HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD16424BILL NO. 2023-084
SPONSORED BY Councilmember Spencer
ORDINANCE NO. th42,�'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A $12,693,100 PHASE II DESIGN/BUILD
AGREEMENT WITH BURNS AND MCDONNELL ENGINERING COMPANY, INC. FOR
THE BIOSOLIDS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. is selected as the firm
best qualified to provide Phase II professional design/build services
related to the Biosolids Improvement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. is declared to be the
best qualified and is hereby approved as the best firm to provide Phase II professional
design/build services for the Biosolids Improvement Project.
Section 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an
agreement with Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. for the Biosolids
Improvement Project.
Section 3. The agreement shall be substantially the same in form and content as
that agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date
of its passage and approval.
Passed:
Presiding Office
ATTEST:
115)20N -
City Clerk
Approved: aPA-1(- (6 , Zozy-
-Mayor Ron Fitzwater
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Amendment #1 1 Rev 0 – February 2, 2024
AMENDMENT 1
Phase 2 Contract Price Amendment
Biosolids Improvement at Regional Water Reclamation Facility Project
This Amendment is entered into this _____ day of __________________, 2024 (the “Effective
Date”) between the City of Jefferson (“Owner”) and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc., a
Missouri company (“Design-Builder”), and is governed by the terms and conditions of the
Progressive Design-Build Agreement – Biosolids Improvement at Regional Water Reclamation
Facility Project dated April 3, 2023 (“Agreement”), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Owner and Design-Builder are referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the
“Parties”.
1. Phase 2 Services to be performed:
1.1 The Phase 2 Services to be performed shall be as listed in Exhibit B
–Scope of Services.
2. Phase 2 Contract Price:
2.1 The Contract Price is Twelve Million Six Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand One
Hundred Dollars ($12,693,100.00) for Phase 2 services. This value is established as
the Guaranteed Maximum Price and is subject to adjustments made in accordance
with the General Conditions of Contract. The Guaranteed Maximum Price is
comprised of the Cost of the Work plus the Design-Builder’s Fee as further described
below:
2.1.1 The estimated Cost of the Work is Eleven Million Seven Hundred One Thousand
Seven Hundred Dollars ($11,701,700.00) and consists of the following
components:
2.1.1.1 Design-Builder’s staff engaged in design development, engineering support
during construction, and project management, the estimated sum of which is
Seven Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($775,000) and is based on the
Design-Builder’s Phase 2 Hourly Rates in exhibit D.
2.1.1.2 Design-Builder’s construction management cost of One Million Six Hundred
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($1,620,000). These costs include the Design-
Builder’s construction management staff including the Construction Manager,
Site Manager, Construction Coordinator, Procurement Manager, and Expeditor.
These costs also include incidental costs to support the work onsite, including the
cost of the construction office, onsite temporary sanitary facilities, travel cost
and/or per diem for site staff, and site vehicles.
2.1.1.3 Design-Builder’s cost to perform the Work which is estimated to be Eight Million
Four Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($8,498,200.00).
These costs include the items defined in Article 7.5.1 of the agreement that are
not included in article 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 above.
EXHIBIT A
Amendment #1 2 Rev 0 – February 2, 2024
2.1.1.4 The Design-Builder’s Contingency in the amount of Five Hundred Eight
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($508,500). The Contingency is for the Design-
Builder’s exclusive use as further described in Article 7.6.2 of the Agreement.
2.1.1.5 Allowances in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000). The
Allowance Items and Values are further described in Exhibit G.
2.1.2 The Design-Builder’s Fee in the amount of Nine Hundred Ninety-One Thousand
Four Hundred Dollars ($991,400.00).
3. Phase 2 Contract Price Payment
3.1 Owner shall pay Design-Builder in accordance with Article 6 of the General
Conditions of Contract for the Phase 2 services, subject to adjustments made in
accordance with the Agreement and the General Conditions of Contract, with the
following clarifications.
3.1.1 For the cost described in section 2.1.1.1 above, Design-Builder will be compensated
on an hourly basis in accordance with the rates and terms established in Exhibit D.
3.1.2 The cost described in section 2.1.1.2 above is established as a fixed/lump sum
amount. The amount of the Design-Builder’s construction management cost to be
included in the Design-Builder’s monthly Application for Payment and paid by
Owner shall be proportional to the percentage of the Work completed, less
payments previously made on account of Design-Builder’s construction
management cost.
3.1.3 The Design-Builder’s Fee is established as a fixed amount and shall be paid in
accordance with Article 8.2.3 of the Agreement.
4. Phase 2 Contract Time:
4.1 Substantial Completion of the entire Work shall be achieved no later than 508
calendar days after the Date of Commencement (“Scheduled Substantial Completion
Date”).
4.2 The Phase 2 Contract Time and adjustments thereto shall be as governed by the
Agreement and the General Conditions of Contract.
5. Other Changes:
5.1 Replace Article 7.6.3.1 of the Agreement with the following language:
7.6.3.1 If the sum of the actual Cost of the Work is less than the estimated Cost of
the Work established in this Amendment, as may have been adjusted over the course
of the Project, the difference (“Savings”) shall be shared as follows:
Zero percent (0%) to Design-Builder and
One Hundred percent (100%) to Owner.
6. The following Exhibits are incorporated herein by reference:
6.1 Exhibit “A” – Not Used
6.2 Exhibit “B” – Scope of Services
BURNS`McDONNELL
6.3 Exhibit "C" — Assumptions, Clarifications & Exclusions
6.4 Exhibit "D" — Design -Builder's Phase 2 Hourly Rates
6.5 Exhibit "E" — Anticipated Lost Days to Inclement / Adverse Weather
6.6 Exhibit "F' — Prevailing Wage and Davis Bacon Wage Rates
6.7 Exhibit "G" — Allowances
6.8 Exhibit "H" — Permit and Easement Matrix
6.9 Exhibit "I" — Geotechnical Soils Report
6.10 Exhibit "J" — Schedule
6.11 Exhibit "K" — Preliminary Design Documents
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written.
OWNER:
City of Jefferson City, MO
(Na
(Signature)
/fon ilts Wa-kr
(Printed Name)
/TLIcy
(Title)
Date:
I/ ii 2024
Amendment #1
DESIGN -BU ER:
Burns &
(Name
ature)
.ems
(Printed Name)
c.) /' o A._
(Title) }�
Date: /4 4 i try /? �'2,
Com.an Inc.
3 Rev 0 — February 2, 2024
Jefferson City - Phase 2 1 Exhibit B – Scope of Services
EXHIBIT B - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The parties agree that the Design-Builder’s Scope of Services for Final Design and Construction
Services includes and is limited to the following:
2.1 Project Management:
(1) Design-Builder will host monthly project update meetings and will provide meeting
minutes with updated Action Item log.
(2) Design-Builder will host a weekly on-site construction coordination meeting with
Owner to document work completed the past week, planned work for the next week
and key interfaces between Design-Builder and Owner.
(3) Design-Builder will provide a monthly invoice and progress report that includes the
following:
(a) AIA Payment application with approved schedule of values and based on
percent complete.
(b) Progress report that will summarize progress made for that month, an updated
accounting of the estimated cost of work, project risks/issues, and progress
photos (during construction).
2.2 Engineering Services:
(1) Progress the design to Issued for Construction (IFC) after producing a deliverable
for the Owner’s review. The IFC drawings and specifications will include feedback
from Owner’s previous review of the Pre-Final documents.
(2) Submit one stamped digital copy of plans and specifications and all change
orders to MDNR for review and approval.
(3) Review and approve compliance submittals for equipment and materials to be
incorporated into the Work. Digital PDF versions of the final approved (“A”
status) equipment submittals will be provided to Owner for Owner’s information
and records.
(4) Provide engineering submittal management associated with submittals throughout
the construction period.
(5) Review third party test reports for equipment and materials to be incorporated into
the Work.
(6) Schedule four (4) site visits for structural observations (required by Code) that are
in addition to the inspections performed by a third party.
(7) Provide clarification and interpretation of the Issued for Construction design
documents throughout the construction period. (Respond to Requests for
Information [RFIs].)
(8) Visit the site throughout the construction period as needed to resolve design
changes and field issues as they arise.
(9) Revise Issued for Construction design documents as needed to support major
changes in scope during construction.
(10) Prepare a PDF set of Conformed As-Constructed design documents
incorporating changes made to the Issued for Construction design documents
Jefferson City - Phase 2 2 Exhibit B – Scope of Services
during the construction period.
(11) Complete Arc Flash Hazard Study for new electrical gear and provide labels
and documentation for proper PPE selection.
(12) Support commissioning and start-up activities as indicated in 2.5.
2.3 Procurement:
(1) Issuance and subsequent execution of supplier/vendor purchase orders.
(2) Receive, review, and process supplier/vendor payment applications, in accordance
with the terms of the purchase orders.
(3) Perform supplier/vendor purchase order administration including the review and
processing of RFIs, potential change order requests, change orders, etc.
(4) Manage equipment and material deliveries as needed to facilitate the project
schedule.
(5) Review equipment and materials delivered to the site for compliance with the IFC
documents and approved submittals prior to being implemented into the Work.
2.4 Construction Services:
(1) Facilitate site preconstruction conference.
(2) Conduct weekly construction coordination meetings with subcontractors.
(3) Receive, review, and process subcontractor payment applications.
(4) Perform subcontract administration including the review and processing of RFIs,
potential change order requests, change orders, etc.
(5) Manage Subcontractors to construct installation of the Work in accordance with
the Contract Documents.
(6) Third party services, including surveying and materials testing.
2.5 Commissioning & Start-up:
(1) Design-Builder will lead all commissioning and start-up activities as required in
the IFC documents in collaboration with the Owner, key equipment suppliers and
subcontractors.
(2) Design-Builder will prepare an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual for
the improvements.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit C – A, C and Es
EXHIBIT C – ASSUMPTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS & EXCLUSIONS
GENERAL / COMMERICAL
1. The Scope of Services, Contract Time and Contract Price are based on Exhibit K –
Preliminary Design Documents.
2. The Contract Price and Contract Times are based on the Contract being executed and
Notice to Proceed issued on or before April 1, 2024.
3. The Contract Price and Contract Times are based on a standard 5-day week working 8
hours per day.
4. Taxes including sales, use, or special use on permanent equipment and materials is not
included as a Tax Exemption Certificate has been provided by Owner to Design-Builder.
5. Compliance with the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) is not included.
6. Labor rates for all craft labor are based upon the hirer of either; a) Missouri Division of
Labor Standards Wage and Hour Section, Annual Wage Order No. 30 for Callaway
County Missouri, dated March 10, 2023 Building Construction Rates, or b) Federal
Davis-Bacon wage and fringe rates for Callaway County Missouri dated December 8,
2023 for Building Construction, attached herein.
7. COVID-19. The uncertainty and potential disruptions to the labor force and supply chain
caused by the global outbreak and spread of COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) may have an
impact on this Project, the exact cost and duration of which Design-Builder can neither
predict nor control. Government orders and restrictions may also delay or prevent
performance as anticipated. Design-Builder will be granted with a period of relief in
performance and appropriate cost relief where circumstances arise that are beyond
Design-Builder’s control, including COVID-19 related events. To the extent applicable,
the doctrines of “commercial impracticability” or “frustration of purpose” under
the Uniform Commercial Code may also excuse performance if delivery pursuant to our
contract’s terms has been made “impracticable” by the occurrence of a contingency, the
non-occurrence of which both parties assumed when the contract was made. At this time,
it is impossible to foresee or to predict the full impact of COVID-19 around the world
and, therefore, have not included price or schedule contingency specifically for COVID-
19.
8. An Owner’s Allowance has been included in the Contract Price. See Exhibit G for more
information on Owner’s Allowance. Owner’s other costs not specifically identified in the
Owner’s Allowance are not included in the Contract Price.
9. Performance & Payment Bonds are included.
10. Builder’s Risk Insurance is included.
11. Spare parts are not included, unless called out in the Exhibit K – Preliminary Design
Documents.
12. Excludes charges for consumption fees for providing utility services (water, sewer, gas,
electric). All consumption fees to be paid directly by Owner.
13. Owner will provide all water and electric for construction and testing to Design-Builder
at no cost.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 2 Exhibit C – A, C and Es
14. Permit costs have been excluded. The cost to apply for permits and fees associated with
required permits will be paid by the Owner directly to the permitting agency.
15. The Contract Price does not include meeting the MBE/WBE participation goals
established in the Agreement. The Design-Builder completed a solicitation process in
which MBE/WBE firms were encouraged to submit proposals for various project work
scopes. The Contract Price is based on the most responsible bidder that has the most
competitive price and does not meet the specific participation goals.
16. In order to expedite the Phase 2 project schedule, the Design-Builder will continue
developing the design for the demolition, site development, and building foundation prior
to the Phase 2 Amendment execution. These design services will be billed at the hourly
rates in Exhibit D and will be submitted on the Design-Builder’s first invoice following
Notice to Proceed. These services are anticipated to take place in the months of February
and March of 2024, and are part of the Design-Builder’s scope to be performed under the
Phase 2 services.
SITE CONSTRUCTION AND ACCESS
1. Owner will provide adequate material staging, parking, and lay-down space for use
during construction at the site. Design-Builder has included cost for additional stone for
the laydown area, as well as restoring disturbed areas at Project Completion.
2. Owner will provide adequate access to the site during working hours throughout the
construction period.
3. It is assumed that Design-Builder will not encounter any existing Hazards including, but
not limited to, lead, asbestos, or contaminated soils. Mitigation/abatement of all existing
hazardous substances is not included.
4. Seeding of disturbed areas is included. Landscape plantings and sodding are not included.
5. It is assumed groundwater will not be encountered in any excavations. Design-Builder
has included pumping for precipitation water only.
6. Provisions for restoration due to flooding within the regulatory floodplain or floodway
are not included. Any delays or site access limitations will be considered a force majeure
event in accordance with the General Conditions.
DEMOLITION
1. The Design-Builder has included demolition of existing aboveground structures and
existing buried structures to the extents necessary to construct the new Work. The buried
structures are not visible, and therefore, the Design-Builder has relied on as-built
documents to establish the extent of demolition necessary. If buried structures or
obstructions not identified on the as-builts are encountered, it will be considered an
unforeseen condition.
PROCESS MECHANICAL & EQUIPMENT
1. Based on review of the bids received for the process equipment, Owner and Design-
Builder have mutually agreed to use the following equipment manufacturers:
Jefferson City – Phase 2 3 Exhibit C – A, C and Es
a. Dewatering Centrifuges – Flottweg (Municipal Equipment)
b. Sludge Conveyance – Spirac (Flo-Systems)
c. Inclined Belt Conveyor – Serpentix (Haynes)
d. Lime System – Chemco (Haynes)
e. Odor Control System – PolyProcessing (Vandevanter)
f. Sludge Pumping – Netzsch (Fluid Equipment)
2. The pumps will be factory painted.
3. It is assumed that all existing gates, valves, pumps, etc. to remain are operational.
4. Design-Builder has excluded cost for first fills of chemical systems.
5. Owner will drain and clean the existing VX456 odor control tank prior to demolition of
the tank by Design-Builder.
6. It is assumed that the feed solids concentration provided by the City will have a range of
1.5% to 4% total solids at a maximum feed rate of 300 gallons per minute, correlating to
a maximum of 6,000 dry pounds per hour. These influent conditions are required to
achieve the dewatering performance requirements.
ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION, & CONTROLS
1. Based on review of the bids received for the Instrumentation, Control Panel, and System
Integration scope of work, Owner and Design Builder have mutually agreed to use
Process Control Systems, LLC for instrumentation and system integration.
2. Excludes any new security devices or systems (cameras, card readers, etc.).
3. For SCADA, the Design-Builder will provide a system that will have a main control
panel/PLC that will act as the main logic hub of the entire system but will utilize other
local process HMI's/OIT's to directly control the processes in the new biosolids building.
It will also provide two operator workstations in the lab and office, respectively, that will
have read-only access to the new biosolids building processes. However, the office
workstation will also have the ability to fully control the rest of the facility beyond the
new biosolids building from its location. SCADA provided by the Design-Builder will
only require the new system with the latest software to patch into the existing system as
needed to achieve the functionality noted. Upgrades to the existing facility system are not
included.
4. Secondary power is only being supplied to baseboard heaters and HVAC equipment
necessary to maintain ventilation during a power outage. It is assumed that secondary
power will be provided via MCC-A that is backed up by the facility’s existing generator.
5. Design-Builder has not included cost for the new electrical service to the building or the
new pad mounted transformers. Design-Builder has assumed this will be provided by the
utility (Ameren) and any cost for new service and transformers will be paid directly by
the Owner. Ameren will provide the meter socket, CT's, and PT's, and interconnecting
cable. Design-Builder will provide the CT/PT enclosure and install the meter socket,
CT's, PT's, and enclosure specified by Ameren. Ameren will provide the utility
transformer to be placed on the Design Builder-provided pad as specified by Ameren.
Design Builder will provide and install the underground conduit and cable from a stub up
point near the transformer secondary to a point near the utility CT/PT enclosure. Ameren
will continue the route and terminate wiring at both ends of this run.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 4 Exhibit C – A, C and Es
COMMISSIONING & START-UP
1. Substantial Completion will be considered achieved once the 3-day performance testing
of the centrifuges is complete as further defined in the Centrifuge specification, the
ancillary process equipment and systems are ready to be placed into continuous service,
and the building is ready for occupancy.
2. Design-Builder has assumed sludge will be readily available to feed to the centrifuges for
performance testing.
3. Design-Builder has assumed that the Owner will provide plant operations. Design-
Builder will be responsible for the start-up and commissioning of all new processes, with
the understanding that the Owner shall be responsible for operating the plant to facilitate
these start-ups.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit D - Rates
EXHIBIT D – DESIGN-BUILDER’S PHASE 2 HOURLY RATES
Position Classification Hourly
Classification Level Billing Rate
General Office * 5 $74.00
Technician * 6 $94.00
Assistant * 7 $114.00
8 $156.00
9 $186.00
Staff * 10 $211.00
11 $231.00
Senior 12 $261.00
13 $283.00
Associate 14 $291.00
15 $293.00
16 $296.00
17 $298.00
NOTES:
1. Position classifications listed above refer to the firm's internal classification system for employee compensation.
For example, "Associate", "Senior", etc., refer to such positions as "Associate Engineer", "Senior Architect", etc.
2. For any nonexempt personnel in positions marked with an asterisk (*), overtime will be billed at 1.5 times the hourly
labor billing rates shown.
3. For outside expenses incurred by Burns & McDonnell, such as authorized travel and subsistence, and for services
rendered by others such as subcontractors, the client shall pay the cost to Burns & McDonnell plus 10%.
4. A charge will be applied at a rate of $9.95 per labor hour for technology usage, software, hardware, printing &
reprographics, shipping and telecommunications. Specialty items are not included in the technology charge.
5. Monthly invoices will be submitted for payment covering services and expenses during the preceding month.
Invoices are due upon receipt. A late payment charge of 1.5% per month will be added to all amounts not paid
within 30 days of the invoice date.
6. The services of contract/agency and/or any personnel of a Burns & McDonnell parent, subsidiary or affiliate shall
be billed to Owner according to the rate sheet as if such personnel is a direct employee of Burns & McDonnell.
7. The rates shown above are effective for services through December 31, 2024, and are subject to revision
thereafter.
Form BMR24-6
Schedule of Hourly Professional Service Billing Rates
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit E –Lost Days to Weather
EXHIBIT E – ANTICPATED LOST DAYS TO INCLEMENT / ADVERSE WEATHER
The chart below provides the days per month that the Design-Builder anticipates will be lost due
to inclement / adverse weather. The days shown in this Exhibit E shall not accumulate month-to-
month but are to be used for determining only the anticipated adverse weather in a given month.
Adverse Weather shall be as defined in Article 6 of the Agreement.
Anticipated Lost Days per Month
Month Anticipated Lost
Days
January 2
February 2
March 1
April 2
May 3
June 3
July 2
August 2
September 2
October 2
November 1
December 1
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit F – Wage Rates
EXHIBIT F – PREVAILING WAGE AND DAVIS BACON WAGE RATES
Missouri
Division of Labor Standards
WAGE AND HOUR SECTION
MICHAEL L. PARSON, Governor
Annual Wage Order No. 30
Section 014
CALLAWAY COUNTY
In accordance with Section 290.262 RSMo 2000, within thirty (30) days after a certified copy of
this Annual Wage Order has been filed with the Secretary of State as indicated below, any person
who may be affected by this Annual Wage Order may object by filing an objection in triplicate
with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, P.O. Box 599, Jefferson City, MO 65102-
0599. Such objections must set forth in writing the specific grounds of objection. Each objection
shall certify that a copy has been furnished to the Division of Labor Standards, P.O. Box 449,
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0449 pursuant to 8 CSR 20-5.010(1). A certified copy of the Annual
Wage Order has been filed with the Secretary of State of Missouri.
Original Signed by
Todd Smith, Director
Division of Labor Standards
Filed With Secretary of State: March 10, 2023
Last Date Objections May Be Filed: April 10, 2023
Prepared by Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Building Construction Rates for Section 014
CALLAWAY County
OCCUPATIONAL TITLE
""Prevailing
Hourly
Rate
Asbestos Worker
$67.40
Boilermaker
$74.03
Bricklayer
$53.18
Carpenter
$50.12
Lather
Linoleum Layer
Millwright
Pile Driver
Cement Mason
$54.17
Plasterer
Communications Technician
$56.16
Electrician (Inside Wireman)
$56.66
Electrician Outside Lineman
$30.45*
Lineman Operator
Lineman - Tree Trimmer
Groundman
Groundman - Tree Trimmer
Elevator Constructor
$30.45*
Glazier
$30.45*
Ironworker
$67.02
Laborer
$42.02
General Laborer
First Semi -Skilled
Second Semi -Skilled
Mason
$30.45*
Marble Mason
Marble Finisher
Terrazzo Worker
Terrazzo Finisher
Tile Setter
Tile Finisher
Operating Engineer
$65.43
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group III -A
Group IV
Grou. V
Painter
$43.13
Plumber
$78.14
Pi se Fitter
Roofer
$59.29
Sheet Metal Worker
$55.17
Sprinkler Fitter
$64.10
Truck Driver
$44.00
Truck Control Service Driver
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
*The Division of Labor Standards received fewer than 1,000 reportable hours for this occupational title. The public works contracting
minimum wage is established for this occupational title using data provided by Missouri Economic Research and Information Center.
"'The Prevailing Hourly Rate includes any applicable fringe benefit amounts for each occupational title as defined in RSMO Section 290.210.
ANNUAL WAGE ORDER NO. 30 3/23
Heavy Construction Rates for Section 014
CALLAWAY County
OCCUPATIONAL TITLE
**Prevailing
Hourly
Rate
Carpenter
$30.45*
Millwright
Pile Driver
Electrician LOutside Lineman)
$30.45*
Lineman Operator
Lineman - Tree Trimmer
Groundman
Groundman - Tree Trimmer
Laborer
$49.67
General Laborer
Skilled Laborer
Operating Engineer
$61.46
Group I
Group II
Group I I I
Group IV
Truck Driver
$30.45*
Truck Control Service Driver
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Use Heavy Construction Rates on Highway and Heavy construction in accordance with the classifications of
construction work established in 8 CSR 30-3.040(3).
Use Building Construction Rates on Building construction in accordance with the classifications of construction
work established in 8 CSR 30-3.040(2).
If a worker is performing work on a heavy construction project within an occupational title that is not listed on the
Heavy Construction Rate Sheet, use the rate for that occupational title as shown on the Building
Construction Rate Sheet.
*The Division of Labor Standards received fewer than 1,000 reportable hours for this occupational title.
Public works contracting minimum wage is established for this occupational title using data provided by Missouri
Economic Research and Information Center.
**The Prevailing Hourly Rate includes any applicable fringe benefit amounts for each occupational title.
ANNUAL WAGE ORDER NO. 30 3/23
OVERTIME
and
HOLIDAYS
OVERTIME
For all work performed on a Sunday or a holiday, not less than twice (2x) the prevailing
hourly rate of wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the work is
performed or the public works contracting minimum wage, whichever is applicable, shall
be paid to all workers employed by or on behalf of any public body engaged in the
construction of public works, exclusive of maintenance work.
For all overtime work performed, not less than one and one-half (1 %) the prevailing
hourly rate of wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the work is
performed or the public works contracting minimum wage, whichever is applicable, shall
be paid to all workers employed by or on behalf of any public body engaged in the
construction of public works, exclusive of maintenance work or contractual obligation.
For purposes of this subdivision, "overtime work" shall include work that exceeds ten
hours in one day and work in excess of forty hours in one calendar week; and
A thirty -minute lunch period on each calendar day shall be allowed for each worker on a
public works project, provided that such time shall not be considered as time worked.
HOLIDAYS
January first;
The last Monday in May;
July fourth;
The first Monday in September;
November eleventh;
The fourth Thursday in November; and
December twenty-fifth;
If any holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be considered a holiday.
ANNUAL WAGE ORDER NO. 30 3/23
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 1/7
"General Decision Number: MO20230054 12/08/2023
Superseded General Decision Number: MO20220054
State: Missouri
Construction Type: Building
Counties: Callaway and Osage Counties in Missouri.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include single family
homes or apartments up to and including 4 stories).
Note: Contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act are generally
required to pay at least the applicable minimum wage rate
required under Executive Order 14026 or Executive Order 13658.
Please note that these Executive Orders apply to covered
contracts entered into by the federal government that are
subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but do not apply to
contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts,
including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(2)-(60).
______________________________________________________________
|If the contract is entered |. Executive Order 14026 |
|into on or after January 30, | generally applies to the |
|2022, or the contract is | contract. |
|renewed or extended (e.g., an |. The contractor must pay |
|option is exercised) on or | all covered workers at |
|after January 30, 2022: | least $16.20 per hour (or |
| | the applicable wage rate |
| | listed on this wage |
| | determination, if it is |
| | higher) for all hours |
| | spent performing on the |
| | contract in 2023. |
|______________________________|_____________________________|
|If the contract was awarded on|. Executive Order 13658 |
|or between January 1, 2015 and| generally applies to the |
|January 29, 2022, and the | contract. |
|contract is not renewed or |. The contractor must pay all|
|extended on or after January | covered workers at least |
|30, 2022: | $12.15 per hour (or the |
| | applicable wage rate listed|
| | on this wage determination,|
| | if it is higher) for all |
| | hours spent performing on |
| | that contract in 2023. |
|______________________________|_____________________________|
The applicable Executive Order minimum wage rate will be
adjusted annually. If this contract is covered by one of the
Executive Orders and a classification considered necessary for
performance of work on the contract does not appear on this
wage determination, the contractor must still submit a
conformance request.
Additional information on contractor requirements and worker
protections under the Executive Orders is available at
http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.
Modification Number Publication Date
0 01/06/2023
1 01/13/2023
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 2/7
2 01/20/2023
3 03/24/2023
4 04/14/2023
5 06/30/2023
6 09/08/2023
7 10/13/2023
8 12/08/2023
ASBE0001-005 10/03/2022
Rates Fringes
ASBESTOS WORKER/HEAT & FROST
INSULATOR........................$ 43.73 26.29
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOIL0027-001 01/01/2021
Rates Fringes
BOILERMAKER......................$ 38.37 33.66
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRMO0011-002 03/01/2022
Rates Fringes
BRICKLAYER.......................$ 31.60 20.41
TILE SETTER......................$ 31.60 20.41
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARP0010-010 05/01/2023
Rates Fringes
CARPENTER (Including Form
Work)............................$ 29.51 21.25
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEC0257-001 03/01/2023
Rates Fringes
ELECTRICIAN......................$ 37.00 20.88
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEV0003-001 01/01/2023
Rates Fringes
ELEVATOR MECHANIC................$ 57.69 37.335+a+b
a. VACATION: Employer contributes 8% of basic hourly rate as
vacation pay credit for more than 5 years of service; and
6% for 6 months to 5 years of service.
b. PAID HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day,the Friday
after Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENGI0513-002 05/01/2023
Rates Fringes
Power equipment operators:
Backhoe/Excavator...........$ 34.61 29.50
Bobcat/Skid Loader..........$ 34.61 29.50
Crane.......................$ 34.61 29.50
Forklift....................$ 34.61 29.50
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 3/7
Grader/Blade................$ 34.61 29.50
Loader......................$ 34.61 29.50
Paver.......................$ 34.61 29.50
Roller......................$ 34.61 29.50
----------------------------------------------------------------
* IRON0396-003 08/02/2023
Rates Fringes
IRONWORKER, ORNAMENTAL,
REINFORCING AND STRUCTURAL.......$ 40.37 30.55
----------------------------------------------------------------
LABO0840-007 03/01/2023
OSAGE COUNTY
Rates Fringes
LABORER
Brick & Cement/Concrete
Mason Tender................$ 30.40 14.84
Common or General; Asphalt
Shoveler; Pipelayer.........$ 28.50 14.84
----------------------------------------------------------------
LABO0955-009 03/01/2023
CALLAWAY COUNTY
Rates Fringes
LABORER
Brick & Cement/Concrete
Mason Tender................$ 28.95 15.59
Common or General; Asphalt
Shoveler; Pipelayer.........$ 26.95 15.59
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAIN0002-005 04/01/2023
Rates Fringes
PAINTER: Brush and Roller.......$ 26.49 15.03
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLAS0518-014 03/01/2023
Rates Fringes
CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 30.22 15.38
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLUM0562-002 07/01/2023
Rates Fringes
PIPEFITTER, Includes HVAC
Pipe Installation
Mechanical Contracts
including all piping and
temperature control work
$7.0 million & under........$ 46.66 21.99
Mechanical Contracts
including all piping and
temperature control work
over $7.0 million...........$ 46.66 21.99
PLUMBER, Excludes HVAC Pipe
Installation
Mechanical Contracts
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 4/7
including all piping and
temperature control work
$7.0 million & under........$ 46.66 21.99
Mechanical Contracts
including all piping and
temperature control work
over $7.0 million...........$ 46.66 21.99
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROOF0020-012 09/19/2023
Rates Fringes
ROOFER...........................$ 33.60 19.99
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEE0036-002 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
SHEET METAL WORKER, Includes
HVAC Duct and Unit
Installation.....................$ 34.54 20.46
----------------------------------------------------------------
* SUMO2010-053 06/14/2010
Rates Fringes
GLAZIER..........................$ 14.84 ** 1.02
OPERATOR: Hoist.................$ 26.02 13.01
PAINTER: Spray..................$ 17.78 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing
operation to which welding is incidental.
================================================================
** Workers in this classification may be entitled to a higher
minimum wage under Executive Order 14026 ($16.20) or 13658
($12.15). Please see the Note at the top of the wage
determination for more information.
Note: Executive Order (EO) 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave
for Federal Contractors applies to all contracts subject to the
Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any
solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2017. If this
contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must provide
employees with 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours
they work, up to 56 hours of paid sick leave each year.
Employees must be permitted to use paid sick leave for their
own illness, injury or other health-related needs, including
preventive care; to assist a family member (or person who is
like family to the employee) who is ill, injured, or has other
health-related needs, including preventive care; or for reasons
resulting from, or to assist a family member (or person who is
like family to the employee) who is a victim of, domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Additional information
on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO
is available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.
Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within
the scope of the classifications listed may be added after
award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 5/7
(29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)).
----------------------------------------------------------------
The body of each wage determination lists the classification
and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the
cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage
determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical
order of ""identifiers"" that indicate whether the particular
rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local),
a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate
(weighted union average rate).
Union Rate Identifiers
A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed
in dotted lines beginning with characters other than ""SU"" or
""UAVG"" denotes that the union classification and rate were
prevailing for that classification in the survey. Example:
PLUM0198-005 07/01/2014. PLUM is an abbreviation identifier of
the union which prevailed in the survey for this
classification, which in this example would be Plumbers. 0198
indicates the local union number or district council number
where applicable, i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number,
005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing
the wage determination. 07/01/2014 is the effective date of the
most current negotiated rate, which in this example is July 1,
2014.
Union prevailing wage rates are updated to reflect all rate
changes in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing
this classification and rate.
Survey Rate Identifiers
Classifications listed under the ""SU"" identifier indicate that
no one rate prevailed for this classification in the survey and
the published rate is derived by computing a weighted average
rate based on all the rates reported in the survey for that
classification. As this weighted average rate includes all
rates reported in the survey, it may include both union and
non-union rates. Example: SULA2012-007 5/13/2014. SU indicates
the rates are survey rates based on a weighted average
calculation of rates and are not majority rates. LA indicates
the State of Louisiana. 2012 is the year of survey on which
these classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007
in the example, is an internal number used in producing the
wage determination. 5/13/2014 indicates the survey completion
date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.
Survey wage rates are not updated and remain in effect until a
new survey is conducted.
Union Average Rate Identifiers
Classification(s) listed under the UAVG identifier indicate
that no single majority rate prevailed for those
classifications; however, 100% of the data reported for the
classifications was union data. EXAMPLE: UAVG-OH-0010
08/29/2014. UAVG indicates that the rate is a weighted union
average rate. OH indicates the state. The next number, 0010 in
the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage
determination. 08/29/2014 indicates the survey completion date
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 6/7
for the classifications and rates under that identifier.
A UAVG rate will be updated once a year, usually in January of
each year, to reflect a weighted average of the current
negotiated/CBA rate of the union locals from which the rate is
based.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS
1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can
be:
* an existing published wage determination
* a survey underlying a wage determination
* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on
a wage determination matter
* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling
On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests
for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour
National Office because National Office has responsibility for
the Davis-Bacon survey program. If the response from this
initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described
in 2.) and 3.) should be followed.
With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal
process described here, initial contact should be with the
Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:
Branch of Construction Wage Determinations
Wage and Hour Division
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an
interested party (those affected by the action) can request
review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator
(See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to:
Wage and Hour Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the
interested party's position and by any information (wage
payment data, project description, area practice material,
etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue.
3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an
interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative
Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:
Administrative Review Board
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final.
12/18/23, 3:39 PM SAM.gov
https://sam.gov/wage-determination/MO20230054/8 7/7
================================================================
END OF GENERAL DECISION
"
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit G – Allowances
EXHIBIT G – ALLOWANCES
The parties have agreed to establish the following Allowance Items and Allowance Values.
Allowance items are elements of work that are identified to potentially occur, but it cannot be
determined if they will occur or the magnitude of the occurrence, so they are not included in the
Design-Builder’s current Scope of Work. The Allowance Value is the value which the parties
have agreed to establish for an Allowance Item in accordance with Article 7.7 of the Agreement.
If Allowances are utilized, the Design-Builder shall be compensated for the actual cost of the
allowance item. Design-Builder and Owner shall agree to the compensation method prior to work
being performed. It is noted that use of an Allowance may also require a schedule adjustment in
certain situations.
1. Valve Replacement, $50,000: This Allowance Item is established to fund the replacement
of an existing buried valve near Gravity Thickener #1. This valve is on a scum line that
transfers scum from Gravity Thickener #1 to the basement scum pumps. The valve is
currently inoperable.
2. Existing SCADA Upgrades, $100,000: This Allowance Item is established to fund
upgrades to the existing SCADA system at the existing facility.
3. Equipment preferences, $100,000: This Allowance Item is established to fund the
additional charges associated with Owner preferred accessories and options on equipment
that are not currently described in Exhibit K.
4. Unforeseen Conditions, $50,000: This Allowance Item is established to fund differing site
conditions that may be encountered through execution of the work. Examples of these
items include, but are not limited to, the presence of unmarked utilities or existing utilities
that were not previously identified in the Contract Documents, actual existing tie-in
locations differ from what is shown on the Contract Documents, unforeseen underground
obstructions that have not been previously identified, additional work at tie-in locations
due to poor quality of existing piping, inoperable/malfunctioning existing valves, slide
gates, etc.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit H – Permit & Easement Matrix
EXHIBIT H – PERMIT & EASEMENT MATRIX
The project is anticipated to require the permits listed in Table 1 and the Easements listed in Table 2.
Table 1: Anticipated Permits Required
Anticipated Permit Administering Agency Assumed Agency
Review Timeline
Party Responsible for
Obtaining Permit
Building Permit City of Jefferson TBD Owner
Floodplain Development
Permit
City of Jefferson /
Callaway County
30-60 days Owner
Structure Height
Notification (Form 7460-1)
and Supplemental Notice
(Form 7460-2)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
45-90 days Design-Builder
Table 2: Anticipated Easements Required
Parcel ID/Address Approximate Size
(SF)
Type Party Responsible for
Obtaining Easements
All work is within City of Jefferson owned property and no easements are required.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit I – Geotechnical Soils Report
EXHIBIT I – GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION, SOIL ANALYSIS AND
CONSTRUCTINON CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
PREPARED FOR:
BURNS & MCDONNELL
425 S. WOODS MILL RD., SUITE 300
CHESTERFIELD, MO ZIP 63017
ATTN: MIKE CANULL
OCTOBER 13, 2023
PREPARED BY:
Engineering Surveys & Services
1113 FAY STREET
COLUMBIA, MO 65201
573-449-2646
MISSOURI ENGINEERING CORPORATION NUMBER 2004005018
COLUMBIA ♦ JEFFERSON CITY ♦ SEDALIA
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
October 13, 2023
Mr. Mike Canull
Burns & McDonnell RE: Geotechnical Engineering
425 S. Woods Mill Rd., Suite 300 Biosolids Improvements at Regional
Chesterfield, MO 64105 Water Reclamation Facility - Revision
Jefferson City, Missouri
Dear Mr. Canull:
We have conducted a subsurface investigation and evaluated subsurface conditions for the above
referenced project. The following report includes the results of the investigation, evaluation of
existing site conditions, and our recommendations regarding foundation design and construction
considerations.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project and anticipate inquiries during the
design phase. We stand ready to assist during the design phase and through construction with a full
range of construction-oriented engineering, surveying, and laboratory services. If we can be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Prepared by,
Randall A. Lee, PE, RG
Reviewed by,
Joshua D. Lehmen, PE
VP Laboratory & Field Services
Enclosures
cc: Canull
www.ess-inc.com
Columbia | 573-449-2646
Sedalia | 660-826-8618
Jefferson City | 573-636-3303
10/13/23
10/13/23
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................I
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1
2 PROJECT SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 2
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROJECT ............................................................................. 2
3.1 Site Location .............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Site Description, Topography, and Drainage.............................................................................................. 3
4 GEOLOGY OF AREA .............................................................................................................. 3
4.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Holocene Alluvium .................................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Ordovician Deposits .................................................................................................................................. 3
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 3
5.1 Drilling ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Field Tests and Measurements .................................................................................................................. 4
6 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................. 4
7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 6
7.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
7.2 Description of Subsurface Materials .......................................................................................................... 6
7.3 Utilities...................................................................................................................................................... 6
7.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 6
8 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ........................................................... 7
8.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
8.2 SEISMIC LOADING ........................................................................................................................................... 7
8.3 Site Grading............................................................................................................................................... 7
8.4 Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7
8.4.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
8.4.2 Shallow Foundations .................................................................................................................................... 8
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
ii
8.4.3 Deep Foundations – Auger Cast Piles ........................................................................................................... 8
8.4.4 L-Pile Parameters ......................................................................................................................................... 9
8.5 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................................. 11
8.6 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................................... 12
8.7 Floor Slab Design ..................................................................................................................................... 14
8.8 Corrosion ................................................................................................................................................ 14
8.9 Pavement Design and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 14
9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 15
9.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................................... 15
9.2 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................................................ 15
9.3 Shallow Foundation Excavation and Construction ................................................................................... 16
9.4 Construction Fill and Backfill ................................................................................................................... 16
9.5 Auger-Cast Piles ...................................................................................................................................... 16
9.6 Climatic Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 17
10 WARRANTIES AND LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................... 17
11 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 18
11.1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................ 19
11.2 Summary of laboratory test results ......................................................................................................... 20
11.3 Core Photograph ..................................................................................................................................... 35
11.4 Plan of boring locations ........................................................................................................................... 37
11.5 Symbols and terms .................................................................................................................................. 39
11.6 Boring logs .............................................................................................................................................. 41
11.7 Liquification Reports ............................................................................................................................... 51
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A subsurface investigation has been performed for the upgrades to the Jefferson City Regional Water
Reclamation Facility in Jefferson City, Callaway County, Missouri. The project consists of the addition of a
Dewatering Building, Lime Silo, and other miscellaneous equipment pads to the Regional Water Reclamation
Facility. The structures are located on the west side of the treatment plant.
Dewatering Building - The preliminary plans indicate that the new structure will be slab-on-grade and
approximately 74 feet by 50 feet in plan. Although construction type for the Dewatering Building has yet to
be determined; column loads are anticipated to be around 40 kips, wall loads around 4,000 pounds per linear
foot (plf) and interior slab-on-grade loads of around 1,000 psf. The finished floor elevations will be around
557 feet for the main building and 553 feet for the drive-thru area.
Lime Silo – The lime silo will be located east of the Dewatering Building and be approximately 12 feet in
diameter and 46 feet high. It is anticipated that the loaded silo will be 150 kips and founded on a mat
foundation system.
Other various equipment – other equipment is anticipated to be founded on mat foundations with loads less
than 1000 psf.
The project site is located on the Missouri River bottoms, approximately 0.75 miles North of the City of
Jefferson City, Missouri and just south of the Jefferson City Airport. The site is bordered to the north and
east by Aviation Drive, to the south by Mokane Road, and to the west by agricultural land.
A total of three borings were drilled for this project. One boring (B2) was drilled within the footprint of the
proposed Dewatering Building, two were drilled just outside the building, one north and one south of the
building. The boring revealed a thin layer of vegetative cover over approximately 10 feet of undocumented
fill underlain by native sandy soils. The sandy soils continued until the termination of drilling at depths
ranging from 97.0 to 99.0 where bedrock was encountered. Drilling in Boring B2 was advanced in the
Ordovician age bedrock to a depth of 107.25 feet with NX coring equipment. Traces of groundwater were
encountered in boring B1 at depths of 10 and 25.5 feet, Boring B2 around 23 feet, and B3 around 26 feet.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 29 feet in boring B1 at approximately 24 hours after drilling.
To meet the proposed finished floor elevations, site grading will require two to three feet of fill in the
southwest corner of the Dewatering building and up to two feet of cut for the drive-thru area. Due to the
presence of the undocumented fill, we recommend that to a depth of four feet below the existing grade,
within and extending to 5 feet outside the building pad and under the proposed lime silo, be removed and
replaced as compacted engineered fill. The existing material can be used as part of the engineered fill. This
will provide a uniform base for the slabs-on-grade.
Considering the relatively light loads of the proposed structures we recommend the use of shallow spread
footings for the Dewatering building and shallow mat foundations for the Lime Silo and equipment pads.
Shallow and mat foundations should be sized for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure 2,000 psf. The
allowable values are based on a safety factor of 2.5. Total settlement is expected to be less than one inch
with differential settlement less than 0.5 inches.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 2
ES&S Job # L14934
The exploration and analysis of the foundation conditions are considered to be in sufficient detail and scope
to form a reasonable basis for design. The recommendations submitted are based on the results of our
geotechnical investigation and analysis, and typical foundation loads for similar structures.
This summary should be used in combination with the complete report for design considerations. Additional
information and details on the investigation and recommendations, not mentioned in this summary, are
contained within the report.
2 PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of the investigation included a reconnaissance of the site, a review of all available subsurface data
in the vicinity, a subsurface investigation consisting of three soil and rock borings to depths ranging from 97.0
to 107.25 feet, laboratory soil testing, and an engineering analysis and evaluation of the foundation materials
present at the site.
The purpose of the investigation was to determine the types of subsurface materials present at the site likely
to be encountered or affected by the proposed construction; to determine the general engineering
characteristics of the various materials; to determine the seismic site class according to the 2018
International Building Codes; and to provide a basis for recommendations regarding bearing capacity and
compressibility of the foundation and subgrade materials.
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROJECT
3.1 SITE LOCATION
The project site is located on the Missouri River bottoms, approximately 0.75 miles North of the City of
Jefferson City, Missouri and just south of the Jefferson City Airport. The site is bordered to the north and
east by Aviation Drive, to the south by Mokane Road, and to the west by agricultural land. Specifically, the
project at Latitude 38.589245⁰, Longitude -92.166023⁰ (See Vicinity Map in Appendix).
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the addition of a Dewatering Building, Lime Silo, and other miscellaneous equipment
pads to the Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The structures are located on the west side of the treatment
plant.
Dewatering Building - The preliminary plans indicate that the new structure will be slab-on-grade and
approximately 74 feet by 50 feet in plan. Although construction type for the Dewatering Building has yet to
be determined; column loads are anticipated to be around 40 kips, wall loads around 4,000 pounds per linear
foot (plf) and interior slab-on-grade loads of around 1,000 psf. The finished floor elevations will be around
557 feet for the main building and 553 feet for the drive through.
Lime Silo – The lime silo will be located east of the Dewatering Building and be approximately 12 feet in
diameter and 33 feet high. It is anticipated that the loaded silo will be 150 kips and founded on a mat
foundation system.
Other various equipment – other equipment is anticipated to be founded on mat foundations with loads less
than 1000 psf.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 3
ES&S Job # L14934
3.3 SITE DESCRIPTION, TOPOGRAPHY, AND DRAINAGE
The project site lies on the edge of the Missouri River Alluvial Floodplain. The property has been used as
landscape area for the Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The building pad can best be described
relatively flat with approximately three feet of vertical relief across the pad. Just west of the proposed
building pad the site drops down approximately 5 feet at a 5:1 slope. Site drainage is handled by infiltration
and runoff to the west.
Historic photographs of the site indicate that the area previously contained equipment pads for flood pumps
and generators that were removed between the years 2002 and 2005. Additionally, the gravity thickener that
lies directly to the north was built around 1998.
4 GEOLOGY OF AREA
4.1 GENERAL
The Jefferson City Regional Water Reclamation Facility is located in the Lower Missouri River Alluvial Plain
landform subsection of the Ozark Border section of the Ozark Highland Physiologic Landform. The geology
of the area is characterized by alluvial sands and clays. The alluvial sands are underlain by Ordovician age
Jefferson City Dolomite bedrock.
4.2 HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM
The project site lies in alluvial soils of the Lower Missouri River Alluvial Plain. Alluvial soils include soil particles
suspended in rivers and streams and carried overland during high water, eventually settling out and
depositing in the floodplains as flood waters recede. Alluvial deposits typically have low to moderate shear
strength and are moderately to highly compressible but may vary dependent upon site specific conditions.
Organic material is common in alluvial deposits. Drilling logs indicate that the thickness of this stratum ranges
between 90 to 100 feet.
4.3 ORDOVICIAN DEPOSITS
The alluvium in this area is underlain by the Ordovician age Jefferson City Formation. The Jefferson City
formation consists of dolomite, argillaceous dolomite, sandstone, and some thin shales. The lithologies may
be thinly bedded with weathered seams of residual clay and are susceptible to groundwater movement.
Karst features may be present with dimensions that vary from a few inches to tens of feet, and may be filled
with younger, undifferentiated and variably lithified deposits of sand, gravel, or clay. Typical karst features
can include sinkholes, pinnacled surfaces, variably weathered surfaces, and solution channels. Borings B1
and B3 were terminated at the top of this stratum. Boring B2 was cored 10 feet into this stratum.
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION
A field investigation consisting of a site reconnaissance, a review of subsurface records for the area, and the
drilling of soil borings performed between June 20 and 23, 2023. The field investigation and the site
reconnaissance were performed in accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM D420.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 4
ES&S Job # L14934
5.1 DRILLING
The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 97.0 to 107.25 feet. Drilling was advanced to depths
ranging from 24 to 26 feet using 4-inch solid stem augers. At depths between 24 and 26 feet the borings
were advanced using wash boring techniques with a 3.75-inch diameter bit until the termination of drilling
between the depths of 97 and 99 feet in borings B1 and B3, respectively. At a depth of 97.25 feet, Boring B2
advanced 10 feet into the underlying rock layer with NX size coring equipment. Boring locations are shown
on the plan of boring locations included in the Appendix of this report. Disturbed samples were obtained
from auger cuttings or using a split-barrel sampler in accordance with ASTM D1586. Undisturbed samples
were obtained using 3-inch O.D. thin-walled sampling procedures in accordance with ASTM D1587.
Drilling was monitored by an engineer from this firm. The engineer provided technical directions, logged the
boring, performed field tests, and prepared and transported the samples to the laboratory for testing.
5.2 FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS
The boring locations were provided by Burns & McDonnell. The boring locations were staked by a survey
crew from this firm. Elevations are assumed accurate to within ± 0.2 feet. Field observations are detailed in
the boring log included in the Appendix of this report.
Field measurements including shear strength determinations using a hand-held torvane shear device and a
hand-held pocket penetrometer were not possible due to the nature of the subsurface soils. Water level
observations were made at the time of drilling. All borings, except for B1, were backfilled immediately after
drilling. Boring B1 was backfilled 24 hours later. Field observations are detailed in the boring log in the
Appendix of this report.
6 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
In conjunction with the field investigation, a laboratory investigation was conducted on the sampled
materials to determine the engineering properties needed to analyze and predict foundation and subgrade
performance. The laboratory investigation included supplementary visual classification, unconsolidated
undrained triaxial tests, Atterberg Limits, water content tests and particle size analysis tests. All tests were
performed by this firm in accordance with appropriate ASTM procedures. Results may be found in the
Appendix of this report.
Laboratory tests performed on soil samples retrieved during the field investigation provided a range of
results. The natural moisture contents of the soils were found to range from 10 to 15 percent. The dry density
of the undisturbed samples from the single UU Triaxial test was 111 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The cohesion
was 0.8 tons per square foot (tsf) at 3 psi confining cell pressure. Only two Atterberg Limits were run since
the material appeared similar across the site. The Atterberg liquid limits were 26 percent for both tests while
the plastic limits ranged from 17 to 18 percent, giving plasticity indices from 8 to 9. This indicates the tested
soils have a low to moderate plasticity.
Additionally, three soil samples were tested for pH, resistivity and sulfate content to aid in determining the
corrosivity of the soils encountered at probable construction depths.
The pH of the samples ranged between 8.0 and 8.2, resistivities ranged between 3,000 and 5,000 ohms/cm,
and soluble sulfate contents ranged between 1.4 and 8.1 ppm. The results reveal that the pH and sulfate
content in all three soil samples are rather benign. However, the soil resistivity of all three samples indicated
that the native and fill soils have a corrosive to moderately corrosive potential. The tests provided the
following results:
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 5
ES&S Job # L14934
Boring/Sample Depth (ft) pH Resistivity (Ω-cm) Sulfate (ppm)
B1-SS3 4.0-5.5 8.0 3,300 3.3
B2-ST2 3.0-5.0 8.2 3,300 8.1
B2-ST3 7.5-9.5 8.0 5,000 1.4
B3-SS3 3.0-5.0 8.1 3,300 5.9
Particle size analysis indicates that the materials encountered below the depth of 27 feet were predominantly
sands and gravels with the sand and gravel content ranging between 83 and 97 percent. Gravel was
encountered at a depth of 42 feet and generally tended to increase with depth to a high of 50.6 % at a depth
of 92 feet. The clay/silt content of the upper 27 feet ranged from 67.5% in the upper 6 feet to approximately
1.6% at a depth between 16 to 18 feet. The particle size analysis also revealed that the sands were mainly
poorly graded and medium to fine grained. Below the depth of “mudding up” there appears to be a residual
quantity of fines from the drilling mud.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Boring B2
Sample Depth, ft Gravel, % Sand, % Silt, % Clay, %
ST2 3.0-5.0 0 32.5 47.7 19.8
ST3 7.5-9.5 0 67.2 27.4 5.4
SS4 12.5-13.5 0 71.6 24.4 4.0
ST5 16.0-18.0 0 96.0 1.6 2.3
SS6 23.0-24.5 0 2.9 62.4 34.7
SS7 27.0-28.5 0 83.9 12.5 3.6
SS8 32.0-33.5 0 95.9 0.8 3.3
SS10 42.0-43.5 1.6 95.4 3.0 *
SS12 52.0-53.5 0 95.3 2.2 2.5
SS14 62.0-63.5 14.1 83.2 2.7 *
SS16 72.0-73.5 46.0 51.2 2.8 *
SS18 82.0-83.5 18.7 78.3 3.0 *
SS20 92.0-93.5 50.6 47.5 1.9 *
* = Material Finer Than a #200 Sieve (Clay & Silt Combined)
Samples appear to have approximately 2% finer than a #200
sieve that may be remnants of the drilling fluid.
Mud drilling started at approximately a depth of 24
feet. Gradation Based on UCS System:
Gravel: Greater than 4.75 mm
Sand: 4.75 to 0.75 mm
Silt: 0.75 to 0.002 mm
Clay: Less than 0.002 mm
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 6
ES&S Job # L14934
7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
7.1 GENERAL
The materials encountered during the subsurface investigation were visually classified according to ASTM
D2488. The materials encountered during the field investigation are described in detail in the Boring Log
included in the Appendix of this report. The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries, and the
transition may be gradual.
7.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS
The subsurface conditions were typical of an alluvial environment. A thin layer of vegetative cover was
encountered in borings B1 through B3. Generally, the subsurface soils contained of 8 to 10 feet of a manmade
fill for borings B1 thru B3 that was underlain by native silty to sandy soils with varying amounts of clay. Due
to the nature of the soils, it is difficult to differentiate the distinction between native and fill material. The
fill was described as dark brown and dark gray to brown and gray in color, moist and firm in consistency. The
fill soils encountered in the upper 10 feet are considered undocumented fill since no records of monitoring
of the placement could be found. The fill is believed to originally been placed to raise the site during the
construction of the Regional Water Reclamation Facility; although some of it may have been removed and
replaced during the construction of the gravity thickener just to the north around 1997. Overall, it appears
that the existing fill has been in place for well over 25 years.
Underlying the fill soils, native alluvial sands were encountered. The alluvial sands were described as brown
and grayish brown in color, moist to wet, loose to dense in relative density, subangular to rounded and
predominately fine to medium grained, although, the grain size tended to get coarser at depth. Drilling was
terminated at the top of the bedrock interface at depths of 97.0 and 95.5 for borings B1 and B3, respectively.
Boring B2 encountered Ordovician bedrock at a depth of 97.25 feet and then was cored 10 feet into the
dolomitic bedrock. The Ordovician dolomite was described as gray to dark gray in color, fine to coarse
crystalline and extremely vuggy. According to the University of Missouri’s Extension web site “All Things
Missouri”, the soils in this area are considered liquefiable under the proper seismic conditions. The web site
uses data compiled by the USGS and MO DNR.
7.3 UTILITIES
Water and electric utilities were marked within the project area. Being that the site is within the Regional
Water Reclamation Facility, the encountering of utilities should be expected and planned for accordingly.
Any abandoned utility trenches should be backfilled following the engineered fill section of this report.
7.4 GROUNDWATER
Traces of groundwater were encountered at depths ranging from 10 to 26 feet in all three borings. Actual
groundwater level could not be determined at the time of drilling due to the use of the wash bore drilling
method starting at depths ranging from 23 to 26 feet. A static ground water depth of 29 feet was observed
in boring B1 at approximately 24 hours after drilling, this corresponds roughly with the river surface elevation.
Groundwater is not expected to affect the construction of the proposed structures. The groundwater
appears to be primarily associated with the sand of the alluvial soils. The exact location of the groundwater
surface should be expected to fluctuate depending on normal seasonal variations in precipitation and other
climatic conditions, surface runoff, permeability of on-site soils, continuity of pervious material, and other
factors.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 7
ES&S Job # L14934
8 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
8.1 GENERAL
The engineering analysis and recommendations which follow are based upon the results of a geotechnical
investigation, analysis, and the preliminary design information for the Regional Water Reclamation Facility
upgrades. If the project scope is altered appreciably or differing geotechnical conditions are encountered
than those noted in the boring logs, a review of the changes or conditions is recommended to determine
their impact upon design. It is recommended that a qualified geotechnical engineer observe the construction
of the foundation system and the bearing surfaces of all shallow ancillary foundations immediately after
excavation and prior to concrete placement to verify the suitability of the bearing surface and bearing
material.
8.2 SEISMIC LOADING
In the design of the proposed structures the following seismic parameters may be used. These parameters
are based on the 2018 International Building Codes and ASCE7-16 and are site specific.
1. Site Class E
2. Mapped Spectral Response, Short Periods (Ss) 0.193
3. Mapped Spectral Response, Short Periods (S1) 0.106
4. Site Coefficient as a Function of Ss (Fa) 2.4
5. Site Coefficient as a Function of S1 (Fv) 4.2
8.3 SITE GRADING
Site grading is anticipated to be minimal, consisting primarily of two to three feet of fill in the main dewatering
building and up to two feet of cut for the drive-thru area of the dewatering building. A review of the triaxial
results as well as the SPT blow counts and the length of time that the fill has been in place indicates that the
existing undocumented fill appears to be fairly well compacted and most of it should be able to remain in
place. However, to provide a uniform base for the slabs-on-grade and the mat foundation of the Lime Silo,
it is recommended that to a depth of four feet below the existing grade, within and extending to 5 feet outside
the building pad and under the proposed lime silo, be removed and replaced as compacted engineered fill.
The existing material can be used as part of the engineered fill.
Any imported fill material used in the upper two (2) feet of subgrade within the proposed structures should
consist of low volume change (LVC) material. Low volume change material is defined as soils having an
Atterberg liquid limit less than 50 and a plastic index less than 30 or granular fill material with a minimum of
5% fines to help develop a moisture/density relationship. The on-site soil materials meet this criterion and
the recommended granular material is readily available at local quarries.
8.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4.1 General
The three foundation system alternatives were considered for this project; shallow, intermediate, and deep;
however, due to the relatively light anticipated loads, a shallow foundation system was deemed the best
viable option although the design parameter for a deep foundation system consisting of auger-cast piles is
also presented.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 8
ES&S Job # L14934
8.4.2 Shallow Foundations
Shallow foundations bearing on the existing soils may be sized for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure
of 2,000 psf for both continuous and isolated foundations. Settlement is expected to occur rather quickly
during construction with total settlement less than one inch and differential settlement less than 0.5 inches.
It is recommended for a shallow foundation the footings bear a minimum of 36 inches below adjacent
finished grade for frost protection.
8.4.3 Deep Foundations – Auger Cast Piles
An alternative to a shallow/matt foundation system is an auger-cast pile system. Auger-cast piles will require
the installation of a group of piles at each column location. Groups will consist of two or more piles topped
with a pile cap to tie the piles together. And to provide a uniform load transfer mechanism between the
column, grade beams, and the foundation system.
Auger-cast piles can be installed in a variety of diameters, commonly 12 to 24 inches. Piles should penetrate
all gravel and extend to the design plan depth. Auger-cast piles are generally designed and installed by
specialty, design build contractors, however the following auger-cast pile parameters can be used by the
specialty contractor for preliminary design purposes. Since sand was the predominate material encountered
at this site, cohesionless bearing equations were used to provide the design values for the piles. The ultimate
end and skin friction values presented below were calculated using the FHWA (Reese and O’Neill) method.
The critical length generally ranged between 10B and 20B, where B is the pile diameter, and is related to the
relative density of the penetrated material. 20B is commonly used as the critical depth for medium to dense
sands. Below the critical depth, the skin friction is constant per unit depth. For the values below, critical
depth is based on a 14-inch diameter pile and a critical depth of 52 feet. For the provided loads, settlement
is anticipated to be less than one inch for both individual and pile groups. Should the auger-cast pile extend
to the underlying bedrock, to help control liquefaction, an ultimate end bearing pressure of 22 tsf may be
used bearing if bearing at the top of bedrock. An ultimate end bearing pressure of 60 tsf may be used if the
pile is socketed into sound, solid bedrock. We do not recommend that the upper 5 feet of subgrade be
included in skin friction calculations due to potential disturbance during construction. Uplift capacity is
generally taken as approximately 60 percent of the axial compression load.
Boring B2
Utilized for
Analysis
Layer
Description
Top Depth
(ft)
Bottom
Depth (ft)
Ave. Blow
Count
(N60)
Qp
End Bearing
Ultimate
(tsf)
Qs
Skin
Friction
Ultimate
(tsf) 0 5 NA - -
Clay/Sand 5 7 11 8.6 1.1
Sand 7 29 9 4.6 0.9
Below WT Sand 29 52 16 9.6 1.2
Critical Depth Sand 52 97 11 7.1 1.3
Bedrock
Weathered 97 101 0/50 22 3.0
Bedrock 101 60 8.6
Water
Trace 23 feet (At time of drilling)
Table 29 feet (24-hour reading)
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 9
ES&S Job # L14934
* The above values do not include any Factors of Safety or the effects of settlement.
The above values provide rough values for preliminary design; however, the final design capacities should be
determined by the specialty installation contractor. Pile groups should be sized according to the chosen pile
diameter and allowable skin and end-bearing capacity. Although it is recommended that one pile diameter
be used for the entire job, previous experience on other projects that at least two different sizes have been
used successfully at similar sites. The piles should be installed no closer than 2.5 diameters apart, center to
center, with 3 diameters being recommended. We also recommend at least one pile load test for each
diameter of auger cast pile used. Additional auger-cast pile recommendations are provided in the
Construction Considerations section of this report.
8.4.4 L-Pile Parameters
It is our understanding that as a result of the shear and bending moment loads on the foundations, a L-Pile
analysis will be performed for the final foundation design. Although it is general practice to recommend
limited or no lateral support in the top 5 feet for pile/pier analysis in this area, we have only observed frost
depths as deep as 3 feet in extremely cold winters. As such, we recommend that at least the upper 3 feet of
subgrade be modeled to provide little or no lateral support due to the actions of freeze/thaw. The L-Pile
parameters provided below are the recommended inputs for the 2022.12.10 version software.
Material Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Material Property Med.
Clay
Sand
(Low
Density)
Sand –
Submerged1
(Low
Density)
Sand
(Medium
Density)
Sand –
Submerged1
(Medium
Density)
Sand
(High
Density)
Sand –
Submerged1
(High
Density)
Soft
(Weak)
Rock
Limestone
/Dolomite
- Vuggy
Eff. Unit Weight,
pcf 120 110 48 119 56 140 77 135 150
Cohesion, psf 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
Friction Angle, deg 23 30 30 33 33 36 36 - -
ε50 0.010 - - - - - - k r m =
0.0005 -
k (pci) 100 25 20 90 60 225 125 1000 -
RQD - - - - - - - 50 75
Deformation
Modulus, Em (ksi) - - - - - - - 1.1x103 7.8x103
Compressive
Strength (Qu) (psi) - - - - - - - 300 8,000
1 - Below water table
Groundwater encountered during this investigation was associated with the sand layer. Additionally, these
sands should be considered liquefiable under certain seismic conditions.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 10
ES&S Job # L14934
The following subsurface soil profiles can be used with the above material codes for this project:
Boring Top
Depth (ft)
Bottom
Depth (ft)
Material
Code
B1 0 3 NA
3 7 1
6 8 4 8 12 1
12 27 4
27 37 7
72 62 5
62 72 7
72 77 5
77 97 7
Water
Trace 10 feet
Table 29 feet
Boring Top
Depth (ft)
Bottom
Depth (ft)
Material
Code
B2 0 3 NA
3 7 1
7 12 4 12 23 1
23 29 1
29 56 5
56 61 3
61 77 5
77 92 7
92 97 5
97 102 8
102 107 9
Water
Trace 23 feet
Table 29 feet
Boring Top
Depth (ft)
Bottom
Depth (ft)
Material
Code
B3 0 3 NA
3 7 4
7 10 2
10 13 1
13 15 4
15 18 1
18 19 4
29 49 5
49 50 1
50 64 5
64 79 7
79 84 5
84 99 7
Water
Trace - feet
Table 29 feet
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 11
ES&S Job # L14934
8.5 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The Jefferson City Regional Water Reclamation Facility lies within the Earthquake Liquefaction Potential
area as defined by MO DNR 2013 (See below). Liquefaction is a soil softening response, by which an
increase in the excess pore water pressure results in the partial to full loss of soil shear strength. In order
for liquefaction to occur, four factors are required, they are: 1) saturated soil or soil saturated below the
groundwater table; 2) undrained loading such as ground shaking caused by an earthquake; 3) contractive
soil response during shear loading, usually found in soils which are initially in a loose or uncompacted
state; and 4) susceptible soil types such as clean, uniformly grades sands, plastic silts or gravels.
To evaluate the potential for liquefaction at the site and its impact on the proposed upgrades we
performed an analysis using the subsurface soil parameters including: SPT data, gradation, unit weight
along with a design-level earthquake acceleration parameters to develop estimated potential liquefaction
induces total and differential settlements. For this investigation, we used magnitudes of 3, 4, 5, and 7
earthquake events. Our SPT analysis was performed using LiqSVs software (v.2.3.2.5) which calculates a
factor of safety (FS) against soil liquefaction by comparing the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the ratio of the
resistance of the soil to liquefaction during cyclic shaking, to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), the seismic
loading that would likely result for a design level earthquake at the site. If the safety factor is less than
1.0, it is more likely for the soils to liquefy during a moderate to large seismic event. The software results
are presented in the Appendix of this report.
Earthquake Liquefaction Potential by Area, MoDNR 2013
For this analysis the following seismic site parameters were used: a design groundwater level of 26 feet
below existing grade, from the OSHPD Seismic Maps website a site modified peak ground acceleration
PGAm of 0.222g for a 2% exceedance level in 50 years on the 3, 4, 5, and 7 Mw earthquake events and
based on a seismic soil classification of “E”. The soil densities were either measured, in the case of
cohesive soils, or estimated from published values relating relative density. The fines content were
obtained from samples that were washed and sieved according to ASTM,s C177 and C136. The blow
SITE
Liquifiable area
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 12
ES&S Job # L14934
counts were normalized to an N60 using the Idriss & Boulanger (2014) method using an automatic hammer
efficiency of 0.78. An external pressure of 1 tsf was used to simulate the bearing capacity of the footings.
Factors of safety were calculated at various layers through the depth of the boring.
The LiqSVs analysis provides the following results:
Boring Earthquake
Magnitude
Estimated Total
Seismic-Induced
Settlement (inches)
Estimated
Differential Seismic-
Induced Settlement
(inches)*
Estimated
Lateral
Displacement
(feet)
Factor of
Safety
Range**
B2 7 14.7 7.35 14.37 0.560 to 2
B2 5 4.16 2.08 4.98 0.836 to 2
B2 4 1.00 0.5 0.12 1.037 to 2
B2 3 0.18 0.09 0.03 1.304 to 2
*Differential Seismic-Induced Settlement is estimated to be approximately one-half the total settlement.
**Factor of Safety of less than one (1) indicates probable liquefaction
Additionally, LiqSVs was used to calculate the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) at Boring B2. LPI was
developed by Iwasaki (1978) as a probabilistic approach to estimate the potential of liquefaction to cause
foundation damage at a given site. LPI predicts the liquefaction performance of the soil profile to a depth
of 20 meters (65 feet) and provides an estimate of the severity of liquefaction in relation to surface
manifestations such as ground cracking, lateral spreading and sand boils. The LPI index ranges from 0 to
100 with 0 at sites with no liquefaction and 100 at sites where the calculated factor of safety equals zero
over the full length. Based on case histories, Iwasaki concluded that a site with an LPI over 15 is likely to
see significant liquefaction while an LPI of less than 5 exhibiting little or no liquefaction affects.
Based on the calculated factor of safety in the top 65 feet of boring B2, The LiqSVs analysis provides the
following LPI results:
Boring Earthquake
Magnitude
Overall LPI Correlated
Severity/Risk
B2 7 2.05 Low
B2 5 0.33 Very Low
B2 4 0 Very Low
B2 3 0 Very Low
Although the safety factors for the magnitude 7 earthquake ranges between 0.56 and 2, the LPI only
covers the top 65 feet. In the top 65 feet of boring B2, the top 15 feet were considered non-liquifiable,
and the factor of safety was only below 1 in one 10-foot section, between 37 and 45 feet which ranged
between 0.825 and one at 57 feet in depth which was 0.56, thus, providing the low value LPI.
8.6 RETAINING WALLS
Any walls subject to unbalanced earth pressure should be designed for earth pressures equal to or greater
than those provided on the following table. For the granular or cohesionless backfill values to be valid the
“Structural Backfill” zone must extend 45° from vertical from the heel of the retaining structure’s
foundation. These load distributions do not include a factor of safety or include the influence of
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 13
ES&S Job # L14934
hydrostatic pressures on the wall. Surcharge loads above the top of the wall due to vehicles, equipment,
structures, or sloped backfill should be considered in the design as well.
The following chart is based on these conditions.
• Equivalent Fluid Pressures are based on a unit soil weight of 120 pcf and a cohesionless or
aggregate unit weight of 140 pcf
• No groundwater is acting on the wall.
• For active earth pressure, wall must rotate at base, top lateral movement should be between
0.002 and 0.004 times the height of the wall (H).
• Surcharge pressure (S) acts at H/2 above the base.
• Backfill is compacted to a minimum of 95% of Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D698).
• Ignore passive pressure in the frost zone.
• Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure – Kh = Sds/2.5, Sds=0.309 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2
second SA
EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
A maximum toe pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for design on native soils and properly placed
engineered fill soils. A coefficient of friction value of 0.3 may be used to calculate sliding resistance.
Shallow temporary below grade excavations should be stable long enough to allow for construction of the
foundation and walls of the proposed structure and for shallow ancillary foundations. All excavations
should be benched, sloped or shored in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Some sloughing may occur due
to weathering and freeze/thaw cycles. Long term excavation slopes and deep excavations should be
analyzed prior to construction to ensure that adequate stability is achieved.
Earth
Pressure
Conditions
Coefficient for
Backfill Type
Equivalent
Fluid Pressure
(psf)
Surcharge
Pressure
P1
(psf)
Earth
Pressure
P2
(psf)
Active (Ka)
Cohesionless or Granular – 0.30
Low Plasticity Clays (LL<50) – 0.42
High Plasticity Clays (LL>50) – 0.52
42
50
60
(0.30)S
(0.42)S
(0.52)S
(42)H
(50)H
(60)H
At-Rest (Ko) Cohesionless or Granular – 0.46
Low Plasticity Clays (LL<50) – 0.59
High Plasticity Clays (LL>50) – 0.69
65
70
82
(0.46)S
(0.59)S
(0.69)S
(65)H
(70)H
(82)H
Passive (Kp) Cohesionless or Granular – 3.4
Low Plasticity Clays (LL<50) – 2.4
High Plasticity Clays (LL>50) – 1.9
475
285
230
---
---
---
---
---
---
At-Rest (Ko)
Saturated Soils
Cohesionless or Granular – 0.46
Low Plasticity Clays (LL<50) – 0.59
High Plasticity Clays (LL>50) – 0.69
98
97
103
(0.46)S
(0.59)S
(0.69)S
(98)H
(97)H
(103)H
Seismic Lateral
Earth Pressure (Kh)
Cohesionless or Granular – 0.15
Low Plasticity Clays (LL<50) – 0.15
High Plasticity Clays (LL>50) – 0.15
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 14
ES&S Job # L14934
8.7 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN
For building slabs-on-grade, mat foundations, and equipment pads, it is estimated that loads can be as
high as 1,000 psf and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be used
for design purposes. If a granular fill equal to a MoDOT 1007 Type 1/5 is used in the upper 2 feet, the
modulus of subgrade reaction can be increased to 160 pci. We recommend that housekeeping and
equipment pad thickness be a minimum of four (4) inches; however, the final slab thickness design should
be provided by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loads and the soil engineering properties
presented in this report. Additionally, we recommend that any interior ancillary slab subgrade include a
capillary break (3/4" to 1" “clean” aggregate) that is a minimum of 6 inches thick. A minimum 6 mil
thickness polyethylene vapor barrier should be installed beneath the slab to improve its performance.
Prior to placement of the drainage layer of aggregate and if a cohesive soil is used for the slab subgrade,
the upper 8 inches of the entire slab soil subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to within 0
to +4 percent of optimum moisture content and recompacted as engineered fill. The drainage aggregate
should be compacted with a minimum of three (3) passes of a vibratory plate or smooth roller when
placed.
Construction and saw joints are recommended for all non-structural slabs-on-grade. Saw cuts are neither
required nor recommended for structural slabs. Saw and construction joints should be installed such that
the panels are nearly square but do not exceed a length to width ratio of 1.4 to 1.0. Maximum panel size
depends on several factors including the amount of cement in the mix, the maximum coarse aggregate
size, and slab thickness but is generally taken as approximately 24 to 30 times the slab thickness with a
maximum of 15 feet.
Several precautions are normally used to insure adequate long-term performance of the slab on grade.
These precautions include the installation of a precipitation removal system involving the use of gutters,
downspouts, and landscaping; not allowing water to pond next to the proposed structure during or after
construction; and not allowing the subgrade soil to become inundated or desiccated prior to or during the
time required for construction of the floor slab.
8.8 CORROSION
Laboratory resistivity tests indicate that the soils at all elevations are corrosive to mildly corrosive. We
recommend that metal piping in this zone be protected with some form corrosion protection. Corrosion
protection may take the form of zinc coating, cathodic protection or other acceptable practices.
8.9 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The pavement associated with the project is expected to include a drive for cars and trucks (Both light and
heavy) as well as possible parking lot repair. Because the drive areas potentially carry heavier vehicles, it
is recommended that the pavement in these areas be designed to be more durable than the pavement in
the parking areas. It is preferred that the access drives (heavy duty areas) be constructed with Portland
cement concrete. Recommendations for both asphalt and Portland concrete are provided. Rigid
pavements should be reinforced, at a minimum 1/2-inch epoxy coated dowel bars for transverse joints.
The following pavement design recommendation has taken into account site specific traffic estimates,
geotechnical information, and subgrade modification or reinforcement. A soaked California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) value of 5 was used to develop the following pavement design recommendations for the parking
lot.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 15
ES&S Job # L14934
HEAVY DUTY
Portland Cement Concrete
8” Portland Cement Concrete (4,000 psi mix)
6" MoDOT Type 1 crushed stone base
Asphaltic Cement Concrete
2" Type `BP-2' Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course
5" MoDOT Plant Mix Bituminous Course
7" MoDOT Type 1 crushed stone base
STANDARD DUTY
Portland Cement Concrete
5" Portland Cement Concrete (4,000 psi mix)
6" MoDOT Type 1 crushed stone base
Asphaltic Cement Concrete
2" Type `BP-2' Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course
3" MoDOT Plant Mix Bituminous Course
6" MoDOT Type 1 crushed stone base
9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
9.1 SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation will require minor stripping and grubbing. All debris from demolition activities should be
removed from the site. The potential for buried debris cells exists on any rural site, and a unit cost should
be established for debris removal if encountered.
All utility trenches should be backfilled in accordance with appropriate controlled engineered fill
specifications. All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit the placing,
inspection, and completion of all work including backfill construction. It is recommended that a
representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during fill placement and compaction to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved and that proper methods are employed.
9.2 SITE EXCAVATION
General site excavation may be accomplished using earthwork equipment such as dozers, excavators and
scrapers. Although rock excavation is not anticipated, the encountering of large boulders is possible. It is
recommended that a unit price for rock removal be established in the contract documents, to address the
presence of large boulders.
In areas where the excavation side walls cannot be sloped to meet OSHA requirements, some form of
shoring system will be required. Shoring systems may consist of soldier piles and lagging or sheet piles.
The same design parameters presented in the retaining wall section may be used for design of the shoring
system.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 16
ES&S Job # L14934
9.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
Foundation bearing surfaces should be free of loose soil and standing water and should be level.
Foundation concrete should be placed the same day the foundation is excavated. Deleterious materials
or isolated soft spots within the foundation should be overexcavated to a suitable base and filled to design
bearing elevation with lean concrete.
9.4 CONSTRUCTION FILL AND BACKFILL
Engineered fill is defined as soil or granular fill containing sufficient fines to establish a moisture/density
relationship. Engineered fill should be free of frozen soil, organics, rubbish, large rocks, wood, or other
deleterious material. Cohesive soils should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the
“Standard” maximum dry density and be within -2 to +4 percent of optimum moisture content as
described by ASTM D698. Granular fill, such as MoDOT 1007 Type 1/5, should be compacted to at least
95% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor, ASTM D698. The moisture
content should be at least 3% below optimum moisture content but low enough to prevent undue
pumping. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate that the specified compaction limits
have not been achieved, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required
until the specified limits are reached. Proposed fill should be analyzed by the geotechnical engineer as
soon as borrow sources are identified to determine suitability and conformance with the following
recommendations.
Soils classified as MH, OH, OL, or PT (high plasticity soils and organic soils) by the Unified Soil Classification
System (ASTM D 2487) should not be imported for use as engineered fill. Soils that classify as CH should
be analyzed and approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to use on site. On-site soils meet the
requirements for low volume change material.
The fill material should be placed in layers, not to exceed eight inches in loose thickness, and should be
wetted or dried as required to secure specified compaction. Effective spreading equipment should be
used on each lift to obtain a uniform lift thickness prior to compaction. Each layer should be uniformly
compacted by means of suitable equipment of the type required by the materials composing the fill.
Material that is too wet to permit proper compaction may be stockpiled or spread and permitted to dry
assisted by disking, harrowing, or pulverizing until the moisture content is reduced to a satisfactory value.
The fill layers should be placed in horizontal lifts. Fill placed on slopes greater than 5H:1V should be
benched into the slope to limit the potential of creating a slip plane between the existing soil and the
freshly placed fill. The benches should be wide enough to accommodate the construction equipment,
horizontal, and should be no more than three feet in height. This is of special concern along the south
side of the east leg of the proposed building. Rocks and stones that exceed the thickness of the 8-inch
loose lift layer should be removed and disposed of off the immediate construction site.
Fill and subgrade construction should not be started on foundation soil, partially completed fill, or
subgrades that contain frost or ice. Fill should not be constructed of frozen soil. Frozen soil should be
removed prior to placing fill material.
9.5 AUGER-CAST PILES
Auger-cast piles should be placed using a continuous helical flight, hollow-shaft auger drilled to the
specified pile tip elevation or penetration. The piles should be placed in such a manner so as to preclude
the possibility of the grout setting up prior to completion of pile placement or cold joints forming in the
pile.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 17
ES&S Job # L14934
The cement-based grout should be pumped under pressure through the hollow shaft as the auger is
withdrawn while maintaining a positive head of grout over the tip of the auger. The minimum
recommended head should be at least 5 feet.
The auger should not be allowed to turn in a counterclockwise manner as the augers are withdrawn. The
augers should also be withdrawn slowly to preclude the possibility of earth or mud caving into the hole.
If the auger is raised by a sudden jerk for any appreciable distance, the hole should be redrilled to the
original bearing elevation and the grouting operation restarted.
Additional piles should not be installed within a minimum of a 5-foot radius from the centerline of the
freshly placed pile for at least 24 hours after placement to allow sufficient time for the pile to harden.
Because of variations in subsurface conditions, the Contractor should be responsible for determining the
time in which the piles have hardened sufficiently, if less than 24 hours, and the minimum radial
distance to which the new pile can be placed. All foreign material and debris should be prevented from
falling into the fresh mortar.
9.6 CLIMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
The on-site soils are relatively sensitive to changes in atmospheric conditions and precipitation. These
soils are predominantly clay, sand, and silt, and are subject to high rates of erosion, rapid loss of shear
strength upon wetting, and shrink-swell behavior with changes in moisture content. The greatest impact
of climatic conditions will occur within the first few inches of exposed soil surface. The contractor should
take positive measures to limit erosion of the site following stripping and up to establishment of ground
cover or turf. Earthwork operations may be delayed by heavy precipitation at the site.
10 WARRANTIES AND LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Burns & McDonnell and consultants for the specific
project discussed, in accordance with generally accepted soils engineering practices common to the west
Missouri area. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made.
This investigation and report do not constitute a guarantee of subsurface conditions, groundwater
conditions, excavation characteristics or construction conditions. We recommend that excavation
conditions across the site be evaluated during construction relative to this interpretation of subsurface
conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions may occur that require evaluation or revision of
geotechnical design parameters or recommendations. If the scope of the project is altered or differing
geotechnical conditions are encountered, it would be advisable to review and update our
recommendations in consideration of those findings or variations.
Recommendations contained in this report are based on subsurface conditions and proposed designs
provided as of this date. The above study and recommendations are applicable only for the conditions
and locations described, and for the specific project mentioned. Use of the data contained herein by
others may require interpretation or analysis that was not contemplated by our investigation and analysis.
The use of this data and any interpretations or conclusions developed by others are the sole responsibility
of those firms or individuals.
Factors affecting design and construction often become apparent during detailed design or actual
construction that were not anticipated in the pre-design or early design phases. Engineering Surveys and
Services is available during design and construction to assist in evaluating these factors and their impact
on these geotechnical recommendations.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 18
ES&S Job # L14934
11 APPENDIX
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 19
ES&S Job # L14934
11.1 VICINITY MAP
SITE
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 20
ES&S Job # L14934
11.2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
m ::::, cc
QO ii'
(/) CD
CD ::::!. <::::, _,cc
n (I)
CD C
1/1 <
i
L14934 BORING LOG 9/11/2023
CD (/) NATURAL NATURAL zO z • DEPTH uses MOISTURE DRY o::::o OS:: ·z • 7J (FEET) CLASS CONTYNT DDNSl)Y r G) rr, (% PCF
B1 ST2 2.0-4.0
ST4 6.5-8.5
ST6 11.5-13.5
B2 AS1 1.0-3 .0 CL 10
ST2 3.0-4.0 CL 15 111
ST3 7.5-9.5
SS6 23.0-24.5
B3 ST8 18.0-20.0
AST10 23.0-25.0
'TV = Hand Held Torvane , PP= Pocket Penetrometer
ATTERBERG UNCONFINED ;g ~
LIMITS COMPRESSION 0 l:XJ
Iii;~ LL PL Pl COHESION STRAIN REMARKS () 0 (TSF) % :-:-t'
rs-~~~
'TV=0 .10 tsf, PP=3 .5 tsf ~-2(() ~ ~ Q..~ 'TV=0.16 tsf, PP=2.5 tsf ~::o~
'TV=0.16 tsf, PP=2 . 75 tsf ::) (I) ti)
0 n-§" -Q
26 17 9 ~31)
.. Q a
26 18 8 0.8 4.9 CU Triaxial -:s::-· ~
'TV=0.13 tsf, PP=1 .25 tsf ci;• g ~
ti)
PP=0.75 0 :!'I~
c:: Q -:J. Q. ti) ::::::
'TV=0 .14 tsf, PP=3 .0 tsf ~~
'TV=0.14 tsf, PP=2. 75 tsf ~
'Q g·
9..
s:
OJ
C)
~(/) o~ ~i "<:: )i
~~
CJj "<::
-i C)
~ ..,,
CJj
~
Cri
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 32.5%
Sample Desc.: B2 3-5'Silt = 47.7%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 19.8%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
8
Atterberg Limits
CL
ST2 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
18
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
ST2
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 67.2%
Sample Desc.: B2 7.5-9.5 Silt = 27.4%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 5.4%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
Atterberg Limits
ST3 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
ST3
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SC-SM
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 71.6%
Sample Desc.: B2 12.5-13.5 Silt = 24.4%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 4.0%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
Atterberg Limits
SS4 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
SS4
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SC-SM
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 96.0%
Sample Desc.: B2 16.0-18.0 Silt = 1.6%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 2.3%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
Atterberg Limits
ST5 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
ST5
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SP
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 2.9%
Sample Desc.: B2 23.0-24.5 Silt = 62.4%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 34.7%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
Atterberg Limits
SS6 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
SS6
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
CH
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 83.9%
Sample Desc.: B2 27.0-28.5 Silt = 12.5%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 3.6%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS7
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS7
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SM
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 95.9%
Sample Desc.: B2 32.0-33.5 Silt = 0.8%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 3.3%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
Atterberg Limits
SS8 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
SS8
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SP
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 1.6%
Sample No:Sand = 95.4%
Sample Desc.: B2 42.0-43.5 Silt/Clay = 3.0%
Sample Loc.:
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS10
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS10
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SP
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 0.0%
Sample No:Sand = 95.3%
Sample Desc.: B2 52.0-53.5 Silt = 2.2%
Sample Loc.:Clay = 2.5%
Gradation based on UCS Classification
Atterberg Limits
SS12 PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
GRAVEL SAND
LL =
SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Hydrometer Graph
SS12
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SP
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 14.1%
Sample No:Sand = 83.2%
Sample Desc.: B2 62.0-63.5 Silt/Clay = 2.7%
Sample Loc.:
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS14
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS14
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SP
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 46.0%
Sample No:Sand = 51.2%
Sample Desc.: B2 72.0-73.5 Silt/Clay = 2.8%
Sample Loc.:
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS16
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS16
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SW
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 18.7%
Sample No:Sand = 78.3%
Sample Desc.: B2 82.0-83.5 Silt/Clay = 3.0%
Sample Loc.:
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS18
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS18
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
SW
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Fat Clay w/ Sand
Project Number:
Project Name: Gravel = 50.6%
Sample No:Sand = 47.5%
Sample Desc.: B2 92.0-93.5 Silt/Clay = 1.9%
Sample Loc.:
Gradation based on UCS Classification
GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY
L14934
Biosolids Improvements
SS20
Atterberg Limits
LL =
PL =
PI =
UCS =
Partical Size Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
(
%
)
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Particle Size Graph
SS20
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES
3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 325
HYDROMETERU.S. STANDARD SIVE NUMBERS
GW
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 35
ES&S Job # L14934
11.3 CORE PHOTOGRAPH
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 36
ES&S Job # L14934
Boring B2 Core – Run 1 starts at the top at the left-hand corner.
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 37
ES&S Job # L14934
11.4 PLAN OF BORING LOCATIONS
553
554
555
55
4
55
6
554
553
54
5
5
4
6
5
4
8
54
9
5
5
0
550
55
0
5
4
9
5
4
8
54
7
5
4
6
545
5
4
7
5
4
9
55
0
549
550
55
0
5
4
9
5
4
8
551
54
4
54
6
550
549
54
8
5
4
7
556
55
6
55
5
5
5
4
55
355
2
55
1
55
0
5
4
9
5
4
8
5
4
9
5
4
8
54
7
546
5
4
5
5
4
6
5
4
7
54
8
5
4
8
5
5
8
555
55
6553
553
553
554
1,003,584.47 N
1,735,897.58 E
1,003,542.67 N
1,735,883.59 E
1,003,500.02 N
1,735,865.77 E
Engineering Surveys
& Services
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 39
ES&S Job # L14934
11.5 SYMBOLS AND TERMS
Engineering Surveys
& Services
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 41
ES&S Job # L14934
11.6 BORING LOGS
Engineering Surveys
& Services
TOPSOIL
FILL; LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Brownish gray,
damp, friable
17
4
4
6
7
37
25
12
18
FILL; LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Gray, damp,
firm, friable
-; grayish brown, damp, stiff, friable
-; grayish brown, damp, fine grained
FILL; SAND: Gray, damp, fine grained
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Gray, moist to very
moist, friable
SILTY SAND: Brownish gray, damp to moist,
fine grained
CLAYEY SILTY SAND: Gray, some tan, moist,
firm
CLAYEY SAND: Gray and orangish brown,
moist, firm to stiff
SANDY CLAY: Dark gray, trace of rust, moist to
very moist, sand at top
START WASH BORE
SAND: Grayish brown, medium to fine grained,
dense
SAND: Gray, speckled black, medium to fine
grained
SAND: Gray, some orangish brown, medium
grained, trace of coarse grains and small
gravel, rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray, coarse to medium grained
(5/11/6)
(2/2/2)
(2/2/2)
(1/2/4)
(0/2/5)
(13/17/20)
(9/12/13)
(8/6/6)
(8/9/9)
CL
CL
SC-
SM
SP
SP
SP
SC-
SM
SC-
SM
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 1 OF 3
SAND: Gray, some minor other colors, medium
grained, trace of coarse grained, rounded to
subangular
SAND: Gray, medium to coarse grained,
rounded to subangular, some gravel
SAND: Gray, medium to coarse grained,
rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray, fine to medium grained
SAND: Gray, dense, medium to coarse grained,
some small gravel, rounded to subangular
SAND: Multi colored, medium to coarse
grained, some small gravel rounded to
subangular
SAND: Multi colored, medium to coarse
grained, some fine grains, dense, some small
gravel
SAND: Multi colored, medium grained, some
coarse grains and small aggregate, dense
SAND: Gray, Medium grained
25
32
16
26
29
10
7
14
(5/7/7)
(3/5/4)
(5/4/6)
(16/14/15)
-; gravelly
(11/13/13)
(8/8/8)
(15/16/16)
(8/12/13)
SP
SP
SP
SW
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 2 OF 3
SAND: Multi colored, coarse to medium
grained, some fine grains, trace of gravel,
dense
CASING SHEARED - DRILLING TERMINATED
30
(13/15/15)
SP
Engineering Surveys
& Services
TOPSOIL
FILL: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Brown, moist,
firm
FILL: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Dark brown,
moist to damp, friable
SILTY SAND: Brownish gray, moist, firm, fine
grained
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Dark brown, moist,
firm
SILTY CLAYEY SAND: Gray, damp, medium
grained
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray, damp, fine to
medium grained
FAT CLAY WITH SAND: Dark gray, moist, firm
SAND: Brown and rust colored, some orangish
brown
SILTY SAND: Gray, moist, medium to fine
grained
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray, medium to
fine grained, dense
SAND: Gray, orangish brown, medium to
coarse grained
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray and orangish
brown, coarse to fine grained, dense
21
13
25
18
6
5
CL
111CL
(3/2/3)
(2/2/4)
(12/9/9)
(3/9/16)
(7/6/7)
(5/8/13)
START WASH BORE
SC-
SM
SC-
SM
SP
SP
SP
SM
CH
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 1 OF 3
SAND: Gray, medium grained, pockets of fine
grained
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray, medium to
fine grained, trace coarse grained, dense
SAND: Gray with some white and orangish
brown grains, loose
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray, coarse to
medium grained, some fine grained and small
gravel
SAND: Multi colored, coarse to very coarse
grained, subangular to rounded, dense
SAND WELL GRADED WITH GRAVEL:
Medium to coarse grained, sand, subangular to
rounded, small to medium grained gravel
SAND WELL GRADED WITH GRAVEL: Gray,
coarse to medium grained, some fine grained
sand pockets, subangular to rounded, dense
SAND WITH GRAVEL: Gray and multi colored,
coarse sand, dense
SAND: Gray, medium to fine grained, dense
-; Gravelly
21
27
32
14
30
13
6
32
19
(12/9/10)
(15/15/17)
(3/2/4)
(9/8/15)
(28/18/12)
(6/6/8)
(12/16/16)
(12/14/13)
(9/11/10)
SP
SP
SW
SW
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 2 OF 3
GRAVEL WELL GRADED WITH SAND: Coarse
to fine grained sand, fine gravel
DOLOMITE: Light gray, very vuggy, upper 2'
highly fractured, fine to coarse crystalline
DOLOMITE: Light gray, vuggy, medium to fine
crystalline
13
Recovery = 99%
RQD = 0.66
Recovery = 99%
RQD = 0.85
(6/6/9)
0 50(0/50)
GW
Engineering Surveys
& Services
TOPSOIL
SAND: Brownish gray, fine to medium grained,
trace of gravel
SAND: Brownish gray, fine grained, dense
FAT CLAY: Gray, moist, firm to stiff
SAND: Gray to light gray, some silt, damp to
wet
SAND: Light gray, damp, very fine grained
SAND: Brownish gray, damp to moist, fine
grained
SAND: Gray, medium to fine grained, dense,
subangular to rounded
SAND POORLY GRADED WITH SILT: Gray,
moist to damp, firm, friable
LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Brown, moist, firm,
some sand
SAND: Light gray, damp to moist
LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Brownish gray, moist,
firm to stiff
FILL: SAND: Grayish brown, damp, trace of silt
FILL: LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Dark brown,
moist to damp, firm, friable, some sand
FILL: LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Brown, damp to
moist, friable
10
23
30
7
9
4
3
5
-; dark brown, moist to damp, firm
(1/2/3)
(3/2/1)
(1/2/2)
(5/5/4)
(4/2/5)
(8/14/16)
(12/12/11)
(6/5/5)
START WASH BORE
CL
CL
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
SP
-; gravelly
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 1 OF 3
FAT CLAY: Gray, moist, stiff
SAND: Multi colored, medium to coarse grained
with some fine grains, rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray and multi colored, medium to
coarse grained, rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray to dark gray, coarse to medium
grained, trace of fissile shale or coal, quartz,
rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray, medium grained, thin seams of
gray clay, moist, firm sand, subangular to
rounded
SAND POORLY GRADED: Gray, medium
grained, rounded to subangular
SAND: Gray, medium grained, dense
SAND: Gray, fine to medium grained, trace of
coarse grains, dense
18
19
29
30
31
13
15
26
20
(10/10/10)
(10/16/10)
No Recovery
No Recovery
(19/16/15)
(13/15/15)
(14/18/11)
(9/9/10)
(19/16/21)
(7/6/9)
(5/6/7)
SP
SP
SP
SP
SW
Engineering Surveys
& Services
SEE SHEET 2 OF 3
SAND: Gray, medium grained, some fine
grained, rounded to subangular
SAND: Multi colored, medium to coarse
grained, some limestone gravel
29
23
SAND: Multi colored, medium to coarse
grained, some gravel
37(19/16/21)
(14/12/11)
(12/17/12)
AUGER REFUSAL
SP
SW
Biosolids Improvements at Regional Water Reclamation Facility
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 13, 2023
Page 51
ES&S Job # L14934
11.7 LIQUIFICATION REPORTS
SPT BASED LIQ UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
65mm to 115mm
3.30 ft
0.90
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
Project title : Biosolids Improvements WWTP
Location : Jefferson City
Engineering Srveys & Services
1113 Fay St.
Columbia, MO
SPT Name: Boring B2
26.00 ft
26.00 ft
3.00
0.22 g
1.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
LPI
Liquefaction potential
0
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
LPI
During earthq.
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
50454035302520151050
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 1LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0.150.10.050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.
Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0.020.010
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 2LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::
SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.
Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy
3.00 7 67.50 127.00 3.50 No
7.50 5 32.80 125.00 5.00 No
12.50 5 28.40 120.00 3.50 No
16.00 6 4.00 116.00 8.00 Yes
23.00 6 97.10 120.00 4.00 Yes
27.00 18 16.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
32.00 25 4.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
37.00 13 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
42.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
47.00 19 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
52.00 32 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
57.00 6 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
62.00 23 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
67.00 30 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
72.00 14 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
77.00 32 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
82.00 27 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
88.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
92.00 13 1.90 116.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft)
User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
3.00 7 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.10 9 15 4.00067.50127.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.55 5.58
7.50 5 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.10 6 11 4.00032.80125.00 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.59 5.46
12.50 5 1.21 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 10 4.00028.40120.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.61 5.29
16.00 6 1.05 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 5 4.0004.00116.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.61 0.00
23.00 6 0.84 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.10 5 10 4.00097.10120.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.62 5.49
27.00 18 0.81 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.14 14 18 0.18416.10116.00 1.63 0.03 1.60 0.50 3.61
32.00 25 0.81 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2334.10116.00 1.92 0.19 1.73 0.43 0.00
37.00 13 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 10 10 0.1183.00116.00 2.21 0.34 1.86 0.54 0.00
42.00 21 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1653.00116.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.48 0.00
47.00 19 0.71 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 14 14 0.1483.00116.00 2.79 0.66 2.13 0.50 0.00
52.00 32 0.73 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.24 26 26 0.3164.70116.00 3.08 0.81 2.27 0.41 0.00
57.00 6 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 4 4 0.0804.70116.00 3.37 0.97 2.40 0.63 0.00
62.00 23 0.65 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1652.70116.00 3.66 1.12 2.53 0.49 0.00
67.00 30 0.67 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2332.70116.00 3.95 1.28 2.67 0.43 0.00
72.00 14 0.58 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 8 8 0.1052.80116.00 4.24 1.44 2.80 0.56 0.00
77.00 32 0.64 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.20 22 22 0.2332.80116.00 4.53 1.59 2.94 0.44 0.00
82.00 27 0.61 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.18 18 18 0.1843.00116.00 4.82 1.75 3.07 0.46 0.00
88.00 21 0.57 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.13 12 12 0.1323.00116.00 5.16 1.93 3.23 0.51 0.00
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 3LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
92.00 13 0.51 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 7 7 0.0981.90116.00 5.40 2.06 3.34 0.58 0.00
σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
CR:
CS:
N1(60):
Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60)cs:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv,eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo,eq
(tsf)
σ'vo,eq
(tsf)
FSMSFmax(N1)60csα
3.00 127.00 1.19 0.00 1.19 0.99 0.141 1.87 0.075 0.99 0.076 2.0001.32 151.00
7.50 125.00 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.94 0.135 1.58 0.085 0.97 0.088 2.0001.21 111.00
12.50 120.00 1.77 0.00 1.77 0.89 0.127 1.53 0.083 0.95 0.087 2.0001.19 101.00
16.00 116.00 1.97 0.00 1.97 0.84 0.121 1.32 0.092 0.95 0.096 2.0001.12 51.00
23.00 120.00 2.39 0.00 2.39 0.76 0.108 1.53 0.071 0.92 0.077 2.0001.19 101.00
27.00 116.00 2.63 0.03 2.60 0.71 0.102 2.15 0.048 0.89 0.054 2.0001.42 181.00
32.00 116.00 2.92 0.19 2.73 0.65 0.099 2.59 0.038 0.86 0.044 2.0001.58 221.00
37.00 116.00 3.21 0.34 2.86 0.59 0.094 1.53 0.062 0.91 0.068 1.7401.19 101.00
42.00 116.00 3.50 0.50 3.00 0.53 0.089 1.96 0.045 0.88 0.052 2.0001.35 161.00
47.00 116.00 3.79 0.66 3.13 0.48 0.083 1.79 0.047 0.88 0.053 2.0001.29 141.00
52.00 116.00 4.08 0.81 3.27 0.44 0.078 3.13 0.025 0.81 0.031 2.0001.77 261.00
57.00 116.00 4.37 0.97 3.40 0.40 0.073 1.29 0.057 0.92 0.062 1.3041.11 41.00
62.00 116.00 4.66 1.12 3.53 0.36 0.068 1.96 0.035 0.86 0.040 2.0001.35 161.00
67.00 116.00 4.95 1.28 3.67 0.33 0.064 2.59 0.025 0.82 0.030 2.0001.58 221.00
72.00 116.00 5.24 1.44 3.80 0.31 0.060 1.43 0.042 0.89 0.048 2.0001.15 81.00
77.00 116.00 5.53 1.59 3.94 0.29 0.057 2.59 0.022 0.81 0.027 2.0001.58 221.00
82.00 116.00 5.82 1.75 4.07 0.27 0.055 2.15 0.025 0.83 0.031 2.0001.42 181.00
88.00 116.00 6.16 1.93 4.23 0.25 0.052 1.65 0.032 0.86 0.037 2.0001.24 121.00
92.00 116.00 6.40 2.06 4.34 0.24 0.051 1.38 0.037 0.88 0.042 2.0001.14 71.00
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:
CSR :
MSF :
CSReq,M=7.5:
Ksigma:
CSR*:
FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations
1.00*** User FS:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 4LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 0.004.50
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 0.004.50
12.50 2.000 0.00 8.10 0.005.00
16.00 2.000 0.00 7.56 0.003.50
23.00 2.000 0.00 6.49 0.007.00
27.00 2.000 0.00 5.89 0.004.00
32.00 2.000 0.00 5.12 0.005.00
37.00 1.740 0.00 4.36 0.005.00
42.00 2.000 0.00 3.60 0.005.00
47.00 2.000 0.00 2.84 0.005.00
52.00 2.000 0.00 2.08 0.005.00
57.00 1.304 0.00 1.31 0.005.00
62.00 2.000 0.00 0.55 0.005.00
67.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
72.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
77.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
82.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
88.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
92.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav pGmax
(tsf)
αbγε15Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
εNc
wei ght
factor
3.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
7.50 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0005.000.00
12.50 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
16.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0008.001.00
23.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0004.001.00
Abbreviations
τav:
p:
Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:
Nc:
εNc:
Δh:
ΔS:
Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
0.000Cumulative settlemetns:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 5LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
ev
wei ght
factor
27.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
32.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
37.00 10 47.32 0.91 1.740 0.09 0.04 5.00 0.027 0.001.00
42.00 16 24.69 0.71 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
47.00 14 30.65 0.79 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
52.00 26 7.85 0.17 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
57.00 4 97.02 0.95 1.304 0.36 0.26 5.00 0.154 0.021.00
62.00 16 24.69 0.71 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
67.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
72.00 8 59.22 0.94 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
77.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
82.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
88.00 12 38.03 0.86 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
92.00 7 66.51 0.95 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
Abbreviations
0.181Cumulative settlements:
γlim:
Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::
Sv-1D:
LDI:
Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)
0.02
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 6LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
References
⦁ Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured
to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
⦁ Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique-
Colloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical
paper 12-57E
⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at
http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E.,
Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K.,
Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and
CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871
⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear-
Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1
LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
SPT BASED LIQ UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
65mm to 115mm
3.30 ft
0.90
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
Project title : Biosolids Improvements WWTP
Location : Jefferson City
Engineering Srveys & Services
1113 Fay St.
Columbia, MO
SPT Name: Boring B2
26.00 ft
26.00 ft
4.00
0.22 g
1.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
LPI
Liquefaction potential
0
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
LPI
During earthq.
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
50454035302520151050
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 1LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
10.5
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.
Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0.10.05
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 2LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::
SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.
Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy
3.00 7 67.50 127.00 3.50 No
7.50 5 32.80 125.00 5.00 No
12.50 5 28.40 120.00 3.50 No
16.00 6 4.00 116.00 8.00 Yes
23.00 6 97.10 120.00 4.00 Yes
27.00 18 16.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
32.00 25 4.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
37.00 13 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
42.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
47.00 19 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
52.00 32 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
57.00 6 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
62.00 23 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
67.00 30 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
72.00 14 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
77.00 32 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
82.00 27 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
88.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
92.00 13 1.90 116.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft)
User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
3.00 7 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.10 9 15 4.00067.50127.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.55 5.58
7.50 5 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.10 6 11 4.00032.80125.00 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.59 5.46
12.50 5 1.21 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 10 4.00028.40120.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.61 5.29
16.00 6 1.05 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 5 4.0004.00116.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.61 0.00
23.00 6 0.84 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.10 5 10 4.00097.10120.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.62 5.49
27.00 18 0.81 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.14 14 18 0.18416.10116.00 1.63 0.03 1.60 0.50 3.61
32.00 25 0.81 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2334.10116.00 1.92 0.19 1.73 0.43 0.00
37.00 13 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 10 10 0.1183.00116.00 2.21 0.34 1.86 0.54 0.00
42.00 21 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1653.00116.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.48 0.00
47.00 19 0.71 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 14 14 0.1483.00116.00 2.79 0.66 2.13 0.50 0.00
52.00 32 0.73 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.24 26 26 0.3164.70116.00 3.08 0.81 2.27 0.41 0.00
57.00 6 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 4 4 0.0804.70116.00 3.37 0.97 2.40 0.63 0.00
62.00 23 0.65 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1652.70116.00 3.66 1.12 2.53 0.49 0.00
67.00 30 0.67 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2332.70116.00 3.95 1.28 2.67 0.43 0.00
72.00 14 0.58 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 8 8 0.1052.80116.00 4.24 1.44 2.80 0.56 0.00
77.00 32 0.64 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.20 22 22 0.2332.80116.00 4.53 1.59 2.94 0.44 0.00
82.00 27 0.61 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.18 18 18 0.1843.00116.00 4.82 1.75 3.07 0.46 0.00
88.00 21 0.57 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.13 12 12 0.1323.00116.00 5.16 1.93 3.23 0.51 0.00
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 3LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
92.00 13 0.51 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 7 7 0.0981.90116.00 5.40 2.06 3.34 0.58 0.00
σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
CR:
CS:
N1(60):
Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60)cs:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv,eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo,eq
(tsf)
σ'vo,eq
(tsf)
FSMSFmax(N1)60csα
3.00 127.00 1.19 0.00 1.19 0.99 0.141 1.59 0.089 0.99 0.090 2.0001.32 151.00
7.50 125.00 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.95 0.136 1.39 0.098 0.97 0.101 2.0001.21 111.00
12.50 120.00 1.77 0.00 1.77 0.90 0.129 1.35 0.096 0.95 0.100 2.0001.19 101.00
16.00 116.00 1.97 0.00 1.97 0.87 0.124 1.21 0.102 0.95 0.107 2.0001.12 51.00
23.00 120.00 2.39 0.00 2.39 0.79 0.113 1.35 0.084 0.92 0.091 2.0001.19 101.00
27.00 116.00 2.63 0.03 2.60 0.75 0.108 1.77 0.061 0.89 0.069 2.0001.42 181.00
32.00 116.00 2.92 0.19 2.73 0.69 0.106 2.07 0.051 0.86 0.059 2.0001.58 221.00
37.00 116.00 3.21 0.34 2.86 0.64 0.103 1.35 0.076 0.91 0.084 1.4121.19 101.00
42.00 116.00 3.50 0.50 3.00 0.59 0.099 1.65 0.060 0.88 0.068 2.0001.35 161.00
47.00 116.00 3.79 0.66 3.13 0.54 0.094 1.53 0.061 0.88 0.070 2.0001.29 141.00
52.00 116.00 4.08 0.81 3.27 0.50 0.090 2.43 0.037 0.81 0.046 2.0001.77 261.00
57.00 116.00 4.37 0.97 3.40 0.46 0.085 1.20 0.071 0.92 0.078 1.0371.11 41.00
62.00 116.00 4.66 1.12 3.53 0.43 0.081 1.65 0.049 0.86 0.057 2.0001.35 161.00
67.00 116.00 4.95 1.28 3.67 0.40 0.077 2.07 0.037 0.82 0.045 2.0001.58 221.00
72.00 116.00 5.24 1.44 3.80 0.37 0.073 1.29 0.057 0.89 0.064 1.6391.15 81.00
77.00 116.00 5.53 1.59 3.94 0.35 0.070 2.07 0.034 0.81 0.042 2.0001.58 221.00
82.00 116.00 5.82 1.75 4.07 0.33 0.067 1.77 0.038 0.83 0.046 2.0001.42 181.00
88.00 116.00 6.16 1.93 4.23 0.31 0.065 1.44 0.045 0.86 0.053 2.0001.24 121.00
92.00 116.00 6.40 2.06 4.34 0.30 0.064 1.26 0.051 0.88 0.058 1.7081.14 71.00
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:
CSR :
MSF :
CSReq,M=7.5:
Ksigma:
CSR*:
FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations
1.00*** User FS:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 4LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 0.004.50
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 0.004.50
12.50 2.000 0.00 8.10 0.005.00
16.00 2.000 0.00 7.56 0.003.50
23.00 2.000 0.00 6.49 0.007.00
27.00 2.000 0.00 5.89 0.004.00
32.00 2.000 0.00 5.12 0.005.00
37.00 1.412 0.00 4.36 0.005.00
42.00 2.000 0.00 3.60 0.005.00
47.00 2.000 0.00 2.84 0.005.00
52.00 2.000 0.00 2.08 0.005.00
57.00 1.037 0.00 1.31 0.005.00
62.00 2.000 0.00 0.55 0.005.00
67.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
72.00 1.639 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
77.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
82.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
88.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
92.00 1.708 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav pGmax
(tsf)
αbγε15Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
εNc
wei ght
factor
3.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
7.50 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0005.000.00
12.50 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
16.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0008.001.00
23.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0004.001.00
Abbreviations
τav:
p:
Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:
Nc:
εNc:
Δh:
ΔS:
Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
0.000Cumulative settlemetns:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 5LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
ev
wei ght
factor
27.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
32.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
37.00 10 47.32 0.91 1.412 0.36 0.17 5.00 0.100 0.021.00
42.00 16 24.69 0.71 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
47.00 14 30.65 0.79 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
52.00 26 7.85 0.17 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
57.00 4 97.02 0.95 1.037 1.97 1.41 5.00 0.847 0.101.00
62.00 16 24.69 0.71 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
67.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
72.00 8 59.22 0.94 1.639 0.10 0.05 5.00 0.033 0.011.00
77.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
82.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
88.00 12 38.03 0.86 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
92.00 7 66.51 0.95 1.708 0.07 0.04 5.00 0.024 0.001.00
Abbreviations
1.003Cumulative settlements:
γlim:
Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::
Sv-1D:
LDI:
Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)
0.12
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 6LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
References
⦁ Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured
to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
⦁ Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique-
Colloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical
paper 12-57E
⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at
http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E.,
Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K.,
Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and
CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871
⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear-
Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1
LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
SPT BASED LIQ UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
65mm to 115mm
3.30 ft
0.90
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
Project title : Biosolids Improvements WWTP
Location : Jefferson City
Engineering Srveys & Services
1113 Fay St.
Columbia, MO
SPT Name: Boring B2
26.00 ft
26.00 ft
5.00
0.22 g
1.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
LPI
Liquefaction potential
0.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
LPI
During earthq.
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
50454035302520151050
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 1LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.
Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 2LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::
SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.
Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy
3.00 7 67.50 127.00 3.50 No
7.50 5 32.80 125.00 5.00 No
12.50 5 28.40 120.00 3.50 No
16.00 6 4.00 116.00 8.00 Yes
23.00 6 97.10 120.00 4.00 Yes
27.00 18 16.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
32.00 25 4.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
37.00 13 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
42.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
47.00 19 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
52.00 32 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
57.00 6 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
62.00 23 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
67.00 30 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
72.00 14 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
77.00 32 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
82.00 27 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
88.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
92.00 13 1.90 116.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft)
User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
3.00 7 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.10 9 15 4.00067.50127.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.55 5.58
7.50 5 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.10 6 11 4.00032.80125.00 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.59 5.46
12.50 5 1.21 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 10 4.00028.40120.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.61 5.29
16.00 6 1.05 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 5 4.0004.00116.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.61 0.00
23.00 6 0.84 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.10 5 10 4.00097.10120.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.62 5.49
27.00 18 0.81 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.14 14 18 0.18416.10116.00 1.63 0.03 1.60 0.50 3.61
32.00 25 0.81 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2334.10116.00 1.92 0.19 1.73 0.43 0.00
37.00 13 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 10 10 0.1183.00116.00 2.21 0.34 1.86 0.54 0.00
42.00 21 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1653.00116.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.48 0.00
47.00 19 0.71 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 14 14 0.1483.00116.00 2.79 0.66 2.13 0.50 0.00
52.00 32 0.73 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.24 26 26 0.3164.70116.00 3.08 0.81 2.27 0.41 0.00
57.00 6 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 4 4 0.0804.70116.00 3.37 0.97 2.40 0.63 0.00
62.00 23 0.65 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1652.70116.00 3.66 1.12 2.53 0.49 0.00
67.00 30 0.67 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2332.70116.00 3.95 1.28 2.67 0.43 0.00
72.00 14 0.58 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 8 8 0.1052.80116.00 4.24 1.44 2.80 0.56 0.00
77.00 32 0.64 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.20 22 22 0.2332.80116.00 4.53 1.59 2.94 0.44 0.00
82.00 27 0.61 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.18 18 18 0.1843.00116.00 4.82 1.75 3.07 0.46 0.00
88.00 21 0.57 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.13 12 12 0.1323.00116.00 5.16 1.93 3.23 0.51 0.00
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 3LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
92.00 13 0.51 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 7 7 0.0981.90116.00 5.40 2.06 3.34 0.58 0.00
σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
CR:
CS:
N1(60):
Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60)cs:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv,eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo,eq
(tsf)
σ'vo,eq
(tsf)
FSMSFmax(N1)60csα
3.00 127.00 1.19 0.00 1.19 0.99 0.142 1.36 0.104 0.99 0.105 2.0001.32 151.00
7.50 125.00 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.96 0.138 1.24 0.111 0.97 0.114 2.0001.21 111.00
12.50 120.00 1.77 0.00 1.77 0.92 0.132 1.22 0.108 0.95 0.114 2.0001.19 101.00
16.00 116.00 1.97 0.00 1.97 0.89 0.128 1.13 0.113 0.95 0.119 2.0001.12 51.00
23.00 120.00 2.39 0.00 2.39 0.83 0.119 1.22 0.098 0.92 0.106 2.0001.19 101.00
27.00 116.00 2.63 0.03 2.60 0.79 0.115 1.48 0.078 0.89 0.087 2.0001.42 181.00
32.00 116.00 2.92 0.19 2.73 0.75 0.114 1.66 0.069 0.86 0.080 2.0001.58 221.00
37.00 116.00 3.21 0.34 2.86 0.70 0.112 1.22 0.092 0.91 0.102 1.1631.19 101.00
42.00 116.00 3.50 0.50 3.00 0.66 0.110 1.40 0.078 0.88 0.089 1.8521.35 161.00
47.00 116.00 3.79 0.66 3.13 0.61 0.106 1.33 0.080 0.88 0.090 1.6361.29 141.00
52.00 116.00 4.08 0.81 3.27 0.58 0.103 1.89 0.054 0.81 0.067 2.0001.77 261.00
57.00 116.00 4.37 0.97 3.40 0.54 0.099 1.12 0.088 0.92 0.096 0.8361.11 41.00
62.00 116.00 4.66 1.12 3.53 0.51 0.095 1.40 0.068 0.86 0.079 2.0001.35 161.00
67.00 116.00 4.95 1.28 3.67 0.48 0.092 1.66 0.055 0.82 0.067 2.0001.58 221.00
72.00 116.00 5.24 1.44 3.80 0.45 0.089 1.18 0.075 0.89 0.084 1.2391.15 81.00
77.00 116.00 5.53 1.59 3.94 0.43 0.086 1.66 0.051 0.81 0.063 2.0001.58 221.00
82.00 116.00 5.82 1.75 4.07 0.41 0.083 1.48 0.056 0.83 0.068 2.0001.42 181.00
88.00 116.00 6.16 1.93 4.23 0.39 0.081 1.27 0.064 0.86 0.074 1.7941.24 121.00
92.00 116.00 6.40 2.06 4.34 0.38 0.080 1.16 0.069 0.88 0.078 1.2621.14 71.00
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:
CSR :
MSF :
CSReq,M=7.5:
Ksigma:
CSR*:
FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations
1.00*** User FS:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 4LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 0.004.50
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 0.004.50
12.50 2.000 0.00 8.10 0.005.00
16.00 2.000 0.00 7.56 0.003.50
23.00 2.000 0.00 6.49 0.007.00
27.00 2.000 0.00 5.89 0.004.00
32.00 2.000 0.00 5.12 0.005.00
37.00 1.163 0.00 4.36 0.005.00
42.00 1.852 0.00 3.60 0.005.00
47.00 1.636 0.00 2.84 0.005.00
52.00 2.000 0.00 2.08 0.005.00
57.00 0.836 0.16 1.31 0.335.00
62.00 2.000 0.00 0.55 0.005.00
67.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
72.00 1.239 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
77.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
82.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
88.00 1.794 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
92.00 1.262 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
0.33
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav pGmax
(tsf)
αbγε15Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
εNc
wei ght
factor
3.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
7.50 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0005.000.00
12.50 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
16.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0008.001.00
23.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0004.001.00
Abbreviations
τav:
p:
Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:
Nc:
εNc:
Δh:
ΔS:
Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
0.000Cumulative settlemetns:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 5LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
ev
wei ght
factor
27.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
32.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
37.00 10 47.32 0.91 1.163 1.01 0.47 5.00 0.283 0.051.00
42.00 16 24.69 0.71 1.852 0.13 0.04 5.00 0.027 0.011.00
47.00 14 30.65 0.79 1.636 0.31 0.12 5.00 0.071 0.021.00
52.00 26 7.85 0.17 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
57.00 4 97.02 0.95 0.836 97.02 5.74 5.00 3.442 4.851.00
62.00 16 24.69 0.71 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
67.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
72.00 8 59.22 0.94 1.239 0.51 0.27 5.00 0.161 0.031.00
77.00 22 12.67 0.41 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
82.00 18 19.85 0.62 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
88.00 12 38.03 0.86 1.794 0.11 0.04 5.00 0.027 0.011.00
92.00 7 66.51 0.95 1.262 0.43 0.24 5.00 0.146 0.021.00
Abbreviations
4.156Cumulative settlements:
γlim:
Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::
Sv-1D:
LDI:
Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)
4.98
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 6LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
References
⦁ Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured
to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
⦁ Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique-
Colloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical
paper 12-57E
⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at
http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E.,
Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K.,
Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and
CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871
⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear-
Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1
LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
SPT BASED LIQ UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
65mm to 115mm
3.30 ft
0.90
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
Project title : Biosolids Improvements WWTP
Location : Jefferson City
Engineering Srveys & Services
1113 Fay St.
Columbia, MO
SPT Name: Boring B2
26.00 ft
26.00 ft
7.00
0.22 g
1.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
LPI
Liquefaction potential
210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
LPI
During earthq.
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
50454035302520151050
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 1LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot
CSR - CRR
10.80.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
105
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.
Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
105
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 2LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::
SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.
Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy
3.00 7 67.50 127.00 3.50 No
7.50 5 32.80 125.00 5.00 No
12.50 5 28.40 120.00 3.50 No
16.00 6 4.00 116.00 8.00 Yes
23.00 6 97.10 120.00 4.00 Yes
27.00 18 16.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
32.00 25 4.10 116.00 5.00 Yes
37.00 13 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
42.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
47.00 19 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
52.00 32 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
57.00 6 4.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
62.00 23 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
67.00 30 2.70 116.00 5.00 Yes
72.00 14 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
77.00 32 2.80 116.00 5.00 Yes
82.00 27 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
88.00 21 3.00 116.00 5.00 Yes
92.00 13 1.90 116.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft)
User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
3.00 7 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.10 9 15 4.00067.50127.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.55 5.58
7.50 5 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.10 6 11 4.00032.80125.00 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.59 5.46
12.50 5 1.21 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 10 4.00028.40120.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.61 5.29
16.00 6 1.05 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.10 5 5 4.0004.00116.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.61 0.00
23.00 6 0.84 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.10 5 10 4.00097.10120.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.62 5.49
27.00 18 0.81 0.90 1.00 0.95 1.14 14 18 0.18416.10116.00 1.63 0.03 1.60 0.50 3.61
32.00 25 0.81 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2334.10116.00 1.92 0.19 1.73 0.43 0.00
37.00 13 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 10 10 0.1183.00116.00 2.21 0.34 1.86 0.54 0.00
42.00 21 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1653.00116.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.48 0.00
47.00 19 0.71 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 14 14 0.1483.00116.00 2.79 0.66 2.13 0.50 0.00
52.00 32 0.73 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.24 26 26 0.3164.70116.00 3.08 0.81 2.27 0.41 0.00
57.00 6 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 4 4 0.0804.70116.00 3.37 0.97 2.40 0.63 0.00
62.00 23 0.65 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.15 16 16 0.1652.70116.00 3.66 1.12 2.53 0.49 0.00
67.00 30 0.67 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.21 22 22 0.2332.70116.00 3.95 1.28 2.67 0.43 0.00
72.00 14 0.58 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 8 8 0.1052.80116.00 4.24 1.44 2.80 0.56 0.00
77.00 32 0.64 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.20 22 22 0.2332.80116.00 4.53 1.59 2.94 0.44 0.00
82.00 27 0.61 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.18 18 18 0.1843.00116.00 4.82 1.75 3.07 0.46 0.00
88.00 21 0.57 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.13 12 12 0.1323.00116.00 5.16 1.93 3.23 0.51 0.00
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 3LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
CRR7.5Depth
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 (N1)60csFC
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Δ(Ν1)60m
92.00 13 0.51 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.10 7 7 0.0981.90116.00 5.40 2.06 3.34 0.58 0.00
σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
CR:
CS:
N1(60):
Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60)cs:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv,eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo,eq
(tsf)
σ'vo,eq
(tsf)
FSMSFmax(N1)60csα
3.00 127.00 1.19 0.00 1.19 1.00 0.143 1.06 0.135 0.99 0.137 2.0001.32 151.00
7.50 125.00 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.98 0.141 1.04 0.136 0.97 0.140 2.0001.21 111.00
12.50 120.00 1.77 0.00 1.77 0.96 0.138 1.03 0.133 0.95 0.140 2.0001.19 101.00
16.00 116.00 1.97 0.00 1.97 0.95 0.136 1.02 0.133 0.95 0.140 2.0001.12 51.00
23.00 120.00 2.39 0.00 2.39 0.91 0.131 1.03 0.127 0.92 0.137 2.0001.19 101.00
27.00 116.00 2.63 0.03 2.60 0.89 0.129 1.07 0.121 0.89 0.136 1.3551.42 181.00
32.00 116.00 2.92 0.19 2.73 0.87 0.132 1.10 0.120 0.86 0.139 1.6741.58 221.00
37.00 116.00 3.21 0.34 2.86 0.84 0.134 1.03 0.130 0.91 0.143 0.8251.19 101.00
42.00 116.00 3.50 0.50 3.00 0.81 0.135 1.06 0.128 0.88 0.145 1.1371.35 161.00
47.00 116.00 3.79 0.66 3.13 0.78 0.135 1.05 0.129 0.88 0.146 1.0141.29 141.00
52.00 116.00 4.08 0.81 3.27 0.76 0.135 1.14 0.119 0.81 0.147 2.0001.77 261.00
57.00 116.00 4.37 0.97 3.40 0.73 0.134 1.02 0.132 0.92 0.144 0.5601.11 41.00
62.00 116.00 4.66 1.12 3.53 0.70 0.133 1.06 0.125 0.86 0.145 1.1351.35 161.00
67.00 116.00 4.95 1.28 3.67 0.68 0.131 1.10 0.119 0.82 0.145 1.6061.58 221.00
72.00 116.00 5.24 1.44 3.80 0.66 0.130 1.03 0.126 0.89 0.142 0.7381.15 81.00
77.00 116.00 5.53 1.59 3.94 0.64 0.128 1.10 0.116 0.81 0.143 1.6251.58 221.00
82.00 116.00 5.82 1.75 4.07 0.62 0.127 1.07 0.118 0.83 0.142 1.2981.42 181.00
88.00 116.00 6.16 1.93 4.23 0.60 0.125 1.04 0.120 0.86 0.139 0.9521.24 121.00
92.00 116.00 6.40 2.06 4.34 0.59 0.124 1.02 0.121 0.88 0.137 0.7171.14 71.00
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:
CSR :
MSF :
CSReq,M=7.5:
Ksigma:
CSR*:
FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations
1.00*** User FS:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 4LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 0.004.50
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 0.004.50
12.50 2.000 0.00 8.10 0.005.00
16.00 2.000 0.00 7.56 0.003.50
23.00 2.000 0.00 6.49 0.007.00
27.00 1.355 0.00 5.89 0.004.00
32.00 1.674 0.00 5.12 0.005.00
37.00 0.825 0.18 4.36 1.175.00
42.00 1.137 0.00 3.60 0.005.00
47.00 1.014 0.00 2.84 0.005.00
52.00 2.000 0.00 2.08 0.005.00
57.00 0.560 0.44 1.31 0.885.00
62.00 1.135 0.00 0.55 0.005.00
67.00 1.606 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
72.00 0.738 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
77.00 1.625 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
82.00 1.298 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
88.00 0.952 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
92.00 0.717 0.00 0.00 0.000.00
2.05
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav pGmax
(tsf)
αbγε15Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
εNc
wei ght
factor
3.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
7.50 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0005.000.00
12.50 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0003.500.00
16.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0008.001.00
23.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0004.001.00
Abbreviations
τav:
p:
Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:
Nc:
εNc:
Δh:
ΔS:
Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
0.000Cumulative settlemetns:
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 5LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
This software is registered to: Engineering Surveys & Services
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
ev
wei ght
factor
27.00 18 19.85 0.62 1.355 1.17 0.37 5.00 0.220 0.061.00
32.00 22 12.67 0.41 1.674 0.53 0.14 5.00 0.085 0.031.00
37.00 10 47.32 0.91 0.825 47.32 3.74 5.00 2.242 2.371.00
42.00 16 24.69 0.71 1.137 2.04 0.70 5.00 0.421 0.101.00
47.00 14 30.65 0.79 1.014 3.23 1.22 5.00 0.731 0.161.00
52.00 26 7.85 0.17 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.001.00
57.00 4 97.02 0.95 0.560 97.02 5.74 5.00 3.442 4.851.00
62.00 16 24.69 0.71 1.135 2.06 0.71 5.00 0.425 0.101.00
67.00 22 12.67 0.41 1.606 0.68 0.18 5.00 0.109 0.031.00
72.00 8 59.22 0.94 0.738 59.22 4.23 5.00 2.536 2.961.00
77.00 22 12.67 0.41 1.625 0.64 0.17 5.00 0.102 0.031.00
82.00 18 19.85 0.62 1.298 1.38 0.43 5.00 0.259 0.071.00
88.00 12 38.03 0.86 0.952 5.65 2.36 5.00 1.416 0.281.00
92.00 7 66.51 0.95 0.717 66.51 4.52 5.00 2.712 3.331.00
Abbreviations
14.699Cumulative settlements:
γlim:
Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::
Sv-1D:
LDI:
Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)
14.37
Project File: C:\GeoLogismiki Software\LiqSVs 2.0\Reports\Jefferson City WWTP With Lateral.lsvs
Page: 6LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
References
⦁ Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured
to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
⦁ Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique-
Colloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical
paper 12-57E
⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at
http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E.,
Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K.,
Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and
CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871
⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear-
Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1
LiqSVs 2.3.2.5 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
COLUMBIA ♦ JEFFERSON CITY ♦ SEDALIA
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 Exhibit J – Project Schedule
EXHIBIT J – PROJECT SCHEDULE
Activity ID Activity Name Original
Duration
Start Finish
Jefferson City Biosolids ImprovementsJefferson City Biosolids Improvements 434 21-Dec-23 A 12-Sep-25
MilestonesMilestones 419 21-Dec-23 A 21-Aug-25
MI LE1000 Issue 60%Design 0 21-Dec-23 A
MI LE1010 Issue Phase 2 NTP 0 01-Apr-24*
MI LE1020 Mechanical Completion 0 25-Jun-25*
MI LE1030 Substantial Completi on 0 21-Aug-25
EngineeringEngineering 129 21-Dec-23 A 01-Jul-24
ENG1000 Complete IFC Drawings -Underground 85 21-Dec-23 A 15-Mar-24
ENG1010 Complete IFC Drawings -Ab oveground 64 02-Apr-24 01-Jul-24
ProcurementProcurement 265 02-Apr-24 16-Apr-25
Centri fugeCentrifuge 220 02-Apr-24 12-Feb-25
Dew atering Feed PumpDewatering Feed Pump 130 02-Apr-24 03-Oct-24
Conveyor &HopperConveyor &Hopper 220 02-Apr-24 12-Feb-25
Polymer Feed SystemPolymer Feed System 160 02-Apr-24 14-Nov-24
Thickened Sludge PumpThickenedSludgePump 145 02-Apr-24 24-Oct-24
Scum PumpScumPump 145 02-Apr-24 24-Oct-24
Lime EquipmentLimeEquipment 265 02-Apr-24 16-Apr-25
MCCMCC 245 02-Apr-24 19-Mar-25
Engineered Metal BuildingEngineered Metal Building 190 02-Apr-24 31-Dec-24
Pipe &ValvePipe &Valve 170 02-Apr-24 29-Nov-24
MetalsMetals 170 02-Apr-24 29-Nov-24
ConstructionConstruction 293 01-May-24 25-Jun-25
Ci vilCivil 98 01-May-24 18-Sep-24
Bel ow Grade Piping &UtilitiesBelowGradePiping &Utilities 59 06-May-24 29-Jul-24
Electri cal - Under SlabElectrical- Under Slab 5 30-Jul-24 05-Aug-24
Metal BuildingMetalBuilding 51 25-Sep-24 05-Dec-24
MasonryMasonry 40 20-Nov-24 20-Jan-25
HVACHVAC 33 09-Dec-24 27-Jan-25
FinishesFinishes 20 20-Nov-24 18-Dec-24
StructuralStructural 15 23-Dec-24 15-Jan-25
MechanicalMechanical 70 16-Jan-25 23-Apr-25
PipingPiping 77 21-Jan-25 07-May-25
PaintingPainting 10 20-Mar-25 02-Apr-25
Electri calElectrical 154 15-Nov-24 25-Jun-25
Commission Main ElectricalCommission Main Electrical 40 26-Jun-25 21-Aug-25
Project Closeout and As-Built sProjectCloseout and As-Built s 15 22-Aug-25 12-Sep-25
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2024 2025
Jefferson City Biosolids Improvements 02-Feb-24
Start Date 21-Dec-23
Finish Date 12-Sep-25Data Date 01-Jan-24
Run Date 02-Feb-24
Page 1 of 1 Phase 2 Amendment
Jefferson City – Phase 2 1 of 25 Exhibit K
EXHIBIT K – PRELIMINARY DESIGN DOCUMENTS
The Preliminary Design Documents consist of the Work Description herein and the Preliminary Design
Drawings listed below.
Work Description
This Work Description is not intended to be comprehensive. This Work Description identifies major
definable components of the Project as they can be defined at the time that the contract was prepared. The
final Project will provide a complete and workable facility that meets the performance requirements
identified for the Project. In addition to the major components called out herein, the Project includes all
associated, ancillary and connecting components and features required to achieve the project goal, whether
or not these items are specifically called out in this Work Description.
01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. All supervision, administrative costs, and temporary facilities necessary to construct the
work.
2. No sales tax included. Owner to provide exemption certificate for the project.
3. Does not include cost for water consumption for testing of structures or facilities.
4. Does not include cost of chemicals for startup, testing or operation of the facility.
5. Builders risk insurance will be provided by Design Builder.
6. Design and construction administration are included for the duration of the schedule.
7. Design will be completed following the current adopted codes at the time of contract
execution.
8. Structural observations to be provided by the Design Builder.
9. Civil testing lab services will be performed by a 3rd party and paid for by the Design-Builder,
including civil testing for soil and concrete.
10. Performance and Payment bonds are included for the entire contract amount.
11. All O&M manuals will be provided in paper (1 set) and electronic PDF form.
12. In the event that there are discrepancies between the Preliminary Engineering Report and this
document, this document shall govern.
01010 SPECIAL SITE CONDITIONS
1. No hazardous or special waste are known of at this time or anticipated to be encountered in
the course of this project.
2. Groundwater is expected to be consistent with the conditions documented as part of the
geotechnical investigation.
3. Soil resistivity and chemical test results indicate that soils are corrosive to buried ductile iron
pipe and pipe protection is required.
01015 OWNER FURNISHED ITEMS
1. Land acquisition, easements or right-of-way as may be required.
2. Cost of offsite power, gas, telecom, ISP upgrades if required.
3. Permit application preparation and permit fees for all required permits.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 2 of 25 Exhibit K
4. Chemicals for start-up, testing, and operation of the facility.
01500 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
1. All construction equipment necessary to complete the work is included.
024119 DEMOLITION - GENERAL
1. Includes fees for disposal of any excess material.
2. Two (2) 24-inch previously abandoned force mains.
3. One (1) 54-inch previously abandoned effluent pipe.
4. Storm manhole and 8-inch, 4-inch, and 6-inch pipes.
5. Sample line 4-inch effluent water.
6. Miscellaneous sludge piping (6-inch DIP) in sludge loadout vault.
7. 1-inch copper.
8. Underground electric/telephone and electric manhole.
9. Chlorine solution pipe previously abandoned.
10. 1½ -inch gas line and gas meter.
11. Chemical tank VX456.
12. Existing chemical tank VX456 concrete containment walls.
13. Two (2) biofilters, concrete pavement, and bollards. All pipes entering and exiting the
existing biofilters shall be plugged and completely remove the foundations or punch holes
to avoid water ponding.
14. Concrete drive and concrete sidewalk as necessary to construct biosolids building and yard
piping.
15. Three (3) trees adjacent to the existing biofilters.
16. Below grade existing, abandoned high water pump station and existing, abandoned effluent
water pump station at western extents of proposed biosolids building as shown in the
Reference Drawings.
i. High water pump station slabs and walls and piping shall be demolished to elevation
542.00’ +/-. Pour 12’ x 25’ x 1’-0” concrete pad reinforced with #6@12 each way, top
and bottom, over the top of the remaining existing structure. Backfill per 31 20 50.
ii. Effluent water pump station walls and piping shall be demolished to elevation 542.00’
+/-. Pour 10’ x 15’ x 1’-0” concrete pad reinforced with #6@12 each way, top and bottom
over the top of the remaining existing structure. Backfill per 31 20 50.
031000 FORMWORK
1. Fill any repairable honeycomb; patch all tie holes.
2. No architectural or rubbed finish; no grout finish.
3. Joints to be noticeable, but not protruding.
4. Chamfer tops on all exposed edges.
032000 REINFORCING
1. Deformed bars: ASTM A615, Grade 60 – No epoxy.
033000 CONCRETE
1. ASTM C 595 Type IL cement – 1” nominal maximum aggregate.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 3 of 25 Exhibit K
2. Fill and encasement – 3000 psi.
3. Structural concrete – 4500 psi, max w/cm ratio of 0.45.
4. Pre-cast concrete – 5000 psi.
5. Maximum pour lengths:
i. Grade beams: 50’.
ii. Floor slabs: 2500 sf and 1.5:1 aspect ratio.
6. Finishes:
i. Steel trowel all floor finish in buildings
ii. Float finish for all below grade surfaces
iii. Broomed finish at exterior pads, sidewalks, and driveways.
iv. No concrete coatings
042000 MASONRY
1. Interior block – 12” x 8” x 16” Korfil Hi-R H unit smooth fully grouted wall assemblies R-
11.25 by concrete products group or engineer approved equal.
2. Exterior block – Standard 8” x 8” x 16” CMU.
3. Bond beam reinforcing: Reference structural standard details and masonry elevations.
4. Vertical reinforcing: Reference structural standard details and masonry elevations.
051200 STEEL
1. Wide flange, ASTM A992.
2. Channels, angles, and plates, ASTM A36.
3. S-Shapes, ASTM A572 Grade 50.
4. HSS, ASTM A500, Grade B.
5. Hot-dipped galvanized steel.
6. Anchor bolts:
i. Galvanized ASTM A36 anchor bolts for building columns and centrifuge.
ii. Galvanized adhesive anchors for mezzanine columns.
iii. SST adhesive anchors for all other equipment.
iv. Post-installed anchors.
1. Hilti Hit-HY 200 adhesive epoxy for dry installations, or
2. Hilti Hit HY-500 adhesive epoxy for wet installations.
7. Exterior ladder shall be galvanized steel per typical detail.
053100 STEEL DECKING
1. 1.5” non-composite form deck, 20 gauge, Grade 50.
2. Zinc-coated G90 finish.
3. Fasten with Hilti X-HSN 24 fasteners or approved equal in 36/4 pattern.
054500 ALUMINUM
1. Guardrail: 1.9” OD aluminum two rail system with kickplate.
2. Handrail: 1.5” OD aluminum. Handrails to extend 1’-0” beyond edge of top and bottom of
treads.
3. Swage locked striated I-bar grating with banded openings.
4. Serrated swage locked stair treads.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 4 of 25 Exhibit K
5. Interior ladder shall be aluminum.
055000 MISCELLANEOUS METALS
1. Bollards – 6-inch diameter, epoxy painted steel.
2. Rodent screen shall be press-formed of 3 or 4 mesh, 21 gage or heavier stainless steel at end
of retaining wall drain pipes.
061000 ROUGH CARPENTRY
1. Misc treated wood blocking.
079000 JOINT SEALANTS
1. Doors/windows/louvers/construction joints in masonry and concrete.
2. Interior joints at top of walls.
3. Neoprene gasket at the top of interior wall.
4. Silicone sealant at restrooms.
081100 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES
1. All exterior doors galvanized steel: 6’-8” x 7’-2” 1-3/4” thick with 2” frame.
2. Frame: 16 ga min.
3. Door: 18 ga min.
4. Electrical room door: to have removable transom.
5. Frames for wood doors: 16 ga min.
6. Wind pressure rating: 44psf (strength level), 27psf (service level)
081416 WOOD DOORS
1. All interior doors between admin areas on both levels.
081610 FRP DOORS / FRAMES
1. All passage doors: 3’-4” x 7’-2” 1-3/4” thick with 2” frame.
2. Interior door between truck loading and process area.
3. Interior doors between upper and lower vestibule and process area.
083323 OVERHEAD COILING DOORS
1. Overhead doors in truck loadout bay and in process area.
2. Wind pressure rating: 42psf (strength level), 25psf (service level)
3. Electrified.
4. Truck loading bay doors to use same opener: minimum 4.
5. Process area door to use separate opener: minimum 2.
084113 ALUMINUM FRAMED ENTERANCES AND STOREFRONT
1. Operable windows.
087000 DOOR HARDWARE
1. Standard door hardware; includes lever handle, weather stripping, drip cap, threshold,
sweep, hinges, closers, locksets, astragals, panic devices as required by code for egress.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 5 of 25 Exhibit K
2. Finishes to be suitable for their environment.
088000 GLASS AND GLAZING
1. All windows to be IGU’s (insulated glazing units).
2. Outboard lite: ¼ inch and tempered, tinted, and has a low-e coating.
3. 7/16 inch air space.
4. Inboard lite: 3/16” Laminated Sheet: .060” Clear PVB and 2 sheets of 3/32”.
5. Clear Heat Strengthened Glass.
6. Interior IGU’s omit low-e coating and tint.
092900 GYP BOARD AND METAL STUDS
1. 3 5/8 interior studs.
2. 5/8 inch gyp board.
3. Gyp board where indicated on walls in plan.
4. Gyp board ceiling in the restroom.
095123 ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING
1. Basis of design: CertainTeed, Symphony M, 2-foot by 2-foot.
096513 RESILIANT BASE TILE
1. Rubber base in admin areas.
099000 COATING
1. Color coded painting of exposed-to-view piping if not stainless steel.
2. All exposed process piping to have color coded labels and directional arrows.
3. 2 coat epoxy coating system for interior masonry walls.
4. 2 coat epoxy/polyurethane system for all bollards and pipe/supports exposed to UV.
5. 2 coat epoxy coating system for interior pipe/supports not exposed to UV.
6. Touch-up paint as required for non-stainless-steel equipment.
7. Epoxy resin 3 coat system in lab/work room and restroom.
8. 2 coat acrylic semi gloss for gyp bd.
100000 SPECIALTIES
1. Bathroom accessories as indicated on drawings.
2. Perforated roller shades in office and lab/work room.
3. Lab cabinetry as scheduled. Basis of design: Kewaunee.
4. Epoxy resin countertop and sink.
5. Splashblocks at downspouts as indicated in drawings.
120000 MISC FURNISHINGS
1. Desks, chairs, and shelves as indicated in drawings.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 6 of 25 Exhibit K
133419 PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDINGS
1. Galvanized primary framing with G90 secondary members.
2. Loads as indicated on Structural Drawings including (2) 5-ton monorail beams.
3. Trapezoidal standing seam metal roof.
4. Roof insulation: Guardian Energy Saver FP System.
5. R-value: R-19 + R-11 LS – R-30: 9 ½ inch double layer.
6. 3- inch insulated metal panel: Minimum R-20.
7. Prefinished 6-inch gutter and 4 x 6-inch downspouts.
220523 GENERAL DUTY VALVES FOR PLUMBING PIPING
1. Ball valves and check valves are to be made from lead-free bronze. For pipes NPS 2-1/2”
and larger use iron lug type butterfly valves.
2. Copper containing materials in process area shall be coated.
220548 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR PLUMBING PIPING
1. Delegated design. Provide signed and sealed details and shop drawings for items requiring
seismic restraint.
220719 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION
1. Insulate domestic water piping with flexible elastomeric or preformed mineral-fiber
insulation as follows:
i. Domestic Cold Water:
1. NPS 1-1/4 and smaller – at least ½” inch thick.
2. NPS 1-1/2 and larger - at least 1” thick.
ii. Domestic Hot and Recirculated Water:
1. NPS 1-1/2 and smaller - at least 1” thick.
2. NPS 2” and larger - at least at least 1-1/2” thick.
2. Provide PVC jacketing for interior exposed piping, provide aluminum jacketing for outdoor
piping.
221116 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING
1. Copper tube, type K or type L, with cast or wrought-copper solder-joint fittings and brazed
or soldered joints and anticorrosion coating in process areas.
2. Copper tube, type K or type L, with pressure-seal joint fittings and pressure-sealed joints.
3. Ductile-iron pipe, with mechanical-joint fittings and anticorrosion coating in process areas.
221119 DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALTIES
1. Provide backflow preventers to protect potable water system from contamination.
i. Reduced pressure zone type.
2. Balancing Valves.
i. Copper Alloy, Calibrated Balancing Valves.
221123 DOMESTIC WATER RECIRCULATION PUMPS
1. In-line, sealless centrifugal pump provided with aquastat. Taco-007 is basis of design.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 7 of 25 Exhibit K
221316 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING
1. Hubless cast iron soil pipe and fittings.
2. Solid wall, Schedule 40 PVC pipe and fittings. Comply with ASTM D2665.
223300 ELECTRIC, DOMESTIC WATER HEATERS
1. Two (2) 18 kW, 120 gallon domestic water heaters. A.O. Smith DRE-120-18 is basis of
design.
224213 COMMERICAL WATER CLOSETS
1. Porcelain, wall hung water closet with 1.6 gallon per flush flushometer.
224216.13 COMMERCIAL LAVATORIES
1. Wall mounted lavatory.
224216.16 COMMERCIAL SINKS
1. Janitor sink.
2. Drop-in, counter mounted sink.
224500 EMERGENCY PLUMBING FIXTURES
1. Comply with ANSI Z358.1.
i. Exterior Combination Eyewash and Safety Shower.
1. Freeze-protected.
2. Freestanding.
3. Provide with separate thermostatic mixing valve.
4. Provides 85 degree water at 23 gpm for at least 15 minutes.
5. Haws 8300 FP is basis of design.
ii. Interior Combination Eyewash and Safety Shower.
1. Freestanding.
2. Provide with separate or integral thermostatic mixing valve.
3. Provides 85-degree water at 23 gpm for at least 15 minutes.
4. Haws 8300 is basis of design.
230548 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPE AND EQUIPMENT
1. Delegated design. Provide signed and sealed seismic bracing details and shop drawings for
equipment > 20 lbs and ducts with area greater than six square feet.
230900 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL
1. Controls as required to satisfy NFPA 820 including:
i. Pressure differential between process and non-process space.
ii. Door open alarm if any airlock door is open for more than 20 seconds.
iii. Combustible gas detection.
iv. Power loss alarm for process area ventilation equipment.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 8 of 25 Exhibit K
231123 NATURAL GAS PIPING
1. Comply with NFPA 54.
2. Underground natural-gas piping shall be one of the following:
i. PE pipe and fittings joined by heat fusion, or mechanical couplings; service-line
risers with tracer wire terminated in an accessible location.
ii. Steel pipe with wrought-steel fittings and welded joints, or mechanical couplings.
Coat pipe and fittings with protective coating for steel piping.
3. Above ground natural-gas piping shall be one of the following:
i. Steel pipe with malleable-iron fittings and threaded joints.
ii. Steel pipe with wrought-steel fittings and welded joints.
232300 REFRIGERANT PIPING
1. Refrigerant piping to be copper complying with the following:
i. Copper Tube: ASTM B88, Type K or L or ASTM B280, Type ACR.
ii. Wrought-Copper Fittings: ASME B16.22.
iii. Wrought-Copper Unions: ASME B16.22.
iv. Brazing Filler Metals: Provide silver alloy brazing filler metal in compliance with
AWS A5.8 BCuP-5, similar to Sil-Fos 15 alloy.
233113 METAL DUCTS
1. Ductwork to be galvanized steel with G90 coating.
2. Comply with SMACNA’s "HVAC Duct Construction Standards - Metal and Flexible"
based on indicated static-pressure class, unless otherwise indicated.
233400 HVAC FANS
1. One (1) wall mounted exhaust fan for ventilating restroom.
i. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 120/1/60.
ii. Controls: Continuous operation.
iii. Accessories: Unit mounted disconnect switch.
iv. Airflow: 75 cfm.
2. Two (2) In-line Fans ventilating the Process Area.
i. Lead/Lag configuration.
ii. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 460/3/60.
iii. Controls: Continuous operation. Unit mounted thermostat to engage second fan for
cooling. Flow monitoring with low flow alarm.
iv. Accessories: Unit mounted disconnect switch, motorized control dampers.
v. Airflow: 8400 cfm.
vi. Type B Spark resistant.
vii. Provided with means to accept alternate source of power.
233713 DIFFUSERS, REGISTERS, AND GRILLES
1. Process area will be served by duct mounted diffusers, registers, and grilles.
2. Supply air diffusers will be long throw type designed with an airspeed of 50 feet per minute
when reaching the occupied zone (three to six feet above the floor).
Jefferson City – Phase 2 9 of 25 Exhibit K
237433 MAKEUP AIR UNITS
1. Direct fire natural gas makeup air unit to provide outside air to the process and truck
loadout spaces in compliance with NFPA 820. Cambridge M118 is basis of design.
i. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 460/3/60.
ii. Controls: Continuous operation. Thermostat for modulating of heating.
iii. Accessories: Unit mounted disconnect switch.
iv. Airflow: 8400 cfm.
v. Provided with means to accept alternate source of power.
vi. 600 MBH heating capacity.
237433.1 DEDICATED OUTSIDE AIR SYSTEM
1. Heat pump DOAS with 10kW supplemental electric duct heater. LG ARND093DCR4
indoor unit and LG LMU183HV condensing unit are basis of design.
i. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): Indoor unit 208/1/60, Outdoor unit 208/3/60.
ii. Controls: Internal controls, continuous operation. Modulate on dischrage air
temperature.
iii. Airflow: 800 CFM.
iv. Provided with means to accept alternate source of power.
v. Cooling capacity: 70 MBTU.
vi. Heating capacity: 40 MBTU.
238113 PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR-CONDITIONERS
1. Exterior, wall mounted packaged air conditioning system with electric heat to serve the
electrical room.
i. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 460/3/60.
ii. Controls: Thermostat.
iii. Accessories: 100% outside air economizer.
iv. Basis of Design is Bard Mega-TEC W150.
238126 SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONERS
1. Multizone ducted mini split system with outside air.
i. Two (2) Indoor Units
1. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 460/3/60.
2. Controls: Continuous fan operation, flow monitoring, thermostat.
3. Accessories.
4. Airflow: 260 CFM Outside Air.
5. Provide indoor units with means to accept alternate source of power.
ii. One (1) Outdoor Unit
1. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 460/3/60.
2. 5-Ton nominal capacity.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 10 of 25 Exhibit K
238239 ELECTRIC UNIT HEATERS
1. Three (3) Electric Baseboard Heaters for freeze protection of the restroom, mechanical
room, and operations room in case of power outage.
i. Electrical info (V/Ph/Hz): 120/31/60.
ii. Controls: Unit mounted thermostat.
iii. Accessories: Unit mounted thermostat and unit mounted disconnect switch.
iv. Provide with means to accept alternate source of power.
260510 GENERAL ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Work to be in accordance with the 2020 edition of the National Electric Code and in
compliance with current adopted local codes.
2. All equipment and materials shall meet the requirements of UL unless approved by Owner
before purchase and installation.
3. The following systems/items shall be included as part of this contract:
i. 480Y/277 V, 3-phase, 60 hertz, 4 wire power system.
ii. 120/208 V three phase, 60 hertz, 3-wire lighting, convenience power, and small
power systems.
iii. Grounding systems.
iv. Underground direct buried conduit systems, including handholes.
v. Underground duct banks, including handholes and manholes.
vi. Control systems.
vii. Instrumentation systems.
viii. Industrial Ethernet networks.
ix. Fire alarm system.
x. Lightning protection system.
xi. Arc flash studies.
4. All equipment conductor termination provisions shall be UL listed for 75ºC.
5. All equipment sizes provided by the contractor is approximate and contractor shall provide
any additional requirements at no additional cost to the Owner. This includes but is not
limited to motor controllers, cables, cable lugs, conduit, fuses or circuit breakers.
6. Cut buried raceway and remove wiring indicated to be abandoned in place, 2 inches below
surface of adjacent construction. Cap raceways and patch surface to match existing surface
finish. Remove demolished equipment or materials from project site in their entirety.
260519 LOW VOLTAGE POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES
1. Interior communication cabling to be unshielded CAT6 cable.
2. Exterior communication cabling to be fiber optic.
3. Use XHHW-2 insulation for all cables and rated for 90ºC continuous for dry and wet
locations.
4. Single conductor power cable used for main feeders and for most underground routes.
5. Shielded multiconductor power cables for VFD’s.
6. Unshielded multiconductor power cables are used when they run in the same raceway as
other power cables.
7. Shielded instrument cable twisted pairs/triads used for analog instrumentation cabling.
8. Unshielded multiconductor control cable used for control cabling.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 11 of 25 Exhibit K
9. All conductors shall be copper.
10. Ground ring and risers to be tin coated bare copper with #4/0 AWG ring and minimum #2
AWG risers, unless noted otherwise or specified in the grounding specification.
260526 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1. Provide insulated electrical grounding conductors for EGC connections sized according to
the NEC.
2. Provide grounding bus in electrical room to consolidate grounding connections and bond to
the existing GEC system at one location.
3. Provide ground rods as required with ¾ inch diameter and 10 feet long.
4. Provide GEC connections to neutral for all outdoor power sources such as transformers or
separately derived generators.
5. A grounded (neutral) conductor is not necessary from a separately derived generator but is
required for service feeds.
6. For service feeds from outside transformers to service rated equipment, the SSBJ should not
be run with the ungrounded conductors to prevent parallel paths.
7. For a GEC system, install at least 3 rods in a triad arrangement spaced at least one rod
length away from each other and bond to the service GEC.
8. Bond all ground rods and all exposed metal parts in manholes and handholes to the EGC or
grounding conductor.
9. Ground or bond all exposed noncurrent carrying metal parts of equipment, raceway,
conductors, or metallic plumbing systems.
10. Install ground ring with at least 3 ground rods around pad mounted transformers/switches
and bond all noncurrent carrying metal items.
11. Bond all motors to associated EGC run with phase conductors.
260533 RACEWAYS, BOXES, SEALS, AND FITTINGS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1. Exposed conduit indoors or outdoors to be rigid aluminum except where incompatible with
environment. Do not use underground or in concrete.
2. Underground conduit to be rigid PVC except otherwise noted, including corrosive areas.
3. All conduits connected to motors, other vibrating equipment, or for ease of maintenance
shall be liquid-tight flexible metal conduit (LFMC).
4. Use rigid aluminum boxes with aluminum conduits.
5. Use flexible metal conduit (FMC) for lighting in administration areas only.
6. All outdoor and corrosive area box locations are NEMA 4X unless otherwise noted.
7. Indoor boxes located in conditioned spaces shall be NEMA 12.
8. Provide conduit wall seals or firestops at all conduit penetrations of new or existing walls as
required.
260543 UNDERGROUND DUCT BANKS AND HANDHOLES
1. Manholes to be pre-cast concrete. Handholes to be quazite or pre-cast concrete.
2. Below-grade conduit to be direct-buried or concrete encased.
3. Underground ducts shall be PVC and rated for use with 90°C conductors.
4. Provide reinforcing steel for all concrete encasements.
5. Manhole cover shall be watertight and marked with “Electric”.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 12 of 25 Exhibit K
6. Provide “Pulling In” rope as required.
7. Provide warning tape above underground runs as required.
260548 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1. Delegated design. Provide signed and sealed vibration isolation and seismic-restraint details
and shop drawings for equipment to comply with performance requirements and design
criteria.
312050 SITE EXCAVATION / BACKFILL
1. All compactions shall be per Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) using sheepsfoot roller or
self-propelled compactor.
2. Excavation shall be as necessary to construct structures in accordance with the drawings.
3. Fill to be acquired onsite to extents possible and offsite as necessary for all backfill of new
structures.
4. Spoils will be removed off site.
5. Lifts shall not exceed 8”.
6. Finish grading of site.
7. Site grading compaction to 95% for general soil and granular backfill.
312050 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION
1. Over-excavation of 4’ below existing grade for the extents of the building and extending to
5 feet outside of the building pad and under proposed lime silo.
2. Minimum 2’ of low volume change material below structures including 6” layer of clean
granular material.
3. All compactions shall be per Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) using sheepsfoot roller or
self-propelled compactor.
4. Backfilling and compaction of Structures to 95% for general soil and granular backfill.
5. Pavement and floor slabs subgrade to 95% compaction; pavement and floor slabs granular
base course to 95%.
6. Backfill around structure walls will be completed with on-site soils with exception of
granular bedding for drain pipe behind retaining walls.
7. Drainage (clean) aggregate to be compacted with a minimum of three (3) passes with a
vibratory plate or smooth roller when placed.
8. Granular backfill shall be compacted by means of suitable equipment.
312050 TRENCH EXCAVATION/BACKFILL
1. 6” aggregate bedding below pipe and 12” above pipe – ¾” clean granular material.
2. Backfill around pipe and above pipe to 95% per Standard Proctor (ASTM D698).
321123 AGGREGATE
1. For equipment or landing pads constructed over a granular base, minimum of 6” of
MODOT Grade 4 aggregate shall be used.
2. For granular backfill, MODOT Type 1 or Type 5 shall be used.
3. For granular base below concrete drives and sidewalks, MODOT Type 1 shall be used.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 13 of 25 Exhibit K
329200 SEEDING
1. Design/Builder to return topsoil and fine grade site and seed any disturbed areas.
2. Seed mix will be suitable for continued Owner maintenance.
3. Topsoil will be stockpiled at beginning of project and re-spread or removed off site at the
end.
4. No topsoil import is included in the project.
321600 RIGID PAVEMENT
1. Minimum 8” for concrete drives on 6” granular base.
2. Minimum 5’ wide, 4” thick for concrete sidewalks on 4” granular base.
331100 PRESSURE SITE PIPING
1. Ductile Iron Pipe per AWWA C115, C150, and C151, Standard Pressure Class 350 for
pressure pipe and fittings.
2. PVC pressure pipe DR18, 235 psi per AWWA C900.
3. Restrained push-on or restrained mechanical joints for pipe and fittings.
4. Zinc coating for DIP and fittings.
5. Protecto 401 lining for DIP dewatering feed pipe and fittings. Dewatering feed pipe must be
DIP due to limited depth of cover.
6. Cement-mortar lining for all other DIP and fittings.
7. V-Bio Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement (minimum 8 mils) for DIP and fittings.
8. Polyethylene plastic tubing per ASTM D2737 SDR 9 200 psi or PVC per ASTM D1785
Schedule 80 PVC for pipes less than or equal to 3”.
9. Fire hydrant shall be American Darling B-84-B, 5-1/4" valve opening, Kennedy Guardian,
5-1/4" valve opening, or Mueller Super Centurion 250, Model A-423, 5-1/4" valve
opening.
331100 PROCESS PIPING
1. Interior Process Piping.
i. Ductile Iron Pipe, Pressure Class 350, Flanged Pipe (class 125) & Fittings. Victaulic
style grooved fittings are acceptable.
2. Protecto 401 lining for DIP dewatering feed pipe and fittings.
3. Exterior epoxy prime coating.
4. Centrate Discharge: 12” C900 PVC, DR18.
5. Misc PVC Pipe: Sch 80, Glue Fittings. Quarter turn ball valves.
6. Small diameter chemical feed tubing (2” Sch 80 PVC) with ½” polyethylene plastic tubing
for odor control and polymer feed piping.
7. Potable water and Process water (non-potable PW) to be C900 PVC for 4” or see 221116
DOMESTIC WATER PIPING for less than 4”.
331216 VALVES
1. Sludge loadout vault plug valves installed in vertical to be 6-inch 100% ported plug valve
installed with actuator stems up to existing valve boxes. ValMatic VM-5600, Victaulic
series 365 AWWA plug valves, or Engineer approved equal.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 14 of 25 Exhibit K
2. Sludge loadout vault plug valve before camlock disconnect to be 6-inch 100% ported plug
valves installed with 2-inch vertically facing actuator nuts with actuation with valve key.
ValMatic VM-5600, Victaulic series 365 AWWA plug valves, or Engineer approved equal.
3. Dewatering building process area plug valves to be 6-inch 100% ported plug valves
installed with 2-inch vertically facing actuator nuts with actuation with valve key. ValMatic
VM-5600, Victaulic series 365 AWWA plug valves, or Engineer approved equal.
4. 6-inch female camlock quick connect provided in sludge loadout vault.
5. Check valves to be 6-inch ValMatic Swing-Flex model number VM-500A-S, or Engineer
approved equal.
6. Valve interiors to be suitable for wastewater sludge use, to be factory tested at test pressures
of 250 psi, epoxy coatings on the interior and epoxy primers on the exterior.
333113 GRAVITY SITE PIPING AND MANHOLES
1. PVC pipe and fittings per ASTM D3034, minimum SDR 35. Gaskets per ASTM F477.
2. Lateral pipe per ASTM F891.
3. DIP pipe per ASTM A746, for push-on joints. Fittings per AWWA C110 or AWWA C153.
Gaskets per AWWA C111.
4. 4’ diameter precast manholes per ASTM C478.
5. Manholes shall be waterproofed with asphalt or coal-tar.
6. A-LOK connector for new pipes on new manholes.
7. A-LOK Inserta-LOK boot system for new pipes on existing manholes.
333150 PIPE INSTALLATION
1. General pipe installation and jointing.
2. V-Bio Polyethylene encasement for DIP.
3. Field testing.
4. Disinfection for potable water.
400000 INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROLS
1. HCW2 PLC Control Panel:
i. NEMA 12 Wallmount enclosure.
ii. AB CompactLogix PLC Equipment as required.
iii. DC Power Supplies.
iv. Allen-Bradley PanelView.
v. UPS System.
vi. Managed Industrial Ethernet Switch.
2. HCW2 Network Rack:
i. Wall Mounted Equipment Rack with accessories.
ii. Rack mount Managed Ethernet Switch.
iii. Fiber Patch Panel.
iv. UPS.
3. Plant Control System Software:
i. Plant PAX Version 5.
ii. RSLogix 5000 Programming Software.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 15 of 25 Exhibit K
4. Instruments:
i. (1) Submersible level transmitters with remote display.
ii. (1) Submersible low-water cutoff float.
iii. (1) Pressure transmitter.
iv. (1) Ambient temperature transmitter.
v. (2) Door position switches.
vi. (4) Mag Flow meters.
vii. (1) Gas Detector
5. PLC / HMI / Reports Programming Development, Testing, Startup, Training
Controls Startup, Configuration, Testing, Training, O&M Manuals.
412200 CRANES AND HOISTS
1. (2) 5-ton electrified hoists on monorail beams.
460000 MISCELLANEOUS PROCESS EQUIPMENT
1. Two (2) Polymer tote and scale containment to be provided for use with 330 gallon caged
polymer totes. Two (2) tote mixer to be provided for use with 330 gallon polymer totes.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
46 76 33 Dewatering Centrifuges
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Flottweg
2. Two (2) dewatering centrifuges
i. Up to 300 gpm at 1.5% - 4% feed solids (2,250 – 6,000 dry lbs/hr)
ii. Dewatered cake performance: 18% solids
iii. Capture Efficiency: > 95% TSS
iv. Maximum HP: 150 (main drive), 40 (scroll drive)
3. Accessories
i. Vibrator isolators
ii. Stainless steel feed manifold
iii. Two (2) discharge chutes
iv. Diverter gates with solenoid valve
v. Elevation stand
vi. Automatic grease lubrication system for main bearings
vii. Local control panels
viii. NEMA 12 Main control panels
ix. Scroll and bowl lifting device
x. Complete set of threaded spindles and plates
xi. Bowl truck
xii. Tool kit
4. Spare Parts
i. Two (2) sets of main drive belts
ii. Two (2) sets of scroll drive belts
iii. One (1) complete set of gaskets, O-rings, and seals
iv. One (1) year supply of lubricants for both gearbox unit and main and scroll bearings
Jefferson City – Phase 2 16 of 25 Exhibit K
v. Ten (10) spare fuses of each type used
vi. One (1) spare processor
vii. One (1) spare power supply
viii. One (1) spare communications interface module
ix. One (1) spare I/O card of each type used
46 33 33 Polymer Feed
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Velodyne
2. Two (2) Polymer dosing systems
i. Dilution water range: 600-6,000 gallons per hour (gph)
ii. Neat polymer range: 3-30 gph
iii. Mixing chambers
iv. Maximum HP: 1 (Mixer), ½ (metering pump)
3. Accessories
i. Mixing chamber assembly
ii. Metering pump assembly
iii. Dilution water assembly
iv. NEMA 4X control panel
v. Pressure regulating valves
4. Spare Parts
i. One (1) set of replacement mixing chamber O-rings
ii. One (1) solenoid valve spare parts kit
46 23 57 Progressive Cavity Pumps
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Netzsch
i. Two (2) progressive cavity pumps
ii. Capacity: 300 gpm
iii. Design Head: 57 feet
iv. Minimum NPSHa: 12 feet
v. Maximum HP: 15
2. Accessories
i. Thermal protection device
ii. Low pressure switch (suction)
iii. High pressure switch (discharge)
iv. NEMA 12 VFD control panel
v. NEMA 4X local control panel
3. Spare Parts
i. One (1) rotor
ii. One (1) stator
iii. One (1) set of housing gaskets and O-rings
46 24 23 Macerators
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Netzsch
i. Two (2) in-line sludge macerators
ii. 300 gpm of 2% - 4% thickened WAS
Jefferson City – Phase 2 17 of 25 Exhibit K
iii. Maximum HP: 3
2. Spare Parts
i. One (1) set of cutting knives
ii. One (1) shear plate
46 36 02 Quicklime Feed System
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Chemco
2. One (1) complete quicklime feed system
i. Minimum 2,700 ft3 lime silo
ii. Average quicklime bulk density: 55 lb/cf
iii. Feed dose rate: 0.1 – 0.5 lbs lime / dry lb dewatered sludge up to 3,000 lbs/hr
3. Accessories
i. Silo
1. Skirt supported to grade
2. 24” manway with pressure/vacuum relief
3. Dust collector
4. Level sensor opening and level sensor
5. Silo level switch
6. Silo fill line assembly with mounting brackets
7. Discharge cone
8. Equipment room at-grade
9. Access ladder with cable safety climb system
10. Truck loading operator panel (NEMA 4X)
11. Discharge knife gate
12. Bin activator
13. Electric heater
14. Interior light fixtures
ii. Volumetric screw feeder with VFD
iii. Mass transfer screw conveyor
iv. NEMA 4X Control Panel installed within silo
4. Spare Parts
i. Two (2) fuses of each type
ii. One (1) control relay of each type
iii. One (1) I/O card of each type
iv. One (1) roof level switch
v. One (1) side mount level switch
vi. One (1) manway gasket
46 36 03 Lime Sludge Blender
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Chemco
2. One (1) dewatered sludge and quicklime blender
i. Blending total solids up to 36,000 lbs/hr
ii. Retention time 30-60 seconds
iii. Blend dewatered sludge and quicklime to achieve a pH of 12 or more for a
minimum of two (2) hours.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 18 of 25 Exhibit K
iv. Maximum HP: 10
3. Accessories
i. Zero speed switch
46 77 11 Screw Conveyor
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Spirac
2. One (1) horizontal screw conveyor
i. Convey up to 525 ft3/hr
ii. 18% solids by weight
iii. 60 – 70 lbs/ft2
iv. Minimum Screw diameter: 18”
v. Approximate length: 21 feet
vi. Maximum HP: 5
3. Accessories
i. Two (2) inlets and one (1) outlet
ii. Conveyor supports (supported from above mezzanine)
iii. Two (2) emergency stop switches
iv. Loss of rotation sensor
v. Overload sensor
vi. Temperature sensor
vii. Trough liners
viii. Trough lids
ix. Saddle support brackets
x. One (1) flanged drain pipe connection
xi. NEMA 4X local control panel
46 77 12 Sludge Hopper
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Spirac
2. One (1) sludge loadout hopper
i. Usable storage volume: 10 CY
ii. Minimum sidewall slope: 70-deg from horizontal
iii. Discharge knife gate with electric actuator
3. Accessories
i. Top cover
ii. Safety handrail
iii. Ladder access
iv. Ultrasonic level indicator
v. Inlet splash guard
vi. Support framing
vii. NEMA 4X local control station
CVY-02
1. Equipment Manufacturer: Serpentix
2. One (1) inclined belt conveyor
i. Maximum sludge volume: 600 ft3/hr
Jefferson City – Phase 2 19 of 25 Exhibit K
ii. Maximum angle of inclination: 40-deg
iii. Overall centerline length: 40-50 feet
iv. Maximum HP: 3
3. Accessories
i. Conveyor chain
ii. Tension station
iii. Drive station
iv. Support structures
v. Vertical skirtboards
vi. Drip pans
vii. Belt scraper
viii. Safety stop switch
ix. Zero motion speed switch
x. Solenoid chain oiler
xi. NEMA 4X control panel
4. Spare Parts
i. Five (5) belt pans
ii. Ten (10) guide blocks
iii. Five (5) intermediate chain attachments
iv. Six (6) scraper blade inserts
46 33 01 Odor Control System
1. Equipment Manufacturer: PolyProcessing (Bulk Tank), Blue-White (Pumps)
2. One (1) double-walled bulk chemical storage tank
i. Minimum storage capacity: 6,000 gallons
ii. Stored chemical: VX456
iii. Maximum outer diameter: 12-ft
3. Two (2) positive displacement, peristaltic type metering pumps
i. 0.25-5.00 gallons per hour
ii. Discharge pressure: 50 psig
iii. Pumped medium: VX456
iv. Specific Gravity: 1.28 at 25oC
4. Accessories
i. Tank
1. Primary and Containment tank
2. Manway
3. Ladder
4. Leak detection kit/sensor
5. Fill line
6. Two (2) pump feed outlets
7. Drain outlet
8. Vent
ii. Pumps
1. Pump tubing / hose material
2. NEMA 4X
Jefferson City – Phase 2 20 of 25 Exhibit K
3. Isolation valves
4. Calibration chambers
5. Spare Parts
i. One (1) replacement pump head unit
ii. Two (2) replacement tubing sections
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
1. Utility Transformer, CT Cabinet and Metering.
i. Utility transformer provided by Ameren at an acceptable location with appropriate
clearances.
ii. Utility CT Cabinet and meter socket will be furnished by the utility for installation
by the contractor per utility instructions.
iii. Contractor will install an appropriate transformer pad at the given location and will
run underground conduit and cable up to a certain point for continuation and
connection by the utility to their transformer and to the Utility CT Cabinet and
meter socket.
2. 800A 480/277V Service Entrance Rated Main Breaker
i. Provide a 480V breaker adjacent to the Utility CT Cabinet and meter socket that
acts as the service disconnect.
ii. Provide ground connection as shown on the single line.
iii. Use a 65kA short circuit rating for the breaker.
3. 800A 480/277V Main Panelboard.
i. Provide a 480V panelboard that feeds all the loads as shown on the single line in the
drawing set.
ii. Provide breakers as shown on the single line.
iii. Use a 65kA short circuit rating for the panelboard.
4. Distribution Transformer and 120/208V panel.
i. Provide 45 kVA 480-120/208V distribution/lighting transformer to be installed in
the electrical room.
ii. This transformer will feed a new 120/208V panel that will provide power for the
LED light fixtures, various HVAC loads, instrumentation, and any other smaller
loads at the new building.
5. VFD Controllers and Control Panels.
i. Install VFD controllers provided in the package for the Centrifuge Bowl and Scroll
in the electrical room (2 total).
ii. Install VFD controllers provided in the package for the centrifuge feed pumps in the
electrical room (2 total).
iii. Install lime silo control panel provided by vendor in the electrical room (1 total).
iv. The vendors shall provide local control stations/panels at the Centrifuge to allow
local control of the system as well as local panels at the other equipment to allow
local operation as needed.
6. New Electrical Duct Bank
i. Install new duct bank to match and include equivalent cables that were running in
demolished duct bank to the SST’s and Gravity Thickener areas. Existing junction
box mounted on tanks will be the point of termination and continuation to existing
Jefferson City – Phase 2 21 of 25 Exhibit K
area loads.
ii. New duct bank shall also include additional ducts for new fiberoptic connections to
new building and for feeds to the loads at the new building that require backup
power from the existing MCC-A in the existing dewatering building.
7. Miscellaneous
i. Lighting to be LED fixtures.
ii. Door position switches as required will be monitored by the PLC. No access control
or security system will be provided.
iii. Lightning protection system included and will be provided by third party using
provided specification.
iv. Overcurrent Device Coordination/Short Circuit/Arc Flash studies are included and
will be performed at the end of the project by a subcontractor under the electrical
contractor or another contractor preferred by the owner.
v. Fiber connects between existing dewatering building fiber panel and existing
administration building fiber optic panel at the existing dewatering building.
vi. System will utilize centralized harmonic mitigation system.
vii. Ethernet TCP/IP communications from vendor provided VFD’s and vendor
provided panels to plant PLC and for detailed information from individual local
control panels for each piece of equipment to plant PLC.
viii. The centrifuge local HMI provided by the manufacturer will be used as the main
operator control for the entire building but the main PLC/Control panel in the
electrical room will be the main hub.
Jefferson City – Phase 2 22 of 25 Exhibit K
Preliminary Design Drawings
The Preliminary Design Drawing package includes the drawings listed below. All drawings are dated
December 15, 2023.
General Drawings
100G001 COVER
100G002 INDEX I
100G003 INDEX II
100G003 GENERAL LEGEND
100C001 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, SURVEY CONTROL, AND ABBREVIATIONS SHEET
Civil Drawings
100CD101 CIVIL DEMOLITION PLAN
100C101 CIVIL SITE PLAN
100C102 CIVIL GRADING PLAN
100C110 CIVIL YARD PIPING PLAN SHEET 1 OF 2
100C111 CIVIL YARD PIPING PLAN SHEET 2 OF 2
100C501 CIVIL DETAIL SHEET
Structural Drawings
100S001 STRUCTURAL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
100S002 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES
100S003 STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHEET 1
100S004 STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHEET 2
100S005 STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHEET 3
100S501 STRUCTURAL STANDARD CONCRETE DETAILS SHEET 1
100S502 STRUCTURAL STANDARD CONCRETE DETAILS SHEET 2
100S503 STRUCTURAL STANDARD CONCRETE DETAILS SHEET 3
100S504 STRUCTURAL STANDARD CONCRETE DETAILS SHEET 4
100S505 STRUCTURAL STANDARD STEEL DETAILS SHEET 1
100S506 STRUCTURAL STANDARD STEEL DETAILS SHEET 2
100S507 STRUCTURAL STANDARD STEEL DETAILS SHEET 3
100S508 STRUCTURAL STANDARD STEEL DETAILS SHEET 4
100S509 STRUCTURAL STANDARD MASONRY DETAILS
300S101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN
300S102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECOND FLOOR PLAN
300S301 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 1
300S302 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 2
300S303 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 3
300S401 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING EAST RETAINING WALL ENLARGED PLAN AND ELEVATION
300S402 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING WEST RETAINING WALL ENLARGED PLAN AND ELEVATION
300S501 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING DETAILS
310S101 LIME SILO ENLARGED PLAN, SECTION AND DETAIL
Jefferson City – Phase 2 23 of 25 Exhibit K
320S101 ODOR CONTROL FOUNDATION MODIFICATIONS
Architectural Drawings
100A001 ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
100A002 ARCHITECTURAL GENERAL NOTES
300A101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING CODE REVIEW AND OVERALL FLOOR PLANS
300A102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LOWER PLAN
300A103 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING UPPER FLOOR
300A104 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING FIRST FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
300A105 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECOND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
300A106 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING ROOF PLAN
300A201 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS
300A202 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS
300A301 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS
300A501 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
300A601 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SCHEDULES AND DETAILS
Mechanical Drawings
100M001 MECHANICAL GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
300M101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL PLAN - FIRST FLOOR
300M102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL PLAN - SECOND FLOOR
300M500 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL DETAILS
300M501 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL DETAILS
300M600 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL SCHEDULES
300M700 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - MECHANICAL CONTROLS
Plumbing Drawings
100P001 PLUMBING GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
300P100 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - UNDERFLOOR
300P101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING PLAN - FIRST FLOOR
300P102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING PLAN - SECOND FLOOR
300P401 ENLARGED VIEWS
300P500 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING DETAILS
300P501 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING DETAILS
300P502 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING DETAILS
300P600 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING - PLUMBING PLAN - SCHEDULES
Process & Instrumentation Drawings
100DI601 P&ID LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GENERAL NOTES SHEET 1
100DI602 P&ID LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GENERAL NOTES SHEET 2
100DI603 P&ID LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GENERAL NOTES SHEET 3
100DI604 SOLIDS DEWATERING OVERALL P&ID
100DI605 CENTRIFUGE FEED PUMPS P&ID
100DI606 POLYMER FEED P&ID
100DI607 DEWATERING CENTRIFUGE P&ID
100DI608 SOLIDS CONVEYANCE P&ID
Jefferson City – Phase 2 24 of 25 Exhibit K
100DI609 LIME FEED SYSTEM P&ID
100DI610 ODOR CONTROL CHEMICAL SYSTEM P&ID
Process Drawings
100D601 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
200D101 SLUDGE LOADOUT VAULT PLAN AND SECTION
300D101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LOWER PLAN
300D102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING UPPER PLAN
300D301 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 1
300D302 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 2
300D303 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEET 3
410D101 ODOR CONTROL PLAN AND SECTION
Electrical Drawings
100E001 ELECTRICAL LEGEND
100E101 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
300E001 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING MAIN PANEL SINGLE LINE
300E101 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LOWER LEVEL POWER AND GROUNDING PLAN
300E102 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING UPPER LEVEL POWER AND GROUNDING PLAN
300E103 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING & SMALL POWER PLAN
300E104 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING UPPER LEVEL LIGHTING & SMALL POWER PLAN
300E105 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LOWER LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROLS PLAN
300E106 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING UPPER LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROLS PLAN
300E501 GROUNDING DETAILS
300E502 UNDERGROUND DUCT AND RACEWAY DETAILS
300E503 RACEWAY PENETRATION AND TERMINATION DETAILS
300E504 RACEWAY SUPPORT AND MISC. INSTALLATION DETAILS
300E601 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING NETWORK DIAGRAM
300E602 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE
300E603 BIOSOLIDS BUILDING PANELBOARD SCHEDULE
400E001 EXISTING PARTIAL MCC-A UPDATES
Reference Drawings
Black and Veatch
BC5 SITEWORK BIOFILTER PLAN, SECTIONS AND DETAIL
Horner & Shifrin
2 OF 77 LAYOUT YARD PIPING
40 OF 77 HIGH WATER PUMP STATION MECHANICAL PLANS, SECTIONS AND DETAILS
41 OF 77 HIGH WATER PUMP STATION STRUCTURAL PLAN & SECTIONS
42 OF 77 HIGH WATER PUMP STATION STRUCTURAL PLANS & DETAILS
43 OF 77 HIGH WATER PUMP STATION STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
2 OF 50 LAYOUT YARD PIPING
22 OF 50 EFFLUENT WATER PUMP STATION PLAN, SECTIONS & DETAILS
Jefferson City – Phase 2 25 of 25 Exhibit K
26 OF 50 MODIFICATIONS EXISTING STRUCTURES PLAN & SECTIONS, AND GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
Sverdrup Civil, Inc.
C-2 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN