Attach_8_Geotechnical_Evaluation_Proposed_PI_Annex_Improvements,_Nov_11,_2015.pdf

Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Paradise Inn Annex Improvements

Paradise Road Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

AECOM Project No. 60438168

Prepared For:

RIM Architects/NPS 645 G Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Prepared By:

AECOM

1501 4th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, Washington 98101

November 11, 2015

AE

Se Te Fa ww

D R A th M pr ea

T fr co co an B

W or

R

K V

ECOM

501 4th Avenue, Su eattle, Washington el: 206.438.2700 ax: 866.495.5288 ww.AECOM.com

David Ziemer, RIM Architect

45 G Street, S Anchorage, Al

Dear Mr. Davi

AECOM is ple he Paradise In

Mount Rainie rovide desig arthwork at th

This report in rom our labor onstruction. T ontract to the nd Task Orde

Bridge; Mount

We appreciate r comments r

Respectfully su

AECOM TEC

Keith A. O'Con Vice President ite 1500 98101

Contracts M ts/NPS Suite 400 laska 99501 id Ziemer:

eased to subm nn Annex an er National P n recommen he subject site cludes the da ratory testing The data gath

URS Master er No. P14PD t Rainier Nati the opportun egarding the ubmitted, CHNICAL SER nnell, PE t/Project Man

Manager mit our geotec nd Connection Park, Washin ndations for e.

ata obtained program, and hering and lab r Services Ag D02343/003;

ional Park, W nity to be of s contents of th

RVICES, INC.

nager

Nov

Geot Para End Mou

AEC

chnical evalu n Snow Brid ngton. The g construction from our ge d our recomm boratory testi reement with Rehabilitate

Washington; M service to you his report, ple ember 11, 20 technical Eva adise Inn Ann of Paradise R unt Rainier Na COM Project uation report f dge, located a geotechnical n of propose eotechnical ex mendations for ing were both h RIM Archite

Paradise Inn

MORA 152787

u on this proj ease contact u

P aluation Repo nex Improvem Road ational Park, No. 6033291 for the planne at the end of evaluation w ed foundation xploration pr r the earthwo h performed b ects Contract n Annex and 7; Modificati ject. Should y us.

Anthony Palm Project Geolo ort ments

Washington ed rehabilitati f Paradise Ro was perform ns and assoc rogram, the r rk and rock re by AECOM No. P14PC0 Connection on 003_rev 1 you have que mieri, LG gist ion of oad in med to ciated results elated under

00005, Snow stions

1.0 IN

2.0 P

3.0 P

4. S

5.0 C

6.0 A

7.0 L

FIGURES

Figu Figu

APPEND

App

NTRODUC

PROJECT D

PURPOSE A

URFACE A

.1 SITE

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.3

.2 SUBS

4.2.1 4.2.2

CONCLUSI

.1 FOUN

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3

.2 SITE

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6

ADDITIONA

LIMITATIO

S ure 1 ure 2

DICES

pendix A:

pendix B:

pendix C:

CTION

DESCRIPTI

AND SCOPE

AND SUBSU

CONDITIO

Topograph Surface Co Surface So Geology a

SURFACE C

Field Eval Soil/Rock

ONS AND R

NDATIONS

Retaining Seismic C Concrete S

PREPARAT

Excavation Constructi Use of On Fill Materi Utility Tre Long Term

AL SERVIC

ONS

Vicinity M Site Plan

Field Explo Field and L Seismic De

TABLE

ION

E

URFACE C

ONS

hy onditions oils and Hydroge

CONDITION

luation Conditions .

RECOMME

Walls onsideration Slab-on-Gra

TION

ns ion Drainage n-Site Soils...

ials and Plac enches m Drainage/I

CES

ap oration Laboratory Te esign Paramet i

OF CONTE

CONDITION

eology

NS

ENDATION

ns de Floors e cement Infiltration ..

esting ters

ENTS

NS

NS

AE

ECOM

Page

1 AECOM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) is planning to rehabilitate the Paradise Inn Annex and Connection Snow Bridge in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. Figure 1 is a general vicinity map of the project area. A geotechnical evaluation was performed for installation of foundations at the subject location. This geotechnical evaluation report was prepared to document the findings and present geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in construction.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that some of the existing foundations for the existing annex building are to be removed and reconstructed. In addition, a concrete slab-on-grade is to be constructed within a portion of the basement of the building. The work is to include reconstruction of the snow bridge foundations.

Figure 2 is an aerial view of the project area.

3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this geotechnical evaluation was to evaluate subsurface conditions within the foundation area of the annex building. The scope of work for the evaluation was as described in the proposal dated June 17, 2015. Information collected during the field exploration was used to describe the geotechnical conditions at the site. The evaluation included review of previous geotechnical evaluations prepared for the building annex. The objectives of the evaluation were to describe the surface and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered and provide recommendations for earthwork and rock work during construction.

AECOM drilled three borings to 25 feet below the ground surface (bgs) on September 16, 2015. The borings were located in the immediate vicinity of the existing annex building. The borings were made with a track mounted drill rig equipped with Sonic drilling equipment. The drilling was performed by Holt Services, Inc. Our geologist, working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer, directed the explorations and observed and recorded the subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions.

The geologist also collected soil samples for laboratory analysis.

Prior to drilling the borings, the borehole locations were cleared for utilities.

The soil was classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The field geologist attempted to perform pocket penetration tests. However, the soils encountered were coarse grained and measurement of the in-place shear strength of the soil was not possible.

Physical laboratory testing was performed on selected recovered samples to evaluate their physical and engineering characteristics and to aid in the engineering analyses. The testing program included index tests.

AECOM also reviewed soil survey maps, and geologic maps to obtain topographic, geologic and surface soil conditions that are pertinent to the proposed project.

Based on the results of our fieldwork, review of published information, and laboratory testing, AECOM performed an engineering analysis to evaluate the encountered soil conditions. The results of these analyses are the basis for our conclusions and recommendations. The scope of work included the following subtasks:

2 AECOM

1. Preparation of a project specific health and safety plan, description of equipment to be used, and simple schematic for proposed drilling. Work was performed in accord with Mount Rainier National Park SOPs, dated June 2015.

2. Exploration of soil, rock, and groundwater conditions using track mounted drilling equipment, performed by Subcontractor Holt Services, Inc.

3. Laboratory testing for soils encountered.

4. Recommendations for temporary and permanent slope inclinations.

5. Recommendations for design and construction of foundations and basement walls.

6. Seismic design criteria.

7. Recommendations for the suitability of site soils for use in construction.

8. Recommendations for earthwork construction.

9. Evaluation of the suitability for subsurface disposal of surface water and estimates of infiltration rates.

10. Evaluation of groundwater conditions and recommendations for dewatering if needed.

Samples were collected for analytical testing during exploration of the subsurface conditions. The results of the analytical testing are summarized in a separate report.

3 AECOM

4. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1.1 Topography

Paradise Inn is located at an approximate elevation of 5,400 feet above mean sea level. The inn is situated on the south flank of Mount Rainier about 400 feet above the floor of Paradise Valley. The ground surfaces slope gently away from the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the buildings.

4.1.2 Surface Conditions

Paradise Inn Annex is a shingled four-story building of wood frame construction on shallow stacked rock spread foundations. The basement of the building daylights to the east and has dirt floors. The area surrounding the building is partially paved with asphalt concrete and gravel. The remaining area surrounding the building is vegetated with grasses and brush. Paradise Inn Annex is located southeasterly of the main lodge and is connected to the main lodge with a snow bridge that is of wood frame construction situated on stack rock foundations. Paradise Inn was constructed in 1916. The Paradise Inn Annex was constructed in 1920.

4.1.3 Surface Soils

Currently, surface soils, where exposed appear to consist of sandy gravel.

4.1.3 Geology and Hydrogeology

The project area lies within the Cascade Mountain Range in southern Washington State. These mountains are generally Cenozoic-aged (65.5 million years ago) to Holocene (present era) and consist mostly of volcanic and intrusive igneous rocks and associated mineralization. The bedrock that comprises the southern Washington State Cascades Mountains formed primarily during volcanic activity that began during the Oligocene (23 to 34 million years ago). Bedrock formed during this period includes andesite, dacite, and rhyolite of igneous origin. Later during the Miocene (5 to 23 million years ago), these formations were intruded by granitic magma comprising the Spirit Lake Pluton (Empsall, 1992). The project site is located on the south flank of Mount Rainier and the near ground surface geologic unit underlying the site consists of Holocene-aged deposits of the Paradise lahar (Qvt). A lahar is a volcanic debris flow consisting of a moving mixture of pyroclastic debris originating from a volcanic episode.

Groundwater has been recorded at depths of two to five feet bgs during previous geotechnical evaluations. Springs were also recorded in the vicinity of the site and surface water was flowing in numerous small channels in the vicinity of the project site. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of four feet bgs in only one of the three borings drilled for this evaluation.

4 AECOM

4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.2.1 Field Evaluation

Geotechnical subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by advancing three borings, B1 through B3. Locations of these borings are shown on Figure 2. The boring depths, location of the borehole (latitude and longitude), depth to groundwater, and conditions encountered are provided on the boring logs within Appendix A.

4.2.2 Soil/Rock Conditions

Soil conditions encountered in the subsurface exploration program are in general agreement with the anticipated geologic characteristics of the region and previous exploration programs. The following general subsurface soil profiles were observed below the ground surface of the site, based on review of the previous geotechnical evaluations and the conditions observing during this evaluation:

Fill material was encountered in most of the borings. The fill consists of sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, crushed gravel (aggregate), asphalt concrete, Portland Cement concrete, and some brick fragment. The fill is three to five feet thick and is loose to medium dense in consistency.

Dense Silty Sand (SM) and Silty Gravel (GM) were encountered in the borings below the fill and extend to depths of nine to ten feet bgs. The sand and gravel layers are reportedly of lahar origin. A lahar is a type of mudflow or debris flow composed of a slurry of pyroclastic material, rocky debris, and water. The material flows down from a volcano, typically along a river valley. The sand and gravel layers are interbedded with ½-inch to 12-inch layers of volcanic ash. The ash layers appear to be partially cemented.

Andesite Rock was encountered beneath the sand and gravel. Rock was encountered within two of the borings at depths of 7 to 19 feet. However, Sandy Gravel (GM-GM) was encountered below the rock at a depth of 18 feet in one of the borings. Andesite was observed at the ground surface and at depths of 20 feet in borings drilled for previous geotechnical evaluations. The rock exposed was slightly weathered to fresh, strong to very strong, with moderate joint spacing.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, the subsurface conditions are variable at the site. Silty Sand, Silty Gravel, fill soil with variable consistency, and/or Andesite Rock may be encountered and anticipated within excavations.

The depth to rock is variable and was observed near the surface and at depths of 7 to 19 feet in the borings. Because of the variable conditions, it is recommended that the foundations bear on structural fill. Based on the penetration rates of the sonic drilling, excavation conditions within rock will be moderate to difficult. In addition, water should be expected within the excavations below depths of 2-feet and dewatering will be needed during excavation. Specific recommendations are provided below.

Based on the results of our site observations and analyses, it is our opinion the reconstruction of the foundations for the building may be constructed generally as envisioned provided the recommendations in this report are followed. The recommendations provided in this report are applicable only to this site and are based on our understanding of the conceptual design parameters

5 AECOM

provided by RIM Architects at the time of this evaluation. These recommendations should be applied in conjunction with the geotechnical construction recommendations provided below.

5.1 FOUNDATIONS

In order to provide uniform support and to minimize differential settlement, it is our opinion that structural loads may be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on a least a 1-foot thick layer of newly placed structural fill. Structural fill placement and subgrade preparation should be performed as described below.

Foundations may be designed based on the following parameters:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Foundations bearing on structural fill soil 4,000 psf These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading.

Assumptions – vertical loading with minimum footing sizes.

ALLOWABLE BASE FRICTION 0.4

MINIMUM EMBEDMENT FOR FROST PROTECTION

Perimeter footings 36 inches Interior footings (below exterior grades) 18 inches

MINIMUM WIDTH

Continuous footings 18 inches Isolated footings 24 inches

SETTLEMENT

Total Settlement less than 0.5 inch Differential Settlement less than 0.25 inches

5.1.1 Retaining Walls

Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils and applicable surcharge loads. Retaining walls may be supported on shallow foundations designed as recommended in this report. Retaining walls that are restrained from movement such as at floor diaphragms, counterforts, or other restraints should be designed using an at-rest earth pressure.

Retaining walls that are designed where movement will be allowed (approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the wall height) should be designed using active earth pressures. Equivalent fluid pressures, as developed in accordance with Section 1803 of the 2012 International Building Code, (triangular distribution) for use in retaining wall design are provided below:

EARTH PRESSURES FOR RETAINING STRUCTURES (Equivalent Fluid Pressure)

Restrained Walls (at-rest) 50 pcf Unrestrained (cantilevered) Walls (active) 32 pcf Passive Earth Resistance (includes safety factor of 1.5) 300 pcf Sliding Coefficient of Friction (includes safety factor of 1.5) 0.4 Assumptions – fully-drained wall condition and level back-slope.

6 AECOM

A permanent, full-face drain system should be provided for walls to minimize the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind retaining walls. This can be accomplished by placing a minimum 12-inch-thick zone of drain rock behind retaining walls. Alternatively, a composite geotextile wall drain system such as Miradrain 6000, or equal may be used instead of the drain rock. The wall drain should be used in conjunction with a perforated drainpipe installed at the base of the drainage zone at the base of the stem wall or above the footing.

The perforated drainpipe should be enveloped in drain rock. The drain rock should be enveloped by filter fabric. The perforated drainpipe should consist of a 4-inch-diameter, rigid-walled, perforated, PVC pipe, or equivalent. The pipe should be surrounded by at least 6-inches of clean rounded free-draining aggregate or gravel meeting the gradation specification in Table 1. The footing drain should convey water under gravity flow to the stormwater collection system or other suitable discharge point.

Table 1: Drain Rock Gradation

Sieve Size or Diameter (in) % Passing

1 ½” 100%

3/8” 10% - 40%

No. 4 0% - 5%

No. 200 0% – 2%

5.1.2 Seismic Considerations

Ground motion parameters used for design are provided in Section 1613 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Seismic forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake event as well as the properties of the soils that underlie the site. As part of the procedure to evaluate seismic forces, the code requires the evaluation of the Seismic Site Class, which categorizes the site based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface.

Based on our evaluation, it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions within the site are consistent with the characteristics of Site Class C as defined in the building code. The code-level design should be completed using the parameters as obtained from the USGS are show in Appendix C, Seismic Design Parameters.

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods during an earthquake. Ground shaking of sufficient duration may result in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and a rapid increase in pore water pressure. This will cause the soil to become fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. It is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction for this site is low.

7 AECOM

5.1.3 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors

Concrete slab-on-grade floors may be supported on compacted subgrade, provided that the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 5 of this report. Slab-on-grade floors should not be founded on organic soils, loose native soils, or on uncontrolled fill.

We recommend that slabs be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than two percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction) and meeting the following specification in Table 2:

Table 2: Capillary Break Gradation

Sieve Size or Diameter Percent Passing

1 inch 100%

No. 4 0% - 70%

No. 10 0% – 30%

No. 100 0% – 5%

No. 200 0% – 2%

Vapor transmission through floor slabs is an important consideration in the performance of floor coverings and controlling moisture in structures. Floor slab vapor transmission can be reduced through the use of suitable vapor retarders such as plastic sheeting placed between the capillary break and the floor slab, and/or specially formulated concrete mixes. Framed floors should also include vapor protection over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation and drainage should be provided. The identification of alternatives to prevent vapor transmission is outside of our expertise. A qualified architect or building envelope consultant can make recommendations for reducing vapor transmission through the slab, based on the building use and flooring specifications.

5.2 SITE PREPARATION

Exposed surfaces at subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of AASHTO T-180 or ASTM-D1557-70 before placing structural fill. If soil is too coarse to perform a laboratory maximum density test, we recommend proof compacting subgrade. Proof compaction should consist of compacting subgrade with a 2-ton vibratory walk-behind roller within trenches. At least four passes should be made and subgrade should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.

5.2.1 Excavations

Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual site conditions at the time of construction. Lateral design criteria for shoring are presented above in

8 AECOM

Section 5.1.1. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable OSHA/WISHA standards. We recommend that temporary, unsupported cut slopes, in native soils with no seepage, be excavated no steeper than 1.5H:1V. Cut slopes exposed for any length of time, particularly during wet weather, should be covered with visqueen to maintain stability and minimize erosion. Cuts should also be continually monitored.

Some of the sand and gravel encountered was relatively loose. The contractor will need to be cautious with the excavation near the electrical utility vaults or other utilities. The gravel may unravel from beneath the existing electrical vaults where the proposed pipes extend near the vaults at these locations.

It is our opinion that excavations into soil or gravel units can be made with conventional excavation equipment. Based on the low to moderate Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the andesite rock, excavation into the andesite should not require predrilling and significant hoe-ramming and ripping.

Excavations within the rock could be excavated near vertically. Loose rock or debris should be removed to protect workers. However, the condition of the rock, when exposed, should be evaluated by a geologist experienced with rock excavations and a temporary trench box should be available for weak or closely fractured zones.

5.2.2 Construction Drainage

Even during dry weather, we recommend that site drainage measures be incorporated into the project construction. Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices.

Typically, these include the construction of shallow upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and the use of temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging slopes and exposed subgrade. All collected water should be directed, under control, to a positive and permanent discharge system such as the storm detention pond or vault.

Groundwater should be anticipated during construction. Water should be collected in a temporary sump and discharged downhill and offsite.

5.2.3 Use of On-Site Soils

Based on our observations and review of the analytical data, it is our opinion that the onsite Silty Gravel and Gravel may be used for structural fill, provided they are free of debris, organics, frozen soil, and particles larger than six inches. Processing of these soil units will be necessary to remove or reduce the size of oversized particles.

The Silty Sand is not suitable for use as fill due to the plastic nature of the silt and associated difficulty in achieving desirable compaction results when moist or wet. The Silty Sand may be used as general fill in landscape areas.

The angular andesite rock removed from the excavations should not be placed in direct contact with piping or the foundations. The rock removed from excavations will likely be larger than six inches and will be difficult to compact within a confined trench area using conventional equipment used for compaction within trenches. For these reasons, reuse of the excavated rock is not recommended for use as structural fill unless crushed at an offsite location and returned to the site.

9 AECOM

5.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement

Imported structural fill should consist of well graded sand or sand and gravel mixture provided they are free of debris, organics, frozen soil, and particles larger than six inches. Structural fill should meet the WSDOT specifications Section 9-03.14(1) Gravel Borrow.

MAXIMUM LIFT THICKNESS: 10 inches (loose)

MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS: Structural fill should generally be compacted to at least 95% of the AASHTO T-180 or ASTM D-1557-70 maximum dry density value for the material.

The structural fill should be compacted with equipment suitable to achieve proper compaction. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved, the fill should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within about two percent of its optimum moisture content during compaction. If the required densities cannot be met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture can be used to dry the soil. As an alternative to placing structural fill, controlled density fill (CDF) could be utilized.

The CDF should meet WSDOT standards. Recommendations for the placement of fill below the groundwater level are presented in Section 5.2.5.

5.2.5 Utility Trenches

Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. The soil and groundwater conditions in the utility excavations may vary across the site. Due to variations in the nature of the site soils, caving of the trench walls should be anticipated. As appropriate, trench shoring should be used by the utility contractor.

Utility trench backfill is a concern in preventing settlement along utility alignments. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported on compacted bedding material. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped from beneath pipe haunches to about 12 inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed and compacted in 10-inch lifts, as recommended above. Undisturbed exposed soils beneath the pipe bedding at the trench bottom do not require compaction.

Compacted structural backfill should not be placed below groundwater. Groundwater may be displaced with the use of CDF or free draining gravel that should be installed to at least one foot above the level of the groundwater. The CDF or free draining gravel should be consolidated with the use of vibratory equipment during placement. Displaced groundwater should be collected and discharged offsite. If free draining material is utilized, the free draining gravel should be encapsulated within a filter type-geotextile to prevent the migration of fines and eventual loss of ground that would result in settlement at the ground surface. Free draining gravel should not be used as backfill beneath or within a distance of three feet of the foundations.

5.2.6 Long Term Drainage/Infiltration

Runoff or stormwater should not be allowed to infiltrate directly adjacent to new foundations. Per IBC provisions, site grading within 10 feet of proposed building foundations should slope at a minimum of five percent away from building foundations to reduce the potential for ponding.

10 AECOM

Hardscape surfaces, such as sidewalks and pavements, within 10 feet of building foundations should slope at a minimum of two percent away from building foundations. A design outflow rate of 0.008 cubic feet per foot (csf/f) for the Silty Sand and Silty Gravel soil below a depth of three feet is recommended for use in design of drywells.

6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

As the geotechnical engineer of record, AECOM should be retained to provide a review of the draft plans and specifications. The purpose of our review will be to verify the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented in the construction drawings and specifications. In addition, the review would allow a discussion of possible changes prior to finalization of the drawings.

AECOM should also be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of the project during excavation and placement of structural fill. The purpose of construction observation services is to verify that the actual conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the conditions encountered at the exploration locations. Construction observation would also allow us to facilitate changes in the design in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

7.0 LIMITATIONS

The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based solely upon AECOM’s geotechnical evaluations of the site, and upon AECOM’s interpretations of the readily available geologic information, and the subsurface exploration data, as identified in this report. The conclusions are intended exclusively for the purpose stated herein, at the proposed project site. It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a definitive investigation of contamination at the subject property and the conclusions provided are not necessarily inclusive of all the possible conditions. It is possible that currently unrecognized subsurface contamination may exist at the subject property.

This report is intended for the sole use of the National Park Service, RIM Architects, and their engineers, architects and contractors for the specific project. The scope of services performed during this evaluation may not be appropriate for other users, and any use or re-use of this document or of the findings, or conclusions presented herein is at the sole risk of said user.

This report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings of this assessment.

Opinions and recommendations presented in this report apply to site conditions and features as they existed at the time of AECOM’s site explorations and those reasonably foreseeable. They cannot necessarily apply to conditions and features of which AECOM is unaware and has not had an opportunity to evaluate.

AECOM

FIGURES

Source: USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Mount Rainier East, Washington, 2014

Paradise Inn Paradise, Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

_0 1.

ai

Washington

Paradise

Site

0 2,000 4,000

Scale in Feet

Le ge nd

AE

C O

M b or in g lo ca tio n

H an d au ge r b or in g

Ap pr ox im at e

Sc al e in

F ee t

Fi gu re

Si te

P la n So ur ce

: G oo gl e

Ea rth

P ro

, i m ag er y da te d

7-

-1

Pa ra di se

In n

Pa ra di se

, M t.

R ai ni er

N at io na l P ar k, W as hi ng to n

Pa ra di se

-L on gm ire

R oa d

Paradise Valley Road S

Pa ra di se

In n

B1 B2

B3

Pa ra di se

-L on gm ire

R oa d

Paradise Valley Road S

Pa ra di se

In n

AS

T

B1 B2

B3

AECOM Corporation

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration consisted of the advancement of three borings. The logs of borings are attached.

The borings were advanced using a drill rig that employed a Sonic Rotary Method, which allows for Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) of the soils.

The soil conditions encountered in the borings were logged in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is described on the attached Key to Log of Boring and Descriptive Terms of Soil. Sampling was conducted via the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method using a standard split barrel sampler in general accordance to ASTM D 2487 & D 2488.

Sampling was conducted via continuous rock core. The Rock Quality Designation was evaluated for each run of core in general accordance to ASTM D6032 - 08 Standard Test Method for Determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Rock Core.

Paradise Inn Annex Mount Rainier National Park 60438168

Start Finish ep th in

Fe et

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: Gravel access road Time 13:33

Time 15:10

Sampling method: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Hammer Weight: 140 Pound Drilling Free Fall: 30-inches

Sa m pl er

In ch

D riv en

In ch

R ec ov er

D ep th o f C as in g Sa m pl eN o.

Sa m pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e see site plan NPS - Paradise Inn Annex Project Number: 60438168

Client: National Park Service Location: Paradise Inn, WA

Equipment Type/ model #: Terra Sonic 150CC Boring No. 1-2015

Auger type/diameter: 5-inch outer casing, 4-inch inner casing Contractor: Holt Services Inc.

Sheet 1 of 1

Type Color Consist. Moisture

AC Pavement

SM Silty SAND dark loose moist brown brick fragments (FILL) PID= 0.0 ppm

SM Silty SAND light loose moist brown

GM Silty GRAVEL dark grey dense moist

Rx Andesite dary grey hard

Boring Terminated @25-feet below the ground surface backfilled with bentonite

RQD= 0, from 20 to 25-feet, 28% recovery

RQD= 0, highly fractured, porphyritic andesite

SP

T

16 26

SP

11 45

10 fine sand with silt and some gravel

9 grades with more sand and some gravel water content = 27 %

SP

5.

5 7

6 Percent Passing #200 Sieve = 24.6 %

5 Liguid Limit = 51, Plastic Index = 11 highly plastic silt fine grained sand with silt, asphalt and

Asphalt concrete pavement

D ep

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: Gravel access road Time 13:33

Time 15:10 Borings located using a consumer-grade Garmin GPS

Date:

09/15/15

Date:

09/15/15Other(Grain size, shape ect.)

Sa m pl er

In ch

D

R ec ov er

D ep th o f C as in g Sa m pl pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e

Type Color Consist. Moisture

SM-SC Silty SAND Brown loose moist

SM Silty SAND Grey- medium damp Brown Dense highly plastic silt

GM Silty GRAVEL grey dense damp dark grey dense damp dark grey dense damp see site plan NPS - Paradise Inn Annex Project Number: 60438168

Client: National Park Service Location: Paradise Inn, WA

Equipment Type/ model #: Terra Sonic 150CC Boring No. 2-2015

Auger type/diameter: 5-inch outer casing, 4-inch inner casing Contractor: Holt Services Inc.

Sheet 1 of 1Sampling method: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Hammer Weight: 140 Pound Drilling Free Fall: 30-inches

Sa m pl er

In ch

D

R ec ov er

D ep th o f C as in g Sa m pl pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e D ep

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: Gravel access road Time 10:15

Time 12:15 Borings located using a consumer-grade Garmin GPS

Date:

09/15/15

Date:

09/15/15Other(Grain size, shape ect.)

0 clayey, fill with some rounded gravel some red brown silt at 12-inches

PID= 0 ppm (posible fill)

PID = 10.77 PPM

X

4 groundwater encountered at 4-feet fine to medium grained sand with some angular gravel, PID = 0.0

SP

6 45 grades with more gravel, 7 cobbles and boulders PID = 6.5 PPM @ 7-feet

8 Hard drilling at 6.5 feet

SP

11 42

10 PID =0.0 PPM

PID = 0.0

SP

16 49 very fine to coarse grained sand, 17 some small silt layers

PID = 0.0

SP

21 28

22 fine sand

Boring terminated @25-feet below the ground surface

Backfilled with bentonite see site plan NPS - Paradise Inn Annex Project Number: 60438168

Client: National Park Service Location: Paradise Inn, WA

Equipment Type/ model #: Terra Sonic 150CC Boring No. 3-2015

Auger type/diameter: 5-inch outer casing, 4-inch inner casing Contractor: Holt Services Inc.

Sheet 1 of 1Sampling method: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Hammer Weight: 140 Pound Drilling Free Fall: 30-inches

Sa m pl er

In ch

D

R ec ov er

D ep th o f C as in g Sa m pl pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e D ep

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: Gravel access road Time 15:58

Time 17:42

Type Color Consist. Moisture

GP GRAVEL Grey loose dry SM Silty SAND dark Brown loose dry

(possible fill)

SM Silty SAND light Brown medium moist dense

Rx Andesite Grey Hard Boulder

GM Silty Gravel dark Grey dense moist to wet

Sa m pl er

In ch

D

R ec ov er

D ep th o f C as in g Sa m pl pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e D ep

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: Gravel access road Time 15:58

Time 17:42 Borings located using a consumer-grade Garmin GPS

Date:

09/15/15

Date:

09/15/15Other(Grain size, shape ect.)

crushed gravel surfacing (fill)

1 silty fine sand with some angular to rounded PID= 0.0ppm

3 ash layer at 3-feet some rounded cobbles and boulders

4 highly plastic silt PID = 0.0 ppm

SPT 18

6 11

Liguid Limit = 58, Plastic Index = 22

6 Water content = 30.3 Percent passing #200 Sieve = 23.3 %

Andesite boulder extends to 18 feet

N X 9 fine sand with silt, PID = 0.0ppm ash layer from 20 to 21-feet

SP

21 65 coarse sand with some cobbles

22 PID = 0.0ppm

Boring terminated @ 25-feet below the ground surface

Boring backfilled with bentonite see site plan NPS - Paradise Inn Annex Project Number: 60438168

Client: National Park Service Location: Paradise Inn, WA

Equipment Type/ model #: Boring No. AST

Auger type/diameter:

Contractor: AECOM

Sheet 1 of 1Sampling method: AMS 3-inch diameter hand aguer Hammer Weight: Drilling Free Fall:

Sa m pl er

In ch

Driv en

In ch

Re co ve r

D ep th of

C as in g

Sa m pl eN o.

Sa m pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft.

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e

D ep th in

Fe et

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: earth floor with gravel Time

6:25PM

Time

6:45PM

Type Color Consist. Moisture

GP GRAVEL Grey loose very moist

SM Silty SAND dark Brown loose very moist

Sa m pl er

In ch

Driv en

In ch

Re co ve r

D ep th of

C as in g

Sa m pl eN o.

Sa m pl eD ep th

B lo w s/ ft.

Sa m pl er

G ra b Sa m pl e

D ep th in

Fe et

So il

G ra ph

U

SC

S

Surface conditions: earth floor with gravel Time

6:25PM

Time 6:45PMBorings located using a consumer-grade Garmin GPS

Date:

09/16/15

Date:

09/16/15Other(Grain size, shape ect.)

crushed gravel surfacing

A

ST

-0 .5

0.

5 X

1 silty fine sand with angular to rounded gravel PID= 0.0ppm

A

ST

-0 .5

2.

0 X

PID= 0.0ppm

3 Boring terminated @ 25-feet below the ground surface

Boring backfilled with bentonite

APPENDIX B

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory Testing

The following laboratory tests were performed by AECOM:

Percent Passing No. 200 (ASTM D 1140) to evaluate the fines content of soils

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318- 05) to evaluated the plasticity of the fine grained particles of soil

The laboratory test sheets are attached.

0.0010.010.1110100

Cc

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

%Silt

33/4 4

LL

B1-2015

B3-2015

Specimen Identification coarse

1.5

GRAVEL

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

19.2

17.0

8 200

PL

0.115

0.125

PI

%Gravel

5.0 ft.

5.0 ft.

1.014

0.806

D10

Cu

SAND

D30 fine

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

56.2

59.7

COBBLES

3/8 100

SILT OR CLAY

Specimen Identification finecoarse

D60

Silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel

Silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel

B1-2015

B3-2015

603 10 medium

%Clay

HYDROMETER

D100

4 1401

5.0 ft.

5.0 ft.

401/2

24.6

23.3

%Sand

Classification

Figure

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Project: Paradise Inn Annex Project Location: Washington Project Number: 60438168

U S

_G R

A

IN

_S

IZ

E C

:\U S

E R

S \K

E N

_Y A

N G

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \K

E

IT

H \P

A R

A D

IS

E

IN

N

A N

N E

X .G

P J

U R

S S

E A

3.

G

LB

U

R S

S E

A 3.

G D

T

0/

/1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Moisture

CL

MHCL-ML

P L A S T I C I T Y

I N D E X

PL PI

ML

Figure

5.0 ft

5.0 ft

CH

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

LIQUID LIMIT

Specimen Identification

B1-2015

B3-2015

ClassificationLL

Silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel

Silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel

27.1

30.3

Project: Paradise Inn Annex Project Location: Washington Project Number: 60438168

U S

_A T

T E

R B

E R

G _L

IM

IT

S C

:\U S

E R

S \K

E N

_Y A

N G

\D O

C U

M E

N T

S \K

E

IT

H \P

A R

A D

IS

E

IN

N

A N

N E

X .G

P J

U R

S S

E A

3.

G

LB

U

R S

S E

A 3.

G D

T

0/

/1

APPENDIX C

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

11/6/2015 Design Maps Summary Report http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcatego... 1/1

Report Title

Building Code Reference Document

Site Coordinates

Site Soil Classification

Design Maps Summary Report User–Specified Input

NPS Paradise Inn Annex Fri November 6, 2015 22:04:15 UTC

ASCE 4113 Retrofit Standard, BSE1E (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)

46.78654°N, 121.73349°W

Site Class C – “Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”

USGS–Provided Output

SS,20/50 0.372 g SXS,BSE1E 0.447 g

S1,20/50 0.130 g SX1,BSE1E 0.218 g

Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subjectmatter knowledge.

Zoomed View http://www.usgs.gov/

11/6/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 1/4

From Section 2.4.1.4

From Section 2.4.1.4

Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 4113 Retrofit Standard, BSE1E (46.78654°N, 121.73349°W)

Site Class C – “Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”

Section 2.4.1 – General Procedure for Hazard Due to Ground Shaking

20%/50year maximum direction spectral response acceleration for 0.2s and 1.0s periods, respectively:

SS,20/50 = 0.372 g

S1,20/50 = 0.130 g

Section 2.4.1.6 – Adjustment for Site Class

The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), sitespecific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Section 2.4.1.6.1.

SITE

CLASS

SOIL

PROFILE

NAME

Soil shear wave velocity, vS, (ft/s)

Standard penetration resistance, N

Soil undrained shear strength, su, (psf)

A Hard rock vS > 5,000 N/A N/A

B Rock 2,500 < vS ≤ 5,000 N/A N/A

C Very dense soil and soft rock

1,200 < vS ≤ 2,500 N > 50 >2,000 psf

D Stiff soil profile

600 ≤ vS < 1,200 15 ≤ N ≤ 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf

E Stiff soil profile vS < 600 N < 15 <1,000 psf

E — Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics:

1. Plasticity index PI > 20,

2. Moisture content w ≥ 40%, and

3. Undrained shear strength su < 500 psf

F — Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils.

2. Peats and/or highly organic clays (H > 10 feet of peat and/or highly organic clay where H = thickness of soil)

3. Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 feet with plasticity index PI > 75)

4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H > 120 feet)

For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1lb/ft² = 0.0479 kN/m² http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 2/4

Table 2–3. Values of Fa as a Function of Site Class and Mapped ShortPeriod Spectral Response Acceleration Ss

Site Class

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at ShortPeriod Ss

SS ≤ 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS ≥ 1.25

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9

F Sitespecific geotechnical and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed

Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of SS

For Site Class = C and SS = 0.372 g, Fa = 1.200

Table 2–4. Values of Fv as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period S1

Site Class

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1 s Period S1

S1 ≤ 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S1 = 0.40 S1 ≥ 0.50

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5

E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4

F Sitespecific geotechnical and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed

Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of S1

For Site Class = C and S1 = 0.130 g, Fv = 1.670 http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 3/4

Provided as a reference for Equation (24):

Provided as a reference for Equation (25):

Provided as a reference for Equation (24):

Provided as a reference for Equation (25):

Equation (2–4):

Equation (2–5):

FaSS,20/50 = 1.200 x 0.372 g = 0.447 g

FvS1,20/50 = 1.670 x 0.130 g = 0.218 g

SXS,BSE1N = ⅔ x SXS,BSE2N = ⅔ x FaSS,BSE2N = 0.696 g

SX1,BSE1N = ⅔ x SX1,BSE2N = ⅔ x FvS1,BSE2N = 0.361 g

SXS,BSE1E = MIN[FaSS,20/50, SXS,BSE1N] = MIN[0.447g, 0.696g] = 0.447g

SX1,BSE1E = MIN[FvSS,20/50, SX1,BSE1N] = MIN[0.218g, 0.361g] = 0.218g

Section 2.4.1.7.1 — General Horizontal Response Spectrum

Figure 21. General Horizontal Response Spectrum http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 4/4

Section 2.4.1.7.2 — General Vertical Response Spectrum

The General Vertical Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the General Horizontal Response Spectrum by ⅔.

11/6/2015 Design Maps Summary Report http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcatego... 1/1

Design Maps Summary Report

Report Title

Building Code Reference Document

Site Coordinates

Site Soil Classification

User–Specified Input NPS Paradise Inn Annex Fri November 6, 2015 22:08:25 UTC

ASCE 4113 Retrofit Standard, BSE2E (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)

46.78654°N, 121.73349°W

Site Class C – “Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”

USGS–Provided Output

SS,5/50 0.745 g SXS,BSE2E 0.821 g

S1,5/50 0.276 g SX1,BSE2E 0.420 g

Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subjectmatter knowledge.

Zoomed View http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 1/4

From Section 2.4.1.3

From Section 2.4.1.3

Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 4113 Retrofit Standard, BSE2E (46.78654°N, 121.73349°W)

Site Class C – “Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock”

Section 2.4.1 – General Procedure for Hazard Due to Ground Shaking

5%/50year maximum direction spectral response acceleration for 0.2s and 1.0s periods, respectively:

SS,5/50 = 0.745 g

S1,5/50 = 0.276 g

Section 2.4.1.6 – Adjustment for Site Class

The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), sitespecific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Section 2.4.1.6.1.

SITE

CLASS

SOIL

PROFILE

NAME

Soil shear wave velocity, vS, (ft/s)

Standard penetration resistance, N

Soil undrained shear strength, su, (psf)

A Hard rock vS > 5,000 N/A N/A

B Rock 2,500 < vS ≤ 5,000 N/A N/A

C Very dense soil and soft rock

1,200 < vS ≤ 2,500 N > 50 >2,000 psf

D Stiff soil profile

600 ≤ vS < 1,200 15 ≤ N ≤ 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf

E Stiff soil profile vS < 600 N < 15 <1,000 psf

E — Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics:

1. Plasticity index PI > 20,

2. Moisture content w ≥ 40%, and

3. Undrained shear strength su < 500 psf

F — Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils.

2. Peats and/or highly organic clays (H > 10 feet of peat and/or highly organic clay where H = thickness of soil)

3. Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 feet with plasticity index PI > 75)

4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H > 120 feet)

For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1lb/ft² = 0.0479 kN/m² http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 2/4

Table 2–3. Values of Fa as a Function of Site Class and Mapped ShortPeriod Spectral Response Acceleration Ss

Site Class

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at ShortPeriod Ss

SS ≤ 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS ≥ 1.25

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9

F Sitespecific geotechnical and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed

Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of SS

For Site Class = C and SS = 0.745 g, Fa = 1.102

Table 2–4. Values of Fv as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period S1

Site Class

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1 s Period S1

S1 ≤ 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S1 = 0.40 S1 ≥ 0.50

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5

E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4

F Sitespecific geotechnical and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed

Note: Use straight–line interpolation for intermediate values of S1

For Site Class = C and S1 = 0.276 g, Fv = 1.524 http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 3/4

Provided as a reference for Equation (24):

Provided as a reference for Equation (25):

Provided as a reference for Equation (24):

Provided as a reference for Equation (25):

Equation (2–4):

Equation (2–5):

FaSS,5/50 = 1.102 x 0.745 g = 0.821 g

FvS1,5/50 = 1.524 x 0.276 g = 0.420 g

SXS,BSE2N = FaSS,BSE2N = 1.044 g

SX1,BSE2N = FvS1,BSE2N = 0.541 g

SXS,BSE2E = MIN[FaSS,5/50, SXS,BSE2N] = MIN[0.821g, 1.044g] = 0.821g

SX1,BSE2E = MIN[FvS1,5/50, SX1,BSE2N] = MIN[0.420g, 0.541g] = 0.420g

Section 2.4.1.7.1 — General Horizontal Response Spectrum

Figure 21. General Horizontal Response Spectrum http://ehp2earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=46.78654167&longitude=121.73348889&siteclass=2&riskcategory=... 4/4

Section 2.4.1.7.2 — General Vertical Response Spectrum

The General Vertical Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the General Horizontal Response Spectrum by ⅔.