Attachment 2 - Surface Exploration and Geotechnical Report.pdf

APPLICATION FOR MINOR MODIFICATION

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FOR THE

PROPOSED BULKHEAD STORAGE BUILDING

MEAD & HUNT

Broken Bow Dam Broken Bow, Oklahoma

PROJECT NO. 2265-003

MAY 2018

PREPARED FOR:

MEAD & HUNT

1616 EAST 15TH STREET

TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74120

PREPARED BY:

A & M ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

10010 E. 16TH STREET

TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74128-4813

PHONE (918) 665-6575 & FAX (918) 665-6576

EMAIL: aandm@aandmengineering.com

A & M Engineering Project No. 2265-003 May 2018

I Mead & Hunt

Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Report

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED BULKHEAD STORAGE BUILDING –BROKEN BOW DAM

BROKEN BOW, OKLAHOMA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Section I – INTRODUCTION

Section II – SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Section III – LABORATORY EVALUATION

Section IV – SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Table 1. General Subsurface Profile

Section V – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Section VI – ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 2. General Relationship Between PI and Shrink/Swell Potential

Table 3. Recommended Spread Footing and Strip Footing Design Parameters

Section VII –CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Section VIII – GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A Vicinity and Boring Location Maps

APPENDIX B Boring Logs

APPENDIX C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX D Seismic Maps and Analysis

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Proposed Bulkhead Storage Building

Section I – INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a preliminary subsurface exploration and geotechnical foundation analysis provided by A & M Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (A & M) for the proposed single story, 60 feet by 80 feet Bulkhead Storage Building in Broken Bow, Oklahoma (Site). The Site is located at the Broken Bow Dam. See Appendix A for a Vicinity

Map and Boring Location Map. The legal description of the site is a tract of land located in the

SW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 25 East, McCurtain County, Oklahoma.

As authorized by Mead and Hunt, two soil borings were drilled to depths of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface as part of our investigation. This report provides information on the subsurface conditions at these two borings that are located within the footprint of the proposed bulkhead storage building foundation and an associated geotechnical evaluation. This report does not reflect possible variations which may occur across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction has begun. If variations appear, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.

The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings;

analyze the data obtained; and provide recommendations regarding the following:

General site development and subgrade preparation

Foundation design, allowable bearing capacity and estimates of potential settlement

Factors that may impact construction and performance of the proposed construction

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

Section II – SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

A total of two soil borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig using continuous flight augers to advance the boring. As per the scope of work requested by Mead & Hunt, the borings were drilled within the general vicinity of the proposed new construction areas. Mohawk

Drilling, Inc. drilled and sampled the exploratory borings for the project on March 29th, 2018. A

& M established the boring locations in the field by pacing or taping from the available reference features shown on the boring locations diagram. These borings were drilled to approximate depths of 20 feet below existing grade. Location and depth of the borings were selected by Mead

& Hunt. Locations of the proposed new construction as well as the soil borings are shown on the

Boring Location Map in Appendix A. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B.

Soil samples were taken at regular intervals during the drilling process and examined in the field by a qualified geologist and were classified based on the soil’s texture and plasticity in accordance with the General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) included in

Appendix B. The estimated Unified System group symbols are shown on the boring logs. A brief description of the USCS is included in Appendix B. The soil samples obtained in the field were appropriately sealed, transported and stored for further examination, classification, and testing.

When the split spoon sampler was used, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were performed at regular intervals in general accordance with ASTM Designation D-1586, samples collected, and results presented on the boring logs. The SPT used in soil borings is performed by driving a 2-inch O. D. split-barrel sampler into the ground using a 140-pound Diedrich automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler were recorded in the field as the standard penetration resistance (SPT-N) value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the final 12 inches or less of a standard 18-inch sampling interval indicates the in-place relative density of granular soils and, to a far lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils.

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

A greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic Diedrich hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. The effect of this increased efficiency has been considered in interpreting the standard penetrations resistance values for this project and is represented by the N60 value shown in the Boring Logs.

Section III – LABORATORY EVALUATION

Selected samples of the subsurface soils were tested in the laboratory to determine materials properties for further evaluation and to confirm USCS classifications made by visual inspection.

The laboratory evaluation consisted of visual and textural examinations (ASTM D-2488), classification (ASTM D-2487), moisture content (ASTM D-2216), Atterberg limit tests (ASTM

D-4318), percent passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM C-117), and unit weight (ASTM D-7263).

Results of the tests are shown in the boring logs. All tests were performed in accordance with current ASTM standards by a US Army Corps of Engineers approved soils testing laboratory.

Additional testing including, Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698), Hydrometer (ASTM D-7928) and

Direct Shear Test (ASTM D-3080) were performed on representative samples. These results along with all other laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix C. It should be noted that the Standard Proctor was performed on a composite sample consisting of silty sands and silty clayey soils recovered below the uppermost weak Novaculite layer.

Section IV – SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The Site is located at the Broken Bow Dam in Broken Bow, Oklahoma. The legal description of the site is a tract of land located in the SW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 25 East, McCurtain County, Oklahoma. Based on the visual inspection and a review of the topographic map of the area, the site appears to be relatively level.

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are shown on the boring logs and are broadly described in Table 1. The stratification lines on the boring logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual and indistinct.

Table 1. General Subsurface Profile

Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Material

Encountered Consistency/Relative

Density Surface 0-1 feet Gravel & Topsoil NA

1 1-7 feet Weak Novaculite /

Silty Sand

Dense to Very Dense

2 7-10 feet Lean Clay w/t Sand Soft to Firm

3 10-15 feet Silty Sand Loose

4 15-20 feet Clayey Sand Loose

5 20 feet Novaculite Hard Rock

The soils encountered near the surface generally consisted of topsoil. From the borings and laboratory test results, the site is underlain with dense silty sands with seams of weathered rock novaculite and lean silty clay.

Section V – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater level observations made while drilling and 24-hours following boring completion are shown in the lower corner of the boring logs. Groundwater was encountered in Boring-1 at a depth of around 16 feet and in Boring-2 at a depth of around 14 feet.

The groundwater level observations made during our exploration provide an indication of the groundwater conditions at the time the borings were drilled. Longer monitoring in piezometers or cased holes would be required to evaluate longer-term groundwater conditions. During some periods of the year, perched water could develop in the near surface soils. Fluctuations in

May 2018

Mead & Hunt groundwater levels should be expected throughout the year depending upon variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, evaporation, and other hydrological factors not apparent at the time the borings were performed.

Section VI – ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical Considerations Based on the information provided to A & M, the existing ground surface topography at the building location will not significantly change due to construction. Recommendations regarding foundation, slab and other issues related to the geotechnical aspects of the project are presented in the following sections. The Atterberg Limits results from the tested samples overwhelmingly indicate that expansive soils and claystones are not underlying the building site. The swelling pressures of the clay layer encountered at a depth of 7 feet below the ground surface is negligible. In fact, this fine-grained layer would have been classified as a silty clay with sand per the USCS had the Plasticity Index (PI) been 7 instead of 8. Novaculite is a microcrystalline sedimentary rock that is primarily composed of silica and is thus not expansive.

General Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation within the construction limits should include stripping the existing topsoil materials. The topsoil may be stockpiled for use in non-load bearing areas.

After stripping and excavating to the proposed subgrade level, the construction area should be proof-rolled with a tandem axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired vehicle. Soils which are observed to rut or deflect excessively (typically greater than 1 inch) under the moving load (25 ton) should be undercut and recompacted in-place or replaced with properly compacted select fill. The proof-rolling and undercutting activities should be observed by a representative of the

Engineer and should be performed during a period of dry weather.

After proof-rolling and correcting soft areas or areas exhibiting rutting or pumping, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches. The moisture content in the scarified zone should be adjusted to a level at or slightly above the materials optimum moisture content

May 2018

Mead & Hunt determined according to the ASTM D-698. The scarified zone should then be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and 0 to 2 percent wet of optimum moisture as determined by ASTM D-698.

After subgrade preparation and testing have been completed, Select Fill should be placed to establish the desired design grades. Select Fill material shall be cohesive or granular material free of organic or other deleterious material. The maximum particle size should be less than 3-inches, the liquid limit should be less than 35, the plasticity index should be 18 or less, and the material should contain at least 15 percent fines. In general, Select Fill should be placed in maximum lifts of 8 inches of loose material and should be compacted according to the specifications in the design drawings. If water is added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted Select Fill should be tested by the Engineer's representative prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the edges of the foundation prior to sloping.

The overall performance of the construction will also depend on how well the site drains during the construction and the life of the structure. Grading of the site around buildings and foundations should promote positive drainage away from structures by providing an adequate gradient. The surface gradient provided will be dependent on the landscaping type and vegetation. Water infiltration and seepage beneath the foundation should be reduced as much as possible.

Excavation for utility trenches, if any, should be performed in accordance with OSHA regulations as stated in 29 CFR Part 1926. It should be noted that utility trench excavations have the potential to degrade the properties of the adjacent fill materials. Utility trench walls that are allowed to move laterally can lead to reduced bearing capacity and increased settlement of adjacent structural elements and overlying slabs.

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

Backfill for utility trenches is as important as the original subgrade preparation or Select Fill placement to support foundations or slabs. Unless otherwise specified, the backfill for the utility trenches should be placed in 6 to 8-inch-thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density achieved by the Standard Proctor test. The backfill soil’s moisture content should be 0 to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content value as determined by the Standard Proctor test. Up to 4 inches of bedding material placed directly under the pipes or conduits placed in the utility trench can be compacted to the 90% compaction criteria with respect to Standard Proctor maximum dry density.

Compaction testing should be performed for every 200 cubic yards of backfill placed or for each lift within 200 linear feet of the trench, whichever is less. Backfill of utility trenches should not be performed with water standing in the trench. Select Fill should be used as the trench backfill material.

Proposed Bulkhead Storage Building Foundation: Type and Sub-base Recommendations

A spread footing system has been preliminarily designed by Mason&Hanger + Mead&Hunt JV to support the building and bridge crane system. The preliminary foundation plan and footing schedule show the smallest anticipated footing dimension to be 4 feet by 4 feet under the building columns. According to this design, the bearing depth of the spread footings is 4.5 feet below the finished grade. A strip (continuous) footing system was also preliminarily designed by

Mason&Hanger + Mead&Hunt JV to support a total of seven segmental bulkheads. The bearing depth of the strip footing system, as shown in the preliminary design, is 2.5 feet below the finished grade and the preliminary width is 2 feet. It is understood that the building column footing systems will be connected with tie-beams to resist the lateral loads induced by the moment frames. The information provided to A & M also indicates that the maximum estimated loading for each column is a dead load of 23 kips and a live load of 32 kips while the maximum total loading on the strip footing is estimated to be 4 kips/ft. The provided dimensions of the shallow foundation system and the loading information have been used to evaluate total settlement and differential settlement, which are the most important serviceability limit states in foundation engineering. Detailed recommendations for the design parameters are presented in

May 2018

Mead & Hunt the ensuing section and are based on the following sub-base characteristics and foundation recommendations:

Spread footing are recommended for the building and bridge crane foundation and a strip footing is recommended to support the stored bulkhead segments.

The bearing layer contains seams of variable soils consisting of highly weathered

Novaculite and silty sands. To create a more uniform bearing layer for the foundations, the entire foundation system should be directly founded on a 9-inch-thick layer of compacted AASHTO No. 8A aggregate gradation per AASHTO M43 (ASTM D-448). If locally unavailable, the nearest AASHTO gradation or aggregate meeting USCS GW classification should be used.

Foundation Design Parameters In general, structures supported on shallow foundations may be subject to differential vertical movements. According to Department of Army, EM-1110-1-1904, entitled Settlement Analysis, the maximum total settlement should not exceed 2 inches for most structures and the limiting angular distortions to avoid potential damages in steel framing with flexible siding is 12 inches per 125 feet between two adjacent points. For the foundation system being considered, the maximum differential settlement is expected to occur between the spread footings and the continuous footing, which are separated by no less than 14 feet and thus resulting in a maximum allowable differential settlement of 1.34 inches per the referenced document. The subsurface profiles of the two boring, which were drilled on opposite ends of the proposed building, are extremely similar and significant differential settlement is not anticipated from spread footing to spread footing based on the subsurface information currently available to A & M.

In this case, Odometer tests were not performed because only a relatively thin clay was encountered within a depth of two footing widths below the bearing depth (the approximate zone of influence from induced stresses) and the clay layer had a PI of only 8. Thus, published empirical relationships based on index parameters have been used to evaluate primary consolidation settlement. Because the groundwater was encountered at 14 feet to 16 feet below

May 2018

Mead & Hunt ground surface, consideration of primary consolidation settlement is conservative since the approximate zone of influence extends to a depth of 12 feet or so below the existing ground surface. Secondary consolidation settlement has not been considered and is assumed to be negligible. Per Table 2, the impact of shrinking and swelling soils should be negligible since the highest PI encountered during the subsurface investigation was only 8. As a result, total settlement is the sum of initial elastic settlement and primary consolidation settlement (i.e., plastic deformation).

Table 2. General Relationship Between PI and Shrink/Swell Potential

PI values Shrink/Swell Potential 0-15 Low

15-25 Medium

25-35 High

>35 Very High

Initial settlement for non-cohesive soils has been estimated based on elastic theory using a relatively modern, improved approach developed by Mayne and Poulos (1999) that considers the flexibility, depth, and shape of the foundation as well as the underlying soil profile. The result of the analysis is highly dependent on the chosen elastic modulus of the soil directly beneath the base of the foundation, which is difficult to accurately estimate without undisturbed testing data.

The assumed value used in this analysis is thought to be conservative. Bowles (1977), Bowles

(1987) and Schmertmann (1978) methods have also been used to compare the results with the

Mayne and Poulos solution. The Bowles and Schmertmann solutions are included in EM-1110-

1-1904.

Applying the preliminary foundation parameters and loading conditions (designed by

Mason&Hanger + Mead&Hunt JV) to the described elastic settlement analysis methods and adding 0.4 inches and 0.3 inches of primary consolidation settlement calculated for the spread and strip footings respectively (due the relatively thin clay layer between a depth of 7 and 10 feet below the ground surface), yields an average estimated overall foundation settlement of less than

1.0 inches for both the spread footings and strip footing. The resulting differential settlement is

May 2018

Mead & Hunt less than 0.5 inches. As previously mentioned, based on A & M’s understanding of the preliminary foundation system, the maximum differential settlement should occur between the spread footings and the strip footing. It is expected that the spread footings will experience greater settlement then the strip footing based on the preliminary foundation parameters and loading conditions provided. The total settlement and differential settlement values are below the referenced recommended limits.

Per Department of Army, EM 1110-1-1905, entitled Bearing Capacity of Soils, the Meyerhof bearing capacity solution has been chosen to estimate net allowable bearing pressure at the site.

A Factor of Safety of 3 has been applied to calculate the net allowable bearing pressure and allowable active and passive earth pressure coefficients per the latest revision of the US Army

Corps of Engineers’ Southwestern Division, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual.

Please note, lateral earth pressure coefficients are normalized for overburden stress. In general, the analysis indicates that differential settlement controls the foundation design parameters.

For the proposed shallow foundation systems founded on the sub-base profiles described in the previous section, we recommend the foundation design parameters summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that the passive and active earth pressure design parameters have been calculated using the silty sand soils comprising much of the investigated subsurface profile as the backfill.

Based on the results of the Direct Shear testing of the silty sands retrieved from below a depth of

10 feet (presumably weaker than the silty sands above this depth based on fines content and blow counts), the angle of internal friction was determined to be 33 degrees. Direct Shear testing was conducted in the laboratory at normal stresses of 750 psf, 1,500 psf and 3,000 psf. The test stresses were selected based on the anticipated total vertical effective stresses, including stresses induced from loading under the spread footing. Induced stresses due to applied external loads were computed using Boussinesq’s method for an infinite elastic half-space continuum beneath the ground surface, which is a reasonable approach for this application and subsurface profile. At the bearing depth of the spread footings, the total vertical effective stress was calculated to be roughly 4,000 psf. The total vertical effective stress drops to approximately 3,000 psf 2 feet

May 2018

Mead & Hunt below the bearing depth and then falls to 2,000 psf about 4 feet below the bearing depth of the spread footings.

Table 3. Recommended Spread Footing and Strip Footing Design Parameters

Description Design Value Net allowable bearing pressure 3,500 psf Allowable Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.25 The Allowable Coefficient of Rankine Active Earth Pressure

0.10

The Allowable Coefficient of Rankine Passive Earth Pressure

1.10

Minimum embedment below finish grade 2 feet

Seismic Considerations In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 7 (2010), the

Site Classification is Site Class D.

The mapped maximum earthquake spectral response accelerations for short periods (SS) is

0.140g and at 1-second (S1) is 0.078g, in accordance with the 2015 IBC for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This was determined using the U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake

Hazards Program. Input variables were: the location south of Broken Bow Lake, the Site Class of

D, and a Risk Category of I. See Appendix D for USGS seismic maps and analysis.

Based on Section 1613.3.5 of the 2015 IBC, for SDS of 0.149g and SD1 of 0.125 g, the Seismic

Design Category is “B”.

Using the simplified procedure developed by Seed and Idriss (1982), the Factor of Safety against liquefaction has been calculated to be greater than 4 for the sand and silt deposits 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. Soil liquefaction mitigation will not be necessary for the building.

Typically, a Factor of Safety against liquefaction of less than 1.5 will warrant mitigation measures.

May 2018

Mead & Hunt

General Proposed Bulkhead Storage Building Foundation Considerations Isolated shallow foundation excavations should not be left open overnight. Concrete or engineered fill should be placed the same day that footings are excavated. We recommend that a representative of A & M observe all footing excavations prior to placing concrete to verify the excavation depth, cleanliness, and integrity of the isolated shallow bearing surface.

Any spread footings left open overnight should be observed by A & M prior to placing concrete to evaluate the depth of additional excavation required. If the reinforcement and concrete cannot be placed on the day final excavation grades are achieved, the base of the excavation may be deepened slightly and covered by a thin seal slab of lean concrete or flowable fill to protect the integrity of the foundation bearing material. The bottom of all spread footing excavations should be free of any loose or soft material prior to the placement of concrete. All equipment pads should be adequately reinforced to minimize cracking as movements may occur in the foundation soils.

Section VII –CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The uppermost fine-grained soils encountered at this site will be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities. In addition, soils that become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during dry weather periods.

Drainage and Groundwater Considerations Groundwater can exist at varying depths during other times of the year depending upon climatic and rainfall conditions. It is possible that seasonal variations will cause fluctuations or a water table to be present in the upper soils. Additionally, perched water may be encountered in discontinuous zones within the overburden or near the contact with bedrock. Water accumulation should be removed from excavations by pumping. Should excessive and uncontrolled amounts of

May 2018

Mead & Hunt seepage occur, the Engineer should be consulted. Although general groundwater information has been provided in this report, it is recommended the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction activities.

Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavations, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs.

Backfill for utility lines that are in pavement, sidewalk, and building areas should consist of low plasticity structural fill. The backfill should be compacted as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. Beneath the perimeter of the building, all utility trenches should be backfilled with either compacted non-pervious fill material or lean concrete to reduce water infiltration into the interior of the building. Special care should be taken during installation of subfloor water and sewer lines to prevent the possibility of leaks.

Water sprinkling systems should not be located where water will be sprayed onto building walls and subsequently drain downward and flow into the soils beneath foundations. Trees in general should not be planted closer to a structure than 1/2 the mature height of the tree. A tree planted closer to a structure than the recommended distance may extend its roots beneath the structure, allowing removal of subgrade moisture and/or causing structural distress.

Utilities which project through slab-on-grade floors, particularly where expansive soils or soils subject to settlement are present, should be designed with some degree of flexibility and/or with a sleeve to reduce the potential for damage to the utilities should movement occur.

Section VIII – GENERAL COMMENTS

A & M should be retained to review the final plans and specifications, so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. A & M also should be retained to provide testing and observation during

May 2018

Mead & Hunt excavation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the project to assure compliance with our recommendations.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless A & M reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

May 2018

I Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A

VICINITY MAP

& BORING LOCATION MAP

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

SCALE:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

N.T.S. 5/17/2018

TME ALB 2265-003

A-1

A & M Engineering and

Environmental Services, Inc.

Consulting - Design - Construction - Remediation

PROJECT LOCATION

BROKEN BOW, OKLAHOMA

Scale: N.T.S.

McCurtain County

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report for Proposed Broken Bow Bulkhead Storage Building

BORING LOCATION MAP

SCALE:

APPROVED BY:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

1" = 60' 5/17/2018

TME ALB 2265-003

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report for Proposed Broken Bow Bulkhead Storage Building

A-2

A & M Engineering and

Environmental Services, Inc.

Consulting - Design - Construction - Remediation

BOREHOLE B-2

BOREHOLE B-1

PROPOSED

STORAGE

BUILDING

EXISTING BULKHEADS

BROKEN BOW POWERHOUSE

12060300

Scale: 1"=60'

May 2018

I Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS

MEAD & HUNT, INC.

APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: FIGURE NO.

TE ALB 1

DEPTH TO WATER @ BORING

A & M Engineering and

Environmental Services, Inc.

Consulting - Design - Construction - Remediation

DEPTH TO WATER @ 24 hr.

16.0 FT.

16.0 FT.

MEAD & HUNT, INC.

APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: FIGURE NO.

TE ALB 2

DEPTH TO WATER @ BORING

A & M Engineering and

Environmental Services, Inc.

Consulting - Design - Construction - Remediation

DEPTH TO WATER @ 24 hr.

14.9 FT.

14.0 FT.

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Terminology describing common soil genesis:

Topsoil mixture of soil and humus capable of supporting vegetative growth Peat mixture of visible and invisible fragments of decayed organic matter Till unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders Fill material below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services)

Terminology describing soil structure:

Desiccated having visible signs of weathering by oxidation of clay minerals, shrinkage cracks, etc Fissured having cracks, and hence a blocky structure Varved composed of regular alternating layers of silt and clay Stratified composed of alternating successions of different soil types, e.g. silt and sand Layer > 75 mm in thickness Seam 2 mm to 75 mm in thickness Parting < 2 mm in thickness

Terminology describing soil types:

The classification of soil types are made on the basis of grain size and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487 or D 2488). The classification excludes particles larger than 76 mm (3 inches). The USCS provides a group symbol (e.g. SM) and group name (e.g. silty sand) for identification.

Terminology describing cobbles, boulders, and non-matrix materials (organic matter or debris):

Terminology describing materials outside the USCS, (e.g. particles larger than 76 mm, visible organic matter, construction debris) is based upon the proportion of these materials present:

Trace, or occasional Less than 10% Some 10-20%

Frequent > 20%

Terminology describing consistency of cohesionless soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesionless soils includes compactness (formerly "relative density"), as determined by the Standard Penetration Test N-Value (also known as N-Index). A relationship between compactness condition and N- Value is shown in the following table.

Compactness Condition SPT N-Value Very Loose <4

Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50

Very Dense >50

Terminology describing consistency of cohesive soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesive soils includes the consistency, which is based on undrained shear strength as measured by in situ vane tests, penetrometer tests, or unconfined compression tests.

Consistency

Undrained Shear Strength kips/sq.ft. kPa

Very Soft <0.25 <12.5 Soft 0.25 – 0.5 12.5 – 25

Soft Firm 0.5 – 1.0 25 – 50 Stiff 1.0 – 2.0 50 – 100

Very Stiff 2.0 – 4.0 100 – 200 Hard >4.0 >200

ROCK DESCRIPTION

Terminology describing rock quality:

RQD Rock Mass Quality 0-25 Very 25-50 Poor 50-75 Poor 75-90 Fair 90-100 Good

Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (RQD) in which all pieces of sound core over 100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting, or weathering in the rock mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however, it can be used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is subjective and is underlain by the presumption that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock.

Terminology describing rock mass:

Spacing (mm) Joint Classification Bedding, Laminations, Bands > 6000 Extremely Wide -

2000 – 6000 Very Wide Very Thick 600 – 2000 Wide Thick 200 – 600 Moderate Medium 60 – 200 Close Thin 20 – 60 Very Close Very Thin

< 20 Extremely Close Laminated < 6 - Thinly Laminated

Terminology describing rock strength:

Strength Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) Extremely Weak < 1

Very Weak 1 – 5 Weak 5 – 25

Medium Strong 25 – 50 Strong Very 50 – 100

Strong Extremely 100 – 250 Strong > 250

Terminology describing rock weathering:

Term Description Fresh No visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discoloration along major discontinuities Slightly Weathered Discoloration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored.

Moderately Weathered Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.

Highly Weathered More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.

Completely Weathered All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.

Strata Plot

Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols. The dimensions within the strata symbols are not indicative of the particle size, layer thickness, etc.

Sample Type

SS Split spoon sample (obtained by performing the standard penetration test) SH Shelby tube or thin wall tube DP Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube sampler hydraulically advanced) PS Piston sample BS Bulk sample WS Wash sample

HQ, NQ, BQ, etc. Rock core samples obtained with the use of standard size diamond coring bits.

Water Level Measurement

Measured in standpipe, piezometer, or well

Inferred

Recovery For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered. For rock core, recovery is defined as the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel divided by the length drilled and is recorded as a percentage on a per run basis

N-VALUE

Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test: the number of blows of a 140 pound (64 kg) hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8 mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305 mm) into the soil. For split spoon samples where insufficient penetration was achieved and N-values cannot be presented, the number of blows is reported over sampler penetration in millimeters (e.g. 50/75).

Some design methods make use of N value corrected for various factors such as overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. A greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic Diedrich hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. The effect of this increased efficiency has been considered in interpreting the standard penetrations resistance values for this project and is represented by the N60 value shown in the Boring Logs.

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) Dynamic cone penetration tests are performed using a standard 60 degree apex cone connected to A size drill rods with the same standard fall height and weight as the Standard Penetration Test. The DCPT value is the number of blows of the hammer required to drive the cone one foot (305 mm) into the soil. The DCPT is used as a probe to assess soil variability.

Other Tests

S Sieve analysis H Hydrometer analysis k Laboratory permeability Y Unit weight Gs Specific gravity of soil particles CD Consolidated undrained triaxial CU Consolidated undrained triaxial with pore pressure measurements UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial DS Direct shear C Consolidation Qu Unconfined compression Ip Point load index (Ip on borehole record equals Ip(50) in which the index is corrected to a reference diameter of 50 mm)

Single packer permeability test; test interval from depth shown to bottom of borehole

Double packer permeability test; test interval as indicated

Falling head permeability test using casing

Falling head permeability test using well point or piezometer

APPENDIX C

GEOTECHNICAL LAB RESULTS

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Client: A & M Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. Date: April 20, 2018 Project: Laboratory Testing Services Project No.: 8318-4184

Moisture Dry

Depth Content Density (% Moisture)

(ft) (%) (pcf) LL PL PI #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 USCS AASHTO

B-1 S-3 3.5-5.0 18 17 1 58 40 20 14 11.7 SW-SM A-1-a

SH 10.0-12.0 15.3 103 100 100 99 66 36.9 SM A-4(0)

S-6 13.5-15.0 15.6 16 14 2 100 100 93 43 25.4 SM A-2-4

B-2 S-3 3.5-5.0 1.6 62 45 22 15 12.4 SM A-1-a

S-5 8.5-10.0 14.4 25 17 8 100 99 99 91 75.2 CL A-4(4)

SH 10.0-12.0 12.8 114 88 84 79 59 39.1 SM A-4(0)

NP

NP

NP

Soil Classification Boring No. Sample I.D.

Atterberg Limits Sieve Analysis

(% Passing)

5HSRUW�2Q� 6RLO�&ODVVLILFDWLRQ

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %�������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

:HOO�*UDGHG�6DQG�ZLWK�6LOW�

DQG�*UDYHO

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

����LQFK

����LQFK

1R��� 1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����

6:�60 $���D

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

���FF�FRS\�

��FF�/DERUDWRU\

Sample I.D.: Sample Depth: 5' -6.5'

Dispersing Agent: Sodium Hexametaphosphate, 40 g/L Sieve % Passing Dispersion Device: Apparatus A (mechanical stirring device)

3" 100 Soaking Time: 16 hours 2" 100 Stirring Time: 1 minutes 1" 100 Agitation Time: 1 minutes

0.375" 100 #4 99

#10 94 Size % Smaller #40 67 0.020 mm 25.7 #200 44 0.002 mm 7.8

0.001 mm 4.2 Parameter Result

D10 0.0044 mm

D20 0.012 mm Description Size % This Size

D30 0.037 mm Gravel <3", > #10 6.2

D50 0.106 mm Coarse Sand <#10, > #40 26.9

D60 0.221 mm Fine Sand <#40, > #200 22.8

D90 1.60 mm Silt <0.074 mm, > 0.002 mm 36.3

Cu 49.8 Clay < 0.002 mm 7.8

Cc 1.4 Colloids < 0.001 mm 4.2

B-1 (S-4)

Sieve Analysis

AASHTO Grain Size Tabulation

Hydrometer Analysis

Method: AASHTO T88-13(2017)

Gravel Coarse Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay

Colloids

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00010.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

P e r c e n t

P a s s i n g

Grain Size, mm

Grain Size Distribution (AASHTO)

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %�����

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

6LOW\��&OD\H\�6DQG

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

����LQFK

1R��� 1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����

6&�60

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

6LOW\�6DQG

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����13

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %��������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

6LOW\�6DQG

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�������

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %�������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

6LOW\�6DQG�ZLWK�*UDYHO

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

����LQFK

����LQFK

1R��� 1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����

$���D

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %�������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

/HDQ�&OD\�ZLWK�6DQG

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

1R��� 1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� %������

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

6LHYH

'HVFULSWLRQ�

$$6+72�

*URXS�6\PERO�

3ODVWLFLW\�,QGH[�

3ODVWLF�/LPLW�

/LTXLG�/LPLW�

��3DVVLQJ

6LOW\�6DQG

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'������'������'���

����LQFK

����LQFK

1R��� 1R���� 1R���� 1R����� 1R�����

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%<�(OP7UHH�6<67(0

127('��7+(6(�5(32576�$5(�)25�7+(�(;&/86,9(�86(�2)�7+(�$''5(66('�&/,(17�$1'�$5(�127�72�%(�5(352'8&('�:,7+287�:5,77(1�3(50,66,21� 7+(�48$/,7,(6�2)�$33$5(17/<�,'(17,&$/�25�6,0,/$5�352'8&76�25�352&('85(6��125�'2�7+(<�5(35(6(17�$1�21*2,1*�48$/,7<�$6685$1&(�352*5$0�81/(66�62 7+,6�5(3257�$33/,(6�21/<�72�7+(�67$1'$5'6�25�352&('85(6�,1',&$7('�$1'�72�7+(�6$03/(�6��7(67('�$1'�25�2%6(59('�$1'�$5(�127�1(&(66$5,/<�,1',&$7,9(�2)

2ULJ��$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

�7XOVD��2.��$WWQ��0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

5HSRUW�2Q� 3URFWRU

/DE�1R��

5HSRUW�1R��

)LOH�,'�

$� �0�(QJLQHHULQJ�DQG�(QYLURQPHQWDO�6HUYLFHV��,QF�

0U��2OLYHU�&DEUHUD��(�,�

������(DVW���WK�6WUHHW

7XOVD���2.�������

&OLHQW��

/RFDWLRQ� 7XOVD��2.

5HSRUW�'DWH��

6DPSOHG�%\��

)LHOG�,'��� &RPSRVLWH

/DERUDWRU\�7HVWLQJ�6HUYLFHV

7XOVD��2NODKRPD

3URMHFW��

$FFW�,'� ����$10��

6DPSOH�'DWH��

&OLHQW

$UHD�2IILFHV

����7UDLOV�:HVW�/RRS�

����6(��-��$YH�

(QLG��2.������

/DZWRQ��2.������

&25325$7(�2)),&(�DQG�&(175$/�/$%25$725<

�����1��/,1&2/1��2./$+20$�&,7<��2.���������������������

3DJH���RI��

��0RLVWXUH

0D[LPXP

'U\�'HQVLW\�/EV��&X�)W�

2SWLPXP

'HVF�RI�5DPPHU�

3UHSDUDWLRQ�0HWKRG�

0HFKDQLFDO

'U\

5HPDUNV�

7HVW�0HWKRG��$V�$SSOLFDEOH��$670�'�����0HWKRG�%

5HVSHFWIXOO\�6XEPLWWHG�

6WDQGDUG�7HVWLQJ� �(QJLQHHULQJ�&RPSDQ\

5(3257�&5($7('�%…