Report i 6 ZCOtf - Oc Ko
RECEIVED
1(0ooS SW' IOC? AVE - SEP 2 9 2004
CITY OF TIGARD GeoP
BUILDING DIVISION Engineering, inc.
Real -World Geotechnical Solutions
Investigation • Design • Construction Support
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
Attention: Dick Ossey
OT2 LLC
do Ossey Development Corporation
5437 Rosalia Way, Suite 100
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Via Facsimile: 503.620.1243
Copy: Paul Franks
Paul Franks Architecture
Fax: 425.803.0934
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Oak Tree 2 Apartments
SW Durham Road and SW 108 Avenue
Tigard, Oregon
At your request, GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. (GeoPacific) performed a geotechnical investigation for
the proposed Oak Tree 2 Apartments located southwest of the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW
108 Avenue in Tigard, Oregon (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The general site layout and locations of
our explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of the geotechnical
study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the
conditions observed, to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 6.2 -acre site is bordered to the north by SW Durham Road, to the west by the Oak Tree Apartments
and to the east by SW 108th Avenue and Durham Park Apartments. An unnamed, incised tributary
drainage to the Tualatin River flows southwestward through the north and west portions of the site.
Portions of the property are devoted to setback requirements along the drainage, and will not be
developed. The Tualatin River is located about 1,500 feet downstream of the property. Elevations range
from about 180 feet in the northeast and northwest corners of the site to about 150 feet along the drainage
as it crosses the southwest site boundary. Topographic grades generally average between 2 and 8 percent
over most of the site. The drainage through the site is incised between about 13 and 20 feet vertically.
Grades along the creek bank range between about 50 percent near Durham Road to about 25 percent in
the southwest part of the site. Vegetation consists of large oak and evergreen trees along the creek with
dense patches of small trees and blackberry vines along the property boundaries. The site is occupied by
a residence, garage, and several out buildings that will be removed prior to development.
On the eastern side of the incised drainage, proposed improvements include 84 dwelling units in multiple
buildings, and about 153 parking spaces. A clubhouse structure is also planned in the eastern project
area. On the west side of the drainage, 24 dwelling units are planned in multiple buildings, and about 37
7312 SW Durham Road Tel (503) 598 -8445
Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 598 -8705
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
parking spaces will be constructed. A pedestrian and golf cart bridge is currently planned, connecting the
east and west development areas. Private driveways and underground utilities will also be constructed as
part of the project. All of the existing buildings will be removed prior to development. Proposed grading
is anticipated to include maximum cuts and fills on the order of 3 to 6 feet.
The apartment buildings will be three floors wood frame construction, concrete slab on grade with
conventional spread footings. The Clubhouse will be a single story wood frame with a framed floor over
a crawl space with conventional spread footings. The apartment building on S.W. Durham Road will
likely be a framed floor due the grades in that area.
SCOPE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZATION
A proposal for the performance of this geotechnical investigation was submitted by GeoPacific on March
15, 2004. Authorization for the work was subsequently given by the client. The scope of work
completed for the project was in general conformance with our March 15, 2004 proposal, and included
supplemental subsurface exploration, engineering analysis and preparation of this report.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical explorations on site were first conducted on December 23, 2002, for a previous
development concept. These explorations consisted of six exploratory test pits (TP -1 through TP-6) and
two exploratory borings (B -1 and B -2). Due to concerns regarding seismic stability, supplemental
explorations consisting of two cone penetrometer soundings (CPT -1 and CPT -2) were performed as part
of the current study.
EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
Backhoe test pits were excavated to depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the ground surface, using a medium
sized track- mounted excavator subcontracted to GeoPacific. The test pit locations are shown on Figure
2. The test pits were located in the field by pacing or taping distances from property corners and other
site features. As such, the locations of the explorations should be considered approximate. It should be
noted that certain portions of the site could not be explored using backhoe test pits, due to the presence of
existing buildings or heavily vegetated areas.
During excavation of the test pits, a GeoPacific geologist observed and recorded pertinent soil
information such as color, stratigraphy, strength, and soil moisture. Soils were classified in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Results of the exploration program are
shown on the summary test pit logs attached to this report.
At the completion of each test pit, the excavation was backfilled using the excavated soils, and tamped
with the backhoe bucket. This backfill should not be expected to behave as engineered fill and some
settling and/or erosion of the ground surface may occur.
EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) SOUNDINGS
Subsurface Technologies of Banks, Washington, performed geotechnical drilling under subcontract to
GeoPacific on December 23, 2002. Two boreholes were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling
methods. The borings were both terminated at depths of about 26 feet.
SPT (Standard Penetration Test) sampling was performed in the borings, in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586 using a 2 -inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler and a 140 -pound hammer equipped
04 -8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts OR 2 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
with a mechanically driven air clutch control cathead mechanism. During the test, a sample is obtained
by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a hammer free - falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance
( "N- value ") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of
penetration. If a total of 50 blows are recorded within a single 6 -inch interval, the test is terminated, and
• the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. This resistance, or
N- value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of
cohesive soils.
The borings were drilled under the full -time observation of GeoPacific personnel. Soil samples obtained
from the borings were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in relatively air -tight
plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination. Pertinent
information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater
occurrence was recorded. Soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
On March 18, 2004, two Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings, designated CPT -1 and CPT -2, were
advanced near the top of the existing slope to evaluate seismic stability issues. The borings and CPT
soundings were located approximately in the field by pacing distances from established site features and
plotted on the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2).
The CPT soundings were advanced by Subsurface Technologies with a 20 -ton, truck- mounted Cone
Penetrometer, to depths of 40.4 and 26 feet. Continuous tip resistance measurements were recorded and
correlated with equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N- values. Logs of the CPT soundings,
including interpreted soil behavior types and equivalent SPT N- values, are attached.
The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted
are only for the specific dates and locations reported, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of
other locations and times.
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING
The subject site lies within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound lowland, a broad structural depression
situated between the Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. A series of
discontinuous faults subdivide the Willamette Valley into a mosaic of fault - bounded, structural blocks
(Yeats et al., 1996). Uplifted structural blocks form bedrock highlands, while down - warped structural
blocks form sedimentary basins. The site is located in the east portion of the Portland Basin, a northwest-
southeast trending structural basin produced by broad regional down warping of the area. The Portland
Basin is filled with consolidated and unconsolidated continental, sedimentary rocks of late Miocene,
Pliocene and Pleistocene age. At least three major fault zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes
are known to exist in the vicinity of the subject site. These include the Gales Creek - Newberg -Mt. Angel
Structural Zone, the Portland Hills Fault Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone.
GALES CREEK — NEWBERG —MT. ANGEL STRUCTURAL ZONE
The Gales Creek - Newberg -Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50- mile -long zone of discontinuous, NW-
trending faults that lies about 12 miles southwest of the subject site. These faults are recognized in the
subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the
overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al., 1996; Werner et al., 1992). A recent geologic reconnaissance and
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 3 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04-8688
photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no
evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh et al., 1994). No seismicity
has been recorded on the Gales Creek or Newberg Faults (the faults closest to the subject site); however,
these faults are considered to be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active
Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner et al. 1992;
• Geomatrix Consultants, 1995).
PORTLAND HILLS FAULT ZONE
The Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW- trending faults that vertically displace the Columbia River
Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene (approx. 780,000 years)
sediment (Madin, 1990). The fault zone extends along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills for a
distance of 25 miles, and lies about 7 miles northeast of the subject site. No historical seismicity is
correlated with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake
occurred on a NW- trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although there is
no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is generally assumed to be
potentially active ( Geomatrix Consultants, 1995).
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE
The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680 - mile -long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust
of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4 cm per year
(Goldfinger et al., 1996). A growing body of geologic evidence suggests that prehistoric subduction zone
earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants,
1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the
coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami
wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4) geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast.
Radiocarbon dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone
earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992;
Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred seismogenic portion of the plate
interface lies 50 to 75 miles offshore or the Oregon coast, at depths of between 20 and 40 miles below the
surface.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following discussion is a summary of subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations. For
more detailed information regarding subsurface conditions at specific exploration locations, refer to the
attached exploration logs. Also, please note that subsurface conditions can vary between exploration
locations, as discussed in the Uncertainty and Limitations section below.
Soli
Our exploration program indicates that the site is underlain by topsoil, fill and interbedded silt and silty
sand belonging to the Catastrophic Flood Deposits. The observed conditions and soil properties are
summarized below.
Topsoil: Between 6 and 11 inches of topsoil were encountered in the exploratory test pits and borings. It
typically consisted of brown to grayish -brown silt with some clay and fine organic debris and roots.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 4 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
Fill: Fill was encountered in test pits TP -2 and TP -3. It generally consisted of silt with clay, and at
TP -3, construction debris such as concrete and asphaltic concrete fragments. The fill extended to depths
of about 4 and 0.9 feet in TP -2 and TP -3 respectively.
Catastrophic Flood Deposits: Underlying the topsoil and/or fill are the fine- grained facies of the
Catastrophic Flood Deposits. The Catastrophic Flood Deposits typically consisted of soft to stiff silt to
depths of about 14 to 15 feet. Below that depth, the silt was interbedded with intermittent layers of
medium stiff/medium dense sandy silt and silty sand. SPT N- values in the Catastrophic Flood Deposits
range from about 10 to greater than 50 and generally increased with depth.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at depths of between 17.5 and 19.5 feet in the two borings during drilling.
No groundwater was encountered in any of the test pits. The site soils were typically moist to a depth of
about 3 feet due to recent precipitation, and damp at greater depths. Groundwater conditions observed in
borehole explorations can be erratic because if often takes hours or even days for the groundwater
seepage to reach equilibrium; boreholes are typically only open a short time and the auger used to
advance the boreholes impedes groundwater seepage. The localized water table may actually be higher
than that indicated during the exploration program. The groundwater conditions reported above are for
the specific date and locations indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times
and/or locations. Furthermore, it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the
season, local subsurface conditions, changes in land use and other factors.
SLOPES
Maximum grades on the site are located within the incised drainage just south of Durham Road where
they are estimated to approach 50 percent. Grades along the incised drainage gradually decrease
downstream across the site. Based on our observations, a small landslide is present just downstream of
the culvert under Durham Road as a result of bank erosion by high stream flow. Originally, a Keystone-
type wall was constructed for downstream embankment protection along both sides of the culvert, but
erosion has subsequently undermined the base of the wall on the east side of the culvert and removed a
portion of the road embankment as well. In addition to erosion at the base of the wall, a portion of the
existing hillside beyond the wall has been sufficiently eroded as to initiate a small landslide (see
Figure 2. This slide is located about 20 feet north of the nearest proposed structure.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Results of this study indicate that the proposed improvements are geotechnically feasible, provided that
the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the
project. The proposed structures may be supported on shallow foundations bearing on competent native
soils or engineered fill prepared as recommended herein. Structures located near the top of the existing
slopes should have foundations constructed to maintain the recommended footing -to -slope setback.
Some strengthening of foundations adjacent to the slope, most likely consisting of additional reinforcing
steel bars, may also be recommended. The erosion and wall damage at the culvert outlet should be
repaired prior to or during site development. Adequate erosion control measures should be implemented
to provide adequate long -term protection for the wall and slope area.
Additional recommendations are presented below for slope stability, site preparation, removal of existing
fill, engineered fill, wet weather earthwork, structural foundations, drainage, permanent below -grade
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 5 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
walls, concrete slabs -on- grade, seismic design, excavating conditions and utility trenches, pavement
sections, and erosion control considerations.
SLOPE STABILITY
Topography on the site consists of moderately steep slopes with grades that range between about 25 and
50 percent. No surface evidence of "deep seated" slope failure was observed during our exploration of
the site, and no seeps or springs were found in our test pits. An existing landslide has been identified on
the east side of the drainage, just downstream of the culvert under Durham Road. This landslide can be
mitigated by removal and rock replacement. The replacement rock should consist of 4 -inch minus quarry
spalls or similar, compacted in place and re- graded to a slope inclination no steeper than 2H:1 V
(Horizontal:Vertical). We understand the City of Tigard may perform the stabilization work related to
the culvert. It is our opinion that adequate erosion protection should also be provided, for example by
placement of large rip -rap, to protect the area of the culvert outlet and the retaining wall for the long
term. Evaluation of storm water flows and scour potential are beyond the scope of this study.
Based on results of this study, we are of the opinion that slopes on site have a low potential for slope
failure other than minor sloughing and erosion. No remedial measures are recommended with the
exception of the area of the culvert outlet. It should be noted that this evaluation is based on limited
observation of surficial features, the subsurface exploration performed, and review of available geologic
literature. Review of regional stability, and numerical analysis of slope stability factors of safety, are
outside the scope of this study.
Residential structures on hillside lots require additional maintenance measures because they are subject
to natural slope processes such as runoff, erosion, shallow soil sloughing, soil creep, perched
groundwater, etc. An abbreviated checklist of common Do's and Don'ts recommended for maintaining
hillside residential structures is attached. This checklist should be provided to parties responsible for
maintaining the project post - construction. The primary measures include maintaining vegetation on the
slope face and protecting the slope from surface water runoff, to reduce the potential for minor sloughing
and erosion. Surface water should be controlled and under no circumstance should water be allowed to
flow uncontrolled over the slope face.
The recommended footing -to -slope setback distance is 15 feet, as discussed below in Structural
Foundations.
SITE PREPARATION
Proposed structure and driveway areas to receive fill should first be cleared of vegetation, loose debris,
and undocumented fill, and all debris from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic -rich
topsoil should be stripped from previously vegetated areas. The final depth of unsuitable soil removal
should be determined on the basis of a site inspection during construction. Stripped topsoil should be
stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by
GeoPacific. Existing subsurface structures (tile drains, old utility lines, etc.) beneath the site should be
removed and the excavations backfilled with engineered fill.
Once removal of unsuitable soil is approved, the area should be ripped or tilled to a depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned, and compacted in -place prior to the placement of engineered fill or crushed
aggregate base for pavement. Exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by GeoPacific. For large
areas, this evaluation is normally performed by proof - rolling the exposed subgrade with a fully loaded
scraper or dump truck. For smaller areas where access is restricted, the subgrade should be evaluated by
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 6 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
probing the soil with a steel probe. Soft/loose soils identified during subgrade preparation should be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition or over - excavated and replaced with engineered fill, as
described below. The depth of overexcavation, if required, should be evaluated by GeoPacific at the time
of construction.
REMOVAL OF EXISTING FILL
Limited areas underlain by existing fill were observed but few appeared extensive. These fills include a
gravel driveway, foundation, and landscaped area related to the existing residence. An additional fill
area was encountered in the northeastern portion of the site, which appears to be the result of small -scale
dumping of miscellaneous soil. Test Pit TP -2 encountered about 4 feet of undocumented fill, comprised
of brown silt with some clay. The fill was very moist, soft, and fragmented. No organic debris was
observed at the contact between the fill and native soil, and the fill appeared to have a limited lateral
distribution. Test pit TP -3, excavated 20 feet east of TP -2, found 10 inches of crushed rock over 14
inches of disturbed native soil on top of in -situ native light brown silt with some very fine sand.
ENGINEERED FILL
Grading for the proposed development should be performed as engineered grading in accordance with
Appendix 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) unless specifically superseded herein. In general, we
anticipate that soils from the planned cuts will be suitable for use as engineered fill provided it is
adequately moisture conditioned prior to compacting. Imported fill material should be approved by the
geotechnical engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size
should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter
should not be used in engineered fill.
Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction
equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry
density determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) or equivalent. On -site soils may be wet of
optimum. Therefore, we anticipate that aeration of native soil will be necessary for compaction
operations performed during late spring to early summer.
Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during
stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. Field density testing should conform to
ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. Engineered fill should be periodically observed and tested by the
project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically, one density test is performed for at least
every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd whichever requires more testing. Because testing is
performed on an on -call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually
responsible for test scheduling and frequency.
WET WEATHER EARTHWORK
The on -site soils are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction
equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed
under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet - weather season will probably require
expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the
recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet
weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, GeoPacific should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 7 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04-8688
Under wet weather, the construction area will unavoidably become wet and the condition of fill or native
soils exposed will degrade. To limit the impacts of wet weather on the finished building pad surface,
consideration may be given to placement of a crushed aggregate pad. Where used, we recommend the
working pad be constructed using l'/2"-0 crushed aggregate, and should have minimum thickness of at
least 12 inches. This thickness is considered adequate to support light construction traffic, but will not
be sufficient to support heavy traffic such as loaded dump trucks or other heavy rubber -tired equipment.
STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS
Based on our understanding of the proposed project and the results of our exploration program, and
assuming our recommendations for site preparation are followed, native deposits and/or engineered fill
soils will be encountered at the foundation level of the proposed structures. These soils are generally
medium stiff to stiff and should provide adequate support of the structural loads.
Shallow, conventional isolated or continuous spread footings may be used to support the proposed
structures, provided they are founded on competent native soils, or compacted engineered fill placed
directly upon the competent native soils. We recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of
1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for designing the footings. The recommended maximum allowable
bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short term transient conditions such as wind and seismic
loading. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade.
Minimum footing widths should be determined by the project engineer /architect in accordance with
applicable design codes.
The minimum recommended footing to slope setback is 15 feet, measured horizontally from competent
soils in the slope face to the outside edge of the nearest footing. Depending on local subsurface
conditions, deeper footings may be needed for structures near the top of the existing slope, in particular
in the northern portion of the site where the slopes are steepest and highest. Additional reinforcing steel
may also be recommended for footings and stem walls located near the existing slopes. Foundation
requirements for these structures should be evaluated during construction. Specific foundation
recommendations, and any additional geotechnical evaluations considered necessary for these structures,
should be presented in the report of geotechnical observation and testing at the completion of rough
grading.
Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended herein, and for the foundation loads anticipated,
we estimate total settlement of spread foundations of less than about 11/4 inch and differential settlement
between two adjacent load -bearing components supported on competent soil of less than about 3 /4 inch.
We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are
applied.
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structure to lateral forces.
Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding resistance of its base or footing
on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the buried portions of the structure. For use in
design, a coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the footing
and subgrade soils. Passive earth pressure for buried portions of structures may be calculated using an
equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming footings are cast against dense,
natural soils or engineered fill. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure
values do not include a safety factor. The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure
computations unless it is protected by pavement or slabs on grade.
04- 8688 .Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 8 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
Footing excavations should be trimmed neat and the bottom of the excavation should be carefully
prepared. All loose, wet or otherwise disturbed soil should be removed from the footing excavation prior
to placing reinforcing steel bars.
The above foundation recommendations are for dry weather conditions. Due to the high moisture
sensitivity of engineered fill and native soils anticipated on site, additional thicknesses of crushed rock
may be needed beneath footing foundations during wet weather. Appropriate recommendations can be
made for wet weather foundation construction, if needed during construction.
DRAINAGE
Surface water should be directed away from future structures and slopes. Roof drain water should be
directed to the driveways. Footing and retaining wall drains should be directed to the storm water
disposal system.
Given the depth to groundwater, footing drains are not required, but may be incorporated into
construction as a preventative measure. The footing drains will limit adverse effects of water on
foundations, but will not prevent all water from entering beneath slabs or crawlspaces. Where used,
footing drains should consist of 3 -inch diameter, perforated plastic pipe embedded in a minimum of 1 ft
per lineal foot of clean, free - draining sand and gravel or 2 "- Y2 drain rock. The drain pipe and
surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non -woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved
equivalent) to minimize the potential for clogging and/or ground loss due to piping. Water collected
from the footing drains should be directed into the local storm drain system or other suitable outlet. A
minimum 0.5 percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non - perforated pipe outlet.
Down spouts and roof drains should not be connected to the foundation drains in order to reduce the
potential for clogging and/or introduction of roof drain water into the subsurface. The footing drains
should include clean-outs to allow periodic maintenance and inspection.
PERMANENT BELOW —GRADE WALLS
Lateral earth pressures against below -grade retaining walls depend upon the inclination of the back -
slope, degree of wall restraint, type of backfill, method of backfill placement, degree of backfill
compaction, drainage provisions, and magnitude and location of any surcharge loads. At -rest soil
pressure is exerted on a subsurface wall when the wall is restrained against rotation. Such restraint may
be the result of an inherently stiff wall or if the wall is braced by rigid structural elements, such as a floor
system. In contrast, active soil pressure will be exerted on a subsurface wall if the top of the wall is
allowed to rotate or yield.
For this project, restrained walls should be designed using an at -rest earth pressure equivalent to that
generated by a fluid weighing 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If yielding walls are required, they should
be designed for an active earth pressure of 35 pcf. The above recommendations assume no adjacent
surcharge loading. If the walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal
distance less than the height of the wall, the walls should be designed for the surcharge loading, using a
suitable method.
The recommendations assume that drainage provisions, as described below, will be included in the
design of the walls. Accordingly, the recommended lateral earth pressures do not include hydrostatic
pressure.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 9 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
The lateral load resistance of retaining wall footings will be a combination of sliding resistance of the
footings on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the sides of the footings. The lateral
load resistance of retaining wall footings may be evaluated using the parameters recommended in the
Spread Foundations section.
During a seismic event, lateral earth pressures acting on below -grade structural walls will increase by an
incremental amount that corresponds to the earthquake loading. A concomitant decrease in passive earth
pressure also occurs. However, if at -rest earth pressures are used in design, a conservative structural
design that can readily accommodate the temporary seismic overloading conditions generally results.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the dynamic incremental pressures from earthquake loading may be
neglected if the below -grade structures are designed based on at-rest earth pressures.
Adequate drainage of below -grade walls is critical to long -term performance. For embedded structural
walls, we recommend prefabricated geosynthetic drain panels be placed behind the wall, extending the
full height of the wall. The drain panels should be Miradrain G 100N or an approved equivalent. These
drainage panels should be at least 12 inches wide and placed on 5 -foot centers.
Drainage at the base of the wall should consist of a minimum 3 -inch diameter perforated pipe,
surrounded in pea gravel. The prefabricated vertical drain sheets should be wrapped around the
perforated pipe. All water collected by the toe drains should be directed under control to a positive and
permanent discharge system such as the storm sewer. Perimeter footing drains as recommended in the
previous report section may be omitted where below -grade wall drains are present.
CONCRETE SLABS -ON -GRADE
Preparation of areas beneath concrete slab -on -grade floors should be performed as recommended in the
Site Preparation section. Prior to constructing concrete slabs -on- grade, if subgrade soils have been
adversely impacted by wet weather or otherwise disturbed, the surficial soils should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content,
and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density, determined using ASTM D1557 (Modified
Proctor). Scarification and compaction will not be required if floor slabs are placed directly on recently
placed engineered fill.
Concrete slab -on -grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. This recommendation is
based on geotechnical conditions only; structural considerations such as heavy, concentrated loads may
dictate thicker floor slabs. Where concrete slabs are designed as beams on an elastic foundation, the
compacted subgrade may be assumed to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 85 pounds per cubic
inch.
Interior slab -on -grade floors should be provided with an adequate moisture break. The capillary break
material should consist of free - draining, crushed rock or well - graded sand and gravel, with a maximum
particle size of 3 /4 inch, with no more than 80 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 5 percent fines
(material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve). For dry- weather construction, the minimum
recommended thickness of capillary break materials is 8 inches. The total thickness of crushed aggregate
will be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction, and should be verified visually
by proof - rolling. Under -slab aggregate should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D1557 or equivalent.
In areas where moisture will be detrimental to floor coverings or equipment inside the proposed
structures, a 10 -mil polyethylene vapor barrier should be placed directly over the capillary break. An
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 10 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
approximately 2 -inch thick layer of sand should be placed over the vapor barrier to protect it from
damage, to aid in curing of the concrete, and also to help prevent cement from bleeding down into the
underlying capillary break materials. Consideration may be given to providing additional or alternate
protection to reduce the potential for damp floors and damage to moisture - sensitive flooring, including
the following:
• Maintain a slab water cement ratio of 0.42 or less utilizing mid -range plasticizers.
• Thicken the rock subgrade to a minimum of 12 inches and utilize clean rock with no more
than 2% fines.
• Slope the subgrade soil away from the center of the slab at an approximate gradient of 1 %.
• Apply a moisture intrusion barrier on the slab (Preseal, Creteseal or approved equivalent) to
the surface of the concrete while curing.
Moisture barrier products should be installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The
building should be complete and the HVAC system operating for a period of time during wet - weather
before moisture - sensitive flooring is applied. This time period should be long enough to allow the vapor
gradient within and below the building to stabilize and obtain acceptable slab moisture content.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Site Seismicity
The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3, as defined in Chapter 16, Division IV of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). Seismic Zone 3 includes the western portion of Washington, and represents an
area of relatively high seismic risk. For comparison, much of California and southern Alaska are defined
as Seismic Zone 4, which is an area of highest seismic risk. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake
shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the proposed improvements, and the structures
should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described in the
1997 UBC. Frankel et al. (1997) assign a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration to the site area of 0.19g,
for a seismic event having a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years ( "500- year" earthquake).
Based on our subsurface exploration, the soil profile within the limits of our explorations may generally
be characterized using Soil Profile Type SD, as defined by Table 16 -J of the 1997 Uniform Building
Code. It is our opinion that a reasonable design approach would be to use the UBC C. and C„ factors for
Soil Type SD to develop normalized response spectra for the site. Developing site - specific response
spectra is outside the scope of the current study. In the event this information is needed for design,
GeoPacific should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Soil Liquefaction Potential
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave
as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose, granular
soils located below the water table. Primary factors controlling the development of liquefaction include
intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of subsurface soil, in -situ stress
conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 1 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
We estimated soil liquefaction potential for the CPT soundings conducted for the current study.
The CPT data were analyzed using the methodology of Seed and Idriss (1983). We assumed seismicity
parameters consistent with the discussion of the previous section, for the "500- year" design earthquake
event discussed above. The commercial computer code LiquefyPro4 was used for our liquefaction
analysis. For the purposes of liquefaction analyses, we conservatively assumed groundwater at 12.5 feet
below ground surface elevation.
Results of the liquefaction potential evaluations are attached as Figures 3 and 4. The analysis indicates
no zones of potentially liquefiable soils. Therefore, it is our opinion that no special design or
construction provisions are needed to mitigate the effects of soil liquefaction on the project.
Seismic Induced Settlements
Settlement of the ground surface may occur as a result of earthquake shaking, particularly in conjunction
with the occurrence of soil liquefaction. It has long been recognized that sands tend to settle and densify
when subjected to earthquake shaking. Procedures for estimating probable seismically- induced
settlements within saturated sand deposits have been suggested by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). This
methodology is most applicable to clean sands, and yields conservative results when applied to silty or
gravelly soils.
Using the methodology of Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), we estimated seismic - induced settlements at the
site. For the purpose of this evaluation, we used estimated ground motions for the design earthquake.
We estimated seismic- induced settlements for the non - liquefied soil layers, as well as saturated and
unsaturated soil zones. Results of these analyses are attached. Using the Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)
methodology, less than V. inch of seismic - induced settlement is indicated for the CPT soundings.
Based on this evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed structures may undergo some limited ground
movement during the design seismic event. However, the estimated magnitudes of movement are no
greater than settlements typically estimated for static conditions. Therefore, in our opinion, no special
design measures are needed at this site to mitigate the potential effects of seismic- induced settlement.
Other Secondary Seismic Impacts
Other potential seismic impacts include lateral spreading, fault rupture potential, and other hazards as
discussed below:
• Lateral Spreading — Lateral spreads involve down -slope movement of large volumes of
liquefied soil. Often, layers of non - liquefied soils overlying the liquefied material are also
translated down- slope. Lateral spreads generally develop on moderate to gentle slopes, and
move toward a free face such as a river bank. Given the non - liquefiable nature of site soils,
it is our opinion that the lateral spreading risk at the site is low.
• Fault Rupture Potential — Based on our review of available geologic literature, we are not
aware of any mapped active (demonstrating movement in the last 10,000 years) faults on the
site. During our field investigation, we did not observe any evidence of surface rupture or
recent faulting. Therefore, we conclude that the potential for fault rupture on site is very
low.
• Seismic Induced Landslide — Site grades range from gentle, to moderately to steeply
sloping above the incised drainage. The potential for slope instability and seismic induced
landslide on site is considered low to moderate.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 12 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
• Effects of Local Geology and Topography — In our opinion, no additional seismic hazard
will occur due to local geology or topography. The site is expected to have no greater
seismic hazard than surrounding properties and the Tigard area in general.
EXCAVATING CONDITIONS AND UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
We anticipate that on -site soils can be excavated using conventional heavy equipment such as scrapers
and trackhoes. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the
• responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be
determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts
in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Heath
Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The existing native soils classify
as Type B Soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1H:1V may be assumed for
planning purposes. This cut slope inclination is applicable to excavations above the water table only.
Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of
excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the
contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed
structural improvements.
PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321. We
recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density
obtained by Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thick nesses for a 3 /. "-0
crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying
flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is
used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate- compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may
be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large
vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and
improvements due to the potential for vibration- induced damage.
Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended
relative compaction is achieved. Typically, one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill
on each 200 - lineal -foot section of trench.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Table 1 presents our recommended minimum pavement section. For design purposes, we used an
estimated R -value of 10 for compacted native soil. The recommendations presented in Table 1 were
formulated using traffic indices of 5.0 for driveways and 4.0 for parking areas, the Crushed Base
• Equivalent (CBE) method and an assumed design period of 20 years.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 13 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
Table 1- Recommended Minimum Dry- Weather Pavement Section
Layer Thickness (inches)
Material La Automobile Automobile Compaction Standard
Drivewa Pa rking Areas
Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 2.5 91% of Rice Density
AASHTO T -209
Crushed Aggregate Base 3 /4 " -0 2 2 95% of Modified Proctor
(leveling course) ASTM D1557
Crushed Aggregate Base 1' /2 "-0 8 8 95% of Modified Proctor
ASTM D1557
Recommended Subgrade 12 12 95% of Standard Proctor
or approved native
In the above pavement section alternatives, the 3 /4 "-0 crushed aggregate base may be used in lieu of
1 %z "-0 crushed aggregate base. This may enhance the constructability of the pavement sections, since the
base course could be placed in a single lift of 3 /4 "-0 crushed rock.
Native soil subgrade in pavement areas should be ripped or tilled to a minimum depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned, and recompacted in -place to at least 95 percent of ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor)
or equivalent. In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof - rolling directly on subgrade
with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that
pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during
wet weather, GeoPacific should review subgrade at the time of construction so that condition specific
recommendations can be provided. Wet - weather pavement construction is likely to require soil
amendment, or geotextile fabric and an increase in base course thickness.
During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify
compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one AC
compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving.
The pavement sections recommended in Table 1 are for typical volumes of automobile traffic. Heavy
truck traffic will reduce the design life of the pavements and may lead to inadequate pavement
performance. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated, GeoPacific should be contacted for additional
pavement design recommendations based on the traffic volumes expected.
EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
• During our field exploration program, we did not observe soil types that would be considered highly
susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the primary concern regarding erosion potential will occur during
construction, in areas that have been stripped of vegetation. Erosion at the site during construction can
be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan, which should include judicious use of
straw bales and silt fences. If used, these erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place
throughout site preparation and construction.
Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re- vegetating exposed
areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and
exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate and/or temporary protection
against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 14 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or
hydroseeded with an approved seed - mulch - fertilizer mixture.
UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the owner and his/her consultants for use in design of this project only.
This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating
purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as
• a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can
vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may
not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are
encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, GeoPacific should be notified for
review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary.
Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by explorations. The
checklist attached to this report outlines recommended geotechnical observations and testing for the
project. Recommendations for design changes will be provided should conditions revealed during
construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction
comply with the contract plans and specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, GeoPacific attempted to execute these services in
accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical
engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or
implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations
regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water,
or groundwater at this site.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
t PRO/4
Sincerely,
GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
‘14.k tATi
4111 41 c 110
c G' 414FR 2% �.` te—CA C
mil V�
Scott L. Hardman, P.E. ' 1.. t 1AR
Principal Engineer
MIRES: 06 • + `f
Attachments: References
Checklist of Recommended Geotechnical Testing and Observation
Figure 1— Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 3 — Liquefaction Analysis — CPT -1
Figure 4 — Liquefaction Analysis — CPT -2
Maintenance of Hillside Homesites
Test Pit Logs TP -1 through TP-6
Boring Logs B -1 and B -2
Cone Penetrometer Sounding Logs CPT -1 and CPT -2
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 15 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
REFERENCES
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, Vol. 97, p. 1901 -1919.
Carver, G.A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists -SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May, 1992.
Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson and M.
Hopper, 1997, Seismic - Hazard Maps for the Counterminous United States, Map A — Peak Horizontal
Acceleration with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, U.S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 97- 131 -A.
Geomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report.
Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R.S., Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996, Active
strike -slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction -Zone plate boundary and forearc in
central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific
Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 223 -256.
Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open -File Report 0 -90 -2, scale 1:24,000, 22 p.
Peterson, C.D., Darioenzo, 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 Geology, Vol. 55, p. 99 -144.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field
Performance Data, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. GT03, March.
Seed, H.B., K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder and R.M. Chung, 1985, Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil
Liquefaction Resistance Evaluation, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12,
pp. 1425 -1445.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861 -878.
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.
Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the
Willamette Valley, Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific
Northwest, Vol. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183 -222, 5 plates, scale
1:100,000.
Yelin, T.S., 1992, An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills (Oregon): More speculations on the
seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v.
24, no. 5, p. 92.
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 1 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
April 29, 2004
GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688
CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION
Item Procedure Timing By Whom Done
No.
1 Preconstruction meeting Prior to beginning site Contractor, Developer, Civil
work and Geotechnical Engineers
2 Unsuitable fill removal During removal Soil Technician
Density testing of engineered fill During filling, tested
3 (90% of Modified Proctor) every 2 vertical or Soil Technician
500 yd
4 Under -slab base rock Prior to placing vapor
(95% of Modified Proctor) barrier or steel Soil Technician
Footing Excavations / Prior to placement of
5 Overexcavations crushed rock / setting Geotechnical Engineer
forms
Density testing of trench backfill During bacldilling, tested
6 (95% of Standard Proctor) every 4 vertical feet for Soil Technician
every 200 lineal feet
Pavement subgrade compaction
7 (95% Standard Proctor Prior to base course Soil Technician
or approved native) placement
8 Base course compaction Prior to paving, tested Soil Technician
(95% of Modified Proctor) every 200 lineal feet
AC Compaction During paving, tested
9 (91% of Rice — Base lift) every 200 lineal feet Soil Technician
(92% of Rice — Top lift)
10 Final Geotechnical Engineer's Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer
Letter
04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 17 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
GeoPacific Engineering, Inc.
7312 SW Durham Road
Portland, Oregon 97224 • Tel (503) 598 -8445
MAINTENANCE OF HILLSIDE HOMESITES
All homes require a certain level of maintenance for general upkeep and to preserve the overall integrity of structures and
land. Hillside homesites require some additional maintenance because they are subject to natural slope processes, such
as runoff, erosion, shallow soil sloughing, soil creep, perched groundwater, etc. If not properly controlled, these
processes could adversely affect your or neighboring properties. Although surface processes are usually only capable of
causing minor damage, if left unattended, they could possibly lead to more serious instability problems.
_ The primary source of problems on hillsides is uncontrolled surface water runoff and blocked groundwater seepage which
can erode, saturate and weaken soil. Therefore, it is important that drainage and erosion control features be implemented
on the property, and that these features be maintained in operative condition (unless changed on the basis of qualified
professional advice). By employing simple precautions, you can help properly maintain your hillside site and avoid most
potential problems. The following is an abbreviated list of common Do's and Don'ts recommended for maintaining hillside
horesites.
Do List
1. Make sure that roof rain drains are connected to the street, local storm drain system, or transported via enclosed
conduits or lined ditches to suitable discharge points away from structures and improvements. In no case, should rain
drain water be discharged onto slopes or in an uncontrolled manner. Energy dissipation devices should be employed
at discharge points to help prevent erosion.
2. Check your roof drains, gutters and spouts to make sure that they are clear. Roofs are capable of producing a
substantial flow of water. Blocked gutters, etc., can cause water to pond or run off in such a way that erosion or
adverse oversaturation of soil can occur.
3. Make sure that drainage ditches and /or berms are kept clear throughout the rainy season. If you notice that a
neighbor's ditches are blocked such that water is directed onto your property or in an uncontrolled manner, politely
inform them of this condition.
4. Locate and check all drain inlets, outlets and weep holes from foundation footings, retaining walls, driveways, etc. on a
regular basis. Clean out any of these that have become clogged with debris.
5. Watch for wet spots on the property. These may be caused by natural seepage or indicate a broken or leaking water
or sewer line. In either event, professional advice regarding the problem should be obtained followed by corrective
action, if necessary.
6. Do maintain the ground surface adjacent to lined ditches so that surface water is collected in the ditch. Water should
not be allowed to collect behind or flow under the lining.
Don't List
1. Do not change the grading or drainage ditches on the property without professional advice. You could adversely alter
the drainage pattern across the site and cause erosion or soil movement.
2. Do not allow water to pond on the property. Such water will seep into the ground causing unwanted saturation of soil.
3. Do not allow water to flow onto slopes in an uncontrolled manner. Once erosion or oversaturation occurs, damage can
result quickly or without warning.
4. Do not let water pond against foundations, retaining walls or basements. Such walls are typically designed for fully -
drained conditions.
5. Do not connect roof drainage to subsurface disposal systems unless approved by a geotechnical engineer.
6. Do not irrigate in an unreasonable or excessive manner. Regularly check irrigation systems for leaks. Drip systems
are preferred on hillsides.
--� ' 7312 SW Durham Road viciNr a MAP
GP`irQP . Portland, Oregon 97224
r ; ! • Engineering. Mc. T: 503.598.8445 F: 503.598.8705 if
9 / . 1, .. ' r .. „ � r�. \ j .. \ i',,„. � • �Y; -- ^ F,,,, +r+.... \ . ' e � '1 4., „. ° Z. - % { � , .- _. 4 . 9 . \. 3 I I r •
kr `�'t t ' i . ., t I.T., -.:.. ;► / ,1 . . Y, ',, . . l _ � .. , �. • » '1 , , - 3 7 " r
i � ' 4 M 1 II' ` / " v p 2 9 i
IFS ,t. f , S` l 4 OiA . � ` ' • s� ' � . " 1 Aso F • } pp r d 3.....‘ \ P + if "[ r I i }} ♦ t y ,q� 4 • ♦ • � ■ • i .t l �A •
��_ } OFf r �aff 1-- 1,11 , ' 8 , r .' � 'I ! •` r Z .•,'' V'' } r
• '` i t.,r f .; ,t,„:11.-,...,, a J } kl � z -: •' • * 4 . .. x' i C'>
` r I ..; 1 + t r ,.. ° _ t '� 1 . <r ' - r . ,� tie. 3 {.
%/�tf + 1 a + t I i / q t r ' _ ' L 1 c f ' f w .10
rr �r -��
• • _.,v„ ` V ,r- 1 A .. .. .� . ! i 1 v- An y • / �� : (�' r A' •'^ �� t..,,%_._.1_5--',,...a..
^`
k , 1 � .
;nr ! • 1 '1 4 , ; s' .•, ' , V�.s:.t ` . t -..,. • a � • - ; , . ,, , i* ' r �� ' - , •
1 , 1 ! � r i t i 1 i . r = / • i , s ' : vi • • ,s t Y ' . .7_ __._.4_.,4i4•14., � ` p . >_ i f , 1. y \ . t. rr _ t •' ,err' , Y ./S i _ `r } o• '>..j? f . • =, _'g f 111 t � r . • �� +� = ✓t � X ,_:-._,....Ti �TW Y Se. " .�c , .' PN`'•Y L�
,,,
V i • "Jr . - • 1� F 7 .' t . r • • .. 4 r ¢ :r ' :v xK •*� . . { .
+ 1 t .`� t - rr /:: .I lit 4/ 11 �!• •: � e yp, ` , - ` ^ . , , . J \n _ 11 I i . . 4,- n /, t ,, '� ,. \`• 404 f ` . --' a f ' ' f' if t rl ` * 'r , � � l .� ♦ 1 a v ,O . y ; ,. ay c f , 4 ti
• ii •
"
t w, , , • t.� 1 - _ t'+ F >, 141. fix '4, r
m! F. "' , : ` 1 .141 . ':1 `lf r F • �r , r - . ,i . F t v J, , . -...
a....� tie•
i. + _ , -• , � " fr' r. 1 SUBJEC SITE _ U ' .., 1. ,) ■ .:
r.
.r s*p t Y ' ra r � `
lit 1
e ..., - :. it -! , pl I 1 , } ,• A 7 . _. - ._...� , iw. q ,,f / i
- t • • • l ...
• it . u . . _ r i -~ 1 . ; � I � , (� �y gg
i b I F '
..�ti. l Treller L � ' � 1 �� . i l Ail
T Apt-
•Ir , P 4(...". • ', • f .s r -t.: r •" ; y 1 . j " \. j'S l ii ' b d : 4 ,
,. _ .. 1 1
.:G _ • 'k . '. . 111 I � V :. c pi $ ?
h j{ pp
e � l
:.. r ..- 1 81.1 •oy� /r' _ • "�,•• 1. O. O 1 { - l �d - Y ' 1 } 4
•
j �� �o' • a t i ', i ,� !ro : i �• " I I U AT IN ` r
° F 111
�I� c„ ' C&O Y cI-uB NORTH
` p �. . i l l n 1 . .
q
� 1 d ' 1 . -' Fail . " — "'P CJFsC ,
', , 2 -
t
s W '23 7, 1 I '
Legend Date: 01/27/03
Approximate Scale 1 in = 2,000 ft Drawn by: EJK
Base map: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Topographic Map Series, Beaverton, Oregon Quadrangle, 1961 (Revised 1984)
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments
Tigard, Oregon
I Project No. 04 - 8688 I FIGURE 1
■••••■•11=11
N
11.1
W
. CD
---- .. ,
. \ .- • —
t„,—.4.-„,................„;..„—.-1-...-..-4 - lir•aa-'te-nrm*..., .... — ....- -Neor-um
w_pu Rog) •... ....,
...._ ___• , ;
,
01•••■■••• f• •••14 0 MM. er/0/...11.1.. •••••• . ■Nra • amor a ik.......i..
• (COLLECTOR SREET) '
........ ...............
1 . i ' , ..... - - .. . ... ..,
4... • 'Sanaa _ • " -
ov 7 - ,.. :: ,: ..... x.... C......r.i •
..,..
.... i
_.....
• ...0....... . $ 0 / 0
. . . . . -
. C
Ifil a a 1 SO Ili IRIV1 . . v art ' 0 41r illii;i1.11.0;71;111.11 .. . ' iii 11110 iiiii.01011111011 ....: . . , . :,..... .."c"."1" . 151411■150,160110 ........ . . ,.., ....Ili lit... ,... ... . .. , \ . . , .....11 re 6 . flii 0. . . ..0 , a)
.... ..........•• .... -........ ....... =
Hi
Ai ..-- ..'
1 / .. ... .......,
. - -- , .- • - .. "' .-------.,,,'. .,- -,...- ........ 1,.. ‘ ). - ii
. ' .7* '.4e.;:-.-.:;:k " '''' 4 .. - .... . ,--' t '. '.. ' s • . : / .
. ..
..5 g
, - • ,,, • - • ..• •••-•••.' • • , ,
, .:. co
.... 1 • . --- . •• , ..•••••„.•_-.:- •...... ‘
- .• •••••• • ;,./.• i - -1.--:' . ,. . • .,, / . (:, • ,.. NI o2 co
• ' a) o (.0
...„
'l. . '/t.: • 4.4- -'‘ 2 co
/4 * / • .0 ,... - ... - • : ..„ • • i ,.• .,.., .- ..,, . :
.. ... ,..,,,. .. • A ,A A,......". t• ,
/
1- P: 4
i 1 ' r ' / • .. a -... :. .0);E:.• ..- ,
, ... , / ... . .
• .. .... . ,... e ,ii s' •///...-.. • ' ../417 1.4• ' - 4 , • ' r • i r■ 1 . 1 /-'4'.... •
. .
• , -.Y R3 f p
I 1 / /
. . .. . .. .... i i AL 1 ! • , ,, cr " CU ... Cp d
I.viri/ :5' ,' ''.../ ' 0.7./*.:/,,,, , . : . . 411)
•,, . , . ,
, -..* ,...,.„ ./" ...,. ..• . ,„, :.. !.... ... .. .
i /
, :itit‘ ,,. , • ...../., .,,,......:, . / ; 4 J.' I / :••'•••• ' • : . t.• - , j.'• '.. ' . • • -
/
' / ; ,..? /". . . . : "(••.::: . ' /. • . . . • ii 1.1 1/*/7 1 • . " I • ' • 4bWillie . i W.) W.)
II
. '' a IN t • // . • ''' h. /
W ...... 4 , I• /..••••:•;.• .• . It C... • , 2 2
.. ' / . - • z .,• • .,..... ...••• ...--. 4.-- .......e: v. pt.' * • t ` .'. ?. 11
b
.„ .
.. • • ' :: 141 N
• , -- • .,..efomm.......,
i
I ...r . -- ....,.--- • , I / •
1 i ' ' ..° ' ' • ' . - • a. . :... ..
.. . .. . • o
. . .-'.! ! —Tit r-
, / / , • 1 i
/ - 9 . 1 4'.. 0
0: Cd
- : 0
I • . i , • • Ibil • i .
< f r .
• ...0 A ;
C..) 1 , .
.... . ' Mir.
. .,. ..
.. . . . . . . ...
• • ..../ :
.
L.r)
W • .' .1 / ? .. . .. - 0 -a . •
A CO CV
H / • Cl3
/ . \ 0
, CV
.... LL
1; W N
0)
5 <-
I i - - \
. i
: . E '4
o o n................. „
w
o_ ! semiisemossalsommaeasa......... saineeemmeir essmosmosero...•:+111111111**•111M SIMI OM IM• SOWS, / . /
1 .... / I (l) •
3- • 4111.14.03. • 334.3S, • rt a 0 CD
<
Ii (r)
- 0 - c•
1 1 u) c c)
co in
co 0 a)
I fia
Ct
1
. saS:\111613.1
ir ..
• .
. , .
. ,
0 v..... z. . 0
• e _ 3
C ° S = I `;;1"
°'
�o` 3c6 LL
a1)
0 tom Y
Q • _
CO �o-
CO
>" C
J y —
Q c -
Z0 ce
Q g CD
•
Z Q - t in
o
O I
mew N
V il
F- - m o
Q 0
Y c Ni c I
LL D m
W Q
Z
0 a - U y
a ,.
0,.
t
J `� m N
my z
o a U 0 d
ti
„ e 8888888888888888888888$ 888888888888888888888888888888888R RR8888R8888888888888888888888 88888888888888888888 ''
H ' C $924$$ ffi$ 0$ 2$$ 22882224 2222 9222222299222,..,,,,,,,,....,,, RR 92RRRR822228 888
� $$$$4 2 $9 °�'.° V tr
Z 3
CD �, §aeka$ Dade 5��itk� ?$��s�a�aeo��iRl�a i
O 21:
12 O ' `s :lr :n s€'a's^ , .2g: minatonainsaaviRI �F f�finizi9ia7tiil�33 inigalhi dR1liz-r -- aania:4t92'ai61�rali tImin:z:^RNy'� ..
^ O b O , N N en vi
OT2 cpt -l.sum
***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET
version 4.3
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltech.com
(425) 453 -6488 Fax (425) 453 -5848
***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Licensed to Scott L. Hardman, P.E., GeoPacific Engineering, Inc.
4/28/2004 11:02:41 AM
Input File Name: D: \LiquefyFiles \OT2 cpt -l.liq
Title: Oak Tree 2 Apartments
Subtitle: Amax =0.19, 5% in 50 years
Surface Elev.=
Hole No. =CPT -1
Depth of Hole= 40.3 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 12.5 ft
Water Table during In -Situ Testing= 17.5 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.19 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.0
fs =1, Plot one CSR (fs =1)
Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce =1
Borehole Diameter, Cb =1
Sampeling Method, Cs =1
CPT Calulation Method: Seed et al.
Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu / Seed
Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss /Seed (SPT only)
Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liq. Correction
Average Input Data: Smooth*
* Recommended Options
Input Data:
Depth qc fc Gamma Fines D50
ft tsf tsf pcf % mm
0.3 11.6 0.3 105.0 80.0 0.0
0.7 40.3 1.0 115.0 80.0 0.0
1.0 32.2 1.1 110.0 80.0 0.0
1.3 23.6 1.2 110.0 80.0 0.0
1.6 13.9 0.9 105.0 80.0 0.0
2.0 12.3 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
2.3 11.6 0.7 105.0 80.0 0.0
2.6 12.8 0.6 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.0 12.9 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.3 14.0 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.6 10.7 0.5 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.9 9.5 0.5 100.0 80.0 0.0
4.3 9.7 0.6 100.0 80.0 0.0
4.6 11.9 0.6 105.0 80.0 0.0
4.9 12.3 0.7 105.0 80.0 0.0
5.3 12.6 0.7 105.0 80.0 0.0
5.6 14.2 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
5.9 12.2 0.6 105.0 80.0 0.0
6.2 19.1 0.5 105.0 80.0 0.0
6.6 25.9 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
Page 1
c-_-(1.).-v.‘
OT2 cpt -1.sum
6.9 24.5 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
7.2 25.5 0.6 110.0 80.0 0.0
7.6 25.0 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
7.9 20.5 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
8.2 35.3 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
8.5 33.9 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
8.9 29.3 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
9.2 29.8 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
9.5 32.3 0.9 110.0 80.0 0.0
9.8 28.0 1.0 110.0 80.0 0.0
10.2 22.3 0.7 110.0 80.0 0.0
10.5 24.6 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
• 10.8 32.3 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
11.1 30.3 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
11.5 30.6 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
11.8 37.3 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
12.1 36.9 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
12.5 32.6 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
12.8 31.6 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
13.1 33.3 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
13.4 25.8 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
13.8 30.1 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
14.1 30.5 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
14.4 32.7 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
14.8 41.9 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.1 45.4 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.4 45.9 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.8 44.2 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1
16.1 37.5 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
16.4 34.3 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
16.7 26.8 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
17.1 38.4 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
17.4 44.9 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1
17.7 44.5 0.8 115.0 50.0 0.1
18.0 46.5 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1
18.4 55.4 1.3 115.0 50.0 0.1
18.7 60.3 1.1 115.0 30.0 0.1
19.0 130.4 1.4 120.0 30.0 0.1
19.4 78.0 1.7 120.0 30.0 0.1
19.7 62.8 3.5 115.0 80.0 0.0
20.0 62.8 3.3 115.0 80.0 0.0
20.3 104.9 3.1 120.0 50.0 0.1
20.7 112.5 2.8 120.0 50.0 0.1
21.0 95.9 3.3 120.0 30.0 0.1
21.3 124.9 2.5 120.0 50.0 0.1
21.6 86.6 3.2 120.0 50.0 0.1
22.0 53.5 0.8 115.0 50.0 0.1
22.3 33.0 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
22.6 26.7 1.2 110.0 80.0 0.0
23.0 22.1 0.9 110.0 80.0 0.0
23.3 17.1 0.6 105.0 80.0 0.0
23.6 11.0 0.2 105.0 80.0 0.0
24.0 13.1 0.1 105.0 80.0 0.0
24.3 7.2 0.0 100.0 80.0 0.0
24.6 7.3 0.0 100.0 80.0 0.0
24.9 9.7 0.3 100.0 50.0 0.1
25.3 28.9 0.2 110.0 50.0 0.1
25.6 30.6 0.3 110.0 50.0 0.1
25.9 25.2 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
26.3 21.6 0.4 110.0 50.0 0.1
26.6 25.1 0.3 110.0 50.0 0.1
26.9 23.2 0.3 110.0 50.0 0.1
27.2 11.3 0.3 105.0 80.0 0.0
Page 2
OT2 cpt -1.sum
27.6 7.6 0.0 100.0 80.0 0.0
27.9 16.0 0.3 105.0 80.0 0.0
28.2 19.6 0.6 105.0 50.0 0.1
28.5 32.4 0.3 110.0 50.0 0.1
28.9 26.3 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
29.2 25.4 0.4 110.0 50.0 0.1
29.5 27.6 0.4 110.0 50.0 0.1
29.9 21.4 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
30.2 28.7 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
30.5 34.4 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
30.8 36.0 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
31.2 35.6 0.4 110.0 50.0 0.1
• 31.5 27.8 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
31.8 31.4 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1
32.2 24.3 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
32.5 20.6 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
32.8 22.0 0.3 110.0 80.0 0.0
33.1 17.1 0.4 105.0 50.0 0.1
33.5 17.8 0.2 105.0 50.0 0.1
33.8 28.0 0.3 110.0 50.0 0.1
34.1 32.4 0.4 110.0 50.0 0.1
34.5 42.7 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
34.8 42.6 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
35.1 39.2 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
35.4 52.2 0.7 115.0 30.0 0.1
35.8 50.6 0.9 115.0 30.0 0.1
36.1 50.2 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1
36.4 50.6 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1
36.8 51.2 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1
37.1 58.6 1.0 115.0 30.0 0.1
37.4 64.0 1.1 115.0 30.0 0.1
37.7 70.0 1.1 115.0 30.0 0.1
38.1 80.8 1.5 120.0 30.0 0.1
38.4 70.6 1.8 115.0 30.0 0.1
38.7 64.5 1.2 115.0 30.0 0.1
39.0 65.6 1.0 115.0 30.0 0.1
39.4 77.5 0.9 120.0 30.0 0.1
39.7 80.3 1.5 120.0 30.0 0.1
40.0 67.3 1.5 115.0 50.0 0.1
40.3 61.6 1.5 115.0 50.0 0.1
Output Results:
Settlement of saturated sands =0.00 in.
settlement of dry sands =0.01 in.
Total settlement of saturated and dry sands =0.01 in.
Differential Settlement=0.005 to 0.007 in.
Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry Sall
ft w /fs in. in. in.
0.30 0.26 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
1.30 0.39 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
2.30 0.25 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
3.30 0.26 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
4.30 0.22 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
5.30 0.24 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
6.30 0.30 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
7.30 0.33 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
8.30 0.40 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
9.30 0.35 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.30 0.29 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11.30 0.33 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3
Vrkc;- 3
OT2 cpt -1.sum
12.30 0.35 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13.30 0.31 0.12 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
14.30 0.32 0.13 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.30 0.40 0.13 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.30 0.32 0.14 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00
17.30 0.36 0.14 2.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
18.30 0.42 0.14 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.30 0.59 0.15 4.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.30 0.77 0.15 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21.30 0.97 0.15 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22.30 0.29 0.16 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.30 0.22 0.16 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.30 0.18 0.16 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.30 0.27 0.16 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
26.30 0.24 0.17 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
27.30 0.19 0.17 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
28.30 0.24 0.17 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
29.30 0.25 0.17 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
30.30 0.27 0.17 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
31.30 0.27 0.17 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
32.30 0.23 0.17 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00
33.30 0.21 0.17 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.30 0.29 0.17 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
35.30 0.33 0.17 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00
36.30 0.34 0.17 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
37.30 0.34 0.17 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
38.30 0.39 0.17 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
39.30 0.39 0.17 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
40.30 0.39 0.17 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
* F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)
Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit weight =
pcf, Settlement = in.
CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils
CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S. = CRRm /CSRfs
S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from dry sands
S_all Total settlement from saturated and dry sands
NoLiq No- Liquefy Soils
Page 4
■6 - 3 c&%•=1*-1
H C �- i� Mr
H m - � L.
CD
4.• G E _ o
CD e -
C.) m I-
Q
4:C o -
\.\-.
o
NMI
J y —
Q ^ � , L
Z ^ a)
L
Z Q. _ .__
pa O
Nom N `�
m _ ai
r
E.
-E. o
-be �i a R
ti
W I�
w
C.
Cif L-
ce
c
J 1 W
N V
m n [r m
N 0 ° cY t
U
F ` y a
V '882E22sm222msm222sx2$ 222x$822$s8S82222Ss22S22SR �SSMSMRgiig82882RRVVIIRS8S2 0
II , C $gggggggggggggo o G VV coo 00os000 00000000N00 Ooogoh.n.,nom.Nn00000 NNNO0NYf00oo.nooONOfl00o
2 j3
0 $ Rid =EggliDUVR MPilimi oc « �� �
am a o gliaalFgWinlfg5FEEE R =igid��' lih�e��4Eji
O
41
. � ooc oo � cc �
ccococcocoocc oo ocoo_ ��_ 000 o oo
000>�00000000c. c
.= � ccco
0
m U ry.r....arw -tats rry y K ��pA ,C.1.1. tp mN .?. -N.? mom NNNr W-, twr. 'N..: N.R.CN N.P.1.1m ♦ i � , v ♦ o� y n � N7o! N
( W
a ZT N�� ^ AWN teNNN=M - VlIgARgIV�PRASP,FP, �: 2 8 ==.1 :13$7: ur.
V O 1) ° to ° LA
° tO •- e- N N ch M
OT2 cpt -2.sum
***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET
Version 4.3
Copyright by CivilTech Software
• www.civiltech.com
(425) 453 -6488 Fax (425) 453 -5848
• ***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Licensed to Scott L. Hardman, P.E., GeoPacific Engineering, Inc.
4/28/2004 11:03:12 AM
Input File Name: D: \LiquefyFiles \OT2 cpt -2.liq
Title: oak Tree 2 Apartments
Subtitle: Amax =0.19, 5% in 50 years
Surface Elev.=
Hole No. =CPT -2
Depth of Hole= 25.9 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 12.5 ft
Water Table during In -Situ Testing= 17.5 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.19 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.0
fs =1, Plot one CSR (fs =1)
Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce =1
Borehole Diameter, cb =1
sampeling Method, Cs =1
CPT Calulation Method: seed et al.
Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu / Seed
Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss /Seed (SPT only)
Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liq. Correction
Average Input Data: Smooth*
* Recommended Options
Input Data:
Depth qc fc Gamma Fines D50
ft tsf tsf pcf % mm
0.3 3.0 0.2 100.0 80.0 0.0
0.7 11.2 0.4 105.0 80.0 0.0
1.0 11.9 0.5 105.0 80.0 0.0
1.3 11.4 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
1.6 9.8 0.7 100.0 80.0 0.0
2.0 12.3 0.9 105.0 80.0 0.0
2.3 12.9 1.0 105.0 80.0 0.0
2.6 11.1 1.0 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.0 12.9 1.0 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.3 12.4 0.9 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.6 14.9 0.9 105.0 80.0 0.0
3.9 18.3 1.1 105.0 80.0 0.0
4.3 13.7 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
4.6 17.3 0.8 105.0 80.0 0.0
4.9 21.9 0.8 110.0 80.0 0.0
5.3 25.1 1.0 110.0 80.0 0.0
5.6 16.2 0.9 105.0 80.0 0.0
5.9 21.0 0.7 110.0 80.0 0.0
6.2 25.4 0.5 110.0 80.0 0.0
6.6 26.0 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
Page 1
OT2 cpt -2.sum
6.9 27.0 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
7.2 27.4 0.7 110.0 80.0 0.0
7.6 29.6 1.0 110.0 80.0 0.0
7.9 17.9 1.1 105.0 80.0 0.0
8.2 26.1 0.6 110.0 80.0 0.0
8.5 28.5 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
8.9 31.2 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
9.2 29.0 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
9.5 30.8 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
9.8 33.1 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
10.2 42.7 1.2 115.0 80.0 0.0
10.5 37.6 1.4 110.0 80.0 0.0
10.8 35.0 1.1 110.0 80.0 0.0
11.1 33.6 1.0 110.0 50.0 0.1
11.5 36.6 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
11.8 40.8 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1
12.1 39.0 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
12.5 39.2 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
12.8 40.3 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
13.1 40.9 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1
13.4 39.1 1.4 110.0 80.0 0.0
13.8 18.2 1.0 105.0 80.0 0.0
14.1 35.7 1.2 110.0 80.0 0.0
14.4 43.0 1.1 115.0 50.0 0.1
14.8 44.4 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.1 51.7 1.1 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.4 57.7 1.1 115.0 50.0 0.1
15.8 57.0 1.2 115.0 30.0 0.1
16.1 51.4 1.0 115.0 50.0 0.1
16.4 46.7 0.9 115.0 30.0 0.1
16.7 48.0 0.8 115.0 30.0 0.1
17.1 44.0 0.8 115.0 50.0 0.1
17.4 39.3 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
17.7 31.6 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
18.0 21.4 0.9 110.0 80.0 0.0
18.4 37.9 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
18.7 41.0 1.1 115.0 50.0 0.1
19.0 44.3 0.6 115.0 30.0 0.1
19.4 41.5 0.5 115.0 30.0 0.1
19.7 40.3 0.6 115.0 30.0 0.1
20.0 46.5 0.5 115.0 30.0 0.1
20.3 56.8 0.7 115.0 30.0 0.1
20.7 54.4 0.8 115.0 30.0 0.1
21.0 44.5 0.8 115.0 30.0 0.1
21.3 36.7 0.7 110.0 50.0 0.1
21.6 35.0 0.8 110.0 50.0 0.1
22.0 41.0 1.3 115.0 50.0 0.1
22.3 36.4 1.1 110.0 50.0 0.1
22.6 40.6 0.7 115.0 50.0 0.1
23.0 44.8 0.8 115.0 30.0 0.1
23.3 41.4 0.6 115.0 30.0 0.1
23.6 55.3 1.1 115.0 15.0 0.2
24.0 169.0 1.6 125.0 15.0 0.2
24.3 112.5 1.1 120.0 15.0 0.2
24.6 45.1 0.7 115.0 30.0 0.1
24.9 24.8 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1
25.3 21.4 0.6 110.0 80.0 0.0
25.6 24.0 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1
25.9 47.2 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1
Output Results:
Settlement of saturated sands =0.00 in.
Page 2
() N � 7
OT2 cpt -2.sum
Settlement of dry sands =0.01 in.
Total settlement of saturated and dry sands =0.01 in.
Differential Settlement=0.007 to 0.009 in.
Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft w /fs in. in. in.
0.30 0.18 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
1.30 0.25 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
2.30 0.26 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
3.30 0.25 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
4.30 0.26 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
5.30 0.33 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
6.30 0.34 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
7.30 0.35 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
8.30 0.33 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
9.30 0.34 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
10.30 0.42 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
11.30 0.36 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
12.30 0.38 0.12 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
13.30 0.38 0.12 3.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
14.30 0.37 0.13 2.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.30 0.47 0.13 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.30 0.41 0.14 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
17.30 0.35 0.14 2.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
18.30 0.31 0.14 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.30 0.29 0.15 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.30 0.36 0.15 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
21.30 0.32 0.15 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
22.30 0.31 0.16 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.30 0.28 0.16 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00
24.30 0.48 0.16 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.30 0.24 0.16 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
* F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
(F.s. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)
Units Depth = ft, stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit weight =
pcf, Settlement = in.
CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils
CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user
request factor of safety)
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S. =CRRm /CSRfs
S_sat Settlement from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement from dry sands
s_all Total settlement from saturated and dry sands
NoLiq No- Liquefy Soils
Page 3
0 C C kri
Y' 7312 SW Durham Road
P ortland, Oregon 97224
seoPacifi� TEST PIT LOG
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 1
Tigard, Oregon
^
c
o T o ? o
11E a5N
N d N °- c O: O @
o E z o Material Description
li v u) U m
Dark brownish -grey silt with some clay, organic upper 6 ", soft,
moist (9" Tgpsoil - ML)
1 -
- 0.5 Dark brown clayey silt, soft, damp (ML)
2 -- 1.0
- -:0
3— 4.5
Light brown silt with traces of fine sand and clay, stiff to very stiff (ML)
4 — >4.5 Light brown micaceous silt with trace of very fine sand below 37 ", no
clay, stiff, damp (ML)
5—
6 - -
7—
8 -
Test pit terminated at 8 feet,
9 _ No groundwater encountered.
10—
1 1 --
12-
13
14-
15
16
17
LEGEND 77- Date Excavated: 12/23/02
100 Bu
Bucket e " ,�' Logged By: J. Pyne
1.000 ¥ Surface Elevation: 172.5'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
)1" 7312 SW Durham Road
GeoPacitic Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 2
Tigard, Oregon
Q g
E T `� o
a7 F- w N
E c� �.- a�
° o n Cr) O a o a
Material Description
° ; �"°
0_ C/) ° 0 m
Greyish -brown silt with some clay, fragmented, loose, very moist
1 _ (Fill - ML)
2— Brown silt with some clay, loose, very moist, fragmented (Fill -ML)
3 —
4 —'- - --
- 2.0 Light brown silt with a trace of very fine sand, micaceous, medium
5— stiff, very moist (Native Soil - ML)
— 2.5
6 -
Test pit terminated at 6 feet,
7 No groundwater encountered.
8—
9 --
10
11-
12-
13
14-
15
16 --
17 -
LEGEND
° Date Excavated: 12/23/02
5 Gal
100 Bucket d Logged By: J. Pyne
1,0008 Surface Elevation: 179.0'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
Y ., 7312 SW Durham Road
GeoPacittc Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 3
Tigard, Oregon
° a y —. a)
mo 0
o -- D. O a N N @ 0,
n ta. a o o m Material Descr
•
Grey crushed rock and construction debris (concrete, asphaltic concrete)
with some fine to coarse sand LFilI - GM)
1 1.0 Brown silt with some very fine sand and clay, soft, moist
2 Z5 (Disturbed Native - ML)
Light brown silt with some very fine sand, micaceous, stiff, moist
3 -- 2.5 (Native - ML)
3.5
4-
Test pit terminated at 4 feet,
5 No groundwater encountered.
6_.
7—
8 --
9—
10 - -
11-
12
13 -_..
14 —
15 --
16
17
LEGEND
° Date Excavated: 12/23/02
loom Bucke, Logged By: J. Pyne
1,000 g
Surface Elevation: 180.0'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
/"( � = - 7312 SW Durham Road TEST PIT LOG
GeoP icifie Portland, Oregon 97224
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 4
Tigard, Oregon
a) — a)
x iu� a .N �0 0
N
t. U co 1 (n N y
) a E z� .E o C O)
Material Description
ll U) U m
Dark brown silt, some clay, organic, soft, moist (6" Topsoil - ML)
1— 1.25 Brown silt with some clay, soft, very moist (Cultivated Area - Native - ML)
2 -- 0.5
— 1.0
3 - - 876'
Brown silt with trace of very fine sand, stiff to very stiff, moist
4 — 4.0
(Native - ML)
5
4.5 Light brown silt, micaceous, trace of very fine sand, stiff, damp
6 — (Native - ML)
7- -
Test pit terminated at 7 feet,
8— No groundwater encountered.
9-
10-
11-
12- -
13
14
15 --
16 --
17
LEGEND Date Excavated: 12/23/02
-aw._
o Bucket Logged By: J. Pyne
t d Surface Elevation: 167.5'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
_,./` 7312 Sd, Durham Road TEST PIT LOG
GeoP ill Portland, Oregon 97224
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP -5
Tigard, Oregon
t a
Nr - w y Nte N
m
)
g- 0- 2 o o Material Description E
CO O U m
Dark brown silt with some clay,prass roots, soft, moist (6" Topsoil - ML)
1— 1.25 Dark brown silt with some clay, soft above 2 feet where previously
— 1.50 cultivated, stiff below 2', moist (Native Soil - ML)
2- 2.75
3— 3.75 - --
4— 4.0 Light brown micaceous silt with a trace of fine sand, stiff, moist.
5-
6-
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet,
8— No groundwater encountered.
9-
10
11-
12-
13
14-
15
16-
17—
LEGEND
° Date Excavated: 12/23/02
5 Gal.
100 to :ucket Logged By: J. Pyne
,,000. e
Surface Elevation: 163.5'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
1`i 7312 SW Durham Road
Geo fide Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG
tngtnrcrinatnc. Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP -6
Tigard, Oregon
a 822 N N C N r
o a = 0 Material Description
ti IA o o m
Dark greyish -brown organic silt with some clay, abundant roots, soft,
moist.L11" Topsoil - ML)
— 2.5 Light brown silt with trace of clay and micaceous fine sand, medium
2 — 0.5 stiff to soft, very moist
— 1.75
3 — 3.5 - -- ,
— 3.5 Light brown silt with trace of fine sand, micaceous, stiff, damp.
4— 4.0
5
6-
7
Test pit terminated at 7 feet,
8 No groundwater encountered.
9-
10-
11-
12-
13
14-
15
16-
17—
LEGEND
Date Excavated: 12/23/02
100 to B Gal 144. ® Logged By: J. Pyne
'' � ' _ Surface Elevation: 160.0'
Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment
_ ,, a. 7312 SW Durham Road
Gee �f Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG
Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments
Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Boring No. B -
Q o a)
C
V I ' ,
C) 2 0
o CI 0 z o o E Material Description
E
. 0 U to
5 iii Light brown silt with a trace of micaceous very fine sand, stiff, damp (ML)
13
10 13
Light brown silt with some micaceous very fine sand, stiff, damp (ML)
15-
10 Dark brown micaceous silty fine sand, medium dense, moist (SM)
20- N 3 Interbedded dark brown silty fine sand, sandy silt and silt,
medium dense / medium stiff, wet (SM /ML)
Note: SPT N -value at 20 feet affected by soil heave and groundwater, and is
probably not representative of actual soil strength.
25
. - 10
Boring terminated at 26.5 feet
30— -
35
LEGEND
o Date 12/23/02
100 N ,o.20.99 • � Logged By: Drilled J. Pyne
1,000 g —
Static Water Table Surface Elevation: 168.5'
Bag Sample Split -Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Dating Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone
J /`�`,, 7312 SW Durham Road
GeoPacc Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG
egrimmii Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705
Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments
Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Boring No. B -
N N
d c 0 NJ
• = N J j C m
r!1 E z > a o Material Description
0 m
5= Ili 8 Light brown silt with a trace of very fine micaceous sand, medium stiff, damp
(ML)
10 M 6
Light brown silty fine sand, micaceous, medium stiff, damp (SM)
15 - -
9 Dark brown micaceous silty fine sand, medium dense, moist (SM)
20- Interbedded dark brown silty fine sand, sandy silt and silt,
2 medium dense / medium stiff, wet (SM /ML)
Note: SPT N -value at 20 feet affected by soil heave and groundwater, and is
probably not representative of actual soil strength.
25 -
9
Boring terminated at 26.5 feet
30
LEGEND
Date Drilled: 12/23/02
3 t o Logged By: J. Pyne
100 o to
1,000 g
Static Water Table �• Surface Elevation: 162.0'
Bag Sample Split -Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone
Subsurface Technologies
Operator. W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03 -18-04 11:30
Sounding: SND626 Location: CPT1 OAK TREE 2
Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number: 04-8688
Tip Resistance Local Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Diff PP Ratio Soil Behavior Type'
Qt (Ton/ft ^2) Fs (Ton/ft^2) Fs /Qt ( %) Pw (psi) (Pw- Ph) /Qt ( %) Zone: UBC -1983
0 140 0 5 0 5 -20 100 -20 100 0 12
0 l 1 1 1 I I I I I f 1 1 I I I l l f woo
1 I 1 1
I i
,
. ,
: _ 1
10 1 101 't 4
15 1111 ■
i �
1
1
l
20 1
1
i
25 ? _
1 l 1 ? i I ■
1
.
30 - -a -. ! _.r i -
1
, _ t i -- ;
IA {
_
35 _ _ _
I i } I
I I I
. t f
I
II
j
{
I ! 1 I
40 i
I
1
i
{
j l l j
}
I !! I I I j 1 I I
45 } } { f 1 I 1 I{
Maximum Depth = 40.35 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet
1 sensitive fine grained • 4 silty clay to clay • 7 silty sand to sandy silt • 10 gravelly sand to sand
' - 2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand N 11 very stiff fine grained ( *)
• 3 clay • 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 sand • 12 sand to clayey sand ( ")
thavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
Subsurface Technologies
Operator. W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03 -18-04 11:30
Sounding: SND626 Location: CPT1 OAK TREE 2
Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number. 04 -8688
SPT W
60% Hammer
0 40
0
i
5 i ..,
'
10 - i �i -
L 3
15
E
..J i
1. . _.._.._. 7... -....
20 — - -- —
Depth i
(ft) , .
25 —__ t
i ._
30 — _._
� -
35 - - - - - -- - - - - - --
1
j
45 f 1
Maximum Depth = 40.35 feet Depth Increment - 0.328 feet
ahavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
V
. Operator:W.MCC / A.MEE Location:CPT1 OAK TREE 2
Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688
Customer:surface Technologies Units:English
epth Qt Fs Pw Inc
(ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg)
0.33 11.6 0.262 -0.06 0.05
0.66 40.3 0.968 -0.38 0.05
0.98 32.2 1.129 0.18 0.05
1.31 23.6 1.196 -3.42 0.05
1.64 13.9 0.914 -3.01 0.05
1.97 12.3 0.761 -2.81 0.05
` 2.30 11.6 0.652 -2.67 0.05
. 2.62 12.8 0.613 -2.49 0.05
2.95 12.9 0.760 -2.22 0.05
3.28 14.0 0.824 -1.11 0.05
3.61 10.7 0.532 -0.69 0.05
3.94 9.5 0.497 -0.21 0.05
4.27 9.7 0.618 -0.08 0.05
4.59 11.9 0.617 0.09 0.05
4.92 12.3 0.652 1.52 0.05
5.25 12.6 0.721 2.45 0.05
5.58 14.2 0.759 3.85 0.05
5.91 12.2 0.587 5.49 0.05
6.23 19.1 0.483 3.31 0.05
5.56 25.9 0.535 2.17 0.05
5.89 24.5 0.540 0.30 0.05
7.22 25.5 0.624 -0.02 0.05
7.55 25.0 0.785 0.11 0.05
7.87 20.5 0.592 4.11 0.05
3.20 35.3 0.662 0.76 0.05
3.53 33.9 0.716 0.64 0.05
3.86 29.3 0.703 0.61 0.05
3.19 29.8 0.843 0.58 0.05
3.51 32.3 0.874 0.59 0.05
3.84 28.0 0.967 -1.17 0.05
).17 22.3 0.741 -0.86 0.05
).50 24.6 0.776 1.03 0.05
).83 32.3 0.803 0.40 0.05
L.15 30.3 0.899 0.20 0.05
L.48 30.6 0.725 -0.03 0.05
L.81 37.3 0.808 0.35 0.05
?.14 36.9 0.809 0.31 0.05
?.47 32.6 0.805 0.33 0.05
?.80 31.6 0.786 0.31 0.05
3.12 33.3 0.905 0.16 0.05
3.45 25.8 0.798 1.12 0.05
3.78 30.1 0.766 -0.04 0.05
1.11 30.5 0.847 -0.03 0.05
. 1.44 32.7 0.883 0.68 0.05
1.76 41.9 0.982 -0.64 0.05
i.09 45.4 0.984 -0.05 0.05
'.42 45.9 0.978 -0.20 0.05
i.75 44.2 0.897 -0.95 0.05
i.08 37.5 0.834 -1.26 0.06
i.40 34.3 0.851 -3.16 0.06
i.73 26.8 0.812 -1.99 0.06
'.06 38.4 0.859 -3.34 0.06
'.39 44.9 0.869 -5.41 0.06
'.72 44.5 0.832 -6.45 0.06
:.04 46.5 0.930 -7.22 0.07
.1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
(ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg)
8.37 55.4 1.275 -8.18 0.07
8.70 60.3 1.140 -9.98 0.08
9.03 130.4 1.414 -10.78 0.08
9.36 78.0 1.706 -12.15 0.07
9.69 62.8 3.524 -13.41 0.07
0.01 62.8 3.317 -13.45 0.07
0.34 104.9 3.064 -13.50 0.07
0.67 112.5 2.815 -13.54 0.08
1.00 95.9 3.289 -13.63 0.08
1.33 124.9 2.499 -13.76 0.10
1.65 86.6 3.172 -14.05 0.11
1.98 53.5 0.790 -14.19 0.11
. 2.31 33.0 0.786 -14.31 0.11
2.64 26.7 1.201 -14.39 0.11
2.97 22.1 0.880 -14.62 0.20
3.29 17.1 0.563 -14.62 0.20
3.62 11.0 0.190 -14.62 0.20
3.95 13.1 0.142 -14.58 0.20
4.28 7.2 0.019 -14.56 0.21
4.61 7.3 0.043 -14.55 0.21
4.93 9.7 0.299 -14.56 0.21
5.26 28.9 0.239 -14.51 0.21
5.59 30.6 0.330 -14.52 0.22
5.92 25.2 0.486 -14.48 0.22
6.25 21.6 0.412 -13.89 0.22
6.57 25.1 0.292 -13.88 0.22
6.90 23.2 0.321 -13.86 0.24
7.23 11.3 0.258 -13.73 0.24
7.56 7.6 0.041 -13.71 0.24
7.89 16.0 0.333 -13.63 0.24
3.22 19.6 0.606 -13.53 0.24
3.54 32.4 0.307 -13.42 0.24
3.87 26.3 0.499 -13.36 0.24
3.20 25.4 0.449 -13.27 0.24
3.53 27.6 0.415 -12.97 0.48
3.86 21.4 0.671 -12.93 0.48
).18 28.7 0.579 -12.80 0.48
).51 34.4 0.569 -12.75 0.48
).84 36.0 0.610 -12.70 0.48
L.17 35.6 0.393 -12.64 0.48
L.50 27.8 0.513 -12.63 0.49
L.82 31.4 0.474 -12.58 0.59
3.15 24.3 0.565 -12.51 0.59
3.48 20.6 0.579 -12.45 0.59
3.81 22.0 0.293 -12.17 0.70
3.14 17.1 0.428 -12.07 0.70
3.46 17.8 0.217 -11.97 0.70
3.79 28.0 0.280 -11.90 0.70
1.12 32.4 0.353 -11.80 0.53
1.45 42.7 1.049 -11.73 0.52
.78 42.6 1.024 -11.64 0.47
i.10 39.2 0.916 -11.61 0.47
i.43 52.2 0.665 -11.74 0.47
i.76 50.6 0.870 -11.64 0.47
i.09 50.2 1.160 -10.74 0.52
;.42 50.6 1.204 -10.62 0.53
i.75 51.2 1.186 -10.42 0.53
'.07 58.6 1.034 -10.30 0.53
'.40 64.0 1.128 -10.13 0.53
'.73 70.0 1.057 -10.33 0.54
1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
,(ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg)
8.06 80.8 1.533 -9.97 0.57
8.39 70.6 1.841 -9.72 0.57
8.71 64.5 1.211 -9.97 0.57
9.04 65.6 1.002 -10.63 0.58
9.37 77.5 0.896 -7.61 0.59
9.70 80.3 1.509 -8.12 0.59
0.03 67.3 1.530 -7.35 0.59
0.35 61.6 -32768 -6.01 0.78
it behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
•
Operator:W.MCC / A.MEE Location:CPT1 OAK TREE 2
Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688
Customer:surface Technologies Units:English
epth Fs /Qt (Pw- Ph) /Qt Soil Behavior Type SPT N*
(ft) ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer
0.33 2.254 -0.037 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8
0.66 2.402 -0.068 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13
0.98 3.512 0.040 5 clayey silt to silty clay 15
1.31 5.065 -1.042 3 clay 22
1.64 6.564 -1.557 3 clay 16
1.97 6.204 -1.650 3 clay 12
2.30 5.638 -1.663 3 clay 12
. 2.62 4.783 -1.399 3 clay 12
2.95 5.870 -1.234 3 clay 13
. 3.28 5.867 -0.569 3 clay 12
3.61 4.981 -0.465 3 clay 11
3.94 5.239 -0.160 3 clay 10
4.27 6.365 -0.059 3 clay 10
4.59 5.169 0.054 3 clay 11
4.92 5.290 0.888 3 clay 12
5.25 5.721 1.401 3 clay 12
5.58 5.330 1.946 3 clay 12
5.91 4.795 3.227 3 clay 15
6.23 2.523 1.245 5 clayey silt to silty clay 9
6.56 2.061 0.603 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
6.89 2.208 0.088 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
7.22 2.446 -0.006 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12
7.55 3.143 0.032 5 clayey silt to silty clay 11
7.87 2.893 1.446 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
3.20 1.875 0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
3.53 2.110 0.136 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
3.86 2.395 0.150 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
3.19 2.831 0.140 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
3.51 2.711 0.132 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14
3.84 3.456 -0.301 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13
).17 3.316 -0.277 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12
).50 3.152 0.301 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13
).83 2.487 0.089 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14
1.15 2.962 0.047 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
1.48 2.371 -0.007 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
1.81 2.165 0.067 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
?.14 2.193 0.061 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
?.47 2.472 0.073 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
?.80 2.487 0.071 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
3.12 2.718 0.035 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
3.45 3.092 0.312 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14
3.78 2.540 -0.010 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14
1.11 2.771 -0.007 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
, 1.44 2.697 0.150 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
1.76 2.345 -0.110 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
5.09 2.166 -0.008 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17
5.42 2.132 -0.031 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17
5.75 2.031 -0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
5.08 2.224 -0.242 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
5.40 2.484 -0.664 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
5.73 3.027 -0.534 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
.06 2.240 -0.627 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
.39 1.935 -0.867 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
7 .72 1.869 -1.043 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17
1.04 2.001 -1.118 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19
_1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
1
, .(ft) ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer
8.37 2.303 -1.064 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 21
8.70 1.890 -1.191 7 silty sand to sandy silt 26
9.03 1.084 -0.595 7 silty sand to sandy silt 29
9.36 2.186 -1.121 7 silty sand to sandy silt 29
9.69 5.610 -1.537 5 clayey silt to silty clay 33
0.01 5.279 -1.541 5 clayey silt to silty clay 37
0.34 2.922 -0.927 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 36
0.67 2.503 -0.867 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 40
1.00 3.431 -1.024 7 silty sand to sandy silt 35
1.33 2.001 -0.793 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 39
1.65 3.665 -1.169 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 34
` 1.98 1.477 -1.910 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 22
. 2.31 2.381 -3.120 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
2.64 4.494 -3.876 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13
2.97 3.987 -4.768 4 silty clay to clay 14
3.29 3.283 -6.198 4 silty clay to clay 11
3.62 1.725 -9.747 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7
3.95 1.089 -8.280 5 clayey silt to silty clay 5
4.28 0.258 - 15.213 5 clayey silt to silty clay 4
4.61 0.582 - 14.990 5 clayey silt to silty clay 4
4.93 3.087 - 11.477 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 6
5.26 0.825 -3.858 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
5.59 1.077 -3.682 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
5.92 1.928 -4.503 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
5.25 1.905 -5.105 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
5.57 1.162 -4.427 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
5.90 1.388 -4.842 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 8
7.23 2.276 -9.917 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7
7.56 0.531 - 14.794 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6
7.89 2.079 -7.097 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7
3.22 3.097 -5.817 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
3.54 0.948 -3.518 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
3.87 1.897 -4.360 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
3.20 1.765 -4.520 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
3.53 1.501 -4.120 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
).86 3.132 -5.350 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
).18 2.018 -3.999 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
).51 1.656 -3.358 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
).84 1.693 -3.224 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
_.17 1.104 -3.278 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
..50 1.846 -4.233 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
_.82 1.509 -3.763 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
'.15 2.321 -4.884 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
:.48 2.817 -5.809 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9
'.81 1.334 -5.390 5 clayey silt to silty clay 10
x.14 2.503 -6.942 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 7
;.46 1.218 -6.693 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 8
;.79 1.002 -4.272 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
.12 1.090 -3.698 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
.45 2.453 -2.816 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
.78 2.402 -2.832 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
, .10 2.337 -3.100 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17
.43 1.274 -2.366 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15
, .76 1.720 -2.448 7 silty sand to sandy silt 16
.09 2.311 -2.358 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19
.42 2.378 -2.341 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19
.75 2.318 -2.308 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20
.07 1.765 -2.018 7 silty sand to sandy silt 18
.40 1.763 -1.845 7 silty sand to sandy silt 20
.73 1.510 -1.723 7 silty sand to sandy silt 23
1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
. , ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer
8.06 1.896 -1.471 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24
8.39 2.608 -1.674 7 silty sand to sandy silt 23
8.71 1.876 -1.875 7 silty sand to sandy silt 21
9.04 1.529 -1.934 7 silty sand to sandy silt 22
9.37 1.156 -1.369 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24
9.70 1.878 -1.379 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24
0.03 2.273 -1.578 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 25
0.35 -32768 -1.584 0 <out of range> 0
it behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
r
Subsurface Technologies
Operator: W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03 -18-04 10:49
Sounding: SND625 Location: CPT2 OAK TREE 2
Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number. 04 -8688
Tip Resistance Local Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Diff PP Ratio Soil Behavior Type*
Qt (Ton/ft^2) Fs (Ton/ft ^2) Fs /Qt ( %) Pw (psi) (Pw- Ph) /Qt ( %) Zone: UBC -1983
0 180 0 5 0 5 -20 100 -20 100 0 12
0 I I i I! I l 1 ! I I! I I I I I 1 I 1 '! I! I 1 Ell
tt
, ■
I r
!
I
I . I I I i
1 i
• i •
I I
f
i ! I
1 j I
i
■
1 ' — --
i
` h . - � 1
` ! I
l
I
! I I I i I
I i
f ! I
I 1 I
20 !f I I f
1 I
' f f i jl
I 1
I ! I ! I
•
i j l i I j
i# i
R
I( I i i I - f
{ i I i I; I! ! I 1 i I ! I
I ! !; i t ,i
i I i I
I I I 1 1; !!; I I I I I
I 1 I I ! i i l j
i ; I �' ' !:;I •
■ ' i ; I I i' 1 j' ! '
�
1 _
i .! �, I i I , , I - '
30 1 I i i 1 1
Maximum Depth = 25.92 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet
4 1 sensitive fine grained • 4 silty clay to clay • 7 silty sand to sandy silt • 10 gravelly sand to sand
• 2 organic material ai 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand • 11 very stiff fine grained ( *)
• 3 clay • 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 sand • 12 sand to clayey sand ( *)
ehavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
•
5ubsurtace lecnnologies
Operator. W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03 -18-04 10:49
Sounding: SND625 Location: CPT2 OAK TREE 2
Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number: 04 -8688
SPT N*
60% Hammer
0 30
0 1
r _
_
5 __� _ �_..,._..�
10
t ....
1
Depth 15 — -- I_ _ ...._
(ft)
r.
I -.
{
25
j I
30
Maximum Depth = 25.92 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet
havior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
Operator:W.MCC / A.MEE Location:CPT2 OAK TREE 2
Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688
Customer:surface Technologies Units:English
Depth Qt Fs Pw Inc
(ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg)
0.33 3.0 0.196 -0.75 0.05
0.66 11.2 0.351 -1.08 0.05
0.98 11.9 0.545 -3.47 0.05
1.31 11.4 0.808 -4.06 0.05
1.64 9.8 0.747 -4.47 0.05
1.97 12.3 0.925 -2.25 0.05
. 2.30 12.9 1.024 -2.19 0.05
2.62 11.1 1.012 -2.24 0.05
2.95 12.9 1.022 -2.18 0.05
3.28 12.4 0.905 -1.64 0.05
l ' 3.61 14.9 0.943 -0.64 0.05
3.94 18.3 1.127 0.57 0.05
4.27 13.7 0.801 1.05 0.05
4.59 17.3 0.791 1.69 0.05
4.92 21.9 0.802 -1.55 0.05
5.25 25.1 0.962 -1.01 0.05
5.58 16.2 0.942 1.91 0.05
5.91 21.0 0.677 2.29 0.05
6.23 25.4 0.527 0.44 0.05
6.56 26.0 0.563 -0.39 0.05
6.89 27.0 0.618 -0.57 0.05
1.22 27.4 0.730 -0.60 0.05
1.55 29.6 0.968 -0.51 0.05
7.87 17.9 1.068 0.74 0.05
3.20 26.1 0.591 1.12 0.05
3.53 28.5 0.615 -0.26 0.05
3.86 31.2 0.663 -0.37 0.05
3.19 29.0 0.660 -0.54 0.05
3.51 30.8 0.677 -0.57 0.05
3.84 33.1 0.805 -0.89 0.05
).17 42.7 1.231 -0.93 0.05
).50 37.6 1.415 -1.04 0.05
).83 35.0 1.075 -0.48 0.05
..15 33.6 0.967 -0.59 0.05
.48 36.6 0.922 -0.65 0.05
..81 40.8 0.883 -0.69 0.05
:.14 39.0 0.869 -0.72 0.05
'.47 39.2 0.942 -0.79 0.05
:.80 40.3 0.966 -0.87 0.05
1.12 40.9 1.173 -1.22 0.05
1.45 39.1 1.372 -0.57 0.05
1.78 18.2 0.985 1.05 0.05
.11 35.7 1.160 -0.74 0.05
.44 43.0 1.121 -0.93 0.05
.76 44.4 1.195 -2.50 0.05
.09 51.7 1.057 -2.86 0.06
.42 57.7 1.144 -1.39 0.06
.75 57.0 1.166 -1.54 0.06
.08 51.4 1.004 -1.81 0.06
.40 46.7 0.914 -2.51 0.06
.73 48.0 0.826 -3.08 0.06
.06 44.0 0.793 -4.24 0.06
.39 39.3 0.833 -4.50 0.06
. 31.6 0.771 -4.30 0.06
.04 21.4 0.878 -4.07 0.06
1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
S (ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg)
8.37 37.9 0.867 -5.53 0.06
8.70 41.0 1.119 -7.91 0.11
9.03 44.3 0.585 -10.07 0.11
9.36 41.5 0.502 -11.03 0.11
9.69 40.3 0.590 -10.66 0.11
0.01 46.5 0.510 -10.57 0.11
0.34 56.8 0.669 -10.50 0.11
0.67 54.4 0.815 -10.47 0.11
1.00 44.5 0.821 -10.33 0.11
1.33 36.7 0.721 -10.19 0.11
1.65 35.0 0.763 -10.10 0.11
. 1.98 41.0 1.349 -10.03 0.11
2.31 36.4 1.051 -10.65 0.12
2.64 40.6 0.744 -11.50 0.12
2.97 44.8 0.820 -11.33 0.20
3.29 41.4 0.600 -11.76 0.20
3.62 55.3 1.149 -12.06 0.21
3.95 169.0 1.580 -12.44 0.32
4.28 112.5 1.105 -13.76 0.45
4.61 45.1 0.690 -14.25 0.45
4.93 24.8 0.622 -14.49 0.45
5.26 21.4 0.617 -14.61 0.45
5.59 24.0 0.891 -14.73 0.45
5.92 47.2 -32768 -14.75 0.45
it behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
4 Operator:W.MCC / A.MEE Location:CPT2 OAK TREE 2
Cone ID:683 TC Job Number :04 -8688
Customer:surface Technologies Units :English
epth Fs /Qt (Pw- Ph) /Qt Soil Behavior Type SPT N*
(ft) ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer
0.33 6.547 -1.807 3 clay 5
0.66 3.136 -0.695 3 clay 8
0.98 4.587 -2.101 3 clay 11
1.31 7.109 -2.571 3 clay 11
1.64 7.614 -3.279 3 clay 11
1.97 7.517 -1.316 3 clay 11
2.30 7.930 -1.222 3 clay 12
,- 2.62 9.120 -1.453 3 clay 12
2.95 7.929 -1.218 3 clay 12
3.28 7.291 -0.952 3 clay 13
• 3.61 6.334 -0.310 3 clay 15
3.94 6.152 0.224 3 clay 15
4.27 5.858 0.553 3 clay 16
4.59 4.566 0.702 3 clay 17
4.92 3.659 -0.509 4 silty clay to clay 14
5.25 3.835 -0.290 4 silty clay to clay 13
5.58 5.809 0.848 4 silty clay to clay 13
5.91 3.226 0.786 5 clayey silt to silty clay 10
6.23 2.072 0.125 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12
6.56 2.164 -0.108 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
6.89 2.294 -0.152 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10
7.22 2.662 -0.157 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13
7.55 3.275 -0.124 4 silty clay to clay 16
7.87 5.961 0.297 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12
3.20 2.265 0.309 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12
3.53 2.153 -0.066 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
3.86 2.127 -0.085 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11
3.19 2.276 -0.134 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
3.51 2.195 -0.133 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
).84 2.430 -0.193 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
).17 2.882 -0.157 5 clayey silt to silty clay 18
).50 3.766 -0.199 5 clayey silt to silty clay 18
).83 3.069 -0.099 5 clayey silt to silty clay 17
1.15 2.875 -0.126 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
_.48 2.515 -0.128 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
_.81 2.165 -0.122 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
?.14 2.229 -0.133 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
?.47 2.404 -0.145 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
'..80 2.398 -0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
1.12 2.870 -0.215 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
L45 3.509 -0.105 5 clayey silt to silty clay 16
L78 5.399 0.414 5 clayey silt to silty clay 15
.11 3.254 -0.149 5 clayey silt to silty clay 15
.44 2.605 -0.156 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
.76 2.690 -0.405 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 18
).09 2.045 -0.398 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20
'.42 1.984 -0.174 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 21
x.75 2.047 -0.195 7 silty sand to sandy silt 18
;.08 1.953 -0.254 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20
;.40 1.955 -0.387 7 silty sand to sandy silt 16
,.73 1.721 -0.462 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15
.06 1.801 -0.693 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17
.39 2.117 -0.823 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
.72 2.442 -0.980 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
.04 4.105 -1.371 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14
1 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
a a• (f_.) ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer
8.37 2.291 -1.052 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13
8.70 2.729 -1.389 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
9.03 1.321 -1.637 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13
9.36 1.207 -1.912 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13
9.69 1.463 -1.903 7 silty sand to sandy silt 14
0.01 1.097 -1.637 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15
0.34 1.179 -1.332 7 silty sand to sandy silt 17
0.67 1.498 -1.385 7 silty sand to sandy silt 17
1.00 1.845 -1.672 7 silty sand to sandy silt 14
1.33 1.963 -1.998 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
1.65 2.177 -2.076 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
1.98 3.288 -1.760 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
,_`, 2.31 2.890 -2.107 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15
2.64 1.831 -2.039 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16
2.97 1.828 -1.819 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13
w 3.29 1.452 -2.072 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15
3.62 2.077 -1.607 8 sand to silty sand 21
3.95 0.935 -0.548 8 sand to silty sand 27
4.28 0.982 -0.917 8 sand to silty sand 26
4.61 1.531 -2.390 7 silty sand to sandy silt 19
4.93 2.504 -4.447 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12
5.26 2.883 -5.251 5 clayey silt to silty clay 11
5.59 3.717 -4.767 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14
5.92 -32768 -2.446 0 <out of range> 0
it behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983
•
1
•` Jun 01 05 08:06a H Tech /606 !08 `f"et 360 25 A817 p.2
r ' •
WASHINGTON STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE FIRE SPRINKLER ADVISORY BOARD
CONTRACTORS MATERIAL & TEST REPORT FOR ABOVEGROUND PIPING HYDRO TECH FIRE PROTECTION INC
P.O. BOX 40
BRUSH PRAIRIE, WA 98608
PROCEDURE
Upon completion of work, Inspection and testa shall be made by the contractor's representative and witnessed by an owner's representative. All defects
shall be corrected and system left In service before contractor's personnel finally leave the Job.
A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities, owners, and contractor. it is under-
stood the owner's representative's signature In no way prejudices any claim against contractor for faulty material, poor workmanship. or failure to comply
with approving authority's requirements or local ordinances.
PROPERTY NAME DATE + , 7 .... .. ----
OP k PROPERTY ADDRESS 1 ` _ S \ I (f ell\ p
t. (�c.�J �IJ - E0 t�� i ..1 G A , c;Ar,t:. •
ACCEPTED BY � APP�ROVING AUTHORITIES (NAME)
• -` Pf 1%E-A
ADDRESS •
INSTALLATION CONFORMS TO ACCEPTED PLANS YES NO
PLANS EQUIPMENT USED IS APPROVED RYES 0 NO
IF NO, DIPLAIN DEVIATIONS
HAS PERSON IN CHARGE OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BEEN INSTRUCTED AS TO LOCATION UYES ❑ NO
OF CONTROL VALVE AND CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS NEW EQUIPMENT?
IF NO, EXPLAIN
HAVE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING BEEN LEFT ON THE PREMISES; YES NO
INSTRUCTIONS 1. SYSTEM COMPONENTS INSTRUCTIONS OYES ONO
2. CARE AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS. OYES ONO
LOCATION 3. NFPA 13A ` Q 1/, °� OYES ONO
OF SYSTEM SUPPLIES BUILDINGS I � i t 4 A V � ii- I' '" A
YEAR OF ORIFICE TEMPERATURE
MAKE MODEL MANUFACTURE SIZE QUANTITY RATING
]S i-- if:az- F l gzs iici r l 'tv' VII . 1 5 0
SPRINKLERS
PIPE AND TYPE OF PIPE Ci Y C-- —.
FITTINGS TYPE OF FITTINGS c -Vc---
ALARM ALARM DEVICE MAXIMUM TIME TO OPERATE -.
VALVE THROUGH TEST CONNECTION
OR FLOW TYPE MAKE MODEL MIN SEC.
INDICATOR If,J ow Fix .) F'} \I •
DRY VALVE Q.OD.
MAKE l MODEL 1 SERIAL NO. MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO.
• TIME TO TRIP TIME WATER ALARM
DRY PIPE THRU TEST WATER AIR TRIP POINT REACHED OPERATED
OPERATING CONNECTION PRESSURE PRESSURE AIR PRESSURE TEST OUTLET PROPERLY
_
TEST MIN. SEC. PSI PSI PSI MIN. SEC, YES NO
WITHOUT
Ni r Q.O.D.
I WITH
Q.0.0.
IF NO. EXPLAIN
• MEASURED FROM TIME INSPECTORS TEST CONNECTION IS OPENED (OVER)
85A
Jun 01 05 08:06a Hydro Tech 360 256 2817 p.3
OPERATION ________
❑PNEUMATIC 0 ELECTRIC ❑ HYDRAULIC
DELUGE L PIPING SUPERVISED • YES • NO DETECTING MEDIA SUPERVISED • YES • NO
PREACJTION DOES VALVE OPERATE FROM THE MANUAL TRIP AND /OR REMOTE CONTROL STATIONS • YES • NO
YALXr: IS THERE AN ACCESSIBLE FACILITY IN EACH CIRCUIT FOR TESTING 1 IF NO, EXPLAIN
i ❑YES 0 N
1\ i ,
1 ` DOES EACH CIRCUIT OPERATE DOES EACH CIRCUIT MAXIMUM TIME TO
/ MAKE MODEL SUPERVISION LOSS ALARM OPERATE VALVE RR FASE OPERATE RELEASE
1 • 1 . •
TEST ( rM C Sarc teen _-" be nude nor fire r y de
Inert 2co per (1]d bur two or nou or 60 psi 10A bAte) above Mrlc pr.e In d sure SUMS* 150 pill (102
DESCRIPTION � l�h7 ✓ a d OHww W s dry-plbe warn clapper+ snarl be l.N cpen dung I.q b prMnl du1+sQs. Al — M
l aboveground pining ISSxull b. e ..,,, ,,..d
IN r ulTY`' Eareblian 40 pi (2.7 ban) ale pne.ure and measure drop which 10.11 not •'c..d 1.1/2 psi p.1 bars) In 24 - c.'* T.at
^'r and eh • and measure a1 . n droo which shall no ....d 1 1!2 . r. t ben In 2 a hour+ Prerun tanMa •normal wa4r
.
ALL PIPIN HYDR• TATI • Y TE TED AT PSI F •R , HR . IF N•, TATE REA ON
DRY PIPING PNEUMATICALLY TESTED/ • YES ❑ NO
EOUPMENT OPERATES PROPERLY Q YES ❑ NO
DO YOU CERTIFY AS THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM CONTRACTOR THAT ADDITIVES AND CORROSIVE CHEMICALS, SODIUM
SILICATE OR DERIVATIVES OF SODIUM SILICATE, BRINE, OR OTHER CORROSIVE CHEMICALS WERE NOT USED FOR TEST-
ING SYSTEMS OR STOPPING LEAKS? 14 YES ❑ NO
TESTS DRAIN READING OF (SAGE LOCATED NEAR WATER RESIDUAL PRESSURE WITH VALVE IN TEST
TEST ! SUPPLY TEST CONNECTION: PSI CONNECTION OPEN WIDE PSI
UNDERGROUND MAINS AND LEAD IN CONNECTIONS TO SYSTEM RISERS FLUSHED BEFORE CONNECTION MADE TO
SPRINKLFR PIPING.
VERIFIED BY COPY OF THE U FORM NO. 1158 OYES ❑ NO OTHER EXPLAIN
FLUSHED BY INSTALLER OF UNDER-
GROUND SPRINKLER PIPING
)RYES ❑ NO
BLANK TESTING NUMBER SED i LOCATIONS
I NUMBER REMOVED
GASKETS
LDED PIPING UYESJNO
IF YES.. .
DO YOU CERTIFY AS THE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR THAT WELDING PROCEDURES COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AT LEAST AWS D10.9, LEVEL AR-3 OYES ❑ NO
WELDING 00 YOU CERTIFY THAT THE WELDING WAS PERFORMED BY WELDERS QUALIFIED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AT LEAST AWS 010.9, LEVEL AR-3 ❑ YES ❑ NO
NA4 00 YOU CERTIFY THAT WELDING WAS CARRIED OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH A
DOCUMENTED QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURE TO INSURE THAT ALL DISCS ARE
RETRIEVED, THAT OPENINGS IN PIPING ARE SMOOTH, THAT SLAG AND OTHER
WELDING RESIDUE ARE REMOVED. AND THAT THE INTERNAL DIAMETERS OF
PIPING ARE NOT PENETRATED OYES ❑ NO
N ., CUTOUTS DO YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU HAVE A CONTROL FEATURE TO ENSURE THAT ALL
j rl (DISCS) CUTOUTS (DISCS) ARE RETRIEVED? OYES ❑ NO
FUNCTIONAL DOES AEU REQUIRE A FUNCTIONAL FLOW TEST OF RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS? U YES U NO _
FLOWTEST WERE FUNCTIONAL FLOW TEST RESULTS SATISFACTORY? ❑ YES ❑ NO
HYURAULUC NAME PLATE PROVIDED IF NO, EXPLAIN
DATA NAMEPLATE YES ONO
DATE LEFT IN SERVICE WITH CONTROL VALVES OPEN:
REMARKS
NAME OF S RINKLER CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR LICENSE #
TESTS WITNESSED BY
SIGNATURES FOR PROPE'TY OWNER (SIGNED) TITLE DATE
FOR 'l� RACTOR (SIGN• e) zITLE a • E
,/� ,1 a te - : ` �"r > >
Fo- APPR•VING
♦ TITLE i DATE
w
I CERTIFY THAT HE INFORMATION HEREIN IS TRUE AND THAT THIS SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH RCW 18.160 AND THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AS ADMINISTERED BY
CERTIFICATION 'THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL
NAME OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY FOLDER (PRINT OR TYPE?
SJONATUI7E OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY FOLDER
CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION iI DATE
ADQdTI06A1. EXPLJJ A TON MO 43tE8
em BACK
ce 020 c 2.6'
7409 SW Tech Center Dr. Ste. 145
/4 �� (7 5-‘<9 /e Tigard, OR 97223
Ph: 503 -443 -3799 Fax: 503-620-2748
am•c, ••• .....
SPECIAL INSPECTION
141NAL REPORT
DATE: 09/13/2005 VI
PROJECT: Oak Tree 11 Apartments 1 6 2 %6
PERMITS: 2004 - 004 - 04,61,62,63,64,65,66 S � P C F "C,Gi\B O
ADDRESS: SW 108th C 1L�,NC' oNiS
CITY: Tigard STATE: Oregon By
JURISDICTION: City of Tigard
CITY: Tigard STATE: Oregon
ZIP: 97223
Re: Final Letter
To Whom It May Concern:
ACS Testing, Inc. attest that all inspections for Reinforced Concrete, Anchors and Welding was
performed to the best of our knowledge on the above referenced project, in accordance with approved
plans, specifications, RFI's and the applicable codes and standards of section 1701 of the Oregon State
Structural Specialty Code. •
2
Approved. b : 1 C., (.,P,-. PPT Y 1
Bob Brown
President