Geotechnical Engineering Report - Eugene, OR

4 4 1 2 S W C O R B E T T A V E N U E

P O R T L A N D , O R 9 7 2 3 9

5 0 3 . 2 4 8 . 1 9 3 9 M A I N

8 6 6 . 7 2 7 . 0 1 4 0 F A X

P B S U S A . C O M

Geotechnical Engineering Report Eugene Riverfront Development

East 3rd Street to East 8th Avenue

Eugene, Oregon

Prepared for:

City of Eugene

99 East Broadway, Suite 400

Eugene, Oregon 97401

April 24, 2019

PBS Project 73368.001

© 2 0 19 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc.

4 4 1 2 S W C O R B E T T A V E N U E , P O R T L A N D , O R 9 7 2 3 9 5 0 3 . 2 4 8 . 1 9 3 9 M A I N 8 6 6 . 7 2 7 . 0 1 4 0 F A X P B S U S A . C O M

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Eugene Riverfront Development

East 3rd Street to East 8th Avenue

Eugene, Oregon

Prepared for:

City of Eugene

99 East Broadway, Suite 400

Eugene, Oregon 97401

April 24, 2019


Prepared by:

Dave Eibert, GIT

Staff Geologist

Reviewed by:

Saiid Behboodi, PE, GE

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Ryan White, PE, GE

Geotechnical Engineering Group Manager

6/30/2020


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

i

April 24, 2019


Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1

General ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2

Literature and Records Review ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1

Subsurface Explorations ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.2

Field Infiltration Testing .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.3

Soils Testing .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.4

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.5

Report Preparation ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.6

Project Understanding ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3

2 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Surface Description ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1

Geologic Setting......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1

Regional Geology .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1

Local Geology ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2

3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Seismicity and Faulting ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1

Historical Seismicity...................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1

Seismic Sources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2

Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) – Interface Earthquakes .......................................................... 4 3.1.2.1

Intraslab Earthquakes.................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2.2

Crustal Earthquakes and Faults ............................................................................................................... 4 3.1.2.3

Seismic Hazards ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.3

Liquefaction and lateral spreading ........................................................................................................ 5 3.1.3.1

Flooding ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2

Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.3

Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.4

Piezometers ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.4.1

Infiltration Testing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.5

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 7

Geotechnical Design Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1

Groundwater Control ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.2

Retaining Building Walls ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.3

Drainage ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3.1

Seismic Design Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 8 4.4

Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................. 8 4.4.1

Preliminary Pavement Section Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 8 4.5

Asphalt Concrete ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.5.1

Portland Cement Concrete ........................................................................................................................................ 9 4.5.2

Construction Considerations .................................................................................................................................... 9 4.5.3

General.............................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.5.3.1

PCC Pavement ............................................................................................................................................... 9 4.5.3.2


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

ii

April 24, 2019


Temporary Shoring ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.6

Soldier Pile Wall (with Tiebacks) ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.6.1

Braces and Struts ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.6.2

Soil Parameters ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.6.3

5 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................11

Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.1

Proofrolling/Subgrade Verification ...................................................................................................................... 11 5.1.1

Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions ........................................................................................... 11 5.1.2

Excavation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2

Structural Fill .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 5.3

On-Site Soil .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.3.1

Borrow Material ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.2

Select Granular Fill ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.3

Crushed Aggregate Base .......................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.4

Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................................................................................. 13 5.3.5

Stabilization Material ................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.3.6

6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ..............................................................14

7 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................14

8 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................16


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

iii

April 24, 2019


Supporting Data

TABLES

Table 1. 2014 OSSC Seismic Design Parameters Table 2. Minimum AC Pavement Sections Table 3. Minimum PCC Pavement Sections Table 4. Soil Parameters for Temporary Shoring

FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Site Plan

Figure 3. Tectonic Setting of the Pacific Northwest

Figure 4. Geologic Map

Figure 5. Regional Fault Map

Figure 6. Historical Seismicity

Figure 7. Retaining Wall Earth Pressure Diagram

Figure 8. Lateral Surcharge Detail

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Field Explorations

Table A-1. Terminology Used to Describe Soil

Table A-2. Key to Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols

Figures A1–A11. Logs for Borings B-10 through B-20

Appendix B: Laboratory Testing

Figure B1. Atterberg Limits Test Results

Figure B2. Particle-size Analysis Test Results

Figure B3. Summary of Laboratory Data

Appendix C: Field Explorations by PBS and Others


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

1

April 24, 2019


1 INTRODUCTION

General 1.1

This report presents results of PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. (PBS) geotechnical engineering services

for the proposed Eugene Riverfront development located at East 3rd Street to East 8th Avenue in Eugene,

Oregon (site). This is a continuation of PBS’s involvement in the project, including previous reports regarding

the presence and possible presence of hog fuel dated February 6, 2019, and a Level 1 investigation providing

initial infrastructure recommendations dated February 19, 2019. The general site location is shown on the

Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The locations of PBS’ explorations in relation to existing site features are shown on the

Site Plan, Figure 2.

Purpose and Scope 1.2

The purpose of PBS’ services was to develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations in

support of the planned Eugene Riverfront development. This was accomplished by performing the following

scope of services.

Literature and Records Review 1.2.1

PBS reviewed various published geologic maps of the area for information regarding geologic conditions and

hazards at or near the site. PBS also reviewed previously completed reports for the project site and vicinity.

Subsurface Explorations 1.2.2

Eleven borings (B-10 through B-20) were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 16.5 to 31.5 feet

below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the site. The borings were logged and representative soil samples

collected by a member of the PBS geotechnical engineering staff. The approximate boring locations are shown

on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The interpreted boring logs are presented as Figures A1 through A11 in Appendix A,

Field Explorations.

Field Infiltration Testing 1.2.3

Two cased-hole, falling-head field infiltration tests were completed in boring B-13 and B-14 within the

proposed development at a depth of 5 feet bgs. Infiltration testing was monitored by PBS geotechnical

engineering staff.

Soils Testing 1.2.4

Soil samples were returned to our laboratory and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil

Classification System (ASTM D2487) and/or the Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D2488). Laboratory tests

included natural moisture contents, grain-size analyses, and Atterberg limits. Laboratory test results are

included in the exploration logs in Appendix A, Field Explorations; and in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.

Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 1.2.5

Data collected during the subsurface exploration, literature research, and testing were used to develop site-

specific geotechnical design parameters and construction recommendations.

Report Preparation 1.2.6

This Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizes the results of our explorations, testing, and analyses,

including information relating to the following:

Field exploration logs and site plan showing approximate exploration locations

Laboratory test results

Infiltration test results


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

2

April 24, 2019


Groundwater considerations

Seismic site hazard study that includes:

o Discussion of geologic and seismic hazards impacting the site

o Locations of nearby faults

o Evaluation of liquefaction potential

Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design, including:

o Active, passive, and at-rest earth pressures

o Seismic lateral force

o Sliding coefficient

o Allowable bearing pressure

o Groundwater and drainage considerations

Soil parameters for use in temporary shoring design

Utility trench excavation and backfill requirements

Earthwork and grading, cut, and fill recommendations:

o Structural fill materials and preparation, and reuse of on-site soils

o Wet weather considerations

o Temporary and permanent slope inclinations

Seismic design criteria in accordance with the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)

Pavement subgrade preparation recommendations

Recommended asphalt concrete (AC) pavement sections

Project Understanding 1.3

PBS recently provided geotechnical engineering services for design and construction of the adjacent 2.5-acre

Eugene Riverfront Park. PBS’ work at the site included completing nine borings (PBS-B-1 through PBS-B-9),

laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Our services were summarized in a geotechnical engineering

report for the project dated October 19, 2018. PBS also advanced 8 shallow borings to evaluate the possible

presence wood chip fill (hog fuel) and presented these findings in a letter report dated February 6, 2019. This

geotechnical engineering report is a continuation of PBS’ involvement in the project to develop

recommendations for site grading and infrastructure for the approximately 20-acre area encompassing nearly

nine City blocks.

2 SITE CONDITIONS

Surface Description 2.1

The site is located on a roughly triangular shaped parcel of land within the Eugene metropolitan area adjacent

to the Willamette River. The site is bordered to the north by parking areas, commercial buildings, and the

Eugene Water & Electric Board Headquarters (EWEB); to the west by High Street; to the south by a railroad line

and E 6th Avenue; and to the east by the Willamette River. Coburg Road is elevated through the site and runs

roughly north-south before crossing the Willamette River just north of the site. Several buildings currently

occupy the site, including buildings that served as EWEB operations and other associated outbuildings.

Review of available LiDAR data acquired through the DOGAMI Lidar Viewer indicates the site is generally flat

and positioned on a fluvial terrace elevated approximately 25 feet above the Willamette River along a cut bank.

Surface elevations measured from the LiDAR data indicate a relatively flat terrace surface that ranges in

elevation between 426 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and 429 feet amsl (NAVD88; DOGAMI, 2019). The site


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

3

April 24, 2019


slopes abruptly down to the Willamette River at an inclination of approximately 50 to 60 degrees along the cut

bank.

Geologic Setting 2.1

Regional Geology 2.1.1

The site is located at the southern end of the Willamette Valley; a tectonic depression within the physiographic

province of the Puget-Willamette Lowland that separates the Cascade Range from the Coast Range, and

extends from the Puget Sound, Washington to Eugene, Oregon (Yeats et al., 1996). The Puget-Willamette

Lowland is situated along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) where oceanic rocks of the Juan de Fuca Plate

are subducting beneath the North American Plate, resulting in deformation and uplift of the Coast Range and

volcanism in the Cascade Range (Figure 3). Northwest-trending faults accommodating clockwise rotation of

the North American Plate are found throughout the Puget-Willamette lowland (Brocher et al., 2017; USGS,

2019).

Structural features of the southern Willamette Valley include the north-northeast oriented Eocene age

Harrisburg anticline, numerous northwest- and northeast-trending normal faults, as well as northwest-

trending strike slip faults (McClaughry et al., 2010). Similar structures exist outside of the valley and in the

surrounding Coast Range and Cascade Range. These structures are responsible for deforming and offsetting

basement rocks and are perceived as inactive tectonic features.

The Willamette Valley forms a broad alluvial basin with the Willamette River draining northward along the axis

of the valley. Extensive valley infilling and catastrophic flooding related to the Missoula Floods during the

Quaternary has subsequently buried older Oligocene and Eocene sedimentary and volcanic basement rocks

and concealed many of the structural features throughout the valley (Wiley, 2006). Willamette River tributaries

exiting the Coast Range and Cascade Range have contributed to terrace formations and broad alluvial fans

protruding from range fronts into the valley.

The Willamette and McKenzie Rivers enter the Willamette Valley east of Eugene and form a confluence just

north of the city. These rivers continue to deposit sediments and reworked older sediments throughout much

of Eugene. Both rivers are positioned within prominent meander belts readily distinguishable within the

DOGAMI LiDAR data, and meandered freely prior to urban development.

The southern Willamette Valley terminates south of Eugene where the Cascade and coastal mountains

converge (McClaughry et al., 2010). Along the eastern margin of the valley, Oligocene volcanic rocks of the

Cascade mountains begin to emerge from younger valley sediments that are interfingered with alluvial fans

and debris fans formed from Cascade detritus. West of the Willamette Valley, accreted Eocene to Oligocene

deep marine sedimentary sequences and subaerial volcanism is encountered.

Local Geology 2.1.2

The site is underlain by Holocene alluvial sediments deposited by the Willamette River (map unit Ha, Figure 4;

McClaughry et al., 2010). These sediments consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay that were

deposited within active channels and modern floodplains. These young alluvial sediments have been identified

as persisting to depths of up 50 feet bgs in the Willamette Valley and are indicated by isopach mapping by

Madin and Murray (2004) to persist to depths of approximately 25 feet below the site.

Older Oligocene to Eocene marine sedimentary rocks and mafic intrusions of the coastal range underlie the

younger Holocene and Quaternary basin fill (map unit Tms, Figure 4; McClaughry et al., 2010). These rocks are

described as micaceous and arkosic sandstone and siltstone with minor volcaniclastic conglomerates of the


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

4

April 24, 2019


Tyee Formation and Lorane Shale along the western margin of the Willamette Valley, and Eugene Formation

along the eastern margin of the valley. These rocks are synonymous with previous mapping of the Eugene

Formation by Madin and Murray (2004) within the vicinity of the site. Madin and Murray (2004) described the

Eugene Formation as shallow marine sandstone and siltstone with thin conglomerate beds, colors range from

tan to brown, and are either extensively weathered or hydrothermally altered to soft pale sandstone composed

of quartz, mica, and white clay.

3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Geologic and seismic hazards are defined as conditions associated with the geologic and seismic environment

that could influence existing and/or proposed improvements. Geologic and seismic hazards that could affect

the site’s development are identified below and should be considered during the planning process.

Seismicity and Faulting 3.1

Historical Seismicity 3.1.1

Regional historical seismicity information was acquired from the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)

Comprehensive Catalog, hosted by the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC), and is presented

on Figure 6. These data include earthquakes with magnitudes exceeding M 2.5, within a 150-km radius of the

city of Eugene, Oregon, and recorded between 1963 and 2017 (NCEDC, 2017). Magnitudes within the ANSS

dataset are recorded as local magnitude, surface-wave magnitude, body-wave magnitude, moment

magnitude, and magnitude of completeness.

Seismic Sources 3.1.2

Several types of seismic sources exist in the Pacific Northwest, which are outlined below. Volcanic sources

beneath the Cascade Range are not considered further in this study. Cascade Range earthquakes rarely exceed

about M 5.0 in size and are believed be far enough removed to not pose a threat to the site (NCEDC, 2017).

Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) – Interface Earthquakes 3.1.2.1

The CSZ represents the boundary between the subducting Juan de Fuca tectonic plate and the overriding

North American tectonic plate (Figure 3). Recurrence intervals for subduction zone earthquakes are based on

studies of the geologic record, with studies estimating a recurrence interval between 300 to 600 years (Atwater

and Hemphill-Haley, 1997). Geologic evidence and written records from Japan suggest the most recent

earthquake occurred in January 1700. The 1700 earthquake probably ruptured much of the approximate 620-

mile (1,000 km) length of the CSZ and was estimated at moment magnitudes of MW 9.0. The horizontal

distance from the edge of the CSZ megathrust is located approximately 115 miles (180 km) from Eugene,

Oregon. The current US Geological Survey risk-based maximum credible earthquake for CSZ megathrust is MW

9.0±0.2 (USGS, 2008).

Intraslab Earthquakes 3.1.2.2

Intraslab earthquakes occur within the subducting slab. They are problematic in the sense that they do not

have a surface expression or rupture the ground surface and their seismicity generates deformation along

many faults within the slab (Kirby et al., 2002). The CSZ has generated significant intraslab destructive

earthquakes including the 2001 MW 6.8 Nisqually earthquake in the Puget lowland. The estimated depth to the

subducting Juan de Fuca plate under Eugene is less than 50 km (Blair et al., 2011). Therefore, intraslab

earthquakes are a seismic hazard that must be considered.

Crustal Earthquakes and Faults 3.1.2.3

Review of the USGS Quaternary Fault Database indicates the site is not located within close proximity (less than

25 km) to any Quaternary faults or tectonic features (Figure 5; USGS, 2019).


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

5

April 24, 2019


Seismic Hazards 3.1.3

Other site-specific seismic hazards considered include earthquake-induced landslides, fault rupture, seiche and

tsunami inundation, and earthquake shaking. Based on the flat surface topography and geology at the site, the

risk from landslides and earthquake-induced landslides is absent. Due to the location of the site, the risk of

seiche and tsunami inundation are also absent. Review of Oregon HazVu indicates the site is located within a

zone of moderate liquefaction hazards, which will be discussed in further detail below (DOGAMI, 2019). Strong

earthquake ground shaking will occur during a code-based seismic event on the CSZ as well as from local

faults. Based on our current project understanding, our opinion is that effects of earthquake ground motions

can be accounted for by using code-based design procedures and the code-based design response spectrum.

Liquefaction and lateral spreading 3.1.3.1

Liquefaction is defined as a decrease in the shear resistance of loose, saturated, cohesionless soil (e.g., sand) or

low plasticity silt soils, due to the buildup of excess pore pressures generated during an earthquake. This could

result in a temporary transformation of the soil deposit into a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can result in ground

settlement, foundation bearing capacity failure, and lateral spreading of ground.

Based on a review of the Oregon Statewide Geohazard Viewer (HazVu), the site is shown as having a moderate

liquefaction hazard; however, based on the estimated depth of groundwater, soil types, and relative density of

site soils encountered below groundwater elevations in our explorations, our current opinion is that the risk of

structurally damaging liquefaction settlement and lateral spreading at the site is low. Subsequently, the risk of

structurally damaging lateral spreading is also low.

Flooding 3.2

Flooding occurs when local creeks, streams, rivers, and bays are not able to transfer water away from a local

area faster than the rate of accumulating water. This can occur on a local or regional scale and is highly

variable based upon the configuration of individual watersheds. In the context of the Willamette River, distant

upland precipitation or rapid snowmelt can have significant impact far downstream where the weather may be

different. Regardless, destruction of land, infrastructure, and personal property can occur when banks, levees,

and flood plains are inundated with stormwater or rapid snowmelt.

The shoreline and embankment immediately adjacent to the Willamette River is mapped within an area

susceptible to 100-year flood events (FEMA, 1999). While the site is outside of the 100-year mapped flood

zone due to elevation, we note that the cut bank is mapped within the flood zone; therefore, this bank may be

subject to erosion during high discharge and flooding. The western portion of the site is within the 500-year

flood model and will become submerged during such a flood event.

Subsurface Conditions 3.3

The site was explored by drilling eleven borings, designated B-10 through B-20, to depths of 16.5 to 31.5 feet

bgs. The drilling was performed by Holt Services, Inc., of Vancouver, Washington, using a track-mounted

Terrasonic 150 drill rig and sonic vibratory drilling techniques.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

6

April 24, 2019


PBS has summarized the subsurface units as follows:

ASPHALT: Asphalt was encountered in borings B-11 through B-19 from the ground surface and

was approximately 6 inches thick.

GRAVEL FILL

(GW/GP FILL):

Well-graded to poorly graded gravel fill was encountered in all borings from the ground

surface or below the asphalt to depths between 1.5 to 15 feet bgs. In general, the

material was loose to dense, olive-brown to gray, moist, contained rounded to angular

gravel, fine- to medium-grained sand, varying amounts of fines from silt to clay, and old

construction materials including concrete and rebar.

ELASTIC SILT,

SILT, AND

ORGANIC SOIL

(MH, ML, OL):

Fine-grained fluvial deposits with interbedded lenses of coarse-grained materials were

encountered in all borings between 1.5 and 22.5 feet bgs. The material was soft to very

stiff, dark gray to brown, moist to wet, exhibited low- to high-plasticity, contained fine-

to medium-grained sand, rounded to subrounded gravels, and decomposed organics.

POORLY

GRADED

GRAVEL AND

POORLY

GRADED SAND

(GP-GM, SP-

SM):

Coarse-grained fluvial deposits were encountered in all borings between 3 to 30 feet bgs

and were interbedded to various degrees with the above-mentioned fine-grained soils.

The materials encountered ranged from poorly graded gravel with sand, silt, and clay to

poorly graded sand with gravel. The material ranged in density from loose to dense,

gray to brown, moist to wet, with fine- to coarse-, rounded- to subrounded-gravels,

fine- to coarse-grained sand, and varying amounts of silt and clay.

WEATHERED

BEDROCK AND

LEAN CLAY (RX,

CL):

Lean clay and weathered bedrock were encountered in borings B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13,

B-14, B-15, and B-17 at depths of 26, 21, 25, 30, 22, 26, and 26 feet bgs, respectively, to

termination depth. The material was stiff to hard, olive-gray, greenish-gray, olive-yellow,

and blue-gray, exhibited medium to high plasticity, and contained medium- to coarse-

grained sand and trace gravels.

Groundwater 3.4

Based on the presence of relatively permeable gravel at the site and its proximity to the Willamette River, we

estimate these are hydraulically connected and the water levels in the river may reflect the elevation of

groundwater on the site. Previous geotechnical explorations at the site generally encountered groundwater at

depths of 18 to 20 feet bgs. Samples collected from borings were generally characterized as wet below depths

of 15 to 20 feet bgs. Please note that groundwater levels can fluctuate during the year depending on climate,

irrigation season, extended periods of precipitation, drought, and other factors.

Piezometers 3.4.1

Three piezometers were installed to depths of 30 feet bgs in borings B-11, B-13, and B-15 to collect

groundwater depths through the spring and summer. Piezometers consist of 1-inch diameter PVC casing with

10 feet of screen, backfilled with sand, sealed from the surface with bentonite, and protected with a flush

monument embedded in concrete.

Infiltration Testing 3.5

PBS completed two cased-hole, falling head infiltration tests in borings B-13 and B-14 at a depth of 5 feet bgs.

The infiltration tests were conducted within the 6-inch inside diameter casing used to advance the sonic

boring. The casing was filled with water to achieve a minimum 1-foot-high column of water. After a period of

saturation, the height of the water column in the casing was then measured initially and at regular, timed


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

7

April 24, 2019


intervals. No measurable change was observed in the water level during testing; therefore, infiltration in these

areas and at these depths is not recommended.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical Design Considerations 4.1

The subsurface conditions at the site consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and mixtures of those materials. Based on

our observations and analyses, conventional foundation support on shallow spread footings is likely feasible

for support of lightly loaded structures. Deep foundations that derive their capacity from embedment into the

underlying gravel and siltstone will likely be required for multi-story structures. Excavation with conventional

equipment is feasible at the site.

The grading and final development plans for the project had not been completed when this report was

prepared. Once completed, PBS should be engaged to review the project plans and update our

recommendations as necessary.

Groundwater Control 4.2

Due to the rapid response of groundwater to water levels in the adjacent Willamette River, we recommend

design groundwater levels be assumed as near the river flood elevations for the 100- and 500-year events.

Therefore, we recommend the below-grade portions of the structures be designed as water-tight.

Consideration should be given to resisting buoyant uplift and hydrostatic pressure. Cold joints between

basement walls or between walls and footings should include water stops. The perimeter ground surface and

hardscaping should be sloped to drain away from all structures.

Retaining Building Walls 4.3

Development plans may include retaining walls. The following preliminary recommendations are based on the

assumption of flat and horizontal conditions in front of and behind the wall and fully drained backfill. For

unrestrained walls allowed to rotate at least 0.005H about the base, where H is the height of the wall, we

recommend using an active earth pressure of 35 psf. Where walls are constrained against rotation, we

recommend using an at-rest earth pressure equal to 58 psf. We recommend retaining walls founded on native

soil or compacted structural fill be provided with adequate drainage and backfilled with clean, angular,

crushed-rock fill, in accordance with the recommendations provided in section 5.3.

For seismic loading, we recommend using an inverted triangular distribution (seismic surcharge) equivalent to

9H psf. Walls should be designed by applying the active earth pressure plus the seismic loading, or at-rest

earth pressures, whichever is greater. If vertical surcharge loads, q, are present within 0.5H of the wall, a lateral

surcharge of 0.3q (for walls allowed to rotate) and 0.5q (for restrained walls) should be applied as a uniform

horizontal surcharge active over the full height of the wall. These values assume that the wall is vertical and the

backfill behind the wall is horizontal. Seismic lateral earth pressures were computed using the Mononobe-

Okabe equation. Recommended lateral earth pressure distributions are shown on Figure 7, Retaining Wall

Earth Pressure Diagram. Additional lateral pressures due to surcharge loads can be estimated using the

guidelines shown on Figure 8, Lateral Surcharge Detail.

Lateral loads can also be resisted by a passive resistance of 250 psf acting against retaining wall foundations

where the ground surface in front of the wall is flat, and by friction acting on the base of spread footings or

mats using a friction coefficient of 0.35.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

8

April 24, 2019


Drainage 4.3.1

Recommended lateral earth pressures assume that walls are fully drained and no hydrostatic pressures

develop. For cantilevered concrete walls, a minimum 2-foot-wide zone of free-draining material should be

installed immediately behind the wall. A 4-inch diameter perforated drain pipe should be installed at the base

of the drain rock and routed to a suitable discharge point approved by the civil engineer.

Seismic Design Considerations 4.4

Code-Based Seismic Design Parameters 4.4.1

The current seismic design criteria for this project are based on the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code

(OSSC). Utilizing standard penetration test (SPT) N-values (standard penetration resistance) and our experience

with sites in the project vicinity, Site Class D is appropriate for use in design. The seismic design criteria, in

accordance with the 2014 OSSC, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. 2014 OSSC Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Short Period 1 Second

Maximum Credible Earthquake Spectral Acceleration Ss = 0.77 g S1 = 0.40 g

Site Class D

Site Coefficient Fa = 1.19 Fv = 1.60

Adjusted Spectral Acceleration SMS = 0.92 g SM1 = 0.65 g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters SDS = 0.61 g SD1 = 0.43 g

g= Acceleration due to gravity

Preliminary Pavement Section Recommendations 4.5

The provided preliminary pavement section recommendations were developed using the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design methods and references the associated City of

Eugene Standard Specifications (COE SS). We have provided several recommended pavement sections based

on estimated traffic volumes for new city streets. The traffic volumes presented range from about 10 to over

200 trucks per day. The design pavement section should be based on site-specific traffic volume and

distribution estimates.

Asphalt Concrete 4.5.1

The minimum recommended asphalt concrete (AC) pavement section thicknesses are provided in Table 2.

Depending on weather conditions at the time of construction, a thicker aggregate base course section could

be required to support construction traffic during preparation and placement of the pavement section.

Table 2. Minimum AC Pavement Sections

Traffic Loading, ESALs AC (inches) Base Course (inches) Subgrade

Pull-in Car Parking Only 2.5 9

Firm subgrade as verified by

PBS personnel*

50,000 3 9

100,000 3.5 9

250,000 4 9

500,000 4.5 12

1,000,000 5 12

* Subgrade must pass proofroll


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

9

April 24, 2019


The asphalt cement binder should be selected following COE SS 00744.11 – Asphalt Cement and Additives. The

AC should consist of ½-inch hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) with a maximum lift thickness of 3 inches. The

AC should conform to COE SS 00744.13 and 00744.14 and be compacted to 91 percent of the maximum

theoretical density (Rice value) of the mix, as determined in accordance with ASTM D2041.

Portland Cement Concrete 4.5.2

The minimum recommended portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section thicknesses are provided in

Table 3. Depending on weather conditions at the time of construction, a thicker aggregate base course section

could be required to support construction traffic during preparation and placement of the pavement section.

AASHTO evaluation of PCC pavement section thicknesses was completed using the parameters and values in

the following table. Our analysis was based on the use of joint reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) with the

use of dowels as load transfer devices and no tied shoulders.

Table 3. Minimum PCC Pavement Sections

Traffic Loading, ESALs AC (inches) Base Course (inches) Subgrade

250,000 6 6 Firm subgrade as verified by

PBS personnel* 500,000 7 6

1,000,000 8 6

* Subgrade must pass proofroll

Our preliminary design was based on the following assumptions:

Modulus of subgrade reaction on Base Rock = 350 pci

Modulus of rupture of concrete = 600 psi

Concrete pavement should have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 psi

Construction Considerations 4.5.3

General 4.5.3.1

Heavy construction traffic on new pavements or partial pavement sections (such as base course over the

prepared subgrade) will likely exceed the design loads and could potentially damage or shorten the pavement

life; therefore, we recommend construction traffic not be allowed on new pavements, or that the contractor

take appropriate precautions to protect the subgrade and pavement during construction.

If construction traffic is to be allowed on newly constructed road sections, an allowance for this additional

traffic will need to be made in the design pavement section.

PCC Pavement 4.5.3.2

The recommended PCC pavement sections presented below are contingent on the following

recommendations being implemented during construction.

Adequate drainage should be provided at the surface such that the subgrade soils are not allowed to

become saturated by infiltration of surface runoff.

Concrete slumps should be between 3 and 4 inches. The concrete should be properly cured in

accordance with Portland Cement Association (PCA) recommended procedures and vehicular traffic

should not be allowed for 3 days (automobile traffic) or 7 days (truck traffic).


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

10

April 24, 2019


To help offset shrinkage, concrete pavement may be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars, 24 inches on-

center each way, or 6x6-W2.0xW2.0 wire mesh (located 1/3 of the slab thickness from the top of the

slab).

Over-finishing of concrete pavements should be avoided. Typically, a broom or burlap drag finish

should be used.

Temporary Shoring 4.6

A wide variety of shoring systems are available. Among the most commonly used shoring walls in the area are

soldier piles with tiebacks, sheet pile walls, and braces and struts. Sheet pile walls may not be feasible for this

excavation due to the limits on driving or vibrating piles, as well as the gravel content of the subsurface soils. In

our current opinion, a soldier pile wall, combined with braces and struts or tiebacks, which would include piles

installed into drilled holes into the underlying dense gravel, may be used for shoring. These shoring systems

are discussed in general terms in the following paragraphs.

Soldier Pile Wall (with Tiebacks) 4.6.1

For one-level excavation, the soldier pile wall may not require tiebacks (pending structural engineer or wall

designer approval). Soldier pile walls are generally constructed using steel H-piles placed into augered holes

drilled at intervals along the wall alignment. The holes are then backfilled with weak concrete. The soil in front

of the wall is excavated from the top down. As the soil is exposed, the weak concrete is chipped away and

lagging is fitted between the H-piles. Lagging may be inserted behind the flanges or attached to the face of

the flanges. The lagging usually consists of wood planks or steel plates. The soil is temporarily supported by

arching between adjacent steel H-piles until the lagging is installed. However, soft/loose soils (and debris fill)

common to the site vicinity typically slough into the excavation until the lagging is installed and soil is in

contact with the lagging. Tieback soil anchors are installed to provide lateral resistance. They can be provided

at any location along the wall, but are most commonly installed in rows after excavation reaches certain design

levels. Their location, number, and capacities are designed to provide the lateral load capacity needed to resist

the applied earth pressures with a suitable factor of safety. Please note that the potential settlement of

surrounding soils is highly dependent on the contractor’s approach to constructing the wall, and some

additional risk is thereby incurred.

Braces and Struts 4.6.2

Braces and struts are typically used in conjunction with different shoring wall types at locations where external

supports (such as tieback anchors, “dead-man” anchors, and soil nails) cannot be used. Internal supports may

include “cross-lot” braces and diagonal struts or “rakers.” Braces and struts span across the excavation. These

are probably the least practical for use at the site due to the relatively wide spans to be shored.

Soil Parameters 4.6.3

The soil parameters commonly used for the design of temporary excavation shoring and embedded wall

structures are soil unit weight “γ”, soil internal friction angle “ɸ”, and soil cohesion “c”. The soil parameters

recommended for use in the excavation shoring and permanent retaining structure design are presented in the

following Table 4, Soil Parameters for Temporary Shoring. Passive resistance should be neglected over the top

24 inches of embedment.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

11

April 24, 2019


Table 4. Soil Parameters for Temporary Shoring

Soil Material

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Submerged

Unit

Weight sub

(pcf)

Friction

Angle

(degrees)

Cohesion

c

(psf)

Lateral Earth Pressure

Coefficient a

Active

Ka

Passive

Kp

At-Rest

Ko

Loose SAND 115 53 30 0 0.30 4.7 0.50

Soft to Medium

Stiff SILT and

CLAY

110 48 26 0 0.35 4.0 0.56

Medium Dense to

Dense GRAVEL 125 68 35 0 0.25 6.4 0.43

a The passive lateral earth pressure coefficients should be reduced by a factor of 2 to account for the amount of deflection required

to engage full passive pressures.

The lateral earth pressure coefficients, Ka (active), Kp (passive), and Ko (at-rest) provided in Table 4 are based on

the assumptions that the ground surface behind the walls, and the bottom of the excavation, are flat surfaces.

The designer must consider an adequate surcharge load on the wall to account for adjacent construction and

vehicular traffic, stockpiles, embankments, and so on. Additional lateral pressures due to surcharge loads can

be estimated using the guidelines shown in Figure 8, Lateral Surcharge Detail. The designer must also use an

appropriate factor of safety.

5 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation 5.1

Construction of the proposed structure will involve clearing and grubbing of the existing vegetation or

demolition of existing pavement and structures. Demolition will include removal of existing pavement and

some utilities. Where underground utility lines or other structural elements are removed, the voids should be

backfilled with compacted structural fill. The base of these excavations should be excavated to firm native

subgrade before filling, with sides sloped at a minimum of 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) to allow for uniform

compaction. Materials generated during demolition should be transported off site or stockpiled in areas

designated by the owner’s representative.

Proofrolling/Subgrade Verification 5.1.1

Following site preparation and prior to placing aggregate base over pavement subgrades, the exposed

subgrade should be evaluated either by proofrolling or another method of subgrade verification. The subgrade

should be proofrolled with a fully loaded dump truck or similar heavy, rubber-tire construction equipment to

identify unsuitable areas. If evaluation of the subgrades occurs during wet conditions, or if proofrolling the

subgrades will result in disturbance, they should be evaluated by PBS using a steel foundation probe. We

recommend that PBS be retained to observe the proofrolling and perform the subgrade verifications.

Unsuitable areas identified during the field evaluation should be compacted to a firm condition or be

excavated and replaced with structural fill.

Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions 5.1.2

Due to the presence of fine-grained clay and silt in the near-surface materials over portions of the site,

construction equipment may have difficulty operating on the near-surface soils when the moisture content of

the surface soil is more than a few percentage points above the optimum moisture required for compaction.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

12

April 24, 2019


Soils disturbed during site preparation activities, or unsuitable areas identified during proofrolling or probing,

should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill.

Site earthwork and subgrade preparation should not be completed during freezing conditions, except for mass

excavation to the subgrade design elevations.

Protection of the subgrade is the responsibility of the contractor. Construction of granular haul roads to the

project site entrance may help reduce further damage to the pavement and disturbance of site soils. Staging

areas should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and haul roads should at least 18- to 24-inches-thick. The actual

thickness of haul roads and staging areas should be based on the contractors’ approach to site development,

and the amount and type of construction traffic. The imported granular material should be placed in one lift

over the undisturbed subgrade and compacted using a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller. A geotextile fabric

should be used to separate the subgrade from the imported granular material in areas of repeated

construction traffic. The geotextile should meet the specifications of COE SS Section 02320.10 and 02320.20,

Table 02320-1 for soil separation. The geotextile should be installed in conformance with COE SS 00350 –

Geosynthetic Installation.

Excavation 5.2

The near-surface soils at the site can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment. Sloughing and

caving should be anticipated. All excavations should be made in accordance with applicable Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and state regulations. The contractor is solely responsible for

adherence to the OSHA requirements. Trench cuts should stand relatively vertical to a depth of approximately

4 feet bgs, provided no groundwater seepage is present in the trench walls. Open excavation techniques may

be used provided the excavation is configured in accordance with the OSHA requirements, groundwater

seepage is not present, and with the understanding that some sloughing may occur. Trenches/excavations

should be flattened if sloughing occurs or seepage is present. Use of a trench shield or other approved

temporary shoring is recommended if vertical walls are desired for cuts deeper than 4 feet bgs. If dewatering is

used, we recommend that the type and design of the dewatering system be the responsibility of the

contractor, who is in the best position to choose systems that fit the overall plan of operation.

Structural Fill 5.3

The extent of site grading is currently unknown; however, PBS estimates that cuts of up to 10 feet to

accommodate utilities and fills of less than 5 feet may be incorporated into the project plans. Structural fill

should be placed over subgrade that has been prepared in conformance with the Site Preparation and

Wet/Freezing Weather and Wet Soil Conditions sections of this report. Structural fill material should consist of

relatively well-graded soil, or an approved rock product that is free of organic material and debris and contains

particles not greater than 4 inches nominal dimension.

The suitability of soil for use as compacted structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of

the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (material finer than the US Standard No. 200 Sieve) increases,

soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and compaction becomes more

difficult to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines, based upon the No. 4 sieve fraction,

cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is significantly

greater (or significantly less) than optimum.

On-Site Soil 5.3.1

On-site soils encountered in our explorations consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and mixtures of these materials.

Fine-grained soils free of organics are generally suitable for placement as structural fill during moderate, dry


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

13

April 24, 2019


weather when moisture content can be maintained by air drying and/or addition of water. The fine-grained

fraction of the site soils are moisture sensitive, and during wet weather, may become unworkable because of

excess moisture content. In order to reduce moisture content, some aerating and drying of fine-grained soils

may be required. Sand and gravel with less than 5 percent passing the US No. 200 sieve, may be suitable for

use during wet conditions. These materials should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of

approximately 8 inches and compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by

ASTM D1557 (modified proctor).

Borrow Material 5.3.2

Borrow material for general structural fill construction should meet the requirements set forth in COE SS

00330.12 – Borrow Material. When used as structural fill, borrow material should be placed in lifts with a

maximum uncompacted thickness of approximately 8 inches and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the

maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557.

Select Granular Fill 5.3.3

Selected granular backfill used during periods of wet weather for structural fill construction should meet the

specifications provided in COE SS 00330.14 – Selected Granular Backfill. The imported granular material should

be uniformly moisture conditioned to within about 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted

in relatively thin lifts using suitable mechanical compaction equipment. Selected granular backfill should be

placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 8 to 12 inches and be compacted to not less than 95

percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557.

Crushed Aggregate Base 5.3.4

Crushed aggregate base course below floor slabs, spread footings, and asphalt concrete pavements should be

clean crushed rock or crushed gravel that contains no deleterious materials and meets the specifications

provided in COE SS 02630.10 – Dense-Graded Aggregate, and has less than 5 percent by dry weight passing

the US Standard No. 200 Sieve. The crushed aggregate base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum

uncompacted thickness of 8 to 12 inches and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density,

as determined by ASTM D1557.

Utility Trench Backfill 5.3.5

Pipe bedding placed to uniformly support the barrel of pipe should meet specifications provided in COE SS

00405.12 – Pipe Zone Bedding. The pipe zone that extends from the top of the bedding to at least 8 inches

above utility lines should consist of material prescribed by COE SS 00405.13 – Pipe Zone Material. The pipe

zone material should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by

ASTM D1557, or as required by the pipe manufacturer.

Under pavements, paths, slabs, or beneath building pads, the remainder of the trench backfill should consist of

well-graded granular material with less than 10 percent by dry weight passing the US Standard No. 200 Sieve,

and should meet standards prescribed by COE SS 00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class B or D. This material should

be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 or as

required by the pipe manufacturer. The upper 2 feet of the trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95

percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557. Controlled low-strength material (CLSM),

COE SS 00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class E, can be used as an alternative.

Outside of structural improvement areas (e.g., pavements, sidewalks, or building pads), trench material placed

above the pipe zone may consist of general structural fill materials that are free of organics and meet COE SS

00405.14 – Trench Backfill, Class A. This general trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

14

April 24, 2019


the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557, or as required by the pipe manufacturer or local

jurisdictions.

On-site soils including clay and silt, or sand and gravel containing silt, may not be suitable for use as trench

backfill due to the difficulty achieving and maintaining optimum moisture and compaction in the confined

space. However, this material may be used as trench backfill outside of structural improvement areas.

Stabilization Material 5.3.6

Stabilization rock should consist of pit or quarry run rock that is well-graded, angular, crushed rock consisting

of 4- or 6-inch-minus material with less than 5 percent passing the US Standard No. 4 Sieve. The material

should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. COE SS 00330.16 – Stone Embankment

Material can be used as a general specification for this material with the stipulation of limiting the maximum

size to 6 inches.

6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

In most cases, other services beyond completion of a final geotechnical engineering report are necessary or

desirable to complete the project. Occasionally, conditions or circumstances arise that require additional work

that was not anticipated when the geotechnical report was written. PBS offers a range of environmental,

geological, geotechnical, and construction services to suit the varying needs of our clients.

PBS should be retained to review the plans and specifications for this project before they are finalized. Such a

review allows us to verify that our recommendations and concerns have been adequately addressed in the

design.

Satisfactory earthwork performance depends on the quality of construction. Sufficient observation of the

contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the

construction drawings and specifications. We recommend that PBS be retained to observe general excavation,

stripping, fill placement, footing subgrades, and/or pile installation. Subsurface conditions observed during

construction should be compared with those encountered during the subsurface explorations. Recognition of

changed conditions requires experience; therefore, qualified personnel should visit the site with sufficient

frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those anticipated.

7 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee, and their architects and engineers, for

aiding in the design and construction of the proposed development and is not to be relied upon by other

parties. It is not to be photographed, photocopied, or similarly reproduced, in total or in part, without express

written consent of the client and PBS. It is the addressee's responsibility to provide this report to the

appropriate design professionals, building officials, and contractors to ensure correct implementation of the

recommendations.

The opinions, comments, and conclusions presented in this report are based upon information derived from

our literature review, field explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. It is possible that soil,

rock, or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil, rock, or

groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client

is responsible for ensuring that PBS is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of

this report.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

15

April 24, 2019


Unanticipated fill, soil and rock conditions, and seasonal soil moisture and groundwater variations are

commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples or completing

explorations such as soil borings. Such variations may result in changes to our recommendations and may

require additional funds for expenses to attain a properly constructed project; therefore, we recommend a

contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs.

The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental

assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil,

surface water, or groundwater at this site.

If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, if

conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if the

basic project scheme is significantly modified from that assumed, this report should be reviewed to determine

the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. Land use, site conditions (both on

and off site), or other factors may change over time and could materially affect our findings; therefore, this

report should not be relied upon after three years from its issue, or in the event that the site conditions

change.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

16

April 24, 2019


8 REFERENCES

ASCE. (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10).

Blair, J. L., McCrory, P. A., Oppenheimer, D. H., and Waldhauser, F. (2011, revised 2013). A Geo-referenced 3D

model of the Juan de Fuca Slab and associated seismicity: US Geological Survey Data Series 633, v.1.2,

https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/633/.

Brocher, T. M., Wells, R. E., Lamb, A. P., and Weaver, C. S. (2017). Evidence for distributed clockwise rotation of

the crust in the northwestern United States from fault geometries and focal mechanisms. Tectonics, Vol. 36,

No.5, pp. 787-818.

City of Eugene. (2014). Stormwater Management Manual. Accessed from City of Eugene web site:

https://www.eugene-or.gov/477/Stormwater-Management-Manual

COE SS. (2018). City of Eugene Standard Specifications, Amendment #1. Eugene, Oregon. Based on Oregon

Standard Specifications for Construction (2018). Salem, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation.

DOGAMI. (2019). [Interactive Map]. DOGAMI Lidar Viewer. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries, Oregon Lidar Consortium. https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/maps/lidarviewer/. Accessed on

February 20, 2019.

DOGAMI. (2019). [Interactive Map]. Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer. Oregon Department of

Geology and Mineral Industries, Earthquake Liquefaction. https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/maps/hazvu/.

Accessed on February 12, 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1999). Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Lane County,

Oregon and Incorporated Areas. Panel 1137 of 2972. Map Number 41039C1137 F.

Kirby, S., Wang, K., and Dunlop, S. (2002). The Cascadia Subduction Zone and Related Subduction Systems –

Seismic Structure, Intraslab Earthquakes and Processes, and Earthquake Hazards. US Geological Survey

Open File Report 02-328 and Geological Survey of Canada Open File 4350.

Madin, I. P. and Murray, R. B. (2004). Preliminary Geologic Map of the Eugene East and Eugene West

Quadrangles, Lane County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).

Open-File Report O-03-11.

McClaughry, J. D., Wiley, T. J., Ferns, M. L., and Madin, I. P. (2010). Digital geologic map of the southern

Willamette Valley, Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk Counties, Oregon. DOGAMI Open-File Report O-

10-03.

NCEDC (2017), Northern California Earthquake Data Center. UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory. Dataset.

doi:10.7932/NCEDC.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). (2018). Well Log Records, accessed February 21, 2019, from

OWRD web site: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/.


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

17

April 24, 2019


OSSC. (2014). Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Based on IBC. (2012 International Building Code).

Country Club Hills, IL International Code Council, Inc.

US Geological Survey (USGS). (2008). Earthquake hazards program: Conterminous states probabilistic maps and

data.

Wiley, T. J. (2006). Preliminary Geologic Map of the Albany Quadrangle, Linn, Marion, and Benton Counties,

Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOMAGI), open -file report O-06-26.

Yeats, R. S., Graven, E. P., Werner, K. S., Goldfinger, Chris, and Popowski, T. A. (1996). Tectonics of the

Willamette Valley, Oregon, in Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. J., Kockelman, W. J., and Priest, G. R., eds., Assessing

earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest: US Geological Survey Professional Paper

1650, v. 1, p. 183–222.

Figures

!

^

!

Salem

Eugene

Portland

1

0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet

L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_01_SiteLoc.mxd

1 inch = 2,000 feet

Site

Site

DATE: APR 2019 ∙ PROJECT: 73368.001

VICINITY MAPEU GENE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENTEU GENE, OREGON

FIGU RE

B-20

B-19

B-18

B-17

B-16

B-14

B-12

B-10

B-13 (p)

B-15 (p)

B-11 (p)

PBS-B-6

PBS-B-9

PBS-B-8

PBS-B-7

PBS-B-5

PBS-B-4

PBS-B-3

PBS-B-2

PBS-B-1

B-1B-2

B-3 B-4

B-5B-6

B-8B-7

B-9

B-4FB-4D B-4C

B-4A

B-4E

B-10

B-1

B-9B-8

B-7

B-6B-5

B-4B-3B-2

B-13B-12

B-11

B-10

B-9EB-9DB-9C

B-9BB-9A

HB-8HB-7

HB-6

HB-5

HB-4

HB-3

HB-2

HB-1

20 150 30075 '

EXPLANATION@A

B-10 - Boring na me a nd a pproxima telocation (PBS, Fe b 2019)

@AB-1 - Boring name a nd a pproximatelocation (PBS, O ct 2018)

@AHB-1 - Boring na me a nd a pproxima telocation (PBS, Fe b 2019)

@AB-1 - Boring name a nd a pproximatelocation (Squie r, Dec 1986)

@AB-1 - Boring name a nd a pproximatelocation (Squie r, Dec 1986)Approximate s ite bound a ry

L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_02_SitePlan.mxd

1 inch = 150 fe e tDATE: APR 2019 ∙ PRO JECT: 73368.001

SITE PLANEUGENE RIVERFRO NT DEVELO PMENTEUGENE, O REGO N

FIGURE

Cobu

rg R

d

Willamette River

E 6th Ave

Source: Google Ea rth 2017 image ry

3L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_X_Tectonics.mxd

DATE: AP R 2019 ∙ P ROJECT: 73368.001

TECTONIC SETTING OF THEPACIFIC NORTHWESTEUGENE RIVERFRONTDEVELOP MENTEUGENE, OREGON

Industrial Way((

((

((

((

((

((((

((

((

((

((((

((((

((((

((((

((((

((

((((

!

^

!

!

^

!

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Salem

Eugene

Medford

Portland

Seattle

Olympia

120° W

120° W

125° W

125° W

130° W

130° W50° N

50° N

45° N

45° N

40° N

40° N

Sourc e s : 1) SRTM 30-m e te r DEM2) ESRI World Oc e ans Bas e m ap3) USGS Te c tonic P late Boundarie s

NORTH AMERICAN PLATE

PACI

FIC PL

ATE

JUAN DE FUCA PLATE

GORDA PLATE

EXPLORER PLATE

Cascadia Subduction Zone

Juan

de Fu

ca Ri

dge

Gord

a Ridg

e

Blanco Fracture Zone

San Andreas Fault

Mendocino Fault

E

E

E

E

Sovanco Fault

P A C

I F I C

O C

E A N

EXPLANATION#* Volcano

Trans form bound arySpre ad ing rid ge

(( ((Thrus t fault

FIGURE

Site

QtfQtf

Ha

Ha

Tm s

Ho a

Twcl

Ha

Ha

Tm s

Ha

Ha

Ho a

Ti

Ho a

Tm s

Tm s

Tm s

Ha

Ho a

Tm s

Qtf

Ha

Ha

Ha Twcl

Twcv

Ha

Twcm

Twcm

Ha

Twct

Ti

Qld

Qld

Twcv

Twcv

Twcv

Ti

Ti

Qld

Ho a

Qld

Ti

Qld

Tm sTwcv

Ti

QldQld

Twcv

Tm s

Twcl

Tm s

Qld

Ti

Ti

Twcv

Tm s

Ti

Ha

Qdf

Qld

Twcv

Qld

Tm s

Qld 4

L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_X_GeoMap.mxd

FIGU REDATE: APR 2019 ∙ PROJECT: 73368.001

GEOLOGIC MAPEU GEN E RIV ERFRON T DEV ELOPMEN TEU GEN E, OREGON

§̈¦5

¬«99

¬«126

§̈¦105

¬«99

McKenzie River

Willamette River

Fa ult - so lid where kn o wn ; da shed wherequestio n a b le

Tcrb Co lum b ia River Basa lt Gro up (m iddle Mio cen e)Columbia River Basalt Group

Volcaniclastic Marine Sedimentary RocksTm m Mixed so urce m a rin e sedim en ta ry ro cks

(m iddle Eo cen e)Tm s Siliciclastic m arin e sedim en tary ro cks

(lo wer Oligo cen e to m iddle Eo cen e)Tm v V o lca n icla stic m arin e sedim en tary ro cks

(lo wer Oligo cen e to lo wer Eo cen e)

EXPLANATIONQuaternary Surficial DepositsAf Artifica l fill (An thro po cen e)Ha Alluvium (Ho lo cen e)Ho a Older Alluvium (Ho lo cen e)

Qdf Deb ris flo w (Qua tern a ry)Qf Alluvia l a n d co lluvia l fa n s (Quatern a ry)

Qtf Terra ce a n d fa n depo sits (Qua tern a ry)

Qws W illa m ette Silt (upper Pleisto cen e)

QTgs W ea thered terra ce gra vels (Pleisto cen e a n d upper Plio cen e)

Qld La n dslide a n d deb ris a va la n che depo sits (Quatern a ry)

Twct Ba sa lt o f Mt. To m (Oligo cen e)Volcanic and Sedimentary Rocks of the Early Western Cascades

Twcv Ea rly W estern Casca des vo lca n icla stic ro cks a n d tuff (lo wer Mio cen e to m iddle Eo cen e)

Twcl Ea rly W estern Casca des la va s (lo wer Mio cen e to m iddle Eo cen e)

Twcm Ro cks o f the Mo ha wk River Ca ldera (lo wer Oligo cen e)

Volcanic and Sedimentary Rocks of the Early High Cascades

Tehv Ea rly High Casca des vo lca n ic ro cks (Plio cen e a n d upper Mio cen e)

Tehs V o lca n icla stic co n glo m erate a n d sa n dsto n e (upper a n d m iddle Mio cen e)

Siletz River VolcanicsTst Siletz River vo lca n ics (lo wer Eo cen e a n d

Pa leo cen e)Intrusive RocksTi In trusive ro cks (m iddle Mio cen e to upper

Eo cen e)

Site

Eugene

So urce: Orego n Departm en t o f Geo lo gy a n d Min era l In dustries (DOMAGI), o pen -file repo rt O-10-03 0 4,000 8,0002,000 '

1 in ch = 4,000 feet

5

EXPLANATION

L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_X_Faults.mxd

REGIONAL FAULT MAPEUGEN E RIV ERFRON T DEV ELOPMEN TEUGEN E, OREGON

FIGURE

USGS (2006) Qua terna ry fa ult tra ces; solid where well constra ined , d a shed where m od era tely c onstra ined , a nd d otted where inferred

< 1.6 m illion yea rs - und ifferentia tedQua terna ry

< 750,000 yea rs - m id d le a nd la te Qua terna ry

< 130,000 yea rs - la te Qua terna ry< 15,000 yea rs - la test Qua terna ry

DATE: APR 2019 ∙ PROJECT: 73368.001

1 inc h = 60 kilom eters0 30 6015 km

25 km75 km150 kmSite

_̂ Site loc a tion

_̂

6

L:\Gis\GEOTECH\project\73368.001\fig_X_Seismicity.mxd

FIGUREDATE: AP R 2019 ∙ P ROJECT: 73368.001

HISTORICAL SEISMICITYEUGENE RIVERFRONTDEVELOP MENTEUGENE, OREGON

25 km75 km150 km

0 30 6015 km

1 inch = 60 kilom e te rs

EXPLANATION_̂ Site locationIndependent Seismicity

(1963-2017)M 2.5 - 3.0M 3.1 - 4.0M 4.1 - 5.0M >5.1

Source : ESRI Te rrain

Depth in kilometers (km)Low : 0 km

Hig h: 100 km

FIGURE

F

ile

na

me

: L

:\P

ro

je

cts\7

30

00

\7

33

00

-7

33

99

\7

33

68

- C

ity o

f E

ug

en

e\7

33

68

-0

01

\R

ep

orts\2

01

90

22

1 G

ER

\F

ig

ure

s\_

ea

rth

p

re

ssu

re

d

ia

gra

msX

.d

wg

L

ayo

ut T

ab

: F

IG

4

U

se

r: C

ory V

an

F

osso

n C

AD

P

lo

t D

ate

/T

im

e: 4

/9

/2

01

9 4

:2

0:3

4 P

M

APRIL 2019

73368.001

8

LATERAL SURCHARGE DETAIL

EUGENE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT - INFRASTRUCTURE

EUGENE, OREGON

Appendix A Field Explorations


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

A-1

April 24, 2019


Appendix A: Field Explorations

A1 GENERAL

PBS explored subsurface conditions at the project site by advancing 11 borings to depths of up to

approximately 31.5 feet bgs on February 4, 2019, through February 7, 2019. The approximate locations of the

explorations are shown on Figure 2, Site Plan. The procedures used to advance the borings, collect samples,

and other field techniques are described in detail in the following paragraphs. Unless otherwise noted, all soil

sampling and classification procedures followed engineering practices in general accordance with relevant

ASTM procedures. “General accordance” means that certain local drilling and descriptive practices and

methodologies have been followed.

A2 BORINGS

A2.1 Drilling

Borings were advanced using a track-mounted Terrasonic 150 drill rig provided and operated by Holt Services,

Inc., of Vancouver, Washington. Borings B-10 through B-20 were advanced using sonic vibration drilling

techniques. The borings were observed by a member of the PBS geotechnical staff, who maintained a detailed

log of the subsurface conditions and materials encountered during the course of the work.

A2.2 Sampling

Disturbed soil samples were taken in the borings at selected depth intervals. The samples were obtained using

a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler following procedures prescribed for the standard

penetration test (SPT). Using the SPT, the sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer

dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is defined as the

standard penetration resistance (N-value). The N-value provides a measure of the relative density of granular

soils such as sands and gravels, and the consistency of cohesive soils such as clays and plastic silts. The

disturbed soil samples were examined by a member of the PBS geotechnical staff and then sealed in plastic

bags for further examination and physical testing in our laboratory.

A2.3 Sonic Coring

Continuous sonic coring was used to penetrate coarse-grained units encountered during drilling. Recovered

cores from the borings were visually classified and described in the field and certain zones were selected for

laboratory analysis. The core recovery (presented graphically on the boring logs) was calculated by dividing

the length of core recovered in the barrel by the total drilled run length, expressed as a percent.

A2.4 Boring Logs

The boring logs show the various types of materials that were encountered in the borings and the depths

where the materials and/or characteristics of these materials changed, although the changes may be gradual.

Where material types and descriptions changed between samples, the contacts were interpreted. The types of

samples taken during drilling, along with their sample identification number, are shown to the right of the

classification of materials. The N-values and natural water (moisture) contents are shown farther to the right.

A3 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Initially, samples were classified visually in the field. Consistency, color, relative moisture, degree of plasticity,

and other distinguishing characteristics of the soil samples were noted. Afterward, the samples were

reexamined in the PBS laboratory, various standard classification tests were conducted, and the field

classifications were modified where necessary. The terminology used in the soil classifications and other

modifiers are defined in Table A-1, Terminology Used to Describe Soil.

Table A-1

Terminology Used to Describe Soil 1 of 2

Soil Descriptions

Soils exist in mixtures with varying proportions of components. The predominant soil, i.e., greater than 50 percent based on

total dry weight, is the primary soil type and is capitalized in our log descriptions (SAND, GRAVEL, SILT, or CLAY). Smaller

percentages of other constituents in the soil mixture are indicated by use of modifier words in general accordance with the

ASTM D2488-06 Visual-Manual Procedure. “General Accordance” means that certain local and common descriptive practices

may have been followed. In accordance with ASTM D2488-06, group symbols (such as GP or CH) are applied on the portion of

soil passing the 3-inch (75mm) sieve based on visual examination. The following describes the use of soil names and modifying

terms used to describe fine- and coarse-grained soils.

Fine-Grained Soils (50% or greater fines passing 0.075 mm, No. 200 sieve)

The primary soil type, i.e., SILT or CLAY is designated through visual-manual procedures to evaluate soil toughness, dilatency,

dry strength, and plasticity. The following outlines the terminology used to describe fine-grained soils, and varies from ASTM

D2488 terminology in the use of some common terms.

Primary soil NAME, Symbols, and Adjectives Plasticity

Description

Plasticity

Index (PI)

SILT (ML & MH) CLAY (CL & CH) ORGANIC SOIL (OL & OH)

SILT Organic SILT Non-plastic 0 – 3

SILT Organic SILT Low plasticity 4 – 10

SILT/Elastic SILT Lean CLAY Organic SILT/ Organic CLAY Medium Plasticity 10 – 20

Elastic SILT Lean/Fat CLAY Organic CLAY High Plasticity 20 – 40

Elastic SILT Fat CLAY Organic CLAY Very Plastic >40

Modifying terms describing secondary constituents, estimated to 5 percent increments, are applied as follows:

Description % Composition

With Sand % Sand ≥ % Gravel 15% to 25% plus No. 200

With Gravel % Sand < % Gravel

Sandy % Sand ≥ % Gravel ≤30% to 50% plus No. 200

Gravelly % Sand < % Gravel

Borderline Symbols, for example CH/MH, are used when soils are not distinctly in one category or when variable soil

units contain more than one soil type. Dual Symbols, for example CL-ML, are used when two symbols are required in

accordance with ASTM D2488.

Soil Consistency terms are applied to fine-grained, plastic soils (i.e., PI > 7). Descriptive terms are based on direct

measure or correlation to the Standard Penetration Test N-value as determined by ASTM D1586-84, as follows. SILT soils

with low to non-plastic behavior (i.e., PI < 7) may be classified using relative density.

Consistency

Term SPT N-value

Unconfined Compressive Strength

tsf kPa

Very soft Less than 2 Less than 0.25 Less than 24

Soft 2 – 4 0.25 – 0.5 24 – 48

Medium stiff 5 – 8 0.5 – 1.0 48 – 96

Stiff 9 – 15 1.0 – 2.0 96 – 192

Very stiff 16 – 30 2.0 – 4.0 192 – 383

Hard Over 30 Over 4.0 Over 383

Table A-1

Terminology Used to Describe Soil 2 of 2

Soil Descriptions

Coarse - Grained Soils (less than 50% fines)

Coarse-grained soil descriptions, i.e., SAND or GRAVEL, are based on the portion of materials passing a 3-inch (75mm) sieve.

Coarse-grained soil group symbols are applied in accordance with ASTM D2488-06 based on the degree of grading, or

distribution of grain sizes of the soil. For example, well-graded sand containing a wide range of grain sizes is designated SW;

poorly graded gravel, GP, contains high percentages of only certain grain sizes. Terms applied to grain sizes follow.

Material NAME Particle Diameter

Inches Millimeters

SAND (SW or SP) 0.003 – 0.19 0.075 – 4.8

GRAVEL (GW or GP) 0.19 – 3 4.8 – 75

Additional Constituents:

Cobble 3 – 12 75 – 300

Boulder 12 – 120 300 – 3050 The primary soil type is capitalized, and the fines content in the soil are described as indicated by the following examples.

Percentages are based on estimating amounts of fines, sand, and gravel to the nearest 5 percent. Other soil mixtures will

have similar descriptive names.

Example: Coarse-Grained Soil Descriptions with Fines

>5% to < 15% fines (Dual Symbols) ≥15% to < 50% fines

Well graded GRAVEL with silt: GW-GM Silty GRAVEL: GM

Poorly graded SAND with clay: SP-SC Silty SAND: SM

Additional descriptive terminology applied to coarse-grained soils follow.

Example: Coarse-Grained Soil Descriptions with Other Coarse-Grained Constituents

Coarse-Grained Soil Containing Secondary Constituents

With sand or with gravel ≥ 15% sand or gravel

With cobbles; with boulders Any amount of cobbles or boulders.

Cobble and boulder deposits may include a description of the matrix soils, as defined above.

Relative Density terms are applied to granular, non-plastic soils based on direct measure or correlation to the Standard

Penetration Test N-value as determined by ASTM D1586-84.

Relative Density Term SPT N-value

Very loose 0 – 4

Loose 5 – 10

Medium dense 11 – 30

Dense 31 – 50

Very dense > 50

SAMPLING DESCRIPTIONS

Table A-2

Key To Test Pit and Boring Log SymbolsSPT D

rive

Sam

ple

r

Sta

ndar

d P

enetr

atio

n T

est

ASTM

D 1

586

Shelb

y Tube P

ush

Sam

ple

r

ASTM

D 1

587

Speci

aliz

ed D

rive

Sam

ple

rs

(Deta

ils N

ote

d o

n L

ogs)

Speci

aliz

ed D

rill

or

Push

Sam

ple

r (D

eta

ils N

ote

d o

n

Logs)

Gra

b S

ample

Rock

Coring Inte

rval

Scr

een

(Wat

er

or

Air S

am

plin

g)

Wat

er

Leve

l D

uring

Drilli

ng/E

xcav

atio

nW

ater

Leve

l A

fter

Drilli

ng/E

xcav

atio

n

LOG GRAPHICS

PP Pocket Penetrometer HYD Hydrometer Gradation

TOR Torvane SIEV Sieve Gradation

DCP DS Direct Shear

ATT Atterberg Limits DD Dry Density

PL Plasticity Limit CBR California Bearing Ratio

LL Liquid Limit RES Resilient Modulus

PI Plasticity Index VS Vane Shear

P200 Percent Passing US Standard No. 200 Sieve bgs Below ground surface

OC Organic Content MSL Mean Sea Level

CON Consolidation HCL Hydrochloric Acid

UC Unconfined Compressive Strength

Details of soil and rock classification systems are available on request. Rev. 02/2017

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Geotechnical Testing Acronym Explanations

Lithology Boundary:

separates distinct units

(i.e., Fill, Alluvium,

Bedrock) at

approximate depths

inciated

Sampler

Type

Sample

Recovery Sample

Interval

Instrumentation Detail Sampling Symbols Soil and Rock

Well Pipe

Piezometer

Piezometer

Ground Surface

Well Cap

Bottom of Hole

So

il o

r R

ock

Typ

es

Well Seal

Well Screen

Soil-type or Material-type

Change Boundary: separates soil

and material changes within the

same lithographic unit at

approximate depth indicated

0.0

15.0

19.3

20.0

21.5

22.5

26.0

31.5

Gravel stuck in shoe

Possible void

LL = 50PL = 30PI = 20

P200 = 9%

LL = 48PL = 27PI = 21

Medium dense, olive-brown, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay, sand, and traceconstruction debris; non-plastic; coarse sand;fine to coarse, rounded to angular gravel;moist

cobbles encountered

FILL

concrete with rebar encountered from 8 to10 feet

no recovery

Soft, dark gray, elastic SILT (MH); mediumplasticity; moist to wet

6-inch-thick silty GRAVEL (GM) lens at~15.7 feet bgs; wet

Soft, dark gray ORGANIC SOIL (OL) withwoody debris; low plasticity; moistDense, dark gray, poorly graded SAND(SP-SM) with silt and gravel; non-plastic;medium to coarse sand; fine, rounded gravel;wetVery dark gray, elastic SILT (MH); medium tohigh plasticity; wetDense, very dark gray, silty GRAVEL (GM)with sand; low plasticity; fine to coarse sand;fine to coarse, rounded gravel; wetStiff, olive-gray with olive-brown mottles, leanCLAY (CL); medium plasticity; moist

becomes greenish gray

Final depth 31.5 feet bgs; boring backfilledwith bentonite.

ATT

P200

ATT

DE

PT

H INSTALLATION ANDCOMMENTS

0 50 100

CORE REC%RQD% MOISTURE CONTENT %

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DRILLED BY: Holt Services, Inc.LOGGED BY: M. Golden

DRILLING METHOD: Sonic

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-10

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET

(See Site Plan)APPROX. BORING B-10 LOCATION:

Page 1 of 1FIGURE A1

LOGGING COMPLETED: 2/04/19HAMMER EFFICIENCY PERCENT:BIT DIAMETER: 6 inches

EUGENE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT EUGENE, OREGON

PBS PROJECT NUMBER:73368.001

NOTE: Lines representing the interface between soil/rock units ofdiffering description are approximate only, inferred wherebetween samples, and may indicate gradual transition.

Surface Conditions: Gravel

50/5

R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

R-6

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

60

2

39

10

14

0.00.5

8.0

10.0

15.0

19.0

21.0

31.0

31.5

Flush monument

1-inch diameterPVC pipe

3/8-inch bentonitechips

1-inch diameterSched. 80 slottedPVC

10/20 silica filtersand

LL = 52PL = 32PI = 20

ASPHALT (6 inches)Dense, olive-brown to gray, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay and sand;non-plastic; coarse sand; fine to coarse,rounded to angular gravel; moist

FILLcobbles encountered

Dark gray SILT (ML) with rootlets; lowplasticity; moist

Loose, dark gray to olive poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP-GM) with silt and sand;non-plastic; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

Medium stiff, dark gray, elastic SILT (MH);medium plasticity; moist

Medium dense, dark gray to olive, poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist to wetStiff to very stiff, olive-gray with olive-brownmottles, lean CLAY (CL); medium plasticity;moist

becomes olive-yellow and olive-brown

becomes olive-gray

with fine to coarse, rounded gravel

Hard, olive-gray SILT (ML) with sand; mediumto coarse sand; moistFinal depth 31.5 feet bgs; piezometerinstalled to 30.0 feet bgs.

ATT

DE

PT

H

INSTALLATION ANDCOMMENTS

0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-11

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET






Surface Conditions: Asphalt

R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

R-6

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

35

4

5

29

13

42


0.00.5

10.0

20.0

25.0

26.5

P200 = 8%

ASPHALT (6 inches)Medium dense, olive-brown, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay and sand;non-plastic; coarse sand; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

FILL

Dense, olive-brown and pink to red-brown,poorly graded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fineto coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded toangular gravel; moist

becomes brown, with increased silt; wet

Medium dense, brown, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand; fine sand; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; wet

Stiff, yellow to olive-yellow, lean CLAY (CL);medium plasticity; moist to wet


P200SIEV

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-12

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

24

48

44

17

9


0.00.5

3.8

9.0

10.5

12.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

19.0

20.3

30.0

31.5

Flush monument





Infiltration testingcompleted at 5feet bgsP200 = 63%

Driller notes softerdrilling

ASPHALT (6 inches)Loose, olive-brown, poorly graded GRAVEL(GP-GM) with silt and sand; non-plastic;coarse sand; fine, rounded to subroundedgravel; moist

FILLMedium stiff, gray, gravelly SILT (ML); low tomedium plasticity; fine, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

becomes brown; fine to coarse gravel

Dark brown ORGANIC SOIL (OL) with woodydebris; moist

Soft, gray, gravelly SILT (ML); low plasticity;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moistGray, silty GRAVEL (GM); non-plastic;coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; wetGray, gravelly SILT (ML); low plasticity; fine tocoarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; moistto wetLoose, gray, silty GRAVEL (GM) withconstruction debris (glass, metal); non-plastic;coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; wet

Gray, gravelly SILT (ML); low plasticity; fine tocoarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; wet

Black ORGANIC SOIL (OL) with woodydebris; moist to wetDense, gray, well-graded GRAVEL (GW-GM)with silt and sand; non-plastic; coarse sand;fine to coarse, subrounded to subangulargravel; wet

becomes olive-brown

Stiff, yellow to olive-yellow, lean CLAY (CL)with sand; medium to high plasticity; mediumto coarse sand; moistFinal depth 31.5 feet bgs; piezometerinstalled to 30.0 feet bgs.

P200

DE

PT

H


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-13

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

R-6

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

5

2

6

34

22

10


0.00.5

1.5

3.0

6.0

12.8

21.0

22.0

23.0

25.3

Infiltration testing completedat 5 feet bgs

P200 = 5%

No recovery

ASPHALT (6 inches)Gray and olive-brown, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand; fine to medium sand; fine tocoarse, subrounded to subangular gravel;moist

FILLSoft, brown, elastic SILT (MH); mediumplasticity; moistSoft, brown, gravelly SILT (ML) with cobbles;low plasticity; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moistSoft, brown with red-brown mottles SILT (ML);low plasticity; moist

becomes medium stiff

Medium dense, brown and gray, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded gravel; moist

becomes wet

Hard, yellow to olive-yellow SILT (ML);non-plastic; moistHard, yellow to olive-yellow and brown, leanCLAY (CL); high plasticity; moistHard, blue-gray SILTSTONE; interbeddedwith yellow to olive-yellow SANDSTONE to 24feet bgs; moistFinal depth 25.25 feet bgs due to refusal inhard siltstone; boring backfilled withbentonite.

P200

SIEV

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-14

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







50/3

R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

2

5

20

36


0.00.5

7.5

14.0

20.0

26.0

31.5

Flush monument





P200 = 6%

ASPHALT (6 inches)Medium dense, olive-brown, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay and sand;non-plastic; coarse sand; fine to coarse,rounded to angular gravel; moist

FILL

1.5-inch-thick section of concreteencountered at 5 feet

Medium stiff, gray SILT (ML) with gravel; lowplasticity; fine to coarse, rounded gravel;moist

Loose, brown, poorly graded SAND (SP) withgravel; fine to medium sand; fine, roundedgravel; moist

Dense, brown-red, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand; medium to coarse sand; fineto coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; wet

Medium stiff, olive-yellow to olive-brown; leanCLAY (CL); medium to high plasticity; moist

becomes very stiff; with fine, roundedgravel

Final depth 31.5 feet bgs; piezometerinstalled to 30.0 feet bgs.

P200SIEV

DE

PT

H


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-15

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

R-6

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

30

6

8

49

6

17


0.00.5

7.5

11.0

14.5

16.5

P200 = 10%

ASPHALT (6 inches)Loose, olive-brown, well-graded GRAVEL(GW-GC) with clay and sand; non-plastic;coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

FILL

becomes gray

Medium stiff, brown, elastic SILT (MH) withgravel; medium plasticity; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

Medium stiff, elastic SILT (MH); mediumplasticity; moist

Medium dense, brown, poorly graded SAND(SP); fine to medium sand; moist


P200

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-16

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

10

8

18


0.00.5

3.0

5.0

6.0

7.5

17.0

26.326.5

P200 = 7%

ASPHALT (6 inches)Olive-brown, well-graded GRAVEL (GW) withsand; medium to coarse sand; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

FILLBrown SILT (ML) with gravel; low plasticity;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moistMedium stiff, dark gray to black SILT (ML)with sand; non-plastic; fine to medium sand;moistMedium stiff, brown, elastic SILT (MH);medium plasticity; moistDense, brown and gray, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand; medium to coarse sand; fineto coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moist

with silt from 12 to 13 feet

becomes very dense; wet

Dense, brown-gray, well-graded GRAVEL(GW-GM) with silt and sand; non-plastic;medium to coarse sand; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; wet

cobbles encountered

Very stiff, yellow to olive-yellow and brown,lean CLAY (CL) with sand; high plasticity;coarse sand; moistFinal depth 26.5 feet bgs; boring backfilledwith bentonite.

P200SIEV

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-17

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

6

41

56

33

29


0.00.5

6.0

8.0

23.5

26.5

P200 = 2%

ASPHALT (6 inches)Medium dense, olive-brown to gray,well-graded GRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay andsand; non-plastic; medium to coarse sand;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moist

FILL

Very stiff, brown SILT (ML) with gravel; lowplasticity; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Dense, brown and gray, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand; medium to coarse sand; fineto coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moist

becomes wet

becomes medium dense

Medium dense, brown-red, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW) with cobbles; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; wet


P200SIEV

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-18

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

24

48

40

22

24


0.00.5

3.0

9.5

14.0

18.0

23.5

24.3

25.5

26.5

LL = 55PL = 30PI = 25

P200 = 6%

Slight hole caving

ASPHALT (6 inches)Medium dense, olive-brown, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GC) with clay and sand;non-plastic; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

FILLMedium stiff, brown, elastic SILT (MH);medium plasticity; moist

Medium dense, brown and gray, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, rounded to subroundedgravel; moist

Medium dense, brown and gray, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GM) with silt and sand; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; wet

Loose, brown and gray, well-graded GRAVEL(GW) with sand and cobbles; medium tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; wet

Olive-brown to dark brown, well-gradedSAND (SW-SM) with silt; non-plastic; fine tocoarse sand; wetMedium dense, yellow-brown to brown,well-graded SAND (SW); fine to coarse sand;wetMedium dense, brown and gray, well-gradedGRAVEL (GW-GM) with silt and sand; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; wetFinal depth 26.5 feet bgs; boring backfilledwith bentonite.

ATT

P200SIEV

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-19

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

R-4

S-4

R-5

S-5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

5

30

29

5

22


0.0

2.5

9.0

10.5

16.5

P200 = 38%LL = 40PL = 22PI = 18

LL = 54PL = 32PI = 22

Olive-brown, poorly graded GRAVEL(GP-GM) with silt and sand; non-plastic;coarse sand; fine, rounded to subroundedgravel; moist

FILLLoose, brown with gray mottles, clayeyGRAVEL (GC); medium plasticity; fine tocoarse, rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

without mottling

becomes brown and gray

Loose, dark red-brown, silty GRAVEL (GM);low plasticity; fine, rounded to subroundedgravel; moistMedium stiff, gray, elastic SILT (MH); mediumto high plasticity; wet


P200ATT

ATT

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_B

10-B

20_2

0190

211.

GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 4/

9/19

:RP

G

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-20

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET






Surface Conditions: Grass and Gravel

R-1

S-1

R-2

S-2

R-3

S-3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

7

7

2


Appendix B Laboratory Testing


City of Eugene


Eugene, Oregon

B-1

April 24, 2019


Appendix B: Laboratory Testing

B1 GENERAL

Samples obtained during the field explorations were examined in the PBS laboratory. The physical

characteristics of the samples were noted and field classifications were modified where necessary. During the

course of examination, representative samples were selected for further testing. The testing program for the

soil samples included standard classification tests, which yield certain index properties of the soils important

to an evaluation of soil behavior. The testing procedures are described in the following paragraphs. Unless

noted otherwise, all test procedures are in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. “General

accordance” means that certain local and common descriptive practices and methodologies have been

followed.

B2 CLASSIFICATION TESTS

B2.1 Visual Classification

The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System with certain other

terminology, such as the relative density or consistency of the soil deposits, in general accordance with

engineering practice. In determining the soil type (that is, gravel, sand, silt, or clay) the term that best

described the major portion of the sample is used. Modifying terminology to further describe the samples is

defined in Table A-1, Terminology Used to Describe Soil, in Appendix A.

B2.2 Moisture (Water) Contents

Natural moisture content determinations were made on samples of the fine-grained soils (that is, silts, clays,

and silty sands). The natural moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water to dry weight of

soil, expressed as a percentage. The results of the moisture content determinations are presented on the logs

of the borings in Appendix A and on Figure B3, Summary of Laboratory Data, in Appendix B.

B2.3 Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limits were determined on select samples for the purpose of classifying soils into various groups for

correlation. The results of the Atterberg limits test, which included liquid and plastic limits, are plotted on

Figure B1, Atterberg Limits Test Results, and on the explorations logs in Appendix A where applicable.

B2.4 Grain-Size Analyses

Mechanical grain-size analysis was performed on selected samples to determine the grain size distribution.

Washed sieve analyses (P200) were completed on samples to determine the portion of soil samples passing

the No. 200 Sieve (i.e., silt and clay). Results of mechanical grain-size analyses are presented on Figure B2 in

Appendix B. The results of the P200 test results are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A and on

Figure B3, Summary of Laboratory Data, in Appendix B.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL or OL

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CH or OH

CL-ML

MH or OH

TEST METHOD: ASTM D4318

"A" LINE

FIGURE B1

ML or OL

Page 1 of 1

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT



KEYSAMPLEDEPTH(FEET)

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

NATURAL MOISTURECONTENT

(PERCENT)

PERCENT PASSINGNO. 40 SIEVE(PERCENT)

SAMPLENUMBER

S-3

S-6

S-3

S-1

S-1

S-3

B-10

B-10

B-11

B-19

B-20

B-20

15.0

30.0

15.0

5.0

5.0

15.0

50

48

52

55

40

54

20

21

20

25

18

22

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

LIQUIDLIMIT

30

27

32

30

22

32

PLASTICLIMIT

PLASTICITYINDEX

50.4

41.0

40.9

36.8

19.9

52.0

__A

TT

ER

BE

RG

LIM

ITS

73

368.

001_

B10

-B20

_201

9021

1.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/25

/19:

RP

G

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.11101001,000

CLAYBOULDERS

MOISTURE CONTENT(PERCENT)

B-12

B-14

B-15

B-17

B-18

KEYSAMPLENUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH(FEET)

15.0

11.5

6.5

15.0

16.5

SAND(PERCENT)

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS (ASTM E11)3/4" 10 2003" 1 1/2" 100

COARSE

35

23

20

36

24

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS

MEDIUM SILTCOBBLES

FINECOARSE

9.0

23.4

27.0

11.4

21.9

D50(MM)

D30(MM)

D10(MM)

D5(MM)

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

FINES(PERCENT)

8

5

6

7

2

6.2

17.8

19.0

7.4

16.3

2.1

5.5

6.9

2.0

6.6 0.3

PARTICLE-SIZE (MM)

57

72

74

57

74

FINE

GRAVEL SAND FINES

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

D60(MM)

3/8" 404 16 30 50

Page 1 of 2FIGURE B2

7

5

5

6

6

S-3

R-3

R-2

S-3

R-4

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.6

TEST METHOD: ASTM C136/D422

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

BY

WEI

GH

TPBS PROJECT NUMBER:

73368.001


__PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS 73368.001_B10-B20_20190211.GPJ PBS_DATATMPL_GEO.GDT PRINT DATE: 4/9/19:RPG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.11101001,000

CLAYBOULDERS

MOISTURE CONTENT(PERCENT)

B-19

KEYSAMPLENUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH(FEET)

10.0

SAND(PERCENT)

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS (ASTM E11)3/4" 10 2003" 1 1/2" 100

COARSE

26

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS

MEDIUM SILTCOBBLES

FINECOARSE

17.5

D50(MM)

D30(MM)

D10(MM)

D5(MM)

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

FINES(PERCENT)

610.8 4.0

PARTICLE-SIZE (MM)

68

FINE

GRAVEL SAND FINES

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

D60(MM)

3/8" 404 16 30 50


6S-2 0.3

TEST METHOD: ASTM C136/D422

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

BY

WEI

GH

T

(continued)


EUGENE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENTEUGENE, OREGON

__PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS 73368.001_B10-B20_20190211.GPJ PBS_DATATMPL_GEO.GDT PRINT DATE: 4/9/19:RPG

B-10 S-3 15 50.4 50 30 20

B-10 S-4 20 12.3 9

B-10 S-6 30 41.0 48 27 21

B-11 S-3 15 40.9 52 32 20

B-11 S-5 25 39.9

B-12 S-3 15 6.6 57 35 8

B-12 S-5 25 42.3

B-13 S-1 5 34.1 63

B-13 S-6 30 44.1

B-14 R-3 11.5 5.4 72 23 5

B-15 R-2 6.5 4.9 74 20 6

B-15 S-6 30 41.3

B-16 S-3 15 15.9 10

B-17 S-1 5 33.9

B-17 S-3 15 6.2 57 36 7

B-18 R-4 16.5 6.3 74 24 2

B-19 S-1 5 44.4 55 30 25

B-19 S-2 10 6.2 68 26 6

B-20 S-1 5 19.9 38 40 22 18

B-20 S-3 15 52.0 54 32 22

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA


LIQUIDLIMIT

(PERCENT)

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

DRYDENSITY

(PCF)PLASTIC

LIMIT(PERCENT)

PLASTICITYINDEX

(PERCENT)

SAND(PERCENT)

P200(PERCENT)

SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITSSAMPLE INFORMATION

SAMPLEDEPTH(FEET)

SAMPLENUMBER

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

ELEVATION(FEET)

MOISTURECONTENT

(PERCENT)



__LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

73

368.

001_

B10

-B20

_201

9021

1.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

4/9/

19:R

PG

Appendix CField Explorations by PBS and Others

PBS: HOG FUEL BORINGS

0.0

0.5

10.0

11.5

No recovery

CONCRETE (6 inches)

Medium dense, gray and brown, poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand

FILL

becomes very dense


Medium stiff, gray SILT (ML); low to mediumplasticity; moist

Final depth 11.5 feet bgs; boring backfilledwith bentonite. Groundwater not encounteredat time of exploration.

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG


DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger


SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-1

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET

44.053220, -123.084411APPROX. BORING HB-1 LOCATION:


LOGGING COMPLETED: 1/14/19HAMMER EFFICIENCY PERCENT:BIT DIAMETER: 4 ¼ inches

DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT PARKEUGENE, OREGON



Surface Conditions: Concrete

50/4

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

23

28

6

0.0

0.5

5.0

10.0

11.5

CONCRETE (6 inches)

Very dense, gray and brown, poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand

FILL

Very dense, brown and gray, poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, subrounded gravel;moist

Soft, gray SILT (ML); low to medium plasticity;moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-2

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

51

51

45

3

0.0

0.5

5.0

11.5

ASPHALT (6 inches)


FILL

cobbles encountered

Medium dense, brown and gray, siltyGRAVEL (GM) with sand; non-plastic;finesand; fine, subrounded to subangular gravel;moist

becomes dense

with fine to coarse sand; wet


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-3

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

64

17

32

43

0.0

0.5

5.0

12.0

14.0

CONCRETE (6 inches)


FILL

Dense, brown and gray, poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, subrounded gravel;moist


becomes dense

Loose, gray and brown, silty GRAVEL (GM)with sand; non-plastic; fine to coarse sand;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;wet


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-4

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

44

36

30

42

10

0.0

0.5

6.0

10.0

11.5

ASPHALT (6 inches)


FILL

Very dense, brown and gray, poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine to coarse sand;fine to coarse, subrounded to subangulargravel; moist

Soft, gray SILT (ML); low to medium plasticity;moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-5

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

61

60

64

4

0.0

0.5

7.5

10.0

11.5

No recovery

CONCRETE (6 inches)


FILL

becomes very dense; no recovery

Very stiff, gray SILT (ML) with sand; lowplasticity; fine sand; moist

Stiff, gray SILT (ML); low to medium plasticity;moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-6

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

47

77

17

10

0.0

0.5

3.0

6.0

10.0

11.5

No recovery

ASPHALT (6 inches)


FILL

Dense, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)with sand; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, subrounded to subangular gravel;moist

becomes medium dense; no recovery

Very stiff, gray SILT (ML) with sand;non-plastic to low plasticity; fine sand; moist

4-inch-thick layer of glass encountered

Medium stiff, gray to dark brown SILT (ML);low to medium plasticity; moist to wet


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-7

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

48

16

4

8

0.0

0.5

10.0

11.5

ASPHALT (6 inches)


FILL

becomes loose

Soft, brown to dark brown SILT (ML); low tomedium plasticity; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

1_H

FB

_201

9012

9.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

3/8/

19:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING HB-8

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 50 100

15

6

6

4

PBS: EUGENE RIVERFRONT PARK BORINGS

0.00.5

6.5

10.0

18.0

29.0

31.5

LL = 42PL = 26PI = 16

P200 = 59%

ASPHALT (6 inches)BASE ROCK

Stiff brown SILT (ML); medium plasticity;moist

Medium stiff brown sandy SILT (ML);non-plastic; fine to medium sand; moist

becomes soft

Very dense black, brown, and white poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine tocoarse sand; fine, subrounded to subangulargravel; moist

becomes dense

Very stiff light brown SILT (ML); low plasticity;moist


ATT

P200

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-5_

2018

0607

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 6/

25/1

8:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG


DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary


SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-1

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET

44.052443, -123.082990APPROX. BORING B-1 LOCATION:


LOGGING COMPLETED: 5/23/18HAMMER EFFICIENCY PERCENT: 79BIT DIAMETER: 4 7/8 inches





S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

14

13

6

3

77

34

20

0.00.5

3.5

10.0

19.0

28.0

31.5

Possible groundwaterencountered at 7.9 feet bgs(observed 5/24/2018)

Switched to 3-inch sampler forbetter recovery


Soft brown SILT (ML); medium plasticity;moist

becomes stiff

Medium stiff brown lean CLAY (CL) withgravel; medium plasticity; fine, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Very dense gray, black, brown, and whitepoorly graded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fineto coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Very stiff green-gray SILT (ML) with sand;non-plastic; fine to medium sand; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-5_

2018

0607

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 6/

25/1

8:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-2

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

4

13

8

20

94

21

0.00.5

3.5

7.5

18.0

25.0

30.0

P200 = 41%

Driller notes lost all drillingmud at 14.5 feet bgs

Driller notes lost 40 gallons ofdrilling mud at 22.5 feet and at24.5 feet bgs


Very stiff dark brown lean CLAY (CL) withsand; medium plasticity; fine to medium sand;moist

Loose dark brown silty SAND (SM); lowplasticity; fine to medium sand; moist

becomes dense; non-plastic; wet

Very dense dark gray-black poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, subangular to angulargravel; possible cobbles; moist to wet

Medium dense black, gray, and red-brownpoorly graded GRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse,subangular to angular gravel; possiblecobbles; moist to wet

Final depth 30.0 feet bgs due to caving;boring backfilled with bentonite

P200D

EP

TH INSTALLATION AND

COMMENTS

0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-5_

2018

0607

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 6/

25/1

8:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-3

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

18

7

6

33

56

21

0.00.5

4.5

7.5

11.5

27.0

31.5

Driller notes lost drilling mudat 8 to 9 feet bgs

Boring begins caving at 13feet bgs


Dense brown to dark brown poorly gradedSAND (SP) with gravel; fine to medium sand;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moist

Medium dense dark brown to red-brownpoorly graded GRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

Very dense dark gray to dark brown poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine tomedium sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist


becomes very dense

Very stiff green-gray SILT (ML) with sand andgravel; low plasticity; fine sand; fine,subrounded gravel; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-5_

2018

0607

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 6/

25/1

8:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-4

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

31

12

20

53

26

78

27

0.00.5

2.5

5.0

7.5

9.0

15.0

20.0

36.5

Driller notes lost drilling mudfrom 15 feet bgs to bottom ofboring

No sample recovery

No sample recovery

No sample recovery

TOPSOIL (6 inches)BASE ROCK

Very stiff dark red-brown lean CLAY (CL);medium plasticity; moist

Medium stiff dark brown SILT (ML); mediumplasticity; moist

Very stiff dark brown SILT (ML) with sand andgravel; low plasticity; moist

dark brown-black weathered basalt at 8.5feet bgs

Medium dense light brown to dark gray poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, subrounded tosubangular gravel; moist

Loose light brown to dark gray poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse subrounded tosubangular gravel; moist

Very dense black and gray poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand and possiblecobbles; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, subangular to angular gravel; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-5_

2018

0607

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL_

GE

O.G

DT

PR

INT

DA

TE

: 6/

25/1

8:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-5

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







Surface Conditions: Grass

22-50/5

50/1

50/1

50/1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

16

8

29

30

10

0.00.5

6.5

10.0

18.0

29.0

31.5

LL = 42PL = 26PI = 16

P200 = 59%


Stiff brown SILT (ML); medium plasticity;moist

Medium stiff brown sandy SILT (ML);non-plastic; fine to medium sand; moist

becomes soft

Very dense black, brown, and white poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine tocoarse sand; fine, subrounded to subangulargravel; moist

becomes dense

Very stiff light brown SILT (ML); low plasticity;moist


ATT

P200

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-1

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

14

13

6

3

77

34

20

0.00.5

3.5

10.0

19.0

28.0

31.5

Possible groundwaterencountered at 7.9 feet bgs(observed 5/24/2018)

Switched to 3-inch sampler forbetter recovery


Soft brown SILT (ML); medium plasticity;moist

becomes stiff

Medium stiff brown lean CLAY (CL) withgravel; medium plasticity; fine, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Very dense gray, black, brown, and whitepoorly graded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fineto coarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Very stiff green-gray SILT (ML) with sand;non-plastic; fine to medium sand; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-2

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

4

13

8

20

94

21

0.00.5

3.5

7.5

18.0

25.0

30.0

P200 = 41%

Driller notes lost all drillingmud at 14.5 feet bgs

Driller notes lost 40 gallons ofdrilling mud at 22.5 feet and at24.5 feet bgs


Very stiff dark brown lean CLAY (CL) withsand; medium plasticity; fine to medium sand;moist

Loose dark brown silty SAND (SM); lowplasticity; fine to medium sand; moist

becomes dense; non-plastic; wet

Very dense dark gray-black poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium to coarsesand; fine to coarse, subangular to angulargravel; possible cobbles; moist to wet

Medium dense black, gray, and red-brownpoorly graded GRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse,subangular to angular gravel; possiblecobbles; moist to wet

Final depth 30.0 feet bgs due to caving;boring backfilled with bentonite

P200D

EP

TH INSTALLATION AND

COMMENTS

0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-3

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

18

7

6

33

56

21

0.00.5

4.5

7.5

11.5

27.0

31.5

Driller notes lost drilling mudat 8 to 9 feet bgs

Boring begins caving at 13feet bgs


Dense brown to dark brown poorly gradedSAND (SP) with gravel; fine to medium sand;fine to coarse, rounded to subrounded gravel;moist

Medium dense dark brown to red-brownpoorly graded GRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

Very dense dark gray to dark brown poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine tomedium sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist


becomes very dense

Very stiff green-gray SILT (ML) with sand andgravel; low plasticity; fine sand; fine,subrounded gravel; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-4

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

31

12

20

53

26

78

27

0.00.5

2.5

5.0

7.5

9.0

15.0

20.0

36.5

Driller notes lost drilling mudfrom 15 feet bgs to bottom ofboring

No sample recovery

No sample recovery

No sample recovery

TOPSOIL (6 inches)BASE ROCK

Very stiff dark red-brown lean CLAY (CL);medium plasticity; moist

Medium stiff dark brown SILT (ML); mediumplasticity; moist

Very stiff dark brown SILT (ML) with sand andgravel; low plasticity; moist

dark brown-black weathered basalt at 8.5feet bgs

Medium dense light brown to dark gray poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, subrounded tosubangular gravel; moist

Loose light brown to dark gray poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP); fine to coarse subrounded tosubangular gravel; moist

Very dense black and gray poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand and possiblecobbles; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, subangular to angular gravel; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-5

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







Surface Conditions: Grass

22-50/5

50/1

50/1

50/1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

16

8

29

30

10

0.00.5

5.0

7.5

15.0

24.0

26.5

Slight petroleum odor

Difficult drilling

Lost drilling mud


Medium stiff gray gravelly SILT (ML);non-plastic to low plasticity; fine to coarse,rounded to subrounded gravel; moist

Loose brown silty SAND (SM); non-plastic tolow plasticity; fine sand; moist

Very dense dark gray, white, and black poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, rounded tosubrounded gravel; moist

Very stiff gray-brown with gray mottles SILT(ML) with sand; non-plastic; fine to mediumsand; moist

Final depth 26.5 feet bgs; boring backfilledwith bentonite. Groundwater not measureddue to mud rotary drilling.

DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG


DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary - Tricone


SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-6

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET



LOGGING COMPLETED: 7/31/18HAMMER EFFICIENCY PERCENT:BIT DIAMETER: 3 7/8 inches





S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

9

8

7

79

86

20

0.00.5

4.0

5.0

12.0

19.0

23.0

31.5

CONCRETE (6 inches)BASE ROCK

SILT (ML)

Dense brown poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)with sand; medium to coarse sand; fine tocoarse, subrounded gravel; moist


Stiff gray SILT (ML); non-plastic to lowplasticity; moist to wet

becomes soft

Dense gray, black, and red-brown poorlygraded GRAVEL (GP) with sand; medium tocoarse sand; fine to coarse, subrounded tosubangular gravel; moist to wet

Very stiff green-gray SILT (ML) with sand;non-plastic; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-7

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

29

40

25

11

3

49

28

11

0.0

4.5

7.5

10.0

12.0

15.0

17.5

25.5

30.0

31.5

Slight organic odor

Slight organic odorLost drilling mud

Driller notes gravelencountered

Boring cased prior to drillingto 20 feet

BASE ROCK

Medium stiff gray SILT (ML) with woodpieces; low plasticity; moist

Medium stiff brown and gray with red mottlessandy SILT (ML) with gravel; non-plastic; finesand; fine to coarse gravel; moist

Medium stiff gray SILT (ML) with gravel;non-plastic to low plasticity; fine, subroundedto subangular gravel; moist

Loose brown, black, and gray silty GRAVEL(GM) with sand; non-plastic; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, angular to subangulargravel; moist

Loose brown to gray-brown poorly gradedSAND (SP); fine to medium sand; moist

Dense black, gray, white, and red-brownpoorly graded GRAVEL (GP) with sand;medium to coarse sand; fine to coarse,subrounded to subangular gravel; moist

Very stiff gray-brown SILT (ML); low plasticity;moist

Very stiff gray-green sandy SILT (ML);non-plastic; fine to coarse sand; moist


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-8

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET







Surface Conditions: Gravel

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

6

8

6

10

35

17

24

0.00.5

3.5

7.0

13.0

18.0

30.0

31.5

Lost drilling mud


Very dense brown poorly graded GRAVEL(GP) with sand; medium to coarse sand; fineto coarse, subrounded gravel; moist

Loose brown, black, and gray silty GRAVEL(GM) with sand; non-plastic; fine to coarsesand; fine to coarse, subangular to angulargravel; moist

Medium stiff brown SILT (ML); non-plastic;moist

Dense dark brown-gray poorly gradedGRAVEL (GP) with sand; fine to mediumsand; fine to coarse, subrounded gravel;moist

Stiff gray-green sandy SILT (ML); non-plastic;fine to coarse sand; moist to wet


DE

PT


0 50 100



UNCORRECTED N-VALUE

__B

OR

ING

LO

G

7336

8.00

0_B

1-B

9_20

1808

09.G

PJ

PB

S_D

AT

AT

MP

L_G

EO

.GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

8/9/

18:R

PG

GR

AP

HIC

LOG




SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE ID

BORING B-9

TE

ST

ING

DEPTHFEET








S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 50 100

77

23

10

17

9

31

26

14

SQUIER: EWEB OPERATIONS FACILITY BORINGS

SQUIER: EWEB HEADQUARTERS BORINGS

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - Eugene, OR