasa gruesa Gravillas 0%
14% 2%
Arena fina
15%
Finos 69.3
Arena fina 14.4 Finos
69%
Arena gruesa 14.0
Gravillas 2.3
Gravas 0.0
Observaciones: *Se corresponde con la norma española UNE 103101:95, salvo por los tamices que son por normativa ASTM.
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Límites de Atterberg, según normas UNE 103-103: 94 & UNE 103-104: 93 & ASTM D 4318
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
1000
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
137.1
40
100
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Determinación del límite líquido, según norma UNE 103-103:94
Número de golpes: 23 35
Humedad, en %: 138.1 132.0
Determinación del límite plástico, según norma UNE 103-104:93
Humedad, en %: 105.0
RESULTADOS:
Límite líquido: 137.1
Límite plástico: 105.0
Índice de plasticidad: 32.1
Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato GLA-02/02

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
62.5
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 63.7 60.9
Humedad, en %: 56.3
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
65.8
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 66.2 63.3
Humedad, en %: 46.6
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
88.2
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 91.8 88.2
Humedad, en %: 59.2
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
87.5
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 90.8 86.4
Humedad, en %: 59.5
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
65.4
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 61.7 67.5
Humedad, en %: 45.5
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
65.6
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 61.5 67.6
Humedad, en %: 54.7
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
87.3
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 88.0 84.0
Humedad, en %: 54.7
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
1000
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
140.0
40
100
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 145.6 134.9
Humedad, en %: 85.2
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40.1
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 41.6 39.6
Humedad, en %: 29.0
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-5 MUESTRA-2 SPT (3-3,45 ) G (30/50/ ) SPT Tecnología del suelo y materiales, S. L.
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30.8
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 32.3 30.3
Humedad, en %: 29.3
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
37.2
40
30
20
10
10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 40.1 35.8
Humedad, en %: 25.8
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
LÍMITE LÍQUIDO
100
90
80
63.4
70
60
50
Humedad, en %
40
30
20
10 10 14 18 22 25 30 34 38
Número de golpes
Humedad, en %: 63.3 61.7
Humedad, en %: 52.2
RESULTADOS:
Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Obra: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061 PACHAMAMA (México) 28232-Las Rozas (Madrid)
Muestra: BH-2 MUESTRA-3 SHELBY (4,5-5 ) G (// ) SHELBY
Fecha: 29 de junio de 2020 LABORATORIO GEOTÉCNICO
Ensayo de rotura a compresión de un suelo, según normas UNE 103 400:93 & ASTM D 2166
Tipo de probeta Diámetro, en cm Altura, en cm Humedad, en % Densidad seca, en g/cm3 Resistencia, en kg/cm2
Inalterada 8.6 17.6 96.2 0.605 0.4
Factor esbeltez Deformación, en % Resistencia, en kPa
0.997 2.0 35
Deformación Tensión
en corregida CURVA DE ROTURA
2
% en kg/cm
0.4
0 0.0
1 0.2
0.4
2 0.4
3 0.3
4 0.2 0.3
Tensión corregida, en kg/cm2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformación, en %
El ensayo se realiza a una temperatura ambiente de 20 ºC y una humedad relativa del 50 %.
Forma de rotura: Inalterada Remoldeada
Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato GCS-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-5 MUESTRA-4 SHELBY (7-7,6 ) G (// ) SHELBY
Inalterada 8.6 15.1 42.0 1.048 0.3
1.017 6.0 28
2
% en kg/cm
0.4
0 0.0
1 0.1
2 0.1 0.3
3 0.2
4 0.2
5 0.3 0.3
6 0.3
7 0.3
8 0.2 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deformación, en %
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Muestra: BH-6 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (2,5-3 ) G (// ) SHELBY
Inalterada 8.2 16.3 106.5 0.605 0.4
1.001 3.0 41
2
% en kg/cm
0.5
0 0.0
1 0.1 0.4
2 0.4
3 0.4
0.4
4 0.3
5 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deformación, en %
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
ENSAYO DE CORTE DIRECTO EN SUELOS, según normas UNE 103-401-98 & ASTM D3080
Tipo de muestra: Inalterada Velocidad de rotura, en mm/min: 0.050

Tipo de ensayo: Ensayo consolidado y drenado (CD)
Número de probeta I II III

Cargas verticales, en kg/cm2 1.00 2.00 3.00
Humedad inicial, en % 51.1 51.5 51.5
Humedad final, en % 65.5 64.0 62.8
Densidad húmeda, en g/cm3 1.721 1.703 1.698
Densidad seca, en g/cm3 1.040 1.039 1.042
Sección, en cm2 19.64 19.64 19.64
3
Volumen, en cm 37.31 37.31 37.31
Deformación horizontal en la rotura, en mm 2.50 1.13 2.10
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kg/cm2 1.07 2.06 3.17
Tensiones tangenciales corregidas, en kg/cm2 0.46 0.69 0.95
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kPa 105 202 311
Tensiones tangenciales corregidas, en kPa 45 68 93
Ángulo de rozamiento interno, en º 13.18
Cohesión, en kg/cm2 0.21
1.00
0.90
Tensión tangencial corregida, en kg/cm2
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Desplazamiento horizontal, en mm

Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato GCD-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
REPRESENTACIONES GRÁFICAS
0.00
Desplazamiento vertical, en mm
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
-0.50
-0.60
-0.70
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
R² = 1
5.0
Tensiones tangenciales coregidas, en kg/cm2
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kg/cm2
*El cálculo de la cohesión y ángulo de rozamiento se hace por mínimos cuadrados.

Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Tipo de muestra: Inalterada Velocidad de rotura, en mm/min: 0.050

Tipo de ensayo: Ensayo consolidado y drenado (CD)
Número de probeta I II III

Cargas verticales, en kg/cm2 1.00 2.00 3.00
Humedad inicial, en % 105.5 105.7 105.8
Humedad final, en % 102.3 98.5 85.4
Densidad húmeda, en g/cm3 1.378 1.312 1.251
Densidad seca, en g/cm3 0.681 0.661 0.675
Sección, en cm2 19.64 19.64 19.64
3
Volumen, en cm 37.31 37.31 37.31
Deformación horizontal en la rotura, en mm 10.04 9.94 9.94
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kg/cm2 1.34 2.67 4.01
Tensiones tangenciales corregidas, en kg/cm2 0.92 1.53 2.46
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kPa 131 262 393
Tensiones tangenciales corregidas, en kPa 90 150 241
Ángulo de rozamiento interno, en º 30.01
Cohesión, en kg/cm2 0.09
3.00
2.50
Tensión tangencial corregida, en kg/cm2
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
REPRESENTACIONES GRÁFICAS
0.00
Desplazamiento vertical, en mm
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
R² = 0.9866
5.0
Tensiones tangenciales coregidas, en kg/cm2
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Tensiones normales corregidas, en kg/cm2
*El cálculo de la cohesión y ángulo de rozamiento se hace por mínimos cuadrados.

Observaciones: -
-

Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Permeabilidad en célula triaxial con presión de cola,

según normas UNE 103402:98 & ASTM D2434-68(2006)
RESULTADOS DEL ENSAYO DE PERMEABILIDAD BAJO CARGA CONSTANTE EN CÉLULA TRIAXIAL:
MUESTRA ANALIZADA Resultados

Tipo de muestra Remoldeada
Humedad inicial, en % 51.5
Humedad final, en % 103.7
Altura de la probeta, en mm 76.2
Diámetro de la probeta, en mm 38.1
Densidad seca, en g/cm3 0.920
3
Densidad aparente, en g/cm 1.394
Presión externa, en kg/cm2 7.5
Presión de cola, en kg/cm2 7.0
2
Presión de cabeza, en kg/cm 6.0
Gradiente de presión, en kg/cm2 1.0
Duración del ensayo, en min 496
Flujo de agua, en cm3 3.908
3
Velocidad del flujo de agua, en cm /min 0.00788
Tipo de flujo de agua Ascendente
Coef. permeabilidad (k), en cm/s 8.8 x 10-8
Coef. permeabilidad (k), en m/s 8.8 x 10-10
Observaciones: -
-
Este ensayo no está acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato PER-01/01
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Detalle de la muestra sometida a ensayo
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

MUESTRA ANALIZADA Resultados

Tipo de muestra Remoldeada
Humedad inicial, en % 80.1
Humedad final, en % 105.6
Altura de la probeta, en mm 76.2
Diámetro de la probeta, en mm 38.1
Densidad seca, en g/cm3 0.737
3
Densidad aparente, en g/cm 1.327
Presión externa, en kg/cm2 7.5
Presión de cola, en kg/cm2 7.0
2
Presión de cabeza, en kg/cm 6.0
Gradiente de presión, en kg/cm2 1.0
Duración del ensayo, en min 632
Flujo de agua, en cm3 2.640
3
Velocidad del flujo de agua, en cm /min 0.00418
Tipo de flujo de agua Ascendente
Coef. permeabilidad (k), en cm/s 4.7 x 10-8
Coef. permeabilidad (k), en m/s 4.7 x 10-10
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Detalle de la muestra sometida a ensayo
Observaciones: -
-
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Durabilidad del hormigón. Suelos Agresivos.

DETERMINACIÓN DE CONTENIDO EN IÓN SULFATO
Según la instrucción EHE 2008 y las normas UNE 83963:2008 & ASTM C 1580
MUESTRA Sulfatos (SO42-), en mg/kg

BH-1 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1-1,2 ) SHELBY 1 350
BH-2 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT 1 350
BH-3 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (1,5-2 ) SHELBY 1 450
BH-4 MUESTRA-1 SPT (0-0,45 ) SPT 10 900
BH-5 MUESTRA-4 SHELBY (7-7,6 ) SHELBY 400
BH-6 MUESTRA-2 SHELBY (2,5-3 ) SHELBY 650
BH-7 MUESTRA-3 SPT (5,0-6,0) SPT 675
Grado de agresividad en suelos, según la instrucción EHE 2008*

Débil Medio Fuerte
Sulfatos (SO42-), en mg/kg
2000-3000 3000-12000 > 12000
*Tabla 8.2.3.b Clasificación de la agresividad química
Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato ASS-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Durabilidad del hormigón. Suelos Agresivos.

DETERMINACIÓN DEL GRADO DE ACIDEZ BAUMANN-GULLY
Según EHE 2008 y las normas UNE 83962:2008 & DIN 16502:12 & BS EN 16502
MUESTRA Acidez Baumann-Gully, en ml/kg
BH-7 MUESTRA-3 SPT (5,0-6,0) SPT 7
Grado de agresividad en suelos, según la instrucción EHE 2008*

Débil Medio Fuerte
Acidez Baumann-Gully, en ml/kg
> 200
*Tabla 8.2.3.b Clasificación de la agresividad química
Observaciones: -
-
Ensayo Acreditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato ASB-02/02
Nº Obra: 2021352
C/ Oporto, nº 11

Determinación del pH en suelos, según normas ISO 10390:1944 & ASTM D 4972 – 01
Instrucción de ensayo PEC-001: Electrometría. Rango: 2.0 - 12.0
MUESTRA pH en suelos
Observaciones: -
-
Este ensayo no está creditado por la Comunidad de Madrid en el Área de Geotecnia (GTL) Nº 03267GTL08 Formato SPH-02/02
C/ Oporto, nº 11
Teléfono: 916 375 881
Nº ES116125-1
El presente informe consta de ochenta y nueve hojas numeradas y selladas.
Madrid, 7 de julio de 2021
SANDRA PÉREZ GARCÍA-LAJARA CÉSAR ZAPICO MARTÍN

Responsable de Área GTL Director Técnico

CORTE DIRECTO
OBRA: RWG - 025.04.21 - NEO - 061 PACHAMAMA Fecha 21/6/21

Procedencia: ITZOTENO, PUEBLA
SONDE NUM. BH-5 PROFUNDIDAD 0.45 - 3.00 m
MUESTRA NUM. MA-6 PCA N/A
Dimensiones de la muestra
Diámetro. 5,01 Peso Suelo húm.+cápsula 135,19 gr.
Area. 19,68 Peso suelo húmedo 102,3 gr.
Altura. 3,03 Peso suelo seco+cápsula 121,09 gr.
Volumen. 59,64 Peso cápsula 32,89 gr.
Peso húmedo. 99,75 Peso del agua 14,1 gr.
Peso vol. húmedo. 1,673 Peso suelo seco 88,2 gr.
Peso vol. seco. 1,442 Contenido de Agua 15,99% %
Velocidad de carga 1,00 mm/min. Esfuerzo Normal 0,50 kg/cm2
Desplas. Horz. Desplas. Horz. carga Carga ESFUERZO

muestra muestra microm. horizontal en muestra
x 0.01 mm mm. div. kg. Kg/cm2.
0,00 0,000 0,0 0,000 0,00000
0,07 0,067 0,9 0,938 0,04763 0,800
0,17 0,168 1,8 1,750 0,08891 0,700
0,27 0,269 2,5 2,500 0,12702
Esfuerzo en kg/cm2
0,600
0,36 0,360 2,9 2,875 0,14607
0,500
0,48 0,484 3,3 3,313 0,16830
0,65 0,648 4,2 4,188 0,21276 0,400
0,79 0,793 4,8 4,813 0,24451 0,300
0,94 0,938 5,3 5,313 0,26991
0,200
1,11 1,111 5,9 5,875 0,29849
1,26 1,259 6,4 6,375 0,32390 0,100
1,43 1,435 6,9 6,938 0,35248 0,000
1,62 1,624 7,6 7,563 0,38423 0,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
1,81 1,805 8,1 8,125 0,41281 Def. Horizontal en mm
1,98 1,976 8,9 8,875 0,45092
2,15 2,155 9,5 9,500 0,48267
2,34 2,339 10,2 10,188 0,51760 13,4
2,54 2,536 10,8 10,750 0,54618 13,0
2,74 2,740 11,4 11,375 0,57793 1,0
2,90 2,898 11,9 11,938 0,60651
3,06 3,056 12,3 12,250 0,62239
3,23 3,232 12,7 12,688 0,64462
3,41 3,414 13,0 13,000 0,66050
3,63 3,626 13,3 13,313 0,67637
3,82 3,820 13,4 13,375 0,67955
4,02 4,022 13,2 13,188 0,67002
4,28 4,276 12,3 12,313 0,62557
CORTE DIRECTO 25
OBRA: RWG - 025.04.21 - NEO - 061 PACHAMAMA

Fecha 21/6/21
Muestra Inalterada 0

muestra muestra microm. horizontal en muestra 1,3

1,0
0,00 0,00 0,0 0,000 0,00000
Esfuerzo en kg/cm2
0,00 0,00 0,2 0,200 0,01016 0,8
0,08 0,08 3,2 3,200 0,16258
0,20 0,20 5,8 5,800 0,29468 0,5
0,32 0,32 6,8 6,800 0,34549

0,3
0,47 0,47 8,0 8,000 0,40646
0,61 0,61 9,2 9,200 0,46743 0,0
0,75 0,75 10,4 10,400 0,52840 -0,250,000,250,500,751,001,251,501,752,002,252,502,753,003,253,503,754,00
0,87 0,87 11,4 11,400 0,57920 -0,3
0,98 0,98 12,2 12,200 0,61985
1,23 1,23 14,6 14,600 0,74179
1,36 1,36 15,4 15,400 0,78243
1,49 1,49 16,4 16,400 0,83324
1,64 1,64 17,2 17,200 0,87389
1,79 1,79 18,0 18,000 0,91453
1,96 1,96 18,4 18,400 0,93486
2,12 2,12 18,6 18,600 0,94502
2,29 2,29 18,8 18,800 0,95518
2,47 2,47 18,8 18,800 0,95518
2,59 2,59 18,8 18,800 0,95518
2,73 2,73 18,8 18,800 0,95518
2,88 2,88 18,8 18,800 0,95518
3,04 3,04 18,6 18,600 0,94502
3,23 3,23 18,6 18,600 0,94502
3,39 3,39 18,2 18,200 0,92470
3,52 3,52 18,2 18,200 0,92470
3,64 3,64 17,8 17,800 0,90437
3,65 3,65 16,6 16,600 0,84340
3,65 3,65 16,2 16,200 0,82308
3,65 3,65 15,8 15,800 0,80276
CORTE DIRECTO 25

Fecha 21/6/21
Muestra Inalterada 0

muestra muestra microm. horizontal en muestra 1,5
1,3
0,00 0,00 0,0 0,000 0,00000
Esfuerzo en kg/cm2
1,0
0,19 0,19 0,0 0,000 0,00000
0,28 0,28 4,0 4,000 0,20323 0,8
0,40 0,40 6,6 6,600 0,33533
0,5
0,53 0,53 8,2 8,200 0,41662
0,67 0,67 10,2 10,200 0,51824 0,3
0,80 0,80 11,8 11,800 0,59953
0,0
0,93 0,93 13,4 13,400 0,68082 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
1,06 1,06 15,2 15,200 0,77227 -0,3
1,18 1,18 16,6 16,600 0,84340
1,48 1,48 19,8 19,800 1,00599
1,65 1,65 21,0 21,000 1,06696
1,82 1,82 22,4 22,400 1,13809
1,98 1,98 23,2 23,200 1,17873
2,15 2,15 24,2 24,200 1,22954
2,31 2,31 24,6 24,600 1,24986
2,47 2,47 25,2 25,200 1,28035
2,63 2,63 25,6 25,600 1,30067
2,77 2,77 26,0 26,000 1,32099
2,94 2,94 26,2 26,200 1,33116
3,10 3,10 26,4 26,400 1,34132
3,28 3,28 26,6 26,600 1,35148
3,44 3,44 26,6 26,600 1,35148
3,62 3,62 26,6 26,600 1,35148
3,79 3,79 26,4 26,400 1,34132
3,97 3,97 26,6 26,600 1,35148
4,17 4,17 26,6 26,600 1,35148
4,36 4,36 26,6 26,600 1,35148
4,53 4,53 26,0 26,000 1,32099
4,67 4,67 26,2 26,200 1,33116
4,82 4,82 26,0 26,000 1,32099
4,88 4,88 24,4 24,400 1,23970
CORTE DIRECTO
OBRA: RWG - 025.04.21 - NEO - 061 PACHAMAMA FECHA: 21/6/21

PROCEDENCIA: ITZOTENO, PUEBLA
SONDE NUM.: BH-5 PROFUNDIDAD: 0.45 - 3.00 m
MUESTRA NUM.: MA-6 PCA: N/A
2
Angulo de fricción: 23,8 ° cohesión: 0,48 kg/cm
1,6
ESFUERZO CORTANTE (KG/CM2)
1,4 y = 0,4406x + 0,4814

R² = 0,9925
1,2
1,0 0,50 0,6795

1,00 0,9552
2,00 1,3515
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
PRESION NORMAL(KG/CM2)
Permeabilidad BH-2
PERMEABILIDAD POR CARGA VARIABLE

UBICACIÓN: ITZOTENO, PUEBLA
SONDE NUM. BH-2 MUESTRA NUM. MA-5 PROFUNDIDAD 0.45 - 3.00 m. a 0,111 cm2
Descripciòn de la muestra: LIMO DE ALTO POTENCIAL PLASTICO (MH)
HUMEDAD NATURAL
Diametro Muestra D= 10,15 cm. Peso suelo húmedo+cápsula 177,55 gr.
Area Muestra A= 80,98 cm2 Peso suelo húmedo 145,12 gr.
Altura H= 11,66 cm Peso suelo seco+cápsula 143,04 gr.
Volumen V= 944,04 cm3 Peso cápsula 32,43 gr.
Peso P= 1383,50 grs. Peso del agua 34,51 gr.
P.Vol. Hum. de la Muestra: 1,466 t/m3 Peso suelo seco 110,61 gr.
P.Vol. Seco. de la Muestra: 1,117 t/m3 Humedad Natural % 31,20%
ECUACION DE K= a*H Ln h1
CARGA VARIABLE A*t ho
TIEMPÒ INTERVALO h1 ho T K Kpromedio Observaciones
DE
TIEMPO ( cm. ) (cm. ) ( ºC ) (cm./seg.) (cm./seg)
2236 140 130 5,30E-07
4666 140 120 5,28E-07 Material remoldeado al 90%
10633 140 97 5,51E-07 de un peso volumetrico
de 1.176 t/m3, y una
humedad optima del 31.2%
5,36E-07
Página 1
PERMEABILIDAD POR CARGA VARIABLE
UBICACIÓN: ITZOTENO, PUEBLA
SONDE NUM. BH-5 MUESTRA NUM. MA-6 PROFUNDIDAD 0.45 - 3.00 m. a 0,111 cm2
Descripciòn de la muestra: ARCILLA DE BAJO POTENCIAL PLASTICO (CL)
HUMEDAD NATURAL
Diametro Muestra D= 10,15 cm. Peso suelo húmedo+cápsula 210,89 gr.
Area Muestra A= 80,98 cm2 Peso suelo húmedo 178,03 gr.
Altura H= 11,66 cm Peso suelo seco+cápsula 176,29 gr.
Volumen V= 944,04 cm3 Peso cápsula 32,86 gr.
Peso P= 1575,00 grs. Peso del agua 34,6 gr.
P.Vol. Hum. de la Muestra: 1,668 t/m3 Peso suelo seco 143,43 gr.
P.Vol. Seco. de la Muestra: 1,344 t/m3 Humedad Natural % 24,12%
ECUACION DE K= a*H Ln h1
CARGA VARIABLE A*t ho
TIEMPÒ INTERVALO h1 ho T K Kpromedio Observaciones
DE
TIEMPO ( mm. ) (mm. ) ( ºC ) (cm./seg.) (cm./seg)
107 137 135 2,1963E-06
393 137 130 2,1326E-06 Material remoldeado al 90%
1789 137 107 2,2077E-06 de un peso volumetrico
de 1.415 t/m3, y una
humedad optima del 24.1%
2,18E-06
ANNEX A5: EUROCODE 0, 1 y 7
169 de 207
A5 EUROCODE
The structural Eurocodes comprise a group of rules on the structural and geotechnical project of
buildings and civil engineering works.
The EC is an international framework regulation based on the limit states and the treatment of
uncertainty based on partial safety coefficients.
The application of any Eurocode in an EU member country cannot be understood without its
corresponding National Annex, in which each country defines the national determination
parameters.
In this report, Eurocode 0 and 1 (EC-0 and EC-1) has been used for the calculation of shares
and Eurocode 7 (EC-7) for geotechnical calculation.
Figure A5.1 EC-0, 1 y 7
170 de 207
A5.1 EC-0 AND EC-1
The Client has not provided any actions. 
171 de 207
A5.2 EC-7
A5.2.1 Introduction
The EC-7 represents an important change in the way of approaching the foundations project,
with respect to the traditional practice in Europe, since it implies moving from the methods
based on admissible stresses (in-service loads and global safety factors) to the calculation
methods based on the limit states and the introduction of the partial coefficients in the field of
geotechnical engineering, so that the calculation bases of the geotechnical project are in
accordance with those established in the other Eurocodes for the project of the rest of the
structure.
The application of any Eurocode in a member country of the EU can not be understood without
its corresponding National Schedule, in which each country defines the parameters of national
determination.
Figure A5.2.1.1 EC-7
A5.2.2 Limit state method
The verification of the safety of a geotechnical performance will be done, in general and
whenever possible, by the method called "geotechnical project through calculations" although
other procedures are also admissible in certain circumstances.
The "geotechnical project through calculations" is based on the method of "limit states". In a
"limit state", the foundation would reach an undesirable situation that should be avoided.
172 de 207
Considering the seriousness of its consequences, the limit states are classified into two groups:
- Ultimate limit states (ULS)
- Service limit states (SLS).
The concept of safety is introduced by incorporating the partial coefficients applied to the
actions, the geotechnical parameters and / or the resistance of the terrain, which in general will
be different for each limit state.
A5.2.3 Ultimate limit states
An ultimate limit state is one that conditions the reliability of the work and a collapse or structural
failure can be caused.
The ultimate limit states (ELU) in the project of a foundation are classified into the following
types according to EC 7-1:
• Ultimate limit state EQU
Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid body,
where :
– minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a single source
are significant.
– the strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not governing.
The classic example of loss of balance is overturning as a rigid solid of a structure. In

figure 8.4.2.1.1 two examples of rigid overturning are represented.
Figure A5.2.3.1 Examples of limit state of equilibrium loss EQU with the rigid rollover of a structure.
173 de 207
• Ultimate limit state STR
Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements,

including shoes, piles or walls in which the resistance of the structural materials
provides significant resistance.
These are the ultimate breaking states for, among others, bending, shear and
punching, and are those used to perform the dimensioning of structural elements,
including the assembly of the foundations, and verify their strength.
• Ultimate limit state GEO
Failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the terrain provides significant
resistance.
Possible failures of breakage type GEO would be, among others, the sliding of a wall
or foundation, the collapse of a foundation or the general failure due to instability of the
support zone of the structure.
Figure A5.2.3.2 illustrates different types of failure type GEO or STR. Thus, in order from left to
right and from top to bottom, there is: sinking of a shoe (GEO); subsidence of the ground of the
foundation of a wall (GEO); sliding of a wall (GEO); structural breakage of the wall elevation by
bending (STR); global instability of a slope or slope (GEO) and lateral breakage of the ground
(piles or screens) (GEO).
Figure A5.2.3.2 Examples of different limit states last STR and GEO
174 de 207
• Ultimate limit state UPL
Loss of structure or terrain balance due to lifting due to water pressure (underpressure)
or other vertical actions (fig. A5.2.3.3).
Figure A5.2.3.3 Ultimate limit state example UPL.
• Ultimate limit state HYD
It implies a failure caused by the filtration of water in the ground. Examples of this type
of ULS are hydraulic instability due to siphoning (flotation of soil particles) and internal
erosion (particle drag), caused by sufficiently high hydraulic gradients (fig. A5.2.3.4).
Figure A5.2.3.4 Examples of HYD situations in which tubing or siphoning can be critical.
175 de 207
Table A5.2.3.1 summarizes the possible ultimate limit states of GEO and EQU type that must be
considered in surface foundations, deep foundations, retaining walls and slope instability.
CASE CHAPTER (EC7)* ULS DESCRIPTION TYPE ULS
SHALLOW FOUNDATION 6 SLIDING (6.5.3) GEO
RIGID OVERTURNING (2.4.7 y 6.5.4) EQU
DEEP FOUNDATION 7 PULL OUT (7.6.3) GEO
HORIZONTAL BEARING FAILURE (7.7) GEO
SLIDING (9.2) GEO
RETAINING STRUCTURE 9 VERTICAL BEARING FAILURE (9.2) GEO
RIGID OVERTURNING (9.2) EQU
SLOPE STABILITY 11 OVERALL GLOBAL STABILITY (11.5)* GEO
Table A5.2.3.1 Foundations, slopes and retaining structure (ULS)
*Chapters and sections refer to EC 7-1.
*The global stability (GEO) should be checked in all the foundations. 
176 de 207
A5.2.4 Service limit states
The limit states of service (SLS) are those states that, if exceeded, can lead to a loss of
functionality for which the structure was projected, although this does not entail an imminent
failure of the same.
In general, the limit states of service that are usually considered in the calculation processes of
the foundations are those caused by movements or excessive seats.
The service limit states must be checked with the service charges, that is, without majorities.
Figure A5.2.4.1 includes some examples of serviceability limit states: seats due to excessive
deformation of the ground, differential seating between adjacent supports, excessive
deformation of a containment screen, vibrations, insufficient pumping capacity and excessive
flow through of a land structure.
Figure A5.2.4.1 Examples of limit state of service SLS.
177 de 207
TYPOLOGY CHAPTER (EC7)* SLS DESCRIPTION
TOTAL SETTLEMENTS (6.6.2)
DIFFERENTIALS SETTLEMENTS (6.6.2)

SWALLOW FOUNDATION 6
HYDRAULIC LIFTING (6.6.3)
VIBRATIONS (6.6.4)
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (7.6.4)

DEEP FOUNDATION 7
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (7.7.4)
RETAINING STRUCTURES 9 DISPLACEMENT (9.8.2)
Table A5.2.4.1 Foundations and retaining structures (SLS)
* Chapters and sections refer to EC 7-1.
178 de 207
A5.2.5 Design Approach
A5.2.5.1 Definition
The different ways of taking into account the interaction between the actions or their effects and
the resistance of soil have led to the introduction of the concept of partial coefficients, in
order to check the ultimate limit states STR and GEO.
The partial coefficients can, on the one hand, increase the actions and, on the other, reduce the
geotechnical parameters and / or the resistance.
The different modes of combination of the set of partial coefficients have led the EC 7-1 to
define 3 possible different Project Approaches (in English "Design Approach", DA of reduced
form). We call the combination of the set of partial coefficients to the set of:
Ai + Mj + Rk
Note:
• The symbol A represents the partial coefficients of the γF actions (or their effects γE).
• The symbol M represents the partial coefficients of the terrain parameters γM.
• The symbol R represents the partial coefficients of the resistors γR.
• The subscripts i (1 or 2), j (1 or 2) or k (1, 2, 3 or 4) correspond to the alternative number

defined in EC 7-1 for that partial coefficient, defined in its Annex A.
The "+" sign refers to the expression "combined with", that is, the partial coefficients of the
actions are combined with those of the partial coefficients of the terrain and with the partial
coefficients of the resistances.
In summary, choosing a project approach or another translates into a different way of

introducing uncertainty into the calculation from a different weighting of the partial factors. 
179 de 207
A5.2.5.2 Types of Design Approach
El EC-7 define 3 Enfoques de proyecto distintos:
• DA 1
In this approach, it must be verified that the failure of the terrain or the structure does not
occur from the use of 2 combinations of sets of partial coefficients:
I. DA1- Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
A2 + M2 + (R2 o R4 ) *
II. DA1- Combination 2 :
R4 is used for deep foundations and R2 for the rest.
• DA 2
According to the DA2, it must be verified that a final state of rupture or deformation will not
occur with the following verification:
A1 + M1 + R2
• DA 3
According to the DA3, it must be verified that a final state of rupture or deformation will
not occur with the following verification:
(A1 o A2 ) * +M2 + R3
A1 is used for structural actions and A2 for geotechnical actions (thrusts).
Below is a summary table of the use and combination of the partial safety factors according to
the DA chosen:
GEOTECHNICAL
FACTORIZED RESISTANCE
DESIGN APPROACH PARÁMETERS
ACTIONS DECREASE
DECREASE
COMB-1 X
DA-1
COMB-2 X X
DA-2 X X
DA-3 X X
Table A5.2.5.2.1 Partial coefficients depending on the project approach.
180 de 207
A5.2.5.3 Design Approach Choice
The power of Design approach´s election for the geotechnical project is a decision open to the
National Annex of the country where the project is developed.
A summary figure is attached with the correlation Design Approach (DA)- country.
Foundations
Slope stability
Figure A5.2.5.3.1 - DA according to and ULS verification 
181 de 207
In addition, there is a world map showing all those countries where the Eurocode is used and
those where it could be adopted.
Proyecto
Figure A5.2.5.3.2 - Eurocode use. World Map
In this case, due to the project is located in Spain, DA 2 and DA 3 has been chosen because
this DA provides more conservative values.
Foundations 2
DA
Slopes 3
Table A5.2.5.3.2.1 - Design approach chosen
As a result, the combination set of partial coefficients chosen is:
Foundations &
A 1 + M1 + R 2
Slopes
Foundations &
(A1 ó A2) + M2 + R3
Slopes
Table A5.2.5.3.2.2 - DA-2
182 de 207
A5.2.6 Methodology of calculation
The procedure used to calculate and define the foundation is explained in a simplified way
below:
- Definition of characteristic actions, geotechnical parameters and soil´s resistance.
- Choosing partial coefficients.
- Definition of design values of actions, geotechnical parameters and soil´s resistance.
- Obtaining foundation´s final dimensions based on ULS and SLS analysis.
Figure A5.2.6.1 Flowchart DA-2. ULS
183 de 207
Figure A5.2.6.2 Flowchart DA-3. ULS 
184 de 207
Figure A5.2.6.3 Flowchart DA-2 & DA-3. SLS
185 de 207
A5.2.7 Design value of soil parameters
• Design value (Xk)
According to chapter 7 of this report, the parameters of the ground:
Upper Lower
G.U. Φ c Su γ E
bound bound
TS 0,00 0,50 19,31 0,0 13,9 14,3 2467
Qtp-la 0,50 1,50 22,33 26,0 27,8 16,0 3133
Qtp-la-c 0,50 3,00 31,93 50,0 125,0 16,8 7800
Dam Fill - - 23,80 48,0 18,8 14,1 2700
Table A5.2.7.1 Geotechnical parameter´s design values
According to laboratory tests, the field has a cohesive nature. Therefore, both the
short-term (CP) and long-term (LP) situations will be analyzed and the most restrictive
will be taken.
• Partial factors
Each geotechnical parameters has its own partial factors as it´s indicated in the table
9.6.2.1 according to Eurocode 7:
Set
Soil parameter Symbol
M1 M2
Shearing resistance 𝛾φ* 1,00 1,25
Effective cohesion 𝛾c 1,00 1,25
Undrained strength 𝛾Su 1,00 1,40
Unconfined strength 𝛾qu 1,00 1,40
Weight density 𝛾Υ 1,00 1,00
* Its applied on tan Φ

Table A5.2.7.2 Partial factors for geotechnical parameters 
186 de 207
A5.2.8 Shallow foundation
A5.2.8.1 Definition
This type of foundation transmit structure loads to the most superficial soil´s layers. Overall , a
foundation could be classified as shallow if its depth is less than 1,5-2 times its width (D <
1,5B ).
The structural element of support or transmission of loads in shallow foundations is called

footing and generally has rectangular shape. In addition to footings, there are other foundation
´s types that can be classified as shallow:
- When the supports are close or when the unit load transmitted to soil is small combined
footings can be built, where two or more pillars can be supported.
- Foundations of bridge abutments or retaining walls has a length clearly higher than width.
These foundations are called strip footing.
- Slabs are the typical foundation of frames and switch ga or when the soil´s resistance is low.
Its shape in plant is clearly superior to its depth.
Figure A5.2.8.1.1 Tipos de cimentaciones superficiales
187 de 207
A5.2.8.2 Resistance
The calculation resistances values are a function of the geotechnical parameters of the terrain
(X), the actions (F) and the geometric data (a).
R[γF . Frep; Xk /γM ; ad ]

Rd =
γR
Where:
Rd Calculation value of resistance.
Frep Representative value of the actions.
Xk Characteristic values of the terrain parameters.
𝛾M Partial coefficients of the terrain parameters.
ad Calculation values of geometric data.
𝛾R Partial coefficients of resistance.
The values of the reduction coefficients (𝛾R) will be differentiated according to two branches,
type of foundation (superficial or deep) and by limit state (ULS and SLS).
Shallow
foundation
Bearing Sliding Settlement

(ULS) (ULS) (SLS)
Figure A5.2.8.2.1 Limit states. Shallow foundation
188 de 207
A5.2.8.2.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
• Characteristic resistance (Rk)
The calculation of bearing and sliding resistance is carried out according to EC7-1 section 6.
I. Bearing capacity
The calculation it´s based on Brinch-Hansen formula, detailed below, which takes into account
factors such as water level depth or the load inclination.
According with this method, the vertical bearing resistance is represented by three terms that
contribute to the support capacity:
- Existing overload at the foundation level (q).
- Effective cohesion of soil (c).
- Foundation´s self weight.
1
pvh = q . Nq . dq . iq . sq . tq . rq + c . Nc . dc . ic . sc . tc . rc + . γ . B * .Nγ . dγ . iγ . sγ . tγ . rγ
2
Figure A5.2.8.2.1 Brinch-Hansen Formula
Where:
pvh Bearing pressure (kPa)
q Overload at the foundation level (kPa)
189 de 207
c Effective cohesion (kPa)
γ Specific weight (kN/m3)
N q , N c, N γ Capacity factors
di, ii, si, ti, ri Factors for increasing or reducing bearing resistance.
Su Undrained Shear strength resistance (kPa).
Each factor value depends on the situation under study: long or short conditions.
Qh
Figure A5.2.8.2.2 Bearing capacity diagram
Below is a table with the pressure of bearing resistance ELU (Qh) for different ratios B / L in the
long and short term situations that according to the results of the laboratory are not observe a
pure cohesive or pure granular behavior of the stratum.
The expression of the subsidence in B / L ratio allows to reflect sinking values for different types
of shoes:
- Square and circular footing: ratio equal to 1.
- Rectangular footing: ratio between 0 and 1.
- Continuous footing: ratio close to 0.
The recommended foundation level is -1.00 m, which corresponds to the G.U. F/Q.
190 de 207
II. Sliding resistance
This failure mode will only be considered in those shallow foundations that will suffer important
horizontal actions. This situation usually occurs in the foundations of retaining walls and
abutments of bridges, therefore this verification is not developed in this report.
The characteristic sliding resistance (Hd,k) is calculated according to EC7-1 and takes into
account the sum of 2 terms:
Hk ≤ Froz,k + Ep,k
Figure A5.2.8.2.3 Characteristic sliding resistance formula
Where:
Hk Characteristic resistance against Sliding (kN).
Froz,k Friction resistance developed under the footing (kN).
Ep,k Resistance by passive thrust of the intrados (kN).
Froz,k (kN) —
Ep,k (kN) —
Hk (kN) —
Table A5.2.8.2.3 Characteristic sliding resistance (Hd,k)
191 de 207
• Partial coefficients
In this case, the GEO type ULS to study are sinking and sliding. The values of the partial
coefficients to be applied according to Annex A of EC-7 are:
SET
RESISTANCE SYMBOL
R1 R2 R3
BEARING 𝛾Rv 1,00 1,85 1,00
SLIDING 𝛾Rh 1,00 1,10 1,00
Table A5.2.8.2.4 Partial factors for resistances. Shallow foundations
• Calculation Resistance(Rd)
t is the result of applying the partial safety coefficients (𝛾R) to the characteristic resistance.
Rk
Rd =
γR
Once the partial coefficients for resistances have been selected and based on the results of
tables A5.2.8.2.1, A5.2.8.2.2 and A5.2.8.2.3, we can define the resistance against sinking and
calculation sliding.
It is important to keep in mind that working tensions for ULS are designed to work with
increased loads. 
192 de 207
A5.2.8.2.2 Design value of resistance (SLS)
• Resistance SLS (Settlement)
Service limit states consist of checking that the design value of the effect of the actions (for
instance, the settlement of a foundation (Ed) is lower or equal to its corresponding limit value
(Cd).
Ed ≤ Cd
In these case (isolated footing), the only SLS to be checked is the maximum settlement
developed.
For maximum settlement estimation, Streinbrenner formula has been used based on the
bibliography “Curso Aplicado de Cimentaciones 4º Edición” (José M. Rodriguez Ortiz):
B . σv s.E
s= (1 − ν 2 )k 0 σv =
E B . k 0(1 − ν 2 )
Where:
s Settlement (m).
B Footing width (m).
𝜎v Vertical pressure (kPa).
E Modulus of Young or elasticity (MPa).

s
𝝂 Poisson´s coefficient
Ko Corrector´s coefficient
Figure A5.2.8.2.2.1 Settlement drawing
So as the given formula depends proportionally on the vertical pressure, if the maximum
settlement is imposed we can obtain the maximum design stress (kPa) for SLS in function of
foundation´s width, as is reflected in the next tables
193 de 207
Maximum Footing 0,025

settlement (m)
Slab 0,050
Table A5.2.8.2.2.1 Maximum allowed settlement
Slab is considered when the thickness is less than 6 times the width.
It is important to keep in mind that working stresses for ELS are designed to work with loads in
service.
For embankments, settlements limits are related with traffic speed design and differential
settlements produced between two points located 20 m distance. For a light traffic road with a
speed design of 80-60 km/h this settlements must be less than 3 cm (0,03 m).
194 de 207
A5.2.10 Slope stability
For the study of circular fractures in slopes, typology of breakage more likely in homogeneous
soils and very fractured rocks, Slide 2D program has been used.
The project approach used for slope stability is the DA-3, so it works with the reduced
geotechnical parameters:
Φ,d c,d γ,d
TS 15,45 0,00 14,28
Qtp-la 17,86 20,80 16,00
Qtp-la-c 25,54 40,00 16,80
Dam Fill 19,04 38,40 14,08
Unit º kPa kN/m3
Table A5.2.10.2 A5.2.10.2 Minorized geotechnical parameters. DA-3
195 de 207
ANNEX A6: GRAPHICAL DATA OUTPUT 
196 de 207
SUB-ANNEX A.6.1. SLIDE 2D GRAPHICAL OUTPUTS 
197 de 207
SUB-ANNEX A.6.2. SHETTLE GRAPHIC OUTPUTS 
200 de 207
stage Figure
Stage 1
201 de 207
stage Figure
Stage 2
202 de 207
stage Figure
Stage 3
203 de 207
stage Figure
Stage 4
204 de 207
stage Figure
Stage 5
205 de 207
ANNEX A7: PHOTOGRAPHICAL REPORT 
206 de 207
PHOTOGRAPHIC REPORT
207 de 207

RWG 025.04.21 Neo 061

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RWG 025.04.21 Neo 061

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR THE WATER

PROTECTION DAM OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT

CLIENT: ENR NL S.A. de C.V.

GEOINTEC WORLDWIDE EXPERIENCE PROJECTS SERVICES

• Solar PV plants • Geotechnical studies

• Wind farms • Geophysical surveys

• Transmissions lines & substations • Hydrological studies

• Civil projects • Topographical works

• Buildings • Ramming & Pull out test

QUALITY CONTROL (QA)

PREPARED BY: GEOINTEC

Head Office Madrid

PREPARED FOR: NEOEN

Attn: Mr. Paul Collange

Re: GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY FOR THE WATER PROTECTION DAM OF

Project code: RWG-025.04.21-NEO-061

Please, do not hesitate to contact us in case of any question.

Francisco Parra Idreos

9 FOUNDATIONS AND EARTHWORKS ...............................................................................69

A5.2.2 Limit state method 172

Figure 1.1 Location of the area of study ...................................................................................................................12

Figure A5.2.8.2.3 Characteristic sliding resistance formula .................................................................................191

Table 9.4.2.1.1 Foundations (ULS) .............................................................................................................................76

Previously a geotechnical survey was performed by GEOINTEC on 2017 for the

Figure 1.1 Location of the area of study

2 AIM AND SCOPE

The geotechnical investigation, according to contract PRW-156-NEO-03.21-050 v4, aims to

• Identify constraints and geotechnical problems of the site under study.

• Provide knowledge of geotechnical characteristics of the land, according to the project

Matter Description Source

Site Limits NEOEN

Regional geological cartography

Geotechnical site characterization G-095.07-17-NEO-025-B GEOINTEC

Table 2.1.1 Information consulted

2.2 REGULARITY FRAMEWORK

- AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation.

- Dynamic penetration test standard NF-XP-94-105.

- ISO/TV 14689-1-2003. Geotechnical investigation and testing. Identification and classification of

- EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part 1: General rules.

- EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.

- EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Part 3: Design assisted by field testing.

- DB SE-C “Seguridad estructural: Cimientos”. Código técnico de la edificación, C.T.E., R.D.

- Guía de cimentaciones en obras de carreteras. Ministerio de Fomento de España, 2004.

- ETG 1.015: Diseño Sísmico

- IEEE-693-2000: Guía Diseño Sísmico para Subestaciones Eléctricas.

Table 2.2.1 Regularity Framework

2.3 PROJECT PLANNING SCHEDULE

Phase Work plan Comments

The scope of works was duly agreed upon

Actual location of tests was undertaken on

Although in situ testing and surveying was

Fieldworks undertaken by local

Soil sampling and testing following

A preliminary report shall be issued including

Soil samples tested in a soil testing laboratory

Comprehensive geotechnical model by

Final geotechnical report including laboratory

Post service activities included in the scope,

Table 2.3.1 Geotechnical investigation schedule

3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL SETTINGS AND SITE ACCESS CONDITIONS

Figure 3.1.1 Site access conditions

Figure 3.2.1 Climate classification Köppen-Geiger

Rainfall (mm) 16 16 32 62 84 134 95 118 165 108 40 14

Table 2.3.1 Geotechnical investigation schedule 

Figure 3.1.1 Site access conditions 

Figure 3.3.1 Geological framework 

Picture 3.3.3.3 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-1 

Picture 3.3.3.5 Geotechnical Observation Points G.O.P.-3 

Table 3.4.8 Assessment of geological and geomorphologic risk 

Table 4.1.2 In-situ test locations 

Figure 4.1.1 Geotechnical test location 

Table 4.1.1.1 Boreholes 

Table 4.1.1.1 Trial pits summary 

Table 4.1.2.1 Profile of penetration resistance with depth 