Add-Alter B235 - Type B-3 - Specifications (Appendices).pdf

T Y P E B - 3 F I N A L

Add/Alter B235 Corrosion Control Project Number TQKD209002

Specifications Appendices

Prepared for

142nd Civil Engineering Squadron

Oregon Air National Guard

Portland ANG Base

February 2023

CH2M HILL – HDR JV

1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 300

Corvallis OR, 97330

Add/Alter B235 OR Air National Guard Portland Air National Guard Base, OR Project No. TQKD209002

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 31 50 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 32 16.00 20 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 13 SPECIAL PROJECT PROCEDURES

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 35 40.00 20 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND

CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

MANAGEMENT

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 91 00.15 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION AND DECONSTRUCTION

02 81 00 TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

02 83 00 LEAD REMEDIATION

02 84 16 HANDLING OF LIGHTING BALLASTS AND

LAMPS CONTAINING PCBs AND MERCURY

02 84 33 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)

02 85 00 MOLD REMEDIATION

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 01 00 REHABILITATION OF CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 05 20.00 27 POST-INSTALLED CONCRETE AND MASONRY

ANCHORS

05 05 23.13 10 ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF WELDMENTS

05 05 23.16 STRUCTURAL WELDING

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 SECTION PROJECT Page 1

VOLUME 01 (DIVISIONS 01-06)

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL

CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 19 00 WATER REPELLENTS

07 21 13 BOARD AND BLOCK INSULATION

07 21 16 MINERAL FIBER BLANKET INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 54 19 POLYVINYL-CHLORIDE ROOFING

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 11 16 ALUMINUM DOORS AND FRAMES

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 33 23 OVERHEAD COILING DOORS

08 51 13 ALUMINUM WINDOWS

08 60 45 TRANSLUCENT PANELS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 00 SUPPORTS FOR PLASTER AND GYPSUM BOARD

09 22 36 LATH

09 24 23 CEMENT STUCCO

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 67 23.15 FUEL RESISTIVE RESINOUS FLOORING,

3-COAT SYSTEM

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 51 13 METAL LOCKERS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 SECTION PROJECT Page 2

VOLUME 02 (DIVISIONS 07-22)

12 24 13 ROLLER WINDOW SHADES

12 48 13 ENTRANCE FLOOR MATS AND FRAMES

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 48 73 SEISMIC CONTROL FOR MISCELLANEOUS

EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE

PROTECTION

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 48.19 SEISMIC BRACING FOR HVAC

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR

HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL

SYSTEMS

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 09 13 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL DEVICES

FOR HVAC

23 09 23.02 BACNET DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL FOR HVAC

AND OTHER BUILDING CONTROL SYSTEMS

23 09 93 SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC CONTROL

23 11 20 FACILITY GAS PIPING

23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 30 00 HVAC AIR DISTRIBUTION

23 52 00 HEATING BOILERS

23 80 20.00 10 GAS-FIRED HEATING EQUIPMENT

23 81 00 DECENTRALIZED UNITARY HVAC EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 25 - INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

25 05 11 CYBERSECURITY FOR LOW IMPACT

FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS

25 08 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM

TESTING

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 05 48.00 10 SEISMIC PROTECTION FOR ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS

26 29 23 ADJUSTABLE SPEED DRIVE (ASD) SYSTEMS UNDER 600 VOLTS

26 41 00 26 51 00 26 56 00

LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

INTERIOR LIGHTING

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3 SECTION PROJECT Page 3

25 10 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL STYSTEM

(UMCS) FRONT AND INTEGRATION

26 28 01.00 10 COORDINATED POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION

VOLUME 3 (DIVISIONS 23-33)

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING

SYSTEM

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS

NOTIFICATION SYSTEM, ADDRESSABLE

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 11 00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING

31 63 29 DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

32 12 16.16 ROAD-MIX ASPHALT PAVING

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 31 13 CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

32 92 19 SEEDING

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 11 23 NATURAL GAS AND LIQUID PETROLEUM PIPING

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4 SECTION PROJECT Page 4

VOLUME 04

APPENDICES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

HAZMAT REPORT

Geotechnical Report

K & A Engineering, Inc.

541·684·9399 · Kaengineers.com Established 1998

Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Engineering Report

Building B250 Seismic Retrofit Project Building 235 Addition

Portland Air National Guard Base Portland, Oregon

Project: 21041 September 27, 2021

Prepared for:

Jacobs

1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 300 Corvallis, OR 97333

Prepared by:

Coburg, Oregon

K & A ENGINEERING, INC.

91051 S. WILLAMETTE STREET

P. O. BOX 8486, COBURG, OR 97408

(541) 684-9399 ⋅ KAENGINEERS.COM

September 27, 2021 Project: 21041

Dennis Pearson, P.E., S.E., PMP, LEED Jacobs 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 300 Corvallis, OR 97333

Subject: Geotechnical Site Investigation

Building B250 Seismic Retrofit Project Building B235 Addition Project Portland Air National Guard Base Portland, Oregon

K & A Engineering, Inc. is pleased to present our Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subject development.

Our Services were completed in accordance with our Contract for Engineering Services, dated September 16, 2020 and meet the requirements of 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Section 1803, Geotechnical Investigations.

Our report:

• Presents a summary of the existing subsurface conditions at the subject project site,

• Makes recommendations for seismic design criteria, and

• Makes recommendations for suitable foundation support alternatives.

Thank you for the opportunity to be involved with your project. Please call us if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Michael Remboldt, P.E., G.E.

Geotechnical Engineering Report Building B250 Seismic Retrofit Project

Building B235 Addition Project Portland Air National Guard Base

Portland, Oregon K & A Engineering, Inc. · Project No.: 24041

September 27, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 2 Project Information

2.1 Project Site Description

2.2 Subsurface Conditions

2.3 Local Geology

3 Geologic Hazards

3.1.1 Local Earthquakes

3.1.2 Faulting

3.1.3 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading

3.1.4 Expansive Soils

4 Recommendations for Design and Construction

4.1 Site Class

4.2 Design Earthquake

4.2.1 Seismic Design Criteria

4.3 Foundation Support – Building B235

4.3.1 General Discussion

4.3.2 Deep Foundations

4.4 Stormwater Infiltration

5 Limitation and Use of Geotechnical Recommendations

Appendix A: Field Exploration Vicinity Map Test Location Plan CPT and Boring Logs

Appendix B: Supporting Documents ASCE 41-17 Design Criteria ASCE 7-16 Site Coefficient Calculations Earthquake Hazard Deaggregation Summary Liquefaction Evaluation Summary

Executive Summary Subsurface conditions at the project site consist of:

0 to 3-feet of Undocumented FILL (gravelly-SILT), over 30 to 45-feet of interlayered, normally consolidated, loose silty-SANDS and soft silty-CLAYS;

over Dense to very dense SAND.

Groundwater in the vicinity of the buildings B235 and B50 was found to range from approximately 9.5 to 11-feet below existing ground (BEG). The unconsolidated silty-SANDS below the groundwater surface are highly prone to earthquake-induced liquefaction.

Based on our understanding of the nature of the building retrofit and addition, the fundamental period for these structures is (and will be after the projects are completed) relatively low (< 0.5-sec) and as such, under current codes, the site is appropriately classes as seismic site class “E – Soft Clay Soil.”

For the code-mandated peak ground acceleration associated with the 2-percent exceedance in 50-year earthquake (0.48-g) the expected ground subsidence due to earthquake-induced liquefaction will range from approximately 10 to 25-inches. Nearly all earthquake-induced liquefaction vertical settlement occurs in the loose silty-SANDS and soft silty-CLAYS; but modeling indicates that liquefaction settlement in the range of approximately 1 to 12-inches is possible in the dense SAND.

We recommend mitigation for the liquefaction hazard for the proposed B235 addition consist of deep foundation support such as driven piles or micropiles.

Water infiltration was tested at the proposed stormwater detention/retention area and was found to be low, with a recommended design infiltration rate of 0.15-inches/hour.

Seismic Retrofit and Additions Projects · B250/B235 Portland Air National Guard Base September 27, 2021 · K & A Engineering, Inc. · Project No.: 21041

1 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents our findings and geotechnical recommendations for the subject project.

The purpose our services is to:

Characterize site surface and subsurface conditions, Determine Seismic Site Class for the project, Identify geologic hazards that may exist, and Provide foundation design and construction recommendations for the foundation of the B235 addition.

The scope of our services induced:

Fieldwork including:

Two (3) cone penetration tests, One (1) continuous-sample boring, and One (1) shallow infiltration test for stormwater detention/retention design.

Laboratory analysis of boring samples, Analysis of field data, Development of Geotechnical design recommendations, and This written Geotechnical engineering report.

Our services meet the requirements of the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Section 1803 – Geotechnical Investigations.

2 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION

The project for which this study has been completed includes:

Seismic Retrofit for Building B250: This is a concrete tilt-up (one-level) structure that is currently supported with driven timber piles.

Addition to Building B235: Our understanding is that the proposed addition will be a one-story light steel framed structure.

The airbase itself is situated south of the Portland International Airport (PIA). See the attached Vicinity Map in Appendix A

There were no indications of unusual or unstable ground conditions at the time of the investigation.

2 | P a g e

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

We investigated subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of the B235 and B250 buildings by advancing three (3) cone penetration tests (CPT) and one (1) continuous sample boring1 (B-1) using our track-mounted geotechnical drill.

Based on the investigation made for this project subsurface conditions include (approximately):

Dense/Stiff FILL: 3 to 4-feet of brown, dry to damp, stiff gravelly-SILT, over Interbedded Silt, Sands, and Soft Clays: Approximately 30 to over 45-feet of thin interbeds of silts and sands separated by thicker zones (3 to 10-feet) zones of soft silty-CLAY, over Dense SAND: Dense to very dense silty-SAND and clean SAND.

Our exploration extended to slightly more than 100-feet below existing ground (BEG) in CPT-1. Other recent explorations north of the project site (for PIA) show very similar lithology and indicate that the dense SANDS extend very deep (as much as 160-feet or more) where dense gravels are encountered.

Groundwater was measured at depths ranging from 9.5 to 11-feet BEG. Considering estimated ground surface elevations, the actual groundwater surface appears to be very consistent across the study area.

The greatest constraint to the project presented by subsurface conditions are:

Loose/soft interbedded silts and sands in the upper 30 to 45-feet of the soil profile and Relatively high groundwater saturating the interbedded silts and sands.

These conditions render the site with a high probability of liquefaction-induced settlement/subsidence for the design earthquake and with a significant degree of elastic settlement for conventional spread footings.

The approximate location of the probes and borings are shown in the Test Location Plan, Appendix A.

2.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY

The project site is within and area having mapped surface geology consisting of a combination of Artificial FILL (sands, silts, and clays with gravels) and Quaternary Alluvium (silts, sands, and gravels and organic-rich clays)2.

Observations from the cone penetration testing is very consistent with the Quaternary Alluvium mapping indicating flooding sequences characterized by interbedded silts, sands, and clays.

1 1.5-in diameter x 4-foot continuous samples obtained using a G7 2-3/8” direct push dual tube system manufactured by AMS, Inc.

2 M. H. Beeson et. al., Geologic Map of the Portland Quadrangle, Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon and Clark County, Washington. Publication GMS-75, Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals Industries.

1991.

3 | P a g e

3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

3.1.1 Local Earthquakes

A search of the USGS Earthquake Catalog3 indicates that over approximately 320 seismic events having a magnitude of 4 or greater have occurred within 50-miles of the project site over the last 40-years.

Cataloged events with M ≥ 5 are summarized in Table 1. Most of the M ≥ 5 events are crustal, centered at Mt. St. Helens.

The project site is within a seismically active zone.

Table 1 – Nearby seismic events with M ≥ 5.0.

Date Latitude Longitude Magnitude

05/18/1980 46.20733 -122.188 5.7 03/25/1993 45.03517 -122.6065 5.6 04/14/1980 46.2035 -122.1973 5.2 11/06/1962 45.642 -122.588 5.18 09/17/1961 46.023 -122.122 5.1 04/08/1980 46.20983 -122.1958 5.1 04/06/1980 46.2105 -122.1872 5.1 04/20/1980 46.21067 -122.1785 5.1 04/07/1980 46.21717 -122.1817 5.1 04/03/1980 46.22683 -122.1718 5.1 12/16/1953 45.5 -122.7 5 04/22/1980 46.20267 -122.182 5 04/18/1980 46.208 -122.1825 5 04/11/1980 46.20817 -122.168 5 04/03/1980 46.21233 -122.1865 5 04/15/1980 46.21283 -122.181 5 04/17/1980 46.21317 -122.186 5

3.1.2 Faulting

Table 2 summarizes nearby mapped active faults 4, 5, 6 within a 50-mile radius of the project site. The nearest mapped fault is the East Bank Fault which is located less than 5-miles from the project site to the southwest.

3 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ 4 Active defined as having ruptured within the current geologic age (Quaternary – 1.5Ma).

5 Personius, S.F., Dark, R.L., Bradley, L.A., and Haller, K.M., “Map of Quaternary Faults and Folds in Oregon”, U.S.

Geologic Survey, OFR-03-095 (2003).

6 U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, accessed January 23, 2020, from USGS web site: http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults.

4 | P a g e

Table 2 – Nearby Quaternary Faults.

Fault Name Fault

ID

Length (km)

Slip Rate (mm/yr) Type 7 Distance 8 and Direction from Site (miles) Beaverton Fault Zone 715 15 < 0.2 Unspec. 12 SW Canby-Molalla Fault 715 50 < 0.2 RL, R 14 SW East Bank Fault 876 29 < 0.2 RL, R 4.2 SW Grant Butte Fault 878 10 < 0.2 N 7.0 S SE Damascus-Tickle Creek Fault Zone 879 16 < 0.2 RL, LL, R 8.4 SE Lacamas Lake Fault 880 24 < 0.2 RL, N 8.0 NE Mount Angel Fault 873 30 < 0.2 R, RL 34 S SW Gales Creek Fault Zone 718 73 < 0.2 R, RL 27 S SW Helvetia Fault 714 7 < 0.2 R, RL 16 W Oatfield Fault 875 29 < 0.2 R, RL 8.0 W SW Portland Hills Fault 877 49 < 0.2 R, RL 5.4 SW Newberg Fault 717 5 < 0.2 R, RL 26 SW Clackamas River Fault Zone 864 29 < 0.2 N, RL 48 SE Hood River Fault Zone 868 44 < 0.2 N, RL 47 E Faults near the Dalles 580 69 < 0.2 RL 48 E NE Waldo Hills Fault 875 12 < 0.2 N 48 S SW Salem-Eola Hills Homocline 719 32 < 0.2 H 50 S SW

The Portland Hills Fault contributes about 2-percent of the total earthquake hazard to the site, based on deaggregation modeling (see Appendix B), with a magnitude of 6.75. However, the Portland Hills Fault has an estimated slip rate of less than 0.2-mm/year (less than the threshold of 1-mm/yr per Section 11.4 of ASCE 7-16).

The project site is NOT a “Near-Fault Site” and there is not a significant hazard of fault rupture at the project site.

3.1.3 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading

Liquefaction:

7 Types of Faults: T = thrust, LL = left lateral (strike-slip), RL = right lateral (strike slip), N = normal, R = reverse, A = anticline, H = homocline, S = syncline.

8 Distance was measured from the site to the (approximate) closest location along the fault or collection of faults.

5 | P a g e

The project site is underlain by a significant zone of saturated interbedded loose to moderately dense SANDS and silty-SANDS separated by thicker zones of soft silty-CLAYS. These soils overly moderately dense to dense SANDS that extend to depths exceeding 100-feet BEG We modeled liquefaction-induced ground subsidence using the code required peak ground acceleration of PGAM = 0.48-g9 with a modal magnitude of 9 (based on deaggregation modeling). Our modeling indicates that:

Interbedded Silt, Sands, and Soft Clays : Our analysis indicates a total ground subsidence in this upper 30 to 45-foot thick zone of the soil profile of approximately 0.5 to over 1.0-feet.

Lower Dense SAND: These sands are moderately dense to very dense but, given the high design peak ground acceleration, will likely contribute to total ground subsidence in the range of

0.1 to 1.0-feet.

We expect to see a ground surface subsidence in the range of 1 to over 2-feet for the design earthquake due to liquefaction. Subsidence will not be uniform across the site due to the random depth, location, and thickness of the silt, sand, and clay interbeds. Sand boils will likely occur, and, for evaluation purposes, one should assume that the differential liquefaction-induced ground subsidence underneath a building footprint will be the same as the total estimated liquefaction-induced ground subsidence, or in the range of 1 to 2-feet.

Lateral Spreading:

The project site is located approximately 1-mile southwest of the south bank of the Columbia River. The ground surface between the project site and the riverbank rises 7 to 10-feet in elevation to the riverbank which then drops an estimated 20-feet to the river.

It is our opinion that lateral spreading at the project site, due to the design earthquake peak ground acceleration, will be minimal. This is based on these observations:

the ground water observed at the project site appears to be at or near the water level of the

Columbia River, which is at or near the toe of the riverbank, The riverbank is a significant distance from the project site – approximately 1-mile, and The ground slope actually rises slightly from the project site to the top of the riverbank.

We recommend that there is a low hazard of lateral spreading at the project site.

3.1.4 Expansive Soils

The surface layer of gravelly-SILT has a low to moderate potential for volume change with changes in seasonal water content.

We recommend that the hazard of expansive soils at the site, considering the recommendations for foundation support given in this report, is LOW.

9 Section 11.8.3 ASCE 7-16

6 | P a g e

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 SITE CLASS

We recommend that the seismic site class for the project site is “E – Soft Clay Soil.” This is based on the following:

Shear wave velocity measured during cone penetration testing, The assumption that the fundamental period for both buildings (B235 and B250) is less than 0.5-seconds, and Criteria in ASCE 7-16 chapter 20.

4.2 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

Based on current deaggregation modeling of local sources of earthquake ground motion (crustal, deep, and subduction zone) 10, the mode value of the maximum earthquake magnitude at the project site, considering site-specific ground conditions, is M9.0 with a modal source distance of 84- km (52-miles) from the project site. The chief contributors to the hazard are Cascadia megathrust events. is a crustal event.

This analysis was made for a 2-percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period.

4.2.1 Seismic Design Criteria

Building B235 (Addition):

The seismic design criteria, in accordance with 2019 OSSC and ASCE 7-16, are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 – Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Design Values

0.2-Second 1-Second MCE SS = 0.859 g S1 = 0.376 g

Site Class E Site Coefficient Fa = 1.298 Fv = 1.492

Spectral Response Acceleration SMS = 1.115 g SM1 = 0.561 g Design Spectral Acceleration SDS = 0.743 g SD1 = 0.374 g

Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.483 g

See Figure 1 for the design response spectrum for this building.

10 2014 USGS dynamic conterminous PSHA, online at the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

7 | P a g e

Figure 1 - Design Response Spectrum - B235

Building B250 (Retrofit):

The recommended design spectral response acceleration parameters 11 are shown on 4 and are based on a hazard level BSE-2E as discussed in ASCE 41-17.

Table 4 - Seismic Design Criteria for B250 Retrofit

Parameter Design Values

0.2-Second 1-Second MCER SS = 0.621 g S1 = 0.269 g

Site Class E Site Coefficient Fa = 1.507 Fv = 4.2

Site Modified Spectral Response SXS = 0.935g SX1 = 1.131g

11 https://hazards.atcouncil.org/

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

S a (g

Period, T (sec)

Design Response Spectrum - New Addition to B235

Design Response Spectrum (Section 11.4.5)

Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Spectrum (Section 11.4.6)

8 | P a g e

The horizontal response spectrum for BSE-2E is shown on in Figure 2 which was developed assuming a viscous damping ratio of 0.05. The horizontal response spectrum must be adjusted for viscous damping ratio per ASCE 41-17 chapter 2.

Figure 2 - Horizontal Response Spectrum – Hazard Level BSE-2E for Building B250 – 0.05 damping raio

4.3 FOUNDATION SUPPORT – BUILDING B235

4.3.1 General Discussion

The area proposed for the B235 addition is underlain by 25 to 35-feet of layered loose silty-SAND and soft CLAY capped with 3 to 4-feet of moderately stiff gravelly SILT. These soils offer modest support for conventional shallow spread footing systems in the static (i.e. non-earthquake) condition. For typical shallow strip and isolated spread footings with maximum bearing pressures of 1.5-ksf, one can expect total elastic settlement in the range of 0.9 to 1.5-inches.

However, the site does present a hazard of significant liquefaction considering the design earthquake horizontal acceleration (0.48-g). The expected ground surface subsidence for this condition, as discussed in section 3.1.3 of this report, is large -- and the expected magnitudes of subsidence likely would present significant structural damage, possible collapse, and could pose a threat to occupational safety.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Sa g)

Period, s.

Horizontal Response Spectrum - Hazard Level BSE-2E

9 | P a g e

Limiting the resulting impact of liquefaction from the design earthquake to a differential settlement in the range of 6-inches12 typically avoids significantly threatening occupational safety and presents a condition where the foundation can be practically and economically adjusted to render a level condition.

This can be accomplished by construction of Deep Foundations Elements that find bearing in the underlying dense SAND.

4.3.2 Deep Foundations

4.3.2.1 General Discussion

Deep foundation should consist of elements that extend completely through the upper zone of loose silts, sands, and soft CLAY and find bearing support in the dense SANDS that are found 35 to 40-feet below the existing ground surface. We expect some earthquake-induced settlement of the underlying dense SANDS, but our modeling indicates that it will likely be less than approximately 3-inches.

Deep foundation support alternatives include:

Driven Piling: Driven closed-end steel piling finding load capacity by skin friction and end bearing in the underlying dense SAND.

Advantages: The advantages of this system include materials and placement methods that are well understood and generally easily available.

Load Capacity: Vertical load capacity can be generous and, depending on the section selected, larger sections offer significant lateral load capacity. However, the net load capacity of driven piles is significantly reduced by downdrag in the liquefiable zone.

Installation Considerations: Driving closed-end piles in dense SAND can be a challenge depending on the density of the formation. Depending on the length of piling available, an added cost of full-penetration field welding may be required.

Load Verification: Load verification testing is expensive and is not likely an option for a project of this size. Load capacity verification will be limited to modeling driving characteristics by wave equation analysis and continuous site observations by the geotechnical engineer during placement

Cased Micropiles. Drilled micropiles would find load capacity in the underlying dense SAND, and typically for applications of this depth, they would be type B piles (pressure grouted).

Micropiles should be cased in the upper zone of loose silts and sands to limit downdrag.

Advantages: Installation of micropiles is typically completed using smaller equipment (a crane is not needed as for pile driving). Materials required are smaller and easy to handle. Installation requires a drill, grout plant, and skilled personnel. Piles can be installed with good precision in closely spaced groups, along grade beams, or individual piles supporting small pile caps. Lateral capacity can be significant, depending on the diameter of casing used.

Load Capacity:

Vertical load capacity is the same for tension or compression and is limited only by the depth of penetration into the dense SAND, diameter of the bond zone in the dense SAND, and type/ size of reinforcement.

12 Average of liquefaction settlement estimated for the lower dense SAND.

10 | P a g e

Lateral load capacity can be reasonably high and dependent on casing diameter.

Micropiles can also be battered to provide enormous lateral load capacity for foundation systems.

Installation Considerations: The installer is typically required to provide a design submittal to be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to construction.

Load Verification: Load verification testing is common and well withing the typical budget for a foundation of the scope of this project. Load testing requires a simple load frame, cribbing, load cells, and strain gages and is a routine procedure for all qualified micropile installers. Load testing is typically observed by the project geotechnical engineer who adjusts pile bond length into the bearing stratum depending on the actual bond capacity indicated in the load test.

4.3.2.2 Soil Profile for Modeling Pile Capacity

Table 5 summarizes the depths and constituent soils models used for estimating lateral pile capacity.

Table 5 - Soil Profile Modeling

Material Depth (ft) Soil Model

Stiff FILL 0-3

- Dry Stiff Clay

- strain factor (ε50) = 0.50%

- SU 1,050-psf

Soft CLAY 3-35

- Soft Clay Soil

- strain factor (ε50) = 2.0%

- SU = 750-psf

Dense

SAND > 35

- API Method for Sand

- 33-deg internal friction

- K = 112-pci

4.3.2.3 Driven Piling – Preliminary Recommended Allowable Design Capacity To provide general guidance for preliminary structural foundation design and assist with cost estimation, we evaluated allowable design load capacity for12-inch steel pipe piling. This is a common and generally available size of pipe piling with a range of load capacity that more likely aligns with the load requirements required by the type of structure proposed for the B235 addition.

To develop recommended allowable load capacity, we assumed:

Negative skin friction in the upper loose/soft silty-SAND and soft CLAY (i.e. downdrag) Free head condition at the top of the pile, Driven depth of 45-feet (10-feet min. below the top of dense SAND) Closed end pile. The pile may be driven open end but a soil plug will develop creating a closed end with reasonable end bearing capacity.

Our recommendations for allowable design axial and lateral load capacity are as follows:

Allowable Vertical Downward Capacity: 62-k (FOS 2.5)

11 | P a g e

Allowable Uplift Capacity: 43-k (FOS 2.0) Allowable Horizontal Load at Top of Pile: 13-k (for lateral deflection ≤ 1.0-inch)

If driven piling is specified for this project, proposals for pile geometry (diameter, wall thickness) and the pile driver shall be submitted to K & A Engineering, Inc. for review and approval. Pile driving shall not proceed until K & A Engineering, Inc. has completed a wave equation analysis of the proposed pile/hammer combination to evaluate driving stress and develop acceptance criteria for quality assurance inspection.

4.3.2.4 Drilled Micropiles - Preliminary Recommended Allowable Design Capacity We recommend consideration of Type B micropiles – micropiles that are drilled and cased, then pressure grouted as casing is withdrawn to the specified minimum depth, which shall be no less than 2-feet below the top of dense SAND.

Micropiles shall be reinforced with either solid or hollow bar threaded reinforcement in the center of the pile. Our preliminary estimates for capacity, assumed No. 10 solid bar reinforcement (80-ksi yield strength) and API XS steel casing. Furthermore, we assumed a neat-cement grout compressive strength of 4-ksi.

Our estimates of vertical capacity were made with the assumptions of:

Negative skin friction of the soft/loose silty-SAND zone (modeled as a soft CLAY – see table 5) where liquefaction will occur for the design earthquake, API XS steel casing to 2-feet below the top of dense SAND, Bond zone (uncased dept) of 20-feet in dense SAND, Neat cement ground compressive strength of 4-ksi Soil parameters and p-y curves as summarized in Table 5.

We modeled the load capacity for 6-inch and 8-inch micropiles. The micropile Our estimates of allowable capacity for these micropiles are summarized in Table 6. Casing size and allowable design load capacity is summarized in table 6.

Table 6 - Micropile Allowable Load Summary

Micropile Nominal Diameter

Casing O.D. x Wall (in)

Allow.

Vert. Load

(k) (FOS 2.5)

Allow.

Uplift (k)

(FOS 2.0)

Allow.

Horiz. Load at Cap (k)

6-inch 6.625 x 0.432 56 37 8 8-inch 8.625 x 0.500 44 55 10

If foundation support using micropiles is specified for this project, the contractor shall submit the design proposal, including calculations, to K & A Engineering, Inc. for review and approval. The design shall assume negative skin friction for the length of pile in the interbedded Silt, Sands, and Soft Clays (which were modeled as a soft CLAY for our analysis). The design shall consider maximum pile stress and the

12 | P a g e requirements of 2019 OSSC for load capacity in compression and tension and load capacity in the bond zone. The design shall use a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 for the grout-to-soil bond capacity.

Verification testing shall be made for a minimum of one (1) sacrificial micropile according to the requirements of FHWA NHI-05-039, chapter 713. Verification testing shall be made to a minimum of 200% of the specified service load in tension. The contractor shall provide K & A Engineering, Inc. with the load test design and data sheets for approval prior to scheduling the verification load test. K & A Engineering, Inc. shall inspect the installation and testing of the verification test pile and make recommendations for adjusting the bond zone or make other recommendations, including acceptance, prior to commencing with construction of production piling.

Proof testing shall be conducted on a minimum of two (2) production piles selected at random by K & A Engineering, Inc. Proof testing procedures and acceptance criteria shall be as specified in FHWA NHI- 05-039 chapter 7. K & A Engineering, Inc. shall inspect proof testing and make recommendations for acceptance.

4.4 STORMWATER INFILTRATION

K & A Engineering, Inc. completed testing of water infiltration at the location specified for this project by the client. See the Test Location Plan in Appendix A for the test location.

Testing was made in accordance with current Portland standards for testing. The test procedure consisted of:

Boring: A test hole was made using a solid stem auger. The boring was advanced to a depth of approximately 3.5-feet below the existing ground surface. Soils exposed in the boring consisted of a brown, dry, sandy-SILT. Groundwater was not encountered.

Casing: 6-inch diameter PVC casing was placed into the boring and pushed past the bottom of the hole a minimum of 6-inches, creating a 6-inch soil plug in the bottom of the casing.

Preconditioning: Water was poured into the casing. Observations were made for a minimum of 1-hour to check drawdown. A 1-foot minimum head (height of water above the bottom of the soil plug) was maintained overnight (12-hours).

Testing: Drawdown observations, with water at or above 1-foot of head, were made over a period of 2-hours. The drawdown was observed every 10 to 20-minutes and recorded.

Figure 3 summarizes our observations of the infiltration testing at location IT-1. The drawdown observed was reasonably linear, with an average drawdown rate of 0.30-inches/hour. This agrees well with the range of 1.4 to 3.0 micrometer/sec (0.20 to 0.43-inches/hour) for saturated hydraulic conductivity of the top 5-feet of the site published by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.14

13 Micropile Design and Construction, Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. December 2005.

14 Soil Unit 47A Rafton soil complex. See https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

13 | P a g e

We recommend a design infiltration rate of 0.15-inches/hour.

The test location was at the top of a gentle south-facing slope that descends approximately 4-feet to the paved roadway that borders the south edge of the site. The elevation at IT-1 is estimated to be close to the elevations at the cone penetration testing (based on GPS and profiles in Google Earth) and, due to the relative consistency of subsurface conditions observed, we expect that groundwater elevation is consistent across the entire project area. Therefore, groundwater is expected to be at a depth ranging from approximately 10-feet below existing grade (BEG) at the test location IT-1 to 8-feet BEG along the south perimeter of the test site along the local paved roadway.

Figure 3 - Infiltration Test IT-1 Summary

5 LIMITATION AND USE OF GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jacobs for the subject project.

This geotechnical investigation, analysis, and recommendations meet the standards of care of competent geotechnical engineers providing similar services at the time these services were provided.

We do not warrant or guarantee site surface subsurface conditions. Exploration test holes indicate soil conditions only at specific locations (i.e. the test hole locations) to the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect soil/rock materials or groundwater conditions that exist between or beyond exploration locations or limits.

The scope of our services does not include construction safety precautions, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically recommended in this report. Our services should not be interpreted as an environmental assessment of site conditions.

y = 0.30x

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Dr aw do w n (in

Elapsed Time, hr.

Infiltration Test IT-1

541∙684∙9399 ∙ Kaengineers.com Established 1998

Appendix A

Field Exploration Vicinity Map

Test Location Plan Probe/Boring Logs Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Building B250 Seismic Retrofit Project

Building B235 Addition Project

Portland Air National Guard Base

Portland, Oregon

August 27, 2021

541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax Coburg, OR 97408

91051 S. Willamette St.

K & A Engineering,Inc

N

S

W E

0 2000' 4000'

/Project: Drawing

VICINITY MAP

Geotechnical Site Investigation

Addition and Modifications to Buildings B235 and B250 Portland Air National Guard Base, Portland, Oregon

8/27/21 21041 1 2

Scale: 1" = 2000'

BUILDINGS B235

AND B250

INFILTRATION TEST

IT-1

COLUMBIA RIVER

RE

GI S

TERED PROFESS IONALE

N G I N E E

R

SEPTEMBER 16 , 1997

M

I CHA E L DE NN I S REMBOL D

T

19474

OREGON

RENEWS: 12/31/2022

AutoCAD SHX Text e n g i n e e r i n g

NE CORNFOOT ROAD

INFILTRATION

TEST LOCATION

MAIN GATE

CONE PENETRATION ADN BORING LOCATION (TYP.)

(3) TOTAL

MAINTENANCE SHOP BUILDING B235

MAINTENANCE HANGER BUILDING B250

541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax Coburg, OR 97408

91051 S. Willamette St.

K & A Engineering,Inc

N

S

W E

0 300' 600'

/Project: Drawing

TEST LOCATION PLAN

Geotechnical Site Investigation

Addition and Modifications to Buildings B235 and B250 Portland Air National Guard Base, Portland, Oregon

8/27/21 21041 2 2

Scale: 1" = 300'

RE

G I S

TERED PROFESS IONALE

N G I N E E

R

SEPTEMBER 16 , 1997

M

I CHA E L DE NN I S REMBOL D

T

19474

OREGON

RENEWS: 12/31/2022

AutoCAD SHX Text e n g i n e e r i n g

Light brown, dry, hard, organic SILT with roots - grass.

Light brown, dry, moderatelly stiff/dense, gravelly-SILT.

Brown, moist, low-lasticity SILT

Dark tan, moist, low-placisity SILT

Dark tan, moist to wet, silty-SAND. Very fine sands.

Low plasticity silts.

Washed Sieve Analysis: 34% Fines

Sample fell out of sampler. Saturated.

Dark tan, saturated, poorly-graded, silty-SAND. Very fine sands. Low plasticity silts.

Heaving silty-SAND halted sampling at 20-feet.

Washed Sieve Analysis: 36% Fines

End of Boring @ 20 feet

AMS 9410VTR

APPROVED

MDR

ENGINEER

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

SAMPLED CASING

BORING STARTED

DRILLER

DATE

8/17/21

8/17/21

K & A

TIME

RIG

SITE ADDRESS:

B-1

BORING NUMBER

EAST

SA

M

PL

ER

T

YP

E Sheet 1 of 1

CH2M - Jacobs

DE

PT

H m

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

N VALUE, blows/ft.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LLMC

DE

PT

H, ft

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

-122.59041

20.00

NORTH

GR

AP

HI

C

LO

G

Calibrated Penetrometer Unconfined Compression

1 2 3 4 5

Buildings B235 and B250

Portland Air National Guard Base, Portland, Oregon

Unconfined Compressive Strength, tons/ft.2

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS

(LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION)

UN

IT

D

RY

W T.

LB

S.

/F T.

SA

M

PL

E

NO

PE

RC

EN

T

RE

CO

VE

RY

K & A Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 8486 Coburg, OR 97408 Telephone: 541-852-6939

108/17/21 00:00 ACR 1020

LO

G

A G

N G

N

L

O G

A G

N G

N

.G D

T

/2

9/

:3

Z

:\2

1\

C H

2M H

IL

L

P D

X O

R E

G O

N A

IR

N

A T

IO

N

A L

G U

A R

D B

LD

G

A N

D

\L

O G

S \B

-1

1.

G P

J

ACR

BORING COMPLETEDCAVE-IN WATER

SURFACE ELEVATION

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

Job No. 21041

45.578324

CPT-1

PROJECT: 21041

CLIENT: CH2M

SITE: National Guard Airbase, Portland, OR

LOCATION: NE Bldg 235 TEST DATE: Mon 16/Aug/2021 TOTAL DEPTH: 101.820 ft

NOTES:: Example of notes

Depth (ft)

Tip COR (tsf)

FINAL BASELINE: 48.24 (tsf)

0 250

F.Ratio 0 8

Pore Pressure (psi) WT: 9.00(ft)

FINAL BASELINE: 40.314 (psi)

0 100

Class. FR (Rob. 1990)

1 Sensitive, fine grained 2 Organic soils - peats 3 Clays - clay to silty clay

4 Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay 5 Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt 6 Sands - clean sand to silty sand

7 Gravelly sand to sand 8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand ** 9 Very stiff, fine grained **

*SBT: Robertson 1990; **Overconsolidated or Cemented; *SBT/SPT CORRELATION: UBC-1983

0 9

Seismic Velocity (ft/s) 0 2000

REMARKS

Start at 2.0'

CPT-2

CLIENT: CH2M

SITE: Air National Guard Base, Portland, OR

LOCATION: SE Bldg 235 TEST DATE: Tue 17/Aug/2021 TOTAL DEPTH: 39.895 ft

NOTES:: Example of notes

Depth (ft)

Tip COR (tsf)

FINAL BASELINE: 20.36 (tsf)

0 140

F.Ratio 0 5

Pore Pressure (psi) WT: 9.50(ft)

FINAL BASELINE: 15.440 (psi)

0 70

Class. FR (Rob. 1990)

1 Sensitive, fine grained 2 Organic soils - peats 3 Clays - clay to silty clay

4 Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay 5 Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt 6 Sands - clean sand to silty sand

7 Gravelly sand to sand 8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand ** 9 Very stiff, fine grained **

*SBT: Robertson 1990; **Overconsolidated or Cemented; *SBT/SPT CORRELATION: UBC-1983

0 9

Seismic Velocity (ft/s) 0 800

CPT-3

CLIENT: CH2M

SITE: Air National Guard Base, Portland, OR

LOCATION: North Bldg 250 TEST DATE: Tue 17/Aug/2021 TOTAL DEPTH: 55.228 ft

NOTES:: Example of notes

Depth (ft)

Tip COR (tsf)

FINAL BASELINE: 23.71 (tsf)

0 120

F.Ratio 0 5

Pore Pressure (psi) WT: 11.00(ft)

FINAL BASELINE: 18.977 (psi)

0 80

Class. FR (Rob. 1990)

1 Sensitive, fine grained 2 Organic soils - peats 3 Clays - clay to silty clay

4 Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay 5 Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt 6 Sands - clean sand to silty sand

7 Gravelly sand to sand 8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand ** 9 Very stiff, fine grained **

*SBT: Robertson 1990; **Overconsolidated or Cemented; *SBT/SPT CORRELATION: UBC-1983

0 9

Seismic Velocity (ft/s) 0 1200

Start at 4.9' BEG

541∙684∙9399 ∙ Kaengineers.com Established 1998

Appendix B

Reference Documentation ASCE 41‐17 Design Criteria

ASCE 7‐16 Site Coefficient Calculations Earthquake Hazard Deaggregation Summary

Liquefaction Evaluation Summary

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Building B250 Seismic Retrofit Project

Building B235 Addition Project

Portland Air National Guard Base

Portland, Oregon

September 27, 2021

Hazards by Location

Search Information

Coordinates: 45.57839507387296, -122.59010814216117

Elevation: 22 ft

Timestamp: 2021-08-27T22:44:00.270Z

Hazard Type: Seismic

Reference Document: ASCE41-17

Site Class: E

Custom Probability:

Horizontal Response Spectrum - Hazard Level BSE-2N

Hazard Level BSE-2N

Name Value Description

SsUH 0.974 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)

CRS 0.882 Coefficient of risk (0.2s)

SsRT 0.859 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s)

SsD 1.647 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s)

SS 0.859 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)

Fa 1.3 Site amplification factor at 0.2s

SXS 1.117 Site modified spectral response (0.2s)

S1UH 0.435 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)

CR1 0.864 Coefficient of risk (1.0s)

S1RT 0.376 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s)

S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s)

S1 0.376 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)

Fv 4.2 Site amplification factor at 1.0s

SX1 1.579 Site modified spectral response (1.0s)

Hazard Level BSE-1N

Name Value Description

SXS 0.745 Site modified spectral response (0.2s)

SX1 1.052 Site modified spectral response (1.0s)

Hazard Level BSE-2E

Name Value Description

SS 0.621 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)

22 ft

Report a map errorMap data ©2021 Google

0 5 10 15 Period (s) 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Sa(g)

ATC Hazards by Location https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=45.57839507387296&lng=-1...

1 of 2 8/27/2021, 3:44 PM https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5783951,-122.5901081,8z/data=!10m1!1e1!12b1?source=apiv3&rapsrc=apiv3 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5783951,-122.5901081,8z/data=!10m1!1e1!12b1?source=apiv3&rapsrc=apiv3 https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.578395,-122.590108&z=8&t=m&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3 https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.578395,-122.590108&z=8&t=m&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3

Fa 1.507 Site amplification factor at 0.2s

SXS 0.935 Site modified spectral response (0.2s)

S1 0.269 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)

Fv 4.2 Site amplification factor at 1.0s

SX1 1.131 Site modified spectral response (1.0s)

Hazard Level BSE-1E

Name Value Description

SS 0.24 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)

Fa 2.4 Site amplification factor at 0.2s

SXS 0.577 Site modified spectral response (0.2s)

S1 0.087 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)

Fv 4.2 Site amplification factor at 1.0s

SX1 0.367 Site modified spectral response (1.0s)

TL Data

Name Value Description

TL 16 Long-period transition period (s)

The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design.

Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services.

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report.

ATC Hazards by Location https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=45.57839507387296&lng=-1...

2 of 2 8/27/2021, 3:44 PM https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/

Site Class Coefficient Fa and Fv Calculation for Site Class E -2015 NEHRP Provision Section C11.4.3 -ASCE 7-16 section C11.4.4

Ss

.859

S1

.376

SDFa

.67

SDFv

.58 vs

≔v if else

<vs 760 ‖vs

‖760

=v 173

Determination of Fa

≔a =⋅-.727 ln vs

1.076

≔b =⋅-.2298 (( -exp(( ⋅-.00638 (( -v 360)))) exp(( ⋅-.00638 400)))) -0.74

≔c =ln

Ss

2.3 .1

.1

1.555

(site class B-D)≔F'a =exp(( +a ⋅b c)) 0.928

(site Class E)≔Fa =exp

+ln ⎛⎝F'a⎞⎠ ―― SDFa

1.298

Determination of Fv

≔d =⋅-1.03 ln vs

1.524

≔e =⋅-.188 (( -exp(( ⋅-.00756 (( -v 360)))) exp(( ⋅-.00756 400)))) -0.764

≔f =ln

S1

.7 .1

.1

1.852

(site class (B-D)≔F'v =exp(( +d ⋅e f)) 1.116

(site class E)≔Fv =exp

+ln⎛⎝F'v⎞⎠ ―― SDFv

1.492

Uni�ed Hazard Tool

Input

U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program

Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical.

Edition

Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 …

Latitude Decimal degrees

45.578

Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes

-122.59

Site Class

180 m/s (D/E boundary)

Spectral Period

Peak Ground Acceleration

Time Horizon Return period in years

Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

1 of 5 8/29/2021, 3:24 PM https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/

Hazard Curve

View Raw Data

Hazard Curves

Time Horizon 2475 years Peak Ground Acceleration

0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration

1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

5.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

1e-2 1e-1 1e+0

Ground Motion (g)

1e-14

1e-13

1e-12

1e-11

1e-10

1e-9

1e-8

1e-7

1e-6

1e-5

1e-4

1e-3

1e-2

1e-1

1e+0

An nu al F re qu en cy o f E xc ee de nc e

Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Spectral Period (s)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Gr ou nd M ot io n (g

Spectral Period (s): PGA Ground Motion (g): 0.5141

Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration

Time Horizon 2475 years Grid Slab Interface Fault

1e-2 1e-1 1e+0

Ground Motion (g)

1e-10

1e-9

1e-8

1e-7

1e-6

1e-5

1e-4

1e-3

1e-2

1e-1

An nu al F re qu en cy o f E xc ee de nc e

Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

2 of 5 8/29/2021, 3:24 PM https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp-haz-ws/hazard/E2014B/WUS/-122.59/45.578/any/180 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp-haz-ws/hazard/E2014B/WUS/-122.59/45.578/any/180

Deaggregation

Component

Total ε = (-∞ .. -2.5) ε = [-2.5 .. -2) ε = [-2 .. -1.5) ε = [-1.5 .. -1) ε = [-1 .. -0.5) ε = [-0.5 .. 0) ε = [0 .. 0.5) ε = [0.5 .. 1) ε = [1 .. 1.5) ε = [1.5 .. 2) ε = [2 .. 2.5) ε = [2.5 .. +∞)

Closest Distance, rRup (km)

9.5

8.5

Magnitude (Mw)

7.5

6.5

5.5

4.5

C on tr ib ut io n to

H az ar d

Closest Distance, rRup (km)

9.5

8.5

7.5

6.5

Magnitude (Mw)

5.5

4.5

Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

3 of 5 8/29/2021, 3:24 PM

Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total

Deaggregation targets

Return period: 2475 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr⁻¹ PGA ground motion: 0.51412562 g

Recovered targets

Return period: 2516.9667 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.00039730363 yr⁻¹

Totals

Binned: 100 % Residual: 0 % Trace: 0.62 %

Mean (over all sources) m: 7.82 r: 68.26 km ε₀: 1.14 σ

Mode (largest m-r bin) m: 9.34 r: 84.11 km ε₀: 0.46 σ Contribution: 14.37 %

Mode (largest m-r-ε₀ bin) m: 9.01 r: 84.07 km ε₀: 0.76 σ Contribution: 10.88 %

Discretization r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2 ε: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ

Epsilon keys ε0: [-∞ .. -2.5) ε1: [-2.5 .. -2.0) ε2: [-2.0 .. -1.5) ε3: [-1.5 .. -1.0) ε4: [-1.0 .. -0.5) ε5: [-0.5 .. 0.0) ε6: [0.0 ..