The URL can be used to link to this page

Report 1 OFFICE COPY /& l s'� sw /05 E VE 1 Ce '�Engln`eeMng,lnc°�` 1 Real -World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support April 29, 2004 1 GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688 Attention: Dick Ossey 1 OT2 LLC do Ossey Development Corporation 5437 Rosalia Way, Suite 100 1 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Via Facsimile: 503.620.1243 City of Tigard 1 Copy: Paul Franks Approved Plans Paul Franks Architecture By 05, Date 9 1 Fax: 425.803.0934 s /7 00 4 — 0 S 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 I108th 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 1 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 Apait„ cents. An unnamed, incised tributary 1 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 1 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 1 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. 1 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 1 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 I Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 598 -8705 I April 29, 2004 I GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688 parking spaces will be constructed. A pedestrian and golf cart bridge is currently planned, connecting the I 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. I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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. I FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical explorations on site were first conducted on December 23, 2002, for a previous I 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 I 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 I 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. I 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 I 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. I 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. 1 EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) SOUNDINGS Subsurface Technologies of Banks, Washington, performed geotechnical drilling under subcontract to I 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. I 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 I 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 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 1 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. ' SOIL 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 1 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. 1 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 oft 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. ' Ap ril 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 1 %2 "-O 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 % 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. 1 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 "- %2" 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 • I 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. I 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 l00N 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 1 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 1 (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. .1 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. I 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 11 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 1 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 1/4 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 r1' P 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 I 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 111:1V 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'/4 " -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. f 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 13 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I April 29, 2004 I GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688 Table 1 - Recommended Minimum Dry - Weather Pavement Section I Layer Thickness (inches) Material Layer Automobile Automobile Compaction Standard I Driveways Parking Areas Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 2.5 91% of Rice Density AASHTO T -209 I 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 IASTMD1557 Recommended Subgrade 12 12 95% of Standard Proctor or approved native I 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 I amendment, or geotextile fabric and an increase in base course thickness. During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify I 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. • I 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 I pavement design recommendations based on the traffic volumes expected. • EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS I 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 I 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. I 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 I against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of I 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 14 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I 1 April 29, 2004 I GeoPacific Project No. 04 - 8688 exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or 1 hydroseeded with an approved seed - mulch - fertilizer mixture. UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS I 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 I 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 I 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. I 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 I 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. I 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. f_90 rtu{ Sincerely, .. %.% G I N f �j � t GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. L' r` 4 +) ,2 :%.":47ffqrPte 1 t \ P -51 ( I Uj L L. 11 Acv Scott L. Hardman, P.E. Principal Engineer I ` EXPIRES: 06 -30 -200 Attachments: References Checklist of Recommended Geotechnical Testing and Observation I Figure 1 — Vicinity Map • Figure 2 — Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Liquefaction Analysis — CPT -1 I Figure 4 — Liquefaction Analysis — CPT -2 Maintenance of Hillside Homesites Test Pit Logs TP -1 through TP -6 I Boring Logs B -1 and B -2 Cone Penetrometer Sounding Logs CPT -1 and CPT -2 111 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. t 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 16 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I April 29, 2004 I GeoPacific Project No. 04 -8688 I CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION I Item Procedure Timing By Whom Done No. I 1 Preconstruction meeting Prior to beginning site Contractor, Developer, Civil work and Geotechnical Engineers II 2 Unsuitable fill removal During removal Soil Technician Density testing of engineered fill During filling, tested I 3 (90% of Modified Proctor) every 2 vertical or 500 yd Soil Technician Under -slab base rock Prior to placing vapor I 4 Soil Technician (95% of Modified Proctor) barrier or steel Footing Excavations / Prior to placement of 5 Overexcavations crushed rock / setting Geotechnical Engineer forms 1 Density testing of trench backfill Dur ing backfilling, tested 6 (95% of Standard Proctor) every 4 vertical feet for Soil Technician every 200 lineal feet Pavement subgrade compaction Prior to base course 7 (95% Standard Proctor Soil Technician I or approved native) placement 8 Base course compaction Prior to paving, tested Soil Technician (95% of Modified Proctor) every 200 lineal feet I ° AC Compaction During paving, tested 9 (91% of Rice — Base lift) Soil Technician every 200 lineal feet (92% of Rice — Top lift) I 10 Final Geotechnical Engineer's Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer Letter I I I I I I 04- 8688 -Oak Tree 2 Apts GR 17 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I 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 I 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 1 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 homesites. Do List I 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 I 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. 1 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 I or sewer line. In either event, professional advice regarding the problem should be obtained followed by corrective action, if necessary. 1 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. I 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. I 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. I 6. Do not irrigate in an unreasonable or excessive manner. Regularly check irrigation systems for leaks. Drip systems are preferred on hillsides. I ---.! — 7312 �VV Durham Road VICINITY ��» 8� . .~~."~" " , .~.... I ��N��08� P��nd.O�gnnQ7224 �� T: 503.598.8445 F: 503.598.8705 'c:::_&-.-4::::..., ',..: //ft: ' ...,:;';:.••• ' ..),:, - ',..! ,.,., .„,', :::: • *,•;:-.-:',-'''-'::..' 7".;:‘/ - I . :- ' — .,--'• .•-•'.' .7!..." ... • i 1 : . ', (':. \-------- "0,..,.= i 'g ,.; . ...-I-:- , 7 - VIZi.T:k:'''''. 1 e:.:f',', :1'. i lir -.. )!.. , ;;; . 1; L •::i.::' •' .:1,-:16:=':p .. '• ,.i : • -•,.., ' „. ._ -::-•,. •, • ' ' ) .( ) „/„..,,..,_,A: -\,„1_ ....1:-. ....,:;,...:,:::.,.. '7 .::::' :'. '„:',- : >;i: - ' . .",, ,,_ ' ,..,.. _-•:::.::.-",:: - .. , : t 1.;' , :..2. jA ;7,11 t:,,;',:/_: - N , . r V : ".:* : .7_1-:. , :,%:.•. :. I '', .',.;%::,±.I , -- ''. 1 ' _,.-:-, '..-/- 4 ' - .. t -. . . •••, i. -; .. - us1) 1 i,.... .-;■• . • •=77;1•I'::I.,,,,.L.-..,i'l-;III'•II-•::.'"):1:7;',;1,1;1•!/Ili.:::-2II:.41i,-:'':47':;:i :;::Ii.•:::::-:;;;::;,:..7,,::.'2:;;;••':14.1::.:::-:'I':.:!:". ij tfil t 'j ; '.t7 6 ''I:* (C I N i .ii : i 'II:I. ,. : ; :; f :''-' :, i;:' t '?:;I .i', "I'.I:'I;' . ;'- :6 :? , !;; :; //' . 'E' ' :.1-::.I::I5::: ,-- -7- ,; •'SIt' : I-" i t! : - i ':- ..r :-- p n .:IIII:I' : ':I " ?r ';:t• --: : 4 , t I;" ' j ; :'f ';' ::' tt ' i l r t!1 'j !:! : :t t'; , i l ::..:" - 'I .:: .. ;I?',III " '-' Z l :i t*: . ''': - :!"''III'; " ,':' l I': ` "1 ; ::( ! •I::'-1 . i l ::'-' i :'': t '!'I'l'': o " , :!o ,, , , ,i. ' '' L , . . g...r. • • .: .‘ i. .• ' ., .: '' . .. ..'. .[1•' ' " ./(' . . SUBJECT SITE I All isi Date: 01/27/03 I Legend Approximate Scale 1 in = 2,000 ft Drawn by: EJK Base map: u.a. Geological aunmyr.o minute To»vu�pw/nMap menoo.00avenvn.omoonQuau�nom. (Revised 1e84) I Project: Oak Tree 2Apartments pn�eotNo. O4'8S88 FIGURE 1 Tigard, Oregon U K 1 I SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN I _ NORTH - ..... . ,. : I . -......‘ , •=. ..-. .. „., .,, . .; .. .....7 1 -, 1 - ,c . . , .._ .. . 0 \ . *i. !I • ... * ---- * I I- --- 60 . '•-,.'.. / ,. ' - ., \ „ • - - , s ow ig:4 . _, _. L._._._—i . .. . ..........,........•.... ay s mass •SSOSII 1 ft 1 *010611.6 10720 Ot€1019"4PEth i .., 1 I APPROXIMATE SCALE 1"=60' •, .. - / ' • • ./ , . -• • •. . i . .. . . , .. . co ; ,... . , . i IR; fi . ■ t 1 I I _______,... , .,,,, N. ' . , 1 .- : t • 1 . ' - • - 4.,,,,,4 ; ,, . S 1 N 4 . . , 4, .... • . . . . • . , -.: : : ,,._..........._..._ . • :- ,Ar '- ' • - I : , ,. . .. , t i r 4 k i ?, b . .. • ., . '' . ' ' '' i .. .. -, • ...--...... r ro - __. , ! . .. . . . ,,,, _.• ,... -• A .1\ --::_z• --- r _ • „ , ni , • -, ,,,, (3 \ . •-• .. ''' 311 1 1 I II: , a • , ., 1 , i • ” . -, . . . • . . - ) k . 4, -- ,-- . . ... \ , I gi ill r • • ; .. i! liP II " ... I \ N • ...—....:--- ' ''. -' 00 N '',„' • • '''' ....' .'s - - , ' - citim :,,..- 4 ; 1 6 4 6 am atietfti itsx tit ow • a am II/ QOM I S ISMS a a =a • e no ii.; elia, . ........... ,::: : - ..7 lig, z:..,_, : ,t, ....,, ,,,_...... ss... ,. i it . \ , ., . R, \ i il : I ."-:-.-- .....--------: : -.-----:: ,..:.A„---. :,-- . • • , __-„ - .--...4.„ --.;..--: „s -, - ' ' I '., , r 1. TP-k ' , . -.... ,..---.-,.__...--...'. .----„---,--- ----....:.--... ----- ma - 7 r- 14 ' Milt iir - ,:i-::'----.' c? ..„ _ i i % \ N.- ....,....... ..--: --- ,....z., .....„_,....„.... 4,-- •••.,_..... „1. .... ---_ .•-,•,-,. -,-., . :,,,; ' , 1: * -^ , - , . • i: . , 1 • .. . :-- ' --. ----: .-.1 -" -----..„,,, ...„4:„'" ...e .-.,,,..._.:::-.. ..... ---. ' ",,-„•:•-• ,,....'7.!".....1:;:....?...,.. lilt ___,'.,.` "-,7: - `:----..`-- .01 , U. ' - -.. .. :Z -,- -1,.::: S. al . -*. . • • -, -•, , - \ \ • \ . ' , • . t I : 1 I el -- - --„. .4..-:, ---- ---„ , , ; : :. 1 , '` ., .. • ' - - ....- ', :::;',..--- •:,".2- :.:"... . ',.‘ . . !•.; ,. . ... x= -,:..... ...,...„. am -. ' :-,:•:`, '•,.` \. -,„ • \ •-- --.N -.:4.--'‘-',„ • -40 -,, x \ . . I!: i; I 1 . . ......... ! .:- - 5 . ,• ._ • -- - .••• --_:_......___ .---- j„,-,-.... • .. - • 4 .... „ •i ,, .. . , :1, . •• .. 0 . • , • ,_ . • . _0$0_ ..... ...,:•-e . -•-,:‘,:.•---.:.:,:•-e• , ---......iz-,„.•-________•„..-,„•„- „.„.-„-„,„„,.. :• . -...---...t •:-::-• •-: .• : '', . .....-: - 41 -....- . .. , . . ... . . : - — - - ' -- . ' ' -'.:- ■,. ' ..s•-• ' ".-: .: .....,.. 112:.--, ..."-"--.."4.. \ ..„, ., '.,-.,,":-.\'-'\,, \ s\-,. . . lie ' I '. ';' -- \ \ • .'•;-.vr- . • . • I - k - . ' I - ‘ ', 1)•••.- \:_,. "_ •,s'• , • -, I gi 1 ..„, \ • \ N‘ - • : • :„ ..., ---. -., .... \t-, ‘.. . i 1 g ;73 , 1 ' k ' '" • . D ' k , - 0 -- B 2 - - i ......„i„--„, , -., --,,,,‘ . \ - . • --- -,",;,-..,%,,,,, , ; - . - ----:,-"zz7.-..-:-ID,:,.•: ---...- --,C.::...i..::::.-- - -1- ,, ,' , . ---,,.,.--- , Ase " ... .\ \ i , ' - .,.--' ------\ 'A, ... ' ' • , - -4. -- ---1--- • 7 Z:"': -.'.% ... . . - .•,;,',,, f ? : . - . •.' -: ' : . ''''..; ''''....-... ' , . is , r, . ],- \ • , IV 77. \ . \ , , . . 1 ‘ 0 ... i , - ' ..., ' k • .. . , . . „ " .--':.:-.". 7:■:."...;•- -.- -.. , .. - ...... - "." • . - . . iti - • ...... : 7 ' ' ' • - ;,,,, ,. F , . !,,,,,. , .4 1 • .., :... ; , ,,,, .. X ,.... . . \ •, s . C.' I ut a .• - . IIII ai ... • . . -.. g 4 . . t (f; ,, - - --*---„-----.-.:: * :..: • - ,...4 .-. 11111111.. g v-7 dit • .... ..„.,„ .. ., , .. \ - „ ... . .• \-- 4 -, - • --- •:, j'.4•1•.`•= \ . i,". .0.. + A .. • . • ‘ y \'‘,:,.,\ ',,. \ . '...•. ; I ! i \ ' III 6 o IS 0 1 ° = \ '' ' II , . .'' ‘ , \ \ . / ., ...is. ....., / r ' _ .... , . \.•,,Sk•■•,„■**--".'•„1,4.,r• " 'N.. ' '' '..` *3 •‘•:...7::- . ' '..... 1 -' eti , ` .. . .z;..7- -:•.,,\,,, \ B-1 -- -, - -s \ ; , '-., .' "-- .. -::,s's- . ,. `.-,:--....:.4.s.. ,..._\:, \\;,...„...<,,,,,,,..,.% 1,.‘, .,1 . ' 1 \ \ .\\\\:\, .‘', ill i' • • 7 ." •1 '," 1 ,1 ' . i ,,'' i t \ \ , ' \, ;, ,N ;..'. ii; / -- — — -- C PT-2 -- ' :' s. , .,..:-.,..., '''.\--* .. 1, , , _-------- (t.'-. -- \\:...2...."----..- ..;:-,‘. , 1 Il • I il Jt • 7 .. , ..- „ 'N . .1: .. .... , I . . .- a 1 U— ........J ."'"." .".....""11%. r ---- - - - --- T$ , ( , , , .- --. ..,!' , • . . ...,.... ......,.„. __:„......,........„.:...„,..... „... ,.......: .,.., ....,.......„...,. .,. ,,, . 9: • , . \ N\ it 1 i ,:. % f . . 1 ' . • • 4 . • — ..• :\ '''. ' '••,'' - ''''' - . ; '.4 ..: : , I : ' 1 :: . ,..• 0 . . . ., . . • . . . . • . . .N, ' - - iti ----.--/ '' • 1..■ 0 y 4. 1 ./ „•••• 1 . ' ;. f . • , 1 . ' / : , . • 1 ''. .. ' : . s : ::‘'''''.. -' ' :0 ' --- ' ...--.14.. -- . / ;• I 1 : i fl , I . pti. ,,,. : : fi .... - Tp1 . on ... , -- . --,.....- - F.-- i .- ,..:- 0 " gli • . , 1 . No; • ..3.: ,,..! .1. .,7 111111. Mil MEM ' - CPT-1 ,..• ,,, -- ;- , ..,,, / r .. .. . _ „. , „,.... --.,._It , -1;.,..'• '•.-„./ li:; . . ,.. I : MI TP-5 MI _ Ill it . • :.!....,,t . , :,..,.i i ills4.: ' . '''' - '. • 1 so ; . . . , ,,..,. : . .,,,,,„\' . - .e- , . . ‘ ., ,..: 111 II - 1111 . - —.----.. 4 : ; ' . t m ; .- : r :--Q . . .. t ...... , .., . , .. • : ; I : ■ ■ ,, i I • ' • • ; ; . , . ii. g ( ... : 5 , .. f.. 1 .F „.....;. . , J . , . " TP-4 ' , ' Y_'.•.) - ° ;' `.7 .. ,..-7. t.; ..,, , - . ... - . • , . . - , ,, ..... 1 - k.,'" . - . , • 5, t. ::. . i . : ' • • . t ` ,,, ..--' , ...7. ' 1 • ,. ' ..'':/''? :''' I IIII . . : . w 4 0 : - ....., zrs 0 ; _ -. 0 g• I .200. ,. g' : ii , ..-i. F '° ' „ ' %. . -. . - -4 '' ' • k , t _,, _c.v, \v • . _ . • s, , . . . . . (,) k."; i .: ' TP- , I . " • t E ,.. *:,... : .,1 - _ - _, '.." , - - ' ‘- Q N --- ,,,,, . • -, g, . ; i . .. . 3 1.1 ...,..,:.. . . ). ., 1 ..i .... . i I.__ .__ .1 a a it —3 ',. we '.‘ 31-, . ..., , a, a '. .or ' a - i ,- is as , • in , -.../ ' i ) . , ; l JO i , . 11 , i I . . .: .- ,,,,, „ „ ..„.-, .._ — • • -- - - - - - - ;"' ' * - ttir 4. I MOM . _: .... - 1 ' ,., iv 7 i 11 S W -' 1, 06th AV Nt.i E , ( . - .- , 1 , - . ' ......a....1100,................ . ' . ' I i '. ('' i.....'"...."'"'"'""."' 2 . 7 !"."'''''"/. .....7"- ■-..,...-. ...................................-*...-.., , • ., , ‘, - \ \ \ N. 1 • , , I I , • , \ 1 \.. \ , s , ' ' \ . • II 1 _ .„..._ _ .__ ....... ,... - ., , , ,..., , ... „ ..___......... ...,_ ,....,._ .. - ... ,--,....____----- -11 1 r • I, Legend TP-6 5 Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location Date: 04/29/04 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments 1 ..; . 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPacotic Portland, Oregon 97224 ,-- B-2 -$- Borehole Designation and Approximate Location - i Drawn by: SLH Tigard, Oregon FIGURE 2 Entinserhiont'-V, Tel. 503.598.8445 Fax: 503.598.8705 CPT CPT Sounding Designation and Approximate Location Project No. 04-8688 , . .. 1 1 F I M G1 e-• — c d l j E — 0 CD 3 w C E I o (0o m u LL k co m�_ �Y L \ Q a 52 — CO o - � CO >— > 1 J — Q C — L Z CD es cy Q 0 Z Q ® c I in Q ■ e (,) L m 1 0 < .g c ,, i v ___ co '''' i i Q. 0 mid W 7.- .7 CD 7. M CD CI o Dal m CC a t... *� y o c —I m V LU a y a V o sasss888sssss88sassass8 sassis8888ssssssssass8ssassssssssaRRSasasasssas$ ses8sasss ssasssssassssssssssssssssss d ' w , � o�.-e0000mo"d88oeoo$ 0 000000000 0000000000000000000000000000RR 00RRRRR�°°° 8888880o0oo0m8 00000000 CD 00000 ' _ R �$gimERZRE.irOr aa5R °Ram"s rah iliFIE aiViMioi aryoiEniE RORsRe�1140. aiRI cinSLiEigE RRI§ JE oo mmoomoa omoomommommmomomoommmmomoommommom000mmomomom_ __nnn rvnrvnoo moommoomm mm0000momommmoommmmoommmoo__ 0 o mnm n m m.m m m '" . _ m m. mm. 00 e� V m rym w,nmmm q� min rym�rvn Q .. eMR rv ' ""'“' "g gRgAn AAg.'::3 ARW33$28RMgga- $�82AAA " R£ig&RR ;,TV "1""M RBRMX'RF1 , 1 0 07 O^ N N M M Wo Vsn alemgog g30l11n!O oJdAlenbr l UM MN — • •• UN MN Ilk OM • • OM — NM NM MI NW li 11 OT2 cpt -l.sum ***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** II * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET version 4.3 I copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com (425) 453 -6488 Fax (425) 453 -5848 I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Licensed to Scott L. Hardman, P.E., GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. I _I l 4/28/2004 11:02:41 AM Input File Name: D: \LiquefyFiles \OT2 cpt -1.liq Title: Oak Tree 2 Apartments I l Subtitle: Amax =0.19, 5% in 50 years Surface Elev.= Hole No. =CPT -1 I l 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 II fs =1, Plot one CSR (fs =1) III Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce =1 Borehole Diameter, Cb =1 Sampeling Method, Cs =1 CPT Calulation Method: Seed et al. settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu / Seed I Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss /seed (SPT only) Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liq. Correction Average Input Data: Smooth* * Recommended Options II Input Data: Depth qc fc Gamma Fines D50 ft tsf tsf pcf % mm II 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 I 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 I 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 11 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 I 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 I_ 6.6 25.9 0.5 110.0 50.0 0.1 Page 1 i iFC c_cli 3 '` 0 II a OT2 cpt -l.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 I 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 I 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 II 32.2 24.3 0.6 32.5 20.6 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1 110.0 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 II 33.5 17.8 0.2 33.8 28.0 0.3 105.0 50.0 0.1 110.0 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 I 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 I 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 I 38.7 64.5 1.2 39.0 65.6 1.0 115.0 30.0 0.1 115.0 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 II 40.0 67.3 1.5 115.0 50.0 0.1 40.3 61.6 1.5 115.0 50.0 0.1 I 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. II Differential settlement =0.005 to 0.007 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. s_dry S_all ft w /fs in. in. in. II 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 II 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 II 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 I Page 3 V A 3 c,,,,,,‘ 7 li ' 0T2 cpt -l.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 I 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 I CSRfs C yclic 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 Sall Total settlement from saturated and dry sands NoLiq No- Liquefy Soils Page 4 P.0) - �� - L � c - o aD io - w mo— m u u- 3v, ev Z CD it) CD Zs C.) m — V i q Q - ` o �/� o - V ♦ i - -- u- co J - Q C _ L Z � ; L O in CC C Z a O — O ■ N ff\ ili I 4 N o II U W 0 •C _ \ / - \\ \ I m ,..., I m IF ex, m tz 4 2 4.---\7-- . cr * co C L t CD cn r r ill J - 0 0 n , w N v o v R V F. y p p p p pp O Oopp ppp o o p Qppp pp pp o p p pp a c 0 mComm wwwo wb0ODo awDm wowoowwwaO0NN wo am NNNNNNN�OCODY N f NC nC �NNmNN�C MOO�NNNNNOO��O CDnN O II � o� 8 m3° o800 8000000ONO0000O8OOOOOO N00000OOYIhO8ONNNNhNNN WOOOONv)NNNYINV� O ONONNNC � 2 k _ Om 'c - cp p b M .� r4gR MryA D OI V rrMRr QN A , OI' A tO 4f'1( O��tp � Nip �Dy AI. m�ON9NO10O NOPIA At� �p OI �(p �y N�D <O m � V p! V/ U 1A OAQ1OOg . . 61 ..,.1 . ONN0.!. . .YI.?fO �O 1 .N< r.O0.? .c!0101•- m.r��O�'.-.0�611 ClAiOm� IAN.P ..! .AAf�IOAO.O"Nr10 Q� _ r 000000 rr r 00. -OOO .000000 O.-O OOOO o r -000000 O....... OOO.o.o .- oo o. OOC CG .-.- o.o .-...-0000. _ Q ..... ............ ..... ........... .. .. -007 �L U ryma t?�rmymnArywrry a amour in c} O rAm 10 �lpom m ry nm. -ry Y e nA ar �?1?am rein nN�mp a rp �A am ry ea CL a M� �� : NNNlicT ;:1gINZ 44:71pNNO4�O:;;;Z;3:N ANOC'IfI ;t §kv .�O Lc) O ^ N N M M I l l i l l l l l woo yoall!nio VSl aJemgos yoallino adA ;anbnn IIIIIII 111111 MN - r - M all OM AIL - MI MN - - - - OM IIIIII II II OT2 cpt -2.sum ***************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 II Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com (425) 453 -6488 Fax (425) 453 -5848 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Licensed to Scott L. Hardman, P.E., GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. II 4/28/2004 11:03:12 AM Input File Name: D: \LiquefyFiles \OT2 cpt -2.liq Title: oak Tree 2 Apartments II Subtitle: Amax =0.19, 5% in 50 years Surface Elev.= Hole No. =CPT -2 11 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 i 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 I 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 II 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 II 6.6 26.0 0.6 110.0 50.0 0.1 Page 1 I i. kG A C.o131‘i) I I 0T2 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 II 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 II 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 I 10.2 42.7 1.2 10.5 37.6 1.4 115.0 80.0 0.0 110.0 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 I 11.5 36.6 0.9 11.8 40.8 0.9 110.0 50.0 0.1 115.0 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 I 12.8 40.3 1.0 13.1 40.9 1.2 115.0 50.0 0.1 115.0 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 I 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 I 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 I 18.0 21.4 0.9 18.4 37.9 0.9 110.0 80.0 0.0 110.0 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 I 19.4 41.5 0.5 19.7 40.3 0.6 115.0 30.0 0.1 115.0 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 I 20.7 54.4 0.8 21.0 44.5 0.8 115.0 30.0 0.1 115.0 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I 25.9 47.2 0.9 115.0 50.0 0.1 output Results: settlement of saturated sands =0.00 in. II Page 2 ; (' I\ c UN C) I II 1 0T2 cpt -2.sum settlement of dry sands =0.01 in. Total settlement of saturated and dry sands =0.01 in. II Differential settlement =0.007 to 0.009 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry Sall ft w /fs in. in. in. II 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 II 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 I 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 II 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 I 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 I 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 I * 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 = II pcf, Settlement = in. CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils I CSRf5 c yclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user factor of safet F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S. =cRRm /CSRfs S_sat settlement from saturated sands I s_dry settlement from dry sands s_all Total settlement from saturated and dry sands NoLiq No- Liquefy Soils 1 II I II Page 3 II V‘G 4 com--0 I /'‘\ 7312 SW Durham Road G Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I :.E„enw„nro,tbcr ,, Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments I Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 1 �. 2 N E. C N >. .) o I IS o c a • a �' @ Material Description o o 2 E � �o tlO � = p d to o 0 m I - - Dark brownish -grey silt with some clay, organic upper 6 ", soft, moist (9" Topsoil - ML, 1 — 0.5 Dark brown clayey silt, soft, damp (ML) I 2 -- 1.0 I 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 I — clay, stiff, damp (ML) 5 — I 6- 7- 8 . - I 9 — Test pit terminated at 8 feet, No groundwater encountered. 1 10= 11 I 12— I • 13= 14— ' 15 I 16- 17 LEGEND DD ate Excavated: 12/23/02 3 100 to 5 Gal. �� Logged By: J. Pyne Bucket 4 1,000000 g 8 _ Surface Elevation: 172.5' Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 NON. 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPacific Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments I Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 2 a F _ c I 1 °� E4 I 2 2A y 1" � N 0 ° w °' `� °' 9 `° = Material Description O a ° a) o E cOa o c a in °v � v �m I — Greyish -brown silt with some clay, fragmented, loose, very moist 1— (Fill - ML) I 2 — Brown silt with some clay, loose, very moist, fragmented (Fill -ML) 3- 4— ` - -- I — 2.0 Light brown silt with a trace of very fine sand, micaceous, medium 5— stiff, very moist (Native Soil - ML) — 2.5 1 6 Test pit terminated at 6 feet, • 7 No groundwater encountered. 8— I 9— ' 10= 11 12- 13 14 15 I 16— ' 17 LEGEND . Date Excavated: 12/23/02 I . . 1 5 Gal. � �© ® Logged By: J. Pyne 100 to Bucket 1.000 g _ Surface Elevation: 179.0' I Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I �Y\r 7312 SW Durham Road Ge®PitifiC Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 3 I Tigard, Oregon �, _ C v n N "Dc O I E -iii F— D c" �N --S a) a C o `° = Material Description L — g 0_ ° U m I 0 Grey crushed rock and construction debris (concrete, asphaltic concrete) with some silty fine to coarse sand (_Fill - GM) Brown silt with some very fine sand and clay, soft, moist I 2--1 - 5_ (Disturbed Native - ML) — Light brown silt with some very fine sand, micaceous, stiff, moist 3 — 2 (Native - ML) I - 3.5 4 Test pit terminated at 4 feet, 5— No groundwater encountered. 6= 7— 8 -- 9— I 10= 11— 12 - 1 13= 14 15 16 17— LEGEND Date Excavated: 12/23/02 100 to 5 Gal. Bucket 6® 64 0 77 Logged By: J. Pyne 1,000 g ® Surface Elevation: 180.0' i Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I „,(Y'\,.1 s, 7312 SW Durham Road GeoP2 cifie Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I 'inioneertma:me * fi Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments I Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP- 4 cii a> ? g . 2 � o I at E H w c w �N Q c o E z v o ci, Material Description a u) v I I 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) I 2— 0.5 . — 1.0 I 3 =36 Brown silt with trace of very fine sand, stiff to very stiff, moist (Native - ML) 4 4.0 I 5— 4.5 _ Light brown silt, micaceous, trace of very fine sand, stiff, damp i 6- (Native - ML) III 7 Test pit terminated at 7 feet, 8— No groundwater encountered. I 9— I 10= 11— ' 12— 1 13= 14 15 16- 17— LEGEND o Date Excavated: 12/23/02 7 I ( 5 Gal. 4 Logged By: J. Pyne 100 to Bucket 4444 ,,0008 �� l l Surface Elevation: 167.5' I Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I �`iN , 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPacific Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments I Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP -5 1 o C 2 i o 1 E= I— -2 c� � � CD N n o° c a v7 o E " a m c' Material Description U) a c-_ E _ � " 2c � p ❑ a in ❑ o m I Dark brown silt with some clay,srass 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) 1 2 2.75 I 3 — 3.75 4_ 4.0 Light brown micaceous silt with a trace of fine sand, stiff, moist. 1 5— ' 6= li 7 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet, 8 — No groundwater encountered. I 9— 1 10= 11— 12— 1 13= 14- 15 I 16- 17— LEGEND '7 Date Excavated: 12/23/02 I )---/ 100 to s cal . 06 f/i Logged By: J. Pyne Bucket �/ 1.0008 Surface Elevation: 163.5' i Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Beanng Zone Water Level at Abandonment I /Y\ 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPa Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I NE=IN Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Project No. 04 -8688 Test Pit No. TP -6 I Tigard, Oregon N N T C °' „1 n 2 � 0 I a) E= I -. a) N L 0 2 0 N (n a) in ,, N �1 o a 9. E o s g › Material Description z v 0 0_ C/) ° (.) m r _ Dark greyish -brown organic silt with some clay, abundant roots, soft, moist j11" Topsoil - ML) 1 - - 2 . 73 — 2.5 Light brown silt with trace of clay and micaceous fine sand, medium r 2 — 0.5 stiff to soft, very moist — 1.75 3 3.5 I — 3.5 Light brown silt with trace of fine sand, micaceous, stiff, damp. 4— 4.0 1 5 I 6- /1 7 — Test pit terminated at 7 feet, 8 No groundwater encountered. I 9— 1 10= 11— 12— ' 13= 14- 15 r 16— r 17 LEGEND o I Date Excavated: 12/23/02 AI 5 G Bucke � � Logged By: J. Pyne 100 to t 1,0008 _ d seao Surface Elevation: 160.0' r Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1X'\4. -, 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPac ftc Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG I - ilatamroMna:ms. -, Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments Tigard, Oregon Project No. 04 -8688 Boring No. B - E. m a) 0 0 ti E To o T o s co re Material Description to Z U a t I - I — 5= II Light brown silt with a trace of micaceous very fine sand, stiff, damp (ML) 13 1 10— 13 Light brown silt with some micaceous very fine sand, stiff, damp (ML) 111 — NI — 15= _ 10 Dark brown micaceous silty fine sand, medium dense, moist (SM) I 1 20— 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 . I — probably not representative of actual soil strength. 25= 10 _ Boring terminated at 26.5 feet I 30— 1 1 • 35 LEGEND o Date Drilled: 12/23/02 I � 10-10-99 j Logged By: J. Pyne 1,000 g / Surface Elevation: 168.5' Static Water Table I Bag Sample Split -Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone 1 �rY'` 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPacIfc Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG I -- AtlioneeMnamg.: e. Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Oak Tree 2 Apartments 1 Tigard, Oregon Project No 04 -8688 Boring No. B - (2. ,..._ 0 C . N 2 tT o O y Ca3 = C NN Ta o 2 o Material Description (n Z U m I 5= N Light brown silt with a trace of very fine micaceous sand, medium stiff, damp 8 (ML) I I 10 ill 6 • Light brown silty fine sand, micaceous, medium stiff, damp (SM) il 0 15= i 1 1 9 • Dark brown micaceous silty fine sand, medium dense, moist (SM) ,' I 20^ 2 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 _ N 9 _ Boring terminated at 26.5 feet 30 I — I — LEGEND loo to Z Date Drilled: 12/23/02 I r"{ o 0.20 -� Logged By: J. Pyne N � 1,0005 — /. Surface Elevation: 162.0' Static Water Table I Bag Sample Split -Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone I Subsurface Technologies Operator: W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03-18-04 11:30 Sounding: SND626 Location: CPT1 OAK TREE 2 I Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number: 04-8688 I Tip Resistance at (Ton/ftA2) Local Friction Fs (Ton/ft^2) Friction Ratio Fs/Qt (%) Pore Pressure Pw (psi) Diff PP Ratio Soil Behavior Type* (Pw-Ph)/Qt (%) Zone: UBC-1983 o 0 140 0 5 0 5 -20 100 -20 100 0 12 I I . i I, I I I I !Ill' I I I, I 1.4,1,111,11i 1 : . ; I • : 1 , ; 4.,,3 i 1 ',,,,„ . ; II; I . ; I I : 1 . . , ; ; • . : ' • f.:1= i 1 i • I , 5 __. I, 1 ; . . ' ; 1 - . t ; , • ; . , , : • . . .,„:!,:,; 1 , ' ■ . ' . , , , , I I: • ; i t . ! : ! t . : ; : . t I ; ■ . 1 • . „ • t ; i 1 , . " 1 . 1 t i ! ; ] . , ■ , , , . 1 , ■ - 1 : t 11 ' 10 - - „ - -i - i -- -- - i - .! ■ ' r - ; . ,,-- „ •, , 1 I I ; , .1 , , .., . . „ ; ; - , , , 1 ,., ,, ., ,„ ,. , i ; , 15 -- -'.- L----i--- --- 1 , ..1 t I__ ti, t „ , - I --I -- .7, .;;;:;;;;„: I ■ I ; ' I ! 1 , , I • , - ' . , ;I ; I I; ; , ; i • „ r 1 ; I • • . I • I ! ' , : 1 ; 1 ; 1 1 ' I ; ' ,•:. , „ ''' ,! I I : , ' 1 1 1 • I 1 1 II :I I I ' ' ' 20 -- ----; -- --;-- -, 1- ' ' I • 1. - 1-* 1--.1 -1 _1 !... ____ ; -, , -- 111 . , , , , • ., • , ,, , , 1 , .. , , , , , , , , , , , El= ' ; 1 ■ , ti..;!54,iit , , I -', •I• -14:21 I , I I 1 Depth 1 ; I • ,:, , ',, 1-10. i, ! ! 1 ' 1 i , . i • ' 1 : . , , , 1 i ,, . I , 1 , 25 :- -; . i : 1 t : i I I t . ' - :1 i - - - - -! :- - „ . LI 1. i I_ ,... -1 ,:- 4 !- 1, , ■ . H 1 .11 : ■ 11 : 1 ti I ; 1 , I I , ' : : , I' 1 1 t ; 1 , • . I 1 . , i , • : '11 II i 1 1 1 ; I ; ' t, „ „ t ,,•, t , • 1 . 30 ---- - -- - - - • I i : 1 ” • I i ; t. ; . ; ; ' ,i , : ; • . - !I 1 : ' , , i ; t ,, i i ! I .4:;:tiNu I I • 1 1 ! : '1 : 1 , 1 1 . , ., t , 44 ,, i ,;:-=', P• ,',4 ! 1 I 35 - - - ;- --- ; , I t I 1 . . 1 . I , „ , 1 t 1 07,0Vi ,, ,P; i !II ii ■ 7.'", i i . I ; i ' „ ; 1 , : i I , i ,, , ; t 1 : i 1 1 1 1 ■ lie0,0 ! 1 , 1 AP1 '14:4 11 i I. - '•,', , ; . 40 - - - - — !, - _ , , i -- . , i . • . : I ! I 1 ' .1 , ; 1 t t■it.tt.;',L I , , , • • ' .111Hii,i ; . 1 45 , - t t , , . , , t ; : I Maximum Depth = 40.35 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet I ' -= 1 sensitive fine grained 4 silty clay to clay 7 silty sand to sandy silt 10 gravelly sand to sand gai 2 organic material 1!-3 3 clay .4,2 LU 5 clayey silt to silty clay ' 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Il! tal 8 sand to silty sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) .,, 9 sand el I& iii 12 sand to clayey sand (*) *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 1 I Subsurface Technologies Operator: W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/Time: 03-18-04 11:30 Sounding: SND626 Location: CPT1 OAK TREE 2 I Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number 04-8688 I SPT N* 60% Hammer 0 40 0 ! i 1 . • . , . , ' ' 1 1 5 . , . . . ■ • , , , , . , . I , . 1 , . i 10 111 ! 1 , I ! 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 . 15 i -- r 1 . _ - .. --; 1 ; . i 1 . i ; - . I I 20 i - ' 1 . , , , , . ,.. , Depth 1 , (ft) , I 25 i I • ' , i ! • 1 1 1 1 : I 1 1 , • i 1 1 . ; 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 30 ■ — , . 1 I I • I , 1 • I I I I 1 1 I r I I • I r I ' , • I 1 35 1 1 ; I 1 . i ' ' I I I i, 1 • 1 i r I ! I , . 1 i . • . 40 1 . , 1 ' 1 ! 1 . : I • i . 1 Maximum Depth = 40.35 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet I Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 1 II V Operator:W.MCC v / A.MEE Location:CPT1 OAK TREE 2 Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688 Customer:surface Technologies Units:English II Depth 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 II 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 6.56 25.9 0.535 2.17 0.05 I 6.89 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 II 8.20 35.3 0.662 0.76 0.05 8.53 33.9 0.716 0.64 0.05 8.86 29.3 0.703 0.61 0.05 i 9.19 29.8 0.843 0.58 0.05 9.51 32.3 0.874 0.59 0.05 9.84 28.0 0.967 -1.17 0.05 10.17 22.3 0.741 -0.86 0.05 I 10.50 24.6 0.776 1.03 0.05 10.83 32.3 0.803 0.40 0.05 11.15 30.3 0.899 0.20 0.05 11.48 30.6 0.725 -0.03 0.05 I 11.81 37.3 0.808 0.35 0.05 12.14 36.9 0.809 0.31 0.05 12.47 32.6 0.805 0.33 0.05 12.80 31.6 0.786 0.31 0.05 I 13.12 33.3 0.905 0.16 0.05 13.45 25.8 0.798 1.12 0.05 13.78 30.1 0.766 -0.04 0.05 14.11 30.5 0.847 -0.03 0.05 I 14.44 32.7 0.883 0.68 0.05 14.76 41.9 0.982 -0.64 0.05 15.09 45.4 0.984 -0.05 0.05 15.42 45.9 0.978 -0.20 0.05 15.75 44.2 0.897 -0.95 0.05 16.08 37.5 0.834 -1.26 0.06 16.40 34.3 0.851 -3.16 0.06 II 16.73 26.8 0.812 -1.99 0.06 17.06 38.4 0.859 -3.34 0.06 17.39 44.9 0.869 -5.41 0.06 17.72 44.5 0.832 -6.45 0.06 I 18.04 46.5 0.930 -7.22 0.07 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC - 1983 11 II I (ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg) 18.37 55.4 1.275 -8.18 0.07 18.70 60.3 1.140 -9.98 0.08 I 19.03 130.4 1.414 -10.78 0.08 19.36 78.0 1.706 -12.15 0.07 19.69 62.8 3.524 -13.41 0.07 20.01 62.8 3.317 -13.45 0.07 II 20.34 104.9 3.064 -13.50 0.07 20.67 112.5 2.815 -13.54 0.08 21.00 95.9 3.289 -13.63 0.08 21.33 124.9 2.499 -13.76 0.10 II 21.65 86.6 3.172 -14.05 0.11 21.98 53.5 0.790 -14.19 0.11 22.31 33.0 0.786 -14.31 0.11 22.64 26.7 1.201 -14.39 0.11 I 22.97 22.1 0.880 -14.62 0.20 23.29 17.1 0.563 -14.62 0.20 23.62 11.0 0.190 -14.62 0.20 II 23.95 13.1 0.142 -14.58 0.20 24.28 7.2 0.019 -14.56 0.21 24.61 7.3 0.043 -14.55 0.21 24.93 9.7 0.299 -14.56 0.21 II 25.26 28.9 0.239 -14.51 0.21 25.59 30.6 0.330 -14.52 0.22 25.92 25.2 0.486 -14.48 0.22 26.25 21.6 0.412 -13.89 0.22 I 26.57 25.1 0.292 -13.88 0.22 26.90 23.2 0.321 -13.86 0.24 27.23 11.3 0.258 -13.73 0.24 27.56 7.6 0.041 -13.71 0.24 27.89 16.0 0.333 -13.63 0.24 28.22 19.6 0.606 -13.53 0.24 28.54 32.4 0.307 -13.42 0.24 N 28.87 26.3 0.499 -13.36 0.24 29.20 25.4 0.449 -13.27 0.24 29.53 27.6 0.415 -12.97 0.48 29.86 21.4 0.671 -12.93 0.48 30.18 28.7 0.579 -12.80 0.48 30.51 34.4 0.569 -12.75 0.48 30.84 36.0 0.610 -12.70 0.48 31.17 35.6 0.393 -12.64 0.48 1 31.50 27.8 0.513 -12.63 0.49 31.82 31.4 0.474 -12.58 0.59 32.15 24.3 0.565 -12.51 0.59 32.48 20.6 0.579 -12.45 0.59 I 32.81 22.0 0.293 -12.17 0.70 33.14 17.1 0.428 -12.07 0.70 33.46 17.8 0.217 -11.97 0.70 33.79 28.0 0.280 -11.90 0.70 II 34.12 32.4 0.353 -11.80 0.53 34.45 42.7 1.049 -11.73 0.52 34.78 42.6 1.024 -11.64 0.47 35.10 39.2 0.916 -11.61 0.47 II 35.43 52.2 0.665 -11.74 0.47 35.76 50.6 0.870 -11.64 0.47 36.09 50.2 1.160 -10.74 0.52 II 36.42 50.6 1.204 -10.62 0.53 36.75 51.2 1.186 -10.42 0.53 37.07 58.6 1.034 -10.30 0.53 37.40 64.0 1.128 -10.13 0.53 I 37.73 70.0 1.057 -10.33 0.54 4 Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 II II I (ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg) 38.06 80.8 1.533 -9.97 0.57 38.39 70.6 1.841 -9.72 0.57 II 38.71 64.5 1.211 -9.97 0.57 39.04 65.6 1.002 -10.63 0.58 39.37 77.5 0.896 -7.61 0.59 39.70 80.3 1.509 -8.12 0.59 I 40.03 67.3 1.530 -7.35 0.59 40.35 61.6 -32768 -6.01 0.78 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 1 I 1 I II I/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 11 - v Operator:W.MCC / A.MEE Location:CPT1 OAK TREE 2 II Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688 Customer:surface Technologies Units:English I Depth 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 I 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 II 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 I 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 II 8.20 1.875 0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 8.53 2.110 0.136 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 8.86 2.395 0.150 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 III 9.19 2.831 0.140 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 9.51 2.711 0.132 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14 9.84 3.456 -0.301 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13 10.17 3.316 -0.277 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12 II 10.50 3.152 0.301 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13 10.83 2.487 0.089 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14 11.15 2.962 0.047 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 11.48 2.371 -0.007 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 II 11.81 2.165 0.067 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 12.14 2.193 0.061 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 12.47 2.472 0.073 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 12.80 2.487 0.071 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 I 13.12 2.718 0.035 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 13.45 3.092 0.312 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14 13.78 2.540 -0.010 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14 14.11 2.771 -0.007 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 I 14.44 2.697 0.150 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 14.76 2.345 -0.110 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 15.09 2.166 -0.008 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17 15.42 2.132 -0.031 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17 1 15.75 2.031 -0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 16.08 2.224 -0.242 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 16.40 2.484 -0.664 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 II 16.73 3.027 -0.534 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 17.06 2.240 -0.627 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 17.39 1.935 -0.867 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 17.72 1.869 -1.043 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17 18.04 2.001 -1.118 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC - 1983 II II (ft) ✓(%) (%) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer II 18.37 2.303 -1.064 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 21 18.70 1.890 -1.191 7 silty sand to sandy silt 26 II 19.03 1.084 -0.595 7 silty sand to sandy silt 29 19.36 2.186 -1.121 7 silty sand to sandy silt 29 19.69 5.610 -1.537 5 clayey silt to silty clay 33 20.01 5.279 -1.541 5 clayey silt to silty clay 37 I 20.34 2.922 -0.927 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 36 20.67 2.503 -0.867 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 40 21.00 3.431 -1.024 7 silty sand to sandy silt 35 21.33 2.001 -0.793 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 39 1 21.65 3.665 -1.169 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 34 21.98 1.477 -1.910 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 22 22.31 2.381 -3.120 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 22.64 4.494 -3.876 5 clayey silt to silty clay 13 I 22.97 3.987 -4.768 4 silty clay to clay 14 23.29 3.283 -6.198 4 silty clay to clay 11 23.62 1.725 -9.747 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7 23.95 1.089 -8.280 5 clayey silt to silty clay 5 II 24.28 0.258 - 15.213 5 clayey silt to silty clay 4 24.61 0.582 - 14.990 5 clayey silt to silty clay 4 24.93 3.087 - 11.477 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 6 II 25.26 0.825 -3.858 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 25.59 1.077 -3.682 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 25.92 1.928 -4.503 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 26.25 1.905 -5.105 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 II 26.57 1.162 -4.427 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 26.90 1.388 -4.842 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 8 27.23 2.276 -9.917 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7 27.56 0.531 - 14.794 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 II 27.89 2.079 -7.097 5 clayey silt to silty clay 7 28.22 3.097 -5.817 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 28.54 0.948 -3.518 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 ii 28.87 1.897 -4.360 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 29.20 1.765 -4.520 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 29.53 1.501 -4.120 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 29.86 3.132 -5.350 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 30.18 2.018 -3.999 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 30.51 1.656 -3.358 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 30.84 1.693 -3.224 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 31.17 1.104 -3.278 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 31.50 1.846 -4.233 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 31.82 1.509 -3.763 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 32.15 2.321 -4.884 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 32.48 2.817 -5.809 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 II 32.81 1.334 -5.390 5 clayey silt to silty clay 10 33.14 2.503 -6.942 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 7 33.46 1.218 -6.693 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 8 33.79 1.002 -4.272 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 10 11 34.12 1.090 -3.698 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 34.45 2.453 -2.816 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 34.78 2.402 -2.832 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 35.10 2.337 -3.100 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17 I 35.43 1.274 -2.366 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15 35.76 1.720 -2.448 7 silty sand to sandy silt 16 36.09 2.311 -2.358 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19 36.42 2.378 -2.341 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 19 II 36.75 2.318 -2.308 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20 37.07 1.765 -2.018 7 silty sand to sandy silt 18 37.40 1.763 -1.845 7 silty sand to sandy silt 20 1 1 I 37.73 1.510 -1.723 7 silty sand to sandy silt 23 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC - 1983 II II -- -- _________ .. -- (ft) v ( %) ( %) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer II 38.06 1.896 -1.471 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24 38.39 2.608 -1.674 7 silty sand to sandy silt 23 I 38.71 1.876 -1.875 7 silty sand to sandy silt 21 39.04 1.529 -1.934 7 silty sand to sandy silt 22 39.37 1.156 -1.369 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24 39.70 1.878 -1.379 7 silty sand to sandy silt 24 I 40.03 2.273 -1.578 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 25 40.35 -32768 -1.584 0 <out of range> 0 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 II II 1 II 11 I lit I I I i I I M 1 I I Subsurface Technologies Operator: W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Datefrime: 03-18-04 10:49 Sounding: SND625 Location: CPT2 OAK TREE 2 I Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number. 04-8688 I Tip Resistance at (Ton/W'2) Local Friction Fs (Ton/ftA2) Friction Ratio Fs/Qt (%) Pore Pressure Pw (psi) Diff PP Ratio Soil Behavior Type* (Pw-Ph)/Qt (%) Zone: UBC-1983 0 180 0 5 0 5 -20 100 -20 100 0 12 0 i I I I I I I I I ! I I 11111 ! 1, ! 1 imiluili . 1 , ,i ! . I I I 1. , '.I. i T I 1 ; ' 'It, ' ) ' ■ ! 1 7. , t ! ! ! : ! I 1 1 1 ; ; It • ; i i ! , : 4 ; f•IiIiiili I ; I I 1 . , I . ' 1 1 ! ! ; I ! ! ! : i ! !I : .•.•••• ! ; I"' i !,! 1 i 1 ! ■ ! ! ' 1 1 I ; 1 1 : ' '. ' ■ I 1 ' 1 •• I ' : '. i 1 I I 1 1 1 , , , •.' I i, ■ ' , I 1 . , •.1 , ., , " , . 1 . , . . , , , , , , .1 ! 1 i , , , . i, 1, . 1 1 , , , i 1 1 1 , ,,,,,,, .,,si..;r,;(1 , , , , ,H11 i I 1 Iii ! , ,.,,,,,,,,„ „ , , , , ' . 11 1 1, ,\ , , , , i 1 i , - _ , • 10 I 1 , , .,. , , E _, , I I, i 1 ' 11 ' , 1 I .-,--, 1 '1,1 1 1 1 ; j ■ , ! 1 1 ■ ; t ; t • i 1 i , i : i i 1 : ■ 1 ; 1 ; ,2ogElli, I I ! ! ! ! !, . t ! ! !V 1 , .., . ' ■ ■ 1 1 1 • ' '.:'' : ■ 1 i ' 1 1 1 II 1 I 1 1 I 1 : I ! 1 J ,.;•!.11;Iii !\ ! 1 1 1 ; 1 ! i ,• .-. "•:,,:', 1 i I!! t ; , ; I • I t i , I ; - I ! i I I 1 111 III: ;1 ! : ; : I I I ! 1 1 I — ' --.■ : • , , ,,, 1 hilDepth 15 ■ ' 1 ' '.■ , , I 1 1 (ft) I 'i i ' • . . 1 I 1 1 I I i I , . 1 i ' I] 1 ! 1 ,. .. .. . • I 1 i , .1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 ' . 1 i II : , II n 1 1 ' ! i ii 4361E i I 1 ; ' i I I ; ; I ! I 1 ! 1 . ' ! i ' 1 I i ; i. I 1 I I I ' ■ • ! •1 ! I ' ! I I 1 ; 1 , ! . , • I ', ! i 1 i I I : I ! 1 1 1 '1 : ' ' •,,,,,, '••:''. I 1 I , 1 ,!•„-•,•; -,-;! I 'II :I i•;*!i:.,!:.':.4 1 4:'-. ' I ' I 20 — ..1 ' 1 1 : .1 ., \ 1 I p . 1,111 , I i I , f ; I i • ; ; I : t . ; i I ;• I 1j i - ! I ! • ! ' II til I - : , . . 1 il ! 1 o• !, , I • -,• ...I I .:,..1 i ! tl' 1, , ■ : i, , i l I ! ' ! i I - I I i i ,1 ! , . `‘,-;: :."•,,-,•-, I I ! I I • , ' . . 1 i t ! 1 ! i ! 1 i ' ! ; I , I I I • ! , i 1 ; I ; •1 ' ; 1 1 - ":•, ,, , , ,f- , ..:', I I ' ; 44:•:::: -, ' ! ' ! ! , I , , , 25 • . , , J , ! ; . „ . I ;- ; I - . . ' . i ' ,-. r i ', i I „ . . ! 1 ! 1 i ! • , 1 '1' 1 , 1 i .1 ■ . ' ill!Iliii,l 1 1 1 ; ; . • 1 1 ; / 1,111 1 . : 1 ' 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 , • I ; 1 z : I . : ■ I ; • I 1 ! ' 1 I . ■ i . , , I 1 I i 1 1 1 1 ,11111:! 1 : i ;,•,,,, ! j i W11:1;■1; ! ! , i ! i , 1 I • ! i ! ! : ; ; 1 " : I :; : ; ; I 'I: !!;■■ ' I ! • ' : ' I i 1 ! ! ' I !. I ! 'II ! I 30 ' • , 1 ' : ■ I : I Maximum Depth = 25.92 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet I 1 sensitive fine grained er,4. 4 silty clay to clay 7 silty sand to sandy silt 10 gravelly sand to sand 2 organic material ql. 3 clay K.,:. M 5 clayey silt to silty clay !I 6 sandy silt to clayey silt El Ei 8 sand to silty sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) riti 9 sand Ed GI Ili 12 sand to clayey sand (*) *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 1 Subsurface Technologies \ I, Operator: W.MCC / A.MEE CPT Date/ Time: 03-18-04 10:49 Sounding: SND625 Location: CPT2 OAK TREE 2 I Cone Used: 683 TC Job Number: 04-8688 I SPT N* 60% Hammer 0 30 I 0 ' . I 5 • .• , - ; I . - I 10 S 1 ' • _ .. . i _. , I . . . , . . 01/ Depth 15 I ' , - • i '- - 1 (ft) ! . ! , I ! 1 1 ' . , I , I I I 20 — i i i --1-- 1 I 1 I I 1 i 1 ! i ! I 1 • ! • I 25 i , ' I : 1 ! 1 I . i I 1 i I ; i I 30 Maximum Depth = 25.92 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet I Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 ✓ Operator:W.MCC_/ A.MEE Location:CPT2 OAK TREE 2 II Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688 Customer:surface Technologies Units:English 1 Depth Qt Fs Pw Inc (ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg) 0.33 3.0 0.196 -0.75 0.05 I 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 I 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 II 3.28 12.4 0.905 -1.64 0.05 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 II 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 I 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 II 6.89 27.0 0.618 -0.57 0.05 7.22 27.4 0.730 -0.60 0.05 7.55 29.6 0.968 -0.51 0.05 7.87 17.9 1.068 0.74 0.05 II 8.20 26.1 0.591 1.12 0.05 8.53 28.5 0.615 -0.26 0.05 8.86 31.2 0.663 -0.37 0.05 9.19 29.0 0.660 -0.54 0.05 9.51 30.8 0.677 -0.57 0.05 9.84 33.1 0.805 -0.89 0.05 10.17 42.7 1.231 -0.93 0.05 10.50 37.6 1.415 -1.04 0.05 II 10.83 35.0 1.075 -0.48 0.05 11.15 33.6 0.967 -0.59 0.05 11.48 36.6 0.922 -0.65 0.05 I 11.81 40.8 0.883 -0.69 0.05 12.14 39.0 0.869 -0.72 0.05 12.47 39.2 0.942 -0.79 0.05 12.80 40.3 0.966 -0.87 0.05 I 13.12 40.9 1.173 -1.22 0.05 13.45 39.1 1.372 -0.57 0.05 13.78 18.2 0.985 1.05 0.05 14.11 35.7 1.160 -0.74 0.05 1 14.44 43.0 1.121 -0.93 0.05 14.76 44.4 1.195 -2.50 0.05 15.09 51.7 1.057 -2.86 0.06 15.42 57.7 1.144 -1.39 0.06 I 15.75 57.0 1.166 -1.54 0.06 16.08 51.4 1.004 -1.81 0.06 16.40 46.7 0.914 -2.51 0.06 16.73 48.0 0.826 -3.08 0.06 II 17.06 44.0 0.793 -4.24 0.06 17.39 39.3 0.833 -4.50 0.06 17.72 31.6 0.771 -4.30 0.06 1 18.04 21.4 0.878 -4.07 0.06 *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 I I 1 (ft) (TSF) (TSF) (PSI) (deg) \I \ 18.37 37.9 0.867 -5.53 0.06 18.70 41.0 1.119 -7.91 0.11 1 19.03 44.3 0.585 -10.07 0.11 19.36 41.5 0.502 -11.03 0.11 19.69 40.3 0.590 -10.66 0.11 20.01 46.5 0.510 -10.57 0.11 1 20.34 56.8 0.669 -10.50 0.11 20.67 54.4 0.815 -10.47 0.11 21.00 44.5 0.821 -10.33 0.11 21.33 36.7 0.721 -10.19 0.11 1 21.65 35.0 0.763 -10.10 0.11 21.98 41.0 1.349 -10.03 0.11 22.31 36.4 1.051 -10.65 0.12 22.64 40.6 0.744 -11.50 0.12 II 22.97 44.8 0.820 -11.33 0.20 23.29 41.4 0.600 -11.76 0.20 23.62 55.3 1.149 -12.06 0.21 I 23.95 169.0 1.580 -12.44 0.32 24.28 112.5 1.105 -13.76 0.45 24.61 45.1 0.690 -14.25 0.45 24.93 24.8 0.622 -14.49 0.45 I 25.26 21.4 0.617 -14.61 0.45 25.59 24.0 0.891 -14.73 0.45 25.92 47.2 -32768 -14.75 0.45 "Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 i1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I II y Operator:W.MCC y / A.MEE Location:CPT2 OAK TREE 2 Cone ID:683 TC Job Number:04 -8688 Customer:surface Technologies Units:English II Depth 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 I 8.20 2.265 0.309 5 clayey silt to silty clay 12 8.53 2.153 -0.066 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 8.86 2.127 -0.085 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 11 III 9.19 2.276 -0.134 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 9.51 2.195 -0.133 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 9.84 2.430 -0.193 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 10.17 2.882 -0.157 5 clayey silt to silty clay 18 I 10.50 3.766 -0.199 5 clayey silt to silty clay 18 10.83 3.069 -0.099 5 clayey silt to silty clay 17 11.15 2.875 -0.126 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 11.48 2.515 -0.128 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 I 11.81 2.165 -0.122 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 12.14 2.229 -0.133 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 12.47 2.404 -0.145 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 12.80 2.398 -0.155 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 I 13.12 2.870 -0.215 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 13.45 3.509 -0.105 5 clayey silt to silty clay 16 13.78 5.399 0.414 5 clayey silt to silty clay 15 14.11 3.254 -0.149 5 clayey silt to silty clay 15 I 14.44 2.605 -0.156 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 14.76 2.690 -0.405 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 18 15.09 2.045 -0.398 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20 15.42 1.984 -0.174 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 21 II 15.75 2.047 -0.195 7 silty sand to sandy silt 18 16.08 1.953 -0.254 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 20 16.40 1.955 -0.387 7 silty sand to sandy silt 16 I 16.73 1.721 -0.462 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15 17.06 1.801 -0.693 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 17 17.39 2.117 -0.823 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 17.72 2.442 -0.980 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 18.04 4.105 -1.371 5 clayey silt to silty clay 14 II *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC - 1983 II 1 -1.052 (ft) (%) (%) Zone UBC -1983 60% Hammer 18.37 2.291 1.052 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 13 18.70 2.729 -1.389 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 I 19.03 1.321 -1.637 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13 19.36 1.207 -1.912 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13 19.69 1.463 -1.903 7 silty sand to sandy silt 14 20.01 1.097 -1.637 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15 1 20.34 1.179 -1.332 7 silty sand to sandy silt 17 20.67 1.498 -1.385 7 silty sand to sandy silt 17 21.00 1.845 -1.672 7 silty sand to sandy silt 14 21.33 1.963 -1.998 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 1 21.65 2.177 -2.076 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 21.98 3.288 -1.760 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 22.31 2.890 -2.107 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 15 22.64 1.831 -2.039 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 16 II 22.97 1.828 -1.819 7 silty sand to sandy silt 13 23.29 1.452 -2.072 7 silty sand to sandy silt 15 23.62 2.077 -1.607 8 sand to silty sand 21 I 23.95 0.935 -0.548 8 sand to silty sand 27 24.28 0.982 -0.917 8 sand to silty sand 26 24.61 1.531 -2.390 7 silty sand to sandy silt 19 24.93 2.504 -4.447 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 12 1 25.26 2.883 -5.251 5 clayey silt to silty clay 11 25.59 3.717 -4.767 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 14 25.92 -32768 -2.446 0 <out of range> 0 II behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 (I M 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1