Specifications (2) Main Office Branch Office
PO Box 23814 4060 Hudson Ave.
Inc. igard, OR 97281 Salem, OR 97301
1,. arison Testing, nc• Phone (503)684 -3460 Phone (503)589 -1252
Fax # (503)684 -0954 Fax # (503)589 -1309
' July 30, 1998
CTI #98 -G1670 3 !
' Mr. John Duncan '
c/o Nicoli Engineering ;45-1Z o � •
P.O. Box 23784
Tigard, Oregon 97281 •
I Attention: Mr. Jim Andrews
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
DUNCAN BUILDING
' TIGARD, OREGON
This report presents the results of our foundation investigation and liquefaction analysis for
the proposed construction of a commercial /industrial building on the property located at 16055
SW 74th Avenue on the east side of Fanno Creek in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of our work
is to provide a geotechnical evaluation and design recommendations for the planned
' construction.
BACKGROUND
'
Project Information
��5
' Location - The site is located at •055 SW 74th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon (see Figure
1).
' Owner - Mr. John Duncan
Civil Engineer - Nicoli Engineering - address above
' Jurisdictional Agency - City of Tigard
' Site Description •
The site is on the northwest corner of the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 74th
' Avenue and is a relatively flat site that has been filled over the years. The building site is
bordered to the west by Fanno Creek.
Proposed Construction
' The proposed site construction will consist of a two -story concrete masonry unit with
associated parking and driveways. The building is expected to have a slab -on -grade floor. We
assume that standard underground utilities (sewer, water, electricity, cable, gas, telephone)
are included in the construction plan.
1
1
CTI #98-G1670
' Duncan Building
Page 2
1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
•
General
The site is located along the northwestern margin of Pleistocene age channel deposits that are
' the result of catastrophic flcoding in the Portland Willamette Valley areas, which ended about
13,000 years ago. Outcroppings of Columbia River Basalt and Boring Lava are exposed at the
ground surface about 1 mile northeast of the site near Mt. Sylvan. The depth of the flood
deposits is estimated to be at least 30 feet, and the depth to Columbia River Basalt is 600 feet
1 (Madin, 1990). The formations between the Columbia River Basalt and the near surface flood
deposits are expected to be Sandy River Mudstone and the Troutdale Formation.
1 Stratigraphy
Columbia River Basalt - The Miocene age Columbia River Basalt regionally consists of
1 numerous lava flows that erupted from fissures in northeastern Oregon, eastern Washington
and western Idaho. Individual flows often cover thousands of square miles. Together, these
flows have formed a basalt deposit that can be thousands of feet thick. In the Portland Hills,
1 the collective thickness of the basalt ranges up to about 670 feet (Madin, 1990). The depth
to the top of the Columbia River Basalt in the site region is estimated to be about 600 feet.
1 Sandy River Mudstone - The Sandy River Mudstone of early Pliocene age consists mostly of
indurated clays and silts, but includes minor amounts of sand and fine gravel (Hogenson and
Foxworthy, 1965). The even bedding, perfection of sorting, fine grain size, lack of marine
1 fossils, and the presence of leaves indicates lacustrine (fresh water) deposition of these beds
(Trimble, 1963).
1 Troutdale Formation - The Troutdale Formation of early Pliocene age consists mostly of well -
indurated sandy conglomerate containing pebbles, cobbles, and scattered boulders that are
generally basalt but at places may be as much as 50 percent quartzite. Locally, the formation
' contains layers of stratified claystone, siltstone, and tuffaceous sandstone.
Flood Deposits - The fine - grained facies of the Catastrophic Flood Deposits consist of
interlayered deposits of silt, and clay; however, due to the sites close presence to the Channel
Deposit facies, interbedded sands and gravels are likely. Available geologic mapping indicates
that these deposits are approximately 30 feet thick in the vicinity; although, our exploration
at the site indicated these deposits to be at least 40 feet thick.
1 Structure
1 Based on a review of available geologic mapping, an east -west trending fault is shown
approximately 1 mile south of the site, and another northwest - trending fault is mapped about
1.25 miles northeast of the site (see Figure 1). These faults are inferred on the basis of
1 subsurface data from water well logs. There is no evidence to suggest that these faults, or
other nearby faults, are still active.
1 The Portland Hills are located about 3 to 5 miles northeast of the site. These hills are cut by
parallel and transverse high -angle faults and southwest - dipping thrust faults. This is a zone
of major northwest trending faults that parallel the Willamette River and forms a boundary
1 between the Portland Hills on the west and southwest and the Portland basin on the east and •
1
CTI #98-G1670
' Duncan Building
Page 3
1 northeast. No faults have yet been shown to cut Holocene deposits but some faults do cut
Pleistocene rocks, Madin, 1991.
1 EARTHQUAKE SOURCES AND SEISMIC RISK
I Local
The Portland Hills fault zone (Madin, 1990), is located approximately 41/4 miles northeast of
the site. It includes a series of northwest - trending subsurface faults that extend for a distance
of about 40 kilometers along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills. This fault zone is
considered to be the boundary fault on the western margin of the Portland Basin. None of the
major faults have been shown to cut Holocene deposits (10,000 years). The fault zone is not
' defined by historical seismicity or associated with any medium- to large- magnitude
earthquakes. Although there is no definite evidence for activity for the Portland Hills fault
zone, the zone is judged to be potentially active with a relative high probability (0.7) on the
' basis of possible deformation of late Pleistocene sediment (inferred from subsurface sediment
thickness data), Geomatrix, 1995.
' The Gales Creek Fault is located approximately 11 1/2 miles southwest of the site. No
seismicity has been recorded along the trend of the trend of the Gales Creek Fault; however,
a small probability of activity is assigned to the structure because it is aligned along a
' northward projection of an active fault zone (the Mount Angel Fault) further to the southeast
(Geomatrix, 1995).
' Regional
In western Washington and Oregon, the most likely sources of earthquakes appear to be 1)
' shallow, moderate intensity earthquakes within the North American Plate; 2) somewhat
deeper, moderately large earthquakes in the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate, and 3) potentially
great earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (the contact between the two plates).
1 Empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture length provide a
means for estimating the maximum earthquake that a particular fault could generate (Bonilla
et al., 1984). Based on the size of historical earthquakes in the region, and thickness of the
1 seismogenic crust, the maximum earthquake magnitude expected from a crustal source in the
northern and central Willamette Valley is M6.0 to M6.8 (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995.
Deeper intraplate earthquakes (deeper than 30 km) have mostly occurred where the Juan de
Fuca Pate is bending; either where the dip steepens, or where the plate is buckled (Rogers,
1983). Gravity data (Dehlinger et. al, 1970) indicate the bend occurs beneath the east flank
' of the Coast Range. Thus the most likely location for a deep intraplate earthquake is along
the western edge of the Willamette Valley. The recommended design earthquake for this
event would have a magnitude of 71/2 .
No subduction earthquakes have occurred during historic times; however, geologic evidence
available is interpreted as indicative that the great earthquakes (magnitude 9 1/2 ) have occurred
in recent prehistoric times. Such events appear to have occurred infrequently, about every
600 years on the average. The best estimates indicate that the last great earthquake occurred
300 years ago (Yamaguchi et. al., 1989).
1
1
CTI #98-G1670
Duncan Building
Page 5
The soil strength parameters were estimated to be zero cohesion and an internal friction angle
equal to 30 degrees. Soil density was taken as 100 pcf. The critical depth relating to earth
' pressure was assumed to be 20 times the pile diameter.
We performed our analysis for two different piles: 1) a 10.75 inch diameter steel pipe pile or
H -pile driven to a depth of 25 feet, and 2) a 25 foot deep 12 inch diameter driven grout pile.
These pile types were selected due to the presence of debris laden fill at the site. Our analysis
is based on individual piles, an appropriate group efficiency ratio should be applied by the
structural engineer for pile group capacities. The allowable pile capacities stated in the
1 following paragraph includes a safety factor of 2.5.
Based on our static analyses, the downward capacity of the 25 foot deep pipe pile is 15 tons
with an uplift capacity of 10 tons. The 25 foot deep driven grout pile has a downward
capacity of 25 tons and an uplift capacity of 15 tons. The downward pile capacities are for
an individual pile and the bearing capacities of the piles are attained primarily from side
' friction. These capacities may increased by % for short duration loading, such wind or seismic.
To more accurately assess the pile Toad capacities, a pile Toad test can be performed.
Typically, pile Toad testing reveals that the load capacities can be increased.
The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (k has been estimated using the NAVFAC manual.
This coefficient is dependent upon the depth in question and the diameter /width of the pile.
For the subject site: k,, = 10 ton /cubic -foot (z /D)
z = depth of concern
1 D = pile diameter or width
The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction is used in calculating the Point of Fixity for a pile;
' however, the Point of Fixity is also a function of the pile parameters, i.e., modulus of elasticity
and the moment of inertia, and the lateral and axial loads. Based on our experience, we
estimate that the Point of Fixity for most pile types in the relatively loose soils we encountered
on site will be about 6 feet below the ground surface.
After selection of the pile type and determination of loads, a dynamic pile acceptance criteria
' can be developed for this site.
Site Liquefaction Potential
' Based on our review of the available geologic maps (Beaverton and Lake Oswego quadrangles
of the Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon; DOGAMI
Open File Report 0 -90 -2, 1990) and nearby site explorations, the depth of the Quaternary
flood deposits (Qff) is at least 40 feet and consists of silts, clays and fine - grained sands.
The SPT blow counts in the fill are very sporadic and some perched water was observed in
' the test pits; however, the fine - grained nature of the fill soil and the sporadic occurance of
water indicates that the fill is not susceptible to liquefaction. Our site data and experience in
the immediate area has indicated that the Qff deposits in the vicinity of the site are generally
medium dense sandy silt with an average shear wave velocity of 1,000 feet /second. It is our
opinion that this site has a very low potential for damaging ground effects to occur from
liquefaction. The upper fill materials are susceptible to slope failure from ground motions or
excessive static loading, such as from water infiltration or building Toads.
1
CTI #98-G1670
' Duncan Building
Page 5
1 The soil strength parameters were estimated to be zero cohesion and an internal friction angle
equal to 30 degrees. Soil density was taken as 100 pcf. The critical depth relating to earth
' pressure was assumed to be 20 times the pile diameter.
We performed our analysis for two different piles: 1) a 10.75 inch diameter steel pipe pile or
H -pile driven to a depth of 25 feet, and 2) a 25 foot deep 12 inch diameter driven grout pile.
Our analysis is based on individual piles, an appropriate group efficiency ratio should be
applied by the structural engineer for pile group capacities. The allowable pile capacities
stated in the following paragraph includes a safety factor of 2.5.
Based on our static analyses, the downward capacity of the 25 foot deep pipe pile is 15 tons
with an uplift capacity of 10 tons. The 25 foot deep driven grout pile has a downward
1 capacity of 25 tons and an uplift capacity of 15 tons. The downward pile capacities are for
an individual pile and the bearing capacities of the piles are attained primarily from side
friction. These capacities may increased by' /3 for short duration loading, such wind or seismic.
' To more accurately assess the pile load capacities, a pile load test can be performed.
Typically, pile load testing reveals that the load capacities can be increased.
' The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (k has been estimated using the NAVFAC manual.
This coefficient is dependent upon the depth in question and the diameter /width of the pile.
For the subject site: k,, = 10 ton /cubic -foot * (z /D)
z = depth of concern
1 D = pile diameter or width
The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction is used in calculating the Point of Fixity for a pile;
however, the Point of Fixity is also a function of the pile parameters, i.e., modulus of elasticity
and the moment of inertia, and the lateral and axial Toads. Based on our experience, we
estimate that the Point of Fixity for most pile types in the relatively loose soils we encountered
' on site will be about 6 feet below the ground surface.
After selection of the pile type and determination of Toads, a dynamic pile acceptance criteria
can be developed for this site.
' Site Liquefaction Potential
Based on our review of the available geologic maps (Beaverton and Lake Oswego quadrangles
of the Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon; DOGAMI
Open File Report 0 -90 -2, 1990) and nearby site explorations, the depth of the Quaternary
flood deposits (Qff) is at least 40 feet and consists of silts, clays and fine - grained sands.
The SPT blow counts in the fill are very sporadic and some perched water was observed in
the test pits; however, the fine - grained nature of the fill soil and the sporadic occurance of
water indicates that the fill is not susceptible to liquefaction. Our site data and experience in
the immediate area has indicated that the Qff deposits in the vicinity of the site are generally
' medium dense sandy silt with an average shear wave velocity of 1,000 feet /second. It is our
opinion that this site has a very low potential for damaging ground effects to occur from
liquefaction. The upper fill materials are susceptible to slope failure from ground motions or
excessive static loading, such as from water infiltration or building loads.
1
CTI #98-G1670
' Duncan Building
Page 6
Fill Placement
All fill placement should be performed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC,
with the exceptions and additions noted herein. Any imported material should be approved
by the Soil Engineer prior to arrival on site. Engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts
not exceeding 12 inches (uncompacted) and compacted using appropriate equipment. A
1 minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from the AASHTO T -180 or
equivalent method is recommended for engineered fill placed rough grading operations. Field
density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. All engineered fill
1 should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer's representative.
Typically, a density test is performed for every vertical foot of fill placed or every 500 yd of
earthwork performed, whichever requires more testing. The contractor should be contractually
held responsible for test scheduling and frequency, if services are provided on an on -call basis.
' Earthwork is generally performed in the summer months, generally from mid -June to mid -
October, when warm dry weather is available for proper moisture conditioning of soils.
Earthwork performed during the wet winter- spring seasons will probably require expensive
measures such as cement treatment or imported granular fill to place and sufficiently compact
engineered fill.
' Slabs -on -grade
The organic topsoil and /or loose surface soil should be removed beneath slab and concrete
flatwork areas. Overexcavation depths beneath structural slabs should be at least 12 inches
below present grade. The underslab base rock course should consist of 1 and /or 3 /4 " -0
crushed aggregate base with no more than 7% fines. The total thickness of this layer of
crushed aggregate may be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction
and should be reviewed by proof - rolling. The minimum required aggregate thickness is 9
inches and we expect that at least 12 inches of aggregate will be required during wet weather
to stabilize the subgrade and provide adequate separation between the slab and accumulated
1 water. The use of a .vapor barrier, concrete admixtures, or slab surface sealant should be
decided by the designer, based on his /her experience.
1 Drainage
Surface water drainage should be directed away from the future structure and away from the
top of the slope. Roofdrain water should be carried to an appropriate storm drain system.
Infiltration of water into the existing fill should be minimized.
Utilities
All deep excavations and shoring should conform to OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926).
It is our opinion that the majority of the near - surface site soils are OSHA "Type B" soils when
dry and "Type C" soil when seepage is present. Only minor seepage was encountered during
our field investigation. The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to stand
nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, to a maximum depth of 4 feet from construction
grade.
11\
CTI #98-G1670
' Duncan Building
Page 7
1 PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with ASTM D2321 procedures. Initial backfill lift
thickness for a 3 /4 " -0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the
risk of flattening flexible pipe.
We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
the maximum dry density obtained from AASHTO 1-180, or equivalent. Typically, density
1 tests for each fill lift are taken for every 100 lineal feet of trench backfill. Lift thicknesses
should not exceed 12 inches, except if manufactured granular material is used for trench
backfill, then the lifts for large vibrating plate -type compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor
attachments) may be taken as great as 2 feet, provided proper compaction is being achieved
and tested at each lift, as feasible.
Retaining Walls
The equivalent fluid densities for the design of retaining walls are presented below for the
' existing fill material. The densities assume that adequate drainage, such that no hydrostatic
pressures are realized behind the wall, is provided.
1 TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES
FOR LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES
1
(Ib /ft
Unrestrained Wall Restrained Wall
1 TYPE
Level Profile Level Profile
Active Pressure 45 -
At -rest Pressure - 65
' Passive Pressure* 180 100
* The upper 0.5 foot should be ignored for passive resistance
1 The effect of live Toads on lateral pressures has not been included.
A drain should be placed behind the base of all walls. Wall subdrain construction should
conform to the recommendations below. Retaining wall backfill supporting walkways,
concrete slabs, and other structures should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum density obtainable by ASTM Method D1557.
' Typical Pavement Section
After stripping of the organic topsoil layer, preparation of the pavement subgrade should
consist of cutting to grade, and ripping and recompacting the existing soils to a depth of 12
inches. The soil should be compacted to at least 90% of its maximum dry density determined
' by AASHTO Method T -180. CTI recommends proof - rolling directly on the subgrade with a
• loaded 10 yard dump -truck during dry weather to assess the presence of soft areas. Soft
areas which rut, pump, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. Typically, subgrade,
base course, and asphalt compaction testing is performed at every 200 lineal feet of paving.
1
CTI #98-G1670
I Duncan Building
Page 8
1 A representative sample from 2 feet bgs in TP -2 was collected for laboratory California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) testing. The maximum dry density (106.9 pcf) of the sample was determined and
the sample was remolded to approximately 90% of that dry density prior to testing. The CBR
I value of the soil is 3, which correlates to a subgrade resilient modulus (M,) = 4,500 Ib /in
The pavement design was performed in general accordance with the methods prescribed by
the Crushed Base Equivalent method for a flexible pavement design. A Traffic Coefficient (TC)
I of 5 for driveways and 4 for parking areas has been assumed.
The recommended dry weather pavement section is presented in the following Table 2:
r TABLE 2: PAVEMENT DESIGN STRUCTURALSECTION - DRY WEATHER CONDITIONS
1 Recommended Recommended Recommended
Material Layer Minimum Minimum Compaction
I Layer Thickness for Layer Thickness for Test Standard
Parking Areas Driveways
(in.) (in.)
1 Asphaltic 2 3 91 % of Rice
Concrete(AC) density
AASHTO T -209
1 Crushed 2 2 95% of
Aggregate Base Modified
I Top Course % " -0 Proctor or
AASHTO T -180
Crushed 8 10 95% of
1 Aggregate Modified
Base 1 Proctor or
AASHTO T -180
1 Soil Subgrade 12 12 90% of
AASHTO T -180
1 We prefer that pavement sections be constructed during the dry- weather season; however,
if construction schedules dictate paving during winter or spring, site specific conditions should
I be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typically, an additional 6 inches of base rock and
woven geotextile is necessary for wet weather paving.
I LIMITATIONS
The earthwork and foundation installation should be performed in general accordance with the
1 City of Tigard and Washington County standards as well as the site - specific recommendations
in this report.
I This report was prepared solely for the Owner and Engineer /Architect for the design of the
project. We encourage its review by bidders and /or the Contractor as it relates to factual data
only (test pits and laboratory data). The opinions and recommendations contained within the
report are not intended to be nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of .
1
CTI #98-G1670 •
' Duncan Building
Page 9
1 subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Our
reports pertain to the material tested /inspected only. Information contained herein is not to
be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office.
We would be pleased to provide input, as necessary, if additional information is obtained or
if site conditions and /or development plans change. Please contact the undersigned if you
1 have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
CARLSON TESTING, INC. � �ED Pr?OF£s
1 14743 9 c'
1 / OREGON
Li e/44f. 23 19`
M ES D. OS" L •
Ronald J. Der irck, P.E. James D. Imbrie, P.E., C.E.G.
Senior Engineer Principal Engineer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Exploratory Test Pits
Four test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 6 feet on June 18, 1998 and CPT
sounding to a depth of 23 feet cn June 16, 1998. The test pits were excavated with a
trackhoe subcontracted by CTI. All excavations were backfilled immediately after completion
of logging and sampling.
A representative of our firm logged the test pits with respect to soil type, relative strength,
and ground water occurrence. Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
1 Within the test pits representative samples of the various soil units were taken and placed in
airtight bags. Consistency measurements were made in the fine - grained sediments within the
' test pits with a Pocket Penetrometer, a manually operated device used to estimate the in -situ,
unconfined compressive strength (tsf) of cohesive soils.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Test Pit No. TP- 1
Logged by: BK Date Excavated: 6/18/98
1 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:
I a — N
a a° N e o_a .o c .= Material Description
1 — o- cn ❑ 0 m
Gravel Fill
1— Fill
1 — Dark brown SILT with gravel and debris, fine to medium roots,
2— cobbles /gravel and boulders to 20" in diameter
— organics, moist
1 3—
' 4-
5-
1 6— Total Depth 5.5 Feet
I 7-
Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered
8-
1 9—
i 10—
' 11-
12—
13
1 14-
15
1 16—
1 17
1
Job No. 98 -G1670 Log of Test Pit , Figure: A -1
1 0.L S° A �
�1 �. Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684 -3460 - Fax 684 -0954
TESTING INC.
1
1 Test Pit No. TP -2
Logged by: BK Date Excavated: 6/18/98
1 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:
CD CD
i ZL3 CI. >., -7-, c
o 2 , =' E °' .- ` °' Material Description
d O Q , - N O > • C
a . v N � v O co
— tZ U) 0 0 m
Fill
1— Dark brown, moist SILT with some gravel, fine to medium roots,
I _ cobbles /gravel
2—
perched water zone from 3 to 5 feet
4=
A
5— moist, boulders to 18" diameter
'
6—
large boulders
Refusal at 6 Feet
1
8-
9—
1 10—
1 11=
12-
1 13
1 14
15
I 16—
1 17 .
1
Job No. 98 -G1670 Log of Test Pit Figure: A -2
'
G Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684 -3460 - Fax 684 -0954
• TESTING INC.
Test Pit No. TP- 3
Logged by: BK Date Excavated: 6/18/98
' Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:
N F- j
Ni
_
a @ o .2 o c �° = Material Description
cs- o F � � �
• a 0 v
Fill
1— Brown, dry SILT with some clay, roots
I —
2— gravels
very hard sandstone
1 3—
Refusal at 33 Inches
' 4=
Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered
5-
6-
7
8-
9—
' 10—
11=
12—
' 13
111 14=
15
' 16—
1 17
Job No. 98 -G1670 Log of Test Pit Figure: A -3
' � L S 0
V�: <_ 1. Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684 -3460 - Fax 684 -0954
- TESTING INC.
Test Pit No. TP -4
Logged by: BK Date Excavated: 6/18/98
Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:
'
>1. T
a o° N Q X o . N Material Description
o ° c 2" w c p 111 — d CO 0 0 m
Fill
1 — Dark brown, dry SILT with asphalt debris and some roots
2—
moist, stiff
3—
•
sandstone
5
- Refusal at 61 Inches
6—
111 7— Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered
8-
9-
10—
' 11=
12
' 13
' 14
15
' 16-
1 17—
- Log of Test Pit Figure: No. 98 G1670 g ure: A- 4 g
Q ' t L s0
V , ?i Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684 -3460 - Fax 684 -0954
TESTING,INCc-
NS — EN r UM — w MO r NM Mr an I. M r OM NF EN MI
V a r d o r1 e y o i_ 1 F --- x L l- C
Operator : A.MEUS /W.MCC CPT Date : 06 -17 -98 11:21 Sounding : SND627 Pg 1 / 1
Location : P/1 74TH AVE Client : CARLSON TESTING Job No. : DUNCAN BILO
TIP RESISTANCE LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO PORE PRESSURE DIFF PP RATIO INTERPRETED
Ot (Ton /ft"2) Fs (Ton /ft"2) Fs /0 (X) Pw (psi) AP /Ot (X) PROFILE
0 i00 0 -
5 -
.
25 0 -25 0 100 -25 0 100
0 0 . . . . - 0 . . ' . , 0 I . . • . 0 1 . , . ' 0
"-'— 'i: ( .."..\
i.j .
15 15 - 15 - 15 - 15- - 15- -
..fJE-7-- :--,;:----'' -.:7--"› .. .
- -
30 30 - 30 - 30- 1 - 30- 1 - 30- -
- I -
. - I
I - I -
I - 1
45- 45 ' ' ' ' 45 ' ' ' ' 45
1 ` ' 45~ 1 ' ' 45
Depth Increment : .1 m Max Depth : 22.97 ft
1
SOUNDING DATA IN FILE ND627 06-17-98 11 :21 '
1 OPERATOR : A . MFUS'W . MCC LOCATION : Pil 7.4TH AVE
.1111 CLIENT : CARLSON TESTING JOB No ., : DLt:'CAN bILD
Vanciehey Soi 1 Exploration L1,
1 4.0 59 5 1 \ 1 , „ . . 7 Pa. o i f i 0 Ave . Ea nk s , Oregon . 9 7 1 0 5 /.. 5 0 3 ) 324 3251
I DEPTH DEPTH TIP CDR TIP FRIGTION FR RATIO PORE PR P P 50719 DIFF 5 P RATH 140
meters feet Qc tsf Qt tsf Fe tsf Fs/Qc `i, Pw P5i Fk.7/QC 1 C.P1.44[1)/QC: 1 I deg INTERPRETED 4
SOIL 7255 SPT
• • 0.30 1.0 29.5 25,5 0.489 1.55 0.5 0.12
0,40 1.3 29.8 25,4 1.037 3.52 -3.3 1s.:. 0.12 0.1
' ? ?
-0,80 0,1 clayey silt to silty clay 13
0.50 1.5 21,0 20,9 0,790 3.77 -4.5 -1.57 -1.57 0.1 clayey silt to silty clay 16
I OM 2.0 62,2 63,2 1.613 2.55 0.2
0,03
0.70 2.3 22,3 22,2 1,490 6.85 0.4
0.13 0.03 0.1 clayey silt to silty clay 20
0.13 0.1 clayey site to silty clay 12
0.80 2.5 42.9 42.9 0.991 2.26 0.9 0.15 0.15 0.1 clayey silt to silty clay 14
0.90 3.0 4.8 4,6 0.730 15.14 1.1 1.72 1.72 0.1 clay 15
• 1.00 2.3 8.1
1.10 2,6 5.7 8.1 0,371 4.57 1.3
1.15
1,15 0,1
1,02 0.1 clay
8,7 0.478 4,54 1.4 1.02
clay
9
1.20 3.9 8.7 8.9 0.552 6.32 1.8 1.29 1.25 0,1 clay 8
III 1.30 4.3 7,2
7,2 0.520 7,20 1.5 1.52 1,52 0.1 clay
1.40 4.8 9.2
8,2 0.287 2.51 1.5
1.20
1.30 0.1
clay P
,
3
1,50 4,3 8.1 0.2 0.301 3.70 1.8 1.60 1.50 0.1 silty clay to clay 7
III 1.60 8.2 16.2 18.2 0.519 2.64 0.8
1.70 5.6 14,6 14,6 1.119 7.57 1.8 0.20 0.30 0.1 clay 14
0.91 0.81 0.1 silty clay to clay 18
1.80 5.9 88.7 88.7 2,045 3.12 -2.0 -0.22
-0.22 0.1 clayey silt to silty clay 13
1,90 5,2 14.6 14.6 0,538 8,71 -2.0 -0.97 -0,97 0,1 sandy silt, to clayey silt 16
• 2.00 6.6 74.7 74.8 0.116 0.15 -3.8 -0.37
2,10 5.5 13.2 12.9 0.100 0.72 2,2 1,97 -0,37 0,1 silty 5and to sandy silt 14
1.57 0.1 silty sand to sandy silt
9
2.20 7,2 13.1 12,1 0,080 0,67 4,0 2.22 2.22 0.1 sandy silt to clayey silt 4
I 2.36 7.5 6.'?
5.8 0.055 0.9
2.40 7.9 5.1 0,5'? 4.2 4.44 4.44 0.1 sensitive
8.2 0.048 0.54 4.2
5.97 fine grained 4
5.37 0,1 sensitive fine grained
2
2.50 8.2 3.2 2.7 0.032 1.01 4.4 9.88 5,86 0,1 sensitive fine grained ,-,
2,80 8.5 2.3 2.6 9.020 1.13 4.3 12.63 13.63 0.1 sensitive fine grained 1
1 2.70 8.9 2.2
2.
2:80 9,2 8.1 2 ,0.075 3.34 4.5 14,51 14.51 0.1 clay
5.2 0.182 2,95 4.8 5.84
5.54 0.1
clay r,
J
8
2.90 3.8 6,8 0.5 0.420 4,78 5,1 4,16 4.16 0.1 clay 6
• 3.00 2.8 9.2 8.0 0.424 4.83 2.5 2.08 2.08 0.1 clay
3,10 10.2 9.3
5.6 0.698 Gal 1.2
0,91
0.91 0.1
clay 9
,;-)
3,20 10,5 64.0 64.0 2.261 3.89 -1.1 -0,12 -0,13 0.3 silty clay to clay 23
• 3.30 10.8 8.2 5.4 0.565 10.72 5,8 7:43 7.43 1.2 clay 19
3,40 11.2 5.7 5.8 0234 5,86 6.5 8.21 8.21 1,5 clay 6
2.50 11,5 7,0 7.1 0.352 5.03 5.4 8.88 5,85 1:4 clay f
3.50 11,8 5.2 2.4 0.346 2.71 5,2 4.05 4.06 1,2 clay 9
I 3,70 12,1 12.2 12,4 0.385 3.15 5.0
0 14.6 0.274 2.94
1.87 - 1,5 -0.75 2.94 1.4 silty clay to clay P
,
3.80 12.5 14.
-0,75 1.3 clayey silt to silty clay G
2,90 12,6 6.8 8.9 0.083 1.21 -1.4 -1.48 -1,49 1.0 clayey silt to silty clay 4
I 1: 1,1 10 'i 2
10 C . ' )I f' 2 5 0 3 2'44 4 -2,5 -8,r -8
2.0S -1.8 -1.30 ,37 .1,2 silty clay to clay 3
-1.30 1.2 silty clay to clay
5
4,20 13,0 10.5 10.5 0.223 3.06 -1.5 -1.03 -1,02 1.2 silty clay to clay 7
1 Soil interpretation reference: Robertson & Campanella-1983, based on 604 hammer efficiency and .2 m sliding data average
1
1
61 : P/1 741q AVE : 06-- 17 -.98 1 1 :21 PAGE 2
I .
['5878 DEPTH TIP 0095 TIP FRICTION FR RATIO FORE PR P P RATIO DIFF F 8 RATIO INC INTERPRETED 8
I meters feet Qc tsf Qt tsf Fs tsf Fs/Qc 4, FI,,, psi Fw/Qc 4 (Pw-Fh.)/Qc 4 1 deg SOIL TYPE SPT
4,30 14.1 10.2 10.2 0.258 2.52 -1.4 -0.97 -0.97 1.2 silty clay to clay 6
• 4.40 14.4 6.9
6.9 0.248
4.50 14.9 8.3 MI '1.2 -1.24 -1.24 1.3 clay 8
8.2 0.285 3,45 -1.2 -1.06
-1.06 1.3
clay
7
4.60 15.1 6.1 8.1 0,264 4.35 -1.3 -1.53 -1.53 1.3 clay 7
4.70 15.4 7.2 7,1 0.347 4.813 -1.3 -1.29 -1,29 1.3 clay 7
I 4,80 15.7 9.9
4,90 16.1 8.3 9.2 0.516 S,57 -2.8 -2.17 -2.17 1,4 9.8 0.505 5.12 -1.5 -1.17
-1.17 1.4
clay
clay 9
9
5.00 16.4 9.1 9.0 0,562 6,21 -3.7 -2.93 -2,93 1,4 clay 9
I 5,10 18,7 10.4 10.3 - 0.571 5.51 -2.2 -1.52
5,20 17.1 14,6 14,5 0.482 3.17 -1,7 -0,85 -1,52 1,4 clay
-0,85 1.5
clay 11
12
5.30 17.4 10.5 10.5 0.416 9.97 -1.7 -1.14 -1.14 1.5 clay 11
111 5.40 17,7 10.3 10,3 0.524 5.08 -3.5 -2.42
5.50 18.0 9,2 9.1 0.239 2.61 -4.0 -3.17 -2.42 1.5 clay 10
-3.17 1.5 silty clay to clay
12
5.50 18.4 49,6 48,5 1.916 3,95 -3,5 -0.51 -0.51 1,8 silty clay to clay 22
5.70 12.7 28.1 37.9 1.944 5.10 -13.4 -2,54 -2.54 1.6 silty clay to clay 28
1 5.80 19.0 49.1 49.9 2.078 4,23 --14.5 -2.13
5.90 19,4 53.5 53.2 1.692 3.16 -14.9 -2,00 -2.13 1.6 clayey silt to silty clay 23
-2.00 1,6 clayey silt to silty clay 24
6.00 19.7 41.4 41.2 0,902 2.18 -15.3 -2.55 -2.65 1,7 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
1 6,10 20.0 29,5 29.2 0.304
1.03 -15.5 -3.79
1.85 -15.5 -5.24 -3.79 1.7 sandy 5111 to clayey silt 12
6.20 20.2 21.2 21.1 0.393
-5,24 1,8 sandy silt to clayey silt 8
5.20 20.7 21,9 21.6 0.468 2.14 -15.6 -5.14 -5.14 1.8 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
6.40 21,0 34.1 33.8 0.419 1.23 -15.5 -3,27 -3.27 1.7 .sandy silt to clayey silt 11
I
5.50 21.3 29.2 29,0 0,747 2,56 -15.2 -3.78
-9.78 1.8 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
6,60 21,7 31.0 30.7 0.870 2.81 -15.2 -3,53
-1,52 1,7 clayey silt to silty clay 13
6,70 22,0 17.2 17.0 1.307 7,59 -15:0 -6.29 -8,29 1,7 Clay 22
I 6.80 22.3 22,1 31.9 0.902 2.81 -14.3 -9.21
-3.21 1.7 sand to silty sand
8.90 22.6 221.2 221.0 0.917 0.29 - 9 13.3 -0.30
-0.30 1.5 24
'
7.00 23.0 344,7 244.6 7 7 -19.2 -0,28 -0.28 1.5 '
I Soil interpretation reference: Robertson 6 Campanella-1989, based on 504 hammer efficiency and .2 m sliding data average
1 .
. . .
-
1
1
1
•
1
1
1 .
Or UM ME r — OM ME r so um um um r ow am r r r r
V rn a e n e y o z Z F >< L_ L_ c
Operator : A.MEUS /W.MCC CPT Date : 06 -17 -98 15:45 Sounding : SND628 Pg 1 / 1
Location : P/2 74 AVE Client : CARLSON TESTING Job No. : DUNCAN BILD
TIP RESISTANCE LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO PORE PRESSURE DIFF PP RATIO INTERPRETED
Ot (Ton /ft '2) Fs (Ton /ft"2) Fs /O (%) Pw (psi) AP /Ot (X) PROFILE
0 0 100 0 0 2.5 00 5 -25 0 100 -25 0 -
1 00
0
I
15- - 15- 15- - 15- - 15- 1 - 15- -
- - .
n �' I . .
4-- - 2 .._.
. _
_ _ - ----- :I . .
W :' :'
0 I I
30- - 30- 30- - 30- 1 - 30- 1 - 30- -
- I - I -
I . I -
45 - . . . . • 45 , . 45 _ ' ' ' ' 45- ( . , 45 . . 45
Depth Increment : .1 m Max Depth : 23.62 ft
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOUNDING DATA IN FILE SND628 06-17-98 15:45
OPERATOR : A.MEUSZW.MCC LOCATION : P/2 74 AVE
CLIENT : CARLSON TESTING JOB No. : DUNCAN BILO
E'qc1c,r-,I. 5 on LL.:
40695 Nw PBC I IC Ave, Ear , 97 1 V - 1" ( 50 3) 317
DEPTH DEPTH 718 CORR TIP FRICTION, 55' RATIO PORE PR P P RATIO DIFF 8 8 RATIO INC
meters feet Qc tsf Qt tsf Fs tsf Fs:* 1 Pi psi Pw/Oc % (Pi-Ph)/Qc 1 I deg
INTERPRETED 2
SOIL TYPE 8P1
2.50 8,5 -152,5 -152.5 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 9 „
2.70 8.9 3.5 3.9 0.059 2.57 2.9 5.44 5.44 0,1 ,-? ?
2.80 9.2 2.9 3.9 0.119 3.05 - 0,5 -0.64 -0.04 0,1 clay 4
2.50 9.5 5.7 5.6 0.333 5,20 -5.6 -7.09 -7,09 0.1 clay 5
3,00 5,5 4,5 4.7 0.217 4:63 -2.0 -4,57 -4.57 0.1 clay 9
3.10 10,2 4.8 4,7 0.229 4.82 -2,4 -3.59 -2,55 0.1 clay 5
9.20 10,5 5,5 5.5 0.752 13,56 -2,3 -3.05 -3.05 0.1 clayey 5i1t to silty clay 11
3.30 10.8 79.1 79.0 0.871 1.10 -6,5 -0.59 -0,59 1.1 sandy silt to clayey silt ,).7,
.. i.
3.40 11.2 62.1 62.1 2,675 4.30 -5.2 -0.72 -0.72 3.5 clayey silt to silty clay 25
3.50 11,5 1.6 1.6 0.546 33.28 -4,3 -19.12 -19.12 4,5 clay 18
2.60 11.8 9,9 9.8 0.207 3.12 -2,0 -2.22 -2,72 4,6 clay 9
3,70 12.1 15.1 15.1 0.302 1,99 -3,2 -1.51 -1.51 4.1 silty clay to clay 2
3.80 12.5 9.6 9.6 0,845 8.70 -3.7 - 2.75 -2.75 4.0 silty clay to clay 17
3.90 1 74.8 74.7 2.285 3.07 - 7.3 -0.71 -0.71 3.9 clayey silt to silty clay 25
4.00 13.1 45.8 45.7 1,948 4.25 -9:5 -1,56 -1.55 3.9 clayey silt to silty clay 24
4.10 13.5 31.5 31.4 1.528 4.08 -4.0 -0.02 - 0.92 3.3 silty clay to clay 22
4,20 12.0 26.3 25.2 1,115 4.24 -5,3 - 1.45 -1.45 2.8 silty clay to clay 1E
4.30 14.1 19.0 12.0 0.795 3.87 -5.5 -9.06 -2.06 2.5 silty clay to clay 17
4.40 14.4 7.8 7.7 0.163 2.25 -4.8 -4,42 -4.42 3.3 silty clay to clay 7
4,50 14.8 7.0 7.0 0,109 1.55 -4,8 -4,95 -4.95 4.0 51Itv clay to clay 5
4.60 15.1 8.2 8.1 0.240 2.94 -4,8 -4.22 -4.22 4.0 silty clay to clay 4
4,70 15.4 9.1 3.0 0,084 2.75 -5.2 -12,91 -12,21 4.0 clay 5
4.00 19.7 4.6 4,5 0.380 8,20 -9.1 -14.15 -14.15 4.4 clay ,
J
4,90 16.1 24.7 24,5 1,044 4.23 -8.9 -2.59 - 2,59 4.2 clay 17
5,00 16.4 18.4 18.1 . 0,559 2.05 -14.3 -5,63 -5.62 4,4 silty clay to clay 12
5.10 15.7 14.6 14.4 0.649 4.44 -15,2 -7.47 -7.47 4,4 clay 15
o.20 17.1 13.1 12,9 0,701 5.36 -15,2 -8.57 -6.37 4,4 clay 14
5,20 17.4 17.5 17,2 0,849 4.85 -15.2 -6.26 -8,26 4.4 clay 14
5,40 17.7 12,1 11.9 0,571 5.55 -15.5 -9.25 -9.25 4.4 clay 1
5,50 18.0 31.7 21.5 1.836 5.60 -15.5 -3.61 -2.51 4.4 May 71
5,60 12.4 12.8 12.7 0.595 4,59 -15.7 -6.72 -6,72 4,4 clay IE •
5.70 12.7 11.1 10,5 . 0.447 4,02 -15.6 '-10.11 -10.11 4.4 clay 11
5,30 15.0 10.9 10.6 0.403 3.71 -15.5 -10.20 -10.30 4.4 0.,5, 11
5.90 13,4 11.6 11.4 0.225 2.81 -15.5 --9,61 -9.61 4.4 silty clay to clay
5,00 19.7 7.4 7.1 0.178 2.41 -15,4 -15.08 -15,08 4.4 clay 9
5.10 20.0 9.7 9.4 0.421 4,98 -15.5 -11.51 -11.51 4.4 clayey silt to ailty c.lav 12
5.20 20.3 72.3 72.1 1.238 1,71 -15.5 -1,55 -1,55 4.4 silty sand to sandy silt 24
5.90 9 0,7 150.7 150.5 3.559 2.26 -'15.3 -0.32 -0,92 4.6 silty 54n8 to sandy silt 42
6.40 21,0 124.7 124.4 3.003 2.41 -20.4 -1.16 -1.18 4,7 silty sand to sandy silt 39.
6.50 21.3 90,3 90.0 1.953 2.16 -20,2 -1.62 -1.62 4,7 silty sand to sandy silt 50
Boil interpretation reference: Robertson 0 Campanella-M, based on 501 hammer efficiency and .2 m sliding data average
1
SI\IT1628 : Pi 2 74 AVE : 06-17-95 15:45 PAGE 2
1
DEPTH DEPTH TIP CORR TIP FRICTION FR RATIO PORE PR 8 8 RATIO DIFF 8 8 RATIO INC INTERPRETED 8
I meters feet Qc tsf Qt tsf Es Isi Fs/Qc 1 Pw psi Pw/Oc % (8w-80/Qc 1 1 deg SOIL TYPE 981
6.50 21.7 75.2 74.9 1,441 1.51 -20,0 -1,92 -1.92 4.7 silty sand to sandy silt 25
6.70 22.0 75.0 74.7 1.129 1,51 -I3.5 -1.30 -1.90 4.8 silty sand to sandy silt 24
• 6.80 22.2 74.3 74.0 1.132 1.52 -18,1 -1,75
6.90 22.6 75.6 75.3 1,296
1.85 -18.2
-1.74 -1,75 4.6 silty 5and to sandy silt 24
-1.74 4.8 silty sand to sandy silt
25
7.00 23.0 87,7 87.5 1.727 1.99 -18.4 -1,51 -1.51 5.0 sand to silty sand 30
• 7,10 23.3 245.2 244.3 1.727
MO -17,3
-0,61
-0.51 6.3
-0.42 5.3 7
7.20 22.6 296.9 296,6 9 7 _17 7 -0.42
9
1 Soil interpretation reference: Robertson 8: Campanella--1963 based an 60 ham5 ur efficiency and .2 m sliding data average
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1