Loading...
Report 12250Su) ice ' ^ r2 - 6' R Carlson Geotechnical Bend "(541)330-9155 G'p+ 4 Eugene Office (541)345-0289 ' A division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Salem Office (503)589-1252 Phone: (503)601-8250 Tigard Office (503)684-3460 oearecfftiir.n� Fax: (503)601-8254 • RECEIVED OFFMet copy APR 8 2020 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION OFF1'LX. LAUf Report of Geotechnical Investigation & Site Specific Seismic Hazards Study Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 Prepared for Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 October 16, 2019 Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997. Tigard, Oregon 97281 Carlson Geotechnical Bend Office (541) 330-9155 00 ,y Eugene Office (541)345-0289 A division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Salem Office (503) 589-1252 GEOTECHNICAL Phone: (503)601-8250 Tigard Office (503) 684-3460 Fax: (503)601-8254 October 16, 2019 Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 Report of Geotechnical Investigation & Site Specific Seismic Hazard Study Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 Dear Ms. Copeland: Carlson Geotechnical (CGT), a division of Carlson Testing, Inc. (CTI), is pleased to submit this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical investigation and site specific seismic hazards study (SSSHS) for the proposed Broadway Rose Theater Additions project. The site is located at 12850 SW Grant Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. We performed our work in general accordance with CGT Proposal GP8550.R1, dated July 25, 2019. Written authorization for our services was received on August 6, 2019. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us at 503.601.8250 if you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, CARLSON GEOTECHNICAL Melissa L. Lehman, GIT Jeff Jones, CEG Brad M. Wilcox, P.E., G.E. Geotechnical Project Manager Senior Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer mlehman(a�carlsontestinq.com lionesa.carlsontestinq.com bwilcoxcarlsontestinq.com Doc ID: G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects1G1905125 - Broadway Rose Theater Additions1G1905125 - GEO1008 - Deliverables\Report\G1905125 Geotechnical Investigation.docx Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997, Tigard, Oregon 97281 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Project Information 4 1.2 Scope of Services 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 5 2.1 Site Geology 5 2.2 Site Surface Conditions 5 2.3 Subsurface Conditions 5 3.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 7 3.1 Seismic Hazards 7 3.2 Seismic Design 7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 8 4.1 Overview 8 4.2 Liquefaction Potential 8 4.3 Undocumented Fills 9 4.4 Subgrade Moisture Sensitivity 9 4.5 Active Drywell(s) 10 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 5.1 Site Preparation 10 5.2 Temporary Excavations 11 5.3 Wet Weather Considerations 12 5.4 Structural Fill 13 5.5 Building Foundations 15 5.6 Floor Slabs 17 5.7 Site Retaining Walls 17 5.8 Pavements 19 5.9 Additional Considerations 21 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES 21 6.1 Design Review 21 6.2 Observation of Construction 21 7.0 LIMITATIONS 22 ATTACHMENTS Site Location Figure 1 Site Plan Figure 2 Site Photographs.. Figure 3 Retaining Walls Figure 4 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Appendix A Results of Infiltration Testing Appendix B Results of Liquefaction Analyses Appendix C Site Specific Seismic Hazards Study Appendix D Carlson Geotechnical Page 3 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 1.0 INTRODUCTION Carlson Geotechnical (CGT), a division of Carlson Testing, Inc. (CTI), is pleased to submit this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical investigation and site specific seismic hazards study (SSSHS) for the proposed Broadway Rose Theater Additions project. The site is located at 12850 SW Grant Avenue in Tigard, Oregon, as shown on the attached Site Location, Figure 1. 1.1 Project Information CGT developed an understanding of the proposed project based on our correspondence with the design team members and review of provided preliminary architectural plans prepared by Scott Edwards Architecture. Based on our review, we understand the project will include: • Demolition and removal of existing pavements, hardscaping features (e.g. sidewalks) and landscaping features in areas of proposed construction. • Construction of two additions onto the existing theater building. The additions will be one story in height, wood- or steel-framed, and incorporate post-and-beam floor construction (crawlspaces) or slab-on-grade floors. No below grade levels (basements) are anticipated for this project. Although no structural information has been provided, we have assumed maximum column, continuous wall, and uniform floor slab loads will be on the order of 80 kips, 4 kips per lineal foot (klf), and 150 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. • Installation of appurtenant underground utilities and hardscaping features to serve the building areas. • Although no grading plans have been provided, we anticipate permanent grade changes at the site will be minimal, with maximum cuts and fills on the order of about 2 feet in depth. • Although no stormwater management plans have been provided, we understand that stormwater runoff from new impervious areas of the site will be managed on-site, either through existing facility(ies) and/or construction of new facility(ies). The project civil engineer requested two infiltration tests be performed at the site, one of which within an existing stormwater swale along the southeast portion of the site and another within the south parking lot area. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of work included the following: • Contact the Oregon Utilities Notification Center to mark the locations of public utilities within a 20-foot radius of our explorations at the site. CGT also subcontracted a private utility locator service to mark the locations of detectable private utilities within the same radius. • Explore subsurface conditions at the site by advancing six drilled borings and two hand auger borings to depths of up to about 101'/z feet below ground surface (bgs). Details of the subsurface investigation are presented in Appendix A. • Conduct infiltration testing in two of the borings. Results of the infiltration testing are presented in Appendix B. • Classify the soils encountered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D2488 (Visual- Manual Procedure). • Provide a technical narrative describing surface and subsurface deposits and local geology of the site " based on the results of our explorations and published geologic mapping. Carlson Geotechnical Page 4 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 • Provide a site-specific seismic hazards study (SSSHS) in accordance with Section 1803 of the 2014 OSSC. Results of liquefaction analyses are presented in the attached Appendix C. The results of the SSSHS are presented in Appendix D. • Provide recommendations for the Seismic Site Class, mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations, and site seismic coefficients. • Provide geotechnical recommendations for site preparation and earthwork. • Provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design and construction of alternative foundation systems, floor slabs, and pavements. • Provide this written report summarizing the results of our geotechnical investigation and recommendations for the project. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Geology Site geology is described in detail in Section D.2.2 of the attached Appendix D. In summary, the mapping indicates the site is underlain by approximately 60 feet of Pleistocene catastrophic flood deposits over Troutdale formation sediments. 2.2 Site Surface Conditions The project site was bordered by established residential and commercial development to the northeast and southeast, an existing grass field to the southwest, and SW Grant Avenue and a parking lot to the northwest. At the time of our field investigation, the site was occupied by the existing theater building, asphalt and concrete pavements, hardscaping features, and landscaping areas (planters). In terms of topography, the site was relatively level to very gently descending to the southeast. Site layout and surface conditions at the time of our field investigation are shown on the attached Site Plan (Figure 2) and Site Photographs (Figure 3). 2.3 Subsurface Conditions 2.3.1 Subsurface Investigation & Laboratory Testing Our subsurface investigation consisted of six drilled borings (B-1 through B-6) and two hand auger borings (HA-1 and HA-2) completed on August 26 and 27, 2019. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, attached as Figure 2. In summary, the borings were advanced to depths ranging from about % to 101'/z feet bgs. Details regarding the subsurface investigation, logs of the explorations, and results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A. Subsurface conditions encountered during our investigation are summarized below. 2.3.2 Subsurface Materials Logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. The following describes each of the subsurface materials encountered at the site. Asphalt Concrete Pavement(AC) Asphalt concrete (AC) pavement was encountered at the surface of borings B-1 through B-6 and was about 2 inches thick. Carlson Geotechnical Page 5 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Undocumented Fill We encountered undocumented fill materials below the AC in B-1 through B-6. The fill consisted of poorly graded gravel that extended to depths of about 3/4 to 3'/z feet bgs. Other fill encountered within the explorations consisted of a variable mix of silt with sand and gravel that was encountered at the surface of HA-1 and extended to a depth of 5 feet bgs. An approximate 12-foot deep void was encountered below existing fill in boring B-6 and the boring was terminated upon discovery of the void. As described later in this report, boring B-6 was located in an area purportedly underlain by drywell(s) which were not marked prior to drilling. Missoula Flood Deposits [Lean Clay (CL), Lean Clay with Sand (CL), Sandy Silt (ML). Silty Sand (SM), and Silt(ML)] Beneath the fill in explorations B-1 through B-6 and HA-1, and at the surface of HA-2, we encountered fine- grained alluvium that consisted of clay, silt, and sand. These soils were interpreted as the Missoula flood deposits and Troutdale formation sediments described in Section 2.1. The Missoula flood deposits extended to the full depths explored in borings B-2 through B-4, HA-1, and HA-2, approximately ''/2 to 16'/z feet bgs. These deposits extended to approximately 51 and 60 feet bgs in borings B-1 and B-5, respectively. Troutdale Formation Sediments(Silt(ML), Lean Clay(CL), and Fat Clay(CH)1 Troutdale formation sediments were encountered below the Missoula flood deposits in•'B-1 and B-5 and extended to the full depths explored, approximately 81'% and 101'/2 feet bgs, respectively. The deposits consisted of stiff to very stiff, lean clay, silt, and fat clay. 2.3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered within borings B-1 and B-5 at depths between 11'/4 and 17 feet bgs on August 26 and 27, 2019. Groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored in the remaining borings completed at the site. To determine approximate regional groundwater levels in the area, we researched well logs available on the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD)1 website for wells located within Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian. Our review indicated that groundwater levels in the area generally ranged from about 4 to 40 feet bgs. Deeper water zones were • reported at depths below 150 feet bgs. It should be noted groundwater levels vary with local topography. In addition, the groundwater levels reported on the OWRD logs often reflect the purpose of the well, so water well logs may only report deeper, confined groundwater, while geotechnical or environmental borings will often report any groundwater encountered, including shallow, unconfined groundwater. Therefore, the levels reported on the OWRD well logs referenced above are considered generally indicative of local water levels and may not reflect actual groundwater levels at the project site. The depth to groundwater map for the Portland area2 indicates groundwater is present at depths of 47 feet bgs in the vicinity of the site. It should be noted that the levels reported by the referenced map are average values for a given location and incorporate a degree of uncertainty. For this location the uncertainty is described as"moderate." Oregon Water Resources Department, 2019. Well Log Records, accessed October 2019, from OWRD web site: http://apps.wrd.state or.us/apps/qw/well loq/. 2 Snyder, D.T., 2008, Estimated depth to ground water and configuration of the water table in the Portland. Oregon area: U.S. Geological Survey,Scientific Investigations Report SIR-2008-5059,scale 1:60,000. Carlson Geotechnical Page 6 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 We anticipate that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal and annual variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. Additionally, the on-site, fine-grained alluvium (CL, ML, SM) and Troutdale sediments (CL, CH) are conducive to formation of perched groundwater. 3.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Seismic Hazards We performed a Site Specific Seismic Hazards Study (SSSHS) for the project in accordance with Section 1803 of the 2014 OSSC. The complete results of our hazards study are presented in the attached Appendix A. The following conclusions highlight the results of our SSSHS: • We conclude there is a high risk of liquefaction occurring at the site during a design-level earthquake. Liquefiable soils were encountered at depth in borings B-1 and B-5, and our analyses indicated approximately 7% to 5% inches of total, liquefaction-induced settlement, respectively. Full details of our analyses are presented in the attached Appendix C. • We conclude the risk of seismically-induced landslides impacting the site is negligible. • We conclude the risk of surface rupture from faulting or lateral spread is very low. • We conclude there is a negligible risk of seiche inundation at this site. 3.2 Seismic Design 3.2.1 Seismic Site Class Section 1613.3.2 of the 2014 OSSC requires that the determination of the seismic site class be based on subsurface data in accordance with Chapter 20 of the ASCE 7-10. Recognizing the presence of liquefiable soils (discussed above), the site was initially assigned as Site Class F based on Section 1613.3.2 of the 2014 OSSC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 07-10. Designation as Site Class F typically requires a site-specific evaluation of ground response and spectral accelerations. However, ASCE 07-10 includes an exception to this in Section 20.3.1 of that manual. When the sole reason for classifying a site as Site Class F is due to the presence of liquefiable soils and the proposed structure(s) have a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds (as anticipated for this project), a site class is permitted to be determined based on standard penetration resistance, undrained shear strength, or shear wave velocity, in accordance with Section 20.3 of that manual. As illustrated in the attached Appendix D, based on the results of the explorations and SPTs performed as part of our investigation, we have assigned the site as Site Class E. 3.2.2 Seismic Ground Motion Values Earthquake ground motion parameters for the site were obtained in accordance with the 2014 OSSC using the Seismic Hazards by Location calculator on the ATC website3. The site Latitude 45.426498° North and Longitude 122.781226°West were input as the site location. The following table shows the recommended seismic design parameters for the site. 3 Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2019. USGS seismic design parameters determined using "Seismic Hazards by Location," accessed October 2019,from the ATC website https://hazards.atcouncil.orq/. Carlson Geotechnical Page 7 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 Table 1 Seismic Ground Motion Values (2014 OSSC) Parameter Value Mapped Acceleration Parameters Spectral Acceleration,0.2 second(Ss) 0.967 Spectral Acceleration, 1.0 second(Si) 0.422 Coefficients Site Coefficient,0.2 second(FA) 0.94 (Site Class E,Risk Category Ill) Site Coefficient, 1.0 second (Fv) 2.4 Adjusted MCE Spectral MCE Spectral Acceleration,0.2 second(SMS) 0.909 Response Parameters MCE Spectral Acceleration, 1.0 second(SM,) 1.013 Design Spectral Acceleration,0.2 second(Sps) 0.606 Design Spectral Response Accelerations Design Spectral Acceleration,1.0 second(SDi) 0.675 Seismic Design Category D 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Overview Based on the results of our field explorations and analyses, the site may be developed as described in Section 1.1 of this report, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and development. We conclude the primary geotechnical considerations at this site include: • The presence of fine-grained, saturated soils that are susceptible to loss in shear strength, liquefaction, and resultant settlement from ground shaking associated with a design seismic event. • The presence of undocumented fill encountered across much of the site. • The presence of near-surface, moisture-sensitive soils that are susceptible to disturbance during wet weather. • The presence of purportedly active drywell(s) within the footprint of the north building addition. These considerations are described in more detail in the following sections. 4.2 Liquefaction Potential As indicated in Section 3.1 above and discussed in the attached Appendix C, our analyses indicate that total, liquefaction-induced settlements at the site are estimated between about 5'/z to 8'/2 inches. In the absence of ground improvement, these estimated settlements are not expected to be tolerable for the proposed building additions if supported on conventional, shallow spread foundations. Subsequent to our explorations, laboratory testing, and analyses, CGT reviewed preliminary findings and conclusions for the building additions with the project design team via telephone on October 8, 2019. Three alternatives for mitigating excessive, liquefaction induced settlements were discussed with the design team and are summarized in the following table: Carlson Geotechnical Page 8 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table 2 Foundation Alternatives for Building Additions Further Alternative Primary Advantages Primary Disadvantages Discussion Granular • Through proper design,this method should • Method does not eliminate risk of liquefaction- Piers'& significantly reduce the risk of liquefaction-induced induced settlements below depth of piers See Section 1 Shallow settlements within upper 25 to 40 feet of building floor. (practical improvement typically limited to 25 5.5.1 Foundation • Speed of construction(relatively rapid installation). to 40 feet) System • Anticipated lower cost compared to Alternative 1 or 2. • Where properly designed,this method should • Relative high cost Deep practically eliminate the risk of excessive,liquefaction- • Relatively deep installation required(90+feet) Foundations See Section 2 induced settlements within the building area. • Supplemental(deeper)geotechnical 5.5.2 (e.g.Auger- Cast Piles) • Soil conditions are favorable for installation of auger investigation required to develop specific cast piles. recommendations for design • Through proper design,this method should help reduce the potential for excessive,localized • Method does not eliminate risk of total Mat liquefaction-induced settlements at the site, See Section 3 Foundations differential,liquefaction-induced settlements to nor the potential for differential settlements 5.5.3 address building code requirements(life-safety for across the building pad("tilt'). occupants). ' Design and installation of this foundation alternative, if considered, would rest with separate, licensed, design-build firm experienced in the design of these systems. Once the foundation system / ground improvement method has been selected for the building, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide specific geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. 4.3 Undocumented Fills As indicated in Section 2.3.2 above. we encountered undocumented fill materials (poorly graded gravel fill, silt fill) in the borings advanced at the site. The depth of existing fill encountered in the borings varied from about 'h to 5 feet in depth. To the best of our knowledge, there is no documentation available related to the placement and compaction of the existing fill materials at the site. Based on review of historical aerial imagery. the project site appears to have been previously developed with additional buildings. We anticipate the fill materials were most likely placed as part of previous demolition and grading activities at the site. Earthwork records could be sought to confirm se assumptions and provide more information. In the absence of review of earthwQ rt/construction records, the borings showed the existing fill materials Li were generally free of organic and a .+'•ressible materials and were generally medium stiff/medium dense or better in terms of consistertnyi . , density. Based on the results of our explorations, we conclude the existing, near-surface, fill materials may be relied upon for subgrade support of relatively lightly-loaded floor slabs and pavements planned at this site. Proof roll testing is recommended to confirm the existing fill materials are stable and non-yielding and suitable for placement and compaction of base rock. Geotechnical recommendations for subgrade preparation of floor slabs and pavements are presented in Section 5.1.5 of this report. 4.4 Subgrade Moisture Sensitivity The near surface, fine-grained alluvium (CL, ML) is susceptible to disturbance during wet weather. Trafficability of these soils may be difficult, and significant damage to the subgrade could occur, if earthwork Carlson Geotechnical Page 9 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 is undertaken without proper precautions at times when the exposed soils are more than a few percentage points above optimum moisture content. In the event that construction occurs during wet weather, we recommend that measures be implemented to protect the fine-grained subgrade in areas of repeated construction traffic. Geotechnical recommendations for wet weather construction are presented in Section 5.3 of this report. 4.5 Active Drywell(s) As indicated in Section 2.3.2 above, a void was encountered in the subsurface during the advancement of boring B-6 near the northeast corner of the existing building. The void started at depth of 2 feet and extended to a depth of about 12'/2 feet bgs. Based on discussion with the project team in September 2019, and review of a provided drawing, we understand the void comprises the interior of an active drywell that currently serves the existing development. We further understand that the drywell(s) will be maintained and continued to be relied upon for stormwater management following construction of this project. Once the foundation system is chosen for the north building addition, we recommend the geotechnical engineer be consulted to present supplemental recommendations for foundation support in proximity of the existing drywell(s). 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are based on the information provided to us, results of our field investigation and analyses, laboratory data, and professional judgment. CGT has observed only a small portion of the pertinent subsurface conditions. The recommendations are based on the assumptions that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those found during the field investigation. CGT should be consulted for further recommendations if the design of the proposed development changes and/or variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered during site development. 5.1 Site Preparation 5.1.1 Demolition Demolition of existing pavements and hardscaping features (e.g. curbs, sidewalks) should include complete removal of all structural elements. Abandoned buried utilities should similarly be removed or grouted full. Concrete or asphalt concrete debris resulting from demolition activities may be re-used as structural fill, provided it is processed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.4.1 of this report. Alternatively, demolition debris should be hauled off site for disposal. 5.1.2 Stripping Existing vegetation, topsoil, and rooted soils should be removed from within, and for a minimum 5-foot margin around, proposed building pad and pavement areas. Based on the results of our field explorations, topsoil stripping depths are anticipated to be less than 1/4 foot bgs. These materials may be deeper or shallower at locations away from the completed explorations. The geotechnical engineer's representative should provide recommendations for actual stripping depths based on observations during site stripping. Stripped surface vegetation and rooted soils should be transported off-site for disposal, or stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas. Carlson Geotechnical Page 10 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 5.1.3 Grubbing Grubbing of trees should include the removal of the root mass and roots greater than '/ inch in diameter. Grubbed materials should be transported off-site for disposal. Root masses from larger trees may extend greater than 3 feet bgs. Where root masses are removed, the resulting excavation should be properly backfilled with structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4 of this report. 5.1.4 Existing Utilities & Below-Grade Structures All existing utilities at the site should be identified prior to excavation. Abandoned utility lines beneath the new buildings, pavements, and hardscaping features should be completely removed or grouted full. Soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils encountered in utility trench excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4 this report. Buried structures (i.e. footings, foundation walls, retaining walls, slabs-on-grade, tanks, etc.), if encountered during site development, should be completely removed and replaced with structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4 of this report. 5.1.5 Subqrade Preparation — Building Pad & Pavements After site preparation as recommended above, but prior to placement of structural fill and/or aggregate base, the geotechnical engineer's representative should observe the exposed subgrade soils in order to identify areas of excessive yielding through either proof rolling or probing. Proof rolling of subgrade soils is typically conducted during dry weather using a fully-loaded, 10- to 12-cubic-yard, tandem-axle, tire-mounted, dump truck or equivalent weighted water truck. Areas of limited access or that appear too soft or wet to support proof rolling equipment should be evaluated by probing. During wet weather, subgrade preparation should be performed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.3 of this report. If areas of soft soil or excessive yielding are identified, the affected material should be over-excavated to firm, unyielding subgrade, and replaced with imported granular structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4.2 of this report. 5.1.6 Erosion Control Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be employed in accordance with applicable City, County, and State regulations. 5.2 Temporary Excavations 5.2.1 Overview Conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working condition should be capable of making necessary excavations for the anticipated site cuts as described earlier in this report. All excavations should be in accordance with applicable OSHA and state regulations. It is the contractor's responsibility to select the excavation methods, to monitor site excavations for safety, and to provide any shoring required to protect personnel and adjacent improvements. A "competent person," as defined by OR-OSHA, should be on-site during construction in accordance with regulations presented by OR-OSHA. CGT's current role on the project does not include review or oversight of excavation safety. Carlson Geotechnical Page 11 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 5.2.2 OSHA Soil Types For use in the planning and construction of temporary excavations up to 10 feet in depth, an OSHA soil type "B" may be used for the fine-grained alluvium (CL, ML) encountered near the surface of the site. Similarly, an OSHA soil class"C" should be used for the near-surface fill materials (ML Fill, GP Fill). 5.2.3 Utility Trenches Temporary trench cuts should stand near vertical to depths of approximately 4 feet in the native, fine-grained alluvium (CL, ML) encountered near the surface of the site. If groundwater seepage undermines the stability of the trench, or if sidewall caving is observed during excavation, the sidewalls should be flattened or shored. Depending on the time of year trench excavations occur, trench dewatering may be required in order to maintain dry working conditions. Pumping from sumps located within the trench will likely be effective in removing water resulting from seepage. If groundwater is encountered, we recommend placing trench stabilization material at the base of the excavations. Trench stabilization material should be in conformance with Section 5.4.3. 5.2.4 Excavations Near Foundations Excavations near footings should not extend within a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) plane projected out and down from the outside, bottom edge of the footings. In the event excavation needs to extend below the referenced plane, temporary shoring of the excavation and/or underpinning of the subject footing may be required. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to review proposed excavation plans for this design case to provide specific recommendations. 5.3 Wet Weather Considerations For planning purposes. the wet season should be considered to extend from late September to late June. It is our experience that dry weather working conditions should prevail between early July and mid-September. Notwithstanding the above, soil conditions should be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical engineer's representative at the initial stage of site preparation to determine whether the recommendations within this section should be incorporated into construction. 5.3.1 Overview Due to their fines content, the near-surface fine-grained alluvium (CL, ML) is susceptible to disturbance during wet weather. Trafficability of these soils may be difficult, and significant damage to subgrade soils could occur, if earthwork is undertaken without proper precautions at times when the exposed soils are more than a few percentage points above optimum moisture content. For wet weather construction, site preparation activities may need to be accomplished using track-mounted equipment, loading removed material onto trucks supported on granular haul roads, or other methods to limit soil disturbance. The geotechnical engineer's representative should evaluate the subgrade during excavation by probing rather than proof rolling. Soils that have been disturbed during site preparation activities, or soft or loose areas identified during probing, should be over-excavated to firm, unyielding subgrade, and replaced with imported granular structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4.2. 5.3.2 Geotextile Separation Fabric We recommend a geotextile separation fabric be placed to serve as a barrier between the prepared subgrade and granular fill/base rock in areas of repeated or heavy construction traffic. The geotextile fabric Carlson Geotechnical Page 12 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 should meet the requirements presented in the current Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Standard Specification for Construction, Section 02320. 5.3.3 Granular Working Surfaces (Haul Roads & Staging Areas) Haul roads subjected to repeated heavy, tire-mounted, construction traffic (e.g. dump trucks, concrete trucks, etc.) will require a minimum of 18 inches of imported granular material. For light staging areas, 12 inches of imported granular material is typically sufficient. Additional granular material or geo-grid reinforcement may be recommended based on site conditions and/or loading at the time of construction. The imported granular material should be in conformance with Section 5.4.2 and have less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. The prepared subgrade should be covered with geotextile fabric (Section 5.3.2) prior to placement of the imported granular material. The imported granular material should be placed in a single lift (up to 24 inches deep) and compacted using a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller until well-keyed. 5.4 Structural Fill The geotechnical engineer should be provided the opportunity to review all materials considered for use as structural fill (prior to placement). Samples of the proposed fill materials should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer a minimum of 5 business days prior their use on site. The geotechnical engineer's representative should be contacted to evaluate compaction of structural fill as the material is being placed. Evaluation of compaction may take the form of in-place density tests and/or proof roll tests with suitable equipment. Structural fill should be evaluated at intervals not exceeding every 2 vertical feet as the fill is being placed. 5.4.1 On-Site Soils—General Use 5.4.1.1 Asphalt Concrete & Concrete Debris Debris resulting from the demolition of existing foundations, slabs, hardscaping features, and pavements can be re-used as structural fill if processed/crushed into material that is fairly well graded between coarse and fine. The processed/crushed AC and/or concrete should contain no organic matter, debris, or particles larger than 4 inches in diameter. Moisture conditioning (wetting) should be expected in order to achieve adequate compaction. When used as structural fill, recycled materials should be placed and compacted in general accordance with Section 5.4.2. 5.4.1.2 Fine-Grained Alluvium[Lean Clay (CL), Silt(ML), Sandy Silt(ML), and Silty Sand(SM)] Re-use of these soils as structural fill may be difficult because these soils are sensitive to small changes in moisture content and are difficult, if not impossible, to adequately compact during wet weather. We anticipate the moisture content of these soils will be higher than the optimum moisture content for satisfactory compaction. Therefore, moisture conditioning (drying) should be expected in order to achieve adequate compaction. If used as structural fill, these soils should be free of organic matter, debris, and particles larger than 4 inches. When used as structural fill, these soils should be placed in lifts with a maximum pre- compaction thickness of about 8 inches at moisture contents within —1 and +3 percent of optimum, and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). 4 Laboratory testing for moisture density relationship(Proctor)is required. Tests for gradation may be required. Carlson Geotechnical Page 13 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 If the on-site materials cannot be properly moisture-conditioned and/or processed, we recommend using imported granular material for structural fill. 5.4.2 Imported Granular Structural Fill—General Use Imported granular structural fill should consist of angular pit or quarry run rock, crushed rock, or crushed gravel that is fairly well graded between coarse and fine particle sizes. The granular fill should contain no organic matter, debris, or particles larger than 4 inches, and have less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. For fine-grading purposes, the maximum particle size should be limited to 1'/Zinches. The percentage of fines can be increased to 12 percent of the material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve if placed during dry weather, and provided the fill material is moisture-conditioned, as necessary, for proper compaction. Imported granular fill material should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of about 12 inches, and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density, as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Proper moisture conditioning and the use of vibratory equipment will facilitate compaction of these materials. Granular fill materials with high percentages of particle sizes in excess of 1% inches are considered non- moisture-density testable materials. As an alternative to conventional density testing, compaction of these materials should be evaluated by proof roll test observation (deflection tests), where accepted by the geotechnical engineer. 5.4.3 Trench Base Stabilization Material If groundwater is present at the base of utility excavations, trench base stabilization material should be placed. Trench base stabilization material should consist of a minimum of 1 foot of well-graded granular material with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material, placed in one lift (up to 24 inches thick), and compacted until well-keyed. 5.4.4 Trench Backfill Material Trench backfill for the utility pipe base and pipe zone should consist of granular material as recommended by the utility pipe manufacturer. Trench backfill above the pipe zone should consist of well-graded granular material containing no organic matter or debris, have a maximum particle size of inch, and have less than 8 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. As a guideline, trench backfill should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts. The earthwork contractor may elect to use alternative lift thicknesses based on their experience with specific equipment and fill material conditions during construction in order to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compaction percentages for utility trench backfill. Carlson Geotechnical Page 14 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table 3 Utility Trench Backfill Compaction Recommendations Backfill Zone Recommended Minimum Relative Compaction Structural Areas1•2 Landscaping Areas Pipe Base and Within Pipe Zone 90%ASTM D1557 or pipe 88%ASTM D1557 or pipe manufacturer's recommendation manufacturer's recommendation Above Pipe Zone 92%ASTM D1557 90%ASTM D1557 Within 3 Feet of Design Subgrade 95%ASTM D1557 90%ASTM D1557 1 Includes proposed building, pavement areas,structural fill areas,exterior hardscaping,etc. 2 Or as specified by the local jurisdiction where located in the public right of way. 5.4.5 Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM) CLSM is a self-compacting, cementitious material that is typically considered when backfilling localized areas. CLSM is sometimes referred to as "controlled density fill" or CDF. Due to its flowable characteristics, CLSM typically can be placed in restricted-access excavations where placing and compacting fill is difficult. If chosen for use at this site, we recommend the CLSM be in conformance with Section 00442 of the most recent, State of Oregon, Standard Specifications for Highway Construction The geotechnical engineer's representative should observe placement of the CLSM and obtain samples for compression testing in accordance with ASTM D4832. As a guideline, for each day's placement, two compressive strength specimens from the same CLSM sample should be tested. The results of the two individual compressive strength tests should be averaged to obtain the reported 28-day compressive strength. If CLSM is considered for use on this site, please contact the geotechnical engineer for site-specific and application- specific recommendations. 5.5 Building Foundations Three foundation alternatives were presented in Section 4.2 above for supporting the building additions and mitigating potential adverse effects from the estimated liquefaction-induced settlements at this site. Details regarding each approach are discussed in greater detail below. CGT would be pleased to assist the owner and design team in the selection of the foundation system for the planned building additions. Once the foundation system has been selected, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide specific geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction, as needed. 5.5.1 Alternative 1 —Granular Piers (GPs) GPs are an intermediate, foundation system that consists of nominally spaced, aggregate piers that provide shallow foundation bearing support and assist with controlling settlement. We recommend GPs be designed and installed by an experienced, qualified, design-build firm specialized in this ground improvement technique. GPs and shallow foundations supported by GPs should be constructed in accordance with plans, details, and specifications provided by the GP design-build firm. We have provided recommended values for soil strength parameters, including drained friction angle (('), effective cohesion (c'), total unit weight (yT), and undrained shear strength (Sn), for use in design of GPs in the following table. The parameters provided below were based on the results of the subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, published correlations with SPT and laboratory (index) test data, and our - experience with similar soils. Carlson Geotechnical Page 15 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table 4 Soil Parameters Recommended for Use in Granular Pier Design Drilled Depth Recommended Soil Shear Strength Parameter3 Boring (feet bgs)' Description24 Soil Type c' TT Su (degrees) (psf) (pcf) (psf) 0 to 9 Moist,lean clay and silt(CL,ML) Cohesionless 32 0 115 0 9 to 20 Soft,wet,lean clay and Silt(CL,ML) Cohesionless 30 0 115 0 20 to 25 Soft,wet silt(ML) Cohesionless 28 0 110 0 B-1 25 to 28 Medium stiff wet,silt(ML) Cohesionless 30 0 115 0 28 to 46 Medium dense, wet,silty sand(SM) Cohesionless 34 0 120 0 46 to 51 Stiff,wet,silt(ML) Cohesionless 32 0 115 0 51 to 81% Very stiff,wet,silt(ML) Cohesionless 32 0 120 0 0 to 9 Stiff,moist,sandy silt(SM) Cohesionless 32 0 115 0 9 to 23 Loose to medium dense wet,silty sand(SM) Cohesionless 32 0 120 0 23 to 25% Medium stiff to stiff,wet,silt(ML) Cohesionless 30 0 115 0 25%to 33 Stiff,wet,sandy silt(ML) Cohesionless 32 0 120 0 B-5 33 to 62 Stiff,wet sandy silt(ML) Cohesionless 32 0 120 0 62 to 72 Very stiff,wet,sandy silt(ML) Cohesionless 34 0 120 0 72 to 85 Very stiff,wet,silt with sand(ML) Cohesionless 32 0 115 0 85 to 95 Very stiff,wet,lean clay to silt(CL) Cohesionless 32 0 115 0 95 to 101'% Very stiff,wet,fat clay(CH) Cohesive 30 500 115 1,500 _ I Depth measured relative to existing site grades. 2 Soils in italic are considered potentially liquefiable where located below groundwater level. Refer to the attached Appendix D for analyses. 3 Considering static(non-liquefied)loading conditions. If additional parameters are required,the geotechnical engineer should be consulted. - ^We recommend modeling groundwater at a depth of 9 feet below existing grades. 5.5.2 Alternative 2— Deep Foundations This approach would include installation of deep foundations and supporting the proposed building on either pile-supported grade beams or a heavily reinforced, pile cap (mat foundation). The piles would need to penetrate through liquefiable soils (where present) and derive capacity in non-liquefiable soils at depth. We anticipate adequate pile capacity could be achieved at depths in excess of 95 feet bgs. Auger cast piles are anticipated to be a suitable deep foundation system for this site. Driven piling systems may also be considered; however, driving effects (e.g. vibration, noise, etc.) will need to be evaluated given the proximity to existing theater building and nearby residential and commercial development and school. If deep foundations are considered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to collaborate with the piling engineer and provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations, as needed, to complete the piling design once the type of deep foundation system has been selected. Carlson Geotechnical Page 16 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 5.5.3 Alternative 3—Mat Foundations This approach would include supporting all structural (column and wall) loads associated with each building addition on a respective mat foundation to help reduce the potential for excessive, differential, liquefaction- induced settlements between adjacent walls/columns. Through proper design, this option can address building code requirements for ensuring life-safety considerations are achieved for a design-level earthquake. The owner would need to be aware that this option would not mitigate total liquefaction-induced settlements, or the potential for excessive differential settlements across the building pads ("tilt"). Such settlements could result in reduced (or lost) serviceability of the building additions following a design-level earthquake. If mat foundations are considered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide supplemental geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design and construction. 5.6 Floor Slabs Foundation alternative 1 presents a means for significantly reducing the potential of static and liquefaction- induced settlements by ground improvement, thereby presenting consideration for conventional on-grade support for floor slabs. Alternative 2 presents an opportunity to support interior floor slabs "structurally" by constructing interior grade beams structurally integrated (connected) to nearby perimeter, continuous wall foundations. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations for use in design and construction of floor slabs once the building foundation system has been selected. 5.7 Site Retaining Walls The recommendations that follow are presented for use in design and construction of "site" retaining walls (i.e. walls that are not structurally-connected to, or relied upon for vertical support of structural loads associated with, the planned building additions). In addition, the recommendations that follow assume the owner recognizes and accepts the risk of reduced (or lost) serviceability of site retaining walls (where supported on conventional shallow foundations) due to the presence of liquefiable soils at this site. If the owner chooses to significantly reduce the risk of adverse wall performance from liquefaction, Foundation Alternatives 1 and 2, as described in Section 5.1 of this report, may be considered. 5.7.1 Footings 5.7.1.1 Subgrade Preparation Satisfactory subgrade support for shallow foundations can be achieved by the native, near-surface, fine- grained alluvium (CL, ML), or new structural fill that is properly placed and compacted on this material during construction. The geotechnical engineer or his representative should be contacted to observe subgrade conditions prior to placement of forms, reinforcement steel, or structural fill (if required). If soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over-excavated as recommended by the geotechnical representative at the time of construction. The resulting over-excavation should be brought back to grade with imported granular structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4.2 of this report. All granular pads for footings should be constructed a minimum of 6 inches wider on each side of the footing for every vertical foot of over-excavation. Carlson Geotechnical Page 17 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 5.7.1.2 Minimum Footing Width & Embedment Minimum footing widths should be in conformance with the most recent, Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). We recommend continuous wall footings have a minimum width of 18 inches. All footings should • be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest, permanent adjacent grade. 5.7.1.3 Bearing Pressure & Settlement Footings founded as recommended above should be proportioned for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This bearing pressure is a net bearing pressure, applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads, and may be increased by one-third when considering seismic or wind loads. For foundations founded as recommended above and considering static loading only, total settlement of foundations is anticipated to be less than 1 inch. 5.7.1.4 Lateral Capacity A maximum passive (equivalent fluid) earth pressure of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) is recommended for design of footings confined by the native soils described above, or granular structural fill that is properly placed and compacted during construction. The recommended earth pressure was computed using a factor of safety of 1'/2, which is appropriate due to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance. In order to develop the above capacity, the following should be understood: 1. Concrete must be poured neat in excavations or the foundations must be backfilled with imported granular structural fill, 2. The adjacent grade must be level, 3. The static ground water level must remain below the base of the footings throughout the year. 4. Adjacent floor slabs, pavements, or the upper 12-1nch-depth of adjacent, unpaved areas should not be considered when calculating passive resistance. An ultimate coefficient of friction equal to 0.35 may be used when calculating resistance to sliding for footings founded on the native soils described above. An ultimate coefficient of friction equal to 0.45 may be used when calculating resistance to sliding for footings founded on a minimum of 6 inches of imported granular structural fill (crushed rock)that is properly placed and compacted during construction. 5.7.2 Wall Drains We recommend placing retaining wall drains at the base elevation of the heel of retaining wall footings. Retaining wall drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch-diameter, perforated, HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) drainpipe wrapped with a non-woven geotextile filter fabric. The drains should be backfilled with a minimum of 2 cubic feet of open graded drain rock per lineal foot of pipe. The drain rock should be encased in a geotextile fabric in order to provide separation from the surrounding soils. Retaining wall drains should be positively sloped and should outlet to a suitable discharge point. The geotechnical engineer's representative should be contacted to observe the drains prior to backfilling. Roof or area drains should not be tied into retaining wall drains. 5.7.3 Wall Backfill Retaining walls should be backfilled with imported granular structural fill in conformance with Section 5.4.2 and contain less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. The backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). When placing fill behind walls, care must be taken to minimize undue Carlson Geotechnical Page 18 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 lateral loads on the walls. Heavy compaction equipment should be kept at least "H" feet from the back of the walls, where "H" is the height of the wall. Light mechanical or hand tamping equipment should be used for compaction of backfill materials within "H" feet of the back of the walls. 5.7.4 Design Parameters & Limitations For rigid retaining walls founded, backfilled, and drained as recommended above, the following table presents parameters recommended for design. Table 5 Design Parameters for Site Retaining Walls Modeled Static Seismic Surcharge from Uniform Load, q,Acting on Retaining Wall Condition Backfill Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Backfill Behind Condition Pressure(SA)' Pressure(SAe)1.2 Retaining Wall Not Restrained from Rotation Level(i=0) 28 pcf 37 pcf 0.22*q Restrained from Rotation Level(i=0) 50 pcf 52 pcf 0.38*q 1 Refer to the attached Figure 4 for a graphical representation of static and seismic loading conditions. Seismic resultant force acts at 0.6H above the base of the wall. 2 Seismic (dynamic) lateral loads were computed using the Mononobe-Okabe Equation as presented in the 1997 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)design manual. Static and seismic equivalent fluid pressures are not additive. The above design recommendations are based on the assumptions that: • The walls consist of concrete cantilevered retaining walls ((3 =0 and 6 = 24 degrees, see Figure 4). • The walls are 5 feet or less in height. • The backfill is drained and consists of imported granular structural fill (0 = 38 degrees). • No area load, line load or point load surcharges are imposed behind the walls. • The grade behind the wall is level, or sloping down and away from the wall, for a distance of 10 feet or more from the wall. • The grade in front of the walls is level or ascending for a distance of at least 5 feet from the wall. Re-evaluation of our recommendations will be required if the retaining wall design criteria for the project vary from these assumptions. 5.8 Pavements 5.8.1 Subgrade Preparation Pavement subgrade preparation should be performed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1.5 above. Pavement subgrade surfaces should be crowned (or sloped) for proper drainage in accordance with specifications provided by the project civil engineer. 5.8.2 Input Parameters Design of the asphalt concrete (AC) pavement sections presented below were based on the parameters presented in the following table, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials • (AASHTO) 1993 "Design of Pavement Structures" manual, and pavement design manuals presented by Carlson Geotechnical Page 19 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 APAO and ODOT5. If any of the items listed need revision, please contact us and we will reassess the provided design sections. Table 6 Input Parameters Used in AC Pavement Design Input Parameter Design Value' Input Parameter Design Value' Pavement Design Life 20 years Resilient Subgrade(Native Soils)" 5,000 psi Annual Percent Growth 0 percent Modulus Crushed Aggregate Base2 20,000 psi Initial Serviceability 4.2 Structural Crushed Aggregate Base 0.10 Terminal Serviceability2 2.5 Coefficient2 Asphalt 0.42 Reliability2 75 percent Vehicle Traffic4 APAO Level I(Very Light) Less than 10,000 Standard Deviation2 0.49 (range in ESAL5) APAO Level II(Light) Less than 50,000 Drainage Factor3 1.0 --- — ' If any of the above parameters are incorrect,please contact us so that we may revise our recommendations,if warranted. 2 Value based on guidelines presented in the 2011 ODOT Pavement Design Guide. 3 Assumes good drainage away from pavement,base,and subgrade is achieved by proper crowning of subgrades. 4 Values based on experience with similar soils in the region. 5 ESAL = Total 18-Kip equivalent single axle load. Traffic levels taken from Table 3.1 of APAO manual. If actual traffic levels will be above those identified above,the geotechnical engineer should be consulted. 5.8.3 Recommended Minimum Sections The following table presents the minimum AC pavement sections for various traffic loads indicated in the preceding table, based on the referenced AASHTO procedures. Table 7 Recommended Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections APAO Traffic Loading Material Level I Level II (Passenger Car Traffic Only) (Entrance&Service Drive Lanes) Asphalt Pavement(inches) 3 3'/ Crushed Aggregate Base(inches)' 8 10 Subgrade Soils Prepared in conformance with Section 5.1.5 of this report. 1 Thickness shown assumes dry weather construction.A granular sub-base section and/or a geotextile separation fabric may be required in wet conditions in order to support construction traffic and protect the subgrade.Refer to Section 5.3 for additional discussion. 5.8.4 AC Pavement Materials We recommend pavement aggregate base consist of dense-graded aggregate in conformance with Section 02630.10 of the most recent ODOT SSC, with the following additional considerations. We recommend the material consist of crushed rock or gravel, have a maximum particle size of 1'/2 inches, and have less than 5 percent material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. Aggregate base should be compacted to not less than 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined in general accordance with ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). We recommend asphalt pavement consist of Level 2, %-inch, dense-graded AC in conformance with the most recent ODOT SSC. Asphalt pavement should be compacted to at least 91 percent of the material's theoretical maximum density as determined in general accordance with ASTM D2041 (Rice Specific Gravity), - or as specified by the local jurisdiction. 5 Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT)Pavement Design Guide,August 2011. Carlson Geotechnical Page 20 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 5.9 Additional Considerations 5.9.1 Drainage Subsurface drains should be connected to the nearest storm drain, on-site infiltration system (to be designed by others) or other suitable discharge point. Paved surfaces and grading near or adjacent to the buildings should be sloped to drain away from the buildings. Surface water from paved surfaces and open spaces should be collected and routed to a suitable discharge point. Surface water should not be directed into foundation drains, if incorporated. 5.9.2 Expansive Potential The near surface native soils consist of low to moderate plasticity lean clay and silt soils. Based on our experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the site, these soils are not considered to be susceptible to appreciable movements from changes in moisture content. Accordingly, no special considerations are required to mitigate expansive potential of the near surface soils at the site. 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES 6.1 Design Review Geotechnical design review is of paramount importance. We recommend the geotechnical design review take place prior to releasing bid packets to contractors. 6.2 Observation of Construction Satisfactory earthwork, foundation, floor slab, and pavement performance depends to a large degree on the quality of construction. Sufficient observation of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during subsurface explorations, and recognition of changed conditions often requires experience. We recommend that qualified personnel visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those observed to date and anticipated in this report. We recommend geotechnical engineer's representative attend a pre-construction meeting coordinated by the contractor and/or developer. The project geotechnical engineer's representative should provide observations and/or testing of at least the following earthwork elements during construction: • Site Stripping and Demolition • Installation of Granular Piers (if selected) • Installation of Deep Foundations (if selected) • Subgrade Preparation for Shallow Foundations, Retaining Walls, Structural Fills, and Pavements • Compaction of Structural Fill, Retaining Wall Backfill, and Utility Trench Backfill • Compaction of Base Rock for Pavements • Compaction of AC for Pavements - It is imperative that the owner and/or contractor request earthwork observations and testing at a frequency sufficient to allow the geotechnical engineer to provide a final letter of compliance for the earthwork activities. Carlson Geotechnical Page 21 of 22 Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by the owner/developer and other members of the design and construction team for the proposed development. The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process and are not intended to be, nor should they be construed as, a warranty of subsurface conditions. We have made observations based on our explorations that indicate the soil conditions at only those specific locations and only to the depths penetrated. These observations do not necessarily reflect soil types, strata thickness, or water level variations that may exist between or away from our explorations. If subsurface conditions vary from those encountered in our site explorations, CGT should be alerted to the change in conditions so that we may provide additional geotechnical recommendations, if necessary. Observation by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. The owner/developer is responsible for ensuring that the project designers and contractors implement our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, prior to releasing bid packets to contractors, we recommend that the design drawings and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. If design changes are made, we request that we be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. Design review and construction phase testing and observation services are beyond the scope of our current assignment, but will be provided for an additional fee. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by a degree of uncertainty. Professional judgments presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed construction, familiarity with similar projects in the area, and on general experience. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared; no warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Carlson Geotechnical Page 22 of 22 BROADWAY ROSE THEATER ADDITIONS - TIGARD, OREGON FIGURE 4 Project Number G1905125 Retaining Walls ACTIVE LATERAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION STATIC LOADING CONDITIONS • • PA=(1/2)(SA)(H2) i H 000011' S SbA=(SAM SEISMIC LOADING CONDITIONS i PE=(�/2)(SAE-SA)(H2) 000 S PA=('/2)(SA)(H2) S 0.6H H/3 SbA-(SA)(H) LEGEND SA=Active lateral equivalent fluid pressure(Ib/ft3)' PA=Static active thrust force acting at H/3 from bottom of retaining wall(lb/ft) SbA=Active lateral earth pressure(static)at the bottom of wall(Ib/fl3) PE=Dynamic active thrust force acting at 0.6H from bottom of retaining wall(Ib/ft) SAE=Active total(static+seismic)equivalent fluid pressure(Ib/ft3)' S=Angle from normal of back of wall(degrees). Based on friction developing i=Slope of backfill,relative to horizontal(degrees)** between wall and backfill** p=Slope of back of wall,relative to vertical(degrees)** *Refer to report text for calculated values **Refer to report text for modeled/assumed values • OP' TP2 1. Uniform pressure distribution of seismic loading is based on empirical evaluations[Sherif et al, 1982 and Whitman, 1990]. Enragem 2. Placement of seismic resultant force at 0.6H is based on wall behavior and model test results[Whitman, 1990]. 503-601-8250 Carlson Geotechnical Bend Office (541) 330-9155 �.'� A division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Eugene Office (541) 345-0289 G0000/10 Phone: (503)601-8250 Salem Office (503) 589-1252 Tigard Office (503) 684-3460 ceorecMtiicnL Fax: (503)601-8254 Appendix A: Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Prepared For: Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 Prepared by Carlson Geotechnical Exploration Key Figure Al Soil Classification Figure A2 Exploration Logs Figures A3—Al 0 Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997, Tigard, Oregon 97281 Appendix A:Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 A.1.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Our field investigation consisted of two hand auger borings and six drilled borings completed in late August 2019. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, attached to the geotechnical report as Figure 2. The exploration locations shown therein were determined based on measurements from existing site features (building corners, etc.) and are approximate. Surface elevations indicated on the logs were estimated based on a temporary benchmark (assumed 100-foot elevation at the centerline of SW Grant Avenue) shown on the referenced Site Plan and are approximate. The attached figures detail the exploration methods (Figure Al), soil classification criteria (Figure A2), and present detailed logs of the explorations (Figures A3 through A10), as discussed below. A.1.1 Hand Auger Borings CGT advanced two hand auger borings (HA-1 and HA-2) at the site on August 26, 2019, to depths of about 1/2 to 8 feet bgs. Boring HA-1 was advanced using a manual, 3-inch diameter, hand auger, and boring HA-2 was advanced using a manual, 7-inch-diameter, hand auger. The hand auger borings were loosely backfilled with the excavated materials upon completion. A.1.2 Drilled Borings CGT observed the advancement of six drilled borings (B-1 through B-6) at the site on August 26 and 27, 2019, using a track-mounted Geoprobe drill rig provided and operated by our subcontractor, Western States Soil Conservation of Hubbard, Oregon. The borings were advanced using the direct push, hollow-stem auger, and mud rotary drilling techniques to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 101'/2 feet bgs. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with granular bentonite and the pavement areas were patched with cold-patch asphalt. Drilling wastes (cuttings and drilling fluids) were drummed and disposed of offsite by our drilling subcontractor. A.1.3 In-Situ Testing A.1.3.1 Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests . In conjunction with hand auger boring HA-1, we performed a dynamic cone penetrometer test to a depth of about 4'/4 feet bgs. The test was performed using a Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (WDCP) provided and operated by CGT. The WDCP test is described on the attached Exploration Key, Figure Al. Results of the WDCP test are provided on the corresponding exploration log. A.1.3.2 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) SPTs were conducted within the drilled borings using a split-spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The SPTs were conducted at 21/2- to 5-foot intervals to the termination depths of the borings. The SPT is described on the attached Exploration Key, Figure Al. A.1.3.3 Infiltration Tests CGT performed two infiltration tests at the site, within hand auger boring HA-2 and hollow-stem auger boring B-3. Details regarding the test procedure and results of the tests are presented in Appendix B. A.1.4 Material Classification & Sampling • Soil samples were obtained at selected intervals in the drilled borings using the referenced split-spoon (SPT) sampler and thin-walled, steel (Shelby) tube samplers, detailed on Figure Al. Representative grab samples of the soils encountered were obtained at select intervals within the hand auger borings. Qualified members Carlson Geotechnical Page A2 of A3 Appendix A:Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 of CGT's geological staff collected the samples and logged the soils in general accordance with the Visual- - Manual Procedure (ASTM D2488). An explanation of this classification system is attached as Figure A2. The SPT and grab samples were stored in sealable plastic bags and the Shelby tube samples were sealed with caps and tape and transported to our soils laboratory for further examination and testing. Our geotechnical staff visually examined all samples in order to refine the initial field classifications. A.1.5 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions are summarized in Section 2.3 of the geotechnical report. Detailed logs of the explorations are presented on the attached exploration logs, Figures A3 through A10. A.2.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples collected in the field to refine our initial field classifications and determine in-situ parameters. Laboratory testing included the following: • Twenty-seven moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216). • Three Atterberg limits (plasticity)tests (ASTM D4318). • Eleven percentage passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve tests (ASTM D1140). • Three unit weight determinations (weight-volume measurement). Results of the laboratory tests are shown on the exploration logs. ti;:, y 1 ni?i Carlson Geotechnical Page A3 of A3 a BROADWAY ROSE THEATER ADDITIONS- TIGARD, OREGON FIGURE Al Project Number G1905125 Exploration Key PrL • LL Atterberg limits (plasticity) test results (ASTM D4318): PL = Plastic Limit, LL = Liquid Limit, and MC= Moisture Content MC (ASTM D2216) FINES CONTENT(%) Percentage passing the U.S.Standard No. 200 Sieve(ASTM D1140) SAMPLING j GRAB Grab sample BULK Bulk sample Standard Penetration Test (SPT) consists of driving a 2-inch, outside-diameter, split-spoon sampler into the undis- turbed formation with repeated blows of a 140-pound, hammer falling a vertical distance of 30 inches (ASTM D1586). SPT The number of blows (N-value)required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of an 18-inch sample interval is used to characterize the soil consistency or relative density. The drill rig was equipped with an cat-head or automatic hammer to conduct the SPTs. The observed N-values, hammer efficiency,and N60 are noted on the boring logs. Modified California sampling consists of 3-inch, outside-diameter, split-spoon sampler(ASTM G3550)driven similarly to NMC the SPT sampling method described above. A sampler diameter correction factor of 0.44 is applied to calculate the equiv- alent SPT N60 value per Lacroix and Horn, 1973. CORE Rock Coring interval ' SH Shelby Tube is a 3-inch, inner-diameter, thin-walled, steel tube push sampler (ASTM D1587) used to collect relatively undisturbed samples of fine-grained soils. Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (WDCP) test consists of driving 1.1-inch diameter, steel rods with a 1.4-inch WDCP diameter, cone tip into the ground using a 35-pound drop hammer with a 15-inch free-fall height. The number of blows required to drive the steel rods is recorded for each 10 centimeters(3.94 inches)of penetration. The blow count for each interval is then converted to the corresponding SPT N60 values. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test consists of driving a 20-millimeter diameter, hardened steel cone on 16- DCP millimeter diameter steel rods into the ground using a 10-kilogram drop hammer with a 460-millimeter free-fall height. The depth of penetration in millimeters is recorded for each drop of the hammer. POCKET Pocket Penetrometer test is a hand-held instrument that provides an approximation of the unconfined compressive PEN.(tsf) strength in tons per square foot(tsf)of cohesive,fine-grained soils. CONTACTS to �a . Observed(measured)contact between soil or rock units. --- Inferred(approximate)contact between soil or rock units. - - Transitional (gradational)contact between soil or rock units. ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS Italics Notes drilling action or digging effort {Braces} Interpretation of material origin/geologic formation (e.g.{Base Rock}or{Columbia River Basalt}) C'P1 TO2 All measurements are approximate. 503-601-8250 • BROADWAY ROSE THEATER ADDITIONS- TIGARD, OREGON FIGURE A2 Project Number G1905125 Soil Classification ' Classification of Terms and Content Grain Size WS.Standard Sl.va NAME: Group Name and Symbol Fines <#200(0.075 mm) Calorive Density or Consistency Fine #200-#40(0.425 mm) Moisture Content Sand Medium #40-#10(2 mm) Plasticity Coarse #10-#4(4.75) Other Constituents Gravel Fine #4-0.75 inch Other:Grain Shape,Approximate Gradation Coarse 0.75 inch-3 inches Organics,Cement,Structure,Odor.etc. Cobbles 3 to 12 inches Geologic Name or Formation Boulders >12 inches Coarse-Grained(Granular)Soils . Relative Density Minor Constituents SPT Percent Density by Volume Descriptor Example N6o Value 0-4 Very Loose 0-5% "Trace"as part of soil description 'trace silt 4-10 Loose 10-30 Medium Dense 5-15% "With"as part of group name "POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT" 30-50 Dense 15-49% Modifier to group name >50 Very Dense 9 p "SILTY SAND" Fine-Grained(Cohesive)Soils SPT Torvane tsf Pocket Pen tsf ConsistencyManual Penetration Test N6o Value Shear Strength Unconfined Minor Constituents • <2 <0.13 <0.25 Very Soft Thumb penetrates more than 1 inch Percent 2-4 0.13-0.25 0.25-0.50 Soft Thumb penetrates about 1 inch by Volume Descriptor Example 4-B 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.00 Medium Stiff Thumb penetrates about%inch 0-5% "Trace"as part of soil description 'trace fine-grained sand' 8-15 0.50-1.00 1.00-2.00 Stiff Thumb penetrates less than Xi inch 5-15% "Some'as part of soil description "some fine-grained sand" 15-30 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail 15-30% 'With"as part of group name "SILT WITH SAND" - >30 >2.00 >4.00 Hard Difficult to indent by thumbnail 30-49% Modifier to group name SANDY SILT' Moisture Content Structure "' Dry: Absence of moisture.dusty,dry to the touch Stratified:Alternating layers of material or color>6 mm thick Moist: Leaves moisture on hand Laminated: Alternating layers<6 mm thick Wet: Visible free water.likely from below water table Fissured: Breaks along definite fracture planes Plasticity Dry Strength Dilatancy Toughness Slickensided: Striated,polished,or glossy fracture planes ML Non to Low Non to Low Slow to Rapid Low,can't roll Blocky: Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps CL Low to Medium Medium to High None to Slow Medium which resist further breakdown MH Medium to High Low to Medium None to Slow Low to Medium Lenses: Has small pockets of different soils,note thickness CH Medium to High High to Very High None High Homogeneous:Same color and appearance throughout Visual-Manual Classification Major Divisions Group Typical Names Symbols Gravels:50%or more Clean GW Well-graded gravels and gravel/sand mixtures,little or no fines Coarse retained on Gravels GP Poorly-graded gravels and gravel/sand mixtures,little or no fines Grained the No.4 sieve Gravels GM Silty gravels,gravel/sand/silt mixtures Soils: with Fines GC Clayey gravels,gravel/sand/clay mixtures More than 50%retained Sands:More than Clean SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands,little or no fines on No.200 ° Sands SP Poorly-graded sands and gravelly sands,little or no fines 50%passing the sieve No.4 sieve Sands SM Silty sands,sand/silt mixtures with Fines SC Clayey sands,sand/clay mixtures Silt and Clays ML Inorganic silts,rock flour,clayey silts Fine-GrainedCL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, Soils: Low Plasticity Fines 9 Y P y,gravelly clays,sandy clays,lean clays 50%or more OL Organic soil of low plasticity Passes No. MH Inorganic silts,clayey silts Silt and Clays 200 Sieve High Plasticity Fines CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays OH Organic soil of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,muck,and other highly organic soils References. GP, ?i ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System) Etzmaten ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure) 03-601-B250 Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B., 1948, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice;John Wiley&Sons. A3 P. Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE ® A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring B-1 www.carlsontesting.com _ PAGE 1 OF 3 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 101 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.=100' WEATHER Sun,70° F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT,Rig#8 GROUNDWATER AT END 12.0 ft/El.89.0 ft DRILLING METHOD 3 7/8-inch mud rotary _ 1 GROUNDWATER 18 HOURS AFTER DRILLING 14.9 ft/El.86.1 ft ' -J O w a o ui o ♦SPT N60 VALUE O U ) ¢ _ I-w �a ~� �� /-',.:` PL LL ~ a Op MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a r g >0 9>> ¢ Z a I • 1 >� a� z ov aD Oc m0 > E �� MC W D_' 2 Z 0 0 y m !i _. w 0 < Z Z o ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑ ce cc0 O 0 W 0 20 40 60 80 100 GP ,ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift 2%inches thick. 100 FILL,, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Gray-brown, - - n, 1 dry to moist,angular, up to'/,inch in diameter, I� \some silt. LEAN CLAY:Medium stiff, brown with trace / - CL orange staining and black flecking, moist, low - {' S -3 5 23 4 plasticity,some fine-grained sand. 33 - - {Missoula flood deposit} - /� I SANDY SILT: Medium stiff to stiff, brown with /5 / - - trace orange staining, moist, nonplastic to low X/�S 2 1-46' 10 * • 95 plasticity fines,fine-grained. �, 2/ (10) 28 - -_,, T�2 1-3-3 6 26 90 " \ \ SH 100 93 • L_- k-;2 4 23 Soft and wet below 12 feet bg . / ' SPT 2-1-2 - - ML \� 67 (3) 3 33 1 - - I • �� - - 85 I 36H 100 35 �/ SPT 1-1-1 69 a E2OE :' 8T 1001-SD 100 1(1�1 1 ♦ o SILT:Soft,brown,wet, low plasticity, some a - - fine-grained sand. - - n. ML In 0 25 o_ SANDY SILT:Medium stiff, brown,wet,low 75 plasticity,fine-grained sand. ,k, S9T 100 1�4)2 5 4 m ML o _ I Lil cf. SILTY SAND:Medium dense, brown,wet, low o 0:1- - SM plasticity fines,fine-grained. _ _ r I 30 - (Continued Next Page) p` Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A3 11-111.6) A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. www.carlsontesting.com Boring B-1 • PAGE 2 OF 3 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard, Oregon z m w a oUJ w A SPT Nsa VALUE A ~ a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z w z g j Ca7 O j > °� z Q PLI � -I > Q_, p w CCC ] 7 0 MZ 0-- m0 y _ >- MC wix 0 < j ? z X Li FINES CONTENT(%)❑ 0 0 30 w 0 20 40 60 80 100 SILTY SAND:Medium dense, brown,wet, low 70 plasticity fines,fine-grained. (continued) ), SPT 83 3-4-9 17 • , 10 (13) 35 SPT 5Z� 3-5 11 i 65 \ 11 /(8) I 35 I �� \ \I 40 '' - ,./ 60 SP 89 3-7-9 22 1k - - (16) \ yam- I - - A \-,-J I I \ 45 I 55 Trace orange staining below 45 et ids. `I /) \ SPT 81 2-2-5 9 1 SILT WITH SAND:Stiff,brows we�o lasfc tom\.' / \ (7) _ _ low plasticity,with fine-graineddSSand. \--_,_ / _ _ ML j �\ �\\ \ _ - 50 50 _ �� - 14 100 SANDY SILT:Very stiff, ark gray,wet, SPT 2-5-6 ei - nonplastic fines,fine-grain - - A15 89 (11) 15 ♦ • L _, Silt lens 3 inches thick at 51 4 feet bgs. ✓ m o LL- - 55 a , / 0 45 k' SPT 64 4-7-9 22 - m Silt lens about 1 inch thick at 55%feet bgs. - \ 16 (16) Ak -_ _ 0 ML in o - - N- _ 60 o Intermittent silt to lean clay lenses about 1 inch ' ii 40 thick below 60 feet bgs. SPT 94 2-3-9 16 A - '6 17 (12) -J I O I W CC CO F U - - (Continued Next Page) 171010004. Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE /Y3 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring B-1 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE 3 OF 3 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon O w w o w A SPT N60 VALUE A -^ x0 >- F.-. ~m CO �z¢ J '�' ~-- PL LL w x <O a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z w- ii p ix m 0,_ > E D a I •MC I D w 0 0 <Z Uce ? Z c 0 L FINES CONTENT(%)E. 0 0 W 0 20 40 60 80100 SANDY SILT:Very stiff, dark gray,wet, B5 1 nonplastic fines,fine-grained. (continued) - - SPT 4-8-9 35 \ 18 83 (17) 23 - - ML 70 �/SPT 3-6-9 1 30 Lean to fat clay lens about 2 inches thick at 71 feet 19 4 (15) 20 bgs. SILT WITH SAND:Very stiff,dark gray,wet, y nonplastic to low plasticity,with fine-grained sand. _ `/ ML (Likely Troutdale formation sediment} 5 \!' T 3-5-9 25 (14) 19Ak SILT:Very stiff,dark gray, moist, nonplastic to - - low plasticity,some fine-grained sand. \ -� - - ML '\ 7 - � \ ` I \80- Low plasticity below 80 feet ts. � �_� 20 �' SPT 100 3-3-9 16 ��/ „� 21 (12) •Borehole terminate at 819i- etg,s. •Groundwater en urdereOt 1 eehkgs ring - - drilling and obs ec at abou �5 feet bgs,8 ours after drilling. - - •No caving enc me •Borehole backfill wit rout and bentonite. - - •Surface patched wi col ch./ 15 J a 2 2 7 m 0 w- - H LL 0 10 O Y. o 0- - o 0 N- - N O O 0 w 5 J _0 W K- 0 m H 0 P o Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A4 ® A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring B-2 www.carlsontesting.com I PAGE1 OF1 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 101 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.= 100' WEATHER Sun,83°F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS _ REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE -- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT, Rig#8 GROUNDWATER AT END 11.3 ft/El.89.8 ft DRILLING METHOD Direct Push Probe GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING -- O w w o w° A SPT Nso VALUE A F _ x0 r H� ~m wm �z¢ �� I--- PL LL >= 0 a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z w F g >0 > j ,,,, ER I • I w m D p MZ O.-- m0 a s MC w 0 ¢Z w OZ ZCC o_ ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑ 0 0 0 W o 0 20 40 60 80 100 -'v. GP ,ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift 2 inches thick. 100 %/./ r FILLri POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Gray-brown, i 1 moist,angular, up to%inch in diameter,some silt. jjLEAN CLAY: Medium stiff, brown with trace - — CL orange staining, black flecking,and tan mottling, S r moist, low to medium plasticity. - -� 4 • l {Missoula flood deposit} /. 1-1-3 24 43 ) ? 27 SILTY SAND:Loose,brown with some orange 5/ staining,moist, nonplastic to low plasticity fines, S 97 �5)i 95 fine-grained. 11 • 2 11 �' - - • - - >, -7: -T 0 0 2-4-5 9(9) I / 90 SM / \/) , SPT94 2-2-2 4Aik Wet below 11 V.feet bgs. K i ' ���/ \/ SPT 100 2(7) 8 1 - ��vV A/ 15 \ SPT 100 1-3-3 7 85 - 6 (6) •Borehole terminated a 162 feet bgs. •Groundwater encounter at 1'V.feet bgs. _ _ •No caving encountered. �a, •Borehole backfilled with bentonite. n- - •Surface patched with cold patch. i m 0 w LL 80 a 0 0 a 0 as 0_ - y O 0 J- h j75 P Z FIGURE A5 Carlson Geotechnical A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. • www.carlsontesting.com • Boring B-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 101 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.= 100' WEATHER Sun,90° F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT, Rig#8 GROUNDWATER AT END --- DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem 4%-inch ID Auger GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING --- J O w d o w o A SPT N60 VALUE A uj O U 2 ¢ >m } Li) m PL LL > Q J o- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a_ 12 ij �O O > j 0 -I 'E Z n I •• ILI > > ov �z CU� m0 MC w 0 0 < W ? Z ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑ O O 0 W 0 20 40 60 80 100 ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift about 2 inches i 100 I ;thick. FI P POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Gray-brown, �> moist,subrounded to rounded,up to 1%inches in - - / , \diameter,some silt. / < LEAN CLAY WITH SAND:Brown,moist, medium - - CL plasticity,with fine-grained sand. {Missoula flood deposit} -/ / 72 5/ I'y/ RAB 100 v • u zi 95 •Borehole terminated at 5 feet bgs. �1 •Infiltration test initiated at 5 feet bgs.•No caving encountered. \ \, / - - •Borehole backfilled with bentonite. •Surface patched with cold patch. - - 90 i - - \ —' - \ - < \ 85 - - - - w LL 80 m c0 0 N 75 ZIDa w J W m- F V ply Carlson Geotechnical _ FIGURE A6 ® A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring B-4 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen,Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon . DATE STARTED 8/27/19 GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.=100'_ WEATHER Sun,97°F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT, Rig#8 _ GROUNDWATER AT END -- DRILLING METHOD Direct Push Probe GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING --- 0 O w a o w - i- ♦SPT N60 VALUE A 0 U 2 ¢ _ ~w ce^ ~D -Ji He PL LL jE. Q O a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z w- m > Q=j j E a I • I Z p aD 0 m0 ,- o MC w 0 0 0 <Z 0 Z Z 00 cc o ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑ 0 0 0 w 0 20 40 60 80100 GP ,ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift 3 inches thick. - FILLn POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Gray-brown, r - - i dry to moist,angular,up to inch in diameter, I ' - -;,/' \some medium-grained sand and silt. - - / '� CL LEAN CLAY:Stiff, light brown,dry to moist, - A / Ste. �� - medium plasticity,some fine-grained sand,trace 89 g ii3 ° - �P/ rootlets. '�/v V \ ) 20 \„ _ {Missoula flood deposit} / , \ 95 SANDY SILT:Stiff, brown, moist, low plasticity, 5/1 ,, \ MLS fine-grained sand. / <-/ sp 58 6-5-5" 10 • - - \/2\ (10) is SILTY SAND:Loose, brown,moist, nonplastic to/�, \ - low plasticity fines,fine-grained. �_ T �7 3-4-3 1 __- �-y 3 2 (7) 7 T SM 90 yu V ' `,/ SPT 67 3-3-2 5 1 - - / , A /1\ 4 (5) - - •Borehole terminated at 111,‘feet s. ' L ✓ •No groundwater or caving eneounte d. '- - •Borehole backfilled wi1tl bentonite —_� •Surface patched with-cold patch. \ �v 85 - - a cn m_ - i. m 80 0 W H LL_ _ 0 m_ _ O o_ _ 'a ui 0 75 J N N N- O m U J 0 2 W 0. 0 m- - F- u 70 1 - FIGURE A7 P • Carlson Geotechnical A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring B-5 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE 1 OF 4 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 _ PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard, Oregon DATE STARTED 8/27/19 GROUND ELEVATION 101 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave. = 100' WEATHER Sun,62° F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT,Rig#8 - 72 GROUNDWATER AT END 17.0 ft/El.84.0 ft DRILLING METHOD 3 7/8-inch mud rotary GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING --- p w d o w ♦SPT N60 VALUE Q = _ co �^ J- 0 � rr. Fm WE, za > jv PL LL a O O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 a tug >0 0>> G Z 0 I • I w- §J j z pv o-� Oce m0 a o s MC_ w 0 O O QZ wv U? zi cc L FINES CONTENT(%)L 0 O 0 w 0 20 40 60 80 100 ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift 2 inches thick. 100 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Brown-gray, - - GP moist, subrounded to subangular, up to%inch in - FILL diameter.. some silt. - S 4-5�6 11 SANDY SILT:Stiff, brown with some orange _ % '\� ) staining, moist, nonplastic,fine-grained sand. _ _ {Missoula flood deposit} - 95 - �S 83 34 9 • o , (9) 30 ML Medium stiff, no orange staining below 7'/ bgs. ----\ T 2-3-4 ' (7) 7 1 28 90 ���-- ) 4H 100 97 �I • L SILTY SAND:Medium dense, own, ois _ s," SPT 78 4-5-7 13 I1 7 _ nonplastic fines,fine-to medium- rained(' _ \ 5 (12) za i 7 �' A, A/ 15 _ - - \ ,. 85 '', ! � - 66H 100 89 • SM Loose and wet below 17 et bps �,,/ SPT 2-2-2 • Silt lens about 1 inch thick at 18 feet bgs. co f 7 72 (4) 5 i 34 m m 20 o Li, S0 �X' SPT 67 1-2-4 8 LI:c 8 6) o SILT:Medium stiff to stiff, brown,wet,low - - plasticity. - - CD ML 25 o- _ 75 SPT 94 1-4-54 12 • SANDY SILT:Stiff,brown,wet, nonplastic fines, -j�,� o .. fine-grained. w J °_ _ ML - - w 0 m- 1- u 30 i (Continued Next Page) r• • Carlson Geotechnical I FIGURE A7 • A Division of Carlson Testing,Inc. Boring B-rJ Eommomos www.carlsontesting.com g • PAGE 2 OF 4 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard, Oregon -J O cr V I- a ui u T t ♦SPT Nec VALUE >E. a-O a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z a x w 1 >a O S j j E z a F - 4i�L w O O O 0 �z (-) m 0 " z = ›-v MC Et w u) i ? 1- p El FINES CONTENT(%)❑ O 0 30 w 0 20 40 60 80 100 SANDY SILT:Stiff, brown,wet, nonplastic fines, y 70 fine-grained. (continued) _ _/\ SPT O 83 3(7)2 932 • 54 ML SILT:Stiff, dark gray,wet, low plasticity,some - fine-grained sand. ML - - _ - 35 65 SANDY SILT:Stiff,dark gray,wet, nonplastic ky SPT 97/ 1-4-4 11 ♦ • o fines,fine-grained. 11 / (8) 3s / / \ \ao 60 Stiff to very stiff, brown with trace gray mottling - } SP 100 ��� 15 below 40%feet bgs. 7`\ 11 - - \` ;/45 55 • Some orange staining below 45,Yeets> ) \ \ \ /SPT 4-7-7 Gray below 45%feet bgs. ` < / /-_ ,/ - 13 89 (14) 19 - - v �_.� - - — / _.ML Z �) ') 50 - 14 133 50 \ 14 Brown with trace orange aining/below 51'i/feet \ /, a - bgs. J 15T 100 4-6-11 23 m- - - - ( ) m I 0 1- .._ - 55 / a Intermittent medium-grained sand lenses about 1 I SP6T 0 45 inch thick below 55 feet bgs. 89 4-6-5 15 4 Gray with some orange staining, fine grained ( ) a- - below 56 feet bgs. _ _ I a- - V _ - 0 p - _ J I - 60 N 5 SANDY SILT:Very stiff,dark gray,wet, °' 40 nonplastic fines,fine-grained. SPT 83 4-8-13 28 ?• w {Likely Troutdale formation sediment) a3 - ML s o- - - - m 1- _ i (Continued Next Page) A Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A7 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. BoringB-55 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE 3 OF 4 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc_ PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon O w a o w T ♦SPT N60 VALUE• x c d 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 d >O 0 x>Z. j r, Z Q I • I - >� a_i a Z W� a0 OM m0 a x.. MC w O O O D Q Z W V Z Z Ct o_ ❑FINES CONTENT(%)L. 00 w 0 0 20 40 60 80100 SANDY SILT:Very stiff,dark gray,wet, 85 I - - nonplastic fines,fine-grained. i 35 (Likely Troutdale formation sediment}(continued) ,- - • / SPT 0 12-133j13 35 ML - - 70 30 ��`�\ 1SPT , 6 /9 6-9-12 28 0 - (21)-; 4 /,\ SILT WITH SAND:Very stiff,dark gray, moist to � �� wet,nonplastic to low plasticity,some fine-grained sand, intermittent silty sand lenses about 1 inch thick. 5 25 \\% T 100 3-8-11 26 2 (19) - - ML I � - / 20 \ \ / --� SPT 100 4511 22 • = 21 (16) 33 < � - - - LEAN CLAY TO SILT:Very ff day, 85 '�% �sY moist, low 15 to medium plasticity - - 2 90 LO,0 10 aUML K 22T 100 (18) 24 • 0 a 0 F - % FAT CLAY:Very stiff,dark gray,moist, high J 5 / plasticity. O, CH - _ 0 al (Continued Next Page) Q` Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A7 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. www.carlsontesting.com Boring 6-5 PAGE 4 OF 4 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon O w a o w A SPT N60 VALUE A • O v a >C > n� j a-O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a >0 0 > Q z a PL LL J 0_ Z W -' 0_D OCt mO a E M w O 0 0rt <Z O? Z cC 1- ❑FINES CONTENT(%)❑ _ J1 FAT CLAY:Very stiff,dark gray, moist, high _ 0 20 40 60 80 100 plasticity. (continued) CH 100 0 - _ 23 67 (13) 18A - - •Borehole terminated at 101'%feet bgs. •Groundwater encountered at 17 feet bgs. - - •No caving encountered. •Borehole backfilled with grout and bentonite. - - •Surface patched with cold patch. - - -5 / \ -10 - - / /Th i -15 _ -20 _ cc rn _ 8 -25 C9 O J- _ N O- - _m W_ ° -30 ce m _ _ 0 Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A8 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. BoringB-6 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave. =100' WEATHER Sun. 90°F SURFACE Asphalt LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR Western States Soil Conservation SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT Geoprobe 7822DT, Rig#8 GROUNDWATER AT END -- DRILLING METHOD Direct Push Probe GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING --- 0 0 w a w A SPT N60 VALUE U W co =0 � § �� ~m EKE; �za -J U �^ PL LL > Q O a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z w` a j > m O> > E MC w ¢z w O z Z cc cc E FINES CONTENT(%)1P re cf) C9 0 w 0 20 40 60 80 100 ASPHALT CONCRETE:One lift 3 inches thick. GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL FILL:Gray-brown, - - , FILL dry to moist,angular, up to'A inch in diameter, \some medium-grained sand and silt. r - - VOID ENCOUNTERED-DRILLING N - - TERMINATED AT 12%FEET BGS. - - - - 95 � - - � - A 90 `✓,yu - - ) ) - - - < �, �=- - -Boring left open for f valu ion. , - - � ` �\ 85 _ - - /�/ J J _ - m 80 w LL 1:i O - - f 70 CID,. Carlson GeotechnicalFIGURE A9 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. www.carlsontesting.com Boring HA-1 i__ PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. - PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 102.5 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.= 100' - WEATHER Sun,69°F SURFACE Grass LOGGED BY ALS/MLL REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR CGT SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT 3"Hand Auger&WDCP GROUNDWATER AT END -- DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger&WDCP GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING -- J i z m w w 8, z A WDCP N60 VALUE A <l., a 0 ° MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a. J p o¢ w N Z rea PL . IL wV <_ - z w'- a7 O� > Yv 7� MC � U, 7 7 0 MZ U U Y w < z a0 0 ❑FINES CONTENT(%) O 0 0 0 20 40 60 80100 ' SILT WITH SAND FILL: Brown,dry, low plasticity,with fine-grained sand,abundant 102 rootlets, some roots up to'%inch in diameter and _ _ / angular to subangular gravel up to%inch in n BRAE diameter.trace subangular cobbles up to 4 inches th3 1 00<° in diameter. \ No rootlets below 1 foot bgs.ilittl C� // Prw ML / FILL 2 �� PAP 100 Kti Moist below 2%feet bgs. \' _ PO ---� \./ 19 4 Some concrete debris up to 2 inches in diameter ' below 3 feet bgs. ��,_ � AB 1 D0 25 Some orange,yellow,and black eat�ier gg blow 11 v 41) ML 3'%feet bgs. / / / ���� 4 12 110"As FILL SILT WITH SAND AND GRAVEL F1LL:�rowri WI moist, low plasticity,with fine-g ine man art / 25 98 angular to subangular gray up t '.in i in -7 VsNoML \diameter. Dark gray-brown brown to 67 FILL 1 9 y- yr%4-feet bgs 4 RAe 100 • ❑ SILT WITH S FIL:Dark g y a d brown 3 14 CO mottled,with same r -orange ttlliing, moist, low - I in I plasticity,with fine.to c rse-gr nett))sand,some I $ft,PRAB 100 \subrounded to rounded gr'a�elyrp to/1/8 inch in " 4 m diameter,trace carbon ed organjis. o SILT:Medium stiff to stiff, ra rown with LL red-orange mottling, moist, edium plasticity, 6 cc < some fine-grained sand and carbonized organics. O {Missoula flood deposit} 96 ML Brown with trace red-orange mottling below 6 feet - is bgs. Trace gray and orange mottling below 6%feet bgs. ', 5B 100 'a 0 in U' 0 Some gray and orange mottling below about 7% GRAB o feet bgs. r7 6 100 E 8 0 •Borehole terminated at 8 feet bgs. 94 -No groundwater or caving encountered. •Borehole loosely backfilled with excavated material. z - 0 I a a 0 _, a x w 1- C7 0 �+ Carlson Geotechnical FIGURE A10 ®110014110- A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Boring HA-2 www.carlsontesting.com PAGE OF CLIENT Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. PROJECT NAME Broadway Rose Theater Additions PROJECT NUMBER G1905125 PROJECT LOCATION 12850 SW Grant Avenue,Tigard,Oregon DATE STARTED 8/26/19 GROUND ELEVATION 97.5 ft ELEVATION DATUM Center of SW Grant Ave.= 100' WEATHER Sun,62°F SURFACE Grass LOGGED BY MMS REVIEWED BY JAJ DRILLING CONTRACTOR CGT SEEPAGE --- EQUIPMENT 6"Hand Auger&Shovel GROUNDWATER AT END --- DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING -- O I z I- A WDCP Neo VALUE A w d o m w a O l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION m a >CJ o Q w a Z a PL • LL >� ¢� o Z w o O� Y� =� MC w 0 O ¢z w Z O cc ❑FINES CONTENT(%)cc cc ❑ C7 0 co m o m 0 20 40 60R, 80100 I ML SANDY SILT:Brown, dry to moist, low plasticity, i GRAE 100 • fine-to medium-grained sand,abundant rootlets 1 14 and roots up to'A inch in diameter. I {Missoula flood deposit} 95 �refioleterminatedat'/:footbgs. � < • Infiltration test initiated at%foot bgs. • No groundwaterlor caving encountered. / \\ • Borehole loosely backfilled with excavated - - material. \,/ 90 �� I `85 2 � \ i 2_ _ co F 80 / LL cc_ _ a o 75 O_ _ 0) 0 - - PUP- _ z • i7o = __ Carlson Geotechnical Bend Office (541)330-9155 a.till A of Carlson Testing, Inc. Eugene Office (541)345-0289 -i Phone:divisionot Carlson Salem Office (503) 589-1252 f1EC)TFCNNICAI. ( ) Tigard Office (503)684-3460 Fax: (503)601-8254 Appendix B: Results of Infiltration Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Prepared For: Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 Prepared by Carlson Geotechnical Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997, Tigard, Oregon 97281 Appendix B:Infiltration Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 B.1.0 INTRODUCTION The project civil engineer requested infiltration testing at two locations, one of which was performed at a relatively shallow depth within an existing swale along the southeast portion of the site. The second infiltration test was initially requested to be conducted at a depth of about 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was encountered during our explorations at about 15 feet bgs, so the infiltration test depth was adjusted to 5 feet bgs, to maintain at least 6 feet of separation (measured vertically) between the test depth and groundwater. The tests were performed in a PVC pipe and a drilled hollow-stem auger boring, designated HA-2 and B-3, respectively, on the Site Plan, which is attached to the main report as Figure 2. B.2.0 TEST PROCEDURE The infiltration tests were performed in general accordance with the Falling Head Infiltration Test method as described in Chapter 3 of the 1980 EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design Manual (1980 EPA). The tests were performed within a 6-inch diameter PVC pipe and a 4%-inch diameter hollow stem auger, as allowed by the referenced method. Once each boring was advanced to the desired test depth, the bottom of the PVC pipe and auger was filled with approximately 12 inches of water. The soils were allowed to soak for 4 hours in accordance with the test method. After the soaking period the drop in water level was recorded at 20-minute intervals for 2 hours. Measurements were taken with a tape measure and recorded to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch. B.3.0 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS The following table presents the raw data and calculated rates of infiltration that we observed from the infiltration tests. Please note the calculated infiltration rates do not include any safety or correction factors Table B1 Results of Infiltration Test HA-2 Test Depth: ''/z foot bgs Test Elevation: 97 feet Soil Type:Sandy Silt(ML) Time Interval Drop in Water Level Raw Infiltration Rate (minutes) (inches)* (inches per hour)** 20 0.0625 0.188 20 0.0625 0.188 20 0 0.5 20 0 0 20 0.0625 0.188 20 0.0625 0.188 * Water level measurements taken in inches, measured to the nearest one-sixteenth inch, reported in decimal equivalents. ** Values calculated are raw(unfactored) rates. Carlson Geotechnical Page B2 of B3 Appendix B:Infiltration Testing Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table B2 Results of Infiltration Test B-3 • Test Depth:5 feet bgs Test Elevation:96 feet Soil Type: Lean Clay with Sand(CL) Time Interval Drop in Water Level Raw Infiltration Rate (minutes) (inches)* (inches per hour)** 20 0.688 2.06 20 0.875 2.63 20 0.688 2.06 20 0.813 2.44 20 0.563 1.69 20 0.563 1.69 * Water level measurements taken in inches, measured t ear' --sixteenth inch, reported in decimal equivalents. ** Values calculated are raw(unfactored)rates. B.4.0 DISCUSSION As detailed above, observed infiltration rates varied with depth. Rates in the near-surface, silt(ML) stabilized at approximately 0.19 inches per hour. Rates in the lean clay with sand (CL) stabilized at approximately 1.69 inches per hour. Please note these infiltration rates do not include any safety or correction factors. Once the infiltration facility(ies) design is completed.. we recommend the infiltration system design (provided by others) and locations be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer. If the location and/or depth of the facility(ies) changes from what was indicated at the time of our fieldwork, additional testing may be recommended. ,as Carlson Geotechnical Page B3 of B3 Carlson Geotechnical Bend Office (541) 330-9155 �p►" O.t Eugene Office (541) 345-0289 _ 4e A division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Salem Office (503)589-1252 co?t.cr Mica Phone: (503)601-8250 Tigard Office (503)684-3460 Fax: (503)601-8254 Appendix C: Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Prepared For: Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 Prepared by Carlson Geotechnical Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997, Tigard, Oregon 97281 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS C.1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 C.2.0 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT 3 C.3.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 3 C.3.1 Soil and Groundwater 3 C.3.2 Seismic Scaling Factors 4 C.3.2.1 "Aggregate" Seismic Source 4 C.3.2.2 De-Aggregated Seismic Sources 4 C.3.3 Liquefaction Triggering and Settlement Analysis 5 C.4.0 REVIEW OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS 9 ATTACHMENT: Liquefaction Analyses Results Doc ID: G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS12019 Projects\G1905125 - Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125 - GEO1008 - Deliverables\Appendix C-Liquefaction Analyses\Appendix C Liquefaction Analyses.docx Carlson Geotechnical Page C2 of C9 Appendix C.'Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 C.1.0 INTRODUCTION In general, liquefaction occurs when deposits of loose/soft, saturated, cohesionless soils, generally sands and silts, are subjected to strong earthquake shaking. If these deposits cannot drain quickly enough, pore water pressures can increase, approaching the value of the overburden pressure. The shear strength of a cohesionless soil is directly proportional to the effective stress, which is equal to the difference between the overburden pressure and the pore water pressure. When the pore water pressure increases to the value of the overburden pressure, the shear strength of the soil reduces to zero, and the soil deposit can liquefy. The liquefied soils can undergo rapid consolidation or, if unconfined, can flow as a liquid. Structures supported by the liquefied soils can experience rapid, excessive settlement, shearing, or even catastrophic failure. The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries' Oregon Statewide Geohazards Viewer' shows a `high' hazard for liquefaction for the site and immediate vicinity. C.2.0 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT For fine-grained soils, susceptibility to liquefaction is evaluated based on penetration resistance and plasticity, among other characteristics. Criteria for identifying non-liquefiable, fine-grained soils are constantly evolving. Current practice to identify non-liquefiable, fine-grained soils is based on moisture content and plasticity characteristics of the soils2'3. The susceptibility of sands, gravels, and sand-gravel mixtures to liquefaction is typically assessed based on penetration resistance, as measured using SPTs, CPTs, or Becker Hammer Penetration tests (BPTs). Subsurface conditions encountered at the site are described in Section 2.3.2 of the geotechnical report. We assessed the liquefaction susceptibility of the soils encountered using the criteria referenced above for fine- grained soils. Based on their low plasticity and saturated conditions, the very soft to medium stiff silt (ML) and loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) are considered susceptible to liquefaction during a design level earthquake. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, and the criteria and mapping detailed above, we conclude there is a high potential for liquefaction to occur at the site during a design level earthquake. C.3.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS We performed quantitative liquefaction triggering and settlement analysis for the site using industry standard procedures detailed in the following sections. C.3.1 Soil and Groundwater Soil and groundwater parameters were based on the results of the geotechnical investigation performed as part of this assignment, summarized in Section 2.3 of the geotechnical report. Our analyses relied on SPT data obtained from borings B-1 and B-5, which were advanced to depths of approximately 81'% and 101'% feet bgs, respectively. 1 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2019. Oregon Statewide Geohazards Viewer, accessed October 2019, from DOGAMI web site: http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/hazvu/index.htm. 2 Seed, R.B. et al.. 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 2003-06. _ 3 Bray, Jonathan D., Sancio, Rodolfo B., et al.,2006. Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Volume 132, Issue 9,September 2006. Carlson Geotechnical Page C3 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 We encountered static groundwater at a depth of approximately 12 feet bgs in B-1 and 17 feet bgs in 8-5, advanced at the site in late August 2019. Reliable groundwater measurements were not obtained in the other borings advanced at the site. To account for seasonal variability, groundwater was modeled at a depth of 9 and 14 feet bgs, respectively. C.3.2 Seismic Scaling Factors Seismic scaling factors required for quantitative liquefaction analysis include earthquake magnitude (M) and ground surface peak ground acceleration (PGA). In accordance with the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and ASCE 7-10, we evaluated liquefaction potential for the "aggregate" seismic event, which is a design-level event that is calculated considering the cumulative 4Xfect from all seismic sources in the region for the indicated probability of exceedance (2 percent in 50 years). For comparison, we also evaluated liquefaction potential in response to a de-aggregated (indi, seismic source determined from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)with the same probability of exceedance. C.3.2.1 "Aggregate" Seismic Source The 2014 OSSC and ASCE 7-10 specify determination of an "aggregate" ground surface PGA for use in liquefaction analyses. As noted above, this value is not attributable to a specific seismic source; rather it is calculated considering the cumulative effect from all seismic sources in the region for the indicated probability of exceedance (2 percent in 50 years). Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10 provides guidance for selecting the aggregate "bedrock" (Site Class B) PGA, site coefficient to account for site soil effects, and ground surface PGA for use in liquefaction analysis. No guidance is provided for selection of a corresponding earthquake magnitude (M). Recognizing the ground surface PGA was derived using aggregated (composite) probabilistic data for design-level earthquakes, we assigned the "aggregate earthquake magnitude" for this site by taking the weighted average (based on relative contribution to the overall hazard) of the magnitudes identified from the de-aggregation data discussed below. The parameters for the aggregate seismic source are presented in Table C1. Table C1 Aggregate PGA & Earthquake Magnitude Parameter Value Source Site Classification E Section D.4.1 of Appendix D Mapped MCEc"Bedrock"Peak Ground Acceleration,PGA 0.423g Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10 Site Coefficient,Face 0.9 Table 11.8-1 of ASCE 7-10 MCEc Peak Ground Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class Effects,PGAM 0.38g Equation 11.8-1 of ASCE 7-10 Weighted average from Aggregate Earthquake Magnitude M7.54 de-aggregation data Note:MCE=Maximum Considered Earthquake C.3.2.2 De-Aggregated Seismic Sources In order to obtain a magnitude and PGA for a specific seismic source to compare with the results obtained for the aggregate hazard, we performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in general - Carlson Geotechnical Page C4 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 accordance with guidelines presented in ODOT (2005)4. The PSHA includes de-aggregation of the seismic hazard data for the specified return period. This process breaks down the aggregate hazard into the individual earthquakes modeled by the USGS. Among other things, the data shows each individual • earthquake and its relative contribution to the aggregate seismic hazard. This allows identification of the specific seismic sources that represent the greatest potential for impacting the site. De-aggregation of the seismic hazard data was performed considering a probability of exceedance of 2 percent during a 50-year period (2,475 year return period), using tools available on the USGS website5. For the purposes of liquefaction analysis, the "principal seismic source" was defined as the source with the highest contribution to the cumulative seismic hazard at the site. This corresponds to the modal M-R pair identified below. Based on the magnitude and source-to-site distance (R), we conclude this represents a megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Published attenuation relationships, available through the commercial software SHAKE2000 (version 9.99.96), were used to calculate a bedrock PGA for the principal seismic source identified for the site. The selection of attenuation relationships and the averaging of their results were performed in general accordance with the procedures detailed in the documentation for the 2008 update to the USGS seismic hazard maps8. The ground surface PGA for the principal seismic source was obtained using soil amplification factors drawn from a chart-based approach'. This conservative approach was used in the absence of a site-specific evaluation of ground response. The following table summarizes the parameters defined to characterize the principal seismic source for this site. Table C2 Parameters Used for Principal De-Aggregated Seismic Source PGA Earthquake Type1 Magnitude Source to Site Distance Bedrock2 Ground Surface3 CSZ Interface M9.0 82 km 0.18g 0.24g Identified by comparison of magnitude and source-to-site distance 2 Weighted average of 84th Percentile values from selected attenuation relationships 3 Determined using chart-based soil amplification factors(Seed et al,1994) C.3.3 Liquefaction Triggering & Settlement Analysis Our liquefaction triggering and settlement analyses were performed using methods detailed in Idriss and Boulanger (2014)8. We utilized the commercially available software program LiqSVs (version 1.3.2.4) 4 Dickenson, Stephen E., et al., June 2005. Recommended Guidelines for Liquefaction Evaluations using Ground Motions From Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses. 5 United States Geological Survey, 2019. NSHMP PSHA Interactive Deaggregations, accessed October 2019, from the USGS website http://earthquake.usgs.gov. 6 Petersen, Mark D., Frankel, Arthur D., Harmsen, Stephen C., Mueller, Charles S., Haller, Kathleen M., Wheeler, Russell L., Wesson, Robert L., Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, Oliver S., Perkins, David M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, Edward H., Wills, Chris J., and Rukstales, Kenneth S., 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128,61 p. 7 Dickenson, S.E.. et al., 2002, Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon, Final Report to the Oregon Department of Transportation, SPR 361, Report Number FHWA-OR-RD-03-04 (Figure 3.2 and Table 3.5). Carlson Geotechnical Page C5 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 produced by Geologismiki to perform the SPT-based liquefaction analysis. With the exception of the non- liquefiable zones referenced above (i.e. soils above the groundwater levels), all soil types were considered in the evaluation of liquefaction potential. We took the incremental settlement estimates produced by the software and applied depth weighting factors, as outlined in Cetin, et al. (2009)9. The results of our calculations are presented in the following table. Table C3 Factored Settlement using Cetin Depth Factor, Aggregate Source(B-1) Unfactored Unfactored Factored Factored Mid-Layer Layer Cetin Depth Depth Thickness Incremental Accumulated Factor Incremental Accumulated Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement feet bgs feet inches inches dimensionless inches inches 2.25 4.5 0 27.06 0.96 0.00 8.39 6.75 4.5 0 27.06 0.89 0.00 8.39 10.5 3 1.03 27.06 0.83 0.85 8.39 15.25 6.5 2.91 26.03 0.75 2.17 7.54 20 3 1.43 23.12 0.67 0.95 5.37 - 24 5 2.71 21.69 0.60 1.63 4.42 27.25 1.5 0.64 18.98 0.55 0.35 2.79 32.25 8.5 2.17 18.34 0.46 1.00 2.44 39 5 1.72 16.17 0.35 0.60 1.44 44 5 1.18 14.45 0.27 0.31 0.84 48.75 4.5 1.71 13.27 0.19 0.32 0.52 53.75 5.5 1,73 11.56 0.10 0.18 0.20 59 5 1.28 9.83 0.02 0.02 0.02 64 5 1.5 8.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 69 5 1.28 7.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.25 1.5 0.41 5.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 77.25 8.5 2.56 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.5 0 2.8 2.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 idriss. I.M., Boulanger, R.W., 2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Center for Geotechnical Modeling . Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. 9 Cetin, K.O., Bilge, H.T., Wu, J„ Kammerer, A.M., and Seed, R.B., 2009. Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 135(3), . 387-398. Carlson Geotechnical Page C6 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table C4 Factored Settlement using Cetin Depth Factor, CSZ (B-1) Mid-Layer Layer Unfactored Unfactored Cetin Depth Factored Factored Depth Thickness Incremental Accumulated Factor Incremental Accumulated Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement feet bgs feet inches inches dimensionless inches inches 2.25 4.5 0 26.7 0.96 0.00 8.09 6.75 4.5 0 26.7 0.89 0.00 8.09 10.5 3 0.67 26.7 0.83 < 0.55 8.09 15.25 6.5 2.91 26.03 0 2.17 7.54 20 3 1.43 23.12 i V 0.95 5.37 H i>,fi 24 5 2.71 21.69 1.63 4.42 27.25 1.5 0.64 18.98 0.55 r:, 0.35 2.79 32.25 8.5 2.17 18.34 0.46 1.00 2.44 39 5 1.72 16.17 0.35 0.60 1.44 44 5 1.18 14.45 0.27 0.31 0.84 48.75 4.5 1.71 13.27 0.19 0.32 0.52 53.75 5.5 1.73 11.56 0.10 0.18 0.20 59 5 1.28 9.83 0.02 0.02 0.02 64 5 1.5 8.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 5 1.28 7.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.25 1.5 0.41 5.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.25 8.5 2.56 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.5 0 2.8 2.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carlson Geotechnical Page C7 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table C5 Factored Settlement using Cetin Depth Factor, Aggregate Source (B-5) Unfactored Unfactored Factored Factored Mid-Layer Layer Cetin Depth Depth Thickness Incremental Accumulated Factor Incremental Accumulated - Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement feet bgs feet inches inches dimensionless inches inches 3.25 6.5 0 21.55 0.95 0.00 5.52 7.75 2.5 0 21.55 0.87 0.00 5.52 10.5 3 0 21.55 0.83 0.00 5.52 13 2 0 21.55 0.78 0.00 5.52 17.75 7.5 2.02 21.55 0.70 1.42 5.52 22.25 1.5 0.6 19.53 0.63 0.38 4.09 27.25 8.5 2.8 18.93 0.55 1.53 3.72 32.25 1.5 0.54 16.13 0.46 0.25 2.19 37.25 8.5 2.93 15.59 0.38 1.11 1.94 44 5 1.57 12.66 0.27 0.42 0.83 49.65 6.3 1.74 11.09 0.17 0.30 0.41 54.65 3.7 0.91 9.35 0.09 0.08 0.11 59 5 1.65 8.44 0.02 0.03 0.03 64 5 0.67 6.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 3.5 0 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.25 6.5 1.07 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 5 1.28 5.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.25 3.5 1.01 3.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 10 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25 6.5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carlson Geotechnical Page C8 of C9 Appendix C:Liquefaction Analyses Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table C6 Factored Settlement using Cetin Depth Factor, CSZ (B-5) Mid Layer Layer Unfactored Unfactored Cetin Depth Factored Factored Depth Thickness Incremental Accumulated Factor Incremental Accumulated Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement feet bgs feet inches inches dimensionless inches inches 3.25 6.5 0 22.19 0.95 0.00 5.52 7.75 2.5 0 22.19 0.87 0.00 5.52 10.5 3 0 22.19 0.83 0.00 5.52 13 2 0 22.19 0.78 0.00 5.52 17.75 7.5 2.02 22.19 0.70 1.42 5.52 22.25 1.5 0.6 20.17 0.63 0.38 4.09 27.25 8.5 2.8 19.57 0.55 1.53 3.72 32.25 1.5 0.54 16.77 '111 0.46 0.25 2.19 37.25 8.5 2.93 16.23 0.38 1.11 1.94 44 5 1.57 13.3 0.27 0.42 0.83 49.65 6.3 1.74 11.73 0,17 0.30 0.41 54.65 3.7 0.91 9.99 0.09 0.08 0.11 59 5 1.65 1111,h, 9.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 64 5 0.9 7.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.25 3.5 0 6.53 0,00 0.00 0.00 73.25 6.5 1.48 6.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 5 1.28 5.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.25 3.5 1.01 3.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 10 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25 6.5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Based on the factored, incremental settlements detailed in Table C3 through C6, our analyses indicate approximately 8'/% and 5% inches of total, liquefaction-induced settlement for the modeled earthquake scenarios. C.4.0 REVIEW OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS Table C7 summarizes the results of our liquefaction settlement analyses, for each boring and earthquake scenario. Table C7 Results of Liquefaction-Induced Settlement Analyses Seismic Event Magnitude PGA Calculated Settlement(inches) B-1 B-5 "Aggregate" M7.54 0.38g 8.4 5.5 CSZ Interface M9.0 0.24g 8.1 5.5 See attached liquefaction report for graphical results of the liquefaction analyses. Our analyses indicate total settlements of about 5'/z to 8'/z inches. For design, CGT recommends using an average value of 7 inches of total, liquefaction-induced settlement. With regard to differential settlements, we recommend that differential settlement across the building pad be taken as one half of greatest total settlement, or up to about 41/4 inches. Carlson Geotechnical Page C9 of C9 This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical :: Field input data :: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Intl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (0/0) (pcf) (ft) _ 4.00 5 100.00 120.00 4.50 Yes 6.50 10 69.00 114.00 4.50 Yes 9.00 6 69.00 114.00 3.00 Yes 13.50 3 69.00 114.00 6.50 Yes 18.50 2 69.00 114.00 3.00 Yes 21.50 1 69.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 26.50 4 69.00 114.00 1.50 Yes 31.50 13 35.00 114.00 8.50 Yes 36.50 8 35.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 41.50 16 35.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 46.50 7 35.00 114.00 4.50 Yes 52.50 11 51.00 114.00 5.50 Yes 56.50 16 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 61.50 12 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 66.50 17 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 71.50 15 51.00 114.00 1.50 Yes 76.50 14 80.00 114.00 8.50 Yes 81.50 12 80.00 114.00 8.50 Yes • Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot • Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Infl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit cry u, cry. m CN CR CR CR Cs (N1)60 FC AQ1i)6o (N1)6oc. CRRzs (ft) Field Weight (tst) (tsf) (tsf) (%) . Value (pcf) 4.00 5 120.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.46 1.70 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 8 100.00 5.49 13 4.000 6.50 10 114.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.41 1.52 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 15 69.00 5.58 21 4.000 9.00 6 114.00 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.47 1.39 1.30 1.00 0.80 1.00 9 69.00 5.58 15 0.156 13.50 3 114.00 0.78 0.05 0.73 0.53 1.21 1.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 4 69.00 5.58 10 0.118 18.50 2 114.00 1.07 0.20 0.86 0.55 1.12 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 3 69.00 5.58 9 0.111 21.50 1 114.00 1.24 0.30 0.94 0.58 1.07 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 69.00 5.58 7 0.098 26.50 4 114.00 1.52 0.45 1.07 0.54 0.99 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 5 69.00 5.58 11 0.125 31.50 13 114.00 1.81 0.61 1.20 0.43 0.95 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 35.00 5.51 22 0.233 36.50 8 114.00 2.09 0.76 1.33 0.49 0.89 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 35.00 5.51 15 0.156 41.50 16 114.00 2.38 0.92 1.46 0.42 0.88 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 35.00 5.51 24 0.268 46.50 7 114.00 2.66 1.08 1.59 0.52 0.81 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 35.00 5.51 13 0.140 52.50 11 114.00 3.00 1.26 1.74 0.48 0.79 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 51.00 5.61 17 0.174 56.50 16 114.00 3.23 1.39 1.84 0.43 0.79 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 51.00 5.61 22 0.233 61.50 12 114.00 3.52 1.54 1.97 0.48 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 51.00 5.61 18 0.184 66.50 17 114.00 3.80 1.70 2.10 0.44 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 51.00 5.61 22 0.233 71.50 15 114.00 4.09 1.86 2.23 0.46 0.71 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 51.00 5.61 20 0.206 76.50 14 114.00 4.37 2.01 2.36 0.47 0.68 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 80.00 5.54 18 0.184 81.50 12 114.00 4.66 2.17 2.49 0.50 0.65 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 80.00 5.54 16 0.165 LiqSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:3 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\liqsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data :: Depth SPT Unit a„ uo a'„, m Cry CE CB CR Cs (N1)6o FC A(141)6a (N,)60cs CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) Abbreviations a Total stress during SPT test(tsf) uo: Water pore pressure durng SPT test(tsf) ce„,s: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normdization factor CR: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor CE: Borehole diameter correction factor CR: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor Ni(60): Corrected Nsvr to a 60%energy ratio A(N1)60 Equivalent dean sand adjustment N,r6a Corected N1(6o)value for fines content CRR7,5: Cydic resistance ratio for M=7.5 ::Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized) :: Depth Unit aeeq uneq a'vo�eq ra a CSR MSFinaa (N1)60cs MSF CSRegtt=zs K9ema CSR' FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (pcf) 4.00 120.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.246 1.26 13 1.00 0.247 1.10 0.225 2.000 • 6.50 114.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.99 1.00 0.245 1.53 21 0.99 0.247 1.10 0.224 2.000 • 9.00 114.00 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.98 1.00 0.243 1.32 15 1.00 0.244 1.08 0.227 0.689 • 13.50 114.00 0.78 0.14 0.64 0.97 1.00 0.293 1.19 10 1.00 0.293 1.05 0.280 0.421 • 18.50 114.00 1.07 0.30 0.77 0.95 1.00 0.327 1.17 9 1.00 0.327 1.03 0.318 0.349 • 21.50 114.00 1.24 0.39 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.340 1.14 7 1.00 0.341 1.02 0.335 0.293 • • 26.50 114.00 1.52 0.55 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.356 1.21 11 1.00 0.357 1.01 0.354 0.353 • 31.50 114.00 1.81 0.70 1.11 0.90 1.00 0.365 1.58 22 0.99 0.368 0.99 0.370 0.629 • 36.50 114.00 2.09 0.86 1.23 0.88 1.00 0.370 1.32 15 1.00 0.371 0.98 0.378 0.413 • 41.50 114.00 2.38 1.01 1.36 0.86 1.00 0.371 1.67 24 0.99 0.374 0.96 0.390 0.688 • 46.50 114.00 2.66 1.17 1.49 0.84 1.00 0.370 1.26 13 1.00 0.371 0.96 0.384 0.364 • 52.50 114.00 3.00 1.36 1.65 0.81 1.00 0.366 1.38 17 0.99 0.368 0.95 0.388 0.448 • 56.50 114.00 3.23 1.48 1.75 0.79 1.00 0.362 1.58 22 0.99 0.365 0.93 0.394 0.592 • 61.50 114.00 3.52 1.64 1.88 0.77 1.00 0.357 1.42 18 0.99 0.359 0.93 0.387 0.475 • 66.50 114.00 3.80 1.79 2.01 0.75 1.00 0.352 1.58 22 0.99 0.354 0.91 0.390 0.597 • _ 71.50 114.00 4.09 1.95 2.14 0.73 1.00 0.346 1.49 20 0.99 0.348 0.91 0.384 0.536 • 76.50 114.00 4.37 2.11 2.27 0.71 1.00 0.340 1.42 18 0.99 0.342 0.91 0.377 0.487 • 81.50 114.00 4.66 2.26 2.40 0.70 1.00 0.334 1.35 16 1.00 0.335 0.91 0.370 0.445 • Abbreviations Ov,eq: Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) keg: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) dvoea: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) rd: Nonlinear shear mass factor o: Improvement factor due to stone columns CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,M=z.s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 Ksw„a: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki :: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 4 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki :: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 4.00 2.000 0.00 9.39 2.50 0.00 6.50 2.000 0.00 9.01 2.50 0.00 9.00 0.689 0.31 8.63 2.50 2.05 13.50 0.421 0.58 7.94 4.50 6.31 18.50 0.349 0.65 7.18 5.00 7.12 21.50 0.293 0.71 6.72 3.00 4.35 26.50 0.353 0.65 5.96 5.00 5.88 31.50 0.629 0.37 5.20 5.00 2.94 36.50 0.413 0.59 4.44 5.00 3.97 41.50 0.688 0.31 3.68 5.00 1.75 46.50 0.364 0.64 2.91 5.00 2.82 52.50 0.448 0.55 2.00 6.00 2.02 56.50 0.592 0.41 1.39 4.00 0.69 61.50 0.475 0.52 0.63 5.00 0.50 66.50 0.597 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.50 0.536 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.50 0.487 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.50 0.445 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall potential IL: 40.38 IL=0.00-No liquefaction IL between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable IL between 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable I > 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (NL)ao Tav P Gmaa a b y ELs N.- Eric Ah AS (ft) (tsf) eh) (ft) (in) 4.00 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.000 6.50 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.000 Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000 Abbreviations Tay: Average cydic shear stress p: Average stress Clnax: Maxrnun shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain Els: Volunetric strain after 15 cycles Nunber of cycles Esc: Volumetric strain for number of cycles N,(%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) ::Vertical&Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (N1.)eots Yrm Fo FSrq Ymax e, dz Sy.io LDI (ft) (%) (%) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) 9.00 15 27.51 0.75 0.689 27.51 2.87 3.00 1.035 0.00 13.50 10 47.32 0.91 0.421 47.32 3.74 6.50 2.914 0.00 - 18.50 9 52.88 0.93 0.349 52.88 3.97 3.00 1.428 0.00 LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 5 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (N1)°°cs Yrm Fa FS„n Yma: ev dz Sw-r° LDI (ft) (%) (0/0) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) 21.50 7 66.51 0.95 0.293 66.51 4.52 5.00 2.712 0.00 26.50 11 42.40 0.89 0.353 42.40 3.53 1.50 0.635 0.00 31.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.629 12.67 2.13 8.50 2.168 0.00 36.50 15 27.51 0.75 0.413 27.51 2.87 5.00 1.725 0.00 41.50 24 10.02 0.29 0.688 8.20 1.97 5.00 1.181 0.00 46.50 13 34.14 0.83 0.364 34.14 3.17 4.50 1.713 0.00 52.50 17 22.15 0.67 0.448 22.15 2.62 5.50 1.730 0.00 56.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.592 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 61.50 18 19.85 0.62 0.475 19.85 2.51 5.00 1.505 0.00 66.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.597 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 71.50 20 15.90 0.52 0.536 15.90 2.30 1.50 0.415 0.00 76.50 18 19.85 0.62 0.487 19.85 2.51 8.50 2.558 0.00 81.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.445 24.69 2.74 8.50 2.797 0.00 Cumulative settlements: 27.067 0.00 Abbreviations YM Limiting shear strain(%) FdN: Maximun shear strain factor Yma.: Maximum shear strain(%) e,,:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) Sv-1D: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) LiqSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 6 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical :: Field input data :: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Intl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (0/0) (pcf) (ft) 4.00 11 57.00 121.00 6.50 Yes 6.50 9 57.00 121.00 2.50 Yes 9.00 7 57.00 121.00 3.00 Yes 13.50 12 27.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 18.50 4 27.00 118.00 4.50 Yes 21.50 6 27.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 26.50 9 54.00 118.00 8.50 Yes 31.50 7 54.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 36.50 8 55.00 118.00 8.50 Yes 41.50 11 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 46.50 14 55.00 118.00 6.30 Yes 52.80 17 55.00 118.00 3.70 Yes 56.50 11 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 61.50 21 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 66.50 26 55.00 118.00 3.50 Yes 71.50 21 84.00 118.00 6.50 Yes 76.50 19 84.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 81.50 16 84.00 118.00 3.50 Yes 95.00 18 84.00 118.00 10.00 Yes 101.50 13 84.00 118.00 6.50 No Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Infl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data :: Depth SPT Unit O0 Uo Qvo m CR CE C6 CR Cs (N1)60 FC A`1)60 (Ny)6ocs CRR,.s (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) 4.00 11 121.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.38 1.70 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 18 57.00 5.61 24 4.000 6.50 9 121.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.42 1.52 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 13 57.00 5.61 19 4.000 9.00 7 121.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.46 1.36 1.30 1.00 0.80 1.00 10 57.00 5.61 16 4.000 13.50 12 118.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.43 1.12 1.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 15 27.00 5.21 20 4.000 18.50 4 118.00 1.11 0.05 1.06 0.54 1.00 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 5 27.00 5.21 10 0.118 21.50 6 118.00 1.28 0.14 1.14 0.52 0.96 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 7 27.00 5.21 12 0.132 26.50 9 118.00 1.58 0.30 1.28 0.48 0.91 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 10 54.00 5.61 16 0.165 31.50 7 118.00 1.87 0.45 1.42 0.51 0.86 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 54.00 5.61 14 0.148 36.50 8 118.00 2.17 0.61 1.56 0.51 0.82 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 55.00 5.61 15 0.156 41.50 11 118.00 2.46 0.76 1.70 0.48 0.80 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 55.00 5.61 17 0.174 46.50 14 118.00 2.76 0.92 1.84 0.45 0.78 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 55.00 5.61 20 0.206 52.80 17 118.00 3.13 1.12 2.01 0.43 0.76 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 55.00 5.61 23 0.249 56.50 11 118.00 3.35 1.23 2.11 0.50 0.71 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 55.00 5.61 16 0.165 61.50 21 118.00 3.64 1.39 2.25 0.41 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 55.00 5.61 26 0.316 66.50 26 118.00 3.94 1.54 2.39 0.37 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 55.00 5.61 31 4.000 71.50 21 118.00 4.23 1.70 2.53 0.42 0.69 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 84.00 5.53 25 0.290 - 76.50 19 118.00 4.53 1.86 2.67 0.44 0.67 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 84.00 5.53 22 0.233 LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:9 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys • This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit ay uo a',,, m CM CE Ca CR C (N060 FC A(Nr)bo 0E.0,y CRR].s (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) 81.50 16 118.00 4.82 2.01 2.81 0.47 0.63 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 84.00 5.53 19 0.194 95.00 18 118.00 5.62 2.43 3.18 0.46 0.60 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 84.00 5.53 20 0.206 101.50 13 118.00 6.00 2.64 3.37 0.51 0.55 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 84.00 5.53 15 4.000 Abbreviations ay: Total stress during SPT test(tsf) us: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) ceye: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor Cry: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor Ce: Borehole diameter correction factor Cs: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor N1(60): Corrected Ng':to a 60%energy ratio Ati(N 1)60 Equivalent dean said adjustrnent N1ibo)s: Corected N1(60)value for fines content CRR7.5: Cydic resistance ratio for M=7.5 ::Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized) :: Depth Unit ayeq u,, Cr.voeq ra a CSR MSF,: (Ni)so. MSF CSR K (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) eq,M=].5 e9ma CSR' FS (pcf) 4.00 121.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.246 1.67 24 0.99 0.249 1.10 0.226 2.000 • 6.50 121.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.99 1.00 0.245 1.45 19 0.99 0.246 1.10 0.224 2.000 • 9.00 121.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.98 1.00 0.243 1.35 16 1.00 0.244 1.08 0.227 2.000 • 13.50 118.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.97 1.00 0.240 1.49 20 0.99 0.242 1.04 0.233 2.000 • 18.50 118.00 1.11 0.14 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.270 1.19 10 1.00 0.271 1.01 0.269 0.440 • 21.50 118.00 1.28 0.23 1.05 0.94 1.00 0.285 1.24 12 1.00 0.286 1.00 0.286 0.463 • 26.50 118.00 1.58 0.39 1.19 0.92 1.00 0.303 1.35 16 1.00 0.305 0.99 0.309 0.533 • 31.50 118.00 1.87 0.55 1.33 0.90 1.00 0.315 1.29 14 1.00 0.317 0.98 0.324 0.456 • 36.50 118.00 2.17 0.70 1.47 0.88 1.00 0.323 1.32 15 1.00 0.324 0.96 0.336 0.465 • 41.50 118.00 2.46 0.86 1.60 0.86 1.00 0.326 1.38 17 0.99 0.328 0.95 0.345 0.504 • 46.50 118.00 2.76 1.01 1.74 0.84 1.00 0.328 1.49 20 0.99 0.330 0.93 0.353 0.583 • 52.80 118.00 3.13 1.21 1.92 0.81 1.00 0.327 1.62 23 0.99 0.329 0.91 0.362 0.690 • 56.50 118.00 3.35 1.33 2.02 0.79 1.00 0.325 1.35 16 1.00 0.326 0.93 0.353 0.467 • 61.50 118.00 3.64 1.48 2.16 0.77 1.00 0.322 1.77 26 0.99 0.325 0.88 0.370 0.854 • 66.50 118.00 3.94 1.64 2.30 0.75 1.00 0.318 2.06 31 0.99 0.323 0.83 0.386 2.000 • 71.50 118.00 4.23 1.79 2.44 0.73 1.00 0.314 1.72 25 0.99 0.317 0.86 0.367 0.791 • 76.50 118.00 4.53 1.95 2.58 0.71 1.00 0.309 1.58 22 0.99 0.312 0.87 0.358 0.652 • 81.50 118.00 4.82 2.11 2.72 0.70 1.00 0.305 1.45 19 0.99 0.307 0.88 0.349 0.557 • 95.00 118.00 5.62 2.53 3.09 0.66 1.00 0.294 1.49 20 0.99 0.296 0.86 0.346 0.596 • 101.50 118.00 6.00 2.73 3.27 0.64 1.00 0.290 1.32 15 1.00 0.291 0.87 0.333 2.000 • Abbreviations (keg: Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) cbeq Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) dvo.eq: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) rd: Nonlinear shear mass factor a: Improvement factor due to stone columns CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,M=7.s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 v 'Kigne: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 10 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 4.00 2.000 0.00 9.39 2.50 0.00 6.50 2.000 0.00 9.01 2.50 0.00 9.00 2.000 0.00 8.63 2.50 0.00 13.50 2.000 0.00 7.94 4.50 0.00 18.50 0.440 0.56 7.18 5.00 6.13 21.50 0.463 0.54 6.72 3.00 3.30 26.50 0.533 0.47 5.96 5.00 4.24 31.50 0.456 0.54 5.20 5.00 4.31 36.50 0.465 0.54 4.44 5.00 3.62 41.50 0.504 0.50 3.68 5.00 2.78 46.50 0.583 0.42 2.91 5.00 1.85 52.80 0.690 0.31 1.95 6.30 1.16 56.50 0.467 0.53 1.39 3.70 0.83 61.50 0.854 0.15 0.63 5.00 0.14 66.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.50 0.791 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.50 0.652 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.50 0.557 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.00 0.596 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall potential IL: 28.38 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 ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (N1)eo Tay p Gm„, a b y Ens N, Eqc Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (e7") (ft) (in) 4.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.000 6.50 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 9.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.000 13.50 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000 Abbreviations rev: Average cydic shear stress p: Average stress G,,,a,: Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain E15: Vokrnetric strain after 15 cydes N,: Number ofcycles EN,: Volumetric strain for number of cycles N,(%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 11 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical ::Vertical&Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (Nr)60c. yrm Fa FSr„ yn,,, e„ dz S„ao LDI (ft) (%) (%) (o/o) (ft) (in) (ft) 18.50 10 47.32 0.91 0.440 47.32 3.74 4.50 2.017 0.00 21.50 12 38.03 0.86 0.463 38.03 3.34 1.50 0.602 0.00 26.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.533 24.69 2.74 8.50 2.797 0.00 31.50 14 30.65 0.79 0.456 30.65 3.02 1.50 0.543 0.00 36.50 15 27.51 0.75 0.465 27.51 2.87 8.50 2.932 0.00 41.50 17 22.15 0.67 0.504 22.15 2.62 5.00 1.572 0.00 46.50 20 15.90 0.52 0.583 15.90 2.30 6.30 1.742 0.00 52.80 23 11.27 0.35 0.690 8.79 2.04 3.70 0.908 0.00 56.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.467 24.69 2.74 5.00 1.646 0.00 61.50 26 7.85 0.17 0.854 4.87 1.11 5.00 0.668 0.00 66.50 31 4.04 -0.16 2.000 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.000 0.00 71.50 25 8.88 0.23 0.791 5.81 1.38 6.50 1.074 0.00 76.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.652 11.47 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 81.50 19 17.78 0.57 0.557 17.78 2.40 3.50 1.009 0.00 95.00 20 15.90 0.52 0.596 15.90 2.30 10.00 2.765 0.00 101.50 15 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.000 0.00 Cumulative settlements: 21.551 0.00 Abbreviations Yin: Limiting shear strain(%)FIN: Maximun shear strain factor Ymax: Maximum shear strain(%) ev:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) S,.ie: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) • LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 12 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJEC S\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical :: Field input data :: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Infl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (%) (Pcf) (ft) 4.00 5 100.00 120.00 4.50 Yes 6.50 10 69.00 114.00 4.50 Yes 9.00 6 69.00 114.00 3.00 Yes 13.50 3 69.00 114.00 6.50 Yes 18.50 2 69.00 114.00 3.00 Yes 21.50 1 69.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 26.50 4 69.00 114.00 1.50 Yes 31.50 13 35.00 114.00 8.50 Yes 36.50 8 35.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 41.50 16 35.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 46.50 7 35.00 114.00 4.50 Yes 52.50 11 51.00 114.00 5.50 Yes 56.50 16 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 61.50 12 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 66.50 17 51.00 114.00 5.00 Yes 71.50 15 51.00 114.00 1.50 Yes 76.50 14 80.00 114.00 8.50 Yes 81.50 12 80.00 114.00 8.50 Yes Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot • Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Intl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: R //uu ` Depth SPT Unit a„ uR awo m CN CE CB CR Cs (N1)60 FC AI,N I)60 \••U60cs CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) 4.00 5 120.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.46 1.70 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 8 100.00 5.49 13 4.000 6.50 10 114.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.41 1.52 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 15 69.00 5.58 21 4.000 9.00 6 114.00 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.47 1.39 1.30 1.00 0.80 1.00 9 69.00 5.58 15 0.156 13.50 3 114.00 0.78 0.05 0.73 0.53 1.21 1.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 4 69.00 5.58 10 0.118 18.50 2 114.00 1.07 0.20 0.86 0.55 1.12 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 3 69.00 5.58 9 0.111 21.50 1 114.00 1.24 0.30 0.94 0.58 1.07 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 69.00 5.58 7 0.098 26.50 4 114.00 1.52 0.45 1.07 0.54 0.99 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 5 69.00 5.58 11 0.125 31.50 13 114.00 1.81 0.61 1.20 0.43 0.95 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 35.00 5.51 22 0.233 36.50 8 114.00 2.09 0.76 1.33 0.49 0.89 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 35.00 5.51 15 0.156 41.50 16 114.00 2.38 0.92 1.46 0.42 0.88 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 35.00 5.51 24 0.268 46.50 7 114.00 2.66 1.08 1.59 0.52 0.81 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 35.00 5.51 13 0.140 52.50 11 114.00 3.00 1.26 1.74 0.48 0.79 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 51.00 5.61 17 0.174 56.50 16 114.00 3.23 1.39 1.84 0.43 0.79 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 51.00 5.61 22 0.233 61.50 12 114.00 3.52 1.54 1.97 0.48 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 51.00 5.61 18 0.184 66.50 17 114.00 3.80 1.70 2.10 0.44 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 51.00 5.61 22 0.233 71.50 15 114.00 4.09 1.86 2.23 0.46 0.71 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 51.00 5.61 20 0.206 76.50 14 114.00 4.37 2.01 2.36 0.47 0.68 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 80.00 5.54 18 0.184 81.50 12 114.00 4.66 2.17 2.49 0.50 0.65 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 80.00 5.54 16 0.165 LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 15 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\liqsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data :: Depth SPT Unit o„ us O'oo m Cry Cr CR Cr Cs (Ny)R0 FC A(Ni)6o (N1)60, CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (o/o) Value (pcf) Abbreviations a : Total stress during SPT test(tsf) us: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) o',.o: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor Cry: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor Ca: Borehde diameter correction factor CR: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor N00): Corrected Ns7 to a 60%energy ratio II(N r)60 Equivalent dean sand adjustment N1(60 Corected NI(60)value for fines content CRR7.s: Cydic resistance ratio forM=7.5 Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: Depth Unit Oveq 'Agog Cr.,roeq ra a CSR MSFinax MSF CSR (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (N')sa�: eq,M�r.S KA9ma CSR' FS (God) 4.00 120.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.26 13 0.89 0.176 1.10 0.160 2.000 • 6.50 114.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.53 21 0.78 0.201 1.10 0.183 2.000 • 9.00 114.00 0.53 0.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.32 15 0.87 0.180 1.08 0.167 0.932 • 13.50 114.00 0.78 0.14 0.64 1.01 1.00 0.191 1.19 10 0.92 0.208 1.05 0.198 0.595 • 18.50 114.00 1.07 0.30 0.77 1.01 1.00 0.217 1.17 9 0.93 0.234 1.03 0.227 0.489 • 21.50 114.00 1.24 0.39 0.85 1.01 1.00 0.229 1.14 7 0.94 0.243 1.02 0.239 0.411 • 26.50 114.00 1.52 0.55 0.98 1.01 1.00 0.245 1.21 11 0.91 0.268 1.01 0.266 0.470 • 31.50 114.00 1.81 0.70 1.11 1.00 1.00 0.256 1.58 22 0.76 0.337 0.99 0.339 0.687 • 36.50 114.00 2.09 0.86 1.23 1.00 1.00 0.265 1.32 15 0.87 0.306 0.98 0.311 0.502 • 41.50 114.00 2.38 1.01 1.36 1.00 1.00 0.272 1.67 24 0.72 0.377 0.96 0.393 0.683 • 46.50 114.00 2.66 1.17 1.49 1.00 1.00 0.278 1.26 13 0.89 0.312 0.96 0.323 0.434 • 52.50 114.00 3.00 1.36 1.65 0.99 1.00 0.283 1.38 17 0.84 0.336 0.95 0.355 0.491 • 56.50 114.00 3.23 1.48 1.75 0.99 1.00 0.285 1.58 22 0.76 0.375 0.93 0.404 0.577 • - 61.50 114.00 3.52 1.64 1.88 0.98 1.00 0.287 1.42 18 0.83 0.347 0.93 0.373 0.492 • 66.50 114.00 3.80 1.79 2.01 0.97 1.00 0.288 1.58 22 0.76 0.379 0.91 0.417 0.559 • 71.50 114.00 4.09 1.95 2.14 0.97 1.00 0.288 1.49 20 0.80 0.362 0.91 0.400 0.515 • 76.50 114.00 4.37 2.11 2.27 0.96 1.00 0.287 1.42 18 0.83 0.347 0.91 0.384 0.479 • 81.50 114.00 4.66 2.26 2.40 0.94 1.00 0.286 1.35 16 0.86 0.334 0.91 0.369 0.446 • Abbreviations Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) keg: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) dvozq: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) rd: Nonlinear shear mass factor o: Improvement factor due to stone columns CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,M=75: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 Kslgna: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki :: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 16 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki :: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 4.00 2.000 0.00 9.39 2.50 0.00 6.50 2.000 0.00 9.01 2.50 0.00 9.00 0.932 0.07 8.63 2.50 0.44 13.50 0.595 0.40 7.94 4.50 4.41 18.50 0.489 0.51 7.18 5.00 5.59 21.50 0.411 0.59 6.72 3.00 3.62 26.50 0.470 0.53 5.96 5.00 4.81 31.50 0.687 0.31 5.20 5.00 2.48 36.50 0.502 0.50 4.44 5.00 3.37 41.50 0.683 0.32 3.68 5.00 1.78 46.50 0.434 0.57 2.91 5.00 2.52 52.50 0.491 0.51 2.00 6.00 1.86 56.50 0.577 0.42 1.39 4.00 0.72 61.50 0.492 0.51 0.63 5.00 0.49 66.50 0.559 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.50 0.515 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.50 0.479 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.50 0.446 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall potential IL: 32.08 I1=0.00-No liquefaction I1 between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable I1 between 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable IL> 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (N1)60 T.. p Gm.. a b y EIS N0 ♦;Nc Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (o) (ft) (in) 4.00 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.000 6.50 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.000 Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000 Abbreviations Tay: Average cydic shear stress p: Average stress Gmex: Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain c15: Volumetric strain after 15 cydes Nm: Nunberofcydes ENd Volumetric strain for nunber of cydes N,(%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (N1)soco Yrm Fa FS55 ymax e,. dz Sv-10 LDI (ft) ("/o) eh) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) - 9.00 15 27.51 0.75 0.932 5.15 1.85 3.00 0.666 0.00 13.50 10 47.32 0.91 0.595 47.32 3.74 6.50 2.914 0.00 18.50 9 52.88 0.93 0.489 52.88 3.97 3.00 1.428 0.00 LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 17 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical ::Vertical&Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (N1)c0.s Yrm F. FSiq YmT= ev dz Sw-1D LDI (ft) (oh) (%) (D/0) (ft) (in) (ft) 21.50 7 66.51 0.95 0.411 66.51 4.52 5.00 2.712 0.00 26.50 11 42.40 0.89 0.470 42.40 3.53 1.50 0.635 0.00 31.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.687 9.75 2.13 8.50 2.168 0.00 36.50 15 27.51 0.75 0.502 27.51 2.87 5.00 1.725 0.00 41.50 24 10.02 0.29 0.683 8.36 1.97 5.00 1.181 0.00 46.50 13 34.14 0.83 0.434 34.14 3.17 4.50 1.713 0.00 52.50 17 22.15 0.67 0.491 22.15 2.62 5.50 1.730 0.00 56.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.577 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 61.50 18 19.85 0.62 0.492 19.85 2.51 5.00 1.505 0.00 66.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.559 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 71.50 20 15.90 0.52 0.515 15.90 2.30 1.50 0.415 0.00 76.50 18 19.85 0.62 0.479 19.85 2.51 8.50 2.558 0.00 81.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.446 24.69 2.74 8.50 2.797 0.00 Cumulative settlements: 26.698 0.00 Abbreviations Yen: Limiting shear strain(%) Fq/N: Maximun shear strain factor Yma.: Maximum shear strain(%) eu:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) Sv-1D: Estimated vertical settlement(in) • LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 18 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical :: Field input data :: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Infl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (%) (pcf) (ft) 4.00 11 57.00 121.00 6.50 Yes 6.50 9 57.00 121.00 2.50 Yes 9.00 7 57.00 121.00 3.00 Yes 13.50 12 27.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 18.50 4 27.00 118.00 4.50 Yes 21.50 6 27.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 26.50 9 54.00 118.00 8.50 Yes 31.50 7 54.00 118.00 1.50 Yes 36.50 8 55.00 118.00 8.50 Yes 41.50 11 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 46.50 14 55.00 118.00 6.30 Yes 52.80 17 55.00 118.00 3.70 Yes 56.50 11 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 61.50 21 55.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 66.50 26 55.00 118.00 3.50 Yes 71.50 21 84.00 118.00 6.50 Yes 76.50 19 84.00 118.00 5.00 Yes 81.50 16 84.00 118.00 3.50 Yes 95.00 18 84.00 118.00 10.00 Yes 101.50 13 84.00 118.00 6.50 No Abbreviations Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Inf.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) Can Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data :: Depth SPT Unit ay u„ a'y„ m CN CE Cs CR Cs (N2)6o FC AP1)eo (N1)60c: CRRzs (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) 4.00 11 121.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.38 1.70 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 18 57.00 5.61 24 4.000 6.50 9 121.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.42 1.52 1.30 1.00 0.75 1.00 13 57.00 5.61 19 4.000 9.00 7 121.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.46 1.36 1.30 1.00 0.80 1.00 10 57.00 5.61 16 4.000 13.50 12 118.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.43 1.12 1.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 15 27.00 5.21 20 4.000 18.50 4 118.00 1.11 0.05 1.06 0.54 1.00 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 5 27.00 5.21 10 0.118 21.50 6 118.00 1.28 0.14 1.14 0.52 0.96 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 7 27.00 5.21 12 0.132 26.50 9 118.00 1.58 0.30 1.28 0.48 0.91 1.30 1.00 0.95 1.00 10 54.00 5.61 16 0.165 31.50 7 118.00 1.87 0.45 1.42 0.51 0.86 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 54.00 5.61 14 0.148 36.50 8 118.00 2.17 0.61 1.56 0.51 0.82 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 55.00 5.61 15 0.156 41.50 11 118.00 2.46 0.76 1.70 0.48 0.80 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 55.00 5.61 17 0.174 46.50 14 118.00 2.76 0.92 1.84 0.45 0.78 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 55.00 5.61 20 0.206 52.80 17 118.00 3.13 1.12 2.01 0.43 0.76 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 55.00 5.61 23 0.249 56.50 11 118.00 3.35 1.23 2.11 0.50 0.71 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 55.00 5.61 16 0.165 61.50 21 118.00 3.64 1.39 2.25 0.41 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 55.00 5.61 26 0.316 66.50 26 118.00 3.94 1.54 2.39 0.37 0.74 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 55.00 5.61 31 4.000 71.50 21 118.00 4.23 1.70 2.53 0.42 0.69 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 84.00 5.53 25 0.290 76.50 19 118.00 4.53 1.86 2.67 0.44 0.67 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 84.00 5.53 22 0.233 LiqSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 21 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to:Carlson Geotechnical ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data :: Depth SPT Unit o„ uo a',,,, m CR Cr Co CR C5 (N1)6e FC AN1)60 (Nr)6ocs CRRzs (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (o/a) Value (pcf) 81.50 16 118.00 4.82 2.01 2.81 0.47 0.63 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 84.00 5.53 19 0.194 95.00 18 118.00 5.62 2.43 3.18 0.46 0.60 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 84.00 5.53 20 0.206 101.50 13 118.00 6.00 2.64 3.37 0.51 0.55 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 84.00 5.53 15 4.000 Abbreviations a,,: Total stress during SPT test(tsf) uo: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) d e: Effective overburden pressure during SPTtest(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor CR: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor CB: Borehole diameter correction factor CR: Rcd length correction factor C5: Liner correction factor Nri60r: Corrected Nsor to a 60%energy ratio A(Ni)60 Equivalent dean sand adjustment Nu60:Cs: Corected NE(so)value for fines content CRR75: Cydic resistance ratio forM=7.5 ::Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: Depth Unit (gee Ugeq o'we,eq ra a CSR MSFinax (Ni)6oq: MSF CSReq,M=J,5 Kagma CSR* FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (pd) 4.00 121.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.67 24 0.72 0.217 1.10 0.197 2.000 • 6.50 121.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.45 19 0.81 0.193 1.10 0.175 2.000 • 9.00 121.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.157 1.35 16 0.86 0.183 1.08 0.170 2.000 • 13.50 118.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 1.01 1.00 0.157 1.49 20 0.80 0.197 1.04 0.190 2.000 • 18.50 118.00 1.11 0.14 0.96 1.01 1.00 0.180 1.19 10 0.92 0.195 1.01 0.193 0.610 • 21.50 118.00 1.28 0.23 1.05 1.01 1.00 0.192 1.24 12 0.90 0.213 1.00 0.212 0.624 • 26.50 118.00 1.58 0.39 1.19 1.01 1.00 0.208 1.35 16 0.86 0.244 0.99 0.247 0.668 • 31.50 118.00 1.87 0.55 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.221 1.29 14 0.88 0.251 0.98 0.257 0.574 • 36.50 118.00 2.17 0.70 1.47 1.00 1.00 0.232 1.32 15 0.87 0.267 0.96 0.277 0.564 • 41.50 118.00 2.46 0.86 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.240 1.38 17 0.84 0.285 0.95 0.300 0.580 • - 46.50 118.00 2.76 1.01 1.74 1.00 1.00 0.246 1.49 20 0.80 0.310 0.93 0.332 0.620 • 52.80 118.00 3.13 1.21 1.92 0.99 1.00 0.253 1.62 23 0.74 0.341 0.91 0.374 0.667 • 56.50 118.00 3.35 1.33 2.02 0.99 1.00 0.256 1.35 16 0.86 0.299 0.93 0.323 0.511 • 61.50 118.00 3.64 1.48 2.16 0.98 1.00 0.259 1.77 26 0.68 0.380 0.88 0.432 0.731 • 66.50 118.00 3.94 1.64 2.30 0.97 1.00 0.260 2.06 31 0.56 0.464 0.83 0.556 2.000 • 71.50 118.00 4.23 1.79 2.44 0.97 1.00 0.261 1.72 25 0.70 0.373 0.86 0.431 0.673 • 76.50 118.00 4.53 1.95 2.58 0.96 1.00 0.262 1.58 22 0.76 0.344 0.87 0.395 0.590 • 81.50 118.00 4.82 2.11 2.72 0.94 1.00 0.261 1.45 19 0.81 0.322 0.88 0.366 0.531 • 95.00 118.00 5.62 2.53 3.09 0.91 1.00 0.257 1.49 20 0.80 0.323 0.86 0.377 0.546 • 101.50 118.00 6.00 2.73 3.27 0.89 1.00 0.254 1.32 15 0.87 0.293 0.87 0.334 2.000 • Abbreviations aRa: Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) uo,q: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) d�oRq: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) ra: Nonlinear shear mass factor a: Improvement factor due to stone columns (SR: Cyclic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSReq,M=7s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 K,,„a: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 22 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki :: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 4.00 2.000 0.00 9.39 2.50 0.00 6.50 2.000 0.00 9.01 2.50 0.00 9.00 2.000 0.00 8.63 2.50 0.00 13.50 2.000 0.00 7.94 4.50 0.00 18.50 0.610 0.39 7.18 5.00 4.26 21.50 0.624 0.38 6.72 3.00 2.31 26.50 0.668 0.33 5.96 5.00 3.02 31.50 0.574 0.43 5.20 5.00 3.37 36.50 0.564 0.44 4.44 5.00 2.95 41.50 0.580 0.42 3.68 5.00 2.35 46.50 0.620 0.38 2.91 5.00 1.69 52.80 0.667 0.33 1.95 6.30 1.25 56.50 0.511 0.49 1.39 3.70 0.77 61.50 0.731 0.27 0.63 5.00 0.26 66.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.50 0.673 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.50 0.590 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.50 0.531 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.00 0.546 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall potential Ie: 22.23 IL=0.00-No liquefaction IL between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable IL betweei 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable I > 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (N1)ea Tay P G. a b V EIS Pic Enc Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (°7°) (ft) (in) 4.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.000 6.50 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 ' 9.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.000 13.50 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000 Abbreviations Tav: Average cyclic shear stress p: Average stress Grax: Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables y: Average shear strain E15: Volumetric strain after 15 cydes N : Nunber of cycles End Volumetric strain for nunber of cydes Nr(%) Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 23 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys This software is registered to: Carlson Geotechnical ::Vertical&Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands:: Depth (Ni)eucs Yrm F. FSrq yr,- e„ dz LDI (ft) (%) (%) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) 18.50 10 47.32 0.91 0.610 47.32 3.74 4.50 2.017 0.00 21.50 12 38.03 0.86 0.624 38.03 3.34 1.50 0.602 0.00 26.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.668 24.69 2.74 8.50 2.797 0.00 31.50 14 30.65 0.79 0.574 30.65 3.02 1.50 0.543 0.00 36.50 15 27.51 0.75 0.564 27.51 2.87 8.50 2.932 0.00 41.50 17 22.15 0.67 0.580 22.15 2.62 5.00 1.572 0.00 46.50 20 15.90 0.52 0.620 15.90 2.30 6.30 1.742 0.00 52.80 23 11.27 0.35 0.667 9.60 2.04 3.70 0.908 0.00 56.50 16 24.69 0.71 0.511 24.69 2.74 5.00 1.646 0.00 61.50 26 7.85 0.17 0.731 6.58 1.50 5.00 0.902 0.00 66.50 31 4.04 -0.16 2.000 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.000 0.00 71.50 25 8.88 0.23 0.673 8.10 1.90 6.50 1.479 0.00 76.50 22 12.67 0.41 0.590 12.67 2.13 5.00 1.275 0.00 81.50 19 17.78 0.57 0.531 17.78 2.40 3.50 1.009 0.00 95.00 20 15.90 0.52 0.546 15.90 2.30 10.00 2.765 0.00 101.50 15 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.000 0.00 Cumulative settlements: 22.190 0.00 Abbreviations YM: Limiting shear strain(%) Fa/N: Maximun shear strain factor Vma.: Maximum shear strain(%) eu:: Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) Sy-to: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) LigSVs 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 24 Project File:G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\G1905125-Broadway Rose Theater Additions\G1905125-GEO\007-Analysis\ligsys.lsys 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. 0. 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 1.3.2.4-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software • Bend Office (541)330-9155 Carlson Geotechnical Eugene Office (541)3450289 vaAA.'1' A division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Salem Office (503)589-1252 �eorecwN r_n� Phone: (503)601-8250 Tigard Office (503)684-3460 Fax: (503)601-8254 Appendix D: Site-Specific Seismic Hazards Study Broadway Rose Theater Additions 12850 SW Grant Avenue Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Prepared For: Amy Copeland Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. 1140 SW Eleventh Avenue, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 Prepared by Carlson Geotechnical Carlson Geotechnical • P.O. Box 230997, Tigard, Oregon 97281 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS D.1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 D.2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3 D.2.1 Regional Geology 3 D.2.2 Site Geology 4 D.3.0 GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS 4 D.3.1 Earthquake Sources and Seismicity 5 D.3.1.1 Crustal Sources 5 D.3.1.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Seismic Sources 7 D.3.1.3 Characteristic Earthquake Magnitude 8 D.3.1.4 Seismic Sources in the Vicinity of the Site 9 D.4.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASS 10 D.4.1 Site Class Determination 10 D.5.0 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES 11 D.6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS 12 D.6.1 Liquefaction 12 D.6.2 Surface Rupture 13 D.6.2.1 Faulting 13 D.6.2.2 Lateral Spread 13 D.6.3 Slope Stability 13 D.6.4 Tsunami/Seiche Inundation 13 D.7.0 REPORT SUBMITTAL 13 ATTACHMENTS Regional Seismicity Figure D1 Doc ID: G:\GEOTECH\PROJECTS\2019 Projects1G1905125 - Broadway Rose Theater Additions1G1905125 - GEO\008 - Deliverables1Appendix D-SSSHS\Appendix D Site Specific Seismic Hazards Study.docx Carlson Geotechnical Page D2 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 D.1.0 INTRODUCTION Based on the information provided, we understand the proposed building will be classified as a "Special Occupancy" structure per Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 455.447. Accordingly, the building will be assigned as Risk Category Ill per Table 1604.5 of the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). A Site-Specific Seismic Hazards Study(SSSHS) is required for the project in accordance with Section 1803.3.2 of the 2014 OSSC. This appendix presents the results of that study. D.2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING D.2.1 Regional Geology The site is located within the Willamette Valley physiographic province in Portland, Oregon. The Willamette Valley is a broad trough-like lowland defined by uplift and faulting of the Coast and Western Cascade Ranges to the west and east respectively. Approximately 35 million years ago, a large slab of oceanic crust and associated marine sediments accreted onto the margin of North America, which was located in a rough line from southwestern Oregon to the northeastern portion of the state. A portion of this accreted slab became the Willamette Valley, which was still covered by a shallow ocean. Additional accretion, faulting, and folding created the Coast Range to the west. This folding and faulting also raised the Willamette Valley out of the sea. Volcanic activity from the Cascade Range approximately 25 million years ago covered and filled in much of the southern and eastern portions of the early Willamette Valley'. Approximately 15 million years ago, these marine sediments were covered by the Columbia River Basalts that flowed down the Columbia River Gorge as far south as Salem. Uplift and tilting of the Oregon Coast Range and the western Cascade Range formed the trough-like character of the Willamette Valley, and folded and faulted the Columbia River Basalts. The ancestral Columbia River deposited sand and gravel in the northern part of the valley near the site. Approximately 1.3 to 2.6 million years ago, a volcanic episode erupted the Boring Lavas in several localized vents, including Mt. Scott, Mt. Sylvania, and Mt. Tabor. Catastrophic glacial floods later flowed into the Willamette Valley approximately 18,000 to 15,000 years ago2 and deposited fine to coarse-grained sedimentary assemblages (Pleistocene flood deposits) mapped throughout the area a a 1 Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium, 2002. Willamette River Basin: trajectories of environmental and ecological change, Oregon State University Press. 2 Allen, John Eliot, Burns, Marjorie, and Burns, Scott, 2009. Cataclysms on the Columbia, The Great Missoula Floods, Revised Second Edition: Ooligan Press,Portland State University. 3 Orr, Elizabeth L., Orr,William N., and Baldwin, Ewart M., 1992, Geology of Oregon, Fourth Edition: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, pp. 203-222. - O'Connor, Jim E., et al.. 2001, Origin, extent, and thickness of quaternary geologic units in the Willamette Valley, Oregon: US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1620,52p, 1plate. Carlson Geotechnical Page D3 of D13 Appendix D: SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 D.2.2 Site Geology Missoula Flood Deposits (Qff): Based on the drilled Inset 1: Geologic Profile borings, available geologic mapping of the area56, and Surface review of local water well logs, the site is underlain by approximately 60 feet7 of Pleistocene catastrophic flood _ _ deposits originating from glacial outburst floods of Lake n{f Missoula. The Pleistocene Missoula Lake catastrophic -` (a 1 1 - flood deposits were produced by the periodic failure of glacial ice dams, which impounded Lake Missoula between 21,000 and 12,000 years agoe. Floodwaters ^-60 ft bgs • raged through eastern Washington and through the _- Columbia River Gorge. Near Rainier, Oregon, the river channel was restricted, causing floodwaters to back up the Willamette Valley as far as Eugene. Floodwaters in p�' � the Portland area were as much as 400 feet deep, leaving only the tops of the tallest hills dry. The flood deposits are 1— typically split into three different facies; the coarse-grained >. facies, the fine-grained facies, and the channel facies, , which consists of silts, sands, and gravels deposited within the flood channel. Fine-grained Missoula flood deposits (Qff) are mapped in the vicinity of the site, which typically consist of sand and gravel, with lenses of silt. Troutdale Formation Deposits (Tpt): Based on the drilled borings and available geologic mapping of the area9, the Missoula flood deposits are underlain by early Pliocene Troutdale formation deposits with a maximum thickness of about 1,500 feet in the center of the Tualatin Valley. Within the Tualatin Basin, this formation is interpreted as deposited under variable fluvial and lacustrine conditions in a slowly subsiding basin. The formation consists largely of poorly indurated, fine-grained sedimentary material composed largely of silt and clay with occasional beds of fine sand and rare gravel. D.3.0 GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS The geological and geotechnical data developed within the geotechnical report were used to evaluate the ground motion response of the project site to various earthquake sources and events. The ground motion hazard analysis addresses the following seismic hazards for the site in accordance with Section 1803.7 of the OSSC: 5 Ma, L., Madin, I.P., Duplantis, S., and Williams, K.J., 2012, Lidar-based surficial geologic map and database of the greater Portland,Oregon,area,Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah,Washington,and Yamhill Counties,Oregon,and Clark County, Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,Open-File Report 0-2012-02,scale 1:8,000. 6 Trimble, D.E., 1957, Geology of the Portland quadrangle, Oregon-Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-104, scale 1:62,500 Madin, Ian, 1990. Earthquake-Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metopolitan Area, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.Open File Report 0-90-2. 8 Beeson. M.H., and Tolan, T.L., 1991. Geologic Map of the Portland Quadrangle, Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon, - and Clark County, Washington. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Geological Map Series GMS-75, 1:24.000 scale. 9 Schlicker, H.G. and Robert J. Deacon, 1967, Engineering Geologyof the Tualatin ValleyRegion, Oregon. Department of Geology • 9 9 9 9 P and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 60. Carlson Geotechnical Page D4 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 • Ground Shaking; • Liquefaction; • Lateral Spread; • Earthquake-induced Landsliding; • Inundation from Tsunami/Seiche; and • Surface Rupture due to Fault Displacement. The analysis was based on procedures presented in Section 1613.3.4 of the 2014 OSSC and Section 11.4 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10). A site-specific response analysis could be performed to develop a site-specific design response spectrum at the owner's discretion, if desired, for an additional fee. D.3.1 Earthquake Sources and Seismicity The site is located in a tectonically active area that may be affected by crustal earthquakes, large subduction zone earthquakes, or earthquakes caused by faulting within the subducting slab (intraplate earthquakes). D.3.1.1 Crustal Sources Crustal earthquakes typically occur at depths ranging from 15 to 40 kilometers bgs10. According to the United States Geological Survey Quaternary fault and fold database1', nearby seismic sources capable of producing damaging earthquakes in this region include Helvetia fault, Beaverton fault zone, Canby-Molalla fault, Newberg fault, Gales Creek fault zone, Oatfield fault, Portland Hills fault, Grant Butte fault, and the Damascus-Tickle Creek fault. Details of each of these faults are provided in the following sections. Refer to Table D2 presented in Section D.3.1.4 of this appendix for the approximate distance and direction to these faults from the project site. D.3.1.1.1 Canbv-Molalla fault(USGS 716) The Canby-Molalla fault is a right-lateral strike-slip fault located within the Willamette Valley. The Canby- • Molalla fault appears to offset Missoula flood deposits, and seismic reflection surveys suggest Holocene deformation of sediments. The fault has little geomorphologic expression, but is considered active, with a slip rate of less than 0.2 mm per year. D.3.1.1.2 Beaverton fault zone (USGS 715) The Beaverton fault zone consists of an east-west striking normal fault that forms the southern margin of the Tualatin basin. This fault offsets Miocene Columbia River Basalt, but is covered by thick sequences of Pliocene to Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits. As a result, no fault scarp is present at the surface, and the Beaverton fault zone is not present on most geologic maps of the area. Yeats and others12 indicate that the Beaverton Faults displace post-Columbia River Basalt sediments; however, the age and nature of deformation is not known. The Beaverton fault is considered active, but with a long recurrence interval. D.3.1.1.3 Oatfield fault(USGS 875) The Oatfield fault consists of a 29-kilometer-long steeply dipping reverse fault that forms escarpments in Miocene Columbia River Basalt in the Tualatin Mountains. No fault scarps or displacement of surficial 0 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation,Personal Services Contract 11688,January 1995. 11 U.S. Geological Survey, 2019. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, accessed August 2019, from USGS web site: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfaults/. - 12 Yeats, R.S., et al., 1996. Tectonics of the Willamette Valley Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest,v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, p. 183-222, 5 plates,scale 1:100,000. Carlson Geotechnical Page D5 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 deposits have been described, but exposures within tunnels show offset of Boring Lava, indicating Quaternary activity. The slip rate for the Oatfield fault has been calculated to be about 0.1 mm per year based on the tunnel exposures. Given the very low slip rate and lack of displacement of surficial deposits, this fault is considered to have a very long recurrence interval. D.3.1.1.4 Portland Hills fault(USGS 877) The Portland Hills fault zone is a series of northwest-trending faults forming the northeastern margin of the Tualatin Mountains. The faults associated with this structural zone vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt Group by 1,130 feet, and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene sediment13. Geomorphic lineaments suggestive of Pleistocene deformation have been identified within the fault zone, but none of the fault segments has been shown to cut Holocene deposits14'75. The fact that the faults do not cut Holocene sediments is most likely a result of the faulting being related to a time of intense uplift of the Oregon Coast Range during the Miocene, and little to no movement along the faults during the Holocene. D.3.1.1.5 Helvetia fault(USGS 714) The Helvetia fault is a north-northwest trending structure located on the northeastern margin of the Tualatin Basin. There is no evidence for displacement of late Quaternary deposits along the fault; however, the most recent age of displacement is poorly constrained16. Therefore, the fault is considered active, but with a long recurrence interval. D.3.1.1.6 Damascus-Tickle Creek fault zone (USGS 879) The Damascus-Tickle Creek fault zone consists of numerous relatively short northeast- and northwest- trending faults forming a broad fault zone along the southern edge of the Portland basin. The location of several eruptive vents of the Boring Lava suggest a direct relationship with the Damascus-Tickle Creek fault zone. The majority of the faults within 'the zone are buried by Pliocene to Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits, however, at least one fault strand may offset the flood deposits. D.3.1.1.7 Grant Butte fault(USGS 878) The Grant Butte fault forms the southern margin of the Portland basin, and consists of a 10-kilometer-long normal fault. The Grant Butte fault offsets Pliocene-Pleistocene Springwater Formation and Boring Lava. No Quaternary surficial fault scarps have been identified, but the fault is largely buried by thick sequences of Pliocene to Pleistocene Missoula flood deposits. Based on radiometric age dating techniques, the fault has been active within the late Quaternary. Therefore, the Grant Butte fault is considered active with a long recurrence interval. D.3.1.1.8 Newberg fault(USGS 717) The Newberg fault is a 5-kilometer-long portion of the Gales Creek-Mount Angel structural zone, which consists of a 73-kilometer-long zone of right-lateral strike-slip faults located within the Willamette Valley. The fault zone offsets Miocene Columbia River basalts, but no unequivocal evidence for Quaternary displacement has been identified. The Newberg fault is recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of 13 Mabey, M.A., Madin, I.P., Youd, T.L., Jones, C.F., 1993, Earthquake hazard maps of the Portland quadrangle, Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geological Map Series GMS-79, Plate 2, 1:24,000. 14 Conforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992. Seismic hazard evaluation, Bull Run dam sites near Sandy, Oregon: unpublished report to City of Portland Bureau of Water Works. 15 Balsillie, J.J. and Benson, G.T., 1971. Evidence for the Portland Hills fault: The Ore Bin, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries,v.33, p. 109-118. 16 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: Final Report to Oregon Department of Transportation, - Project No.2442. Carlson Geotechnical Page D6 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 the Columbia River Basalt, and offset seismic reflectors in overlying basin sediments1718, with no definitive geomorphologic evidence of faulting. The majority of the fault trace is covered with Holocene alluvium, which may have buried recent deformation. Due to the uncertainty in activity level, the fault has been classified as active. D.3.1.1.9 Gales Creek fault zone (USGS 718) The Gales Creek fault zone is a 73-kilometer-long zone of northwest-trending right-lateral strike-slip faults located on the western margin of the Willamette Valley. The fault zone offsets Miocene Columbia River basalts, but no unequivocal evidence for Quaternary displacement has been identified. However, the majority of the faults are covered with very recent alluvium, which may have buried evidence of recent deformation. Estimates for the latest movements along the Gales Creek fault zone typically predate the late Pleistocene; in other words, the fault has not had activity within the last approximately 30,000 years. The recurrence interval for the Gales Creek fault zone is likely greater than 50,000 years, based on the information available. D.3.1.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Seismic Sources The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is a 1,100-kilometer-long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continental plate at a rate of about 3 to 4 centimeters per year19. The fault trace is located off of the coast of southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California; approximately 205 kilometers west of the site (see attached Figure D1). Two primary sources of seismicity are associated with the CSZ: relatively shallow earthquakes that occur on the interface between the two plates (Subduction Zone earthquakes), and deep earthquakes that occur along faults within the subducting Juan de Fuca plate (intraplate earthquakes). D.3.1.2.1 Subduction Zone Earthquakes Large subduction zone (megathrust) earthquakes occur within the upper approximate 30 kilometers of the contact between the two plates20. As the Juan de Fuca Plate subducts beneath the North American Plate • through this zone, the plates are locked together by friction21. Stress slowly builds as the plates converge until the frictional resistance is exceeded, and the plates rapidly slip past each other resulting in a "megathrust" earthquake. The United States Geologic Survey estimates megathrust earthquakes on the CSZ may have magnitudes up to M9.2. Geologic evidence indicates a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years, with the last major event occurring in 170022,23. The eastern margin of the seismogenic portion of 17 Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J , Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992. The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic-reflection data and the Woodburn,Oregon,earthquake sequence of August, 1990:Oregon Geology,v.54, p. 112-117. 18 Yeats, R.S., et al., 1996. Tectonics of the Willamette Valley Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest,v. 1: U.S Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, p. 183-222, 5 plates,scale 1:100,000. 19 DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., Stein, S., 1990. Current plate motions: Geophysical Journal International, v. 101, p. 425- 478. 20 Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, 2019. Pacific Northwest Earthquake Sources Overview, accessed October 2019, from PNSN web site, http://pnsn.orq/outreach/earthquakesources/. 21 Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, 2019. Pacific Northwest Earthquake Sources Overview, accessed October 2019, from PNSN web site, http://pnsn.orq/outreach/earthquakesources/. - 22 Atwater, B.F., 1992. Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington:Journal of Geophysical Research,v.97,p. 1901-1919. 23 Peterson, C.D., Darienzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris,W.K., 1993. Field trip guide to Cascadia paleoseismic evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,Oregon Geology,Vol. 55,p.99-144. Carlson Geotechnical Page D7 of D13 Appendix D: SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G 1905125 October 16, 2019 the Cascadia Subduction zone is located approximately 77 kilometers west of the site, as shown on Figure D1. D.3.1.2.2 Intraplate Earthquakes Below about 30 kilometers, the plate interface does not appear to be locked by friction, and the plates slowly slide past each other. The curvature of the subducted plate increases as the advancing edge moves east, creating extensional forces within the plate. Normal faulting occurs in response to these extensional forces. This region of maximum curvature and faulting of the subducting plate is where large intraplate earthquakes are expected to occur, and is located at depths ranging from 30 to 60 kilometers24'25'26. Intraplate earthquakes within the Juan de Fuca plate generally have magnitudes less than M7.527. The 2001 M6.8 Nisqually earthquake near Olympia, Washington, occurred within this seismogenic zone at a depth of 52 kilometers. The site is located within the intraplate seismogenic zone, as shown on Figure D1. D.3.1.3 Characteristic Earthquake Magnitude The maximum characteristic earthquake magnitude is defined as the largest earthquake that could be expected to be generated by a specific seismic source, independent of recurrence interval. D.3.1.3.1 Historical Earthquakes The Pacific Northwest is a seismically active area. Epicenters for historic earthquakes28 in western Oregon from 1841 to 2002 are shown on Figure D1. The majority of these earthquakes are shallow (crustal) in nature, with a lesser amount of intraplate sources. No large-scale subduction-zone earthquakes occurred during this period. Based on the historical record and crustal faulting models of the region, the maximum earthquake for crustal sources within the Pacific Northwest is estimated to be M5.7529 (independent of recurrence interval). Similarly, the maximum earthquake for an intra-slab source on the subducting Juan De Fuca plate is estimated to be M7.5 to M7.7. D.3.1.3.2 Empirical Determination of Characteristic Earthquake Another method for estimating the characteristic earthquake that a particular seismic source could generate is by using empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture length30. Based on these relationships, the size of historical earthquakes, and the thickness of seismogenic crust in the region, the maximum earthquake magnitude expected from crustal sources is M6.0 to M6.631. Based on the likely thin nature of the Juan de Fuca Plate, and comparing the historic seismicity along the intraplate area with other 24 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation,Personal Services Contract 11688,January 1995. 25 Geomatrix Consultants, 1993. Seismic margin Earthquake For the Trojan Site: Final Unpublished Report For Portland General Electric Trojan Nuclear Plant, Rainier,Oregon, May 1993. 26 Kirby, Stephen H.,Wang, Kelin, Dunlop, Susan,2002,The Cascadia Subduction Zone and Related Subduction Systems—Seismic Structure, Intraslab Earthquakes and Processes, and Earthquake Hazards: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-328, 182 n pp Cascadia Region Earthquake Workshop, 2008. Cascadia Deep Earthquakes. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 2008-1. 28 Niewendorp, Clark A.,and Neuhaus,Mark E., Map of Selected Earthquakes for Oregon,1841 through 2002 by Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,OFR 0-03-02. 29 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation,Personal Services Contract 11688,January 1995. 3° Bonilla, M.G., R. K. Mark, and J.J. Lienkaemper, 1984, Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,V.74, p.2379-2411. 31 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: Final Report to Oregon Department of Transportation, Project No.2442. Carlson Geotechnical Page D8 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 similar intraplate regions, the estimated maximum magnitude earthquake for intraplate sources is M7.0 to M7.532'33. Similarly, based on magnitude versus rupture area relationships for subduction zone earthquakes worldwide, the maximum magnitude of a CSZ earthquake is estimated to be M8.0 to M9.234'3e These magnitudes are also reflected in the probabilistic analyses used by U.S. Geological Survey. D.3.1.3.3 Code Specified Design Earthquake Section 1803.3.2.1 of the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code36 (OSSC) indicates specific minimum requirements for earthquake magnitudes to be used in seismic analyses, which are summarized in the following table: Table 131 OSSC Minimum Design Earthquake Seismic Source Minimum Design Earthquake Shallow Crustal Faults 6.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone-Subducting Plate(Intraplate) 7.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone-Interface(Subduction Zone) 8.5 D.3.1.4 Seismic Sources in the Vicinity of the Site Table D2 shows the previously discussed faults (Section D.3.1.1), the characteristic earthquake magnitude for each, and the distance and direction of the fault from the site. z ;y 32 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon Final Report to Oregon Department of Transportation, Project No.2442. 33 Pacific Northwest Seismic Network website, http://pnsn.orq/outreach/earthquakesources/ 34 Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Seismic Design Map ping,Aping, State of Oregon: Final Report to Oregon Department of Transportation, Project No.2442. 35 Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, 2019. Pacific Northwest Earthquake Sources Overview, accessed October 2019, from PNSN web site, httpa/pnsn.orq/outreach/earthquakesources/. 36 International Code Council, Inc.,2014.2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Based on the 2012 International Building Code. Carlson Geotechnical Page D9 of D13 Appendix D: SSSHS , Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table D2 Fault, Characteristic Earthquake Magnitude, and Distance from Site. USGS Earthquake Char Type of USGS Fault Approximate Fault Trace Distance Fault Source Mag Fault Fault Orientation Earthquake (km)&Direction from Notes No. Class' (strike&dip) depth(km) Site Right Lateral N34W 716 Canby-Molalla fault 6.00 Strike Slip A 90(vertical) 15 to 40 km 0.35 km W 3,4 N86E 3,4 • 715 Beaverton fault zone 6.00 Normal A Unknown Dip 15 to 40 km 6 km N N41W 3,4 875 Oaffield fault 6.00 Reverse A 70S 15 to 40 km 8 km E N37W 2 877 Portland Hills fault 7.05 Reverse A 70N 15 to 40 km 11.5 km E-NE N26W 2 714 Helvetia fault 6.40 Normal A SW 15 to 40 km 17 km NW Damascus-Tickle Right Lateral N-S 3,4 879 Creek fault 6.00 Strike Slip A 90(Vertical) 15 to 40 km 17 km E N90E 2 878 Grant Butte fault 6.21 Normal A 60N 15 to 40 km 19 km E-NE 717/ Right Lateral N42W 2 0R3 Newberg fault 6.85 Strike Slip A 90(vertical) 15 to 40 km 20.5 km SW 718/ Gales Creek fault Right Lateral N41W 2 OR1 zone 6.75 Strike Slip A 90(vertical) 15 to 40 km 27.5 km W N3OW 18kmEto77kmW CSZ-Intraplate 7.00 Normal A 10 to 20 E 30 to 60 km (within seismogenic zone) 3 9.0 N3OW 77 km (to east edge of 3,5 0.00 CSZ 8.3 Mega-Thrust A 10 to 20 E <30 km seismogenic zone) 1 USGS Fault Classes from USGS Earthquake Hazards Program,2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps Class A:Fault with convincing evidence of Quaternary activity(ACTIVE) Class B:Fault that requires further study in order to confidently define their potential as possible sources of earthquake-induced ground motion (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE) Class C:Fault with insufficient evidence for Quatemary activity(LOW POTENTIAL FOR ACTIVITY) 2 Characteristic earthquake magnitude from USGS Earthquake Hazards Program,2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps—Fault Parameters 3 Characteristic earthquake magnitude from USGS Quatemary Fault and Fold Database of the United States - 4 Characteristic earthquake magnitude from Section 1803.3.2.1 of the 2014 OSSC-Design Earthquake. 5 Models of earthquake magnitude assign variable magnitudes for different portions of the Cascadia Subduction Zone,so multiple magnitudes are provided. D.4.0 SEISMIC SITE CLASS D.4.1 Site Class Determination The determination of the seismic site class is based on subsurface data in accordance with Chapter 20 of the ASCE 7-10. CGT used Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values for determination of the site classification for this project. The SPT subsurface exploration method is described in Appendix A of this report. Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10 requires that the stiffness of the soils be measured or reasonably estimated for the upper 100 feet bgs. Boring B-5 was advanced to a depth of about 101'/z feet bgs and terminated in very stiff, fat clay. The fat clay was interpreted to consist of Troutdale Formation Deposits mapped in the area of the site. To satisfy code requirements, the N-value was measured to a depth of 100 feet bgs. The results of the site class calculations are shown in the following table. Carlson Geotechnical Page D10 of D13 Appendix D: SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Calculation for Determination of Site Classification Bottom Depth Field SPT Layer Thickness[di] Soil Type dilNi (feet) (NJ) (feet) 4 FILL 11 4 0.36 6.5 ML 9 2.5 0.28 9 ML 7 2.5 0.36 13.5 SM 12 4.5 0.38 18.5 SM 4 5 1.25 21.5 SM 6 3 0.5 26.5 ML 9 5 0.56 31.5 SM 7 5 0.71 36.5 ML 8 5 0.63 41.5 ML 11 5 0.45 46.5 ML 14 5 0.36 52.8 ML 17 6.3 0.37 56.5 ML 11 3.7 0.34 61.5 ML 21 5 0.24 66.5 ML 26 5 0.19 71.5 ML 21 5 0.24 76.5 ML 19 5 0.26 81.5 ML 16 5 0.31 91.5 ML 18 10 0.56 101.5 CH 13 10 0.77 TOTALS .- 101.5 9.12 Geometric Mean: L d (ASCE 7-10 Section 20.4.2 N = n I = 11.13 Equation 40.4.-2) �i a Final SPT blowcount was measured at 100 feet bgs. Based on the guidelines presented in Table 20.3-1 in Chapter 20 of the ASCE 7-10, the project site is designated as Site Class E. D.5.0 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES Earthquake ground motion parameters for the site were obtained in accordance with the 2014 OSSC using the Seismic Hazards by Location calculator on the ATC website37. The site Latitude 45.426498° North and Longitude 122.781226° West were input as the site location. The following table shows the recommended seismic design parameters for the site. - 3' Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2019. USGS seismic design parameters determined using "Seismic Hazards by Location," accessed October 2019,from the ATC website httpsa/hazards.atcouncil.orq/. Carlson Geotechnical Page D11 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 Table D3 Seismic Ground Motion Values Parameter Value Spectral Acceleration,0.2 second (Ss) 0.967g Mapped Acceleration Parameters Spectral Acceleration, 1.0 second(Si) 0.422g Coefficients Site Coefficient,0.2 sec. (FA) 0.94 (Site Class E, Risk Category III) Site Coefficient, 1.0 sec.(Fv) 2.4 Adjusted MCE Spectral MCE Spectral Acceleration,0.2 sec.(SMS) 0.909g Response Parameters MCE Spectral Acceleration,1.0 sec.(SMI) 1.013g Design Spectral Acceleration,0.2 seconds(SDs) 0.606g Design Spectral Response Accelerations Design Spectral Acceleration, 1.0 second(SD,) 0.675g Seismic Design Category D D.6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS D.6.1 Liquefaction In general, liquefaction occurs when deposits of loose/soft, saturated, cohesionless soils, generally sands and silts, are subjected to strong earthquake shaking. If these deposits cannot drain quickly enough, pore water pressures can increase, approaching the value of the overburden pressure. The shear strength of a cohesionless soil is directly proportional to the effective stress, which is equal to the difference between the overburden pressure and the pore water pressure. When the pore water pressure increases to the value of strengthsoil reducesto zero, and the soil deposit can liquefy. The the overburdenpressure, the shearof the P liquefied soils can undergo rapid consolidation or, if unconfined, can flow as a liquid. Structures supported by the liquefied soils can experience rapid, excessive settlement, shearing, or even catastrophic failure. For fine-grained soils, susceptibility to liquefaction is evaluated based on penetration resistance and plasticity, among other characteristics. Criteria for identifying non-liquefiable, fine-grained soils are constantly evolving. Current practice to identify non-liquefiable, fine-grained soils is based on moisture content and plasticity characteristics of the soils38'3 . The susceptibility of sands, gravels, and sand-gravel mixtures to liquefaction is typically assessed based on penetration resistance, as measured using SPTs, CPTs, or • Becker Hammer Penetration tests (BPTs). We performed quantitative liquefaction triggering and settlement analysis for borings B-1 and B-5. The triggering analysis showed the non-plastic to low plasticity silty soils encountered in both borings were liquefiable where below the groundwater level. Approximately 81/2 and 51/2 inches of total, liquefaction- induced settlement were indicated by our settlement analysis for the location of borings B-1 and B-5, respectively. The full details of our analyses are presented in Appendix C. 38 Seed, R.B. et al., 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 2003-06. 39 Bray, Jonathan D., Sancio, Rodolfo B., et al., 2006. Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and - Geoenvironmental Engineering,Volume 132, Issue 9,September 2006. Carlson Geotechnical Page D12 of D13 Appendix D:SSSHS Broadway Rose Theater Additions Tigard, Oregon CGT Project Number G1905125 October 16, 2019 D.6.2 Surface Rupture D.6.2.1 Faulting As discussed above, the site is situated in a region of the country characterized by extensive faulting and known for seismic activity. However, no known faults are mapped on or immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed development at the site due to faulting is considered very low. D.6.2.2 Lateral Spread Surface rupture due to lateral spread can occur on sites underlain by liquefiable soils that are located on or immediately adjacent to slopes steeper than about 3 degrees (20H:1V), and/or adjacent to a free face, such as a stream bank or the shore of an open body of water. During lateral spread, the materials overlying the liquefied soils are subject to lateral movement downslope or toward the free face. Topography at and surrounding the site is generally flatter than 20H:1V. Accordingly, we characterize the risk of surface rupture due to lateral spread as very low. D.6.3 Slope Stability Due to the relatively flat to gently sloping topography on and surrounding the site, we conclude the risk of seismically-induced slope instability is negligible. D.6.4 Tsunami/Seiche Inundation 14 gym: The site is geographically distant from the Oregon coast and therefore not at risk of inundation from a tsunami occurring in the Pacific Ocean. The term seiche refers to oscillating standing waves that can produce dramatic changes in water level over relatively short periods of time and can cause inundation of nearby areas. A seiche can be generated in enclosed or partially enclosed bodies of water by atmospheric conditions or seismic activity. The site is not located near any large body of water that could produce a seismically-induced seiche. Accordingly, the hazard associated with seiche inundation at the site is considered negligible. D.7.0 REPORT SUBMITTAL According to Section 1803.9 of the 2014 OSSC40, the applicant should submit one copy of the Site-Specific Seismic Hazards Study to the building permit issuing agency (the jurisdiction), and one copy to the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). The DOGAMI report can be submitted to the following address: DOGAMI — Site Specific Seismic Hazards Study Administrative Offices 800 NE Oregon Street#28, Suite 965 Portland, Oregon 97232 4° International Code Council, Inc.,2014.2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Based on the 2012 International Building Code. Carlson Geotechnical Page D13 of D13