HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 5/28/2008
1-- -
CASE NOTES FORM
Case No. DJ<C AOO~ - (Far). ~
Date: 5 -,.( '75 - ~ 071
LO ~ pa.5P <<:,
G, ,or"" - +,.,,.. h ::<. P 0.-'1"- -l-
I
51lh"" i .J.f.f'1 Mat ;cr,.. -<tXJ~
I:WorklJow proccsseslPlanning Forms/Case Notes Fonn 2.12-08
5 - ;"6-0 c.t
Date Received: -<.. Q
Planner: SH
GEOENGINEERS CJ
February 2S, 200S
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Allention: Carol Stineman
Subject:
Geotechnical Engineering Report
New Fire Station # 16 Facility
6S" Place and Main Street
Springfield, Oregon
File No. 1999-005-00
GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for the
proposed fire station #16 facility to be located at the southeast comer of 6S'" Place and Main Street in
Springfield, Oregon.
Our services have been provided in a___.J"..ce with our e.-e-,ol dated October 26, 2007. This report
summarizes our field and la~_.J._., programs and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations
for design and construction of the proposed development.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Please call if you have questions regarding this
report or if we can be of further assistance.
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
L~ lJ~~
Associate ~O:.-
TNH:gaw
P;\ 1 \1 999005\OO\F'inals\ 199900S00R .doc
r
l. __
--
-
Elrth Scienu + TItCMOIOD
~
15055 SW Sluoi, PII_,. hit, 1<40
Plrllud, DR 97224
l.~ll~ 503.624.9274
fan,..f" 503.620.5940
"ffl,," ......I"...i...fS.U..
/
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
NEW FIRE STATION #16 FACILITY
68'" PLACE AND MAtN STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
FOR
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
GEoENGINEERS CJ
File No. 1999-005-00
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Prepared for:
City of Springfield
- 225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon
Attention: Carol. Stineman
Prepared By:
GeoEngineers, Inc.
15055 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 140
Portland, Oregon 97224
503-624-9274
-------- I It:
(1111\11 w,. .
~o, '. Mictlae] C. Vail. ~-
Geotechnical Sta
J~n~ M.jNien;ier, P.E., G.E.
AS)Clatlj' L .
LA~~;-l.z..:~~
I
~.. {in
/AJJI1\(~
Trevor N. Hoyles,PlE. r
Ass.ociate ~-
, TNH:gaw
POlt:\J\J999005\OO\Finals\199900500R.doc EXPIRES: (..../ '}l()(r'\r:r
Disclaimer.: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard .copy of the original document (email.text.table.an~/or figure), if provided, and any
attnchmcntii are only a copy of the original document. The original document is slored by GeoEngineers. Inc. and will serve as the official
document of record.
CopyrightO 2008 by GeoEngincers, Inc. All rights reserved.
File No. J999~005-00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................._.._...._...._.._.._......_.._ ........................._...1
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK...........
........................... 1
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS........... _:... _.. _......................... _.... _.... _........ _......_.... ... ................. _............ _... _...... _ _ _.... 2
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGy......................................... ............._._.._............__...._.._.... ..........,....... 2
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................._...._ ..........................._...._.._........._.._.._...... ...............~.... 3
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................_...... ......................................_.................. ....... 3
3.4 GROUNDWATER.... ........................_........ _ ..................._.................._.........._.. . ......... 3
3.5 CORROSIVITY AND CHEMICAL ACTIViTY............. .........................._........_.............._.. ... 3
4.0 SITE SEISMIC CONDITIONS.................. .........._...._........_......_.._.._..............._... .........................._......_.. 4
4_1 EARTHQUAKE SOURCES.............. ...................._......_...._.._.._.._...._.... ............._.....,...._.......4
4_1.1 Crustal Earthquake Sources ................._.._.............._.._-_ ............:........_........_....,............:.. 4
4_1.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone ......_.._........._ ......._......._...................._.................... ............... 5
4.1.3 Intraslab Earthquake Sources .............._...._......_.._...._.._..............__............................-......- 5 -
4.2 MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE......................................,....................................._........5
5.0 SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ......_...._......_.. ......................._ .._......................_..... ...6
5.1 DETERMINE CONTRIBUTING EARTHQUAKE SOURCES.. ............. .......:............._..............._6
5.2 SELECT BEDROCK INPUT MOTIONS................................ ............. ................_................_...7
5.3 DEVELOP A GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE FOR THE SITE... ................._...._.............. 9
5.4 PERFORM DYNAMIC SITE RESPONSE ANAlySIS........................... ...._........_...._.............._.. 10
5.5 CALCULATE THE SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE................._........ ..................._........ 10
5.6 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL........................ _.... _. _.... _... _.. _ _........................ _........ _... _........ _....... 10
5_7 OTHER SEISMICALLY INDUCED HAZARDS .............._.._......................_.._........._.._ .....10
6.0 CONCLUSIONS. _....... _...... _.. _.. _. _.. _...... _.......... _.... _.. ...... _... _.. _.. _...... _ .... ....... .................... _...,.......... 11
6.1 GENERAL .._._..._........__........................._.._..........._._...._...._....____......................._..._....................... 11
6_2 SEISMIC HAZARDS ................... . ........... ............._...._.._..................................... .......11
7.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ................_......_........_..... ...... 11
7.1 DEMOLITION.... .........................._...._.._........_......_.._...._.._...__.._........._.._..._ ........_................11
7.2 EROSION CONTROL...................... ......................... ..............................._..._......_...._._.............12
7.3 STRiPPiNG.......................,....................... .............. ................. ..............................._......_._.... 12
7.4 EXCAVATION .._............._.._............_.._.._...._ .....................,...................._...._..12
7.5 SUBGRADE EVALUATION _...._.._........_......_..........._................. ........_...._................._............ 13
7.6 SUBGRADE DISTURBANCE ....... ................._ .........._.............................._........................:..... 13
7.6.1 Granular Haul Roads And Working Blankets _.................._.............._....-..,......,.._,......_.... 13
7.6.2 Wet Weather Fill..........................................................................................._.........._.....14
7_6.3 Disturbed Soil.....................,........... ............................ ................................. 14
7.7 STRUCTURAL FILL................................ _.. _...... _........... _. _.. _.. _.... _.. _ .,........ ............................._.... 14
7.7.1 Onsite Soils _..,......................_......._...._...._......_...._.._...._......._....._......_..__...._......_............. 14
7 _7.2 Imported Material..... .......... _.. _.... _.. _.. _ _.. _...... _.. _...... _.. _....... ,.. _.. ......... _...... _.. _... _.... _........... 14
7.8 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.. ............... .................................. 15
7.9 CUT AND FILL SLOPES..................................................................................._.........._........_.... 16
7.10 SITE DRAINAGE ................_......._.._...._.._..._.._......_...:.._......._......._............_..._.........._....__...._.....16
File No. /999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page;
GEOENGINEER~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE NO.
8.0 FOUNDATION SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS .........._..........................................................._.....17
8.1 BEARING CAPACITY .._......_...._........._.._..._...._......_......_.._...................................._......_....._...._.._ 17
8.1.1 Footing Subgrade Preparation ........................._.............................._.........._.._.........._.... 18
8_2 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT..........................................................................._................._.....18
8.3 LATERAL RESisTANCE .................... .................................................._.._........_...._..._.. ........... 18
8,4 FLOOR SLAB AND FLOOR SLAB AGGREGATE BASE.......................................................... 18
8_5 SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS...........................................,...................... 19
8.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS................:..................... ......................_............_..._.._.._ 19
9.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION ................_........_.....:~.._...._.. .............................._......._........_.._ 21
1 0.0 LIMITATIONS. _... _........... _............. .... ...... ...... ... ......... ...................... _.... ........ _.............. _... ......... .......... 21
11.0 REFERENCES........ ......... _............... ........... _.. _... _.. _............... _.. _.... _.... _.._ _.. _.. _.. .................. ................. 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figures 3 ... 4_ Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation
Figures 5.._ 7_ Comparison of Acceleration Response
Figures 8... 22_ SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
Figure 23. Maximum Considered Earthquake
Figure 24. Site Specific Design Acceleration Response Spectrum
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - FIELD EXPLORATIONS ............
......................_.....A-1
Appendix A Figures
Figure A-1_ Key to Exploration Logs
Figures A-2 '... A-5. Log of Borings
APPENDIX B -LABORATORY TESTING ......._.._.._...._...._.........._.._..-....... ....................._........_.................B-1
Appendix B Figures
Figures B-1 and B-2. Atterberg Limits ASTM D-4318
Figure B-3. Consolidation Test ASTM D 2435
APPENDIX C - REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE.._.........._.._................._.._C-1 ... C-4
File No. J999.005~OO '
February 28. 2008
Pageii
GEoENGINEER~
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
NEW FIRE STATION #16 FACILITY
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FOR
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report summarizes GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed fire station
#16 facility to be located at the southeast comer of 68'" Place and Main Street in Springfield, Oregon.
The general site location is shown in Figure I.
The approximately I-acre site is currently developed with the existing fire station # 16, which we
understand will be demolished prior to construction of the new facility. We understand that the new fire
station will be single-story concrete tilt-up and masonry construction, We have assumed that column
loads will be less than 25 kips, continuous footing loads will be less than 4 kips per linear foot (kit), and
floor slab loads will be less than 350 pounds per square foot (pst). We have also assumed that site
grading will be minimal. The precinct is considered an "essential facility" by the Oregon State Structural
Specialty Code, and therefore, a site specific seismic hazard analysis is required.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation was to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions
at the site in order to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development.
Our scope of work included the following:
. Performing an initial site reconnaissance to locate borings and coordinating clearance of existing
site utilities via the required One Call Service.
. Exploring subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site by drilling four hollow-stem
auger borings to depths of up to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) using subcontracted truck-
mounted drilling.equipment.
. Obtaining samples at representative intervals from the explorations, observing groundwater
conditions, and maintain detailed logs in accordance with ASTM 02488.
. Conducting laboratory testing as follows:
.
Moisture content and/or density determinations in general accordance with "ASTM Test
Method 02216.
.
Plasticity index tests on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM 04318-84.
Consolidation testing in general accordance with ASTM 02030.
.
. Evaluating geotechnical conditions and providing the following in a written report:
. A description of surface and subsurface conditions based on the explorations, including soil
conditions and groundwater levels.
. A discussion regarding the potential for expanSIve, deleterious, or chemically active
conditions.
File No. 1999.005-00
. February 28. 2008
Page 1
GEoENGINEER~
,
. Recommendations for site preparation, grading-and drainage, stripping depths, fill type for
imported materials, compaction criteria, .cut and fill slope criteria, trench excavation and
backfill, use of on-site soils, and wet/dry weather earthwork. ' .'
. Geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and - construction of shallow
foundations, including 'allowable design bearing pressure, estimates. of selllement, and
-minimum footing depth and width,
. Geotechnical engineering recomm',ndations for the design and construction of concrete floor
slabs, including an anticipated value for subgrade modulus and recommendations for a
capillary break and vapor barrier.
. Recommendations for subsurface drainage of foundations. and floor slabs, based on the
groundwater conditions observed in our explorations.
. Recommendations for asphalt concrete (AC) and' Portland cement concrete' (PCC) design
pavement .sections based on subsurface conditions. -encountered during our explorations
and traffic loadings provided by the architect.
. A site specific seismic hazard analysis, in general accordance with the 2006 International
Building Code (IBC 2006), Section 21 of the 2007 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures (ASCE 7-07), and Section 1802 of the 2007 Oregon Specialty Structural
Code (OSSC 2007),
. Recommendations for spectral response accelerations and Seismic Design Category, in
accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), based on site soil classification
determined from our explorations as well as existing,geologic mapping of soils below our,
exploration depths.
. A discussion of liquefaction potential.
. Providing a geotechnical engineering report reviewed and signed by a Professional Engineer
(P.E.) registered in the State of Oregon, who will also manage the project. .
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The project lies within the southern portion of the WiIlamelle Valley physiographic province in Oregon.
The WiIla~ette Valley is an elongated, north-to-south trending alluvial plain extending north. from
COllage Grove to Portland, Oregon. It is bordered by the 9regon Coast Range to the _ west and the
Cascade Mountains to the east.,The WillameUe Valley was formed when the volcanic rocks ofthe Oregon
Coast Range, originally formed as submarine islands, -were added onto the North American Continent..
The addition of the volcanic rocks caused inland subsidence, forming a depression in which various types
of marine sedimentary rocks accumulated. Approximately 15 million years ago, these marine sediments
were, in turn, covered by Columbia River Basalts that flowed down the Columbia River Gorge and
WiIlamelle Valley, as far south as Salem, Oregon. Later, uplift and tilting of these Columbia River
Basalts, the Oregon Coast Range, and the western Cascade Range formed the trough-like character ofthe
Willamelle Valley that we observe today. The Willamette .valley was subsequently filled with non-marine
clay, silt, sand, and gravel u.nits (Wilson, 1998) derived from weathering of the adjacent hills. The
catastrophic Missoula Floods later washed into the Willamelle Valley and Portland basin approximately
12,000 to 15,000 years ago and deposited fine-grained sediments mapped throughout the are~.
File No, 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 2
GEoENG1NEER~
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The current fire station #16 facility is boullded by Main Street to the -north, 68'" Place t~ the west, and an
existing residential development to the south and east. Surface cover at the site includes asphalt concrete
pavement in the parking area to the south of the existing building and a Portland cement concrete
driveway at the northeast comer of the existing building. Planter and landscape areas are also located to -
the north and south of the existing building, Several large trees are located within the planter areas and
along the southern and eastern sides of the property. The site is generally level. Figure 2 shows the
location of the planned. facility in relatio~ to proposed andexisting'feattires. "
3.3 SUBS~RFACE CONDITIONS
We explored subsurface conditions at the site by advancing four borings on January 28 and 29, 2008 at
the approximate locations shown in Figure 2. A member of our geotechnical staff maintained detailed
logs of the soils encountered and gathered representative disturbed and undisturbed soil samples.
Appendix A presents the boring logs and a description of the subsurface exploration program. Laboratory
test results are presented in Appendix B and shown on the boring logs.
_ We observed variable subsurface conditions immediately below the ground surface in each of the four
borings. In boring B-1, located in a grassy area anhe northwest corner of the site, we observed native
soils immediately underlying the sod zone at a depth or'about 2 inches bgs. In boring B-2, located in the
existing driveway at the northeast corner of ihe existing building, we encountered approximately 6 inches
of portland cement concrete pavement that was underlain by medium dense gravel fill to a depth of 1 foot.
In boring B-3, located in a small gravel area adjacent to the temporary fire engine tent, we encountered 1
foot of medium dense gravel fill. In boring B-4, loc~ted in the existing parking ar_ea, ~e encountered
approximately 3 inches of asphalt concrete pavement that was underlain by medium dense gravel fill to a
depth of 7 inches bgs.
" ,
Below these depths, our explorations generally encountered between 7.5 and 10 feel of stiff, native clay
that was underlain by stiff silt to a depth of -about 11 feet bgs. Below this depth, we generally
encountered medium dense silty sand to a depth of about 15 feet bgs, where very dense silty gravels with
occasional interbedded lenses of dense sand was encountered to the full depth of our explorations, We
did not encounter bedrock in any of our explorations.
3.4 GROUNDWATER
We encountered groundwater in the borings at depths of between 9.5 and.l2 feet bgs at the time of
drilling. We anticipate that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to season'al variations in precipitation,
changes in site utilization, or other factors, The siie soils are also conducive to the formation of perched
groundwater, Perched groundwater levels may rise to'the ground surface during heavy or prolonged
precipitation
.-
3.5 CORROSIVITY AND CHEMICAL ACTIVITY
The corrosion of buried metals as a function of pH increases considerably at values less than 4, and
paSsivation occurs at relatively high pH levels, Soils that tend 'to be acidic are soils containing well'
humidified organic maller, or mineral soils that become acidic asa result of leaching of basic cations by
rainwater. Based on the soils observed during our geotechnical explorations, we do not anticipate
corrosion conditions from soil resistivity that will be unusually detrimental to concrete or steel
File No. 1999-005cOO
February 28, 2008
Page 3
GEoENGINEER~
reinforcement over the anticipated life 'of the project. We did not observe the presence of gaseous
substances or potentially chemically active soils during our geot~chnical explorations.
4.0 SITE SEISMIC CONDITIONS
4.1 EARTHQUAKE SOURCES
The seismic hazard at the site is primarily due to the potential for -large, long-duration interface
subduction zone earthquakes occurring within the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Earthquake damage
c.ould also be derived from local shallow crustal earthquakes occurring on mapped or unmapped faults, or
from deep, intraslab earthquakes that occur within the subducting Juan De Fuca oceanic plate. A
discussion of these potential sources is provided below.
4.1.1 Crustal Earthquake Sources
"
The Upper Willamette River fault zone is a series of northwest trending faults that include the Middle
Fork Willamette River, Salt Creek, and Hills Creek lineaments. The closest structure of this fault zone is
located approximately eleven miles southeast of the site. The fault, zone marks'the northwestern end of
the Eugene-Denio zone on the western flank of the Cascade Range and is marked by regional lineaments
mostly expressed as linear stream valleys, although a few exposures of faults in - bedrock h<ive been
described along these lineaments. No fault scarps on Quaternary deposits have been described, but an
exposure of a fault in Pleistocene gravels and discontinuities in Quaternary volcanic rocks are possible
evidence of Quaternary displacement (Personius, 2002a), indicating that the fault zone might be
potentially active. On the other hand, Geomatrix Consultants concluded in their seismic design mapping
report for the state -of Oregon that the Upper Willamelle River fault zone is not potentially active based on
the absence of geomorphic features that would suggest late Quaternary displacement (Geomatrix, 1995),
Overall, research has proved inconclusive as to whether or not this fault zone should be considered
potentially active.
A series of unnamed, northeast-striking features are located between Sutherlin and Yoncalla in the
Oregon Coast Range, approximately 30 miles southwest of the site. The area is underlain by gently
folded, - northeast-striking Eocene sedimentary rocks deposited in a fore-arc basin, Possible young scarps
have -been observed in fluvial terraces and lineaments on higher terraces along these features during aerial
photo reconnaissance, but these scarps may be the result of fluvial erosion rather than faulting, indicating
that these faults mayor may not be active (PersoniUs, 2002b). Geomatrix considered these faults to be
active but with a low probability of activity (Geomatrix, ] 995).
The Owl Creek fault is a north-south-trending reverse fault associated with an anticline in the Eocene
Spencer Formation mapped in the subsurface east of Corvallis on the floor of the southern Willamelle
Valley. The nearest trace.ofthis fault is located approximately 35- miles northwest of the site. The fault,
which has no geomorphic expression, apparently offsets the middle to late Pleistocene Rowland
Formation; but does not offset the latest Pleistocene Willamelle Formation (Personius, 2002c).
Geomatrix considered the Owl Creek fault to be active but with a .Iow probability of activity (Geomatrix,
1995).
The northeast-striking, northwest-dipping Corvallis fault zone forms ,the western margin of the southern
Willamelle Valley in the-vicinity of Corvallis, approximately 40 miles northwest of the site. The fault
trace is offset by two northwest-striking strike-slip faults that appear to be tear faults in the thrust sheet;
however, these faults may extend eastward into the Willamelle Valley and thus may not be tear faults. No
unequivocal evidence of Quaternary deformation has been described, so whether this fault should or
File No. J999-005~OO
February 28, 2008
Page 4
GEoENGINEER~
should not be considered active is a matter of debate (Personius, 2002d). In Geomatrix's report, they
concluded that the Corvallis fault may be considered active, but that it is characterized by a long
recurrence interval and has a low probability of activity -(Geomatrix, 1995).
Several other mapped and unmapped sources in the area could produce significant ground shaking at the
site. These sources include the Mill Creek fault as well as an unnamed anticline on the Siu~law River,
both located. approximately 50 miles from the site. However, due to their inactive classification or
relative proximity to the site, we have not elaborated on them for this study.
4.1.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone
The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is a 680-mile long zone of active tectonic convergence where
oceanic crust of the Juan De Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4
em/year (DeMets et aI., 1990). Very Iillle seismicity has occurred on the plate interface in historic time,
and as a result, the seismic potential of the CSZ is a subject of scientific controversy. The lack of
seismicity may be interpreted as a period of - quiescent stress buildup between large magnitude
earthquakes -or-as being characteristic of the long-term behavior of the subduction zone. A growing body
of evidence, however, strongly suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred
(Atwater, 1992, Carver, 1992, Peterson et aI., 1993, Geomatrix, 1995). This evidence includes: i)buried
tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and
Washington; 2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits; 3) Paleo liquefaction features
and 4) geodetic uplift pallerns of the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon dates on the buried tidal marshes indicate
a recurrence interval for major CSZ earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300
years ago. (Atwater, 1992, Carver, 1992, Peterson et aI., 1993, Geomatix, 1995)_ The inferred
seismogenic portion of the plate interface is roughly coincident with the Oregon coastline and lies.
approximately 50 miles west'ofthesite,
4.1.3 Intraslab Earthquake Sources
Earthquakes derived from intraslab sources occur within the subducting Juan De Fuca Plate at depths
ranging from 20 to 40 miles bgs. Approximately 20 miles west of the current coast line. is the Cascadia
Subduction Zone where the subducting Juan -De Fuca Plate moves eastward beneath the North American
continental plate dipping at an angle of 10 to-20 degrees, As the plate moves farther away from the CSZ,
the curvature of the plate increases and causes normal faulting within _the oceanic slab in response to .the
extensional forces of the down dipping plate. The region of maximum curvature of the slab is where
. large intraslab earthquakes are expected to occur, and is located roughly 30 miles below the Oregon Coast
Range. This area is located roughly 30 to 40 miles west of the site, Historically, the seismicity rate
within the Juan De Fuca Plate beneath southern Oregon is extremely low (Geomatrix, -J 993, 1995).
4.2 MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE
The primary means for estimating the maximum earthquake that a particular fault co~ld generate are
empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture length.
Magnitude estimates for the maximum credible crustal earthquake in the area are based largely on _the
record of earthquakes in the region on interest. Table 1 lists earthquakes with magnitudes larger than
M4.9 that have occurred in the region sine 1873.
File No. 1999-005-00
February 2~,2008
Page 5
GEoENGINEERs.a'
Based on the historical record and crustal faulting models of the northern Oregon/Southern Washington
region and our literature review, the maximum credible earthquake for crustal sources in the vicinity ()f
the site is estimated to be M6.0 (Geomatrix, 1995).
Geomatrix Consultants (1995) estimated the maximum magnitude earthquake for an intraslab source is
- .
M7 to M7.5 based on the likely thin nature of the Juan De Fuca Plate and, ~y comparing the historic
seismicity along Cascadia with other margins.
Table 1. Regional Earthquakes with Magnitude Larger than M4.9 Since 1873
I Date Magnitude Location
I 1873 6.75 Crescent City, CA
I 1877 5.25 Portland, OR.
I, 1892 5.0 Portland, OR.
I 1936 .6_1 Milton-Freewater, WA.
1 1962 5.5 Vancouver, WNPortland, OR.
I 1968 5_0 Adel, OR.
I 1993 5.6 Scotts Mills, OR.
I 1993 6.0 Klamath Falls, OR.
I 2001 6.8 Olympia, WA.
Using magnitude versus rupture area relationships for subduction zone earthquakes worldwide, the
maximum magnitude of a Cascadia subduction Zone earthquake is estimated to be M8.0 to M9,O
(Geomatrix, 1995) ,
",.,
'5.0 SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
- We performed a site specific seismic hazard analysis in general accordance with Section 1613 of the 2006
International Building Code (!BC 2006), Section 21 of the 2005 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures (ASCE 7-05), and Section 1802 of the 2007 Oregon Specialty Structural Code
(OSSC 2007). The following sections summarize the steps we co~pleted in the analy.sis.
. '
5.1 DETERMINE CONTRIBUTING EARTHQUAKE SOURCES
. OSSC 2007 requires that a site specific seismic hazard analysis address, at a mmlmum,
earthquakes from: I) a shallow crustal earthquake on real or assumed faults near the site with a
moment magnitude of at least 6,0; 2) a deep intraslab earthquake with a moment magnitude of at
least 7,0; and 3) an interface, subduction zone earthquake with a moment magnitude of at least
8:5,
. . We used the USGS website to deaggregate the overall seismic hazard at the site into
individual contributing earthquake sources (USGS, 2002), We researched the seismic hazard
at the site. for earthquakes having a return period of 2475 years (2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years).. The seismic hazarddeaggregations produced for the site are shown
in Figures 3 and 4. Based on the results of the deaggregations, we selected the following'
earthquake scenario for consideration:
FileNo. /999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 6
GEoENGINEERsg
o An interface, subduction zone earthquake occurring within the Cascadia Subduction
Zone .having a magnitude of 9,0 and a source-to-site distance of 89 km.
According to the USGS seismic hazard deaggregations, interface subduction zone
sources constitute approximately 93 percent of the overaH seismic hazard at the site
for snort-period spectral accelerations having a 2475'year return period. The USGS
deaggregations did not include shill low crustal or deep intraslab earthquakes as
contributing to the overaH seismic hazard at the site; however, in accordance with
OSSC 2007, we have also considered the following potential earthquake scenarios in
ouranalysis: -'
o A random, shallow crustal earthquake occurring on an unmapped fault having a
magnitude of6.0 and a source-to-site distanc~ of 15 kIn;
o A deep intraslab earthquake occurring within the subducting Juan de Fuca plate
having a magnitude of7.5 and a source-to-site distance of 85 kIn.
5.2 SELECT BEDROCK INPUT MOTIONS
. For each earthquake scenario, at least five recorded earthquake acceleration time histories must
be used to model bedrock motions at the site. Each time history is scaled so that the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of the time history matches the anticipated PGA on rock at the site for each
earthquake scenario.
. As an aid in selecting acceleration time histories that would appropriately model the intensity,
frequency content, and duration of rock motions expected at the site, we estimated various ground
motion parameters for each earthquake scenario. ,
. For the shallow crustal earthquake scenario, we estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA),
mean period (Tm), significant duration (0,-95), and Arias intensity (IA) from charts developed
by Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Rathje et al. (2004), Abrahamson and Silva (1996), and
Travasarou et al. (2004), respectively, Table 2 lists estimates of these ground motion
parameters.
Table 2. Ground Motion Parameters for Shallow Crustal Earthquake Scenario
Earthquake Scenario
Mw
Source-to-Site-
Distance (km)
PGA(g)
Tm (sec)
D5_95 (sec)
IA(m/s)
Random Fault (Scenario 2)
6_0
15
0_12
0.44
7
0.212
. For the interface and intraslab subduction zone earthquakes, we used published ground
motion attenuation relations to estimate the PGA on rock for each scenario as O. I 5g and
O,13g, respectively. Additionally, we recognized that acceleration time histories with long
durations should be selected to model these subduction zone earthquakes.
. We reviewed current earthquake databases maintained by Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) Center and the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation
Systems (COSMOS), and we selected acceleration time histories having ground motion
parameters similar to those described above.
File No. J999~005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 7
GEoENGINEER~
. We selected five interface subduction zone earthquake records to model earthquake scenario
], Tab]~ 3 summarizes the, earthquake records chosen and lists relevant ground motion
parameters for. each record.
Table 3. Interface Subduction Zone Earthquake Records Used in Analysis
Earthquake Station Component Mw Hypocentral PGA D,.., I USGS I Scaling
Distance (km) (g) (sec) Site Class Factor
Cape Mendocino Fortuna, 701 South FOR-090 7.1 23_6 0_11 18.2 I B I 1.36
(1992) Fortuna Blvd
Michoacan Caleta de Campos CDC-E 8.0 38_3 0_14 60.4 I B I 1_07
(1985)
Michoacan La Union UNI-OOO 8.0 121.8 0_17 24.2 I B 0_88
(1985)
Michoacan
Zihuatanejo ZIH-OOO _ 7_5 49_0 0;16 17.4 A 0_94
(1985)
Valparaiso L1olleo LLO-010 7.8 68_5 0.69 35.7 B 0.22
(1985)
. We selected five shallow crustal, earthquake records to, model earthquake scenario 2. Table 4
summarizes, the earthquake records chosen and lists relevant ground motion parameters for
each record.
Table 4. Shallow Crustal Earthquake Records Used in Analysis
Rupture PGA, Tm 05_95 I, USGS Scaling
Earthquake Station Component Mw Distance Site
(krn) (g) (sec) (sec) (mls) Class Factor
Morgan Hill Gilroy, Gavilan
COllege Science GIL-337 6.2 16.2 0.10 0.22 8_2 0_054 B 1.20
_ (1984) Buildinq
North Palm Fun Valley
Springs FVR-045 6.0 15.8 0_13 0_36 10.3 0.133 B 0.92
(1986) Reservoir
Whittier Glendora, 120
Narrows OAK-080 6.0 21.0 0.09 0_31 12.7 0.069 B 1.33
(19871- North Oakbank
Whittier Glendora, 120
Narrows OAK-170 6.0 21_0 0.11- 0.32 12_6 0_103 B 1.09
(1987) North Oakbank
Whittier Pasadena, CIT
Narrows PAS-180 6_0 15.4 0_17 0.47 6_8 0.217 B 0.71
(1987) Athenaeum
\.
. We selected five intraslab subduction zone earthquake records to model earthquake scenario
3: _ Table 5 summarizes the earthquake records chosen and lists relevant ground motion
parameters for each record,
File No. J999-005~OO
February 28, 2008
Page 8
GEOENGINEERU:V
Table 5. Intraslab Subduction Zone Earthquake Records Used in Analysis
Hypocentral PGA DS_95 USGS Scaling
Earthquake Station Component Mw Site
Distance (km) (g) (see) . Class Factor
EI Salvador Acajutla Cepa CA-180 7.6 151.8 0_11 25.4 B 1.18
(2001)
EI Salvador Ciudadela Don Bosco DB-270 7.6 110.2 0.25 25.8 A 0_52
(2001)
Nisqually Volunteer Park ALO-090 6.8 79_7 0_11 35_7 B 1.18
(2001)
Nisqually . 79.4
(2001) Cooper Point HAL-270 6.8 0_08 35.8 B 1.63
Nisqually Queen Anne MAR-328 6_8 77.6 0.13 25_0 B 1_00
(2001)
. We used published ground motion attenuation relationships to allenuate the ground motions from
each earthquake scenario to. verify that the records we selected appropriately -modeled the
frequency content of the ground motions expected at the site. A comparison of the selected
ground motion spectra and the acceleration response spectrum generated from the attenuation
relationships is shown in Figures 5 through 7.
5.3 DEVELOP A GENE,RALlZED SOIL PROFILE FOR THE SITE'
. We developed a generalized soil profile to analyze the seismic behavior of the site based on the
subsurface conditions encountered in the four borings. We modeled the elastic half-space at a
depth of 30 feet bgs based on the dense gravels encountered at this depth. TajJle 6 shows the
parameters we used to model the site soils.
Table 6. SHAKE Column Soil Parameters
Layer Depth to Total Unit Maximum
Soil Observed Soil SHAKE Soil Model Damping Shear
Layer Type Used Thickness Top of Layer Ratio Weight Modulus
1ft) (ft) (pcf) (ksf)
1 Clay Soil with PI=50 4 0 0_05 - 115 300
2 Clay Soil with PI=50 4 4 0_05 115 600
3 Silt Soil with PI=15 .3 8 0_05 120 1650
4 Silty Sand Sand (Average) 4 11 0.05 125 2900
5 Silty Cravel Cravel (Average) 5 15 0_05 135 4650
6 Siity Cravel Gravel (Average) 5 20 0_05 135 4650
7 Silty Cravel Cravei (Average) 5 25 0_05 135 4650
8 Siity Gravel Gravel (Average) 30 0_05 135 4650
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 9
GEoENGINEERu:;i
5.4 PERFORM DYNAMiC SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS
. We completed an equivalent linear shear stress-strain analysis of the site soils using the computer
program SHAKE2000. Using the soil profile shown in Table 6 and the input bedrock motions,
we scaled each ground motion to the appropriate PGA on rock for its respective earthquake
scenario, The ground motion response spectra for each input bedrock motion are presented in
Figures 8 through 22,
5.5 CALCULATE THE SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE
. We developed a maximum considered earthquake (MCE) response spectrum for bedrock at the
fire station #16 site using the procedure outlined in Section 11.4 of ASCE 7-05, assuming a Site
Class B profile. The MCE bedrock response spectrum we used in our analysis is sho~n in the
allached Figure 23.
. We calculated spectral amplification ratios for each input bedrock motion by dividing the
computed SHAKE2000 ground response acceleration at each period by, the input bedrock
response acceleration for the same period, in accordance with Section 21.1.3 of ASCE 7-05.
These ratios indicate how the soils at the site will amplify. the input bedrock ground motions.
. We determined the median spectral amplification ratios -for each earthquake scenario. Based
on the USGS deaggregations, we assigned a weight to each of the earthquake scenarios and
icomputed a weighted-average of the spe,ctral amplification ratios at the site to derive the final
amplification-ratios,
. We multiplied the MCE bedrock response spectrum by the spectral amplification ratios calculated
above to develop the site specific design response spectrum. The final design response spectrum
is taken as 2/3 of this respons\" and is shown in Figure 24.
5.6 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction is the process by which water-saturated sediment changes from a solid to a liquid state.
Since liquefied sediments may not support the overlying ground, or any structure built on them, a variety
of failures may occur including lateral spreading, landslides, ground seitlement and cracking, sand boils,
and oscillation lurching, The conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur are: 1) the presence of poorly
consolidated, cohesionless sediment; 2) saturation of the sediment by groundwater and 3) an earthquake
that produces intense seismic shaking (generally a Richter Magnitude greater than MS.O). In general,
older, move consolidated sediment, clayey or gravelly sediment, and sediment above the water table will
not liquefy (Youd and Hoose, 1978). Field perfonnance data and laboratory tests indicate that liquefaction
occurs predominantly in well-sorted, loose to medium dense sand or silty sand with a mean grain size
between 0.8mm and O,08MM (Seed and Idriss, 1971).
Based on the density and high fines content of the site sands and gravels, liquefaction with the potential to
damage site structures is not likely to occur at the site during a design level earthquake. We do not
believe that any specific design measures to address liquefaction at ihis site. are warranted.
5.7 OTHER SEISMICALLY INDUCED HAZARDS
Other seismically induced hazards include earthquake induced landsliding, lateral spreading, tsunami
hazards and seiche inundation. These phenomena are briefly discussed below,
Earthquake induced landsliding typically occurs when seismic shaking raises groundwater pore pressures
within a slope, effectively destabilizing the slope and causing landsliding. Liquefaction-induced lateral
File No. 1999.005-00
February 28, 2008
PageJO
GEoENGINEER~
spreading has historically tended to occur at sites where a nearby "free face" was present (such as river
banks) toward which failure could occur. (Seed and Idriss, 1971, Youd and Hoose, 1978). There are no
slopes or free faces on or near the fire station # 16 site.
Tsunamis occur when a subduction zone earthquake triggers a long period ocean wave that inundates
coastal communities. Seiche inundation occurs when a tsunami or similar wave causes inundation of
landmasses surrounding a large body of water. No significant bodies of water are located near the site,
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and analyses, it is our opinion that site is suitable for
support -of the proposed development, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
the project design and implemented during construction. The following conditions will likely affect the
proposed construction:
. The site is underlain by higlily plastic clays that have moderate selllement and expansion
potential. Therefok foundations will need to be esta~li'shed on aggregate pads.
. The native clay soils are not suitable for use as structural fill unless they are amended.
. Excavations within the clay may be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment.
6.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS
The seismic hazard -at the site is primarily defined by large, long-duration interface subduction zone
earthquakes occurring within the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Earthquake damage could also be
derived local shallow crustal earthquakes occurring on mapped or unmapped faults, or from deep,
intraslab earthquakes that occur within the subducting Juan De Fuca oceanic plate. The site specific
design accelerations shown in Figure 24 should be used for design of structures at the fire station #16 site.
In no case should the accelerations be taken as less than the 80 percent curve shown on.the._same plot.
Based on their density and high fines content, the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction during a
design level earthquake, Due to the lack of slopes and free surfaces on site or in the immediate vicinity,
earthquake induced landsliding and lateral spreading do not pose significant hazards. Since the ,site is
located far from the Pacific Ocean or other significant bodies of water, tsunami and_seiche inundation
hazard potential is low.
'7.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 DEMOLITION
Demolition of existing structures will include complete removal of foundations, asphalt pavement,
landscaping and landscape features, abandoned utilities, and concrete slabs and pads. The base course for
the existing pavement can be separated from underlying materials_and stockpiled for use as fill ifit meets
structural fill requirements, but should not be used as base course for new pavement or concrete slabs.
We recommend that existing structures, foundations; and concrete slabs or pads designated to be removed
be completely removed. Demolished material should be transported off site for disposal. Excavations
left from removing foundations, utilities, and other subsurface elements should be backfilled with
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page II
GEoENGINEER~
compacted structural fill as recommended in this report, The bottoms of the excavations should be
excavated to expose firm subgrade, The sides of the excavations should be cut into firm material and
sloped a minimum of I H: I V (horizontal to vertical). Abandoned underground utility lines should be
excavaied and removed from the site. The existing backfill for abandoned utility lines should be replaced
with structural fill in building and pavement areas.
Excavations required for demolition or utility removaJ should not undermine adjacent foundations,
walkways, streets, or other hardscapes. Excavations should not be conducted within an outward and
downward projection of a I H: I V line starting at least 2 feet outside the edge of an adjacent structural
feature, unless special shoring or underpinning is provided.
Demolition materials, including processed or recycled demolition materials such as crushed concrete from
off-site sources, should not be brought to the site or used on the site,
7.2 EROSION CONTROL
Silt fences, hay bales, buffer zones of natural growth, sedimentation ponds, and granular haul roads
should be used as required to reduce sediment transport during construction to acceptable levels.
Measures to reduce erosion should be implemented in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) 340-41-006 and 340-41-455, Lane County, and City of Springfield regulations regarding erosion
control.
7.3 STRIPPING
Most of the site has been previously developed and may not require stripping, However, where vegetation
and topsoil exist, we anticipate a stripping depth of approximately 4 inches, although additional stripping
may be required in localized areas. A representative from GeoEngineers should provide additional
stripping recommendations in the field during construction. Stripped materials should be transported off
site for disposal or used for landscaping purposes. The primary root systems of trees and other vegetation
within proposed structural areas should be removed. Any resulting voids should be backfilled with
structural fill.
7.4 EXCAVATION
We anticipate that excavations can be made using conventional equipment. Excavations deeper than 4
feet should be shored or laid back at an inclination of 3/4H: I V (horizontal to vertical) or flaller if workers
are required to enter. Excavations should be made in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and state regulations. If groundwater is encountered in the utility
trenches, seepage can likely be effectively removed by pumping from sumps located within the trench.
The sidewalls of the trench may have to be flallened or shored if seepage is encountered. If groundwater
is encountered during utility trench excavation, we recommend placing at least I foot of stabilization
material at the base of the excavation. Stabilization material should consist of well-graded gravel, crushed
gravel or crushed rock with a minimum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing the U.S.
No.4 Sieve. The material is t'? be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. Stabilization
material can be placed in one lift. _','. _
" ". " ,." -
. . .. .". . ,,'.", -' .
It is the contraclor's resp';nsibility io select the excavation and dewatering methods: to monitor the trench -
excavations for safety and to provide any shoring req~ired - to protect personnel and adjacent
improvements.
File No. /999-005-00
Febnmry 28. 2008
Page 12
GEoENGINEER~
7.5 SUBGRADE EVALUATION
After subgrade prep,aration activities are complete, the. eXlstmg subgrade to receive fill should be
proofrolled with a fully-loaded dump truck or similar heavy rubber-tired construction equipment to .
identifY remaining soft, loose or unsuitable areas. The proofroll should be conducted prior to placing
additional fill. The proofrolling should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, who should
evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and identifY any areas of yielding that are indicative of soft or
loose soil. If soft or loose zones are identified during proofrolling, these areas should be excavated to the
extent indicated by the engineer and replaced wiih- structural fill,
During wet weather, or when the exposed subgrade is' wet or unsuitable for proof-rolling, the prepared
subgrade should be evaluated by probing with a steel foundation probe. Probing should be performed by
a member of our staff. Wet soil that has been disturbed due to site preparation activities, or soft or loose
zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill,
7.6 SUBGRADE DISTURBANCE
The clayey soils and fill soils that mantle the site will be susceptible to disturbance during the entire year.
This is because the on-site soils have relatively high soil moisture conten-ts and soil exposures will dry
slowly, even during the driest months, Operating construction vehicles on the site soils will be difficult
year round and particularly during 'periods of wet weather, when standing moisture is present at the
surface, or when the moisture content of the material is more than a few percentage points above
optimum, Therefore, the onsite soils are susceptible to disturbance and generally will provide inadequate
support for construction equipment without deteriorating the subgrade.
Earthwork for pavements should be conducted during the dry season, typically mid-July through mid-
September. The subgrade should be protected from damage prior to earthwork. The contractor should
select the appropriate methods to protect the subgrade from equipment traffic. This can include restricting
equipment traffic, building haul roads, leaving,the existing grades well above final subgrade elevation
until the earthwork is conducted, or a combination of the above. Localized earthwork, such as trenching
and filling for underground utilities, can be conducted during other times of the year if the pavement
subgrade outside of those areas can be protected.
We considered two options for subgrade stabilization: I) using traditional granular fill blankets and 2)
using soil amendment (such as with lime or cement). Based on clay content of the soils as well as the
expected difficulty of disking the soil to introduce a~ amendment, we recommend that traditional granular
working blankets be used for this site,
7.6.1 Granular Haul Roads And Working B!ankets
Granular haul roads will be required for heavy construction traffic, In addition, the first lift of fill placed
on the ~xcavated soil subgrade in-the building pad and pavement areas should be construct~d as a working
blanket in order to support subsequent construction equipment and filling or paving operations.
Haul roads should consist of a minimum 16-inch-thick layer of imported granular material underlain by a
geotextile. -BuiJding:arnJ-pa\w' ,. "'.'-' !l1'lomgoblft..k-ets.shattldoCeBsishaGa.minimum.J.-2.inlilialbickJay,er.oo.
.impal'led-graaala.. ,,,,,... :d.~by-a uv..-" _ '-~"6:-~::'(U: ;':H.,:=..~"oF!~ Wet weather
construction methods will be required when placing haul road and working blanket material. In other
words, using low-impact tracked equipment and operating off of haul roads. '
File No. 1999.005-00
February 28. 2008
Page 13
GEoENGINEER~
Heavy haul roads, turning areas and site entrances may require a greater thiCkness of working blanket
material. The imported granular material for haul roads and working blankets should be placed in one lift
over the prepared subgrade and compacted using a smooth-drum roller without the use of a drum vibrator.
Haul roads and granular working pads should be underlain by a geotextile similar to Propex 4508 having
a minimum Mullen burst strength of 250 pounds per square inch (psi) and an apparent opening size
(A,O.S.) between U.S. Standard No. 70 and No, 100 Sieves.
""aul . ~~J af1d'workif1g-blanke1"material'should"ttillSi~f"hard;"durab1e.Grushed...ook.or-""llShed.grave~
.that.is.visibly-w.elbgraded.between.ooarse.and.fine.~dcleterious.mater,jals?ooRtainollG.rocl;,
,oarticles larger.than.;3.inches;oand.haveoless-thaJl"J "c.~c, ,taby-weight'Passing.lh",!,I,S!'No~OO-steve,. The
gradation requirements from working blanket material should be as shown for imported select granular
fill_in the "Fill Materials" section of this report,
7.6.2 Wet Weather Fill
Site fill placed during wet weather should be select granular fill as described in the "Fill Materials"
section of this report. ' '
7.6.3 Disturbed Soil
. Subgrade \lr fill soil that becomes loosened or disturbed should be excavated to expose undisturbed soil
and replaced with' properly compacted fill. The contractor should reduce soil disturbance by using
acceptable construction practices including the following: '
. Prohibiting construction traffic over unprotected soil in stripped and cut areas.
. Providing gravel working blankets over stripped and cut areas.
. Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff.
. Trenching and providing brow ditches above cut slopes.
. Sealing the exposed surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber-tire roller at the
end of each working day and removing wet surface soil prior to commencing filling each day,
7.7 STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural areas include foundation, floor slab, and pavement subgrades and any other areas intended to
support structu-res or within the influence zone of structures. Fill used in structural areas should be placed
on firm undisturbed native soil or on structural fill that has been placed as described in this report, and
should consist of imported select granular fill or crushed rock as described in the following sections.
7.7.1 Onsite Soils
The onsite clay soils should not be used as structural fill because of their high plasticity and moderate
shrink/swell potential. Therefore, we recommend using imported material for structural fill.
7.7.2 Imported Material
Imported material to be used as structural fill should be as described in the following subsections unless
approved by the project geotechnical engineer for specific fill applications or general site grading.
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 14
GEoENCINEER~
.7.7.2.1 Imported Select Granular Fill
Imported select granular material should consist of hard, durable crushed or angular pit or quarry rock,
crushed rock, crushed gravel and sand or sand that is fairly well graded between coarse and fine, contains
no clay balls, roots, organic matter or other deleterious materials, has a maximum particle size of 3
inches, and has less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No, 200 Sieve. The maximum particle size should be
limited to 1-1/2 inches within 6 inches of finished subgrade. The material should be placed and
compacted in lifts with maximum uncompacted thicknesses and relative densities as recommended in the
tables that follow.
, .'~
. 7,.7,2.2 Imported Aggregate Base RocklCrushl!d..Ro.ck . _,"
Aggregate base rock located under floor slabs, foundations and pavements should. consist of imported
clean, duraple, crushed angular rock. Such rock should be well-graded, contain no roots, organic matter
and other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 1-1/4 inch, and less than 5 percent
passing the U,S. No, 200 Sieve. The material should be placed and compacted in lifts with maximum
uncompacted thicknesses and relative densities as recommended in the tables that follow.
7.7.2.3 Trench Backfill
The onsite clay soils are unsuitable for use as trench backfill. Trench backfill for the utility pipe base and
pipe zone should consist of well-graded granular material having a maximum particle size of 3/4-inch and
less than 8 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. Pipe manufacturers may have different requirements
for trench backfill materials in the pipe zone, The material should be free of organic mailer and other
deleterious materials. Above the pipe zone, crushed rock should be used as described above.
Alternatively, on-site gravel fill soils may be used provided they meet the requirements for cru'shed rock
described above. The pipe bedding and backfill should be placed and compacted in lifts with.maximum
u~compacted thicknesses and relative densities as recommended in the tables that follow.
7.8 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
Fill soils should be compacted at moisture contents that are near optimum. The optimum moisture
content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. Fill material that is
not near optimum moisture content should be moisture conditioned.
Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and be compacted with appropriate
equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment
used, but should generally not exceed the loose thicknesses provided in Table 7. Fill material should be
compacted in accordance with the compaction criteria provided in Table 8,
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 15
GEOENGINEER~
Table 7. Recommended Maximum Lift Thickness
Compaction Equipment
Recommended Maximum Lift Thickness
(inches)
Granular Materials Maximum
Particle Size,; 1 112 inch
Granular Materials Maximum
Particle Size> 1 112 inch
I Hand Tools: Plate Compactors
and Jumping Jacks
I Rubber-tire Equipment
I Light Roller .
I Heavy Roller
I Hoe Pack Equipment
4-6
Not Recommended
10-12
10-12
12-18
18-24
6-8
8-10
12-16
12-16
Note:
The above table is based on our experience and is intended to serve as a guideline. The information provided'in this
table should not be included in the project specifications.
Table Ii. Compaction Criteria
Fill Type
Imported or on-site Granular,
maximum particle size < 1-114-
inch
Imported or on-site Granular,
maximum particle size >1-1/4-
inch
Trench Backfill1
. 9ompaction Requirements in Structural Zones'
Percent Maximum Dry Density Determined by
ASTM Test Method D 1557 aU 3% of Optimum Moisture
o to 2 Feet Below Subgrade > 2 Feet Below Subgrade Pipe Zone I
95 95
n/a (proofroll)
n/a (proofroll)
95
92
90 '
Note:
lTrench backfill above the pipe zone in nonstructural areas should be compacted to at least 85 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557.
7.9 CUT AND FILL SLOPES
While we do not anticipate permanent slopes at the site, if constructed, permanent cut and fill slopes
should not exceed 2H: I V. We recommend that slopes that are to be mowed not exceed 3H:1 V. If seepage
occurs within any slope, f1aller slopes or structural measures may be needed for stability. Footings should
have a minimum set back of 5 feet between the face of any slope and the outer edge of the footing.
Constructed slopes should be planted with appropriate vegetation as soon as possible. after grading to
provide protection against erosion, Surface water runoff should be collected and. directed away from
slopes to prevent water from running down the face of the slope.
7.10 SITE DRAINAGE
We recommend that roof drains and other subsurface drains be connected to non-perforated pipes leading
to the storm water facilities. We recommend that surfaces within 10 feet of the buildings be sloped at
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 16
GEoENGINEER~
least 5 percent to drain away from the buildings. Open space areas should be sloped such that surface
water runoff is collected and routed to suitable discharge points.
Landscaping should be set back 15 feet from the building area to' prevent irrigation water from
accumulating in soils near the building. Landscaped areas should be designed to prevent drainage into the
adjacent base materials. This is commonly accomplished by extending the bottom of curb pours to well
below the bOllom of adjacent aggregate base and other granular material.
Underground utility trenches should be provided with water-stops consisting of low permeability material
or controlled low strength material (CLSM) where their alignments will cross.the building pad footprint.
The purpose of the water-stops is to cut-off pathways that may introduce water into the building subgrade
soils. Roof drains should be tight-lined to the storm drain system. Foundation drains are not
recommended for general perimeter foundations because of the potential to introduce moisture into the
building subgrade.
All final grades should provide for positive drainage away from the building and foundations, Final
grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Water should not be allowed to pond
adjacent to structures or foundations.
8.0 FOUNDATION SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The planned structures can be supported on conventional strip, column, and mat foundations established
on structural fill prepared as described above. In order to mitigate potential for settlement and expansion
of the clay soils beneath the foundations, we recommend that the subgrade be overexcavated a minimum
depth of 1 foot for building slabs and 2 feet for strip and column footings. The overexcavation should be
replaced with imported -aggregate base rock compacted as described in Section 7.8, The overexcavation
must extend laterally beyond the slab perimeter a distance equal to the excavation depth below foundation
subgrade. .
The following paragraphs provide recom'mendations for design and construction of conventional 'shallow
foundations.
8.1 BEARING CAPACITY
Footings may be proportioned for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This bearing
pressure is a, net bearing pressure and applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be
increased by one-third when considering seismic or wind loads. The weight of the footing and any
overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing loads, The weight of the footing and. overlying
backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes.
We recommend that isolated column and continuous wall footings have minimum widths of 24 and 18
inches, respectively, The bottom of exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent grade, Interior footings should be founded at least 12 inches below the top of the floor
slab. The recommended minimum footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth.
We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer or geotechnical field technician evaluate all footing
subgrades prior to construction of forms or placement of reinforcing steel and concrete.
File No. /999-005-00
February 28. 2008
Page 17
GEoENGINEER~
8.1.1 Footing Subgrade Preparation
Shallow footings should be founded on a prepared surface consisting of at least 24 inches of imported
aggregate base rock. Loose or disturbed materials should be removed or compacted before placing and
compacting base -rock. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. Should.
water infiltrate and pool in the excavation, it should be removed before placing base rock, reinforcing
steel or concrete. Surfaces exposed' to standing water should be evaluated and reworked to provide
compacted structural fill at the base of the footings.
We recommend that GeoEngineers observe all foundation subgrades before placing the rock pads, as well
as the final subgrades before placing reinforcing steel, in order to confirm that adequate bearing surfaces
have. been achieved and that the ~oil conditions are as anticipated in our analyses.
8.2 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
The clay soils underlying the site have moderate selllement and expansion potential. Shallow footings
constructed on crushed rock pads as recommended, should experience total settlements less than I inch,
Differential selllements less than one-half of the total selllement magnitude can be expected between
,
adjacent footings with similar loads,
8.3 LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral loads on footings can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides of footings and by friction
on the bearing surface. We recommend that passive earth pressures be calculated using an equivalent
fluid unit weight of 500'pcf for footings embedded in imported_aggregate fill. We recommend a friction
coefficient of 0:50 for footings placed on aggregate fill. The passive earth pressure and friction
components may be combined provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the
total.
The passive earth pressure value is based on the assumptions that the adjacent grade is level. The top foot
of granular fill material should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressures unless the
foundation area is covered with pavement or is inside a building.
The lateral resistance values do not include safety factors. We recommend a safety factor (SF) of 3 when
designing for dead loads plus frequently applied live loads and a SF of 2 when considering transitory
loads such as wind and seismic forces.
8.4 FLOOR SLAB AND FLOOR SLAB AGGREGATE BASE
A coefficient (K,) for the modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used
for design of the building floor slabs established on an aggregate base as recommended in this report,
Settlements for the floor slab are estimated to be less than 1 inch for a floor load of 350 psf or less. The
floor slab may be designed for long-term live-loads (Fire Trucks) up to 1',000 psfifthe aggregate base is
increased to 24 inches.
We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by at least 12 inches of imported crushed rock material as
described in the "Building Pad" section of this report. This material should have a 3/4-inch maximum
particle size and should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
Test Method 01557. We recommend that slabs be jointed around columns and walls to permit slabs and
File No. /999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 18
GEoENGINEER~
foundations to sellle differentially. The surface of the base rock should be filled with sand just prior to
concrete placement to reduce the lateral restraint on the bollom of the concrete during curing.
Vapor barriers are. often required by flooring manufacturers to protect flooring and adhesives. Many
flooring manufacturers will warrant their products only if a vapor. barrier installed according to their
recommendations. . Selection and design of the appropriate vapor barrier, if needed, should be. based on
discussions among members of the design team. We can provide additional information to assist you
with your decision.
8.5 SITE SPECIFIC SEISMICDESIGN'~ARAMETERS.
We recommend that seismic design be performed using the site specific procedures outlined in the 2006
International Building Code (IBC 2006), the 2005 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE 7-05)" and the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC 2007). Figure 24
presents the site specific, design acceleration response spectrum for the fire station #16 site. We
recommend that the following parameters, whiCh are basedo,n the design ground motion spectrum in
Figure 24, be used in computing seismic base shear forces:
Table 9. Recommended Site Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Site Specific Seismic Design Parameters (20061BC)
Site Class
MCE Spectral Response-Acceleration (Short Period), SMS
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration (1-Second Period), 8M1
Design Spectral Response Acceleration (Short Period), 80S.
Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1-Second Period), SOl
D
0.93g
0.42g
0_62g
.0_28g
8.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
We have calculated light duty and heavy duty pavement sections for both asphalt and Portland cement
concrete pavements at the site. We performed our analyses iIi general accordance with American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design methods, based ona design life
of 20 years and an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 2. The light duty pavement sections
should only be used for pavements that will be subjected to passenger cars only, while the heavy duty
sections may be used for areas that will be subjected to. both passenger cars and fire trucks. All
pavements should be provided with a minimum 12 inch thick working blanket that is placed under the
aggregate base material to. provide support for 'compaction and paving equipment. The working blanket
should be constructed as described' in the "Granular Haul Roads and Working Blankets" section of this
report. Table 10 presents our recommendations for light and heavy duty pavement sections. '
File No. /999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page 19
GEoENGINEER~
.' Table 10. Recommended Pavement Sections
Granular Portland Granular
Asphalt Aggregate Working Cement Aggregate Working
Concrete Base Blanket .. Concrete Base Blanket
Class (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
Light duty - 3 -6 12 4 6 12
passenger cars only
Heavy duty -
passenger cars and 4_5 6 12 7 6 12
fire trucks
Earthwork for pavements should be conducted during the dry season, typically mid-July thr,?ugh mid-
September. The subgrade should be protected from damage prior to earthwork. The contractor should
select,the appropriate methods to protect the subgrade from equipment traffic. This can include restricting
equipment traffic, building haul roads and working blankets, leaving the existing surface cover on the site
until the earthwork is conducted, ora combination of the above. Localized earthwork, such as trenching
and filling for underground utilities, can be conducted in the pavement_areas during other times of the
year if the pavement subgrade outside of those areas is protected,
Pavement areas also consist of undocumented gravel fill near the surface. Site stripping, grubbing and
demolition operations should remove the upper 4 inches of existing site cover as well as locally deeper
areas of loose and otherwise unacceptable materials. Additional site cUlling should be accomplished to
establish the required soil subgrade elevation prior to filling. On-site materials are not acceptable to use
as fill and imported granular fill will be required. Site cutting and grading in the pavement areas should
be conducted to accommodate the required aggregate base thickness and the l2-inch thick granular
working blanket. The resulting excavated surface should be observed by a member of our staff prior to
placing fill.
Concrete walkways and pads located outside the building pad area should be supported on a minimum of
8 inches of aggregate base where they are placed on existing site soils and a minimum of 4 inches of
aggregate base where.they are placed over granular fill,
Proper reinforcement or jointing should be provided for concrete pavement to control cracking (for
example, contraction joints should be placed closer thall 30 times the thickness of the slab and thickened
edges should be used).
The aggregate base should conform to Section 02630 of ODOT "Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction," current Edition, be y,," - a_size, with the addition that the material contain no more than 5
percent passing a U,S. No. 200 Sieve and have at least two mechanically fractured faces. Aggregate base
should be placed in one lift and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as
determined by ASTM Test Method Dl557. The granular working blanket should conform to the
specifications for imported select granular fill in this report.
The asphalt concrete pavement should conform to Section 00745 of ODOT "Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction," current Edition, The Job Mix Formula should meet the requirements for a 12.5-
mm Level 2 Mix. The asphalt cement should be PG 64-22 grade meeting the ODOT Standard
Specification's for Asphalt Materials. Compact asphalt concrete paving to 92.0 percent coverage at
Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight (Rice Gravity) of AASHTO T-209.
File No. 1999-005-00
February28: 2008
Page 20
GEoENGiNEER~
The preceding recommended pavement sections assume that the site is prepared as previously
recommended in this report. Prevention of road base saturation is essential for pavement durability.
Efforts should be made to prevent water from entering the base course by providing deepened curbs
adjacent to landscaping areas and by providing rapid drainage of surface water from the site. - Pavement
areas subjected to cyclic welling and drying may experience slight heaving. Pavement cracks that result
: from heave should be sealed as soon as practical.
9.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION
Satisfactory foundation and earthwork performance depends, to a large degree, on-quality of construction.
Sufficient observation of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed
in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications, We recommend that qualified personnel
under the direction of the design engineer be retained to observe excavation and general fill placement
and to review laboratory compaction and field moisture-density information.
Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during
the subsurface exploration and utilized for design. Recognition of changed conditions often requires
experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with sufficient.frequency to detect whether
subsurface conditions change significantly from those anticipated. .
10.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this' geotechnical engineering report for use by the City of Springfield and the design
team for the new fire station #16 facility to be located in Springfield, Oregon, in accordance with our
proposal dated October 26, 2007, and authorized December 3, 2007, Within the limitations of scope,
schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in
the field.of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared, No warranty or
other conditions, express or implied, should be understood,
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if
provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored
by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix C titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
11.0 REFERENCES
Abrahamson and Silva, 1996. Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., 1996. Empirical Ground Motion Models.
Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Abrahamson and Silv!,> 1997. Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J" 1997. Empirical Response Spectn}11
, I,
Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68,
no, I, p. 94-127,
ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: American Society of Civil
Engineers, Sec.16, 20.
Atwater, B.F., 1992. Geologic Evidence of Earthquakes during the Past 2,000 Years Along the Copalis
River, Southern coastal Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 1901-,1919.
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28. 2008
Page 21
GEoENGINEER~
r
Carver, G., 1992. Late Cenezoic Tectonics of coastal Northern California: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists-SEPM Field Trip Guidbook, May 1992.
COSMOS, 2007, Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems, COSMOS
Virtual Data Center, httn:/Idb.cosmos-eo.oro:/scriots/search.olx
DeMets et aI., 1990: DeMets, C., Gordon, R,G., Argus, D.F., Stein, S., 1990. Current plate motions:
Geophysical Journal International, v, IOI,p.425-478
Geomatix, 1993. Seismic margin Earthquake for the Trojan Site: final unpublished report for portland
General Electric Trojan Nuclear Plant, Raninier, Oregon, May 1993.
Geomatix, 1995, Seismic Desgn Mapping -State of Orego-n, Final report issued by Geomatrix
Consultants in 1995 to the Oregon Department of Transportation under Presonal Services
Contract 11688.
IBC 2006. International Building Code: International Code Council, Sec. 1613.
OSSC 2007. Oregon Structural Specialty Code:-State of Oregon, See, 1802.
PEER, 2000, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research' Center, PEER Strong . Motion Database,
httn:/ /oeer. berkelev _edu/smcat
Personius, S.F., 2002a. Fau]t number 863, Upper Willamette River fault zone, in Quaternary fault and
fold database of the United States: U.S. Geo]ogical Survey website,
hllo:/ /eartho uakes. US!!s.!!ov/re!!i onal/ofaults
Personius, S.F.,_ 2002b, Fault number 862, Unnamed faults near Sutherlin, in Quaternary fault and fold
database of the' United States: U,S, Geological Survey website,
hllo:/ /earthouakes_ us!!s. !!OV /re!!ional/ofaults
Personius, S.F., 2002c. Fau]t number 870, Owl Creek fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the
United States: U.S. Geological Survey website. hllo://earthauakes.us!!s.!!ov/re!!ional/afaults
Personius, S.F" 2002d. Fault number 869, Corvallis fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of
the United States: U.S, Geological Survey website. hlln://earthouakes.us!!s.!!ov/re!!ional/ofaults
Peterson et aI., 1993, Peterson, C.D" Darioenzo,'M.E., Burns, S, F., and Burris, WK., 1993. Field Trip
Guide to Cascadia Paleoseismic Evidence A]ong the Northern California Coast: Evidence of
Subduction Zone Seismicity in the Centeral Cascadia Margin: oregon Geo]ogy, y. 55, p.99-144
Rathje et aI., 2004. Rathje, E.M., Faraj, F., Russell, S" Bray, J.D., 2004, Empirical Relationships for
Frequency Content Parameters of Earthquake Ground Motions: Earthquake Spectra, v. 20, no. ],
p. 1 ]9-144.
Tnivasarou et aI., 2004. Travasarou, T., Bray, J., Abrahamson, N., 2004. Empirica] Attenuation
Relationship for Arias Intensity. Professional paper, Berkeley, CA, p. ]-4.
USGS, 2002, U.S, Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, 2002 Interactive Deaggregations,
hllo:/ /eo int.cr. USl!S. l!Ov /deal!l!int/2002/index. nhn
File No. 1999-005.00
February 28, 2008
Page 22
GEOENGINEE~~
GEoENGINEERS CJ
ApPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORA TlON PROGRAM
-
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
We explored subsurface conditions at the site by advancing four borings to depths of 30 feet bgs each.
Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of our explorations,
A qualified member of GeoEngineers' staff observed field activities and obtained disturbed and
undisturbed soil samples at representative intervals.
We classified materials encountered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM Standard
Practice D-2488, the Standard Practice for the Classification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), which.
is described in Figure A-I. Soil classifications and sampling intervals are shown in the exploration logs
in this appendix. Inclined'lines at the material contacts shown on the logs indicate uncertainty as to the -
exact contact elevation, rather than the inclination of the contact itself.
File No. 1999~005~OO
February 28. 2008
Page A-I
.'
GEoENGINEER~
GEoENGINEERS CJ
ApPENDIX B
LABORA TORY TESTING
~
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
GENERAL
We transported soil samples obtained from the explorations to our Portland laboratory and' evaluated to
confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soils
encountered, We selected representative samples for laboratory testing including moisture content tests,
A,lIerberg Limits, and consolidation testing. We performed the tests in generlll accordance with the test
methods of the ASTM or other applicable procedures.
VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONS
We visually classified soil samples in the field and in our geotechnical laboratory based on the Unified
Soil Classification System (USeS) and ASTM classification methods. ASTM 0-2488 was used to
classify -soils using visual and manual methods, ASTM 0-2487 was used to classify soils based on
laboratory test results. .
Moisture Content
We obtained moisture contents of eight samples in general accordance with the ASTM 0-2216 test
method. The results of the moisture content tests are presented on the boring logs included in
Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
We completed two Allerberg Limits tests on clay soil samples. The test results were used to classify the
soil as well as to evaluate index properties, swell potential and consolidation characteristics. Liquid
limits, plastic limits and plasticity index were obtained in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
0-4318. The Allerberg Limits test results are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2,
Consolidation
We completed one consolidation test on a sample of the native clay in general accordance with the ASTM
0-2435 test method. The results were used to determine the settlement characteristics of the on site soils.
The test results are presented in Figure B-3.
. File No. 1999.005-00
Februl1;ry 28, 2008
Page B-1
GEoENGINEER~
GEoENGINEERS CJ
ApPENDIX C
. REPORT LtMITA TlONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE
-. =
APPENDIX C
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE'
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND
PROJECTS
This report has been prepared for use by the City of Springfield for the new fire station #16 facility to be
located in Springfield, Oregon, in accordance with our proposal dated October 26, 2007. This report is
not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites.
GeoEngineers stru~tures our services to' meei the specific needs of our clients. For example, a
geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a
construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project.
Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report
is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. - Our report is prepared for the exclusive
use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to
such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended
liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this
report' was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated. . .
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF
PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS
This report has been prepared for use by the City of Springfield for the new fire station #16 facility to be
located in Springfield, Oregon, in accordance with our proposal dated October 26, 2007. GeoEngineers
considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this
project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically Indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it
was:
. not prepared for you,
. not prepared for your project.
. not prepared for the specific site explored. .
. completed before important project changes were made.
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: '
. the function of the proposed structure.
. - elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure.
.
composition of the design team.
proje,ct ownership.
.
1 Developed b~sed on material provided by ASFE,proressional Finns Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
File Fa. /999.005-00 .
February 28, 2008
Page C-J
GEoENGINEER~
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity
to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide wrillen modifications or confirmation, as
appropriate.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was
performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by
manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations, Always contact GeoEngineers before applying
a report to determine if it remains applicable,
MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling
locations at. the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken, GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data
and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout
the site, Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this
report, Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL
Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These
recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional
judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction, GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or
liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction
to confinn that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to
provide recomm_endations for design changes shou.Id the conditions revealed during the work differ from
those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with
our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION '
Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems, You could
lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans
and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report.
Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruciion conferences, and by
providin~ construction observation,
File No. 199~-005-00
February 28, -2008
. Page C-2
GEoENGINEER~
Do NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs - based upon their
interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other
design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that
separating logs from the report car elevate risk.
GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE
Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated
subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,
give contractors the complete geotechnical engi!leering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly
written letter of trans milia I. In that leller, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers
and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of infonnation they need or prefer. A pre-
bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perfonn additional study,
Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best infonnation available, while
requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Further" a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and
schedule.
CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods,
schedule Or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on site personnel and to adjacent properties.
READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY -.
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices
(geotechnical engineering or geology) ,are far less exact than other engineering and natural science
disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to
disappointments, claims and disputes, GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions
in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these
"Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site.
GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perfonn an environmental study differ significantly
from those used to perfonn a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or'
regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic.
concerns regarding a specific project.
File No. 1999-005-00
February 28. 2008
Page C-3
GEoENGINEER~
BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS
GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment
of the presence of Biological Pollutants, Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations,
recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding-the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of
Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should_be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants,
as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds,
fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. .
If Client desires these specialized set:Vices, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services
in this specialized field,
, . ,
,..'
File No. /999-005-00
February 28, 2008
Page C-4
GEOENGINEER~
MAJOR DMSIONS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LfTTl.EOONOFlNES)
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
GRAVELS 'MTH
FINES
MORE THAN 50%
QFCOAASE
~""
RETAlNEDONNO
4SIEVE
(APPREC;:lABLEAMOUNT
OF FlNES) -
CLEAN SANDS
MORE THAN 50%
RETAlNEDONNO
200 SIEVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
(UITLI!OR IfO FINES)
MORE Tl-lAN 50%
OF COARSE
A<ACTIOO
PASSING NO. 4
."',
SANDS \foIITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLEAMOO'lT
OFRNES)
F!NE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
UQUIDUMIT
LESS THAN 50
MORE THAN 5Cl%
PASSING NO. 200
SIEVE
SilTS
AND
CLAYS
uaUIOllMIT
GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
I SYMBOLS
:&~uHo L:R
) ^
, 0 0
)0000 GP
;Jt~ GM
W GC
III
W
IIII
~
m
I I, I
rh
jti
~
~
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
VVELL-GRADlODGRAVELS, GRAVEL-
SANDMI)(llJRES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS.
GRAVEL-$ANDMIXTURES
SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL _SANO_
SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEl_SAND_
CLAYMDmJRES
SW
WELL-GRAQEO SANDS, GRAVELLY
""""
SP
POORL'f-GFlADEDSANDS.
GRAVELLY SAND
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND SILT
MIX1lJRES
SC
CLAYEYSANDS,SAND-CLAY
MIXTURES
ML
INORGANIC SilTS, ROCK FLOUR,
CLAYEYSILTSIMTHSUGKT
PLASTlCIT'I'
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOWTO
MEDIUM PLASTlClTY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS QI= LOWPlASTlClTY
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PlASTICITY .
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF
MEDIUM TO HIGH PlASTIClTY
NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILSVIIlTH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
Samoler Svmbol Descriotion,\
_ 2.4-inch 1.0. split barrel
[] Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
D Shelby tube
~ Piston
IJ Direct~Push
L8] Bul.k or grab
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number
of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or
distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight
and drop.
A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the
drill rig.
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
I I SYMBOLS
I GRAPH LETTER
I 1- ....
I .-,:-c"'c.
I
'Sl
Y
~
I
1/
I ----
I
%F
AL
CA
CP
CS
DS
HA
MC
MD
OC
PM
PP
SA
TX
UC
VS
NS
SS
MS
HS
NT'
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
CC
Cement Concrete
AC
Asphalt Concrete'
CR
Crushed Rockl
Quany Spalls
T opsoilJ
Forest Duff/Sod
TS
Measured groundwater level In
exploration, well, or piezometer
Groundwater. observed at time of
exploration
Perched water observed at time of
e.xploration
Measured free product in well or
piezometer
~tratioraohic Contact
Distinct contact between soil strata or
geologic units
Gradual change between soil strata or
geologic units
Approximate-location of soil strata
change within a geologic soil unit
Laboratorv I Field Tests
Percent fines
Atterberg limits
Chemical analysis
Laboratory compaction test
Consolidation test
Direct shear
Hydrometer anafysis
Moisture content
Moisture content and dry density
Organic content
Permeability or hydraulic conductivity
Pocket penetrometer
Sieve analysis
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Vane shear
~heen Classification
No Visible Sheen
Slight Sheen
Moderate Sheen
Heavy Sheen
Not Tested
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations, for a proper understanding of subsurtace conditions.
Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be
representative of subsurtace conditions at other locations or times.
KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS
'GEoENGINEERS CJ FIGURE A-1
Dato(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Con""",,,
Aug..
Data
01129108
Boart Longyear
ToI'"
Oep<h (ft)
Vertical
Datum
SAMPLES
C .8
a; -=-
~ . E
~ ~ ~~
-'" m m
a. > . .,
m 2 8 ~ on ~
0 m .6 E
:E m iii , .
0 c: on '"
: 110 15 [
5: IT 18 [2
: 118 12 [ J
10~ [J 11 [,
15~] 13 S0I4~ [ 5
20~] 13 5015" [ 6
~
l:l
2S~] 7 5014" [ 7
b
9
~
w
"
;;:
"
51
~
~
~
~
I
,
I
,
30 J' ,"',- 1 .
6~nch O.D,
30
a;
>
m
... 0
4i~
~ ~3
~
~
~
~ "'
-Y. 'J
b -)
,( )
. "
~ -)c
~S~
,l) d
. "
~ -)<
m
.' ,
~ -)
,( )
.' ,
~ -)
" )
.' ,
)c -)
" )
. "
lc - )
" )
0.:&
, E
e"
"lIl
son
ell
Logged MCV
By
Drilling
Me1hod Hollow Stem Auger
Hamm.. 140 Ib hammerl30 in drop
Data Auto-hammer
5o""co
Elevation (ft)
Datum!
System
Checked
By
Sampling
Melhods
Drilling
Equipment
Groundwal..
Level (ft. bgs)
Easting(x):
Northing(y):
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
,2" sod zoo. r
Mottled brown-gray fat clay with occasional sand (stil1~
moist)
Becomes partially cemented
Mottled brown-gray silt (stilT, moist)
SM
OM
Brown silty sand (mediwn dense, moist)
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
wet)
SM
OM
~Iack.yellow silty sand (dense, wet)
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
wet)
Becomes brown-gray-ycllow
Bottom of hole at 30 feet
Groundwater encountered at 12 feet during drilling
35-
Note: See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols,
~
~
"
z
~
o
I!!
"
~
LOG OF BORING B-1
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
1 999-005-00
GEoENGINEERS r;)
..
~-
,c
_m
w-
-- c
00
::>u
'2--
"-Eo
~'Qj
o~
39
'4
TNH
SPT 1 D&M 1 ST
Truck-Mounted
12
."
"'
,Q
OTHER TESTS
AND NOTES
81
AL
cs
Figure A-2
Sheet 1 011
Date(s) 01129/08 Logged MCV Checked TNH
Drilled By By
Drilling Boart Longyear Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT 1 D&M 1 ST
Contractor Method Methods
Auger 6-jnch O.D. Hammer 140 Ib hammer/30 in drop Drilling Truck-Mounted
Data Data AutcH1ammer Equipment
Total 30 Sunaco Groundwat... 11
oep",(n) Elevation (ft) Level en. bgs)
Vertical Datum! Easting(x):
Datum Syslem Nofthing(y):
SAMPLES
;; ;[ .li
"ll . E
J1 ~ ~:i
.c ~ ~
c. > "' . .
. 8 ~ <J) c.
0 . 0 lo E
:s 0 , .
0 a: a; <J) <J)
:~ " [
'-b 10 16 [ 2
24 [
1O~1 16 " [
4
15~11I
83 [ s
20~ ] 18
80 [ 6
~
1::
8
~
~
~
i
~
~
I
~
~
<-
z
~
.
~
"
.
>
25~ ] 16 78 [ 7
3'" ...> ::JUt;)....... 0
~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ ~ c.:g
ni (lI OJ S E
;: t5.9 C!J;;;
~ CC --.!prtland CCf'cnl conerete to 6" ~
o (GP-GM"'\ Brown. sandy gravel With silt (fill) (medlwo dense, r
//j ell . \ mOIst) J _
/ // Mottled brown.gray fat clay with occasIOnal sand (stiff,
X . moist) -
~
o
/~ CL Mottled brown-gray Ican clay (stiff, moist)
ML Mottled brown-gray sandy silt (stitT, moist)
'"
"'
,g
OTHER TESTS
AND NOTES
'"
~-
,c
_0
.-
'05
:;t.l
.2 ...;
::J-E,
~.Qj
o:!:
x
- ...,
.....
. "
--'
. "
",
s~
~ -)
" )
" ,
) - ,
c l
,') c
!?~
rPS
) ,
C l
,') C
, "
) - ,
).>:~
~1
) -
c l
" )
, "
~l
PP=3.0 tsf
PJ>:3.0 tsf
Pp-..1.75 tsf
SM
Black-yellow silty sand with gravel (mediwn dense,
wet)
GM
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
wet)
17
SP
GM
-. Black-yellow sand (dense, wet)
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
wet)
~
SP
OM
-. Black.ycllow sapd (v~ry dellSCf' wet)
. Brown.gray yellow silty rounded gravel with sand
(weathered andesite?) (very dense, wet)
~
Bottom of hole at 30 feet
Groundwater encountered at II feet during drilling
35-
Note; See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols.
GEoENGINEERS CJ
LOG OF BORING B-2
Project:
Project. Location:
Project Number:
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
1999-005-00
Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s) 01128/08 Logged Mev Checked TNH
Drilled By By
Drilling Boar! Longyear Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT / D&M
Contrador Method Methods
Aug", 6-inch O.D_ Hammer 140 Ib hammer/30 in drop Drilling Truck-Mounted
Data Data Auto-hammer Equipment
Total 30 Surface Groundwater 10
Deplh(ft) Elevatioo(f\) L....el(tlbgs)
Vertical Datum! Easting(x):
Datum System I Northing(y):
Q;
~ ~
.c ~
g. ~ ~
" m U
~ ~
o
-r'
SAMPLES
c-
'=-
.li
m E
8 ~ ~
1ii "l ~
~ .Q E
OJ c7J ~
7
[ 1
S-.I'O
21 [ 2
:]18 II [ ,
10-.110
12015" [ 4
15~] 15 44 [ 5
20-] 9 5013" [ ,
~
~
2S-. 5
SOlS" [ 7
~
o
o
~
~
w
o
~
ci
g
~
m
~
in
~
..
8
~
o
~
~
..
<-
z
~
o
~
~
o
~
>-
3"
J I :JUIJ 1 II
0;
>
m
.... U -
Q) ~ g-~
1ij ~ ~ e >-
;: G.... Goo
U(j"~UM
/// CH
X
X
~
%
.~ ~
, "
), -)1
,.) C
~ ~:q
~.?~ SP
....
.....
'.' .
'. '.
.':;(
..... "'\~ GM
)-c
< )
,.) c
i ~:1
,.) c
" ,
~l
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Brown sandy gravel with silt (till) (mediwn dense,
""' moist)
Mottled brown-gray-black fat clay with sand (native)
(medium stiff, moist)
Becomes gray-brown and stiff
~
Mottled brown-orange lean clay (stin~ moist)
Hrown-W11Y silfY sand (mediwn dense, W<i,t\
Brown-gray si ty rounded gravel with sand very dense,
wet)
--..!I~omes ~ense
_ Black-yel[ow sand (dense, wet)
~
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
wet)
Bottom of hole at 30 feet
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet during drilling
35-
Note: See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols.
GEoENGINEERS Q
LOG OF BORING B-3
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Fire Station #16
Springfield. Oregon
1999-005-00
..
"-
~ c
am
"'-
._ c
00
::>u
~
'"
,g
.c....:
::>-5,
~.CE
,,;:
OTHER TESTS
AND NOTES
P~O.75tsf
P~2.25tsf
36
85
AL
PP=2.5 tsf
PP=3.0 tsf
PP=2.5 tsf
36
90
1S
15
Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s) 01128/08 logged Mev Checked TNH
Drilled By By
Drilling Boar! Longyear Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT / D&M / ST
Contractor Melhod Melhod.
Aug... 6~nch 0.0, Hammer 140 Ib hammer/3D in drop Drilling Truck-Mounted
Data Data Auto-hammer Equipment
Total 30 Surface Groundwater 9.5
Depth(ft) Elevation (ft) Level (n. bgs)
Vertical Oatuml Easting(x):
Datum System Northing(y):
SAMPLES
~ ~ '"
;; ~ 0; " OTHER TESTS
" " E MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
.l!! " ~ ~~ > if'. ,Q AND NOTES
" ~-
.c " ~ -' _!/ c.E .c.....-
'5. > " . " :;; .c ~c =>-5.
~ Vl "- -"
" 8 ~ c. ilE ~-
0 " 0 }, E 1'5 ~O> .0 a ~.iii
E " <Ii " . ~ .... 0 .... >- ::Eo oJ:
r c:: Vl Ul (!)....J. (!)(I)
~ AC ~"ASPhaltJ,oncretepa6:ment r
/ GP~GM :\Brown san y gravel WI slit to 7" (fill) (me(hwn dense, r-
X CH - mOist) -
10 ;Z Mottled brown-orange rat clay With occas,onai sand and'
IS [ I / - black charcoal (stitT, moist) .
S 24 [ ~ Grades with no charcoal
y
."
10 /' ML Mottled brown-gray silt (very stiff, moist)
32 [ ) 38 83
.y:
10~) I" is I
4
:'-,T'.;T" SM Dark gray silly sand (mediwn dense, wet)
" .-
---
- "
-.'
'-'
lS~] 10 51 [ ,
~~
o ,,~
~ -)(
),) c
i ~:1
,') C
, "
k -)<
,') C'
,"\ ,
~?(
.....
. ,
2S
GM
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel With sand (very dense,
wet)
20- - 0 50/1"-
~
~
25-::M 2 50/r I: f,
sr
Black-yellow sand (very dense, wet)
~
o
~
.' .
::'.:.:..:
~
w
"
~
~
o
~
m
m
~
~
~
"
o
o
m
m
\,
:;.
~
"
z
~
o
"
~
"
iili m,
Brown-gray silty rounded gravel with sand (very dense,
""' wet)
Bottom of hole at 30 teet
Groundwater encountered at 9.5 feet during drilling
30 - .... 5 50/5" 1 7
r
35-
Note: See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols.
LOG OF BORING B-4
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
1999-005-00
GEoENGINEERS (;j
Figure A-5
Sheel1 of 1
w
>
Project: Springfield Fire Station
Protect No. 1999-005"00
Boring/TP No. B-1
Sample No./Depth: S-112_5
Description: CH
60
50
,40
)
:!lo
'C
-=
'"
-0
'"
.
.
0:,0
/,.,;y/
/ / I
,// CL.ML / MLO"[OL
/,
10
o
o
20
30
40
10
Liquid
Limit
Plasticity
tndex
Plastic
Limit
71
42
29
Lab No. 08-0008
Date: 01130108
Tested BV: TLL
Checked Bv: KAR
PAlPM: TNHIMCV
/
/ ~
~ CIIO':H //
,/ ./
/
/
MH or 01'1
SO
liquid limit
60
70
80
/'
90
100
Classification
CH
NOTE: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sam pie on which the test was
. performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of samples obtained at other times or locations, or generated by other operations or processes.
GEoENGINEERS Q
15055 SW Sequoia PkWy Suite 140 Portland., OR 97224
Atterberg Limits ASTM 04318
Figure B-1
Project: I Springfield Fire Station
Project No. 1999-005-00
BoringlTP No. B-3
Sample NO.lDe. pth:IS-Z/5'
Description: CH
60
50
40
illo
'"
-=
'"
'u
'"
.
.
0;,0
10
./
/LorOL /
- /1.
/! / I
/ CLf-ML /' MLO"IOL
;" I .
o
o
10
30
40
50
Liquid Limit
20
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity _
Index
65
27
38
Lab No. 08-0008
Date: 01/30/08
Tested By: TLL
Checked By: KAR
PA/PM: TNH/MCV
.
.
/
MH or 01'1
60
70
80
90
10D
Classification
"
CH
NOTE: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which the test was
performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of samples obtained at other times or locations, or generated by other operations or processes.
GEoENGINEERS Q
15055 SW Sequoia PkWy Suite] 40 Portland. OR 97224
Atterberg Limits ASTM 04318
Figure B-2
Project: Springfield fire Station
Project No. 1999-005-00
BoringlTP No. 8-1-
Sample No.lDepth: S-2f7'
Description: CH
Lab No. 08-0008
Date: 01/30108
Tested By: KAR
Checked By: 8GA
PA/PM: TNH/MCV
100
0_00 .
Effective fd'6crsure (pst)
~~
T""
"
"
"
\
\
- ------------ ~
.1 ----~
-----= -
~
'~
~
--------------- ""
--------- ----------- - '"
~'>
0.01
~ 0.0:'
.=
;;;
.
~
"
~
c
'f
Ui 0.0':'
c
_2
-:;
:!l
'0
.
c
8 0:04
- -------
0,05
0.06
IMoisture Content
Dry Density (pcf)
Initial
39.0%
78.9
Final
39.1%
77.1
NOTES: Primary Consolidation Only
Sample Height (in)
Sample Diameter (in)
Area (in")
10000
,
1.0
2.42
4.58
NOTE: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the
specific sample on which they were performed,-and should not be interpreted as representative of samples obtained at other times or locations, Q
generated by other operations or. processes. '
GEoENGINEERS a
15055 SW Sequoia Pkwy Suite 140 Portland, OR 97224
Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Figure B-3
PORT\P:\1\1999005\OO\WorkingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
<::.
,.
Prob. Seismic HaZ41rd Deaggregation
SF _Fire_Station 122.9050 W. 44.045 N.
SA pcLiuU O.lO ~. A"d.:>-0.479G ~ r-
Me,," Return Time of OM 2*75 )TS J
Me,," (R.M.Eo) 85A km.8A7. l.0* <:--, 1
Mod.l (R,M.Eo)- 74.3 km, 9.00. 0.65 (from peak R,r\ .bill) ,
Modal (R,M,t.) -7*.7 km, 8.30, Lto 2 sigma (frOI I leal':: .M.t bin)
Binning: Del1.R-LO. km, delloM-0.2. Dell.E-l.O 'I
~
::-'
..-.:l:~ <:>
'" [1.'" -1..,'1
J[jJ~ ~ ~.~ <::\
~~~i"t::>
Jt:iJ[] ~~~
~ ~.s>
.. "'"/
.medlan I R.M
. '0<-2
. -2<<0<-1 -, 0,5<<0< 1
. -I <to <-0_5 1 <to< 1.5
. -0.5 <to <0 :J 1.5 <to<2
~...
":~
.,." ~
"be> ."....",<-,
~--
~<::-
~~~
........on~It... ~ .,30nUS(JSCQHT ..... ,",DATI .,......"00Pt0--............
mm3M. Feb 13 r.:~ ElWrcem.
"1.1pIfIcIn(eUl.
Source: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, Interactive Deaggregatlons webslto: http://eqlnLcr.usgs.gov/doagglnt/2002lIndex.php
GEoENGINEERS I5J
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation-
2% PE in 50 years
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 3
pq~nP:\1\1999005\00\Wo"'ing\Figures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118/08
SF _Fire_Srntion Geographic Deagg. Seismic Hazm-d
for 0.10-5 Spectrill Acce 1.0.4796 g
PSA E.",<<:dilllCe Return Time: :~7S )'e.,n
M"-,,. signific.nt souree distilllCe 191. k-m
Red lines teptesent Qu.1rm.')' fuuJtloc.tions
Gridded-sout'CC' hazard DCcum in 50 int~['\o'n1s
R site. A,'eroge V...76D mls top 3D m
~ ::
~
X\:l1<d
,
-
co
------
-~. -
.....2.-._ ~
t .~ f
M If]
u
1J
.
] rI
ii .. !!l
;.
I II
,,,
-
\' km
\
~ -
.;
"
"'~~~,
'---
.....
,-
c..~:; co:,
~CJQ .
eEl ~_
Cc
C1C1 -;p'-
.-
\
...,
((
(J
'l
g.o
8.8
8.2
7.8
7.4
7,0
B.B
B.2
5,8
5.4
M
oj
\~
~."
.
m!112IiOI Fe .~r.:.i Sl1IClDcnII:.t'22OClS.....o&SO~d..._...I___ ~.._1~1.G(IDtI.nn""""p1Ip.lO...........d........:"..-tut.... ,--....
Source: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, Interactive Deaggregatlons webslte: http://eqlnLcr.usgs.govfdeagglnt/2002lIndex.php
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation-
2% PE in 50 years
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 4
POR1\P:11I1999005IOOIWor1<ingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
- 0.4
.!!l
c
o
:;::l
'"
~
..
fl 0,3
u
<(
iU
~
-0
..
D-
en 0.2
Interface Subduction Zone (Scenario 1)
0,6
I -Cape Mendocino FClR--=-090-
- Michoacan CDC-E
0.5
----1
1
- Michoacan UN~OOO l
- Michoacan ZIH-OOO
- Valparaiso LLO-010
-Attenuated Ground Motion on ROCk'1
Interface Subduction Zone
0.1
v
~-~.-.
0-.
o
0.5
1
1.5
2
Period (sac)
2.5
3
3.5
4
GEoENGINEERS CJ
Comparison of Acceleration Response Spectra on Rock
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 5
POR1\P:\1\1999005\00lWorl<ing\Figures for Report.ppt MCV:TNH 2118/08
0.45 .
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.05 -
0,
o
0.5
1
GEoENGINEERS a
Random Fault (Scenario 2)
-
- Morgan Hill GIL-337
- North Palm Springs FVR-045
- Whittier Narrows OAK-080
-Whittier Narrows OAK-170
- Whittier Narrows PAS-180
-Attenuated Ground Motion on Rock,
Random Fault
4
1.5
2
Period (sec)
Comparison of Acceleration Response Spectra on Rock
(5% of Critical Damping)
2.5
3
3.5
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 6
POR1\P:I1\1999005100IWor1<ingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
Intraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
0.6
0.5 - f-
I
I
,
0.4 -
-
~
c
o
;:
III
~
.,
~ 0.3 -
u
<l:
iii
~
I 0.2.~
0.1
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
Comparison of Acceleration Response Spectra on Rock
(5% of Critical Damping)
l
-EI SalvadorCA-180
1- EI Salvador D8-270
1- Nisqually ALO-D90 r-
- Nisqually HAL-270 I
I Nisqually MAR-328 j
t-Attenuated Ground Motion on Rock,
Intraslab Subduction Zone
- -
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 7
PORnP:11119990051001Working1Fi9ures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
0.8
0.7 --\
0.6 ---
-
Cl
i 0.5 --I
~
Gl
a;
U
~
~
...
l!l
fli
0.4 - - -
,
:'..
.','
:::: .
10"
:: jif'Y
,
J
,
0.1
o -
o
Michoacan CDC-E, Interface Subduction Zone (Scenario 1)
... - -- - Rock
Soil
~
-
0.5
2
Period (see)
4
2.5
3
3.5
1
1.5
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 9
PORnP:\1I1999005\00lWorkingIFi9ures for Report_ppl MCV:TNH 2118/08
Cl
~ 0.5
o
:;;
l!
'"
~ 0.4
u
<(
e
-
~ 0.3
C-
UI
0.8
0.7 -Ji
I
0.6
0.2
0.1
Michoacan UNI-OOO, Interface Subduction Zone (Scenario 1)
L..ROCkr
Soil
.':
_ un~,
./i~f \~:
'~,'" ',: . ~
. \-
~
.
.
~ ...
o
o
GEoENGINEERS I5J
.~
~
0.5
1
2
2.5
1.5
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
'-
3
3.5
4
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 10
PORnP:\1\1999005\00lWOJ1<ing\Figures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118/08
0.7
0.6
0.5
-
~
c
o
~ 0.4
C>
Gi
u
u
<
l! 0.3
-
u
C>
Q.
U)
Ii
0.2 ,;
0.1
o -
o
Michoacan ZIH-OOO, Interface Subduction Zone (Scenario 1)
~
~ ':
-IJ-:- Ii:
,,,
- : '
. ,
1',\ :
.,
,"
. .
f"'ROCk~
Soil I
. .
, '-
- - -{[~f--~-'
......
:.: ~
0,5
GEoENGINEERS CJ
-7
1
1.5
2
2.5
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
-
----
3
3.5
4
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 11
POR1\P:1111999005l00IWorkingIFigures for Report_ppf MGV:TNH 2118/08
~
S
c 0.5
o
:;::
l!!
CD
a;
U
u
<l:
i2
...
u
CD
C-
OO
0.8 I
0.7
__l.
0.6
1
I.
"
"
~
'.
"
:.
.'
: :.f
0.4
, .
---"II,-i-
-, .
:::
."
.. ..'
., ~.
., .,
. J.i.i~t-":"'.:
--;~-
.
,
0.3
0.2
0.1
o
o
GEoENGINEERS 15)
Valparaiso LLO-010, Interface Subduction Zone (Scenario 1)
I....... Rock 1
Soil
0.5
1
2
4
2.5
3
3.5
1.5
Period (sac)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 12
PORl\P:\1\1999005\OO\W<:>rt<ingIFigures fDr Report.ppt MCV:TNH 2/18108
E!
c:
o
~ 0.4
Gl
Qi
u
u
<(
l!! 0.3
....
u
Gl
a.
III
0.2
0.7
0.6
. ~'
Morgan Hill GIL-337, Random Fault (Scenario 2)
~ -- -- Rock
I Soil
0.5
. .
- --:-r
.-
:) :i~ ~
';: :\
on
0.1
...\
"
.:i;
,
'.~.
;i~'\_
'~
o
o
0.5
1
2
Period (see)
1.5
GEoENGfNEERS 15)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
, f '
2.5
3
4
3.5
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 13
PORnP:\1\1999005\00lWorking\Figures for Report.ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
0.7
~.
0.6
s 0.5
<:
0
'" ,
~
Ol :-l-
Oi 0.4
u
u
<I:
c;; .'
-l:l 0.3 '"
u -- .;-:
Ol
Cl. ,
(/) ,
0.2
-.'
0.1
0 ,
0 0.5 1
0.8
North Palm Springs FVR-045, Random Fault (Scenario 2)
....... =:~k I
1.5
2
4
2.5
3
3.5
Period (sec)
GEoENGINEERS t:J
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 14
PORnP:I1\1999005\00lWorkingIFigures for Report.ppt MCV:TNH 2118/08
0.6 ~l~ r... ::~kl
0.5
-
Cl
-
l: ~ --f~
0
"" 0.4
III
.... ::
Ql
Qj . . ,
tJ . .
tJ :~ : :,
<l: :;: "
Ri 0.3 __. -1_1
, "
.... ft.
i
(f) '0("
0.2 :'::
- --;-
. ,
" .
...
0.1
0.7
o
o
GEoENGINEERS Il)
Whittier Narrows OAK-DBD, Random Fault (Scenario 2)
0.5
1.5
3.5
4
2
2.5
3
1
Period (see)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5'10 of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 15
PORnP:I1\1999005\00lWor1cingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
-
.!:!!
c: 0.5
o
:;:
l!!
CIl
(jj
"
"
<
l!!
....
"
CIl
0-
en
0.8
0.7
r
I
0.6
Whittier Narrows OAK-170, Random Fault (Scenario 2)
....... Rock
Soil
t
0.4
0.3
..
.;::
;\f:J~
i ..'
.". "
J
:1
V
0.2
.J
..
,
0.1
o
o
GEoENGINEERS f5)
0.5
1.5
2
1
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
2.5
3.5
4
3
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 16
PORnP:1111999005\00IWorl<inglFigures for Reporl_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
0.7 -'~
1-..---- =:~k I
0.6
Ci
-
c 0.5 ----
0
:;; ~
~
..
Cij 0.4
u .
u "
~ '.
,',
~ ,.
- 0.3
u -'---"- '-
.. l ,."
C- 0" .
Ul : : ":,
0.2 --,-,
.' .
. '"
.:: .
,"j
,.
0.1
0.8
o
o
GEoENGINEERS r;J
Whittier Narrows PAS-180, Random Fault (Scenario 2)
0.5
3
4
3.5
1.5
2
2.5
1
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 17
PORnP:\111999005\00lWorl<ingIFigures for Report_ppl MCV:TNH 2/18108
- 0.4
S
c
o
:;::
I!
..
'N 0.3
u
<(
~
-
U
..
c.
rn
0.6
0.5
_1
0.2
0.1
o
o
EI Salvador CA-180, Inlraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
~
0.5
1
1.5
GEoENGINEERS I5J
2
2.5
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of CritJcal Damping)
~._.. =:~~
-
3
3.5
4
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 18
PORnP:I1\1999005\00lWor1<ingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118/08
0.6
0.5
EI Salvador 08-270, Intraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
"
S 0.4
c
o
:;::
~ ~,
~ 0.3 ~-.
u
<(
~
-
u
cu "f,
c.. 0 2 ___~,'O-
en. . .~
.~. I
.}!
~ .
-,
"
"
:; ,:
-;'-'-'-
"
>1..( ..,
,., :\
J
,
0.1
o
o
GEoENGINEERS a
,
:'
. .. .... Rock I
Soil
, .
.":'
./,~
"
0.5
1
2
2.5
1.5
Period (sec)
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
----
3
3.5
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
4
Figure 19
PORnP:\111999005\OOlWor1<ingIFigures for Report_ppl MCV:TNH 2118/08
Nisqually ALO-090, Intraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
0.7
r:-:-:....R~
Soil l--
0.2
..
'.
0: t
or; ~'--
. ,
: ,
0/
0.3
, .
0.1
o
o
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Period (sec)
GEoENGINEERS CJ
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 20
PORnP:\1\1999005\OO\Working\Figures for Report_ppl MGV:TNH 2118/08
Nisqually HAL-270, Intraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
0.9
0.8 -
^
0.7
.!:! 0.6 --
c::
0 .\
:;:; '.
Il! 0.5 ,.
oS! .,
..
u ~ ;
u
c( 0.4 ~--!-:
Il! ".: :~
'" :
- ',= .
u : ~ : ,""\
.. . .
Co 0.3 . ,
_ _. -----.-.L_
Ul , I.,"
,
0.2 oj;
./
0.1
0
0 0.5 1
J....... ::~
~
--
-
1.5
2
Period (see)
2.5
3
3.5
4
GEoENGINEERS t:J
SHAKE2000 Input Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 21
PORnP:I1\I999005\OOIWorl<inglFigures for Report.ppl MCV:TNH 2/18/08
S 0.6
c::
o
.,
l! 0.5
Ql
Qj
U
U
<( 0.4
~
-
U
Ql
~ 0.3
Nisqually MAR-328, Intraslab Subduction Zone (Scenario 3)
0.9 -
0.8 -
:-~l-
,
0.7
.'
:;:~ \\
.'. \
. .
~.,.-.---
j (:
0.2
J/
[....... ;:~1-
,
/
0.1
o
o
1.5
2
0.5
1
Period (sac)
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
SHAKE2000 tnput Rock Motion and Ground Response
(5% of Crltlcat Damping)
2.5
3
3.5
4
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 22
PORnP:\111999005l00IWorkin9IFigures for Report_ppt MGV:TNH 2118/08
0.70
0.60
0.50
:9
c:
0
;:; 0.40
"'
~
..
Cii
u
u
oct
n; 0.30 :1
~
u I
..
C-
OO
0.20 .
0.10
0.00
0.0
.' ,
, ,
, , '
, , ,
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Period (sec)
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
Maximum Considered Earthquake
Bedrock Response Spectrum (5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 23
PORTIP:I1\1999005100lWorkingIFigures for Report_ppt MCV:TNH 2118108
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
~
c
0
'"
.. 0.5
~
..!!
CD
u
u
0{
'i 0.4
~
-
u
CD
Q.
"'
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 .
0.0 0.5 1.0
Site Specific Design Acceleration Response Spectrum
-Site Specific
-BO%Sa, General Code
for Site Class 0
1.5
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
2.0
Period (sec)
GEoENGINEERS CJ
Site Specific Design Acceleration Response Spectrum
(5% of Critical Damping)
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Oregon
Figure 24
;:
,.
, ;;
;.?;
~;/'
~;~.:::--:L-Jj
I. ;;~
. --,
f
" '. {
~.""" y
~ I.
, ,
u.
~
o
o
'"
o
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
9
o
c
;;;
c
c
~ Notes:
0: 1. The locations of all features shO'Ml are . ..1.'.. ;, ,II.
~ 2. This drawing Is tor information purposes. It is Intended to assist in
showing features discussed in an attached document GeoEngineers. lne.
can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master
file is stored by Gl . j I , Inc. and will serve as the official record of
this communication.
3. Iti, unla'Nful to COP'1 or reproduce all Of any part \hereof. 'Whether for
~ personal use Of resale, without permission.
a:: Dala Sources: US T _ . _ I . . Map from National Geographic
~ Services (obtained February Z008 - ArcWeb Services)
Qi ESRI Data & Maps. Street Maps 2005
~ Transver&8 Mercator. Zone 10 N North. No.1h American Datum 1983
o Na1tlarroworientedtogridnorth
w*,
,
2,000
o
2,000
----
Feet
Vicinity Map
a.
;,
1i
a.
Fire Station #16
Springfield, Ore Ion
GEoENGINEERS CJ
Figure 1