Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Report
Geotechnical Engineering Report Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Operations and Maintenance Building Tigard, Oregon March 7, 2016 SHANNON iWILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value Since 1954 Submitted To: Tim Rondeau, PE Clean Water Services 16060 SW 85th Ave Tigard OR 97224 By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 3990 Collins Way, Suite 100 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 210-4750 www.shannonwilson.com 24-1-03989-003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Overview 1 1.2 Scope of Services 1 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2 2.1 Site Description 2 2.2 Project Description 3 3.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 4 4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING 5 4.1 Regional Geology 5 4.2 Seismic Setting 6 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 8 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING 8 7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 9 7.1 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Emergency Operation Center 9 7.1.1 Geotechnical Units 9 7.1.1.1 Fill 9 7.1.1.2 Missoula Flood Fine-Grained Deposits 10 7.1.1.3 Hillsboro Formation 10 7.2 Anticipated Subsurface Conditions at Existing O&M Building 11 7.3 Groundwater 12 8.0 SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION 12 8.1 General 12 8.2 Strong Ground Motions 13 8.3 Liquefaction and Settlement 14 8.4 Other Hazards 15 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 16 9.1 General 16 9.2 Site Preparation and Earthwork 17 Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) NH AN tkLJ _N L N, iNC, 9.2.1 Demolition, Stripping, and Grubbing 17 9.2.2 Foundation Subgrade Preparation 18 9.2.3 Structural Fill 19 9.2.4 Geotextile Fabric 20 9.2.5 Construction Considerations 21 9.2.5.1 Site Drainage 21 9.2.5.2 Cut-and-Fill Slopes 21 9.2.5.3 Wet Weather Considerations 21 9.2.5.4 Temporary Shoring and Dewatering Excavations 22 9.2.5.5 Erosion Control 22 9.3 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations 23 9.3.1 General 23 9.3.2 Emergency Operation Center 23 9.3.3 Building Addition 24 9.3.4 Outdoor Area Canopies 25 9.4 Conceptual Settlement Mitigation Alternatives for Existing O&M Building 26 10.0 EXISTING FOUNDATION RESISTANCE 27 10.1 General 27 10.2 Liquefaction and Settlement Effects 27 10.3 Bearing Resistance 28 10.4 Sliding Resistance 28 10.5 Lateral Earth Pressures 28 11.0 LIMITATIONS 29 12.0 REFERENCES 31 Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 it TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) ; * ;1 ° ,5 ,,; i.,10 LS ku, Irk- TABLES 1 USGS Class A Quaternary Faults Within an Approximate 30-Mile Radius of the Project Site 8 2 Recommended Seismic Design Parameters for New Structures 13 3 Recommended Seismic Design Parameters for Existing Structures 14 4 Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric Material Properties 20 5 Recommended Unfactored Soil Parameters for Existing Spread Footings (attached at the end of this report) FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan APPENDICES A Selected Provided Drawings and Boring Logs B Current Field Explorations C Laboratory Test Results D Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 111 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DURHAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXPANSION TIGARD, OREGON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview This report presents the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, geotechnical design recommendations, and construction considerations in support of the design and construction of the proposed Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility(AWWTF) Operations and Maintenance Building (O&M Building) Expansion and remodel. The project site is located in Tigard, Oregon, and is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The proposed O&M Building expansion will consist of renovations to existing portions of the building, new outdoor area canopies, a small addition, and a new Emergency Operation Center(also referred to as the exercise and conference building). MWA Architects (MWA) is the lead architect for Clean Water Services (the District)to plan and design the proposed expansions. Shannon& Wilson, Inc., as a subconsultant to Black & Veatch, is providing geotechnical engineering services to support this project. 1.2 Scope of Services Shannon& Wilson's services were conducted in accordance with the scope of services specified in the prime contract between Clean Water Services and Black&Veatch dated January 5, 2015, and subsequent task order signed on January 28, 2015. The completed geotechnical services for the O&M Building Expansion project consisted of the following tasks: ➢ Review available existing information and visit the site to observe existing site conditions, geologic hazards, site access for field explorations, and to mark proposed exploration locations; ➢ Contact the utility notification center (One-Call) for utility clearance and subcontract with a private utility locator to verify proposed exploration locations are clear of the buried utilities; ➢ Perform one geotechnical boring to a depth of 80 feet at the proposed new Emergency Operation Center to supplement information from existing borings in the project vicinity and characterize the site for foundation design of the new Operation Center and outdoor area canopies, and for the site-specific seismic hazard evaluations; ➢ Conduct laboratory testing on selected soil samples to characterize soils and develop soil properties for evaluation; Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 1 ➢ Select potential seismic sources and design earthquakes, and provide soil seismic profile and ground motion parameters in accordance with the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)to support structural design of the new Emergency Operation Center and outdoor canopies; ➢ Perform site-specific seismic hazard evaluations for the existing O&M Building in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 2013 Edition(ASCE 41-13), for design earthquakes with 5 percent and 2 percent probabilities of occurrence in 50 years; ➢ Evaluate foundation bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, static total and differential settlements, and lateral load resistance for the proposed new foundations for the Emergency Operation Center, outdoor canopies and building addition; ➢ Provide geotechnical support for existing structure evaluation, including development of soil seismic parameters such as seismic bearing capacity and lateral earth pressures; ➢ Prepare a geotechnical report summarizing our field explorations, lab testing, subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, geotechnical evaluations, design recommendations, and construction considerations. 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2.1 Site Description The Durham AWWTF is located south of the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 85th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. The site is bounded to the north by SW Durham Road, to the east by the BNSF railroad tracks, to the south by the Tualatin River, and to the west by Tigard High School and a residential development. The existing O&M Building is located adjacent to the Sludge Thickeners and Solids Processing Building. Selected existing treatment plant facilities are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The topography at the existing O&M Building is generally flat and the existing ground surface is at an approximate elevation of 156 feet. The ground surface west and south of the site slopes down to SW 85th Avenue at an approximate elevation of 145 to 150 feet. The site topography is shown on Figure 2. The existing O&M Building is composed of the following areas: administration and meeting, maintenance and tool room, lunch room/lockers/mechanical, warehouse and storage, and laboratory. The administration/meeting, lunch room/lockers/mechanical, and laboratory areas of the building are supported on spread footings. The building columns are supported on 3- to 5- foot square footings, and grade beams and walls are generally supported on 2-foot wide strip footings. In general,the spread footings are founded at an elevation of 154.4 feet. The Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 2 1 maintenance/tool room and warehouse/storage areas of the building were constructed prior to the rest of the O&M Building and details of the existing foundation system are unknown, however we anticipate that these areas of the building are also supported on spread footings. Two abandoned 42-inch diameter concrete pipes run north to south approximately 15 feet west of the existing O&M Building. We anticipate the pipes were constructed as part of the original wastewater treatment facilities and were installed using an open cut excavation and backfilled with on-site material. Based on our discussions with District personnel,the existing pipe invert depth may be approximately 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the existing pipes are shown on Figure 2. Note, the sources of this information on the existing facilities are described in Section 3.0. 2.2 Project Description We understand the renovations to the existing O&M Building will include a seismic retrofit. A new, approximately 150 square foot building addition will be added to the existing structure west of the O&M Manager Offices. Several new outdoor canopy areas will also be added to the perimeter of the existing building and we understand the canopies will be supported on spread footings. The locations of these planned new canopies and other major and minor renovations are shown on the drawing (Exhibit A) in Appendix A, Selected Provided Drawings and Boring Logs. The proposed Emergency Operation Center is located west of the existing building at the approximate location shown on Figure 2. The new Operation Center building footprint is approximately 65 feet by 25 feet. We understand the Operation Center will be a single story structure and will contain a conference room and exercise room. The final foundation loads have not been determined at the time of this report; however, based on the size of the structure and our preliminary conversations with ABHT Structural engineers, we anticipate maximum column loads of 50 kips, continuous footing loads of 4 kips/foot, and a maximum floor slab load of 150 pounds per square foot(psf). The geotechnical evaluations and recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information and subsurface conditions described in this report. If any of the noted information changes during the course of design,please inform Shannon& Wilson in writing so that we may reconsider and amend the recommendations presented in this report, if necessary. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 3 3.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION The geotechnical evaluations and recommendations provided in this report are based in part on existing subsurface information from the project vicinity and as-constructed drawings for the existing O&M Building. Specifically, Shannon& Wilson collected and reviewed information from the following documents: ➢ 1972, Soils Investigation, Proposed Tualatin River Sewage Treatment Plant; Submitted to Stevens, Thompson& Runyan, Inc., by Dames & Moore, dated November 15, 1972. ➢ 1991, Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Durham AWWTP Chemical Expansion; Submitted to HDR Engineering, Inc., by Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc., dated May 6, 1991. ➢ 1993-1996, As-Constructed Plans for Durham Support Facility; Prepared by HDR Engineering. ➢ 1999,Project Memorandum—Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Solids Processing Building Seismic Evaluation, Geotechnical Analysis and Recommendations; Prepared by Squier Associates, dated March 12, 1999. ➢ 2004, TM-11 Geotechnical Investigation, Part 2: Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Durham Facility Phase 4 Expansion; Submitted to MWH, Inc., by Squier Kleinfelder, dated February 13, 2004. Information contained in the Dames & Moore report, dated November 15, 1972, and the Squier Associates memorandum, dated March 12, 1999, as well as the as-constructed plans for the Durham Support Facility (O&M Building), was used for our site-specific seismic hazard and geotechnical evaluations. Foundation configurations for the existing O&M Building spread footings were taken from as-constructed plan Sheet Numbers G-6, S-1 through S-4, S-9 through S-13, and S-20. Approximate locations of the existing abandoned concrete pipes were taken from as-constructed plan Sheet Number G-7. Dames & Moore drilled three borings (9, 11, and 12) in the vicinity of the existing O&M Building for construction of the original wastewater treatment facilities. Information from these borings was used to determine the design groundwater elevation at the site. Squier Associates drilled two borings (SB-1 and SB-2) at the Solids Processing Building for a seismic evaluation of the existing building. Information from these borings was used for our site-specific seismic hazard and geotechnical evaluations for the existing O&M Building. The approximate existing boring locations are shown on Figure 2. The relevant as-constructed plans and logs of the existing borings are included in Appendix A. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 4 $ y,� t,3' 4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING 4.1 Regional Geology The project site lies near the southeastern edge of the Tualatin Basin, an approximately 35-mile- long by 20-mile-wide, northwest-trending, gently sloping synclinal valley(Madin, 1990). The Tualatin Basin is one of several localized sub-basins within the Willamette Lowland, a broader regional geologic depression (Gannett and Caldwell, 1998). The basins are structural depressions, created by complex folding and faulting of the basement rocks (Schlicker and Deacon, 1967). The basement, or floor, of the basins is made up of lava flows collectively referred to as the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), which flowed into the area in the middle Miocene epoch, between about 17 and 6 million years ago. Over the span of geologic time, sedimentary deposits consisting of clay, silt, sand, and gravel eroded from the surrounding uplands and settled into the basins that formed on the CRBG surface. In the Tualatin Basin,these sediments have historically been referred to by several names, including Troutdale Formation (Schlicker and Deacon, 1967), Sandy River Mudstone equivalent(Madin, 1990), and Hillsboro Formation (Wilson, 1998). For the purposes of this report, we refer to these upper-Miocene to Pleistocene age (approximately 11- to 1-million-year- old) basin-fill sediments as Hillsboro Formation, after Wilson(1998). The Hillsboro Formation varies in thickness, reaching up to 860 feet near the center of the basin and tapering out at the basin margins. It consists predominantly of silt and clay, with some thin sand layers and occasionally localized lenses of gravelly sands. It is not known to be exposed at the ground surface and is generally covered by younger alluvial deposits or rocks of the Boring volcanic field(on the west slopes of the Tualatin Mountains). The Hillsboro Formation is extensively overlain by a layer of late-Pleistocene Missoula Flood sediment. During the late stages of the last great ice age, between about 15,300 and 12,700 years ago (Allison, 1978; Waitt, 1985), a lobe of the continental ice sheet repeatedly blocked and dammed the Clark Fork River in western Montana, which then formed an immense glacial lake called Lake Missoula. The lake grew until its depth was sufficient to buoyantly lift and rupture the ice dam, which allowed the entire massive lake to empty catastrophically. Once the lake had emptied, the ice sheet again gradually dammed the Clark Fork Valley and the lake refilled, leading to 40 or more repetitive outburst floods at intervals of decades (Allen and others, 2009). During each short-lived episode, floodwaters washed across the Idaho panhandle, through the eastern Washington scablands, and through the Columbia River Gorge. When the floodwater emerged from the western end of the gorge, it spread out over the Portland Basin and up the Willamette Valley as far south as Junction City, depositing a tremendous load of sediment Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 5 (O'Conner and others, 2001). The floods deposited extensive gravel bars across east Portland and up to 120 feet of micaceous clayey to fine sandy silt, sand, and minor gravel in the Tualatin Basin. The Missoula Flood sediments deposited in the Tualatin Basin are commonly referred to as Willamette Silt (Wilson, 1998). In the context of this report we refer to the Willamette Silt as Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits. The Tualatin River and its many tributary creeks and streams have locally eroded the older sediments (principally Missoula Flood deposits) and re-deposited the sediment along their modern floodplains. These modern sedimentary deposits generally consist of clay, silt, fine- grained sand, and organic material with minor gravel. Thickness of the Holocene alluvium varies with location, and is difficult to determine because there is little distinction between it and the deposits from which it originated. Additionally, in the vicinity of the project site, variable thicknesses of fill material were placed during the course of development of roads and industrial areas. 4.2 Seismic Setting Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest occur largely as a result of the collision between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. These two tectonic plates meet along a mega thrust fault called the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ runs approximately parallel to the coastline from northern California to southern British Columbia. The compressional forces that exist between these two colliding plates cause the denser oceanic plate to descend, or subduct, beneath the continental plate at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. This process leads to volcanism and contortion and faulting of both crustal plates throughout much of the western regions of southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Stress built up between the colliding plates is periodically relieved through great earthquakes at the plate interface (CSZ) (Goldfinger and others, 2012). Within our present understanding of the regional tectonic framework and historical seismicity, three broad earthquake (seismogenic) sources have been identified. These three types of earthquakes and their maximum plausible magnitudes are as follows. ➢ Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes originate along the CSZ, which is located 25 miles beneath the coastline. Paleoseismic evidence and historic tsunami studies indicate that the most recent subduction zone thrust fault event occurred in the year 1700, probably ruptured the full length of the CSZ, and may have reached magnitude 9. ➢ Deep-Focus, Intraplate Earthquakes originate from within the subducting Juan de Fuca oceanic plate as a result of the downward bending and contortion of the plate in the CSZ. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 6 r� gg These earthquakes typically occur at a depth of 28 to 38 miles. Such events could be as large as magnitude 7.5. Examples of this type of earthquake include the 1949 magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake, the 1965 magnitude 6.5 earthquake between Tacoma and Seattle, and the 2001 magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. The highest rates of CSZ intraslab activity are beneath the Puget Sound area, with much lower rates observed beneath western Oregon. ➢ Shallow-Focus Crustal Earthquakes are typically located within the upper 12 miles of the continental crust. The relative plate movements along the CSZ cause not only east- west compressive strain, but dextral shear, clockwise rotation, and north-south compression of the leading edge of the North American Plate (Wells and others, 1998), which is the cause of much of the shallow crustal seismicity of engineering significance in the region. The largest known crustal earthquake in the Pacific Northwest is the 1872 North Cascades earthquake with an estimated magnitude of about 7. Other examples include the 1993 magnitude 5.6 Scotts Mill earthquake and 1993 magnitude 6 Klamath Falls earthquake. Shallow crustal faults and folds throughout Oregon and Washington have been located and characterized by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mapped fault locations and detailed descriptions can be found in the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (USGS, 2015). The database defines four categories of faults, Classes A through D, based on evidence of tectonic movement known or presumed to be associated with large earthquakes during Quaternary time (less than 1.8 million years ago). For Classes A and B,there is geologic evidence that demonstrates the existence of Quaternary deformation. However, for Class B faults, evidence of Quaternary faulting or slip is more equivocal or may not extend deep enough to be a source of significant earthquakes. According to the USGS Fault and Fold database, there are 12 Class A faults within approximately 30 miles of the site. Their names, general locations relative to the site, and the time since their most recent deformation are summarized in Table 1. The CSZ itself is approximately 80 miles west of the site, with a slip rate of approximately 40 millimeters (1.5 inches)per year and the most recent deformation occurring about 300 years ago (Personius and Nelson, 2006). Based on the mapped fault locations from the USGS database, the potential for fault rupture or near-fault effects at the site is low. However; one of the mapped Class A faults, the Canby-Molalla Fault, is mapped as crossing the Durham AWWTF site approximately 600 feet northeast of the existing O&M Building, and some of the nearest faults (such as the Portland Hills Fault) are incorporated into the USGS Seismic Hazard Maps; thus, they contribute slightly to the overall seismic hazard at the site. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 7 # „x HAT I N k,) ,1 51\1-'11,i«:.,r.;x r4..: it43.ea':: TABLE 1: USGS CLASS A QUATERNARY FAULTS WITHIN AN APPROXIMATE 30-MILE RADIUS OF THE PROJECT SITE USES 'Approximate Distance a `Time Since Fault Name Class and Direction from Site Slip Rate Last Deformation Canby-Molalla Fault A 0.25 miles NE <0.2 mm/yr <15 ka Oatfield Fault A 5.3 miles NE <0.2 mm/yr <1.6 Ma Beaverton Fault Zone A 5.9 miles NW <0.2 mm/yr <750 ka Portland Hills Fault A 7.4 miles NE <0.2 mm/yr <15 ka Damascus-Tickle Creek Fault A 9.8 miles E <0.2 mm/yr <750 ka East Bank Fault A 10.3 miles NE <0.2 mm/yr <15 ka Grant Butte Fault A 11.6 miles E-NE <0.2 mm/yr <750 ka Newberg Fault A 12.3 miles SW <0.2 mm/yr <1.6 Ma Helvetia Fault A 12.6 miles NW <0.2 mm/yr <1.6 Ma Gales Creek Fault Zone A 15.8 miles W-NW <0.2 mm/yr <1.6 Ma Mount Angel Fault A 17.2 miles S-SW <0.2 mm/yr <15 ka Lacamas Lake Fault A 22.3 miles NE <0.2 mm/yr <750 ka Notes: a. Approximate distance from site center to nearest extent of fault mapped at the ground surface. b. mm=millimeters;yr=year. c. Ma="Mega-annum"or million years ago;ka="Kilo-annum"or one thousand years ago. 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Shannon& Wilson performed the current field exploration effort on December 18, 2015, which consisted of one geotechnical boring on the west side of the existing O&M, designated B-1. The boring was drilled to a depth of 81.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The approximate location of boring B-1 is shown on Figure 2. The borehole location was measured in the field relative to existing site features using a tape-measure. A Shannon & Wilson geologist located the exploration, observed the drilling, collected soil samples, and logged the materials encountered. Details of the field exploration program, including techniques used to advance and sample the boring and a log of the materials encountered, is presented in Appendix B, Current Field Explorations. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING The samples we obtained during our field explorations were transported to our laboratory for further examination. We then selected representative samples for a suite of laboratory tests. The Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 8 testing program included moisture content analyses, Atterberg limits testing, and particle-size analyses. All testing was performed by Shannon& Wilson, in accordance with applicable ASTM International standards. Results of the laboratory tests and brief descriptions of the test procedures are presented in Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results. 7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7.1 Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Emergency Operation Center 7.1.1 Geotechnical Units We grouped the materials encountered in the current field exploration, boring B-1, at the proposed new Emergency Operation Center into three geotechnical units, as described below. Our interpretation of the subsurface conditions is based on the explorations and regional geologic information from published sources. The geotechnical units are as follows. ➢ Fill: Loose to medium dense, Silty Sand (SM)to Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP- SM). ➢ Missoula Flood Fine-Grained Deposits: Loose to dense, Silty Sand (SM) and Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM), and stiff to very stiff Silt(ML) and Lean Clay (CL). ➢ Hillsboro Formation: Very stiff, Lean Clay to Sandy Lean Clay (CL) and Fat Clay (CH). These geotechnical units were grouped based on their engineering properties, geologic origins, and their distribution in the subsurface. Contacts between the units may be more gradational than shown in the boring logs. The Standard Penetration Test(SPT)N-values, shown on the boring logs and discussed below, are as counted in the field (uncorrected). The materials are generally consistent with those shown on the Squier Associates boring logs (SB-1 and SB-2) included in Appendix A. The sections below describe the geotechnical unit characteristics in greater detail. 7.1.1.1 Fill Fill was encountered in boring B-1 from the ground surface (approximate elevation 156 feet)to a depth of approximately 9.5 feet (elevation 146.5 feet). In general, the Fill consists of loose to medium dense, brown, Silt with Sand (ML) and Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM). The sand constituent is typically fine to medium-grained. The soil is generally moist, micaceous and the fines are nonplastic. Three SPT's were attempted in the unit Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 9 which yielded N-values of 7, 9, and 16 blows per foot (bpf). Two natural moisture content analyses performed on samples from the Fill unit indicated moisture contents of 33 and 16 percent. 7.1.1.2 Missoula Flood Fine-Grained Deposits Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits were encountered in boring B-1, below the Fill, at a depth of 9.5 feet(elevation 146.5 feet). In boring B-1, the encountered Fine-grained Deposits were 53.5 feet thick, extending to a depth of 63 feet(elevation 93 feet). In general, the unit consists of interbedded layers of loose to dense, brown, gray-brown and gray, Silty Sand (SM), Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM), and stiff to very stiff, tan-brown to gray, Silt(ML) and Lean Clay (CL). The Silty Sand layers consist of fine to medium sand, nonplastic fines and are micaceous while the Poorly Graded Sand with Silt layers consist of fine to coarse sand, nonplastic fines, and are micaceous. The Silt layers within the unit are generally moist to wet, and low plasticity with occasional trace sand and the Clay layers are moist to wet, and low to medium plasticity. Trace fine gravel was encountered in the Poorly Graded Sand with Silt layer from 27 to 33 feet (elevation 129 to 123 feet) deep, and fine to coarse, subangular gravel was encountered in the Poorly Graded Sand with Silt layer from the depths of 33 to 38 feet (elevation 123 to 118 feet). Thin gravel layers approximately 6-inches thick, were also encountered in boring B-1 at 16.5 feet(elevation 139.5 feet) and 43.5 feet(elevation 112.5 feet). Trace fine organics were also encountered in some samples in boring B-1. SPT N-values in the unit ranged from 10 to 30 bpf and averaged 22 bpf. Natural moisture content analyses ranged from 15 to 29 percent, and averaged 23 percent. One Atterberg limits test indicated a plasticity index of 6, with a USCS designation of ML. Sieve analysis of two specimens indicated fines contents of 12.4 and 49.8 percent by dry weight. 7.1.1.3 Hillsboro Formation Hillsboro Formation was encountered in boring B-1 from a depth of 63 feet (elevation 93 feet)to the terminal depth of the boring at 81.5 feet (elevation 74.5 feet). In general, the unit consists of medium stiff to hard, blue-gray and blue-gray mottled orange-brown Lean Clay(CL) grading to Fat Clay(CH)with varying amounts of sand. The soil is typically moist to wet, medium to high plasticity, and the sand constituent, where present, is fine to medium-grained with occasional localized zones of fine to coarse sand. Slight to moderate iron oxidation was observed in the upper 10 feet of the deposit. Trace amounts of highly weathered to decomposed fine rounded gravel and coarse sand was also observed in the upper 10 feet of the Hillsboro Formation. SPT N-values in the unit ranged from 18 to 40 bpf and averaged 27 bpf. A natural moisture content analysis of one sample yielded a moisture content of 23 percent. An Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 10 Atterberg limits test on one sample indicated a plasticity index of 22, with a USCS designation of CL. 7.2 Anticipated Subsurface Conditions at Existing O&M Building Based on previous explorations SB-1 and SB-2 performed by Squier Associates (1999) at the Solids Processing Building, we anticipate subsurface conditions below the existing O&M Building to be similar to those encountered in boring B-1, with the exception of the Fill thickness. We anticipate the majority of the existing O&M Building is underlain by Missoula Flood Deposits or up to 5 feet of Fill. An exception to this may be the southwest corner of the building which may be underlain by up to 10 feet of Fill. The Squier Associates boring logs do not describe or classify the Fill material encountered in the upper 5 feet. However; we anticipate the material is similar to the Fill material encountered in boring B-1 and generally consists of loose to medium dense, brown sand with varying amounts of silt. The sand is generally fine to medium-grained, and the silt content is nonplastic. The material is likely native onsite material pushed or transported to the area of the O&M Building and used as fill to create the flat terrace on which it currently resides. Based on similarities between the previous explorations and our current explorations we anticipate the Fill is underlain by a thick sequence of Missoula Flood Deposits often referred to as Willamette Silt. The Missoula Flood Deposits are typically fine-grained and consist of loose to dense, and stiff to very stiff, brown and gray, interbedded layers of sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel, lean clay and silt layers with varying amounts of sand, and occasional thin gravel layers. The sand constituent is generally gradationally stratified in fine, fine to medium, and fine to coarse-grained layers. The silt constituent, where present, is typically nonplastic, and the lean clay where present, is typically low to medium plasticity. Underlying the interbedded fine-grained Missoula Flood Deposits at an approximate depth of 59 to 63 feet is the Hillsboro Formation consisting of very stiff to hard, blue-gray to blue-gray mottled orange-brown, silt, lean clay and fat clay with varying amounts of sand. The Hillsboro Formation silt is generally low to medium plasticity and the lean clay and fat clays are generally high plasticity. The sand constituent, where present, is fine or fine to coarse, and gravel when present is fine and often highly weathered to completely decomposed. The Hillsboro Formation was not identified in the previous explorations performed by Squier Associates however; we identified material consistency and color changes described in their logs at 60 feet in boring SB- 1, and 59 feet in boring SB-2,to represent the contact between the overlying Missoula Flood Deposits and the underlying Hillsboro Formation. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 11 7.3 Groundwater Boring B-1 was drilled using mud rotary drilling techniques, which make it difficult to discern the depth to groundwater. No instrumentation or observation wells were installed in the boring. Groundwater level at the site was estimated using observation well data from existing borings 9, 11, 12, and SB-1. Observation well water levels in borings 9, 11, and 12, measured in March 1972, ranged from 28 to 36.5 feet bgs (approximate elevation 129 feet, corrected to North American Vertical Datum of 1988). Observation well water level in boring SB-1, measured in March 1999, was 30 feet bgs (approximate elevation 126 feet). Based on the groundwater level measurements in the observation wells, we used a design groundwater elevation of 129 feet. Groundwater levels at the site may vary with changes in precipitation. Generally, we anticipate groundwater highs in spring or early summer and groundwater lows in the early to mid-fall season, before the onset of significant rainfall. 8.0 SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION 8.1 General Our site-specific seismic hazard evaluations for the proposed new Emergency Operation Center and outdoor area canopies were performed in general accordance with the criteria in the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and 2012 International Building Code (IBC). According to the building codes, the earthquake event for the seismic hazard evaluation is the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) having a 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period, or a 2,475-year return period. The site-specific seismic hazard evaluations for the existing O&M Building were performed in general accordance with the criteria in ASCE 41-13. The project scope of services specifies two seismic hazard levels for evaluation and retrofit of the existing structures. The lower-level (BSE-2E) ground motion is defined as having a 975-year return period (or a 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). The upper-level (BSE-2N) ground motion is defined as having a 2,475-year return period (or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). We evaluated the potential for seismic hazards including strong ground motions, liquefaction and associated effects (ground surface disruption, settlement, lateral spreading, bearing capacity failure, etc.), slope instability, fault rupture, and flooding (i.e. tsunami and seiche). The following sections describe required seismically related hazard evaluations on site. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 12 3HANNON 8.2 Strong Ground Motions For the new proposed structures, the 2012 IBC refers to ASCE's Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010 Edition(ASCE 7-10) for determination of Site Class, and the 2014 OSSC follows the 2012 IBC. For the existing O&M Building, ASCE 41-13 uses the same procedure as ASCE 7-10 for determination of Site Class. In accordance with the site classification criteria in ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13, we recommend using a Site Class D for the site. This classification is based on SPT N-values from borings B-1, SB-1, and SB-2, and the subsurface conditions shown on the boring logs and discussed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The MCE ground motions for the new structures are obtained from the United States Geological Survey's (USGS's) US Seismic Design Maps Web Application, which considers a target risk of structural collapse of 1 percent in 50 years based on structural fragility. Table 2 provides the recommended seismic design parameters for new structures at the site. TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR NEW STRUCTURES Seismic Parameter Recommended Value Site Class D Mapped Zero Period Spectral Acceleration,PGA 0.420g Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 0.959g Mapped 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration,Si 0.418g Zero Period Site Factor,Fpga 1.080 Short Period Site Factor,Fa 1.116 1-Second Period Site Factor,Fv 1.582 Site Adjusted Zero Period Spectral Acceleration,PGAM 0.453g Site Adjusted Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SMS 1.071g Site Adjusted 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SM, 0.662g Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.714g 1-Second Period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDI 0.441g Notes: g=gravity acceleration Spectral values calculated assuming 5 percent structural damping The BSE-2E and BSE-2N seismic hazard level ground motions for the existing structures are also obtained from the USGS's US Seismic Design Maps Web Application. Table 3 provides the recommended seismic design parameters for existing structures at the site. The design vertical response spectrum can be developed by taking two-thirds of the design horizontal response spectral ordinate at each period. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 13 TABLE 3: RECOMMENDED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES Seismic Parameter Hazard Level Hazard Level BSE-2E BSE-2N Site Class D D Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 0.703g 0.959g Mapped 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, Si 0.306g 0.418g Short Period Site Factor,Fa 1.238 1.116 1-Second Period Site Factor,Fv 1.787 1.582 Short Period Design Horizontal Spectral Acceleration, Sxs 0.870g 1.071g 1-Second Period Design Horizontal Spectral Acceleration, Sx1 0.548g 0.662g Zero Period Design Horizontal Spectral Acceleration,0.4Sxs 0.348g 0.428g Notes: g=gravity acceleration Spectral values calculated assuming 5%structural damping 8.3 Liquefaction and Settlement Soils classified as loose, saturated, cohesionless sandy or silty soils with low plasticity are susceptible to liquefaction. Our liquefaction potential assessment for cohesive soils was performed using the recommendations presented in Boulanger and Idriss (2006). Boulanger and Idriss (2006)provided recommendations that fine-grained soils with plasticity indices (PI) greater than 7 would be susceptible to cyclic softening instead of liquefaction. Based on our liquefaction screening, we determined the saturated, loose to medium-dense, low-plasticity silts and sands in the Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits unit are susceptible to liquefaction; refer to evaluation for individual borings described below. Liquefaction is defined as a decrease of the shearing resistance in soils due to the accumulation of excess pore pressures that can result from strong ground motion. During liquefaction, soil experiences a temporary transformation into a viscous state. Liquefaction can result in ground surface disruption, differential ground settlement, foundation bearing capacity failure, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction evaluations were performed for borings B-1, SB-1, and SB-2. Factors of safety (FSL) against liquefaction triggering were calculated in general accordance with the Youd et al. (2001) and Boulanger and Idriss (2014) methodologies for both the 975-year(BSE-2E) and 2,475-year(MCE and BSE-2N) ground motion levels. These methods are based on correlations between SPT N-values,peak ground acceleration(PGA), and earthquake magnitude. For the evaluation of boring B-1, SPT N-values were energy-corrected for a hammer efficiency of 85 percent, based on information we received from the drilling subcontractor. For the evaluations of borings SB-1 and SB-2, SPT N-values were not energy-corrected because no hammer efficiency data was provided. The contribution of earthquake hazards from various seismogenic Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 14 sources was analyzed using the USGS 2008 interactive deaggregation website. At the site, the primary seismogenic sources of the design ground motions are the offshore CSZ and local shallow crustal faults, which each generate approximately 40 percent of the design ground motion hazard. Therefore, we performed a liquefaction analysis for both earthquake sources. For the CSZ under both the 975- and 2,475-year ground motion levels, we used a design earthquake magnitude of 9.0 and a PGA of 0.25g, which was determined by applying the attenuation relationships presented in Youngs et al. (1997) and Atkinson& Boore (2003). For the local crustal source under the 2,475-year ground motion level, we used a design earthquake magnitude of 7.0 and the site-adjusted PGA (PGAM) of 0.45g, as required by the 2014 OSSC for an earthquake on the Portland Hills fault. For the local crustal source under the 975-year ground motion level, we used a design earthquake magnitude of 6.7 and the design PGA (0.4Sxs) of 0.35g, as required by ASCE 41-13. Liquefaction-induced settlement magnitude was estimated using the methods presented in Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). Soils that have a factor of safety against liquefaction of less than 1.1 are considered to potentially liquefy under the given ground motion. The CSZ earthquake is the controlling seismic event at the site under both ground motion levels, with respect to liquefaction. Based on our liquefaction evaluation for boring B-1, the risk of liquefaction at the proposed new Emergency Operation Center is low, in our opinion. However, based on our liquefaction evaluations for borings SB-1 and SB-2, there may be a risk for liquefaction at the existing O&M Building. The total thickness of the potentially liquefiable layers is expected to be approximately 10 feet; however, the liquefiable layers may not be continuous across the entire site. Estimated liquefaction-induced settlement varies from 1 to 2 inches. Liquefaction and settlement effects on the existing O&M Building foundations are discussed in Section 10.2 of this report. 8.4 Other Hazards The risks posed by other seismic hazards at the site are relatively low, in our opinion. The Canby-Molalla fault is mapped approximately 600 feet northeast of the site. However, it is our opinion that the risk of fault rupture directly at the existing O&M Building or proposed new structure is low. Due to the location and topography of the site, it is our opinion that the risk for lateral spread, bearing capacity failure, and slope instability at the site is also very low, and tsunami or seiche at this site are non-hazards. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 15 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 General The subsurface conditions revealed by the previous and current field explorations indicate that the project site contains varying thicknesses of Fill material placed during the development of the site to bring the site up to a level grade and backfill for utility trenches. The Fill is underlain by native loose to dense Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits. The Flood Deposits at the site are underlain by the very stiff Hillsboro Formation. The field explorations also disclosed that groundwater is located at an approximate elevation of 129 feet, or approximately 27 feet below the existing ground surface. The following general conclusions are presented based on the results of our engineering analyses and evaluations. ➢ The site is partially mantled with undocumented fill which may be susceptible to excessive settlement under the new Emergency Operation Center building loads. We encountered approximately 10 feet of fill in our current field exploration at the proposed Operation Center location. However, the fill may extend up to a depth of 15 feet based on the existing utility invert depths. In addition, the two abandoned concrete pipes underneath the proposed building may be at risk for collapse during a major seismic event and soil loss into the pipe over time could result in settlement of the proposed building. We developed multiple foundation alternatives for mitigation against excessive settlement due to the undocumented fill and existing abandoned pipes including: 1) over- excavation of undocumented fill and removal of existing abandoned pipes, backfill with structural fill and support the new building on spread footings and a floor slab, 2) fill existing abandoned pipes with grout and support the building on a single structurally reinforced mat, and 3) grout existing abandoned pipes and support the building on augercast piles. Based on our discussions with the design team and the District, we understand that over-excavating the undocumented fill and supporting the building on spread footings and a floor slab is the preferred mitigation approach. Regardless of the final mitigation approach selected, we recommend the active utilities beneath the proposed building be relocated during construction. ➢ Based on the proposed new Emergency Operation Center location, over-excavation of the undocumented fill and utility removal/relocation will require temporary shoring along the north and east sides of the proposed building to prevent undermining the foundation of the existing O&M Building. A soldier pile wall with lagging may be feasible; however, the solider piles would need to be located between the existing abandoned concrete pipes. In addition, the solider piles would need to be drilled-in due to vibration impacts on the existing adjacent structures. Other"top down" laterally restrained shoring systems that could be used for the excavation shoring are proprietary systems called "Slide Rail" and/or"Shore-Trak". ➢ If the new Emergency Operation Center location is within 10 feet of the existing O&M Building, underpinning of the existing foundations using helical piles or micropiles Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 16 should be considered to mitigate the risk of settlement at the existing building. The further the proposed building can be shifted away from the existing building, the less risk there will be of undesirable foundation settlement at the existing building. However, the proposed building foundations should be located a minimum distance from top of slopes in accordance with OSSC Section 1808.7.2. A discussion of conceptual alternatives to mitigate risk of settlement at the existing O&M Building is presented in Section 9.4. ➢ Foundation systems for the building addition can be supported on a crushed rock pad with a minimum thickness of 12 inches. The crushed rock pad can be constructed from 1 1/2 or% inch minus crushed rock. If 1 1/2 inch crushed minus is used to construct the pads, a 3-inch thick layer of% inch minus leveling coarse layer overlying crushed rock fill. ➢ Foundation systems for new canopies can be supported on firm native soils with a thin layer of 3 inch minus thick crush rock leveling coarse, or with crushed rock pads overlying firm native soils. Due to the potential for undocumented fill at the existing O&M Building, we recommend that for planning purposes, spread footings for the outdoor canopies should be assumed to be supported on crushed rock pads with a minimum thickness of 12 inches. A contingency should be placed in the budget for additional over-excavation. 9.2 Site Preparation and Earthwork 9.2.1 Demolition, Stripping, and Grubbing Demolition includes complete removal of existing site improvements within 5 feet of areas to receive new pavements, footings buildings, retaining walls, or engineered fills. Underground vaults, tanks, manholes, and other subsurface structures should be removed in areas of new improvements. Utility lines and the trench backfill should be completely removed. Voids resulting from removal of existing improvements should be backfilled with compacted structural fill, as discussed in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. The bottom of such excavations should be advanced to expose a firm subgrade before filling and their sides sloped at a minimum of 1 H:1 V to allow for more uniform compaction at the edges of the excavations. Organic material and topsoil should be stripped and removed from all proposed building and pavement areas. Based on our explorations, we anticipate a stripping depth of approximately 3 to 6 inches. Greater depths may be necessary to remove localized zones of organic material. Stripped material should be transported off site for disposal or used as fill in landscaping areas. We recommend that the primary root systems for trees and other vegetation be completely removed. Trees designated for preservation should be clearly marked prior to site stripping, clearing and grubbing. Trees and their root balls should be grubbed to the depth of the roots, which would exceed 3 feet bgs. Depending on the methods used to remove the root balls, Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 17 Y-4-411,N o#ON I •,. considerable disturbance of the subgrade could occur during site clearing and grubbing. We recommend that soil disturbed during clearing and grubbing operations be removed and replaced with structural fill, as described in subsequent sections of this report. 9.2.2 Foundation Subgrade Preparation Excavation and subgrade preparation recommendations are provided in the following paragraphs for various structures. Prior to the placement of structural fill or the construction of foundations and walls, we recommend proof rolling the subgrade with a fully loaded dump truck or similarly sized rubber-tire construction equipment to identify areas of excessive yielding. The proof rolling should be observed by a member of our geotechnical staff or a qualified geotechnical engineer who will evaluate the subgrade. If areas of excessive yielding are identified,the material should be excavated and replaced with compacted granular structural fill. Areas that cannot be accessed with a fully loaded dump truck, such as the base of shored excavations, should be evaluated by probing. Areas that appear to be too wet and soft to support proof rolling equipment should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 9.2.5.3. On native soil subgrade surfaces where the imported crushed rock is to be placed as structural fill or to stabilize soft subgrades, we recommend a non-woven geotextile should be placed as a separation barrier between the soil subgrade and the imported crushed rock. The geotextile material should conform to the requirements in the"Geotextile Fabric" section of this report. Undocumented fill is present across the site. Consequently, we recommend over- excavation of the undocumented fill, removal/relocation of all existing utilities beneath the proposed new Emergency Operation Center, and backfilling with compacted structural fill. Our recommendations for structural fill are presented in Section 9.2.3. All footings should be placed on firm native soils or compacted structural fill over firm native soils. Canopy footings may be placed on firm native soils with crushed rock pads. However, due to the presence of undocumented fill throughout the site, we recommend that a contingency be placed in the budget for over-excavation of undocumented fill at the outdoor canopy footings and replacement of the undocumented fill with crushed rock fill consisting of 3/4-inch minus crushed rock as specified in the 2015 Oregon Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction(ODOT OSSC), Section 02630.10. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 18 1/41 Crushed rock beneath structures should consist of 3/4-inch minus imported, well-graded crushed rock, with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and should be placed and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) on the prepared subgrade. All footing and wall subgrade should be trimmed neat and carefully prepared. Any deleterious, loose or softened material should be removed from the footing excavation prior to placing rebar and/or concrete. We recommend that the footing excavations be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their representative prior to placing steel and concrete to evaluate the suitability of the exposed subgrade, and to verify that the recommendations of this report have been followed and that conditions encountered are as anticipated. All deleterious, soft or unsuitable materials observed by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed and replaced with crushed rock. 9.2.3 Structural Fill This section contains our general recommendations for suitable structural fill material and its placement. Structural fill should only be installed on a subgrade that has been prepared in accordance with the preceding recommendations. Fill material should consist of relatively well- graded soil, or an approved crushed rock product, that is free of organic material and debris and contains no particles greater than 1-1/2 inches in nominal diameter. The suitability of soil for use as compacted structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion finer than the US Standard No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is significantly greater(or significantly less)than optimum. The existing near-surface materials encountered at the site during the previous and current field explorations are generally suitable for placement as structural fill during warm, dry weather when moisture content can be maintained by air drying and/or the addition of water. At the time of the explorations, the in-situ moisture content of the near-surface soil was about 20 to 35 percent, which is about 5 to 20 percent above optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the near-surface soils can be expected to vary depending on the time of year and recent weather conditions. The silt fraction of the near-surface soils is moisture sensitive, and during wet weather, on-site soils may become unworkable because of excess moisture content. In order to reduce Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 19 SHANNON f7t,Alt L.r-4:147,4 moisture content, some discing and drying of the soils may be required. If moisture content of the near-surface soils cannot be reduced by air drying, it may be necessary to use imported well- graded crushed rock such as 3/4- or 11/2-inch minus crushed rock that does not contain more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (ODOT OSSC Section 02630.10). Where the imported crushed rock is used as structural fill, before placing crushed rock, a non-woven geotextile should be placed as a separation barrier between the soil subgrade and the imported crushed rock. The geotextile material should conform to the requirements in"Geotextile Fabric" section of this report. When used as structural fill, on-site soils should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 6 to 8 inches and compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D 1557. Imported crushed rock should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 9 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density(ASTM D 1557). When wet and sensitive subgrade conditions exist, the initial lift should be approximately 18 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted by rolling with a smooth-drum roller without using vibratory action. Where the imported crushed rock is used to stabilize soft subgrades beneath construction haul roads or atop soft subgrade soils, a non-woven geotextile should be placed as a separation barrier between the soil subgrade and the imported crushed rock. The geotextile material should conform to the requirements in Section 9.2.4. 9.2.4 Geotextile Fabric The geotextile fabric used for soil separation should meet the requirements listed in Table 4. TABLE 4: NON WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1 P er tM fid e Grab Tensile Strength ' -Machine Direction Lb ASTM D 4632 113 (min.) -Cross Machine Direction 113 (min.) Grab Elongation % ASTM D 4632 50(min.) Tear Strength Lb ASTM D 4533 41 (min.) Puncture Strength Lb ASTM D 6241 223 (min.) Apparent Opening Size(AOS) -US Standard Sieve In ASTM D 4751 No.30(max.) Permittivity s ' ASTM D 4491 0.05(min.) UV Stability Retained Strength -At 500 hours ASTM D 4355 50(min.) Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 20 9.2.5 Construction Considerations 9.2.5.1 Site Drainage We recommend that all drains be connected to a tightline leading to storm drain facilities. Concrete and gravel surfaces and open-space areas should be sloped such that surface water runoff is collected and routed to suitable discharge points. We also recommend that site grading and drainage structures be designed by the civil engineer to facilitate drainage away from the structures. 9.2.5.2 Cut-and-Fill Slopes It is our opinion that permanent slopes should not be steeper than 2H:1 V. Temporary cut slopes are typically the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. For general guidance, we suggest that temporary construction slopes be made at 1H:1V or flatter, unless otherwise noted. In areas of loose fills, very soft soil, or groundwater seepage, flatter slopes are likely to be required. Subgrade to receive fill on slopes steeper than 5H:1V should be benched prior to placement of fill. 9.2.5.3 Wet Weather Considerations Trafficability on exposed silty subgrades may be difficult during or after extended wet periods. Wet silty soils are easily disturbed and typically provide inadequate support for construction equipment. Proof rolling of fine-grained and silty subgrade should not be performed during wet weather or if wet ground conditions exist. Instead, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing. Soils that have been disturbed during site preparation activities, or soft or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted granular structural fill. The use of granular haul roads or staging areas will be necessary for support of construction traffic on silty subgrades during the rainy season or when the moisture content of the surface soil is more than a few percentage points above optimum. A 12-inch thickness of imported granular material generally should be sufficient for light staging areas, but is generally not expected to be adequate to support heavy equipment or truck traffic. Haul roads and areas with repeated heavy construction traffic should be constructed with a minimum of 24 inches of imported granular material. In addition, we recommend that a non-woven geotextile be placed as a separation barrier between silty subgrade materials and imported granular material in areas of repeated construction traffic. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 21 9.2.5.4 Temporary Shoring and Dewatering Excavations Temporary excavations and trenches are typically the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety guidelines, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. If shoring is used, we recommend that the type and design of the shoring system and dewatering be the responsibility of the contractor, who is in the best position to choose a system that fits the overall plan of operation. Any water collected during dewatering, as well as any excavated soil, should be treated and disposed of in a manner meeting local, state, and federal environmental regulations and requirements, or as determined by Clean Water Services. As mentioned above, based on the proposed new Emergency Operation Center location, over-excavation of the undocumented fill and utility removal/relocation will require temporary shoring along the north and east sides of the proposed building to prevent undermining the foundation of the existing O&M Building. A soldier pile wall with lagging may be feasible; however, the solider piles would need to be located between the existing abandoned concrete pipes. In addition, the solider piles will need to be drilled-in due to potential vibration impacts on the existing adjacent structures from pile driving. Tiebacks will likely be required depending on the structural design of the shoring system. The soldier pile walls should be designed for unyielding wall conditions and at-rest earth pressures. Other"top down" laterally restrained shoring systems that could be used for the excavation shoring are such proprietary systems as "Slide Rail" and/or"Shore-Trak". Based on the estimated groundwater depth at the site and anticipated excavation depth, dewatering may not be required for the temporary excavation. To protect the existing O&M building from an adjacent deep excavation, underpinning of the existing foundations using helical piles or micropiles should be considered to mitigate the risk of settlement at the existing building. The further the proposed building can be shifted away from the existing building,the less risk there will be of undesirable foundation settlement at the existing building. Refer to additional discussion on underpinning in Section 9.4. 9.2.5.5 Erosion Control Soils at the site are moderately susceptible to erosion by surface water. Slopes should be covered with an appropriate erosion control product. Surface water runoff should be collected and directed away from slopes to prevent water from running down the slope face. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 22 t Erosion control measures (such as straw bales, sediment fences, and temporary detention/settling basins) should be used in accordance with local ordinances. Erosion control measures to be installed and maintained during construction, and removed after the completion of construction, should be the responsibility of the Contractor. 9.3 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations 9.3.1 General We understand the proposed new Emergency Operation Center will be supported on spread footings and a floor slab. The proposed outdoor area canopies will be supported on spread footings. We assumed the allowable settlements for the proposed structures are approximately 1 inch. In all cases, the width of any foundation element should not be less than 24 inches. We recommend that exterior foundations be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade to lie below maximum seasonal frost penetration depths. We recommend that interior foundations have a minimum embedment of 12 inches. The following sections present geotechnical recommendations for foundation design, including allowable soil bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, estimated settlement, and lateral resistance. 9.3.2 Emergency Operation Center Subgrade preparation for the Emergency Operation Center footings and floor slab should follow our recommendations in Section 9.2. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf be used to proportion the footings underlain by crushed rock pads with a minimum thickness of 12 inches. Foundations on firm native soils may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The allowable bearing pressure recommended above is based on, and limited by, a maximum allowable settlement of 1 inch. For these soils, the settlement is expected to occur as the loads are applied. For structural fill overlain by 6 inches of 3/4 inch minus compacted crushed rock and prepared as recommended in Section 9.2.2, a resulting composite subgrade modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch(pci) is recommended for slab-on-grade design. Settlement of floor slabs supporting the anticipated design loads and constructed as recommended is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2 inch. Vapor barriers are often required by flooring manufacturers to protect flooring and flooring adhesives. Many flooring manufacturers will warrant their product only if a vapor barrier is installed according to their recommendations. Selection and design of an appropriate vapor barrier(if needed) should be based on discussions among members of the design team. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 23 of The soil resistance available to withstand lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional resistance, which can develop on the base of the footing, and the partial soil passive resistance, which is assumed to be about 50 percent of full soil passive resistance. We recommend that an allowable partial soil passive pressure, 190d psf(where d is depth of the embedment of the bottom of footing), be used for design of sliding and overturning resistance. The allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4. The top 12 inches of soil should not be used in calculating passive resistance, as construction and post-construction activities often disturb this upper material. The Emergency Operation Center footings should be located a minimal distance from the top of slopes in accordance with OSSC Section 1808.7.2 in order to use the allowable bearing pressures mentioned above. OSSC Section 1808.7.2 states that the minimum set back distance, as measured from the face of the footing horizontally to the surface of the slope, should be one- third of the slope height. If the footings cannot be located the required minimum distance from the slope, a reduction in allowable bearing pressure needs to be determined. 9.3.3 Building Addition Subgrade preparation for the building addition footings should follow our recommendations in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" Section of this report. If new building footings will be structurally isolated from the existing building, the footing recommendations found in the "Outdoor Area Canopies" Section may be used. However, if the footings for the new addition will be structurally connected to the existing building, we recommend proportioning the footings for 1,500 psf and constructing footings on a minimum of 1 foot of crushed rock with a non-woven separation geotextile on the subgrade to reduce the amount of differential settlement between the new and existing building. The crushed rock should extend at least 2 feet horizontally beyond the outside edge of the footings, and extend through any undocumented fill to firm native soils, which may exceed depths of 12 inches. Crushed rock beneath footings should consist of 3/4- or 11/2-inch minus crushed rock. If 1 1/2 inch minus crushed rock is used, a 3 inch thick layer of 3/4 inch minus leveling coarse should be used on top of the 1 1/2 minus material. The soil resistance available to withstand lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional resistance, which can develop on the base of the footing, and the partial soil passive resistance, which is assumed to be about 50 percent of full soil passive resistance. We recommend that an allowable partial soil passive pressure of 150d psf(where d is depth of the embedment of the bottom of footing), be used for design of sliding and overturning resistance. The allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.40. The Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 24 top 12 inches of soil should not be used in calculating passive resistance, as construction and post-construction activities often disturb this upper material. For structural fill overlain by 6 inches of 3/4 inch minus compacted crushed rock and prepared as recommended in the "Foundation Subgrade Preparation" Section, a resulting composite subgrade modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch(pci) is recommended for slab-on- grade design. Settlement of floor slabs supporting the anticipated design loads and constructed as recommended is not expected to exceed approximately 1/4 inch. As discussed in the ""Shallow Foundation Design, Emergency Operations Center" Section, vapor barriers are often required by flooring manufacturers to protect flooring and flooring adhesives. Many flooring manufacturers will warrant their product only if a vapor barrier is installed according to their recommendations. Selection and design of an appropriate vapor barrier(if needed) should be based on discussions among members of the design team. 9.3.4 Outdoor Area Canopies Subgrade preparation for the outdoor canopy footings should follow our recommendations in Section 9.2. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf be used to proportion the footings founded on firm native soils or crushed rock over firm native soils. The allowable bearing pressure recommended above is based on, and limited by, a maximum allowable settlement of 1 inch. Crushed rock beneath footings should consist of 3/4- or l'/2-inch minus crushed rock. If 1 '/2 inch minus crushed rock is used, a 3-inch thick layer of 3/4 inch minus leveling coarse should be used on top of the 1 '/2 minus material. The soil resistance available to withstand lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional resistance, which can develop on the base of the footing, and the partial soil passive resistance, which is assumed to be about 50 percent of full soil passive resistance. We recommend that an allowable partial soil passive pressure, 150d psf(where d is depth of the embedment of the bottom of footing), be used for design of sliding and overturning resistance. The allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35. The top 12 inches of soil should not be used in calculating passive resistance,as construction and post-construction activities often disturb this upper material. The outdoor canopy footings should be located a minimum distance from the top of slopes in accordance with OSSC Section 1808.7.2 in order to use the allowable bearing pressures mentioned above. If the footings cannot be located the required minimum distance from the slope, a reduction in allowable bearing pressure needs to be determined. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 25 9.4 Conceptual Settlement Mitigation Alternatives for Existing O&M Building If the new Emergency Operation Center location is within 10 feet of the existing O&M, there may be a risk for settlement at the existing building due to potential undocumented fill underlying the existing building foundations. In our opinion, settlement at the existing building could be mitigated by underpinning the building using micropiles or helical pull-down anchors. Considering the site subsurface soil conditions, the underpinning elements should penetrate through the Fill and be founded in the medium dense Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits located at approximately 27 feet below the existing ground surface. A micropile is a small-diameter, drilled, and grouted pile with steel reinforcement. Typical construction sequence for a micropile is to advance a small-diameter(typically 6 inches or less) permanent steel casing to the top of the prescribed bearing layer by means of a sacrificial cutting shoe or pneumatic air rotary system advanced within the casing. Drilling then continues past the casing tip into the embedment stratum, or bond zone. After drilling is complete, a reinforcement bar is inserted to the full depth of the hole and grout is pumped into the hole, usually by gravity or pressure-grouting methods. The micropiles should extend a minimum of 10 feet into the medium dense Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits. For each micropile (6-inch diameter bond zone, 10-foot bond zone in medium dense sand,pressure-grouted micropile), we estimate the micropiles can provide an allowable geotechnical compressive resistance on the order of 50 kips. Helical pull-down anchors are a proprietary micropile-type system. A screw anchor is advanced into the soil by applying torque to the shaft. The helical shape of the bearing plates on the anchor creates a pulling force that keeps the anchor advancing downward. A lead displacement plate is mounted on the anchor, above the bearing plates. As the displacement plate is pulled downward, soil is forced outward to create a cylindrical void around the shaft. Grout is pumped into this void as the displacement plate and helical anchor are advanced, encapsulating the shaft. Typical displacement plate diameters are up to 6 inches. For this application, the helical anchor should have relatively large (10- to 14-inch) diameter bearing plates. We anticipate the bearing plates would be founded on the medium dense Missoula Flood Fine-grained Deposits. For each helical pull-down anchor, we estimate the helical pull-down anchors can provide an allowable geotechnical compressive resistance on the order of 30 to 50 kips. The helical anchor capacity will be a function of the depth and installation methods used. The final helical anchor capacity should be determined by the helical anchor specialty contractor and verified by the design team in the field based on load testing and the torque required to advance the anchor. We recommend helical pull-down anchor types of underpinning as the recommended mitigation approach to utilize the end bearing from the medium dense Missoula Flood Fine-grained Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 26 Deposits below a depth of 27 feet, and to reduce the depth of the underpinning elements. Additionally, in comparison with the micropiles, the helical pull-down anchor type of underpinning has the benefits of quicker and easier installation, capacity verification through installation torque, lower cost, no drilling waste/spoils, and typically smaller installation equipment. The helical anchors may be structurally connected to the existing foundation by means of an enlarged footing or a structural bracket attached to the existing footing. 10.0 EXISTING FOUNDATION RESISTANCE 10.1 General We used the available subsurface information and as-constructed plans to estimate soil seismic parameters for structural evaluation of the existing O&M Building foundations, in general accordance with ASCE 41-13. As previously mentioned,the existing building columns are supported on 3-to 5-foot square footings, and grade beams and walls are generally supported on 2-foot wide strip footings. In general,the spread footings are founded at an elevation of 154.4 feet with an approximate embedment of 18 inches. 10.2 Liquefaction and Settlement Effects Based on our site-specific seismic hazard evaluation,there may be a risk for liquefaction at the existing O&M Building. The total thickness of the potentially liquefiable layers is expected to be approximately 10 feet; however, the liquefiable layers may not be continuous across the entire site. Estimated liquefaction-induced settlement varies from 1 to 2 inches. Based on our liquefaction evaluation and as-constructed information for the existing building foundations, the depth to liquefiable material below existing spread footings varies from approximately 20 to 30 feet. Ishihara(1985) examined several earthquake case studies and looked at which sites had experienced liquefaction-induced ground surface disruption. In general, little harm to existing structures occurs unless liquefaction generates some form of ground surface disruption or ground failure. Based on the thickness of liquefied soil layers and thickness of soil (crust) above the liquefied soil, criteria was established to identify conditions causing or not causing ground surface disruption. According to the Ishihara criteria, anticipated thickness of the potentially liquefiable layers, and depth to liquefiable material below the foundations, the existing building spread footings are not likely to be damaged. Therefore, although our evaluation indicates that liquefaction-induced settlement up to 2 inches may occur under the existing O&M Building foundations, the thickness of the non-liquefiable layer below the structure foundations may be enough such that no foundation damage (including damages that affect life safety) occurs. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 27 10.3 Bearing Resistance We estimated the ultimate bearing resistance for existing spread footings by evaluating the strength parameters from the available subsurface information and performing a conventional spread footing evaluation. For this evaluation, the footings are assumed to be founded within loose to medium dense Silty Sand above the groundwater table. The ultimate bearing resistance is provided in Table 5, attached at the end of this report text. 10.4 Sliding Resistance Sliding resistance for a spread footing may be developed through friction on the base of the footing and passive earth pressures on the face of the footing. The ultimate friction resistance can be expressed as the vertical load(i.e., actual footing pressure)multiplied by a coefficient of friction(tan 6). Sliding resistance generated by the lateral passive earth pressure acting on the face of the footing can be assumed to be developed if the footing is free to translate horizontally. If movement of the footing is limited, the earth pressure resistance values should be reduced to reflect the reduced footing movement based on ASCE 41-13. We estimated the ultimate frictional sliding coefficient for the footings; the results are presented in Table 5 in terms of tan 6. The passive earth pressures we developed are also presented in Table 5 in terms of equivalent fluid pressure and depth of footing (D, in feet). These earth pressure values may be used to estimate the lateral resistance of footings. We present the equivalent fluid pressure for both static and seismic cases; the passive earth pressures are not additive, i.e., use only the seismic passive earth pressure (EFPpE) for seismic cases. 10.5 Lateral Earth Pressures The lateral earth pressures on an embedded footing, including resistance/stiffness and seismically induced loads, are a function of footing displacement. If the footing is allowed to displace (typically 2 percent of the embedded footing height), the lateral earth pressures may be developed assuming active pressures as a load and full passive pressure as a resistance. If the footing is restrained from moving, seismically induced loads increase, and the passive resistances decrease. If a footing is allowed to displace less than 2 percent, the earth pressures should be calculated using the full seismic acceleration coefficient(as opposed to one-half of the acceleration coefficient used for footings that are allowed to freely displace), and passive resistance should be taken as a portion of the full value. We assume that the soil surrounding the various footings will be allowed to displace at least 2 percent of the embedded footing height and therefore mobilize full active and passive lateral Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 28 :,HANN( ` earth pressures. The earth pressure parameters we developed for the existing spread footings are presented in Table 5, attached at the end of this report. 11.0 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist—or as they existed at the time of previous borings by others —and further assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the current and previous explorations. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are encountered or appear to be present during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of construction at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural forces or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we recommend that we review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. These conclusions and recommendations were based on our understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as observed at the time of our explorations and site conditions from the referenced subsurface information. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples from test borings. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Clean Water Services and their design team for the design of the portions of the Durham AWWTF Operations & Maintenance Building Expansion project covered in this report. The data and report should be provided to the contractors for their information, but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions included in this report. The scope of our present services did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 29 24-1-03989-003 surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site, or for the evaluation or disposal of contaminated soils or groundwater should any be encountered. Shannon& Wilson, Inc., has prepared and included Appendix D, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report,"to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports. SHANNON& WILSON,INC. PROA- �g <ei-GINFFsI', 7, OP. v_ r' O' -GON <-`O✓Qh. 7 10 2pgb TT CARL Mk LXPf REs: 4 14°".7 (4L Elliott C. Mecham, PE Jerry Jacksha, PE, GE Associate I Engineer Senior Associate I Geotechnical Engineer cc: Clinton Ambrose,ABHT Structural Engineers Jean Von Bargen Root, MWA Architects, Inc. Randy Naef, Clean Water Services ECP/CKS/ECM:JLJ/aeb Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 30 12.0 REFERENCES Allen, J.E., Burns, M., and Burns, S., 2009, Cataclysms on the Columbia: The Great Missoula Floods (2d ed.): Portland, Ore., Ooligan Press, 204 p. Allison, I.S., 1978, Late Pleistocene sediments and floods in the Willamette Valley,pt. 1: Oregon department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Ore Bin, V.40, no. 11,p.177-191. ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 2013 ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010 Atkinson, G.M. and Boore, D.M., 2003, Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction- Zone Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93,No. 4,pp. 1703-1729. Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M., 2014, CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures: Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, University of California at Davis,April 2014. Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M., 2006, Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, v. 132, no. 11, p. 1413-1426. Dames & Moore, "Soils Investigation, Proposed Tualatin River Sewage Treatment Plant," Prepared for Stevens, Thompson& Runyan, Inc., 1972. Gannett, G.W., Caldwell, R.R, 1998; Geologic Framework of the Willamette Lowland Aquifer System, Oregon and Washington, Professional Paper 1424-A. Goldfinger, C. and others, 2012, Turbidite Event History—Methods and Implications for Holocene Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661-F, 184 p. HDR Engineering, "As-Constructed Plans for Durham Support Facility," 1993-1996. International Building Code, 2012 Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, v. 32, no. 1, March,pp. 173-188. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., 1985, Proceedings, v. 1, pp. 312-376. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 31 Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake-Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-90-2, scale 1:24,000, 21 p. O'Connor, J.E., Sarna-Wojcicki, A., Wozniak, K.C., Polette, D.J., and Fleck, R.J., 2001, Origin, Extent, and Thickness of Quaternary Geologic Units in the Willamette Valley, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1620. Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction, current edition 2015 (ODOT, OSSC, edition 2015). Oregon Structural Specialty Code, 2014 Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 875, Oatfield fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:06 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 715, Beaverton fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:13 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 716, Canby-Molalla fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:15 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2012, Fault number 877, Portland Hills fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:19 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 876, East Bank fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:21 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 717,Newberg fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:23 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 879, Damascus-Tickle Creek fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:40 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 718, Gales Creek fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:44 AM. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 32 iNc Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 714, Helvetia fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:46 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2012, Fault number 873, Mount Angel fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:49 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 880, Lacamas Lake fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 10:55 AM. Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 878, Grant Butte fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 11:06 AM. Personius, S.F., and Nelson, A.R., compilers, 2006, Fault number 781, Cascadia subduction zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 01/19/2016 11:10 AM. Rittenhouse-Zeman&Associates, Inc., "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Durham AWWTP Chemical Expansion," Prepared for HDR Engineering, 1991. Schlicker, H.G. and Deacon, R.J., 1967, Engineering Geology of the Tualatin Valley region, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin B-60, 103 p., 5 app., 45 figs., 5 tables, 4 pls., scale 1:48,000. Squier Kleinfelder, Inc., "TM-11 Geotechnical Investigation, Part 2: Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Durham Facility Phase 4 Expansion,"Prepared for MWH, Inc., 2004. Squier Associates, "Project Memorandum—Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Solids Processing Building Seismic Evaluation, Geotechnical Analysis and Recommendations," 1999. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987. "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking."ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113,No. 8,August 1987. USGS, 2008, Interactive Deaggregation, accessed 14 January 2016, from USGS Custom Mapping and Analysis Tools Website: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. Waitt, R.B., 1985, Case for Periodic, Colossal Jokulhlaups from Pleistocene Glacial Lake Missoula: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, no. 10,p. 1271-1286. Wells, R. E., Weaver, C. S., and Blakely, R. J., 1998, Fore arc migration in Cascadia and its neotectonic significance; Geology, v. 26,p. 759-762. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 33 SH , z i fit= Wilson, D.C., 1998, Post-middle Miocene geologic evolution of the Tualatin Basin, Oregon: Oregon Geology, v. 60, no. 5. Youd, T. L.; Idriss, I. M.; Andrus, R. D.; and others, 2001, Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, v. 127, no. 10,p. 817-833. Youngs, R.R., Chiou, S.-J., Silva, W.J., and Humphrey, J.R., 1997, Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1,pp. 58-73. Durham AWWTF O&M Building Geotech Report 24-1-03989-003 34 TABLE 5: RECOMMENDED UNFACTORED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SPREAD FOOTINGS Approx.Footing Total Ultimate °°L,ateral Earth Pressures(psi) Friction Cohesion, Elev.(ft) Unit Ault Sliding (depth below 'Soil Type Weight, Angle,Q► c (PSt3 Coeff., ground surface,ft) y(pet) (degrees) (Psi) tan 8 dEFP6 aEFPe dEFPP ®,fAEFFoE B;fAEFFsE f'gE)EPpE 154.4 Loose to medium 31D 14D 308D (1.5) dense Silty Sand 115 30 -- 4,000 0.35 58D 38D 345D [40D] [18D] [299D] Notes: * Groundwater is assumed to be at an elevation of 129 feet. a. Soil type refers to bearing material for footings. b. Bracketed seismic values represent the BSE-2N(2,475-yr return period)hazard level(kh=0.214 g for active and passive cases,and 0.428 g for at-rest case),unbracketed values represent the BSE- 2E(975-yr return period)hazard level(kh=0.174 g for active and passive cases,and 0.348 g for at-rest case). c. D is the minimum embedment of a footing measured from the ground surface to the bottom of the footing. d. Static lateral equivalent fluid pressures-Assume a triangular pressure distribution. e. Incremental seismic equivalent earth pressures for active and at-rest cases-Assume an inverted triangular pressure distribution. f Seismic lateral equivalent fluid pressures for active and at-rest cases are incremental values and should be added to static values to estimate total seismic pressures. Passive seismic lateral equivalent fluid pressure is given as a total pressure. g. Seismic passive lateral equivalent fluid pressure-Assume a triangular pressure distribution. 24-1-03989-003 APPENDIX A SELECTED PROVIDED DRAWINGS AND BORING LOGS 24-1-03989-003 •P..1, \ \ \ \ O O O T !0\ m m m E 21,500 -�- x -�- F,1\ \\\i�1 /��/'\i(\` \� l� yIz_ z �Y\��77EY✓� „o \\\,// � - , i / i T �Y 111 / / II/ " 11 /PROPOSED I I/ / SURGE I I / / \ I I / BASIN L / I PROPOSED SURGE BASINS AVE...SA RESERVOIR /ES` -120-- TDP OF ` L �/ 1\ II 1\ 1 / \ THE DIKE ELEVATION INS / I WHIM WATER LEVEL.... ELEVATION 145 • ` I�1 \ \ I \ BOTTOM AT TOE OF SLOPE. . ELEVATION 132 • -�` '-.4-.23..C.:33.71BOTTOM AT CENTER OF BASIN. ELEVATION 126 U0.\r- ,`1NG I \ \\ \ \\ DIRE OUTSIDE SLOPES TO BE 3(x0u.);1 NEAT.) F \1 1 \ IfI 1 1 1 • ) \ \ \ \ / ONCE A DAY,OVER A 12 HWR PERIOD THE WATER LEVEL WILE BE DROPPED • 1 1 NP..I i __Y�-� \ �.5 , \6.._// • FROM ELEVATION 145 70 132. :II1 __ �1 PTRIODICAILY,MINS AND RESERVOIR WILL BE COMPLETELY EMPTIED FOR II`�bJ•)� —X,-.�-\-1�\ . \2' CLEANING_ETC, 11 I/ _ BORING 2-N•s\ \ �'- -1\ Illi 1 /1/ �- ��\ \ \\ `r�_T1,LSP��. BORING 3 PROPOSED MIN TREATMENT COWL. \\ IIP i I I \\` \\ - I-• LS:1r \C SCHEDULED FINAL ELEVATIONS-FT. 1 I I'II j I l PROPOSED SURGE BASIN \ -'•(_r EAO \\ \ UNIT I III III \ \\ r I PROPOSED \\\ A e i 0 E I111 I / 1 I /"\\ \ I BACKWASH \ \ OPERATING WATER LEVEL 154 15/ 1595 162 165 HI / I 1 I \ I RESERVOIR A\.-\\\ \ BOTTOM GRADE AT SIDES 139 142 166 142 153 I I II (° I 1 I BORING 15 \\\�I \ / \\ BOTTOM MADE AT CENTER 136 139 145 142 148 }II 1 11 1 \ \ 1 ' ` \\\ OTS IDE FINAL GRADE TO BE APPROXIMATELY TIDAL TO EXISTING LMOE E 21,000 4 1 i i 1�,'ii`; ,— \\ ` __J• ‘,--4---- A— A/' \`\\ PAOPDSC011:CINfMTM BUILDING I I /4P. I \ rT_ ',__ y —�1• moi/ `,\\ \ 60 TEES NICK STRUCTURE RAVING 3 FLOOR LEVELS MS BASEMENT STAB 1 7 / I \ \ BORING 4 \ \ \\\ BASEMENT FINISHED FLOOR GRADE--ELEVATION 126 / A / 7 I \i \ \ X \\\ \ OUTSIDE FINAL GRADE--APPROX....1'EXISTING GRADE "- / /// / /i I i A \ �\ \\ u N‘\ PERIMETER.LL LOADS.8.]5 KIPS PER FOOT \ \ INTERIOR UNITS: /��A46 /1 \\ \ \\ I� ) 2 INCINERATORS,EACH TEEN.OCCUPYING A 20'M INCINERATOR AREA, / j \ \ \ 1 SUPPORTED ON 8 PIERS MCN, EACH INCINERATOR IMPOSES - ' / / L ' \`\ 1 \ \I�\\ 2750 KIPS. C - o i / /// ` \\ ^� \�\ e) LIME STODGE TANXS(STEEL),EACH OCCUPYING A 20. I -- '; ....... - / \ / \ (\ � BORING 5��\�\ FULDIAL,EACH AREA,SUPPORTED 0Y 6 i0 R PIERS FALx, WHEN G 1 1 I /// /--.- \/ \ \ /,R'� \ ;\\\ FULL,MCH TANX IMPOSES 200 KIPS. \ 1 I / 77---'- /- ----155 ... \ .SA. \ \\ \ c) LIQUID RETAINING BASIN OCCUPYING A 20'r 50'ARM. F�-4d �\, \\ \ TOTAL UNIT L0.10 WHEN FULL-1.3 RIPS P[0.MANE TOOT. \ 1 �� i BORING 6 \N \ / / \:� \\\\\ Q \ \ i // \''N.. // \\ \ \\,\ FYI.STATION = 1 \ 1 I // ` ,.-.2 - AQ `\ \\ \\`\\ SOTTO SLAB FLEVAT ION 89 `\\ 11 1 / / -�_ \\\\ / / • \ \ \ FINAL OUTSIDE GRADE ELEVATION 129 O / / - / _\\ I/\/..'3., \ . \\\,,\ INTERCEPTER SEVER INVERT..FIFVRTION 100 I I 1 1 \ //� ���]�/ 1/�\ BORING 7 \\\` ' ' I;E ---_ \\ /" —IGD-- \,i / \~ \` \\\ \\�X\ \\ / I va j \\ j j 1 / \\� PROPOSED MAIN TREATMENT COMPLEX \\ PROPOSE° \\X\\\ BORING 13 1 / / \ \ T - ^�\ INCINERATOR \ \\ \ • E 20,500 - / 1/ I/+/ \\``\ \ ^\ \ � �T I / \ CSS \ C �\�` , \\ \\\\\ \\\ IRO-. // / /N. \d I \\\\\ 4:BORING 8 /-< \ \\ \\`/ \ \/. --/----BORING\E \‘‘.,.'\‘‘'.\.Y0' i 1 \R\ I C- \ \.\ \r\ / \ // \\\ BORING 9 \ \\ \\ I 1 Ill i LI\ fi�' \\I 1 I- \\ \ BORING 10 \ ® /\\\ \\\ \\\ \\I nth 1 I I 1 1 \�I j "no. + '/ / \ / \ \\ \\\ /I //Ii j w 1 \\\\ \ V `\ \\ 1 %r/ii/ i/ I BORING 14 1 \\ sZ ( Q / BORING II \ _ \ / 7 / 7l \1 I 1 i60 \\ / 1 7/ ///// / \ `\\ 1 r 1 \ / L J j / I / I 1 ,/,//,/,',/' PROPOSED. / \1 / j / / 1 / / �/ i/ PUMP STATION/ \ / // I 1 E20,000 -I- \\\ -I- S.W. 85TH AVE. \\ ,+ 1 // ____+\ L- ,-/ i%I II - + n REFERENCE. OMVING BY STEVENS,TNOMPSOM PAD RUNYRN,INC. FEET NOTE, PLOT PLAN FILE WADER P780.042 100 0 100 P00 NO DATE OOHING LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED IT SifSENS,THOMPSON G RUNTAN,INC. 0AM.8 all MOORBI • • 165 BORING 8 ELI051IQN 162 1114 OADt AWN FINE SANDY SILT TOPSOIL(ROOTS TO 3'•) 160BRWII FIHESANDYSILT(SHO UN OFNSE) BORING 9 SAW COMFIrt INCREASES 160 ELEVATION 158t I55 BORING 10"A 86 ■ I • LIGNI SAWN SILTY EINE AND VERY FINE SAND 060111/1 DENSfJ Ili!: 1117���(+ DAM B0.WN FILIE ONION SILT TOPSOIL(ROOTS TO 5')157 BRWNFl n•ESAVOYSILT(MS 001OENSFJELEVATION 1521155 SILTCOMEM IlICRMSES1MIM OAM BRWN FINE:01 Y SILT TOP50116 150 11111111/BRWNFINEArAVILT("""DENSE) IS'/.-95 ■ 31%•85 ■ BgOJNSILTYFIXESANG(HEDIUNDEIgE)COLORTO LIGMRWN 1S0 1 f 150---— _ LIGM BRWN SILTY FINE A15}VE0.Y FINE SAIW(MEDIUM OENSFJ 32/-R6 = 111i1��'®BROWN SILTY FINEAND(HEDIUN 0E00 TO 0050 w 11 145 9"THltk DYER OF BRbVN FINE SAIAY SIL1(Ht) u If/,-103 13 . 111111{1 MOND Ell%SANDY SILT GMpl1IG i0 SILTY FIFE RANO(XEDIDM DENSE) 10 19%-IOo ■ LIGHT BROW'SILTY FINE AIA VERY FINE SAND 0001 DENSE) 145 B § town FINE TO NFDIUM 54A9 LITH SONE SILT(DENSE) ,ywi 145 ITA- • 0 p 19-a-101 ■ 6 IJ Z 140 6"THICK DYER OF LIGHT B0.WN FINE SANDY SILT(XL) w 8],-103 • 13 16%-104 9 Z IBA-103 ■ ■ 140 '}HICk UYE0.DFioiraN f1 NF SAIAY SILT(ML) Ou• ND[O LFS OF SILT ~ 1406"TN ICKDYER DF BRpVII FINE SgNDY SILT16olltu G'TNICK UYE0.Di M BRWN FINE SgNDY SILT w (HL) 211/'-lo) ■ GRADES VtIN ND[KETS Of NFDIUM SAW (NL) I175 IIT.-109 ■ IOIIIZ w232-100 ■ SILT COMEM INCREASES 135 WWI BRWN EINE SANGRTMHCkLAYER OF nil FINE II SILT(ML) 9"TNICK LAYER OF SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SANG(SN) I I pli naWN 175 71 ■ ll aid GRAYISH 009M FINE TO MEDIUM SAIA WITH SOME COARSE SAND(MEDIUM DEME) B FINE sago(ofxsE) 1 130 14/•95 1■ COLOR TO LRAM BRp2r1 (9A-103 2'•TRICK LAVER OF LIGHT BROWN FINE SANDY SILT(NL) 110 19 LIONS BROWN FINE SAND(DENTE) 2^THICK LIVER OF LIGM B0.WIN FINE SANDY SILT(XL) 130 GRADIS TO BRWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SANS WNW 1 125 ■ ® 6MY15N GANDHI Xf01VH SgND WITX SOME COARSE SAND(DEME) 16-(.-102 I. E1E® • LATER LEVEL(3-16•)1) HAM LEVEL I A5URF0 3-I)-]2 THROUGH 7-26-]2) 3pd-9D I 6"TNIfK LAVER Of LIGM BM,OR FINE SAIAY SILT(MO 125 .rail■ C 9 III IN II 6"/HICK DYER OF WWI FIM SANDY SILT(XL) 125 pp•[SWAATEtRy�MEE�Lp(93p-14p-]11 ■ ®G C8A0.5EOSR1lDYLOMFM011KM�p5E5 AND COARSE SAND MEMO 11111 6"THICK UYE0.OF LIGM BROWN VERY FINE SAVOY SILL(ML) BORIW TERMINATED AT SCNEWLFD Df PTX 3.17.31 IO 120 234-93 ■ I' 6^THICK UYSS Of LIGM BRWN FIM SANS;SILT(MLJ 120 PCRFOMTEp PLASTIC PIPE INSTALLfO TO fLEVAi ION 1251 EOR MORE VATFR Oil LIGM B0.gIN FIRE SPAT SILT 10 SILTY FINE SAW II1`II)II LIDO BROW SILTY FIRE Sq NO(MEDIUM Df ME) CEITI OBSERVATIONS(EWER 5 FEET PEEFOMTEOI y['S1{1�J ION -. ■ H2 115M BROWN FINE SAND(MFDIAl 5511E1 115 BOR00 TE RMI1100 AT SCHEDULED DEPTX 3-14-32 $0506 TERMINATED AT SCHEDULES DEPTH 3-16•0 P LEVEL OBSERVES HOLM(LOOSE IN'PERFOMCFD)AENONNAIST OBSERVED-IN TOT PIPE ON 3-26-31 • 0E0 .—INDICATES UNDISTURBED SAMLE 0+080100955 DISTURBED SAMPLE FIELD MOISTURE EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF TIN DAT YATES: VEIGM Of THE SOIL I) DISCUSSIONS 111 TOEOR A RE TEXT OF THIS REPO}AqE 3 RSA IN-SITU DRY OEN5101 EXPRESSED IN 505055 PER CUBIC FOOT NECESSANY ■65-INDIUTES NUMER OF 01045 REQUIRED TO DRIVE DANES s POORE TYPE-U SUBSURMCEFCONDITI OIC STOIII EO BY OPEN UNDERSTANDING WINGS, ■ SAMPLER WE FOOT WITH BOO POUND WEIGHT FALLING 24 INCHES WHERE NO rNMBER IS SNW11,SAMPLING IMERFENCE PREVENTED 2) THE BORING LOGS DEPICT SUBSURFACE CIXA Ii IOM OBTAINING A RELIABLE[DURA, ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING LOCATIONS AND OH AT OTHER OTHERS LOCATIONS DESIGNATED. DIFFER EFROM CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED AT THESE BORING IOCATIWS, ALSO, DIE PASSAGE OF TIM MT RESULT IN A CHANGE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS,IN PMTIMAR OWNS WATER CONDITIONS,AT THESE MINS LOCATIONS, 7) S W 106 SVFACE Fl V THOUS MRf PROYIOED By TEYix7, DNPSpNEGAgDx.AN•1x1 LOG OF BORINGS pNl■MINi 16 MOOR■ BORING 10 165 ELEVATION 1641 I111..4NI ,I,DARK BROWN FINE SANDY ELMS SILT TOPSOIL(ROOTS TO 3 TO 4") 165 BOR LNG I I BROWN FINE SAVE SILT(NEDIUR DENSE) I 160 ELEVATION 1613 DAIt BRWN FIRE MIRY f ILi TOPSOIL(0.WT5 TO 3") 111,-93 ■ lira LIGHT DAWN SILTY FINE SANo(MEDIUM DENSE) 160 111111111 MWN FINE SANDY SILT 5O OIUN OFNSf) 155 I I II/{(II 4 TO 6'•[NICK LATER OF BRdaN FINE$ANDY SILT(MLI 6 III 'f LIGHT60006 SILTY FINE ARTVERY FINE0020(NEDIUN DENSE) 33086 ■ IIII3I�a B0.0t'N FINE furor CIAVEY SILT(STIFF) �; ISL-100 • ® 155 lik GRADES i0 LIEo BPWN SILTY FINE.00.X0(NEOIUN OEI:SE1 155 BORING 12 150 _ 1 ■ FIEVi•X131 iN & ,rry, BRWN HFOIUN TO COARSE SAND VITH SOME GRAVEL(DE011M DENSE) 150 ....ell 44M BRWN FINE SANDY SILT TOPSOIL(DOLTS TO j") �I 14]..ID4 Y.W IH0r RRpp,AIII��55��TTYY FF������FF yy 01UMS) E SgNOY 0 LT(f OFT TO HELIN )ISO 50X0[OMEN INCREASES3 IIIIIIII�) Z331-B1• - :34E $[ •WE i0 Y.EDIUM SAND V (05 ) LGM BgWN LTY FIRE AFD yfaT F LIEZp L SI�yr� 1135 9"THICK LAYER p{SILTY SAA9(SX) T CONTENT INCREASES I1/.-II 1� I3t-I03 • 135 1111 BRWN nEDIUN AND COA0.5f SANG(DENSE) 135 �' GRADES TO GRAY Apo DARK B0.W11 MEOIUX AND COARSE SAN iJ IIIII)I 6"THICK LAYER OF LIGHT BRONX FIRE SANDY SILT(MLI D(HEDI 130 z1/.-I01 ~ 1� i 14 ■ if. )-Ipi 6"THICK IAYE0.OF LIGHT 065(SILT 111.-95 • Il0 Z f I B.1WX FIRM AIBi VEAY FINE LAND Z I 111 (Rf01 L11 DENSE TO D[NSE) dig GRADES TO GRAY AND BROWN MEDIUM AND COARSE SANG(DENSE) p 130 ��� PARING Tf M1MTFp AT SCNEWLEO DEPTH j-i3-)I COL:TB LIGHT BgWN 115 93-9J PE0016 TBD LUST I[IIPf 1NStgtlDE TO 3-13-ION 1293{OR NrtURE VA}ER 115 IIA-92 • LEYEI OBS[RYA-=(LONER 10'P2F-01fEO). • WATER l{VE1.3.14-R IAYE0.OF SILTY VERY FINE SAN)(NL) PIPE ON 3-16-11. M1tl VATF0.OBSEgVEO Ix TXE 115 IIIIIIII17IA LLCM BRWN FIIIE$AM1TY SILT(MEOII0 DENSE) BORING TER/HMO AT SCHEDULED DEPTH 3-14-JE �,GRAY AM1TADARKLBRWN(HEOIUHET03COARSC BARO GH 3-16-7I) ND 10 4 GUMS TO OWN FINE SAND(MEDIUM DENSE) 2 120 ITS-I0N 8 II 115• IIIIIIIIL;II11 LIGHT 600515 5111E 0AM)0 SILT MEDIUM DENSE) 207-96 Ij Mild BRWN FINE 50X0(HFOIVX DENSE) 6"THICK LAYER OF LIGM 9R010 FINE SANDY SILT(HL) III U DAM BROWN NFDIIM ANU'COARSE SAND(NEO ION DENSE) ILII:IMM DAM BROWN SILTY HEDIUN SARA WITH THIN LAYERS OF FIXE SANDY KfYI SIT-91SIN DARK 00WN MEDIUM AND COARSE SAVE !'-INDICATES UND ISNRBfO SAMPLE 105 ' �'1NDI(8005 OISNRBEO fuNLE BORING TERMINATED AT SCHOOLED DEPTH 3-15-71 FIELD MO if THE SOIL M A POEM-M THE DAY 00000=RITZ PIPE 16515 50 TO ELEVOr 105 105 FOR FU ---- REIGNS a THE SOIL NOTES: LEVEL OBSERIT10X5(EWER 13'WINAMED) 34,_<,&:111E-01111 DRY DENSITY EXPRESSED IN PDINOS PER CUBIC{NT I) GISC:fIONf IN THE TENT OF TINS REIpiT ME 6.IHOIIATES KHMER OF BLWE REQUIRED TO DRIVE DANES 4 MOORE TYPE-U NECESSARY FOR q 110110 UMOERSTANOIMt OF • SAMPLER RYE FOOT VITN 800 PON.4EIIBN FALLING 14 INCHES TEESU8eDoPC(CONDITIONS RF50105 BY THE BORINGS.5,01,5 WERE ORTA XD NUMB FO IS SEWN,SAMPLING.05550 1650 FAILING PREVENTED 1) THE BO0 511 LOGS SPECIFIC 0 550 LOCATACEIONS CONDITIONS OBTA IMIxG A RELIABLE IS50 60 THE OATESNDES1EWTEIDT 0UBSORFACE C(01011ONS AT OTHER 00:TI01S MV DIFFER FROM CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED AT}HESE BORING LOCATIONS, ALSO, THE PASSAGE OF TIRE PAT RESULT IN A CHAHOF OF VATERR[ONp1}1W1#0lISi IAOfT15}NESE PB:1X43 tptpaWS. 3) B:IHE SURFACE ELEVATI:Y.1:IRONIDEO BY 0TFVEKS TNMPSON 4 0.UNYAN,IA'C. LOG OF BOR 11 O..MlS ammo. • N''''C'-''''''''''.'":-----;1": . . / 'rte LJ Q i'' �` �._ TANK .. , ,--.----/ '‘N,, 'N • ��'- 0 , ..., , )„,.. A, /, / -.... • .• , .. . . ,--/ ,,-,, ,..„, -• ,.t'I t/2:*,. .„. -... n' ti N. _ TANK .-. 1 • — • _.� /I� . \``i r' �4``� f -` .. TANK . 01. • 11 .. . . • ..,...._..„,, • ,./ . ..k., ..... ., 4rt • r� ` • NN., 6.... , I -"hls..'•"YiY, :\ TANK 0 • .... TANK �_, ,}✓� ,1 if . (0 111 . '\ TANK 4.. . , \....., , ...------1 //..: ' 7 4 ' � , ,J 0 ....-- ?I'.'17/11 / '''''._, j; 0 ',moi! • - mei & $4 ;Y / r,,,:,{1-Ij. . A / • �r Cr 13 � Se ( O � ole ,r ‘N. 4011411110... •' ''''' 7 - - • NNIC .. . ak.. 11 ' [it I ,1/4S,<. • ••••••-••"....,_,.., vi a 11 � 22,), -//1/0? •.\4 ','•:`•:;"-.'-'`--.F.---:::_------7.--;;;;/ \`.:\ '-"c\ 2oN 's '��``v •161 • j/ -.• f_k'� ♦ , -t'r I . •�, .. ti` .. '--- -`--��..,'•• � ,r -.._ *-......, ...,_,.....ze....41,.--_._•„,/lj it'/�/,././../4///,'/,....11- i r1/fiJ:l%,'f'-.1:-:.,,:t4•;& 14.!--`3.1.-;_ •;&�:y. •� �..=^"�—�'_---.�'�\\moi /,!! i;,, _..L;}est'- ` '!.• .... .. . : `/'••••---- 2'7/70`-, • '7� :?.'%'= "4::,"):/" >.:.-, \ t 1 1,„..,.;-• '� -'•' •- .,'•' • ,2222_.. _ .,.,./.:-:,.. r11:tl u `' `d�! III LEGEND • DURHAM AWWTP ��_ DURHAM,OREGON Borings made by Squier Associates, February 25, 1999 111. M P-9 Cone Penetration test by others SITE PL/a I1I • Previous borings by others BUILDING NOTE:Features shown are for Illustrative purposes0 SQUIER ASSOCIATES only and are approximate (Drawn •�Oheacedbyf Ch j FIGURE 1 - File: SDLIDSIFIGI.DSF Dale: mom, Job.No. 98394.; . • . • • Elev. De I th A Standard Penetration Resistance, , .,'d pBlows per Foot a°t-4— Remarks (Depth) Log In Samples _ ea Feet UP Natural Water Content,% Feet CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL 0 50 100 '-i f ,/ V • FILL \ • • :.•.:. ••44 t . , w. :v. 4. • I • . •• , •,•.„, I • 4•4, . , , /. (5.0) Very loose brown silty fine SAND;trace medium to .::V :•: coarse grained sand;moist ..-..:1::: . S-1 • I it\ d7 •::•:•4: • ..:1:•••'... . . • . . . , I . •::I•.':. .:-1::: .:.:......I.:,. 10 / / Grades to medium dense brown to gray;trace.fine ..1:•••:,. gravel and clay • S-2 . , . ' I i • ..1.•..1.•: I • ...:-.1...r. r t i ::.1....1... 111 0 0,- Bentonite ..... .• •::[..1:,• •:''...1••• • . I I 1 Backfill Grades to silty SAND with gravel 15 S-3 ••:•,vf.:: 1 , 0 ::1:::•::. ' , ' 1 I L i ; :..:: .'.. Grades to brown silty SAND with clay;trace fine •::1'.:1:. 20 ;,I S 4 ::1'.• .: k ,, :.t...--:•: tit .1:.: . 1 <14 1-inch :J.:4i.: 25 I Diameter Grades to fine to coarse SAND with slit;trace fine :-..., , # s-s. rave gl Pipe •:,:t,',.::' . '1..: , / :::::-::.f, I! , ...1....:•: I 00 .':I.: ' ' ..0 ::'•',...1:.,, / Becomes fine SAND with silt;wet 30S-6 I gravel and silt;wet i I ...-1•• (31.0) Medium dense dark gray fine to coarse SAND with ••::Tt.' 1 ' , • I ` .1...I': • • •• , .1••1•. . . •I' ' , i , •::•‘1•:: I r . . ........ _ . I . . ...:1....,:.. , 4 . .....i.... 35 . ..• ..• Grades to dense fine to coarse SAND with silt and ::1'2... •• •• gravel ' I': S-7 I _ • :.4._.. Sand (36.5) Dense brown silty fine SAND;wet . . •1:4:. - . t ••• .: :1'1-1 - ' - - — a. . . .:•1'4.: . . II: :11 . . 1 11 .. .. :ititi- - - 2., LEGEND impervious Seal(Cement) 0.0 2.5 5.0 • , I instrumentation Casing Grout Shear Strength,T.S.F.(approx.) =20'O.D.Split Spoon Sample B I o II =3.0"0.1).Thin-Wailed Sample I 1 * =Sample Not Recovered s/Groundmeasuron Water ipLaetev Level Shown asIi Torvane (May Vary with Time of Year) 1111 1R3 Pocket Penetrometer _ Filter Pack M =Grab Sample: Drill Cuttings , 6Perforated Casing Durham AWWTP 5 0 =CBR Test Sample . ATTERBERG LIMITS Durham,Oregon (k ; P, S.Z Ground Water Level Hi . 1-40-1-4-Liquid Limit .."'r BORING SB-1 I-----I-___L---_,...:Natural Water Content a • Plastic Limit 4% NOTE: SQUIER ASSOCIATES t- Lines representing the Interface between soil/rock units of differing description P I, are a..roxlmate oft and ma indicate gradual transition ' MARCH 1999 98394.5 __—_ _ Reviewed Page 1 of 2 FIGURE B1 ,= Elev. Depth A Standard Penetration Resistance Remarks (Depth) , u co as tg Log In Samples Blows per Foot .Feet Feet •e Natural Water Content,% CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL 0 50 100 -%1 -.ama 4.1111. 11 I ( j '....E 1.l' s-Et 1 waszaielozszzuzzuzi • — zszzonizzszezzuzzzo z ISM • '•11.: • 1111111111.1111111IMMIIIIIMIIIIMIIIIII .*.2 Ai. •mummoinme••••■••so . 1.•t- Munniimmisimmunmom gi- II -••z ••. • . - = •• In 4.1.1: sommaimminmommu ammuminummummui •.. .• 7 '.1 ]..!) 11111111111111111111111•11111111111MMIIIMI 111•11111•1111"111111111111111101111111111111111111111 •..g, Screen •:.1 .f. 45 M111111111111114,4111111•11111111,11111111110111111111 • im- Grades to SILT with fine sand;wet ..I.11 S-9 I 111111111101111111)1111,11111111111111•11111111111 II • (46,4) Dense dark brown fine to coarse SAND;wet • ••• IIIIIIIIIIIIMMIMIIIIIIII1111111111111111•111 1111111111M11•111111111111MIIMIIIIIIII • , 11.1•111111111101M1111111101111101=1111111111 • 111•1111111•11111111111M11111111111•111111M1111 I . 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MI111111111011•11111111111111111111•11111111111111 111111111111MILIIIIMMINIIMIIIIIII1111111111 1111.1111111r111111111111111111111111111111•1111111 50 Become medium dense silty fine to coarse SAND; trace fine gravel ' S-10 I IIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 ...."....:.......,..: • •• • (51.0) Very stiff light gray SILT with fine sand;wet 111 55 11.111111111116.1111.1111111111111111111111111111 • mil I.1:MIM imil:111111:111:1111:11111,1:11:11.:91...11:61 ill.:119:6i:1111:1111,1 II 1111111111111111111M! / (55.0) Grades to clayey SILT;trace fine to medium sand S"11 I 1111E11111111111111 111111•11111111INIMIIIIMINIIIIIIIM 111 , Bentonite Backfill 0 1 11111M1111111111111MIRMINIMILIIIIIIMI IIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIII11111111111111111 PO P 111111/1111111111111 III (60,0) Becomes hard dark blue SILT with fine sand;trace clay 00 0 I 60 111111MIMAIIIIIIIIIIM MIIIIIIIMIIII 11111111111111/4111111101111111MMIIMIIII 1111111111MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMB1111 S-12 1 10111111111111011111M111111111MINSIIIIIIM i 1111M11111111111111111110111111111M111111111111111 (61.5) Bottom of Boring ( 1 .1i'; 2/25/99 . • I . . I . II • 1 II 1 1 1, • I I , . Ii' 6' 20 LEGEND Impervious Seal(Cement) . 1.1 2.5 5.0 instrumentation Casing Shear StrengthT.S.F.(approx.) , tt I ..,2.tr O.D.Split Spoon Sample Grout 11 GroundWater Level as N "O.D.Thin-Walled Sample 2easuTorvane Measured on Date Shown II M i * =Sample Not Recovered (May Vary with Time of Year) liej Pocket Penetrometer Filter Pack 0 =Grab Sample: Drill Cuttings Perforated Casing Durham AWWTP i,., 1 Ell =CBR Test Sample ATTERBERG LIMITS i. Durham,Oregon g .c• =Ground Water Level 1-411-1--t*E'Llquld Limit BORING SB-1 Natural Water Content 1111! e , -a Plastic Limit t f- NOTE: Lines representing the interface between soil/rock units of differing description 0 SQUIER ASSOCIATES a are approximate only and may Indicate gradual transition Reviewed MARCH 1999 98394.5 Page 2 of 2 FIGURE Bl Elev.• �_��_a� , 'A— wig Remarks (Depth) Depth •A Standard Penetration Resistance, Feet CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Log In Samples Blows per Foot ® Natural Water Content, Feet k/ Asphalt Concrete 0 0 60 100 (0.7) Crushed Rock p • (2.2) FILL • t►�..L / '•••00� 0.1 , 1' (5.0) Medium dense brown silty fine SAND;trace medium 5 to coarse grained sand;moist •�' }}''Hi s-1 I f; 01 list .f • . ` — Grades to trace clay1.1:ji• S-2 1:1/ ' „ ,' 10 11 • 01 tt 15 (15.0) Grades to finIII / .e to medium SAND with silt f,: S-3 J tt+ ..:.:::..r...: .::•..(... ..:1:::.:.. Bentonite •+4':: 20Backfill Becomes brown to gray `` " -i , •'t'' S-4 ,,• III • :�.:.' . itBecomes dense brown to dark brown fine to coarse ::r:. 25 111 SAND with silt;trace fine gravel /.....11::.: " S 5 • 01. :.::1.:: Grades to fine SAND with s ••. 30 silt;trace medium to �' 111 /./ coarse grained sand;wet '•L••'.' S.6 ± ' I . Grades to medium dense siltyfine SAND �'• 35 - :: }:' S-7ill g 2; (36.0) Very stiff brown SILT;trace fine sand and clay;wet I / g . i !/ z LEGEND Impervious Seal(Cement) 0.0 2.5 5.0 it I =2.0"O.D.Split Spoon Sample Instrumentation Casing • Grout Shear Strength,T.S.F.(approx.) Uit 1 a =3.0"O•D•Thin-Walled Sample g Ground Wafer Level as ®Torvane • * =Sample Not Recovered Measured on Date Shown (May Vary with Time of Year) ®Pocket Penetrometer ® =Grab Sample; Drill Cuttings Filter Pack 8 ® =CBR Test Sample Perforated Casing . Durham AWWTP SZ ATTERBERG LIMITS Durham,Oregon ( toi m°!t =Ground Water Level LiquidI—q ___•Nater Limit BORING SH-2 ��Natural Wafer Content s Plasticdescription NOTE: Lines representing the interface between solUrock units of differing description 4s SQUIER ASSOCIATES are a••••roximate on and ma Indicate,radual transition - .. __ .- MARC.1999 98394.5 Reviewed Page 1 of 2 FIG URE B2 1 Y_ Elev. Depth A Standard Penetration Resistance, mW• Remarks (Depth) Blows per Foot p Log In Samples Feet CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Feet ® Natural Water Content,% 0 50 100 i. t Grades to clayey SILT;trace fine sand /// 2 // S-8 r /// j I// i// j i/i /// 45 i Grades to SILT with fine to coarse sand;trace clay /// g I . i i// S-9 I iitill (46.0) Dense dark brown fine to coarse SAND;wet •j jII j Bentonite 50 • Backfill 3 j (50.5) Dense brown silty fine SAND;wet Olt S-10 01 . • '.. f: Grades to very stiff SILT with clay and fine sand •1 ll77.I j .�•.�• 55 Q II S-11 I (56.0) Medium dense brown fine to coarse SAND with silt, ). , 1111 j trace gravel;wet +; :: '. . ' . \\lik ' ' ' (59.0) Hard dark blue SILT with fine sand;trace clay;wet . 01 •..-l'..•:. 1 . 60// ••:,...• S f 1 12 I (61.5) Bottom of Boring ( 1 2/25199 I • III . . I . . 01 . . 4 1 • I . . • HI LEGEND Impervious Seal(Cement) 0.0 2.5 5.0 + Instrumentation casing Shear Strength,T.S.F.(approx.) I =2.0"O•D,Spilt Spoon Sample Grout S Ground Water Level as IIS Torvane c? I[ =3.0"O•D.Thin-Wailed Sample --Measured on Date Shown i ¢ Sample Not Recovered (May Vary with Time of Year) ®Pocket Penetrometer • =Grab Sample: Drill Cuttings Filter Pack S ® =CBRTest Sample Perforated Casing Durham AWWTP E' 'I m Q II.6-1-0-Liquid LIMITS LDurham,Oregon ' =Ground Water level it t '-NaturalWatercontent BORING SB-2 s Plastic Limit NOTE: Lines representing the Interface between soil/rock units of differing description •4 s SQUIER ASSOCIATES I .i are approximate only end may indicate gradual transition I. MARCH 1999 98394.5 I Reviewed -1 Page 2 of 2 FIGURE B2 s , 5 I" 4 3 I 1 { -.___. aA SS j ��__ wRLS 0- 1 \ N. __ N.,^-_-.,_,_---,,,Z- a A. \ `,_ r•. LLQ AAaW \ _ { ♦s= _ -- _ - 'PLUG ONH EMN h(,H it ✓.. OTC - S 2 — -CONNE(:T TO �5 EXTEND VDRAN RISER 15 4 HM Eng rl 11 L_ = - OB -( (fVP) / �-IAI1'SR'4 IJR NEW GN)SURFACE(NF) 1 I_ (ARAN � � - _ ®LE.i 4JG yr / _ ( 1 _ -... /�_ .�._ i� E'L' 1R RIM1 �/, r ,.4 {a °`8.- --Roar Fx ST vC �_. _ -- '1.9 VA VE BWASHINGTONUNIFIED CE AGENCY EL 15 of a � 35a �LE 1 5 1� IE 145 Aa roLNew oX 1P H Gounm IRR I� GND C / C\WRua el o..z Lel 'T,._ _ / i MH/ n\ _F� 65D _� CO_I _..---4', �T._ _ -._. Tiaa / /j CONN lb EXIST 1 r L"1 J -.. 1-6.SLEEVE ( - i .w e Ss•IE t] 3 _ ' _ ) -�- suppoRT /D/ / / DURHAM K �, > � w� r �� ,52 G I'-'"15.,,,,•:„ /7 IE P FACILfTY Q , V F-: / CO @ 6E ew mom_ .. nREn E (TEMP&ABN) 5. : - vrulW�N f` sa h j / ,�I�\ �� J—W RS�6 R RD_ �2.'_- L ' • / W (ABN) \ L" R � T -)F(\-y \ ''(/'''X..- (ABN ONC ENCASEMENT 2 C1 N� (TEMP&AHN JI 4�R P �fi''-'7)-5--,,..,/,''''''''' W ' 6 -- / _ ) LJ V"/ , / RCPI ACF ES VA fVC VAtILY / 2/ ('ABN) mss. / Ca RD�(rrg) "4'./.4"152,- 1j� �/V /' / 6 ss ' -FOR coNT V ✓, � i�-E o Ea�I IT c 1a / �q p� L ( ) - CONNECT TO L SC sH 8- M''''—' RTA n 4� - /A /O II AREA C EXIST 5 ,K _ O tRENGH ,�. T lszoo e ss_. --a I�Isaom TEMP CAP ,� (nDN) s. -� �� / �� DRAIN �� v _ '(SEE NOTE a) co P(8 1) '.'Ill?, ) L�/ i,j'V .J . � X5,'T--5(-.4_0 �� 2 NG �:: . / 22,-. -_ _ rolect Manager f/o; ./., (,._D'65 f1 • (ATTACH TO OUTSIDE c\ - EY I�53541/— CD'''D65-)- �( - C 5..D ) (A TALI TO EL 1E-5 ( R�' ir✓• /-(/ ._ _ ---- - oes gnevnLL ,y AREA p V / IE:5A 06 —C V\ _OIE/WATER �` j / .JONES C//,:/\_. _ / 5aEPARATOR �, a'aD�(rP) • .RED �� / Dmw"— .f - ,./ �/,,,,/ Lf/\ 1 ^\.,- `- CONNECT TO FOIST 4" / F T.SMITH li/ 2 �CONNECf 50'MJ FEB o � A(, h-` ss®I�Isazt / /� �, cn°°Nm ( EXlsr 6 Pw(TYP of z) r/ 'h �c � J �"MF) * r A� i52'l3 \\ \ / Alti."'- // D.HIARMON / CONNECT TEMP 1"NG TO T 1 -102 rr / L 1 6 56� AREA B \\ \K I( ♦ I' /// Pra 00039-2��_ / CONN CT 4 L i ./ * \; G // .4.,:,4> E r /' �� ^Le01 15 96 9coNec>t�//R1ST\ 1 �y= coNwecT FOR ron;r. \ /+ ifs — EFi � EX PE(TYP I To 5-6 NHS uNt s ONE Ncrli vmEN 'e T J - r j/ 1'1 / - EXIST RD(TYP) _ DRAwuc Is ruu SIZE F NOT / ;-'40' / 1 RJ lC NNECi 0 ONE NCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY ( f ‘D,,,,� �/ w. i . / (sl oPt®rsr"/vr) P� ANC}—/ ', z Ic) (N..:.:. [: �;. 1�I a a p z Nc F �` aA / ^- �• A Dlu I�� �i� M c�NE TER, OEcuu008 c �n r4 n m.N '� C4 _,LID. ''._ 100 �� NC MF /� NOTES: we INSIDE / / ,, -I MANIAN CONS A PIP;Si OPE BETWEEN INVERT / J ELEV'S 5V OWN c, ,2-E,--)1.2/5 GUARD POST yy �V \\ X'7,‘'„, / .b\� ` .; ✓ A AMC I1 P5'. CONNECT PARALLEL 6'l W IN Si OUGNCE S CIFI (TVI) }/� ��} ' 2 UNDER S CSC N000 M. / \\l\ r , 1 6 $ ® r TrTDI.Tfm.P 1"NG AS SP(011150 uNDER SPEC E iEMI CAP IN ARE &5ONN BIONS N AREA 10, II 5 3 PROVIDE I / E° F6TFW- ( / , ON 01010. .� y N�.Av F0 0 / 4 DIMENSIONS SHOWN To ouT SIDE TOP of BI DaTOOTING i A / ® - �i / `4 � nTcN s 21, �� \\\\\ ' W \// \"11 ) % 6. VERIFY GN FIELD ALI BORED PIPE NOR,cR)C BS AN'p f U 'mw / - J �� / D.H 5 LLP INC UNER ANO WTHN SEDFP OR BC . T vl i \A �, &4WP LI I \ "SY / '11\> j '.c',,',, -' LOCATIONS AT POINTS OF CONVECTION W/NEW PIPING <-..,-1- '<7<<<<<< /V \ ° N R \, PRIOR To INSTALLATION OF NEW PE. �� \� �� / A, \•. // �e \ / X PROVIDE srL.COLLAR w/4-1/2 o sTl.TIE RODS j , � OR ME0IVAN GAL RETAINER GLAND AND GONG 11TRU5T BLOCK w / - j As'APPRovtD Al ♦�'�PRO� a TIRtiiiissIT // �� 3 N PLAN / 1N 1"=20' G-7 • 6 I 5 I 4 3 I 2 I 1 I 1 • / 1 STRAW BALE SEDIMEN-BARRIER(iYP) -- i . ----( ` 26'1 -- 7 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION T , �� FENCL(rvF)- .J - . l } is 'Y-' RCCRADF AS APPROVEp- /!- -�,,x'� _.. _^_ � � M1 / Q / f c) -� 3.`... "1 _ 1 )1/718757 —_11510 III _..a "N-_ \ 1hat .(t.' �_ +/ �-" 1 _1 - N 6400 12- ' -- _ PVMi� I i :�, 4 �., r 67>so ~I — = _.._ _ (SEL NCTE s) / 6 CHAR IINK-- 5N IS 26 . F - _ - , 1 N 6 07SNG( / 7 = FCNCF ® -- i - T L U— 1,` ,, ,�N5 0 ,IF%Si CUR1.1' —` P„ ( TF� / --_- - I- Z[ � DI? �I I ®EXIST W/NEW FNC PDS' UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY J 4 S'R MOWN(;'' MI' q 1 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY - S�JII(I EN` r /�i— N I_._ I--- 5( '/ I 'I 15869 11 / ,)J _TEM OAR LY I )� EaAE / �� o I H y-� 1 on, eLos True ,pvsr �- �1- -I- o' FENCE WI£IAF GAIF�'' FI%GING 5 'ED BY LANDSCAPING '1-6.3fi '11"-5( >'OSE p'I \Y155 86 _ V W 6 1 1 N / / + /6/ SIDEWALK��- I1i6.38 T15'1,,C-T..fi/-N416,00 65 A0020 --DUTY R 130 - AT/ / F /�CI1R6&GA P CGFPr ASFESE0h �aCONTROLT(T8P) r �o,5536 _ I )�[� L . r � i � . /+ � MATCH rXSV AC PVMi SUPPORT . -./.•. // 3. [56.28 F n II- - -- N _ (�562p� ®w SS 4 V W/NLw SUI 1 VELI 4 l �� END C'R' @ /1 -(-{15594 Jae 1"44981345 �� O�'I / EXIST MOWING STR FAC�LIIY ! A / RMIN E EM / • E , 3 y� � .8-4 4417 CON I. FNCE�_ �' X I �i /\ - - III 6 PI ANiING -1-156.4 js,, r `\\\ AREA(�/P ,1. / nl ^,. �l ("'R'''') LABORA'ORY / -1 ISti�.59 �54 S' (AJN AREA ON/ ��� 22 8. F 648853R Q Iy� ^ ,15JJ9 F 1992261. SO GATE It { AREAE o _ 82 sTOP— cuRe PER 2 �. \� Y A C '6 MFE(INC) HANDICAPPED PFR ,, „V1(,_9'1:17,...--F-5550-.p,'fi ��i.°'°i _,5©� / (I�RAPVAGVA�iT 3 0T1'/)p� CONN TO EXIST 3s ! u P R SH c.1 Gfl ARE �/,, _ (LUNCH ROOM/LOCKERS/ [156 30 i�8 5 p 60.50 Itz.J �P 1 4,-440y C\� GROUNDS/MLCGANICAI) A �!I 6 I4 o- ` ___ f r ��\\77"ff//..// % Wr FEL.'F�AIF- /---C WI E 1 y. RAMo L. A , C^ —I / STOP 3 / ,.' REPLACr AC PVMi 1 � (TVP - � G lYP) � ` E,0,,-300,, �` TRENCH DRA N / / Ems) /• ® - 1962 <7� T� _ B VALLEY 11 AREA LAN- / _ / /I� nre 1SG G SHG e E �/ /i \ o `15 0 ,^ G 0 FOR DETAIL [CHAIR RAMP L D n V- IC F ` ® • d / IH\�1 Yn _ .J NES illipWrILCTR�GAT( Drawn // WHLE \� � TTL Vt.-7 �,1 19'3 GATE CL SURE(ME) / •(TVP) i SMITH f } of ® 64004169SW m G//f\ / --LECTRIC GA iE. (4P 0,„, HARMON / /- AREA D // '' ---/ 41(19272'2 GT,A� A )111.1G‘,�l_ > !,��� (' vo t )) Pr „e, /( ' / (S IORFS/Wn REHDUSE) � o �ro ro _ � li h r GATE POSr ..,IM(rnn G 100039 206-: ,,�91 v v �s � 1° i��� 1 1-13-96 Ap / �-.� "R:swnx sTRIPw 1 i 8 1 �•.1/P / FORD All I'AV YW� JamV AREA B A - I ( P) I THIS LINE S ONE NCH WHEN o-'t''"II% `� -`'l I M, - -. - DRA1NNc S FULL SIZE.IF NOT i� (MAINTENANCE/TOOL ROOM) T (_ ♦\ A,, h ) \ \ I - ONE NCH SCALE ACCORCINCLY. cD N C 1 �1/.' IP Nal DRAIN ,', �, ,y o444 �TR GA'F OPFRAT IN FEN E "'^,� 1 � // 11 I LLLrr_ �C hl,�� �_s sw�J PL �� / .-CURB a cu TIER .. o- /, t 1977 PAD(GEE sH c s). 1 7 P / sz7e �" 1N.„-�� _ y.A.. NG METER / / \ _ // SIDEWALK _�` , (SLOPE GU ER 1� 6 Cu.� /00 AR NL PLAN _ Wi, • 91 N' IC PVM-(YP 121000BLE SWING-�� CONC - THIS AREA SEE a'( lIL I(: ('�1H15 AHFA)) GATE SM WASHOOWN l C� n 6H C-9 NOTES n_ '(11 10 156 (-,,,./ /� //// I. COORO NA iE”AM1C OINENS ONS SHOWN i0 \ QST CURB l /` M ^ ® -) SiUTS DE AL OF CURB AND OU'SIDC TOP ' l i " { / 0 9UIJNL FppTING A s i c P) � �' EI ECTRC CAai 1 B / 2. MAIN AIN CONS.A S:( F BL WFFN 5�0' •MISW 6TCRA 5E SF -A 1 r , �/ PETi S ECEAT 7 r,n EL VAi ON SOWN. � ( �� !` 1 I' i J '.<7',,< ,;,:‘,'N A.... 3 COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION WORK S UF\ 0 \ �/1 \ -MATCH[XIS! / T' IN LO COMM CNG BOUNDARIES NG ANEWGRU DO G rt V LIMITS NSIRLIXTEND i0 BOUND RIES ONEW CON HLRS m' ; (L �\ PVM I EL(TYP) r r7 / FOR CO 5 S AS ON AND PLEASE LIMOS E SH O 2. ti ^ "• DENOTES AS PROVOE OR REQUIRED BY ti ---- I \ -AC PVM�PER (TYP-) �J ,.] j ^ •/ ELEC RC GATE MFR. ��n � �JII 47 v1 `5•.1 s. REGDI ROARC YPlAN "• 6EPRESN/ / Ftffi - 1 6.aat,,,,,,,e, o-8 6 - I _ 5 I 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 uji NOR Engineering.Inc. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 10' 4" 15' , 14•-2•. 11-10" 29_3" 29' J"___ __ SO'_D^ -�-0 I -- I_ DF WASHINGTON COUNTY - - __ _IIS_ _ �__ 4. 9 ��10 0 �� O ° bYx� _ 1� 6�/{ 10-O"_ _� „10 0 3 .0•_0• �3Yz^ .. �I - - 31/2- _.� - to e' ,� AS 66. -- (1- '- _I -- A 6..-i� Blz _J_�.-�� N�1E�E`� I� - 8N"�� L 16630 -SRF FAR �� ���F n-N®ED DURHAM y r6. _ ,,__,.!_i_ - pp°rye II_ _9h' 6 0/ 3--111--?: - - EL 1564<-,- ._ O ___H-- SE[ENLARGED ,o I- _.- -7 L... SUf rVfll �y -. - a- _- J-� _:_ + -a•_r L ® LL ,..(\\ dal —L Iy�.-. , J FACILffY z' I0 I- z 10 Irl / L� PIAN r� l 'I' ® �ye� Ttssd 5-uw. ' �-_ t I IWEAA o 1 I... ' ® `.��I� '� ".dd - FOUNDATION PLAN .- ®sFF IsnEFT 1 slut i- ® ® I I L-- a ® '� Tu - vo-I N3 A _ -I C a No Oi,,, 711 12 r� L---I J --I -- JL ___LL ---- JL-------' I'.--II --a o s' �t� D" ^71 L _ f. I RECESS FOR , SA10 LE FNI , I 'r"� t- J SEE ENLARGED L J I I EN fRY MAT 0� 1p .IAN iYP. -J// P'_AN J SEE SHEET SIF FNL�R'CO © T NOTE#3 ® SEE ENLARGED PIAN/r\,TYP. EMI PIAN®,TYP. 7 ll 5"4l ® ` II rola lnnna9er I C f , r __ .11 _._--t 1 B WILLEY RECESS FOR f r 1 C 5 FLOOR SLAB, ,� Deslg.ee VERY MA( REINF.W/#4 812"0.0. FINISH ROOK 1 I N.CABLE AI S-C10 LL-- 1 f _ J SEE 5El 6F9�NOTE 4 '=6.90,TYP S 1 r. 0 # '" 6-.p::..— S.COON sEE sH�>=T I I 1- ® -EL.156.90,TYP 1 ',11-,, NOTE#3 TW.,SFF o r//im . ^ - - cne00kn HARMON L L SHEET NOTE N2 I/I\I _ _-__ .I Q L--- -1 s-1D I �r----- -F ' �o , 6 I f I P DBsas 206_102 II. I J j 4111 Golest 10-96 J I - P L NOTE SELF' MIS LINE Is 090 INCH BEEN -_ _._ _ L� ,F . 1 f DRAN9NG IS FULL SIZEIF NO1 . r __, 1 f - 1 ONE INCH,SCALE ACCORD. I 11 I I 11 I I 1 CDI `_, IL:JI Ii-lol i1-------�L- _- -I_ I1 -I _J---_.---- r `- - o� L91_L __- -- _ _loll L J L_.__...__J L 1 JUJ_1_JJ LL--- o '`1 1 -)-- 1 t ` -� I _- qq _�_. _ I r -, MATCHLINE SEE SHEET S-2 ----, WNLL(ice Cr Q a; �t r , L-1J--EI I ---1 rJ I SVELT NOTES: CF.r. 11 1�4'-TD ' FINISH COCO2000R A EArE D ExsT EON e- 0 11 40'-n I Wn _P) J.-OCATF IIIICKENLD 5_AB ��rr��TTyy ' SEE SECT ONIlk r✓ -41111 4i• ® ,F T_ A IN ALCORDA CF L {CJI_ B . ° �.� PLAN WITH RL A ARCH TE RAL >- -.� PLAN ON SH A-5 E tR r4.F 0 t �I L.t 3/16 1,-0.. n 3 SFA AREA A ARCH TE TIMI I'� PLAN ON 1. s r P MI, L1-'I I ,�p3.O PflOFEo OF APPI CAD L ITS OF E NS.TER FOUNDA ON WALT SECTIONS I D '3''91 r 4.PROM DE VAPOR BARRIER U'=HEATH '�tvl0B ALL IN IERIOR 51_ABS ON GRADE.COVER ` L VAPOR BARRIER WIIT1 U'THICK I AYER OF SAND BEFORE PI A(22:CONCRETE. KE`/PLAN sneer NI'r. I S-1 'ett. 6 s I a I 3 I 2 I 1 c n I�— �_ 34._3.. - CE) Y -— 30-o• a-9A 1]'-8' 1 11 a• ,,,,, s OV" o, mac, yl j T at n� e. I® -_. _ �.-._ ____.___ __. --__ _ I❑1-..__ _ HEM En9lnexInp In , (7)6. ,c•' � SF. SHEEr _ ---- -��°�L I o ��I 3 I _ --- -__ - - - UN VlE E 4 CF I ---_ _ , ~._-r_-_-__ _--_ - ❑ T���� �— D 5 WE.A_AGENCY �� r - � � _ + W�'�+_F SBI B��II t DF WASHINGTON CWNIY 1 r J II -SEE ENI ARCED I I Q III P AN-� i III I,0,IE513EFTI i1 PIAN 47,_5.- —. I II G/ II DURHAM SEE ENLARGED .,„.77,, c1I ® II F SEE SHED' - • --4,!j-, 4l`-1Y -- _ II FACILITY VELI °W5 s Aa FACILITY 1 A II -1D NO'LE 2 II 1. RF NF. W q SEF SHEET I I .15 FLOOR AREA C 1 NOTE J FL.156.90 it { 4 j li 8 SEE SHEET NOTE p4 11 I FOUNDATION 1__0.. �5.-o. ,_o I 11 II I II I II 1 FL 0 r� -- I III❑f 1__ COIF_S.3 T, n� �1 0 690 --,----------..4 ` _ SAB SIM I �I f 10 ,L- 1_I`r-r �I - -- LP It11 - - 1Lr Tr- ❑r =- F= _ __ _ _ ,I 9cr _ il II 6 n� ® li �I 1 til II - 7, e'. 15840 1 1 - -.\ 1 11JI 1 N.CABLE ,re 1 4-9 I 34•-3.. — -0,. I D ® . ____ -�I -SEE ENLARGE"J 11,1- - Draw-._ EL.is6.9r�11 III _ LL= (( 115- L._ _ -1I 1. lI__- PLAN �\ �, _. � T.SMITH I l T r ®= IF,�r^.JI -1 , O I f � (Tyr) I __ o -�� 6" OOR S.AB 1.VARIES I-- ® _pr„ 00039-206-102 EL 158.40 Cr ' 16101 �tl-_ -- -_- I KEINE.w/ga®,z oc. II ,a•eo to-ss 8 - f», --11 FI NIS-f FLOOR _ vi 1 EL. 15040 1 -EL 156.90 - ��JJ it FL, 159 40,SFr SHEET I' EI ,58.40- .- EN - /bl 1 11 NOT"g4 n ISI ® .14E1-1S / L 6I'I ® - DRANINGEISSFUNE IM1'ZE IGHNDT DL e�[e] GNE 14CH.SCALE ACCGRDIN mmN� GL 1 I f� 1 I LI �\ ill r�PLANENLARGEO ( Ol - —-. el 11 I II II EL 158.40 II_ II ® - NOTE 3 - n �� II-' - F __-fir .__ L .__- A SEE_SHEET vii --- _--__ --_-.-- --- _- , _..--_.--.._._ ---- I ry - 1 � I r II 1 , I I ® m I ® _ ° 4Z J r � I ❑ � I NSH COoR1DOR 14-10`/z' ® 11 _---. __ 1 L I--- _.-- t /�� �I rJ �.. a �I r I lj SFr rJJLARGED D L I56 0 n to ii ii PAN 111 I 1 _ f rc r- u 11 o - ( l 1 71 SLOPE ,• 0"x=6.70-'"/// e, I f TY- $®:rm. 1 II I - ..� -- _- ��� I r�i SFEi ' ^ --- - FOR F5100 RAT - I ( ) N1 AF-3 (�.\) F� , 4 /RECESS _ - 1 y / SOI I -- - - /� �-` SHOWN ABOVE m _F. ® / T DIMENSIONS n cii L 15840 /-- If 0-� I 11. ADD 1Lz TO TO EXTERIOR FACE FL A t I� '` / __ + } ION WALL 1{L -I.r �� h 59,_.x, _�M0% MN I `�-� z. Lorre-FD THIPKLNEO SLAB(s 7s`Zir jl 11-1 '�,M -- o"L 8" I SECTION1—. 1_-,,-----6—'±-------1 C )HI ACCORDANCE �,' T F--- G 13 WITH AREA B ARCHITECTURAL PIA ffn. L Lli ill- 1 PPO„f, -_ _-f - , ON sHFET A s I )r,=a { ,_„f `9 eees s -{ l'E r LI117 ;_i_tN L IiT j 3. SE, AREA F.ARCHI 1IM TS O PLAN net ,(1 _ I_ ON SHE..r A-7 FOR I IMI Of LSF Cn31L ly _1—TF- r-� OF vERIMETEH FOUNDATION WALL SFC f10NS. j '1 ird° +-- L6\ 4 PROVIOF VAPOR BARRIF �I - R AT-I ALL I-- -0 H INTERIOR SLABS ON GRADE. COVER VAPOR I t BARRIER WHH 3”THICK LAYER OF SAND Number BEFORE"LACING CONCRETEN s cit N xor m suu &z 6 4 3 2 1 I � A D 29-0" ---f 9..L9,41'41 A ufr� I' o" ie, }-- ;in' NON En,""'"a'^°. I L.._-- afflool F- �� ® L _J I r r UNIFlED SEWEPAGE AGENCY -EE EN ARCED /I DE WA$NINGTCN oLTg PLAN® TYP. L S_-ENLARGED I J 851:1 0 1 PAN YP. LI-= ® 1 SFE - - I ink BHTF NO IF#2 I oI r Tl �—I—� --�I RIM L-— °' LL_�� __ I II DURHAM .' I L SIM. L`-_ J D II _ SUPPORT 1I ARCED — FACILITY An rvP. II L`--:Ia tov, F�NSH AREAE — —" CORRIDOR FOUNDATION iI I sRFLoaR sLA�s, I 7=1'4� v PANro I_ I-IIi I ` II v009 -NIESWOOR EL21S690 rL Ak II L I s�I A If I lI- ©. WILL LEY\_J, in Dessn.sto i - II rL - N CABLE L —__ -_ — -. -. _ O --—----'—_ —' J _, T.SMITH J� L — - — Jr- I , C. L C— --"J-1 h--Ir1I 1 G.JONES fr I I 1- I ii� D x00039---a—_ g _ I I I TJ_f— ac L 01-10-96 o_I ----- - _-- --' � I III III��I --, T1115 LINE 5 ONE INCH WHEN �L I DRA N S NLL SIZE.If NOT ` r � - ONE NC f.ALF ACCOgpINCL IHEEr NOTES - � Alk111j --+-L 1.ADD 1h TODNFENCES I� L ak ® I -FACE,OF WA'L SUOWN ABOVE 10 EXTERIOR EAC, ® FOJNpA ON WAL'_, Ali ink 1 SFE RNL ARGFD 2.LOCA iE iHICKENCO SJ AB Til PLAN ^ (SE.SECiION�) Bion (CORDANCF W ARE C Q TS a"x4xi3" ---- -_— ON SH A-9. JUN EOOTNG -�- _ 3 SEE ARF A Z is 0_-I or - IION v 3 6Y r PI FCNI�•AR�G.E SIN ® ___ __-_-._.L J �S a IO0000FORM 00000 BUNJA ARCHITECTURAL PENEA SECTIONS 6 _ 1 ON S A 9 FOR L E 0 APPLICABILITY TT IONS. Q co VAPOR BARRICRµ9N I:O 3^DTHICHOVEP s z z FACE OF WAI J GL COLUMN IAYFR OF SAND BEFORE PI ACING SLAB Sc lo� A -,T14770,; B el Tc � r/L ~ PLAN ®N ,_E z .4r°,"�; ,� 111111111 3/16"=Y_0'• Nat1-__ J vPL,w NETet NNmou N„, �F 8-3 6 I 5 I 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 I , GRID SF Fou DATION PLAN STRONG PPE -PERIMETERDO ETFR \ r FOR ANGLE TYP. COLUMN kCU DON u I� fi- - WALLD SERIE fR SHEET SEE SrgAMN HEET NOTE `._._I.�— -.. -J-- —� WHEF I NOT A IDN ANCHOR BOLTS.4- AIION /\ Y'0 x BASER 12"x 1'x 1'-0 F I�] WALL SEE M2 A S FFT N - MZ _ • y T--_——_. L __ _ ___ ---t'-'_--- NOR En9lneMnA Inc. He ° 1 --- - .- - -----' '-—— UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY --- L- - B 3 Y 0,-S"JJJ 1 A x xOF WASHINGTON COUNTY " '''R-1-4— -- -- 0 1 �' _— —_ ANCHOR LI 4 --- OVDE BN WA oN�foiN1A RIMFII-F e ASP _ P' — OJ h J;,T `r --0 °A U4 .tial ` �D ND}5 BL o ON LL RECFss — J ARID--.. 1;,'_, I A' I I, m �) WF EN HLACNC .7 VL De- J J M N ND ES DURHAM I I SEF F TD P AN s- FOR SUPPORT FDLND ON Wr1IL I 1 rig. _ ATl COLUMN.`PEP FACILITY AT I PLAN n ENLARGED FOUNDATION I i_- __.. -Ts]x/x15 COLUMN �- 3._D\ — PLANS `. TS]x/xh COLUMN is)x]x N COLUMN V PLAN NO IS A PLAN NOTES 1 SF,PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL NEORMATION 1. SEE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOI PROVIDED HERE. NOT PROVIDED HERE_ PLAN /A1 PLAN /1 PLAN S I. Sc T TS 4 x 0 ON D UMN S- S 2 S-2 __. S-3 S-3 '/ SHE S NO-ES1 SCALE', 0 AIL PLANS'H'S SACT N.O oe Manoq. 2 N PERIMETER FOUNDATIONWALL,PROM DE EMBEDDED ANGLES FOR ATTACHMENT r�¢ © B WI.LEY 0 PRECAST WALL PANE S OR ANCHOR BOLTS EOR ATi C EN OF STUD WAILS. n St ARC TEG JRAL PI ANS FOR WALL MA RIALS AND PER METER FOUNDATION ° 1' _.-:: s g TA WALL SEC 0 S FOR EMBEDDED ANGLE AND ANCHOR DOIT DFTAII S N CABLE H -.a Lo TTP_ D.a.. _-- -�_-- -.--�-- .1.BACHMEIER 1 AI SM_ ._D.. JC.,r A. 2 '0'1 D HARMON 0 --'T- - -- T I IL ANCHOR BOLTS, I_ 00039-206-102 ® ANC JR BOLTS,4 - Doie Tx 0 I PERIMETER r BASE B'x Y e" �, N x�_, 6-14-93 -r-- r--———--— I -- ( PLAN /1 F– S 1 01IS O ONE IS ONE'N H WHEN SIZ FOUNDATION T/ ^ S-3 ONE ZINC 3 CA ACC f NO' g- SAFE.NOT - L'V -- �� A B'WALLONE INCH,SCAT AGGOR)IVO.,V 1 �y Oh `0 m �J /3' Yx 2 Yi' D CRI❑ ._—,--_ >—__ T-_— -I - ALL ')ES -_ - CLn T 1/. ND H AOIA OC. o I , m ``I GRID - - - , I- I �-- L I rrATSEMENT P _.. �-- '1 _.:\ A y a a, 1,.' Ax ��I YIEL o0 _ MAT L k �I / / / / Is/x/x�y COLUMN Ts n x — St AL - -r R • / / ,/ / - 5 I x]x 4}COLUMN I CO'UMN St ALAI', �/ ."1 / / / AROUND-A V 1�J R/ / , / \ q3 2 O.C I o A \// / // _AN NULL A N"'' A T i E / / 1 SFE PLAN r FOR ADDDIENAL SC _ FOR ADDITIONAL x x Sb N;```'N' 1P"O; / INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED HERE. INFORMATION NOT PROVDED HERE, COI DMN..._ - g--XS vi RT.BARS S e,„4,'W S f. PLAN I -F:), PLAN n PLAN PLAN s-9 �,� ,1 S ' S-L S-1 S-2 S_3 sL2,N22.nc, ;t# I 4 3 I 2 I 1 I GRID 2' 6 -., , d4 0 12"C.C.x;01 , r5 4xbx3b N'a x 2S7 Feu rIr,�'i //�T COLUMN 14'FIVIED STUDS `' ■■■ 1 1�� D DED ale Cq 0MN AL'O COLUMN o o.. " ® 9 -k5 VERT BAfiS V " TS BASE W 6 xaA"x0 9' TO ®ACI TS 4 4vab COLUMN WISH FLOOR ANCHOR BOLTS,4- ANCHOR DOL IS,4- 4 SIDES®16 OC Y•0 x __ #3 rES 012 O.C. EL 156.90 OR "1 0 Y¢x NI , \ ,Yr--„ EL 158.40 -L 'L -- ANCHOR BOLiS,4- SEE FOUNDATION 3" -d4®12 O. •C.F.W. J d5 C.• nFS w•p y•L T PLAN- 1 MIN.NONSHRINKG� -EXTRA dJ CLOSED TIE ®6 0C - _ �.� [_r) = `T�� -BASE R 12 v1 x1 p' 1 ■i+l I d - GROUT -- RO'.JT4 S -- 6.90 - enl -,I �� __ _ C -_S._ 6 0. -- _ CJ ROUGHENED H011 9 0.Inc. NK _ EL.15 © l py: e.-F -5"CRUSHED �-. ..• ^ C /K EL.1 )16 L.15 ROUG 3. k3 CLOSED TIES® " l ' - M, En IneeHn I " CPP.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,' . nv, v ROCK BASF ,� ROUGHENED J f� II 1 0 .$ UNIFlEO SEWERAGE AGENCY �-I d3 CLOSED _ -ROUGHENED FL.155.40 --ill I TIES W 6`O.C. " IrA CJ E5 155 ....-_ L 155.40 OF WASHINGTON GWNTY Z k5 ism �4-' E ---NS®!2'O.C.FEW . _ FOOTING REPT ACE TE. X3 .2' , �_• .: , . . r..r.i. .w, ..KX..,, a ds- 7 ds to 6 o.c.ew. Xs®tz aaFW- ocEw_- 9 kS .. d5 0 6"C.C.L.W. k5®6 D C EW ''-' , DURHAM SECTION /1 SECTION SUPPORT s: ,"-r-0• 0-1 SECTION s I(-b-' FACILITY s_ NT'�,. S_q] FOUNDATION C 3'_p" SECTIONS AND D" L ____ SECTIONAL PLANS ® 1 I I -- PERIMETER FouNpnnoN -- ---- WALL,SEE^CANS A,B.C 1- 3.. I__ m AND F ON SH.5-4 FOR 2-d5- (- ORIENTATION _1 - ` -®36CL0 CEO nes El MEL LEY0 - -+—� 0-d5 -— _1_ -_ `. N.CABLE • D.SMIIN �- a1CheckedD. _J L ec HARMON umber 2 #5 d4®6 OC.CONT. i• � Project Number �9-�...9_. THRU PIASTER,'Y0'. _ O k3 0 12"O.C_x �Hlry #406"0C.CONT 4 5 f 0,t 00039 206-102 d -d5®'Z"O.C. d5 Ei 12"O.C.- NIC nfe6-74-93 1HI6 LINE IS ONE INCH IFMEN NOT IS FULL SIZE.IF NOT ONE INCH,SCALE ACCORDIN AV SECTIONAL PLAN SECTIONAL PLAN 1 1 ,._0_0" IS_0 SECTIONAL PLAN "_,'__0• TS 4x4xa5 COLUMN METAL LINER--\ I--BASE 0 0'505"x0'9" CLOSED E Et 690N_: _ v e12 � 4 �— PLUMBING FLOOR BOLTS, S (�I O 41 CH d B12" c.x PI VARIES, x 10,_ e EXTRA -_ '-l� IA O ' 6. _l v � k4®12 0C SEE FOUNDATION -d°®1T OC #; - qM1®t2OCFW 2" ,f Z PI AN - - d ®12"0.0 E.W. TI S N r -� - -- :__�>% — NS['LOBED^..�. 1 ', ___1 m dF CONT- 1`,O iE5®6 0 c I - -.— -_ N 'fir. 1 -- EI.155.40 I 2.Ve"- . _ _E - - � rLj V _ _ 5 CR_Sv,rp 4-k5 -.2-d5 CONT. ROCK RASE -. ,o I-q CONT A k3 4D t2"O.G, Nun 10 t12" = z\ ,. ..... I s-_db 0 12"O.0 / -d5 @ 6"O.C.E.W. 16• I2"._ 6" SECTIONAL PLAN Y 0o .tf- "-,•o" $_4 SECTION ri1 SECTION 91 S 3 4 _, Sheet Number 6 I 5 4 3 I 2 I 1 I - ANCHOR ROL 4S 0 4'-0"0.C. ANCHOR BOLTS e M1'--G"O.C.� ry � 4" STORLC.E.W. 1 �4®12"O.C.E.WM- t FI ANCeHDR BOLTS W x p"O.CwG. #4 g 12 O.C.x 5'- G SS6FLOOR. ALAN INT vA L 1 x pa 0 12"O.C.x F L^--:DPF 1� • I• • ENISI56.90®SEC DN p C FINISH f10UR, EL.156NDA BO OR JO — ---�- - _ELLS- PRECAST I - — /1 - d4®12"O.C.E.W U SFE CDNC.WALL PANEL 1 , �/• ! - —\V-ry EL nRIES SrE 1y" 2y' EL Sa_40N V V D S ` 2x________4_: i-- ry f 0 VDATON PIAN �� .1•1t` ' EI..11i6_490(10 PLAN # r 6.90 FNISH FLOOR, a- v , 15B 40®SECT'ON B q 0 2 OGE W E%IST.CONC. STOREFRONT X4® 2"O.C.F W • k. ,.x�� '- T== - film. "4 . I SLAP ON GRADE 1 'z ., ROUGHENED CJ N , 5 CRUSHEDRV ROUGHENED CJ �� �' E2 155.40 -� N4 0 6' OC. RDGS BASE _. � — . -L. EI.1ROUG -X4®6 0_C -5`CRUSHED ROUGHENED CJ #4 0 6"O.0 5 CRLSHEO -� V:- 1,E '. L AL F.12"0 C_ Y� ROCK EASE m� iiii4444 HOCK OASE _i ALTFRNATC -#5 012 DC HORII.LEG .-- --ALTER'. 5 012'D.C. • ry I / - ALTERNATE / LTF RNATf 5"CRUSHED MR Engineering,Inc. _I 40RI]_. EG ( !-XS CCN I. n1 / HORI] LEG ROCK BASF-- r--- — 3#5 CONI. -J. A-#5 CDN i. —/F%DIDSTN WAI L _ _ ---- - -i,.f, UNIFIEV SEWERAGE AGENCY -- OF WA6HINCiON COUNTY 2G F- LT 10"j_—t LA 2.-D. _ SECTION n SECTION s'- SECTION n A � s-, o S-1 D.. DURHAM S-2 ? SECTION o" fl, SUPPORT PRECAST GDNG.- P 6"x04°'4-'a W/ FACILITY WALL PANEL (2 STUDS (2 PER WA'I PANE') r'MIN.NON-SPRINK - , z'_-a" 2 0118 S 0 11 FOUNDATION ANDDSECTIONS ',Pour-- 1>y ;, _ 4 FIN SH FI DOR. �2��1a 0 4 2 OC C A ORE 2T5® ®T 1 -..- _._ .—�NC BAR HEADED STUDS4" 'I PANEL) a4®1z°r,.ce.w ,�-o°oc. EL se 40 #3 NOSING AND DETAILS 690 j L 3434X4,01-n" $ R (CENTERED ON :� Tom° r --- - EACH VER'CAL R21h ' -- I '— - WAI; 'GAVEL JOINT) h. 9ff■ E —_ �__J ;_ 1 ,��_.- • __ ROCK 3SF • RD CJ Py -#4 0 6 O . 5"CRUSHED EL 55.40 ROCK RASE ? CRUSH. T - AI1ERly LEL 5 , 2-#5 CONT 0 70SFD p 0,2 OC EY 11 ROC%(BASF ` . 2 NS CON --�j M1 .� B WII L a5 G SECTION /1 #4 s CO D G.— �.-' S n,o44 N CABLE WAI,4 Pi Canlc. S SECTION �� o SMITH PREC2 O WA._PANEL S 3 G M NGNS.HRINK - -I-1� 3 14mxM1•HEAD D STUDS CVoc4eJ GROU— (2 PER WALL PANEL) 440 PRECAST CONIC U Si' D I,ARMON -_ 004, I--- _� VV...- #4 iB L 156 SO 0 SE,II ON I PANEL JI -1 S A 004 HEA ED STUDSP.o 00039-206-102 0 3-Ocr FINISH II00R, Dnle 40 0 SECT EL.156 90 94®12 0 -12 6_ OOOJ9 206 102 SECTION n —. WALL PANG N E ,(/- •\-R06K BASE ry kI 0 2 �\, ,`--� I L 6-14-93 S 3 3434,144H-4" ---o E 12 O E S 1 ,•M'N.I.ONS{R NN -- #4 w;VISH El 00R, S R ' _ SE l R SECT ON v / EL/15a bo®stc,on dt 3-45044" FgoEo%rGuv pns UNE ONE a WHEN (CENTERED ON 'nCH VER`^AL RAWNG s FULL !E F NOT - - ONE CH,SCALE ACCORDINGLY PRECAST CDNC _—y..- P 6'xiA D-E•W P 6 x>4 x0 a i__ �L. 4. __. ANG -\ 3-N"¢x IEAO-D/STUDS (2 P R Wn LL PANEL) (2 PER WA, PANED mE # CRU R zn re o-s" (2 PER A L PANFI) _ /-6' y (a".R WA, A a' �� da ae,z oC ocLw 1n' 2v: (z PER wt_PANEL) Is!1 F OOR - - � ' / / #4® z w SUED - E 15a 0 RDCK BASE -#4 6'O.C. _ 3-/ HEADED S OS- STEPPED WALL FDOI NG HLTIZNAEF - =CHOR 50'TS®�.41 0_G (CE TERED 0 EAC F / �` 2�, #4 D,z"o c 12-6. ) ty 2 O.C. i w 2"0C.E.W. WALL NF JOIN 11) f � X4®s' MV NOV 6'TV .GROUI 5 CRUSHED --' ROCK EMS' - q4 a t2 OC. E V RIES 0 S'CTTON J -#4®5"G_C. ,.4U 0 ROUGHENED CJ - - AI ROUGHENED CJ r —NS®12"O.0 E FVAR SAL_ c HORZ. CG L 1 z #4®12' \ RL L2 3AS a TE SECTION ROUGHENED CJ O.GE. p ,2 N ` .SEC ON •33--"' - \#4®6 O.G F EI 155.40 I►, 1) C'[+AND r i FC '"-"i-6 ` #5®12'OC - i ryT_ -- FDCIIN -ROUGHENED I--_ J _,. -. _ — .. T. r, #4 W 12"OC. A fl 3-qs CO, .I .----2 N5 coN'.- '• xi t. • �— -3-#5 CONT. - I 2 CPI�� 6 }.. '� �1�'Ep PflO�,o 45"�6 3 G" SECT ,,,+,9."4 ION n I--'= SECTION n o" s SECTION SECTION D„ 6-8 5.20-1 HccE II S L s�ee1 vemNc. 8-10 6 5 I 4 I 3 I 2 EXIST.BUILDING EL. 158.1 Ti� E -- HRIg VER i1CAl T 1/z'x'Y4"PICKETS NEW HANDRAIL --- s' o.c.oN NEw RA.uNc(Tm.)_ (sFE NOTE 1) v' _ _ VA D 1 T J x 5(TYP.)— I 1 \\ (_ _, EL '57.'6 3 x 44' BAR(TYP,) ' - T 1 _ EL, 56.66 a _�I E s A 3 POS(TYP) ��� r _Lir �I -III I EL 5434 I" _ (0,0 3 x 10 x 3'. BASE ��_-. _ _- 1 --��– �.., PL/1115:;F67(61'0611„.„( 1� —__, �-_— -- - –. (VP) l 2 -- EL ) - - - --- -" HDR Eng ` SHEET Pu1Nc AS REou'ReD f �EL - f e_ __--- _ — --— ---— AND APPROVED 0 PROTECT al -_ --- L- � L-� -Ye"AB PER EXIST Al DG FTG - -_-'-.-.-- %"FSM.--- \ EXISTING T ) TRENCH ERA'N FL. 153.08 3 -EL 1>2 SJ UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY SECTION SEE _E i~ aC PVM I N. LJM Of WASHINGTON COUNTY NIS \ �� MATCH LXISf A r i.__ CURB At CUTTER ' 9UIiOING LINE FL 15050 (ME) �' _ F` FIN_FUR. VOTES: Arr.H EXIsrINc NSW EARA EA FD SO DURHAM r' MIN-I- EL 155 14 EOw p� C -- / + - - 2 O Rr'.TnI,ViNG WAIL FfG -CURB& 2 JR LL V&S HANDRAILTO MATCH SUPPORT 5 CDT rrxf�6�- F%IST(VIE)As APP�zDVED, FACILffY EI. 1544 SECTION #5 8'INTO EXIST EXCEPT AS SHOWN OTHERWISE. T- _._ :11- ' B CURB&GUTTER .. –1 -- '–i–,--, •, PO GRADE 3/8"= i'-i" GA 'N/EP 09"GRO'JI WALL T __ I �6"MIN -- > -- JBF FISH GRADE ELEVATIONS III LL=_ 4 F, T-, _ L EL. 160.DD HN SEE �" E.�® -LGL 5-0.. `_ F 1E50-9C)IL _ -\-� EL. 160.50 TOW 1 2x \-'3 85(IBA) L 158.60 NOTES: SECTION 1_ FTG LAVOJ'TO FOLLOW EXIST SEE ' - w /� Q GOD PER CWEERIA SHOWN_ Mr & -I _ —EL 15s_f o1A Latl SUMMIT I ASCENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR -- " - 1 A 1 0 TO CONSTROETI ON_ E�154.50_ - - 4({�- - -----_-_._- _-- we,MLLES B. Neson-CURB& Q f,NISH GRADE -_.-. __. _-_._--..-- D G.eJONES ---__ FL '58.25 GU ITER ® BEHIND EI. 160 50 GAMONT -- - EL.157.79 ��-- EL 1G0.50 IOW SECTION M� ---- DAll D HARMON led Nurn,e, - AC PENT SEE - 39 209-702 P 000 6 42 FORCE---- - (TVP.) Am, _-' - 6 ib-93 MAIN -----.-.-._._._._--_.-_. NJ 154.50 F --_y ONE EINENG S oNE BOO 050 011NOT � ONE INCH.SCALE ACCORDINGLY 55..0.. _ __.-.- 111111SEE n"AC.HEJ CFR DRAWIVG SECTION Q BUIL DING LINE I- - NEW HnNDRan..see II I II EL. 155.74 TOW__-- E.. 167.1 fi �� -_ ----- EL. 1seGo _ a aN-._ T I III i II i a � i �. ,5s4D CURB&GUTTER Lik .=f: 7 - risiallil L 1509C EL. 150.90 \`„„PAtFs� 'NNE-B!Dc cDLUMN,-,nBE111No m"I g°.% SECTION 01EFOC` LOW 3/8"- 11-0" 6 1 CND PERU UT CRIT RIAOISHOWN XIS VIE& 8* SU81.1I1 EARN F FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCT OR Sleet Num,er s-n ‘im.•m•.i•m•m.miii••---- 'MMMIIlMMMlMlM"IMM.MM...........MIMi•mmlIllII1IIIIIIl.IIlIIIIIIlIllIlIlIlIlll.l.lm••.•mm•mmmnmm•mmmmmm. ___, 8 15 4 1 3 I 2 EXIST.PRECAST �I - . EXIT ,.'T.VAT..! CONIC.WALL W/SFAI,ANT PANFI ��� EXIST CONIC. EI_.158.36 O SLAB ON GRADE 115"®ALUM. EL.158.40 ,N4 99 12"OOE W. ��-- HANDRAIL 11�"Al UM. HANDRAIL L._56.36 In ER2I T -Ns aA 12"r,.cill . C' -NS®12"0.C. MR EnpMeMnp.Inc. ALTERNATE #4®`2"OCE.W.- L%IST WALL HORIZ.I.EC , 6 TREADS®1"=5'.-6" _.1...._2'-0" FL '54 4E 0 PROVIDE SHEET IL�NG EXP - - -- ----- UNIFlEO SEWEgAGE AGENCY _ FOR TRUCK LOADING W SIA OF WAAVINGTIXI COUNTY ROUGHENED CJ- _ _ BEFORE EXCAVATING MAi. DOCK CONSTRUCTION --3.3„,„ • ;:,,j, / LANT , -N4®12 O.C.E.W. ,�, / • Typ :/,'T.1 , - - r EL.154.34 _ n `_XP FILL SPACE BETWEEN _� 6 N TVP_ I -? �? MATT. SHEEL PIiING ANU -r-'�- \/•• "th .^ /SEA!ANT-_ NS NOSING BACK OF WALL WI H �� #5®12' 0 C '�_ B IVP ® # 4. M1®12 OCE E W , CR 15HFD ROCK CRUSHED ROCK- - , e t B' -- ARIES 1. CRUSHED N5® 2'O.F 5 �' z'm WEEP HOLES ry - ROCK BASE AI TCRNATF 10 0' O.C, DURHAM - .. ' —coNc ENCASEMENT Hoaz,'EG Si �. I Ns®1r p_GEw. , _ SUPPORT H. 2 0- 3-N5 CONI 8"MIN_ ROUGHENED J-� M9®12"RUSPED / �^ l _ 1 i3 N"m 12 Ork FACILITYE II � N 8' 8 B" S CRUSHED _____�- • IiICK BASF- C, 5 CR S pWg CCK BAST N� I f - R3JGHENED CJ + •.--#4 0 16"0 C. ` N��. fl R'l GHFVCD CJ- SECTIONS 2' 0' N4 6D 3 45 S 12 0 26+ 3-#S CONI. 4 13 SECTION /1 3 s coni. H '. J I 8 B B"� -I- "3-N5 CONT. �- .-.__ _-. 3-N5 CGVT.--I F8�- '2-0" .,I I- Pro B.4NLLEY SECTION n Des gnetl N 3/4"=7'-OF 0 B H SECTION N.CABLE 5-11 �` Drown IK'¢ALUM.--/I C_8` S.SMITH HANDRAIL 5-11 Checked cneD.eHARMON Fro0ct N p er 00039-206-102 0.. Doto 6 3' 8" e CHEEK THIS LINE IS ONE INCH WHEN DRAWING'S EUIL SIZE.IF NOT EL.15834 _�/ WALL ONE INCH,SCALE ACCOROINCLY ` 16'-D'SQUARE v - _ I ♦ JIB CRANE MAST SAWCJT AND REMOVE EXIST.GONG_ CAST INTO BASE SLAB S NECESSARY TO CONSTROCr '� pp TN4®11"0.C.E.W. NEW.19 CRANE FOUNDATION RCPT ACE I HORIZN EL C / N4®12"O.CE.WA ti-#'1'2"p.OEW HOR12.an __„:„._______---/- j / ti SLAB AF TER COMPLETION CONIC. F_L.15n 50- r OF CONSTRUCTION. .; i -� _.. _ .38...- .0 �`___` NEW E s '4Th%W/ N iJ"O.C. _ 0� S A3`-;LAB sAENr '� 2., 2 - -NS®1r o.c. _: EL. 54.34 ., CROS ICD =13= _A ' 3 9 DRAIN- IP '' ROSC®NFD OJJ-\♦ # E 18" #a W 3'-OTbS CONT f 0__-LJ `ROUGHENED OCc� __ -- - 1O 6 i FRENCH ROCK BASE ®17 L 6 MIN.-33. - - c 0 CON0 > URLL e".KTO EXIST. VT NCASEMENT "t , 5 9 nD 'E ` / T 2-6 DOWELS CRUSIIE _,_,,,,____i_. -'1" -..1. I I`, ROl ALT 5351fTZ a 90Cl< 3NS CONI. I NS X 12"DC E W I D RR CRANE OIINDATION. #4®12'D.CE.W. 3-#5 CONT. A 8• 1 Q L._ -.8-O_SOUARC c SECTION A6 ��FP�,P9efFer a� ° SECTION n 1;_B S-.1 ''''''''''it::‘,",-,‘ 4 °° ff ''FPR WI,� Y - Sheet Number 8-12 6 I 5 I 4 3 I 2 I 1 I , r V."EXP.JT.MnTL. up W/SL AI _ EW -- NAND _ EXIST.#5 now LS®15"o NTO MATCH RAIEXIS t. D SEE SEC TON NOTE p.3 -NEW HATCA\9HRAIL f0 LT■�/�J�� %IST.CONC.SLAB, V."EXP.JT.MAIL FX5T NG _`T l SEF SECTION EXIST.HANDRAIL-- W/SEALANT -- --- -�'� - -- - NOTE//2 //J- _--"14- k4®• �2-#4-®12 ()CEA . -L Z"TYP I HIM En91nMn°.Ino. OFF SECTION // -/d {- /I [ 1 ,_--- /TRsAOS 0 11" _ L UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY NOTE H4 Q llT-r��-7r -_-1111 ft �" OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OM -1- 53L -` - -p4 DOWELS 0 6"O.C.X 2'-6' . _ EXIST CON C.WALT,-� 5"CRUSHED ' -- 1 CRUSHED ROCK BASE SFS SEC71ON ROCK BASE NOTE#1 H1 6. W/3CALAN.MAIL. ° #5 W 12"OC_ I _ft'_TY°'N3 NOSING DURHAM 1 BAR 7 SUPPORT SIDEwnI O.O.E,W I - , ` / 'A DX, JT SFTL W/ FACILITY EXIST,GON'_ -X4®12' //4 0 12"0 G-E_W. T2 I SFAI AN( ° MISCELLANEOUS I p4 0 12 STRUCTURAL -xs®1z°o.c. o.GE_w. SECTIONS ... .^ .- n1-TERNa-E - •- HOR1z.LFA :n__.,,. s^CRUSHED GRUSHFD ROCK SASE-- �-Uro A NEO CJ ROCK SASE X-1 T- ROUGHENED ry CJ SECTION NOTES: -3-N5 CONT 1.PROVIDE L ATERAI BRACING TO EXIS"IING CONCRETE WALL BEFORE J— G1 REMOVING EXISTING SLA9 }y I 2.REMOVE EX.STING SLAB TO SMTS-SS A5E0 ON PLANS. D" 8"_ B" --- - -- - /gyp• �I-3projar:t Mar ager FACE OF WALL AND PLUG H01F N4 NOVSIHAI NA GROUT. 4 04I,_E=OXYCROU NV,"INTO T.LX'STINE WALL AND SFT//4 DOWELS®6"O.C. 2'_0 B.WILLEY N r--- Des Soca SECTION /1 N.CABLE D„ S--1 SECTION SECTION �A Drano s-La �.'=I'-o' -a s_,1 s.SMITH O-B Checked,HARMON P.o,eet NE- r NEW HAN9RAIL 00039-206-102 Dat, 0 MATCH 06-14-93 \ IR EXISTING r---1 NEW MATCHANH DOS O - l 1 0 MATCH F%ISI /."EXP.JfMA T_. /•"E%P JT.MniL THIS LINE IS ONE INCH KHEN DRAWING IS F - ULL IF NOT 312E. B W/SPA,AN I W/SEALANT ONE INCH,SCALE ACCORDINGLY. ?' 6" -#4 MARIE'S 7. -. -.0 0 12"O.C.X io r Na®t2"O.C.X ia,' _ 6 .-I WAIEK , 1 I N` I b4 012"O.CE.W. F;,15116 -/i4® 2`0 I�_ X`- 12 O.C. lf SAW U T AND REMOVE -' EXIST AC PH, ---1 > --SAWC i ANJ R[.VOW r r" -AC PANT ' FT5 AC PVMT. • CONSTRUCT NEW 5 CRUSHED q5®12'O.f. AS NECESSARY TO 1u. _p -- /(4 0,...:,,..H0,:.E W. WAIL REPLACE ROCK SASE Q' CONE'RLCT,NEW STAIR_ A_ 6 _.�IAC T.AF ER EL 15650 REPT ACE AC PVMT.AFTER - TT ROCK BASE CONS RUC PION A-TFRNA O C_ /-CRUSHED ROCK COWIE OF -5® 2 C0M La T'OH OF CONSTRUCTION - TF 'w^ o 2" 2" W'2' O.C_ HORIZ.IEG W' O O -2"0 WEEP HOLES N5 2'0.C. j k q5®12'5-C. HOR '2"0.C_ —I- • 110417.ALTERNAEG RNnTF ,s ROUGHENED CJ-� TO ryZ.LEG _R q4 012"O.C. v. -ROUGHENED CJ ROUGHENED CJ _ — _ 3-q5 CONI. 1 6" 8,!•.BJI 18"I 6-F•B.J 8 g,j 3�N5 CONT ..s.: m A r2' ,__._ Y zo 1 1_. 2 D"_- a D �, P"oFfs6 SECTION n SECTION n s-1: SECTION /1 awE a" .-D,. _S'�11, " ._C.. 5-11 `k.�„n^° 6 SSeel Number ec# 813 ' Ufn 4 D FER NOR E�am.mmo,Inc UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY DURHAM SUPPORT FACILFE Y CANOPY FOUNDATION/ D 0 ROOF FRAMING SEE ENLARGED �I--- _-- ---"" � PLAY ITV -SEE EN ASCE') SIM SIM PE'', 11 \ SM,TYF'. IVz"EJ IFa,--�cil SIN,PYP EDGE'OF EkST. __-_1 - - l ---I o I MAINT.91 SP, FTG _ • I IN „',D.WILLEY oPSN.CABLE ora J EWA_SPA.ES S..SMITH cncckea n '5.1 �I ,II u`N,+I �I qI `7-jD.HARMON Pro SEF ENLARGED PLAN�TYP. aleAI 00 Number G9-208-102 MIMI 61110 Doi. 6-14-93 -I ® ti— I�-� hlls l INE IS ONE INCH WHEN IlBfit � _-. E020 MtI ® TY' 0RAINNG IS FULL 52E IF NOT I 1 I ONE ANON SCAI E ACCORDINGLY. '— ' - CONE- ASID Q PS 4G4�ENM'Y' -- SEE ENLARGFJ "/ � L111:11 =LAN OM J,iYP. TYP CANOPY FOUNDATION PLAN ®N CANOPY ROOF FRAMING PLAN AN 51 3/76"=1'-0" 3/16"-1.--O" cE A 'N4btw�4C Sheet Number 8-20 APPENDIX B CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS 24-1-03989-003 TABLE OF CONTENTS B.1 GENERAL 1 B.2 DRILLING 1 B.3 SAMPLING 1 B.3.1 Disturbed Sampling 1 B.4 BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT 2 B.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS 2 B.6 LOG OF BORING 2 FIGURES B1 Soil Description and Log Key B2 Log of Boring B-1 24-1-03989-003 B-i APPENDIX B CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS B.1 GENERAL Shannon&Wilson, Inc., explored subsurface conditions at the Operations and Maintenance Building Expansion project site with one geotechnical boring, designated B-1. The approximate location of boring B-1 was measured in the field relative to existing site features, and the location is shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. This appendix describes the techniques used to advance and sample the boring and presents a log of the materials encountered during drilling. B.2 DRILLING The geotechnical boring was drilled and completed on December 18, 2015, using a track- mounted CME-55 drill rig provided and operated by Western States Soil Conservation, Inc. of Hubbard, Oregon. The boring was advanced to a depth of 81.5 feet below the existing ground surface using mud rotary drilling techniques. A Shannon& Wilson geologist was present during the exploration to locate the boring, observe the drilling, collect soil samples, and log the materials encountered. B.3 SAMPLING B.3.1 Disturbed Sampling Disturbed samples were collected in the boring,typically at 2.5-to 5-foot depth intervals, using a standard 2-inch outside diameter(O.D.) split spoon sampler in conjunction with Standard Penetration Testing. In a Standard Penetration Test(SPT), ASTM D1586, the sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is defined as the standard penetration resistance, or N-value. The SPT N-value provides a measure of in situ relative density of cohesionless soils (silt, sand, and gravel), and the consistency of cohesive soils (silt and clay). All disturbed samples were visually identified and described in the field, sealed to retain moisture, and returned to our laboratory for additional examination and testing. SPT N-values can be significantly affected by several factors, including the efficiency of the hammer used. Automatic hammers generally have higher energy transfer efficiencies than cathead-driven hammers. One automatic hammer was used for all SPTs attempted at the site. Based on information we received from Western States Soil Conservation, Inc.,the energy 24-1-03989-003 B-1 efficiency of the automatic hammer used on site averaged 85 percent when measured in June 2015. All N-values presented in this report are in blows per foot, as counted in the field. No corrections of any kind have been applied. An SPT was considered to have met refusal where more than 50 blows were required to drive the sampler 6 inches. If refusal was encountered in the first 6-inch interval (for example, 50 for 1.5"), the count is reported as 50/1st 1.5". If refusal was encountered in the second 6-inch interval (for example, 48, 50 for 1.5"), the count is reported as 50/1.5". If refusal was encountered in the last 6-inch interval (for example, 39, 48, 50 for 1.5"), the count is reported as 98/7.5". B.4 BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT The completed boring was backfilled with bentonite grout and bentonite chips in accordance with Oregon Water Resource Department regulations. No wells or other instruments were installed in the borehole. B.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS Soil samples were described and identified visually in the field in general accordance with ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The specific terminology used is defined in the Soil Description and Log Key, Figure B 1. Consistency, color, relative moisture, degree of plasticity, peculiar odors, and other distinguishing characteristics of the samples were noted. Once transported to our laboratory,the samples were re-examined, various classification tests were performed, and the field descriptions and identifications were modified where necessary. We refined our visual-manual soil descriptions and identifications based on the results of the laboratory tests, using elements of the Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM D2487. However, ASTM D2487 was not followed in full because it requires that a suite of tests be performed to fully classify a single sample. B.6 LOG OF BORING A summary log of the boring is presented in Figure B2. Soil descriptions and interfaces on the log are interpretive, and actual changes may be gradual. The left-hand portion of the boring log gives our description, identification, and geotechnical unit designation for the soils encountered in the boring. The right-hand portion of the boring log shows a graphic log, sample locations and designations, groundwater information, and a graphical representation of N-values, natural water contents, sample recovery, Atterberg limits, and fines content. 24-1-03989-003 B-2 PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE Shannon& Wilson, Inc. (S&VI9, uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified FINES <#200(0.075 mm=0.003 in.) 1 Soil Classification System(USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on SAND Fine #200 to#40(0.075 to 0.4 mm;0.003 to 0.02 this and the following pages. Soil descriptions in.) Medium #40 to#10(0.4 to 2 mm;0.02 to 0.08 in.) are based on visual-manual procedures(ASTM D2488)and laboratory testing procedures Coarse #10 to#4(2 to 4.75 mm;0.08 to 0.187 in.) (ASTM D2487), if performed. GRAVEL Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm;0.187 to 0.75 in.) S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm) z FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE-GRAINED CONSTITUENT (50%or more fines' SOILS COBBLES 3 to 12 in.(76 to 305 mm) (less than 50%fines)' Silt,Lean Clay, BOULDERS >12 in.(305 mm) Major Elastic Silt,or Sand or Gravel° Fat Clay3 RELATIVE DENSITY/CONSISTENCY Modifying 30%or more More than 12% COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS (Secondary) coarse-grained: fine-grained: Precedes major Sandy or Gravelly Silty or Clayey3 N,SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE constituent BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY 15%to 30% 5%to 12% <4 Veryloose <2 Verys oftcoarse-grained: fine-grained: Minor with Sand or with Silt or 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft Follows major with Gravel4 with Clay_3 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff constituent 30%or more total 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff coarse-grained and 15%or more of a >50 Very dense 15-30 Very stiff lesser coarse- second coarse- >30 Hard grained constituent grained constituent: is 15%or more: with Sand or with Sand or with Gravels WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS with Gravels \\\ Bentonite P°e'.Ai 1A11 percentages are byweight of totals specimen ,:.4 y�^ Surface Cement 2The 9 9 P passinga 3-inch sieve. Cement Grout v-�+v..6 Seal The order of terms is:Modifying Major with Minor. 'Determined based on behavior. Bentonite Grout Asphalt or Cap °Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage. Whichever is the lesser constituent. Bentonite Chips Wr� Slough MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS .• Silica Sand Inclinometer or Dry Absence of moisture,dusty,dry Non-perforated Casing to the touch .. •. Gravel Vibrating Wire Moist Damp but no visible water = Perforated or Piezometer — Screened Casing Wet Visible free water,from below water table PERCENTAGES TERMS 1.2 Trace <5% N c- ;--- Few 5 to 10% STANDARD PENETRATION TEST(SPT) Little 15 to 25% (5 SPECIFICATIONS 3 3 Some 30 to 45% Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall. Cl) Rope on 6-to 10-inch-diam.cathead Mostly 50 to 100% CO 2-1/4 rope turns,> 100 rpm o 'Gravel,sand,and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents,such as o Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long organics,cobbles,and boulders,estimated by volume. ShoerrI.D.= 1.375 inches 2Reprinted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches P Barrel O.D.=2 inches Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),copyright M ASTM International,100 Barr Harbor Drive,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, as 6-inch increments. www•astm.org. 07 Refusal:50 blows for 6 inches or Durham AWWTF 0. less; 10 blows for 0 inches. O&M Building Expansion NOTE:Penetration resistances(N-values)shown on Tigard, Oregon boring logs are as recorded in the field and 9 have not been corrected for hammer N efficiency, overburden,or other factors. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND LOG KEY 0 (2 z March 2016 24-1-03989-003 E 0 as Co SHANNON &WILSON, INC. FIG. B1 NGeotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 3 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM(USCS) (Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357,ASTM D2487,and ASTM D2488) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBOL TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS • • GW •illi° • Well-Graded Gravel;Well-Graded 1• b\I Gravel with Sand Gravel •. (less than 5% • Gravels fines) Gp •'• • Poorly Graded Gravel;Poorly Graded (more than 50% 1• 1\I Gravel with Sand of coarse 1t1 r fraction retained on No.4 sieve) Silty or Clayey GM 11 * Silty Gravel;Silty Gravel with Sand Gravel '_I (more than 12% • COARSE- fines) GC • • • Clayey Gravel;Clayey Gravel with GRAINED b� Sand SOILS •�% (more than 50% retained on No. SW . Well-Graded Sand;Well-Graded Sand 200 sieve) Sand • with Gravel (less than 5% fines) so . Poorly Graded Sand;Poorly Graded Sands : Sand with Gravel (50%or more of coarse fraction :I:•C.l•t'1.} passes the No.4 SM :1: ..'• a Silty Sand;Silty Sand with Gravel sieve) Silty or Clayey Sand '..1:•`11-'1:1 I (more than 12% fines) SC ''. Clayey Sand;Clayey Sand with Gravel ML Silt;Silt with Sand or Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Silt Inorganic Silts and Clays Y 4- (liquid limit less CLLean Clay;Lean Clay with Sand or than 50) fr I/ Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay II FINE-GRAINED % Organic Silt or Clay;Organic Silt or SOILS Organic OL � , \ Claywith Sand or Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay (50%or more passes the No. r r Elastic Silt;Elastic Silt with Sand or 200 sieve) MH r �r� Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt Inorganic Silts and Clays Fat Clay;Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel; (liquid limit 50 or CH Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay more) / .p Organic Silt or Clay;Organic Silt or Organic OH ( Erg, Clay with Sand or Gravel;Sandy or N ► Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay \'1 '; HIGHLY- 0 ORGANIC Primarily organic matter,dark in pT i, 0,, ,1 i, Peat or other highly organic soils(see w SOILS color,and organic odor ASTM D4427) z w Placed by humans,both engineered :% The Fill graphic symbol is combined m FILL and nonengineered. May include with the soil graphic that best d various soil materials and debris. k represents the observed material X } NOTE: No.4 size=4.75 mm=0.187 in.; No.200 size=0.075 mm=0.003 in. m NOTES 0 3 1. Dual symbols(symbols separated by a hyphen,i.e.,SP-SM, Sand v' with Silt)are used for soils with between 5%and 12%fines or when 0_ the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of Durham AWWTF b the plasticity chart. O&M Building Expansion O Tigard, Oregon 2. Borderline symbols(symbols separated by a slash,i.e., CUML, 9 Lean Clay to Silt;SP-SM/SM,Sand with Silt to Silty Sand)indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between SOIL DESCRIPTION CD two groups. CO AND LOG KEY O 3.The soil graphics above represent the various USCS identifications oz (i.e., GP,SM,etc.)and may be augmented with additional March 2016 24-1-03989-003 E symbology to represent differences within USCS designations. m Sandy Silt(ML),for example,may be accompanied by the ML soil SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG. BI E, graphic with sandgrains added. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 3 GRADATION TERMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or,within the range of grain sizes ATD At Time of Drilling present,one or more sizes are missing(Gap Graded). Meets criteria approx. Approximate/Approximately in ASTM D2487, if tested. Diam. Diameter Well-Graded Full range and even distribution of Elev. Elevation grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested. ft. Feet CEMENTATION TERMS' Fe0 Iron Oxide gal. Gallons Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or Horiz. Horizontal slight finger pressure Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable HSA Hollow Stem Auger finger pressure I.D. Inside Diameter Strong Will not crumble or break with finger in. Inches pressure lbs. Pounds PLASTICITY2 MgO Magnesium Oxide APPROX. mm Millimeter PLASITICTY MnO Manganese Oxide INDEX DESCRIPTION VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA RANGE NA Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic A 1/8-in.thread cannot be rolled <4% NP Nonplastic at any water content. O.D. Outside Diameter Low A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10% a lump cannot be formed when OW Observation Well drier than the plastic limit. pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to PID Photo-Ionization Detector much time is required to reach the 20% plastic limit. The thread cannot be PMT Pressuremeter Test rerolled after reaching the plastic ppm Parts per Million limit. A lump crumbles when drier psi Pounds per Square Inch than the plastic limit. PVC Polyvinyl Chloride High It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic >20% rpm Rotations per Minute limit. A thread can be rerolled SPT Standard Penetration Test several times after reaching the USCS Unified Soil Classification System plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when qu Unconfined Compressive Strength drier than the plastic limit. VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer ADDITIONAL TERMS Vert. Vertical Mottled Irregular patches of different colors. WOH Weight of Hammer WOR Weight of Rods Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or Wt. Weight animals. Diamict Nonsorted sediment;sand and gravel STRUCTURE TERMS' in silt and/or clay matrix. Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;singular:bed. a Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling. Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color ers Slough Material that caved from sides of awminalation.less than 1/4-inch thick;singular: 0 borehole. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures with 0 W little resistance. 3 Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS' sometimes striated. CO Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into o Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar small angular lumps that resist further } surfaces. breakdown. Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, cc ci Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded such as small lenses of sand scattered through edges. a mass of clay. s Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout. 3 Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges. R Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges. Durham AWWTF 9 O&M Building Expansion 0 Flat Width/thickness ratio>3. Tigard, Oregon 9 a Elongated Length/width ratio>3. Reprinted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for SOIL DESCRIPTION 2 Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),copyright ASTM o International,100 Barr Harbor Drive,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. A copy of AND LOG KEY the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,www.astm.org. z Z Adapted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for March 2016 E Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),copyright ASTM 24-1-03989-003 ' International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. A copy of o the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,www.astm.org. SHANNON&WILSONronmental , I F�G, BI N Sheet 3 of 3 ' Total Depth: 81.5 ft. Northing: 639,942.9 ft. Drilling Method: Mud Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: 155.9 ft. Easting: 7,620,612.1 ft. Drilling Company: Western States Rod Type: NWJ Vert.Datum: NGVD29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME-55 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz. Datum: NAD83(91) Offset: Other Comments: Hammer Efficiency=85% SOIL DESCRIPTION E/ev. 5 m - , PENETRATION RESISTANCE,N (blows/ft.) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t a subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Depth E E o L Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries (ft.) 03 C7 N between soil types,and the transitions may be gradual. Loose, brown, Silty Sand(SM); moist;fine to '.:11-it 0 20 40 60 80 100 • i i medium sand; nonplastic fines; micaceous. -1: .t••.t•• .•t•' ' I._.•..........1.............I............._ :.1: .4...4..4...4.1.............14.....4....1. _. 1. _. _. FILL ...11Z :1•r• �. .. .. ..:•:::::•:. 148.9 :-..!:.12: • : :::: i • ':• : .. .;. Medium dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand 7.0 *.i:,1� '•' . "''• 4"'"-' '•( ••--•••- with Silt(SP-SM); moist;fine to medium sand; ---1• S_3 "'` nonplastic fines; micaceous; few lenses 2-to ..1:;�' • -16:• : €:1:= `_:: :i:` T.'!*:'''i:.•i _. 146.4 . . . .. ...... .".... :. 4-inches thick of Silty Sand(SM); Disturbed /- 9.5 .I ,I'. I texture. J :. t 10 :: ..:: •:.:.: ::. :•::. :• •:•::.:. .i:11: s_4 •• :• •:•.{[ __::::::::•:•:.::•:-.:.3:3i:••: Loose to medium dense, brown, Silty Sand :• fi ' -11`• ?:' (SM); moist;fine to medium sand; nonplasticr. °"''° "-'-"- - +4 = 4.4 =I= fines; micaceous;faintly stratified with few :T'l.(: • ....1..............s.._.........4.x.4...4.4...4.,........4...4. Q interbeds of Poorl6. y Graded Sand with Silt I'i (SP-SM). MISSOULA FLOOD FINE-GRAINED .:1.f'�. 15 :: i.._ 1 0 DEPOSITS ••F:.. - . •• ..•__..•:• .. . •Trace gravel from 16.5 to 17.0 feet. :a:.:1. ; •ri • : . . -::__• ?_: •_.#._..._.._..._ - 137.9 ':l: I: - _ -•.._.I.4......4...4.1.......4..+1.....,.._...,.:,..._.._... 7 Silt layer from 18.0 to 19.5 feet according to 18.0 ''1'' ""`''-"'-'= = ? = = = = s - 6 driller a -- 136.4 _ ._..._ . Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand(SM); moist; 19'5 20 •• • interbedded with Poorly Graded Sand with Silt S-5 :_ :: :: _: ::_: SP-SM); moist; silty sand layers consist of fine '`' '`' :-17-4'2 _x''' to medium sand; nonplastic fines; poorly I- 22 5 . '' '"""`#'`"`." `.. ..' graded sand layers consist of medium to ) 1.' 4-+4 1..............1........4.....3............ :.............. 1 coarse sand; nonplastic fines; interbeds 3-to l =,-=••=• •=•_•••_••=••........<...... ......... : : 16-inches thick; slight iron oxidation. ) 1 i ! J - 130.411/A-7a 25 =.. ••_..:: a #::__:::: ••• Stiff tan-brown, Lean Cla CL moist to wet; / 25.5 0flow to medium plasticity;trace organics. / :i:i: :s: ::: - ... . r _... .. 128.9 .. Q ....,.._...,.j........4.....j.....4..4.....1...... :.::i:;.::: a 1 Stiff,tan-brown, Silt(ML); moist to wet;trace 1 27.0 m - !° - / - ._...4......4-4......4.....E ..4..4... ,. -44+..4. Z lfine sand; nonplastic; micaceous. •---.... o - g Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM). :::.;. _...,..,... .:..._.._... # ...:..:......4...4..4..............- CONTINUED NEXT SHEET ❑ 0 d 20 6 40 60 80 100 LEGEND o a I Standard Penetration Test 0 Recovery(%) E Groundwater Level ATD O %Fines(<0.075mm) !Li' • %Water Content Plastic Limit I---- Liquid Limit b N Durham AWWTF 0. O&M Building Expansion Tigard, Oregon M NOTES q 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. .1 N 2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. LOG OF BORING B-1 w 0 3.Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing. March 2016 24-1-03989-003 w ,r,'- SHANNON &WILSON, INC. FIG. B2 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 3 REV 3 Total Depth: 81.5 ft. Northing: 639,942.9 ft. Drilling Method: Mud Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: 155.9 ft. Easting: 7,620,612.1 ft. Drilling Company: Western States Rod Type: NWJ Vert.Datum: NGVD29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME-55 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz. Datum: NAD83(91) Offset: Other Comments: Hammer Efficiency=85% SOIL DESCRIPTION Elev. o m -a PENETRATION RESISTANCE, N (blowstft.) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the E. ' - . A Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Depth EE 2 N lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries (ft.) c j 0 > 'Cl. between soil types,and the transitions may be gradual. 0. . . .20 ... 4.0. . ...6.0 ......8.0 .. 100 Continued: 4 ::#::*:••=:ili.l.•::. ::4-:€: :€:i:='::#:: :i..i Medium dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand s a— - - _--='' '''"`'' `'`''''' _ with Silt(SP-SM);wet;trace fine gravel;fine to .. " IT _ _ _ _ _ __ coarse sand; nonplastic fines; slight iron { P g r. 122.9 - % : : •1: _ 1 oxidation. I 33. •0 ..: . :...,.�.;...,. . I MISSOULA FLOOD FINE-GRAINED 1 .::::.:• ._...........:._.. :......_.,.:...:..:_..i.._...3..:... i.s..3..i1. DEPOSITS ) ::;:: 35 •; ..:: ••.:: :: ..1.• 1.:: Dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt • • "• : i• . :7:1.-.i:1-:T: • and Gravel(SP-SM);wet;fine to coarse _ _ _ • subangular gravel;fine to coarse sand; 117.9 I 38.0 _....._...,....._.,..._.t....;.....;.....;.._...;...... 1 nonplastic fines;stratified with few interbeds •:: .. I 11-to 1.5-inches thick of Silt(ML)and few I : •: :..:...: ._ _.i............:.E.:..._.._..._..>...:..>...: 1 interbeds 2-to 6-inches thick of Silty Sand I l :IJ :'5-10 :: ::s.. s Medium dense,gray-brown, Poorly Graded • : : : , . •• ' Sand with Silt(SP-SM);wet;fine to medium is 7 sand; nonplastic fines; stratified with few r• 112.4 `' "-'`"'- `... I r. 43.5 1: : : : • _ -.-******.i a 1\interbeds of Silty Sand(SM); micaceous. jI 111.9 ',:::.: ,._..._.._..._.._..._.._ _ _.._.._... _......._. I Gravel layer from 43.5 to 44.0 feet based on I :: :: :. . ::•• .. Q (drill action and cuttings .:::•:s 11 i Medium dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand - ix .T .........(••,: .•_• 4.4 _ _ 4.4 I with Silt(SP-SM);wet;fine to coarse, I ..*.i:1 t•• f: ..;.,..._.._..,. U 1 subangular to subrounded sand; nonplastic J:•:1.: • • • •• •• • .._.' Ones; micaceousii, . •:I•. i•. ''`' 1 Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand(SM);wet; ::�:1:(g_12a •: :: '=::'" :: :: :: i fine to medium sand; nonplastic to low r- 104.6 :J:f ; —_ =_ fi'i„-12b ._: •--. ...22.. ..:---:-:-______-___ _:__-.:=--:7:--- II plasticity fines;stratified with few interbeds of / 51.3 .i.,t.'; • • Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM). _ _ Medium dense,gray, Silty Sand(SM);wet; ••1:••G• fine to medium sand; low plasticity fines;few :•4.' a interbeds of gray, Silt(ML);trace interbeds of �. l 55 :' •.:' •." ..:: ..:: •• • :: :: o brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt(SP-SM); "4,1. ;s:.,.:•: :r = - _ -;:- - - o micaceous;trace partings 2-to 3-mm thick of a' I: .._....._...,,_ _• _-7•14- _ • fine organics and peat. .••1.:- ( #`t J :f: i co Very stiff, gray, Silt(ML). 59.0 I - - °J° CONTINUED NEXT SHEET • LEGEND 0 20 40 60 80 100 iI Standard Penetration Test Q Groundwater Level ATD Recovery(%) O %Fines(<0.075mm) co • %Water Content i Plastic Limit I--- I Liquid Limit 0 N ( Durham AWWTF c O&M Building Expansion Tigard, Oregon 0 w °S NOTES co ,2 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. LOG OF BORING B-1 N 2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. ut 0o 3.Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing. March 2016 24-1-03989-003 ce W 1- SHANNON &WILSON, INC. FIG. B2 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 3 REV 3 Total Depth: 81.5 ft. Northing: 639,942.9 ft. Drilling Method: Mud Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: 155.9 ft. Easting: 7,620,612.1 ft. Drilling Company: Western States Rod Type: NWJ Vert.Datum: NGVD29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME-55 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz. Datum: NAD83(91) Offset: Other Comments: Hammer Efficiency=85% SOIL DESCRIPTIONElev. o PENETRATION RESISTANCE, N (blows/ft.) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the .n4? fl Hammer Wt.&Dro 140lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Depth T E 2 m a P� lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries (ft.) rn 0 between soil types,and the transitions may be gradual. 0. .....20:,.......4.9....... 6.0 ...8.0....140 Continued: ' }} :p 1 yy S-14a `' :a€: i:- ?:: i::: :C}F :F:='fE�al�a:[: E_ `: Very stiff, gray, Silt(ML);wet;trace fine sand; sa.s �c "'=42 '-==---_—=------42•` - -==•-= 1 61.3 7-14b _..._.._...,'26._..,. .4......:..:...:1 I low plasticity; stratified with interbeds of Silty 1 ... ....... ....._..._ J Sand(SM). I 92.9 ._... .._....1;.•...:..;...;.1.;......;...:..... ;.. .........;.....;. I MISSOULA FLOOD FINE-GRAINED I 63.0 1 DEPOSITS I :..._.._..._.3._...:.._...__..._ _... 1:..._.>...:..:...:..:..._ . J Very stiff, gray, Lean Clay(CL);wet; medium 65 :: ..::,.. ::__.... .. ::::: •:::: :::: :::: :: plasticity. 15 ----_---' __-y__- ;; Very stiff, blue-gray, Lean Clay(CL); moist to .4.•.=••=•••4._•••4..4...4.. •.4..;;•...4..-•4. - - 7 wet;trace fine to medium sand; high plasticity; r 87.9 ¢ 4-+-4 _: _: _: _: :i: : _: 1 relict decomposed coarse subrounded sand; 1 6" ,:. I slight iron oxidation. HILLSBORO FORMATION I 70 .:: ••::4.• ..:: ::: :: :: ..r:: .•:: •.:: ..:: .. Very stiff, blue-gray mottled orange-brown, "---'l •:- -:: :: :i::: -;::---::-: --:::-- __ Sandy Lean Clay(CL); moist to wet;trace fine - - - - s .- ' `-, rounded highly weathered to decomposed _ _ i r 82.9 _..t.E. :•: ::: Q 1 gravel;fine to coarse sand; high plasticity; / 73.0 `moderate iron oxidation. I :...:..:...:..:...:.....:..:...:.._...:.;:...<..:..._.._...:..:...:. J Very ue-gray,stiff to hard, blFat Clay(CH); -17 _ :-:• _•.•• •• 6 moist to wet;trace fine sand; medium to high : :i __! '—-i.-- :i: - — =- ==- _- plasticity. _ _ jj3( j :Yg' E 18 It:: ••::: ::: t tt `:: :.; APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 24-1-03989-003 TABLE OF CONTENTS C.1 GENERAL 1 C.2 SOIL TESTING 1 C.2.1 Moisture (Natural Water) Content 1 C.2.2 Atterberg Limits 2 C.2.3 Particle-Size Analyses 2 FIGURES Cl Atterberg Limits Results C2 Grain Size Distribution 24-1-03989-003 C-i APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS C.1 GENERAL Soil samples obtained during the field explorations were described and identified in the field in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure), ASTM D2488. The specific terminology used is presented on Appendix B, Figure B 1. The samples were reviewed in the laboratory. The physical characteristics of the samples were noted, and the field descriptions and identifications were modified where necessary in accordance with terminology presented in Appendix B, Figure B 1. Representative samples were selected for various laboratory tests. We refined our visual-manual soil descriptions and identifications based on the results of the laboratory tests, using elements of the Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM D2487. The refined descriptions and identifications were then incorporated into the Logs of Borings,presented in Appendix B. Note that ASTM D2487 was not followed in full because it requires that a suite of tests be performed to fully classify a single sample. The soil testing program included moisture content analyses, Atterberg limits tests, and particle- size analyses. All tests were performed by Shannon& Wilson, Inc., in accordance with applicable ASTM International (ASTM) standards. General testing procedures are summarized in the following paragraphs. C.2 SOIL TESTING C.2.1 Moisture(Natural Water) Content Natural moisture content analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D2216 on selected soil samples. The natural moisture content is a measure of the amount of moisture in the soil at the time the explorations are performed, and is defined as the ratio of water weight to dry soil weight, expressed as a percentage. The results of the moisture content analyses are presented graphically on the Logs of Borings in Appendix B. 24-1-03989-003 C-1 • C.2.2 Atterberg Limits Atterberg limits were determined on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D4318. This analysis yields index parameters of the soil that are useful in soil identification, as well as in a number of analyses, including liquefaction analysis. An Atterberg limits test determines a soil's liquid limit(LL) and plastic limit (PL). These are the maximum and minimum moisture contents at which the soil exhibits plastic behavior. A soil's plasticity index (PI) can be determined by subtracting PL from LL. The LL, PL, and PI of tested samples are presented on the Atterberg Limits Results, Figure Cl. The results are also shown graphically on the Logs of Borings in Appendix B. For the purposes of soil description, we use the term nonplastic to refer to soils with a PI less than 4, low plasticity for soils with a PI range of 4 to 10, medium plasticity for soils with a PI range of 10 to 20, high plasticity for soils with a PI greater than 20. C.2.3 Particle-Size Analyses Particle-size analyses were conducted on selected samples to determine the percentage of material (by dry weight)passing the number 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. Analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D1140. Results of the particle-size analyses are presented on Figure C2, Grain Size Distribution. They are also shown graphically on the Logs of Borings in Appendix B. 24-1-03989-003 C-2 a 1 70 > > i.. : N O 60 0c. CH 0, ._.. Z 50 F' c _. ....... _ ... __ O CL NOTES a 1)Atterberg limits tests were N performed in general accordance o 40 with ASTM D4318 unless z otherwise noted in the report. 2)Group Name and Group U Symbol are in accordance with ASTM C' and are refined 30 a co dan e88 with ASTM D2487n a where appropriate laboratory tests are performed. ■ 3)Plasticity adjectives used in 20 sample descriptions correspond to plasticity index as follows: MH or OH -Nonplastic(NP)(<4%) Low Plasticity(4 to 10%) -Medium Plasticity(10 to 20%) 10 -High Plasticity(>20%) CL-ML ML or OL. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT-LL(%) BORING AND DEPTH GROUP GROUP LL PL PI NAT. FINES Durham AWWTF SAMPLE NO. (feet) SYMBOL' NAME2 % % %2 W.C.% % O&M Building Expansion •B-1,S-14a 60.0 ML Silt 32 26 6 28 Tigard, Oregon ■B-1,S-16 70.0 CL Sandy Lean Clay 38 16 22 23 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS 1 March 2016 24-1-03989-003 n SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. Cl Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I f>v ' v Z' SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES I O y NO.OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS —10 p N �m N 3 C O th N r r t;7 N r f7 O O O O O 7 th N co co Q M N N Z 100 1 a I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I , N O N O O O O O O O O O O O 4 Q fl1 N I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 0 �� � A l CI) CSD d••< m 90 mJCD 0 10 • °'m ED, S 80 0' oo -m ` 20 Ci)a) O O 3 n O � Z cD o-fa) afD � 70 o n (U 30 R�1 t'p m co 0 60 m o• ��El,) N Co>- 40 Z y p ppm rn m � Z 50 m33 n' t0p �Ov � 50 m `D�,�•m N� O S W av w 40 w 00 g D ww 60 m g� 3 � 30 2 �j �� CO p 70 m 8 7 O '.W 20 • O j 80 Nm � of 10 CD O to 11�fD 90 n O • � 3 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 N O O O V M N O co co C.) N W (O V C) N I I 100 CD O O O O O O O O O O O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS F m m COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES GRAVEL SAND :INES: SILT OR CLAY BORING AND DEPTH GROUP SAMPLE NO. (feet) SYMBOL' NAME'GROLJGRAVEL SAND FINES NATDENSITY Durham AWWTF W.C. PCF • DRY B-1,S-8 30.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 12 26 O&M Building Expansion ■B-1,S-12a 50.0 SM Silty Sand Tigard, Oregon 50 29 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION n March 2016 24-1-03989-003 SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. C2 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 24-1-03989-003 a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Report 24-1-03989-003 NNWDate: March 7,2016 To: Tim Rondeau Clean Water Services. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANTS REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2)when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3)when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or(5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example,groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and,thus,the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. Page 1 of 2 1/2015 t4 A REPORTS CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANTS REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical,geological,hydrogeological,and environmental findings,and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not,under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings,because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring,Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2015