Report Carlson Testing, Inc. Bead Office
BQOSWA'avlb Salem �m RE 63023 ORRIAryRd911
7IpnL OR 97723 Salem OR 97301 Brad OR 97701
Pinar 003) 6844460 Pharr 003) 589.1237 Mawr 041) 330 -9/33
Construction Materials Testing & Inspection
Far 003)68449N Far 00313894309 Fm 04.0 3399163
Special Inspection
FINAL SUMMARY LETTER
March 5, 2008
T0704441
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223 -8199
Attn: Building Department
Re: Hemcon Medical Technologies Inc — Exterior Addition
10575 SW Cascade Avenue — Tigard, OR
Permit# BUP2007 -00191
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is to certify that in accordance with Section 1704.1.2 of the International Building Code, we have performed special
inspection of the following item(s) per our inspection reports only:
Reinforced Concrete
Installation of Proprietary Anchors
Structural Welding- Shop & Field
High Strength Bolts
Structural Wood
All inspections and tests were performed and reported according to the requirements of Project Documents and, to the
best of our knowledge, the work was in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, approved change orders
and applicable workmanship provisions of the State Building Code and Standards, as well as the structural engineer's
design changes, approvals and verbal instructions.
Our reports pertain to the material tested/inspected only. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in
full, without prior authorization from this office.
If there -- _ any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Res. Of Ily submitted,
CA - - ON TESTING 'C.
Jai -s F. Hietpas
P •jest Manager
H /ks
: Evergreen Engineering LLC — Jonathan Knapp
P
Evergreen Engineering LLC — Steve Cruft
•
•
X11 Information
! ®To Build On
Engineering • Consulting • Testing
{ `
OFFICE COPY
/o975 A,✓ckfeedP /ke /30
.;, 6kie '007- 00/
City of Tigard
Approved Plans
By Ma Date Y -17 -0?
M7 / Information
r >ToBuild on
Engineering • Consulting • Testing
PRO,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING \ �� �i 4..
SERVICES REPORT
For the L< v OR G•a •
��� isq (1.- 14 ,9 �
d �
�pn R k£S R. ‘'et tbp"o efiascade Business Center
l ,, are Foot Addition " l a d_ ®8
C � west Cascade Avenue
BU Tigard, Oregon � Charles R. Lane, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical Services
Prepared for
Mr. Stephen Cruft
Evergreen Engineers
7431 Northwest Evergreen Parkway #210 -
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Prepared by 6 00,)(511k,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. Tima Carlson
6032 North Cutter Circle Geologic Associate
Portland, Oregon 97217 Geotechnical Services
Telephone (503) 289 -1778
Fax (503) 289 -1918
PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
February 7, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2
2.1 Project Authorization 2
2.2 Project Description 2
2.3 Purpose and Scope of Services 2
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
3.1 Site Location and Description 4
3.2 Site Geology 4
3.3 Subsurface Materials 4
3.4 Groundwater Information 6
3.5 Seismic Considerations 6
3.6 Liquefaction Analysis 6
4.0 EVALUATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 8
4.1 Geotechnical Discussion 8
4.2 Site Preparation 8
4.3 Fill Requirements 9
4.4 Foundation Recommendations 10
4.5 Floor Slab Recommendations 12
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 13
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 15
6.1 Excavation 15
6.2 Construction Dewatering 15
6.3 Drainage Considerations 16
6.4 Construction Monitoring 16
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS 17
FIGURES
Figure No.1: SITE LOCATION PLAN
Figure No. 2 BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDICES
Appendix A: GENERAL NOTES & SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
Appendix B: RECORDS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Appendix C: LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
-1-
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An exploration and evaluation of the subsurface conditions have been completed for the
proposed 5,000 square foot addition for the Cascade Business Center located at 10575
Southwest Cascade Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. Test borings have been drilled and
selected soil samples tested in the laboratory. In general, the borings drilled at the site
revealed fine- grained clayey silt and silt deposits underlain by silt deposits with some sand
which extends at least to the maximum exploration depth (i.e. 30 feet below the ground
surface). These fine grained soils are found to be in various states of plasticity, ranging
from moderate clayey silt to generally non - plastic silt with some sand. Groundwater was
encountered in the borings at depths of approximately 20 feet below current grade.
Results of this exploration indicate that the subsurface conditions at the site are generally
suitable for the use of conventional footing foundations for support of the assumed
structural loads and that the floor slab can be grade supported provided that the site is
developed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Details
related to site development, foundation and general pavement design, and construction
considerations are included in subsequent sections of this report.
Features requiring special consideration at this site are the presence of moisture sensitive
soils at the ground surface and potentially liquefiable saturated fine grained soils between
10 and 25 feet below grade. These features are discussed further in this report.
The owner /designer should not rely solely on this Executive Summary and must read and
evaluate the entire contents of this report prior to utilizing our engineering
recommendations in preparation of design /construction documents.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-2-
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Protect Authorization
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has completed a geotechnical exploration for the
proposed 5,000 square foot addition for the Cascade Business Center located at 10575
Southwest Cascade Avenue located in Tigard, Oregon. Our services were contracted by
Mr. Stephen Cruft of Evergreen Engineers on January 17, 2007 by signing our proposal.
This exploration was accomplished in general accordance with PSI Proposal No. 704-07 -
P017 dated January 16, 2007.
2.2 Project Description
Project information regarding the proposed construction was obtained from Mr. Joseph
Darazs of Evergreen Engineering. We understand that the proposed development will
consist of a 5,788 square feet single -story addition to the existing commercial building. We
have also been furnished with a site plan which shows the existing structure and the
proposed construction. We assume that the facility will be constructed in accordance with
provisions of the International Building Code, 2003 Edition (IBC 2003).
Detailed structural loading information was not provided; however, for the purpose of this
report, we have assumed that maximum column and wall loads will be on the order of 60
kips and 4.0 kips per linear foot, respectively. Also, in our analyses, floor slab loads of less
than 150 psf are assumed, and less than 2 feet of cut and 2 feet of fill are anticipated for
the design grade.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available
project information, building locations, and the subsurface materials described in this
report. If any of the noted information is incorrect, please inform PSI in writing so that we
may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate and if desired by
the client. PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when
it is not notified of changes in the project.
2.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions on which we could
provide foundation recommendations for the proposed facility. Our scope of services
included drilling 2 soil test borings at the site to depths of 30 feet below the ground surface,
performing laboratory testing, and preparation of this geotechnical report. This report
briefly outlines the testing procedures, presents available project information, describes the
site and subsurface conditions, and presents recommendations regarding the following:
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
•
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
tit
-3-
• Grading procedures for site development.
• Foundation types, depths, allowable bearing capacities, and an
estimate of potential settlement.
• Recommendations for the floor slab support.
• General pavement design and pavement subgrade preparation.
• Comments regarding factors that will impact construction and
performance of the proposed construction.
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater, or air on or below, or around this site. Any statements in this
report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or
conditions are strictly for informational purposes. Prior to further development of this site,
an environmental assessment is advisable.
As directed by the client, PSI did not provide any service to investigate or detect the
presence of moisture, mold or other biological contaminates in or around any structure, or
any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of
the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the
environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by
moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of PSI's control, and
that mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture.
As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of
mold amplification.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
-4-
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The proposed 5,000 square foot addition for the Cascade Business Center (10575
Southwest Cascade Avenue) is located on the south side of,the Highway 217 in Tigard in
Washington County, Oregon. The site is generally a trapezium shaped lot with a total area
of about 4.5 acres, and is bordered by commercial businesses to the north and south,
Southwest Cascade Avenue to the east, and railway tracks to the west. The dimensions of
the site are about 430 to 450 feet wide and about 332 to 562 feet long (along Southwest
Cascade Avenue). The approximate location of the site can be seen in Figure 1, "Site
Location Plan" of the appendix.
The existing structure occupies the majority of the site, as observed in the Boring Location
Plan attached (Figure 2). The proposed addition, on the west side of the property, is to be
located in the existing parking lot.
3.2 Site Geology
According to the Washington County Soil Survey (USDA, 1979), the subject property is
mapped within the Huberly silt loam that consists of poorly drained soils that formed in
mixed silty alluvium on terraces. A typical profile consists of very dark gray silt loam at the
surface, to a firm, mottled dark brown silt loam fragipan at depth. Surface runoff is slow to
ponded, and the hazard to erosion is slight.
The underlying geologic unit, according to the Map showing faults, bedrock geology, and
sediment thickness of the western half of the Oregon City 1:100,000 quadrangle, .
Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, and Marion Counties, Oregon (Oregon Department
of Geology and Mineral Industries, 1997, IMS -4), is mapped as unconsolidated sediments
with a total thickness ranging from 100 to 199 meters (QTu2). Underlying the sediment
deposits, a Miocene to Pleistocene aged fluvial and lacustrine sediments (Tf). These
sediments are known as the Troutdale Formation and are generally composed of well -
cemented conglomerate from the ancestral Columbia River.
3.3 Subsurface Materials
The site subsurface conditions were explored with 2 soil test borings. The borings were
advanced using hollow -stem auger method. Our field exploration depths were
approximately 30 feet below the ground surface. The boring locations and depths were
selected by PSI. The borings were located in the field by PSI using fixed on site landmarks
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-5-
as reference. Topographic information has not been provided. PSI recommends ground
surface elevation at the boring be determined and provided to us for review when more
detail design is known, as it may impact our design recommendations.
During our drilling processes soil samples were routinely obtained. Drilling and sampling
techniques were accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM procedures. The
Standard Penetration Test is performed by driving a 2 -inch, O.D., split -spoon sampler into
the undisturbed formation located at the bottom of the advanced auger with repeated blows
of a 140 - pound, pin - guided, automatic safety hammer falling a vertical distance of 30
inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one -foot is a measure of the
soil consistency (cohesive soils) and density (non- cohesive soils).
It should be noted that automatic hammers generally produce lower standard penetration
test values than those obtained using a traditional safety hammer. Studies have generally
indicated that penetration resistances may vary by a factor of 1.5 to 2 between the two
methods. We have considered this drilling and testing methodology in our description of
soil consistency for cohesive soils and density for non - cohesive soils in our evaluation of
soil strength and compressibility.
Soil samples were taken at 2.5 -foot intervals for the first 15 feet, and then at 5 -foot
intervals to the termination depths of the borings. Samples were identified in the field,
placed in sealed containers, and transported to the laboratory for further classification and
testing.
Select soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine materials properties for our
evaluation. The laboratory testing program consisted of visual and textural examinations
(ASTM D2487), moisture content tests (ASTM D2216), and particle size analyses (ASTM
D1140), and Atterberg limits testing (ASTM D4318). Test results are shown in the
individual Log of Test Boring in Appendix B and are presented in Appendix D of this report.
In general, the borings drilled at the site revealed fine - grained clayey silt and silt with sand
deposits which extends at least to the maximum exploration depth (i.e. 30 feet below the
ground surface). These fine grained soils can be divided into two general categories — the
cohesive clayey silt deposit and generally cohesionless sandy silt to silt deposits.
Below about 3 inches of asphalt and 3 inches of base rock at the ground surface, the
borings conducted at the site encountered clayey silt deposit which extends to about 1 to
10 feet below the existing grade. Based on the measured N- values, the consistency of this
clayey silt deposit can be classified as firm to medium stiff. Underlying the clayey silt
deposits, generally wet fine- grained silt to silt with some sand deposits were contacted in
our deeper soil borings. In Borings B -1 and B -2, the sandy silt to silt with some sand
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
-6-
deposits were found to be underlain by a lower clayey silt deposit to the maximum
exploration depth (i.e. approximately 30 feet below the existing grade). The relative density
of the cohesionless sandy silt to silt deposits is generally loose, as indicated from the
measured N- values.
3.4 Groundwater Information
Water levels were measured in the borings during drilling. During drilling operations,
groundwater was encountered at depths of about 20 feet. However, in some boring
locations silty soils of high moisture content were encountered as shallow as 9 feet below
the ground surface. Fluctuations of groundwater levels should be anticipated with
changing climatic conditions and should be expected to be at a higher elevation after a
prolonged period of precipitation.
3.5 Seismic Considerations
In accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the SOSSC, 2004, we recommend a Site Class E
(soft Soil Profile) for this site. According to the 2002 United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Earthquake Hazards website http: / /egint.cr.usgs.gov /eq /html /lookup -2002-
interp.html, the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is 0.40g, and the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) ground motions for the site are Ss=0.944g and S1= 0.340g (for Site
Class B and 5 percent critical damping). The USGS website values are a more accurate
interpolation of the values presented in Figure 1615(1) and Figure 1615(2) of the IBC. In
accordance with Tables 1615(1) and 1615(2), Site Coefficients F and F„ are 0.97 and
2.64, respectively for a Site Class E. Therefore the adjusted MCE ground motions are
SMS= 0.916g and SM 0.900g (for Site Class E). The return interval for these ground
motions is 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
3.6 Liquefaction Analysis
Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually taking
place within a soil medium exhibiting a uniform fine - grained characteristic such as sand or
silty sand, loose consistency, and low confining pressure when subjected to impact by
seismic or dynamic loading. Based on our geotechnical evaluation including area
seismicity, on -site soil conditions, SPT N- values, laboratory test results, and depth to
groundwater, the site is considered to have low to medium risk potential for soil
liquefaction.
Because of the absence of groundwater, we considered the upper 10 feet of soil to not be
liquefiable. We conservatively modeled a Subduction Zone earthquake with a magnitude
8.5 and a peak bedrock acceleration of 0.38g, which is most likely to be the controlling
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
• -7-
• • , earthquake scenario due to the, absence of known active faults in the: area. Ba on our, - : _,
• analysis, liquefaction i's not a major concern with the total potential' fordynamic'settlement
on the order of 2 to 4 inches with differential dynamic settlements on the order of 1 to 2 , rt:
inches.
It should be noted that a Seismic' Site Hazard Study„,was beyond the present scope of • • - -
services for this project. Such an evaluation could , be : performed; at an additional fee with
your written authorization: -, • •
•
• •
•
•
■
•
•
•
'
•
Evergreen Engineering - . . Professional Service industries; Inc. ,,
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No 704 - 75015 = 1 • -
f
•
•
-8-
4.0 EVALUATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Geotechnical Discussion
The available subsurface data, when considered in conjunction with the structural
information, indicates that conventional shallow spread footing foundations may be used to
support the proposed structural loads and that the use of on grade floor slabs is
permissible at this site provided that the site is developed in accordance with the
requirements of this report. Buildings founded on the improved (all loose disturbed soils
have to be compacted) ground conditions would experience total and differential
settlements on the order of an inch and 1 /2 inch.
In addition, due to the presence of relatively weak and compressible soil deposits (loose
silt/silty sand and soft clayey silt) encountered about 1 to 10 feet below the existing grade,
it is recommended that the proposed cut and fill be limited to less than 5 feet in order to
avoid the potential excessive consolidation settlement in the case of thick fill.
Our analysis indicates that the dynamic settlement caused by liquefaction at this site is
anticipated on the order of 2 to 4 inches, with differential dynamic settlements on the order
of 1 to 2 inches. If these potential settlements can not be tolerated without life safety
concerns, then considerations should be given to increase the rigidity of the foundation
system (e.g. post tensioned concrete slabs connected to the foundation walls) or the
flexibility of the structure. Additionally, essential utility pipe connections for the proposed
construction should be designed as flexible in order to tolerate the potential dynamic
settlement and deformation.
Difficult site preparation could be encountered if construction begins during the wet season
of the year due to the moisture sensitive clayey silt soil that is present within the first 1 to
10 feet of the site surface. Careful observations should be made during the proof rolling
stage of the project to identify any soft, loose, or organic soils. If encountered, the
geotechnical engineer of record should be consulted.
4.2 Site Preparation
We recommend that asphaltic concrete, as well as any soft soils in the construction areas
be stripped from the site. Our field investigation revealed the presence of 3 inches of
asphaltic concrete. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should determine the
depth of removal for any soft/loose soils at the time of construction.
After stripping and excavating to the proposed subgrade level, as required, the building and
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-9-
pavement areas should be proof - rolled with a heavily loaded tandem axle dump truck or
similar rubber tired vehicle. Soils that are observed to rut or deflect excessively under the
moving load, or are otherwise judged to be unsuitable should be undercut and replaced
with properly compacted fill. The proof - rolling and undercutting activities should be
witnessed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer and should be performed
during a period of dry weather.
If desired, bulk samples of the site soils may be obtained by PSI for modified Proctor tests
to help define the optimum moisture contents of the site soils. Based on these results,
more definitive statements can be made regarding the necessity to undercut, aerate and
recompact wet soil subgrades and the level of effort which will likely be required to adjust
the moisture content of the in -situ soils which will be cut and used for fill. Past experience
indicates that these earthwork operations may be time consuming and have the potential to
add considerable cost to the earthwork portion of the project.
It is not uncommon for construction equipment to severely disturb the upper several feet of
the subgrade during initial phases of site clearing especially if site preparation work is
performed while the soils are wet. This may result in the need for deep undercutting and
replacement of the disturbed soils. The owner may want to consider an allowance in the
budget to cover this condition.
4.3 Fill Requirements
After subgrade preparation and observation have been completed, fill placement may
begin. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift on
the prepared subgrade. Fill materials should be free of organic or other deleterious
materials, have a maximum particle size less than 3 inches, be relatively well graded, and
have a liquid limit less than 45 and plasticity index less than 25. Most of the on site soils
are suitable for use as structural fill, however, the moisture content will most likely have to
be adjusted to coincide with the moisture range required for structural fill. If a fine - grained
silt or clay soil is used for fill, close moisture content control will be required to achieve the
recommended degree of compaction. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95
percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Designation
D 1557.
Fill should be placed in maximum lifts of 8 inches of loose material and should be
compacted within the range of 3 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the
optimum moisture content value. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied
and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted
engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to
placement of subsequent lifts. The fill should extend horizontally outward beyond the
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
-10-
exterior perimeter of the building and footings a distance equal to the height of the fill or 5
feet, which ever is greater, prior to sloping. ' Also, fill should extend horizontally outward
from the exterior perimeter of the pavement a distance equal to the height of the fill or 3
feet, whichever is greater, prior to sloping.
Fill material, if needed, during wet weather construction should consist of an all- weather,
clean, granular fill containing less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve, such
as course sand, crushed rock, or course sand and gravel. During wet weather grading
operations, all excavations should be performed using a smooth - bladed, tracked backhoe
working from areas where material has yet to be removed or from the already placed
structural fill. Subgrade areas should be cleanly cut to firm undisturbed soil.
Placement of crushed rock should follow immediately after site grading in order to provide
protection of the sensitive subgrade soil during construction activities. In temporary
construction traffic areas, the .placement of a one -foot thick granular working base is
generally recommended with thicker sections (i.e. 18 to 24 inches) and /or geotextile fabrics •
recommended in heavily traveled construction traffic areas. Generally, three to six inches
of crushed rock is sufficient in foot traffic areas.
4.4 Foundation Recommendations
•
Once the site has been properly prepared as discussed, above, the planned construction
can be supported on conventional footing foundation systems bearing on natural firm to
medium stiff clayey silt to silt deposits or on properly compacted structural fill. Spread
footings for building columnsand continuous footings for bearing walls can be designed for
allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,500 psf, based on dead load plus design live load.
The allowable bearing pressure includes a safety factor of 3 and is intended for dead loads -
and sustained live loads and can be increased by one - third for the total of all loads,
including short-term wind or seismic loads. Minimum dimensions of 30 inches for square
footings and 18 inches for continuous footings should be used in the foundation design
process to minimize the possibility of a local bearing capacity. failure: All footings should be
underlain by at least 6 inches of clean, compacted crushed: rock to provide protection for
the subgrade soil during construction activities.
Exterior footings and foundations in unheated areas should be 'located at a depth of at
least 18 inches below the final exterior grade to provide adequate frost protection. If the
building is to be constructed during the winter-months or if the foundation soils will likely be
subjected to freezing temperatures after foundation construction, then the foundation soils
should be adequately protected from freezing. Otherwise, interior foundations can be
located at nominal depths compatible with architectural and structural considerations.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 • PSI Report , No. 704- 75015 -1
-11-
Allowable lateral frictional resistance between the base of shallow foundations and the
subgrade can be expressed as the applied vertical load multiplied by a coefficient of friction
of 0.30. In addition, lateral loads may be resisted by a passive earth pressure based on an
equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) on footings poured "neat" against
in -situ soils or properly backfilled with structural fill. The passive earth pressure
recommendation includes a factor of safety of approximately 1.5, which is appropriate due
to the amount of movement required to develop full passive resistance.
Based on the known subsurface conditions and site geology, laboratory testing and past
experience, we anticipate that properly designed and constructed foundations supported
on the recommended materials should experience maximum total and differential
settlements between adjacent columns on the order of one inch and 1/2 inches,
respectively. As discussed previously, the dynamic settlement caused by liquefaction at
this site is anticipated on the order of 2 to 4 inches, with differential dynamic settlements on
the order of 1 to 2 inches. These are in addition to the settlements caused by the
compression /consolidation of the soils under the static and live load of the proposed
construction.
The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of PSI prior to steel or
concrete placement to assess that the foundation materials are capable of supporting the
design loads and are consistent with the materials discussed in this report. Unsuitable soil
zones encountered at the bottom of the foundation excavations should be removed to the
level of medium dense or very stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill as
directed by the geotechnical engineer. Cavities formed as a result of excavation of
unsuitable soil zones should be backfilled with lean concrete or compacted structural fill.
The structured fill in the footing areas should be placed, compacted and tested in
accordance with the guidelines presented in this report and the recommendations of the
geotechnical engineer.
After the completion of the structural fill, the footing concrete should be placed as quickly
as possible to avoid exposure of the structural fill to wetting and drying. Surface run -off
water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond.
Care should be taken to protect prepared bearing surfaces until footing concrete can be
placed. Precautions to achieve this end would consist of either:
• covering of prepared bearing surfaces with impervious membranes .
■ placing a clean granular crushed aggregate blanket (2 to 4 inch thickness) over
the surface.
• cessation of work during rainy weather.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
-12-
Be advised that as a part of the foundation selection process, there is always a cost/benefit
evaluation. Although we are recommending a specific foundation type we have not
accomplished the cost/benefit evaluation.
4.5 Floor Slab Recommendations
The floor slab can be grade supported on the natural firm to medium stiff clayey silt to silt
deposits or on properly compacted structural fill. Proof - rolling, as discussed earlier in this
report, should be accomplished to identify any soft or unstable soils, which should be
removed from the floor slab area prior to fill placement and /or floor slab construction.
Based on the existing soil conditions, the design of slabs -on -grade can be based on a
subgrade modulus (k) of 100 pci; however, this value may be increased to 150 pci if a
minimum 6 -inch thick granular mat is placed below the floor slab as recommended below.
These subgrade modulus values represent anticipated values which would be obtained in a
standard in -situ plate test with a 1 -foot square plate. Use of these subgrades moduli for
design or other on -grade structural elements should include appropriate modification based
on dimensions as necessary.
The granular mat should consist of well - graded 1'/2 -inch or 3 /- inch -minus imported crushed
rock aggregates having less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The
crushed rock should provide a capillary break to limit migration of moisture through the
slab. If additional protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor retarding
membrane may also be incorporated into the design. Factors such as cost, special
considerations for construction, and the floor coverings suggest that decisions on the use
of vapor retarding membranes be made by the architect and owner.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-13-
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Our scope of services did not include extensive sampling and CBR testing for existing
subgrade or potential sources of imported fill for the specific purpose of detailed pavement
analysis. Instead, we have assumed pavement - related design parameters that are
considered to be typical for the area soils types. In large areas of pavement, or where
pavements are subject to significant traffic, a more detailed analysis of the subgrade and
traffic conditions should be made. The results of such a study will provide information
necessary to design an economical and serviceable pavement.
The thickness recommendations presented below are considered typical and minimum for
the assumed parameters. We understand that budgetary considerations sometimes
warrant thinner pavement sections than those presented. However, the client, the owner,
and the project principals should be aware that thinner pavement sections might result in
increased maintenance costs and lower than anticipated pavement life.
• Asphalt Pavement
The pavement subgrade should be prepared as discussed in the site preparation section of
this report. We have estimated the subgrade soils will be prepared to a CBR of at least 3.
Making this assumption, it is possible to use a locally typical "standard" pavement section
consisting of the following:
Table 4 — Pavement Recommendations
Thickness Recommendations (inches)
Pavement Materials Car Parking Drive Lanes/Truck Routes
Asphalt Surface Course 3 4
Crushed Stone Base 8 12
Asphalt pavement base course material should consist of a well - graded, 1 -inch or %-
inch- minus, crushed rock, having less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve.
The base course and asphaltic concrete materials should conform to the requirements set
forth in the latest Oregon Department of Transportation guidelines. Base course material
should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and
compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's maximum
dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Fill
materials should be placed in layers that, when compacted, do not exceed about 8 inches.
The asphaltic concrete material should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the
material's theoretical maximum density as determined in accordance ASTM D 2041 (Rice
Specific Gravity).
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-14-
• Concrete Pavement
Rigid concrete pavement consisting of 7 inches of concrete underlain by 4 inches of
granular sub -base is recommended where trash dumpsters are to be parked on the
pavement or where a considerable load is transferred from relatively small steel wheels.
This should provide better distribution of surface loads to the subgrade without causing
deformation of the surface. Pavement may be placed after the subgrade has been
properly compacted, fine - graded and proof - rolled. The work should be done in accordance
with Oregon Department of Transportation guidelines.
Water should not be allowed to pond behind curbs and saturate the base materials. If the
base material consists of granular fill, it should extend through the slope to allow any water
entering the base stone a path to exit. The project Geotechnical engineer or designer
should accomplish a site specific pavement design when actual traffic and loading
information is available.
•
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704-75015 -1
-15-
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Excavation
Temporary earth slopes may be cut at a steepness of about 1.5H:1V above the
groundwater table. Permanent earth slopes should be dressed to 2H:1V or flatter and
protected from erosion.
Excavation and construction operations may expose the on -site soils to inclement weather
conditions. The stability of exposed soils may rapidly deteriorate due to a change in
moisture content (i.e. wetting or drying) or the action of heavy or repeated construction
traffic. Accordingly, foundation and pavement area excavations should be adequately
protected from the elements, and from the action of repetitive or heavy construction
loadings.
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P ". This document and
subsequent updates were issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches
or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be
utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be constructed in
accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations
are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor
could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's "responsible
person ", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's compliance with local, state,
and federal safety or other regulations.
6.2 Construction Dewaterinq
Relatively shallow groundwater was encountered during our investigation. We anticipate
groundwater could be as shallow as about 10 feet below existing grade. If excavations will
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-16-
extend below the groundwater level, pumping from perimeter ditches or well - points would
likely control the expected inflows. Once excavation depths are known, we should be
retained to review and update our groundwater control recommendations.
6.3 Drainage Considerations
Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavations or on prepared
subgrades for floor slabs and pavements during construction. Positive site drainage should
be maintained throughout construction activities. Undercut or excavated areas should be
sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or
surface runoff.
The site grading plan should be developed to provide rapid drainage of surface water away
from the building and pavement areas and to inhibit infiltration of surface water around the
perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs and pavements. The grades should be
sloped away from the building and pavement areas. Careful consideration should be given
to the potential impact of landscaped areas and /or sprinkler systems on adjacent
foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. Roof runoff should be piped to a storm sewer or
approved disposal area.
6.4 Construction Monitoring
It is recommended that PSI be retained to examine and identify soil exposures created
during project excavations in order to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated. We
further recommend that the structural fills be continuously observed and tested by our
representative in order to evaluate the thoroughness and uniformity of their compaction.
Samples of fill materials should be submitted to our laboratory for evaluation prior to
placement of fills on site.
It is also recommended that PSI be retained to provide observation and testing of
construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this
project. PSI cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions which deviate from those
described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundation, if not engaged to also
provide construction observation and testing for this project.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
-17-
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available subsurface
information obtained by PSI and design details furnished by Mr. Stephen Cruft of
Evergreen Engineering for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for
this project, or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are
encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine if
changes in the foundation and /or pavement recommendations are required. If PSI is not
retained to review these changes, PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those
conditions on the project.
The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be
retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to
check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the
design documents. At this time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Evergreen
Engineering for the specific application to the proposed 5,000 square foot addition to the
Cascade Business Center located at 10575 Southwest Cascade Avenue in Tigard,
Oregon.
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
FIGURES
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
1 .
... . FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION PLAN .
,
I .
, .
N.. 1 414':2 ..:); IIP Mill - - 4 '''''.'- • , ,,''*------_,-, \ • .. . , ."--.-,:
\ ----- ,,,,,....7 , . .10, '''-' . , . , ..L ., . -.-` ' *4 " * ' ''' ' \ ''''''s, N, 9 *-' ' '• " '-` '. jg
) a i ..;.4 4i : \lit"' ' s .. ,„. 1 ' -' %. ../-• ;-, .
.
'N.
,,,,,, i'r-- _. ' 2-, - , ' `',•-,',-., ,„' - , ,w ' ' ' ' 0 , .. , , . 1.'
N. '-r ' ''''''', 26 ".„- 1 '7 -- 1. , i-.
„.,.. a
• „-- , -.(g;../.. 7'2-' ' 1` . ''''' I 1, ,, '" ' - tiz,' ,-, .',,,"; ,, ° _, .1 14 — -..- 0 , ''',,.•
. . I :..* . It :* ---....,_ - '•:: ' " : !; , 1 i ';',7'..7 7 . .,
%. I 'd \ I '- t ,'. '
N '": " . ,, •,0' .
I ,e . 1 .,.• . ', `... • ,.,•• i I .1 1,... -. : L' .!
"... ' aa ! P ... -
11 ,......
, , . - .. ' plE1 .'• '''.., ' . • ''. . ; . • "
' ' @Erie --7).
1 •Cy ,
0 •• • a I •
)• 1- ..,,_,—, ,,,. , ,
1 ' \ • : , .' ' ' ''...: ' •' * 11 ....'"..: e '.... t:: •• . ,, : ••; ; :T ..„ , &
„ .
,
•'*■■
, •"*" .. e . :„2.,* 1 . • --..
' ---' 1 ,, L 1;,, 1 1 . '•,,' -, --- -,e; , - i ' ''''.. 1 ' ------- '••,- --,
' .', ' l '" 771, ,,Ie - 6 1 , '''...,, : . 1 k A 1/4, 1 1 , „ • - ',./ . 4 r , . . ,* :6, . , • •,• ,
, ..,7. , LGA:,f_v_ — — — * .” • -- 1 ,
,. -‘,... ‘,„ ' : a k \ , ,,,,„;„,,,„•„,,, 7, j_ ..- _ - ,,;-,f "J`,„,: ',. '7 ,„ • ! '... :!, '-- -.,' , 5.-' y - ,
1 • 4:• ..,- 111 ' • " 6 '
-
0
' I ■_. „ t. 3: \ 1 • ", . -A, ',,, 1 _ "---,....-:------, - ' , :::°°' ik7' t
...le .1 • 6 11
,
•• • • • MT .1 I a* a . -__.., _ _
• ' in..' Ir 11 .,, . , ,, lei
!: ..,,FX,"4 ,
•
--N.,- Q'.
4 ..1 AD . .6 MeWger) . '• '''"••••' I .
I ;
.... .,; ,.# !,,,,'-,•.. 1 , , . ) \V 2 al° :7 4. ."' 5 ? , jtry, ,i
4 .
I
e i I ,e,..„._ . ._■ , 711 . 4.-SII.•• 00 I I I '` . 43 -;•_...•___.
I % I '• . ..41. 0,a • ,P.-,t., ,,,'..- . . e., *
:.4' '' ' I ' ' ,.,\ •* N.,;, , '' . : . 4: , „ ' '' ' ' I ''' ,.. -1 .,:' '..•'• '. ' ) f c ' --:, \ \ I' Cate 11 :NNII: iiik / 41 i.,,, ,.1,.., '‘ ...4:.:,,,,_.:;•1_,...„_,..::r'-:z....7,--- '':- 1 i f . :;: ,
,1 •:1\ ----- ...-,...,,...;; . 1,,', ' ,,,,,/,,..'" I " 7-\ ._ - \ , ■., • •I T - ,... , Y
' .7. :::,..e.... . 'I '
'.., , ..' ,. 7 ,3 1 {,....... ‘, ' :' , :y. ' A: .,, • .:"`: . • g. ,,,, ---_-''' -.);;;.•-='`,...:
,,
,. , - . ,,_/____,/ ,- i • -.....„.. -,.
\ / „,....;,-, ..- „4.- - --- • • - ''"N„ 1 ilL .2.,‘ : ‘, '
- *
I,* •••
M i ...''' ''' ' ': : : ' '' ' *N `‘ \ {._ ' . . -, 1 . '1 "/J ''.. I ...,-,,-.._,,,.? ,/,`, ,/ V • --' - '''...,,,, - 2.___,' ' . 7 11 ' ...
,_,--., I „-, , ,-- i lt i . , -----,. %, ,,,„. ' , • • z , , , I .
• • '
^ , ,, ,ja , \ \ ,,,, . ' „ I , i - I '9 ;,- / 1 ..., _ I w ., .. - Zr ,_ i ' ..:1*■.,„ ',r ., .. 1
A A ) i "
. 1 1 r.01104!„:, , T ) '
, , rj . 1 .) _ Awe .11_;,,,,,, 4 • s :7 7"--4.--''' . ...gm...7 ..- ., .% '''
= T..' = -- , --*-11-. -. -....••••!: *- ,- 'N. • .
r ... viper - ir ' • I ..'. "Pr 41/ . ..---,-, 1 Ztl......r. 0 " .
•. ' e g •,.• • •W g ' IN ,, lig ',I t4P , • g ' iirn ir 054 . g. J.
. •--!--',- . s .,- .,,. . , i , _., ° ,‘ , , . \ , ..,___ _ _ L. -- 1 ., , . .! -,-,? m I.&
I - I 0 .4 ''' s. , 4 , e
= • iI l e ''..L..; , r' e ..' ' ' • ., a . 4, 0 a 0 • r ••., ' 1
, ,, . s„ cl& , - ' -
, . 4, -,, --r-r , • 1..
• I ' p ''' , g. ' • '• > ; ( 1 S. “ ‘ ' \ . ' ; ' ' 54 1 . M :.- la g g ' 11 . .
1 .■' ,.- ': '''' ' 77 \f, " v i ) ' .. " ' . el l ' '• g P . - '-
i
i ..... ,I '.., ii a - 4,--- ?:""hr , . ,, • .
*--t _..,-- ./ 0 * ue,, ........,...,„ I • g . : , ,. -- .... I ,
.- .
...." ..... .*.-, ' s ;..1 ) .„ . • 4 : -.....*„......- 1 • . -„„ 7 ..,..,,,,,,, •
I . 1 ‘ 4 I ° • & ....14- . c •
. . ■ g . .l i . . . , : • 6 ' 0 - ,.. , -,S Ar _ ,o, , I t 1, °'•,,, • , \
* 1'
_ 1,, ,%,,, .1 ; - ••••• - - . I I-0:: c. : - ' . • . l' f IN. . 0 . I i ..,......,
Ik * , 1 ,:-.: ' " ) ,, fr y 7 . " ' w .. ■ i + ' 1
/ ,,,,-, -- ,._.,,,,,' ' ', ..W' ' ' . j. 4 II; \,. ....:X I " ."'"'",' . ta -GO . e • e Nst4g t • •• --' 1 1
. '.,.. ''' . F '''',' '..,'''' . 1 ilk 4 ' 0 ' . : -"- - — -, i 6 .. ; - .. -, . -..."."-- AI ti 0. .•-• •.` IL
, ,..•,-----..' --v 1 - - — ,-.• f• 6 ''' ' ' *
'.25M1 ,
I Ir . •
I Source: www.TerraServer-USA.com
File _No.
Project: 704-75015
, pr ; infOtTila rt tiO ,
Proposed Cascade Business Center .
I le„.*F. On 5,000 Square Foot Addition .
Engineering • Consulting • Testing 10575 Southwest Cascade Avenue • Date:
Tigard, Oregon 2/7/07
I . ,
• .
•
FIGURE 2: BORING LOCATION PLAN
S ,_ ® L s .9'
, 1111 1 1 1 1 @.i 1 I I 1111
C.)
m
co x •
I o�
0z
B -1 ' - .—� C
> xi Q i . . l', 46 _ >
\ C.11 ` - 1:1 '
co =---i 0 D
% mo ,
En
7 z .0 in
1 x B -2` + 03
0
I 1113
%
0
0 0
s \\\ ,-, ,,
-a \ 0
C, \
y , ` . �'.. `. `---
i r ,' it
0
.37 \ O G \ Ca 1
C
I Source: Provided by client
File No.
In on�uxtion Project: 704 -75015
1 � � T o Build On : - Proposed Cascade Business Center
5,000 Square Foot Addition Date:
Engineering • consulting • Testing 10575 Southwest Cascade Avenue 2/7/07
Tigard, Oregon
APPENDIX A
General Notes & Soil Classification Chart
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
Professional Service Industries
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
The Unified Soil Classificaton System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted.
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling
30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split- spoon.
Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, TSF.
Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, TSF.
Mc: Water content, %.
LL: Liquid limit, %.
PI: Plasticity index, %.
6d: Natural dry density, PCF.
Y, : Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion of boring.
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
SS: Split -Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted.
ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.
AU: Auger Sample.
DB: Diamond Bit.
CB: Carbide Bit.
WS: Washed Sample.
RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
TERM (NON- COHESIVE SOILS) STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
Very Loose 0 -4
Loose
Medium 4 -10
Dense 10 -30
Very Dense 30 -50
Over 50
TERM (COHESIVE SOILS) Ou - (TSF)
Very Soft 0 - 0.25
Soft 0.25 - 0.50
Firm (Medium) 0.50 - 1.00
Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
Hard 4
PARTICLE SIZE
Boulders 8 in.+ Coarse Sand 5mm -0.6mm Silt 0.074mm- 0.005mm
Cobbles 8 in. -3 in. Medium Sand 0.6mm -0.2mm Clay - 0.005mm
Gravel 3 in. -5mm Fine Sand 0.2mm- 0.074mm
PSI G -100 -9 (2)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
CLEAN ' a• • ' iv WELL - GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
GRAVEL GRAVELS • b•• ■ GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
AND • S •• S FINES
•
GRAVELLY Q ° Q° POORLY - GRADED GRAVELS,
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o lb b' GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
0 0 OR NO FINES
COARSE '� °'
GRAINED M ORE THAN 50% GRAVELS WITH �D GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
SOILS OF COARSE FINES .0 i1 o 'l •
FRACTION , i� ° !• "
RETAINED ON NO. ir9 # �f,
4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE 9'4 CLAYE GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
AMOUNT OF FINES) I. CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50% SAND
CLEAN SANDS SW SANDS, WELL-GRADED
ITTLE OR NO FINES
VELLY • OF MATERIAL IS AND , • • • • • •
LARGER THAN SANDY •
NO 200 SIEVE SOILS - • • POORLY- GRADED SANDS,
SIZE (LITTL O R NO FINES) • SP GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH - - - SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MORE THAN 50% FINES _ - SM MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION .
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
AMOUNT OF FINES) SC MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
FINE LIQUID LIMIT MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
GRAINED AND LESS THAN 50 CL CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
SOILS ---
— — — —
O L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
OF MATERIAL IS MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CH PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
wreanni . OH HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
leirwewoun
urenors
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
per.
APPENDIX B
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
LOG OF TEST B ORING NO. B -1
• CLIENT: Evergreen Engineering DATE OF EXPLORATION:' 1/24/2007
PROJECT: Cascade Business Center 5,000 SF - EQUIPMENT: CME -75 Hollow Stem Auger w /Auto SPT .
Addition Hammer
LOCATION: 10575 SW Cascade Ave., Tigard, LOGGED BY: B. Broman .
PSI PROJECT NUMBER: 704 -75015 BORING LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan
SURF. ELEV.:' GROUNDWATER: 20' TERMINATION DEPTH:25' The soil boring was backfilled with a'uger cuttings 'and granular bentonite at the end of exploration
H u" F
LL p vi to SOIL DESCRIPTION ., ? ° O 0 'Al PENETRATION RESISTANCE
_ a. _CO U y Straagraphic lmes/depths shown are approximate Actual I- w 2 h El. y C Z> t a H (blowsffoot)
H m y sod conditions encountered dung construction may vary N d 0 a §, O d W O W 5 y -
E l Q N U from those described below. Specific groundwater depths O N O in a 1- = C7 g 140 pound hammerf30 arch drop
W c should be expected to very season to season Please refer .a U . 8 to a
0 to the report text for further explanation of sods
encountered and exploration methods employed 5 10 20 30 40 50 60
thick BASE ROCK - inches thick .
CLAYEY SILT W /SILTY CLAY 8 '
sir
•
\LAYERS - grey, moist, medium stiff / 4 -3 -3
SILT W/TRACE TO SOME SAND . . •
5 . brown, moist, loose to medium dense 14
•
srr 29 3-4-6 4.o
Z .
10
— SPT
3 • 3-3-4 • Becomes wet at 9 feet •
- 10 SPT r • ~ 6
4 3-2 -2
- 15 10 .
SPT 30 68 1 -2 -5
•
- 20 S 15 -
sin- 3-4-7
. • Q — - .
- - ,
0
- 25 SPT CLAYEY SILT- grey,.wet, firm to 8 3-2-4
•
a — ' medium stiff -
m — - -
to -
x — Boring terminated at 25 feet below - •
1-• — ground surface. Boring backfilled with . •
°w cuttings and bentonite upon, - -
O - 30 - completion. - • .
. a -
5 —
i. _ Groundwater was encountered at 20 -
o feet below existing site grade.
Q. —
w —
c
U - 35 -
'
a — -
0
O
n — ' •
O
N. • —
a'
0 - 40-
8 . .
a
J
Cer utt, S
•� 6032 Portland , Oregon 97217 Circle-0126 uite 480
��� (800) 783 -6985 '
LOG OF TEST BORING NO. B -2
CLIENT: Evergreen Engineering DATE OF EXPLORATION: 1/24/2007
PROJECT: Cascade Business Center 5,000 SF EQUIPMENT: CME -75 Hollow Stem Auger w /Auto SPT
Addition Hammer
LOCATION: 1p05575 SW Cascade Ave., Tigard, LOGGED BY: B. Broman
PSI PROJECT NUMBER: 704 -75015 BORING LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan
SURF. ELEV.:' GROUNDWATER: 20' TERMINATION DEPTH:30' The sal boring was becklified with auger cuttings and granular bentonite at the end of exploration
0 vi y SOIL DESCRIPTION s E rL 0 N r at a 5 .., PENETRATION RESISTANCE
I d m U Slrahgraphic lines/depths shown are approximate Actual I- r CT) U to U Z > O H (blows/ foot)
I- 2 a Vi g soil condition encountered during construction may vary El Q o p o Q 11 ] g ,
II Q N 0 from those described below Specific groundwater depths O o d N O m LL a t- d g 140 pound hammer/30 Inch drop
W N should be expected to vary season to season Please refer .d 3 It -1 CO
h 0. 0 fo the report text for further explanation of sods
encountered end exploration methods employed 5 10 20 30 40 50 60
ri∎, A, J: x! \ =111Atr1•1,'11A:1�.S.71.1•401`/1/M
thick . •
— BASE ROCK -3 inches thick
CLAYEY SILT W /SILTY CLAY 4 •
— SPT LAYERS- brown, moist, firm to 4 -2 -1 .
medium stiff ; •
5 7 •
SPT - 2 34 2 -2 -3 1.5 • .
10
— SPT •
3 2 -3 4
- 10 7
SPT . SILT W/TRACE TO SOME SAND- -
2-2-3
grey, wet, loose -
- 15 6 • -
sPT 39 60 0 -1 -3 - -
s •
_ SH .
6 -
- 20 -i 7
—
SPT 1 -2 -3 - -
•
r .
•
❑ -
- 25 SPT
•
a — e CLAYEY SILT-grey, wet, medium
stiff 11 3-3-5
m — .
w
I-
_ —
C.)
~ —
O
0 -30 11
Cg SPT
— 9 1 -3 -5 •
ca •
— . •
O -
a — Boring terminated at 30 feet below
w _ ground surface. Boring backfilled with
CC cu and bentonite upon •
0 - 35 - completion.
o_ —
o _ Groundwater was encountered at 20
Es feet below existing site grade. - •
to
r - -
4
rs —
0-
0 - 40-
o •
a •
CO -
6032 North Cutter Circle, Suite 480
Mme, ,��'� Portland Oregon 97217 - 0126
(800) 783 -6985
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Results
Evergreen Engineering Professional Service Industries, Inc.
February 7, 2007 PSI Report No. 704 - 75015 -1
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200
100 I I I 1 1 1 : 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
95
90 -
•
85 •
•
80 .
75
•
70 •
•
i - 65
z
60 • _
•
>- 55 • .
m ' •
Z 50 . •
LL
I. 45
z
w •
40
•
w •
a 35 . •
•
30 •
•
25
20
•
15
10 . •
•
5 .
0, -
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
S pecimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
• B-1 at 15.0' SILT W/TRACE TO SOME SAND (ML)
I B-2 at 15.0' SILT W/TRACE TO SOME SAND (ML)
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
8 • B - at 15.0' 0.075 0.0 0.0 68.1
d 1:1:1
B -2 at 15.0' 0.075 0.0 0.0 60.4
6
a
a
0
6
C
N
il- 0
��� GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM C136- 06/C117 -04)
N ��/ Client: Evergreen Engineering
CO
Z Engineerin Consulting Testing Project Name:Cascade Business Center 5,000 SF Additior
g 6032 N. Cutter Circle S uite #480, Portland, Oregon 97217 Project Location: 10575 SW Cascade Ave., Tigard, OR
co Phone (503) 289 -1778 Fax (503) 289 -1918 Report Number: 704 - 75015