Loading...
Specifications From: Jeremy Gray [mailto:jeremygPgtfcwest.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:55 PM To: Najib A. Kalas; 'Gretchen Hall'; blasswell jbaorojects.com Cc: brvan@jbaorojects.com; Jason Thompson; George Saunders; CAPSTONE-11-03 Subject: RE: FW: Burnham &Ash Apts - Structural review of Engineered Aggregate Pier Drawings Good afternoon all, Please find attached a stamped copy of our revised design calculation package that, along with the responses below in red address GeoDesign's questions and comments. Thank you, Jeremy J. Gray, P.E. Project Executive GEOTECH FOUNDATION COMPANY - WEST® ph (503) 640-1340 mob (503)407-3907 From: Najib A. Kalas [mailto:nkalas@geodesigninc.com] Sent:Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:06 PM To: 'Gretchen Hall' <Gretchen@catenaengineers.com>;Jeremy Gray<jeremyg@gtfcwest.com>; blasswell@ibaprojects.com Cc: bryan@ibaproiects.com;Jason Thompson <Jason@catenaengineers.com>; George Saunders <gsaunders@geodesigninc.com>; CAPSTONE-11-03 <CAPSTONE-11-03@geodesigninc.com> Subject: RE: FW: Burnham &Ash Apts-Structural review of Engineered Aggregate Pier Drawings All, Attached is the rammed aggregate pier submittal including our review comments which are also summarized below. We have contacted GTFC-West to discuss, but have not received a return call by the time of this email. • The attached submittal does not address the likelihood that a casing will be required to advance the auger excavation through soft and loose soil...and below groundwater depths, which will be prone to raveling, sloughing, and running conditions. • We have acknowledged in our bidding this concern as identified in the site characterization as presented in the geotechnical report. Standard installation means and methods options have already been established and are employed based upon the actual soil, groundwater, and cavity sidewall integrity revealed at the time of production drilling in order to meet the demonstrably superior quality and performance standards established over the past 20 yrs. Because it is based on the quality and performance as intrinsic, and because it is executed under the direct oversight of the Design Engineer, the design submittal does not specify the means and methods but instead specifies only the details, parameters, and methods necessary to safely meet the structural bearing and settlement requirements. For this reason our Design Submittal are proprietary and non-transferable to other installers and not applicable to other superficially similar systems. • We take no exception provided the contractor means and methods ensures the integrity of the piers. • Given the size of the project, it is our opinion that modulus testing is justified. o Summary: 1)we have included testing as integral to our design and installation; 2)the design is controlled by spanning ability of the structure, and as a consequence provides factors of safety relative to loading and settlement substantially higher than typical. • The submitted design substitutes for the historically standard full scale modulus test our proprietary Rammer Force Calibration and Deflection Monitoring. To be clear,this is not avoiding modulus testing; rather we believe it is so necessary that we've developed equipment and methods completely integrated into our QC procedure,yielding comparable data across the site not just at a single, isolated test pier. • The design top-of-pier stresses revealed in the design calculations are far below standard capacities (1/2 to 1/3) for the soil conditions revealed in the geotechnical explorations. Similarly,the Pier Modulus assumed in our design is quite conservative relative those proven by full-scale testing in similar soil conditions. • The predicted settlement using this conservative assumed modulus yields maximum estimated settlement of 3/8"total and less than 3/16" differential, well within typical structural tolerance. • We take no exception provided the contractor testing methods confirm the aggregate pier element design parameters for the project. • In our preliminary analysis,we used a friction angle of 25 degree for the existing undocumented fill. • We have revised the design submittal calculations to reflect this lower friction angle value for the existing undocumented fill. • We take no exception. • Our report recommended that all piers extend through the undocumented fill and into native soil. We encountered fill of up to 14 feet deep and AMEC encountered fill of up to 16 feet deep. Our preliminary analysis assumed a set pier depth of 16 feet. The attached calculations indicate piers depth of only 8 feet which will not fully penetrate the existing fill as recommended in our report. o The Design Drawings and annotations in the revised Calculations specify that all piers are to meet the minimum shaft lengths specified in the Calculations and additionally to extend through undocumented fill to tag Native soil as identified in the geotechnical explorations. • The shallower shaft lengths provided in the design calculations yield maximum estimated settlement of 3/8" and differential settlement of 3/16" relative to the deepest(16') piers. These values along with Bearing Capacity factors of safety fall well within structural tolerance and reveal no need to extend piers artificially to a uniform 16' depth. • We take no exception provided all piers tag native soils, however due to anticipated soil and groundwater conditions, we believe it will be difficult if not impossible to confirm the contact between fills and native soils. Also, original submittal indicted that piers may be terminated in fill as shown (cut/paste) below: continue with installation of the aggregate pier element. Piers may be terminated short of design d materials. Additional aggregate pier elements shall be installed when required by the presence of i • Our preliminary analysis indicated pier spacing of 6 to 8 feet assuming 24-inch-diameter piers. The attached submittal indicates pier spacing of 16 feet for 30-inch-diameter piers. • The spacing revealed in the Design Drawings is limited to 13'to 15' and was employed after consult with the project SEOR; it accounts for their reported structural section spanning ability and our 30"-piers' minimum 4' radial improvement zone. The spacing of 16' reflected in the Design Calculations is a more conservative assumption to justify pier performance should structural spanning ability allow for solitary piers beneath bearing and shear walls within and between units. • We take no exception. • As indicated in our report,we were leaning toward a lean concrete pier system which is installed using casing system such as driven grout pile or cased auger system. These system is more robust when compared to auger excavation when it comes to penetrating obstructions present within the fill as discussed in our report and indicated on AMEC's logs where some explorations encountered refusal in the fill. • This description is intuitively contrary to the reality of longer and smaller diameter (24") installation equipment as compared to our 30"-diameter, shorter (more easily angled and adjusted) equipment. We have excavated surprising large obstructions (exceeding the 30" dimension of our drill diameter) on many projects, including several under GeoDesign QA oversight. Should we encounter refusal on obstructions, our flexible ground improvement allows for simple and rapid adjustment, shifting, and/or addition with no impact to structure and typically minimal to no impact on schedule and cost. • Our concern was derived from our review of the original submittal as shown (cut/paste) below: B. Should any obstruction, including but not limited to boulders, timber, concrete, asphalt, large roots e the elements to the required depth, or causes the aggregate pier to drift from the required location. I General Contractor. The excavation shall be backfilled by General Contractor with suitable material continue with installation of the aggregate pier element. Piers may be terminated short of design de materials. Additional aggregate pier elements shall be installed when required by the presence of o Najib J • CPT-1& 14.0.1 I.20 �+ : 10 6' 10 4I o S d2ial .__.,. g {.30 CPT.2 460 440 170.1 114.01 e v g z u LEGEND: N VU1 3 9-10 BORING W . cirri® CONE PENETROMETER ' I2 0'1 FILL THICKNESS '0 100 SITE PLAN BASED ON DRAWING PROVIDED BY PRIOR NASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT I CA'STONE PARTNERS.LLC.FEBRUARY 19.201S FEATURES.AS LAID OUT BY AMSC ,SCAI F IN • • From: Jeremy Gray [mailto jeremvg fi gtfcwest.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:55 PM To: Najib A. Kalas; 'Gretchen Hall'; blasswell@jbaorojects.com Cc: brvan tjbaorojects.com; Jason Thompson; George Saunders; CAPSTONE-11-03 Subject: RE: FW: Burnham &Ash Apts - Structural review of Engineered Aggregate Pier Drawings Good afternoon all, Please find attached a stamped copy of our revised design calculation package that, along with the responses below in red address GeoDesign's questions and comments. Thank you, Jeremy J. Gray, P.E. Project Executive GEOTECH FOUNDATION COMPANY - WEST® ph (503) 640-1340 mob (503)407-3907 From: Najib A. Kalas [mailto:nkalas@geodesigninc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:06 PM To: 'Gretchen Hall' <Gretchen@catenaengineers.com>;Jeremy Gray<ieremyg@gtfcwest.com>; blasswell@ibaproiects.com Cc: bryan@jbaproiects.com;Jason Thompson <Jason@catenaengineers.com>; George Saunders <gsaunders@geodesigninc.com>; CAPSTONE-11-03 <CAPSTONE-11-03@geodesigninc.com> Subject: RE: FW: Burnham &Ash Apts-Structural review of Engineered Aggregate Pier Drawings All, Attached is the rammed aggregate pier submittal including our review comments which are also summarized below. We have contacted GTFC-West to discuss, but have not received a return call by the time of this email. • The attached submittal does not address the likelihood that a casing will be required to advance the auger excavation through soft and loose soil...and below groundwater depths, which will be prone to raveling, sloughing, and running conditions. • We have acknowledged in our bidding this concern as identified in the site characterization as presented in the geotechnical report. Standard installation means and methods options have already been established and are employed based upon the actual soil, groundwater,and cavity sidewall integrity revealed at the time of production drilling in order to meet the demonstrably superior quality and performance standards established over the past 20 yrs. Because it is based on the quality and performance as intrinsic, and because it is executed under the direct oversight of the Design Engineer, the design submittal does not specify the means and methods but instead specifies only the details, parameters, and methods necessary to safely meet the structural bearing and settlement requirements. For this reason our Design Submittal are proprietary and non-transferable to other installers and not applicable to other superficially similar systems. • We take no exception provided the contractor means and methods ensures the integrity of the piers. • • Given the size of the project, it is our opinion that modulus testing is justified. o Summary: 1)we have included testing as integral to our design and installation; 2)the design is controlled by spanning ability of the structure, and as a consequence provides factors of safety relative to loading and settlement substantially higher than typical. • The submitted design substitutes for the historically standard full scale modulus test our proprietary Rammer Force Calibration and Deflection Monitoring. To be clear,this is not avoiding modulus testing; rather we believe it is so necessary that we've developed equipment and methods completely integrated into our QC procedure, yielding comparable data across the site not just at a single, isolated test pier. • The design top-of-pier stresses revealed in the design calculations are far below standard capacities (1/2 to 1/3)for the soil conditions revealed in the geotechnical explorations. Similarly,the Pier Modulus assumed in our design is quite conservative relative those proven by full-scale testing in similar soil conditions. • The predicted settlement using this conservative assumed modulus yields maximum estimated settlement of 3/8"total and less than 3/16" differential, well within typical structural tolerance. • We take no exception provided the contractor testing methods confirm the aggregate pier element design parameters for the project. • In our preliminary analysis,we used a friction angle of 25 degree for the existing undocumented fill. • We have revised the design submittal calculations to reflect this lower friction angle value for the existing undocumented fill. • We take no exception. • Our report recommended that all piers extend through the undocumented fill and into native soil. We encountered fill of up to 14 feet deep and AMEC encountered fill of up to 16 feet deep. Our preliminary analysis assumed a set pier depth of 16 feet. The attached calculations indicate piers depth of only 8 feet which will not fully penetrate the existing fill as recommended in our report. o The Design Drawings and annotations in the revised Calculations specify that all piers are to meet the minimum shaft lengths specified in the Calculations and additionally to extend through undocumented fill to tag Native soil as identified in the geotechnical explorations. • The shallower shaft lengths provided in the design calculations yield maximum estimated settlement of 3/8" and differential settlement of 3/16" relative to the deepest(16') piers. These values along with Bearing Capacity factors of safety fall well within structural tolerance and reveal no need to extend piers artificially to a uniform 16' depth. • We take no exception provided all piers tag native soils, however due to anticipated soil and groundwater conditions, we believe it will be difficult if not impossible to confirm the contact between fills and native soils. Also, original submittal indicted that piers may be terminated in fill as shown (cut/paste) below: continue with installation of the aggregate pier element. Piers may be terminated short of design d materials. Additional aggregate pier elements shall be installed when required by the presence of� • Our preliminary analysis indicated pier spacing of 6 to 8 feet assuming 24-inch-diameter piers. The attached submittal indicates pier spacing of 16 feet for 30-inch-diameter piers. • The spacing revealed in the Design Drawings is limited to 13'to 15' and was employed after consult with the project SEOR; it accounts for their reported structural section spanning ability and our 30"-piers' minimum 4' radial improvement zone. The spacing of 16' reflected in the Design Calculations is a more conservative assumption to justify pier performance should structural spanning ability allow for solitary piers beneath bearing and shear walls within and between units. • We take no exception. . • As indicated in our report,we were leaning toward a lean concrete pier system which is installed using casing system such as driven grout pile or cased auger system. These system is more robust when compared to auger excavation when it comes to penetrating obstructions present within the fill as discussed in our report and indicated on AMEC's logs where some explorations encountered refusal in the fill. • This description is intuitively contrary to the reality of longer and smaller diameter (24") installation equipment as compared to our 30"-diameter, shorter(more easily angled and adjusted) equipment. We have excavated surprising large obstructions (exceeding the 30" dimension of our drill diameter) on many projects, including several under GeoDesign QA oversight. Should we encounter refusal on obstructions, our flexible ground improvement allows for simple and rapid adjustment, shifting, and/or addition with no impact to structure and typically minimal to no impact on schedule and cost. • Our concern was derived from our review of the original submittal as shown (cut/paste) below: B. Should any obstruction, including but not limited to boulders, timber, concrete, asphalt, large roots e the elements to the required depth, or causes the aggregate pier to drift from the required location, I General Contractor. The excavation shall be backfilled by General Contractor with suitable material continue with installation of the aggregate pier element. Piers may be terminated short of design de materials. Additional aggregate pier elements shall be installed when required by the presence of o Najib Z o 0 I z w A BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND • DEPTH •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS FEET a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J <pw LI- LI RQD% V/ CORE REC% w 12 No,.u 152.0 50 too O.0--®}ASPHALT CONCRETE(2.3 inches). 10128 -'0u AGGREGATE BASE (1 5.7 inches). 'Pc o< Medium stiff, gray SILT(ML), minor 1.5 sand, trace clay; moist, sand is fine - 2.5-- f FILL. S -- — 6 A • t 5.0— � 7------------,—, — very stiff, sandy; interbeds of silty sand I at 5.0 feet { lb li . . ' i A 7.5— I - soft to medium stiff, brown-gray; - interbeds of silty sand (6 inches thick) j 1 A - at 7.5 feet trace gravel; gravel is subrounded at 8.0 feet ' I _moist to wet at 8.5 feet 142 1.; Loose, brown-gray with orange mottled, 9.S • (0.0— { silty SAND(SM); wet,fine, interbeds of - - sandy silt (up to 4 inches thick). i A I 14 0.6 Medium dense, gray-brown SAND with 1-4 ' silt (SP-SM); wet, fine, interbeds of silty sand (2 inches thick). - - - 12.5— 1 -- . . . '- Y Vl 15.0-- v- I • F with orange staining at 1 5.5 feet I i is Q 0I Z ! , Fc o_ I- a 17.5 - - - — __ __ __ __ ____ - -4.0 . i Medium stiff, gray SILT(ML), trace clay, 1$-0 osand, and organics (fine wood); moist, - - - u sand is fine. - u 45, . '920.0— ' o0 0 50 1 0 z DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY.NAK COMPLETED:02/13115 0 F- ' BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 7!8-inch V V CAPSTONE-11-02 BORING B-3 z GEODESIGN_ O 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway-Suite 100 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 FIGURE A-3 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR Z o = u w A BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND • DEPTH u Q a — o- •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS FEET Q MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J p w Q (ILL RQo% 7T CORE REC% LA.; 1— N • —20.0 u o so loo (continued from previous page) A interbeds of clay at 21.0 feet • _ I 22.5 -- 25.0— stiff, some clay, trace to minor sand, - none to trace organics at 25.0 feet -I • . { • 27.5— • 30-0 — i _— very stiff at 30.0 feet - A interbeds of sandy silt and silty sand at - 31.0 feet 32.5— ; H ▪ 35.0 none to trace sand at 35.0 feet Y 18 • a f • • 0 I- ✓ I 37-5 o z ! • V i - EL' 40.0 - 0 0 50 100 • DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02/13115 0 BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 718-inch u CAPSTONE-11-02 BORING B-3 o G E`O DES I G N? (continued) 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway-Suite 100 Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR FIGURE A-3 z g = u ♦ BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND ~ Z J •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS DFEET a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w O I— 4. w I- < N11.9 RQD% /./,:CORE REC% ce X40.0 u 0 50 100 stiff; interbeds of clay at 40.0 feet 10 A • • • I _ _ 110.0 • Stiff, gray CLAY (CH); moist. 42.0 42.5 j • j 45.0— • to 1_1 • 47.5 • [ 50.0 j gray-brown, trace sand at 50.0 feet =o 1.00.5 Exploration completed at a depth of 51.5 51 .5 feet. 52.5 — 55.0 I- r 0 I- z a. - a • ✓ 57.5 • V_ u O _ - - v tD 60.0- 0 50 100 • �++ DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,fnc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02/13/15 0 BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 7/8-inch CAPSTONE 11 02 BORING B-3 z G EO DES I G NZ (continued) O 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway Suite 100 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A-3 m Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR z g °= L 1-221 ♦BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND • DEPTH = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION >u,.1,1 a •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS FEET ,,.± w rii < [jl.-1 I RQD% IV7)CORE REC% L.7 152.0 0 50 100 —0.0 ASPHALT CONCRETE(3.0 inches). 1551.7 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE(8.0i - ,o"-\inches). 1, .1- ; T '0.9 •`°,,( 5Q-7 Lost mud circulation at 1.0 AGGREGATE BASE (5.0 inches). , 1.3 1 root. Medium stiff, brown SILT (ML),trace - t sand and black carbonized organics; 2.5 -- I moist, sand is fine. _ __•___ • 111 . 5: A. ,.� . LL 5.0— stiff, minor sand at 5.0 feet . with sand at 6.0 feet 7'5 with orange mottles, sandy at 7.5 feet 1 _ i � : . , • . interbeds of silty sand (2 inches thick) i . . l at 8.5 feet 43 r 9.0 19.0 '' - -I. Medium dense, brown with orange stained, silty SAND(SM); wet, fine, 10.0_ 1 interbeds of sandy silt (1 inch thick). ____..._ . __ P200=44% P200 1 a 0 { L1-i 12.5— j. - . • • •1— .. f iv Medium stiff, brown-gray with orange t' - - ! stained, sandy SILT(ML)to dense, silty z I___SAND (SM); wet, sand is fine. _ 135:5 • Exploration completed at a depth of J 16.5 16.5 feet. I- U 17.5 - . _ _ _ . _ ._ . _- _ z V_ 0 u 0 '0 I N 20.0-- 0 S!0 100 0 • z DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02113/15 0 BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 7/8-inch v vCAPSTONE 1 102 BORING B-4 Z z GEO�ESIGN Fe 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway•Suite I 00 2 Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A-4 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR z g Q i L.3 w ♦ BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND ~~ z 0-J •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS DFEET ;T: MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w o s w H `< [i1:1 RQO% //4 CORE REC% u o 50 100 .0 - —0 —_ 149.6 c)o� ASPHALT CONCRETE(2.0 inches). 10.2 . . . . , �' o.z �°�°� AGGREGATE BASE (22.0 inches). ooh °'C - o„,(7,: _ 148 • Medium stiff, gray SILT(ML), some 2.0 2.5 I clay, minor gravel and sand; moist, . - gravel is angular - FILL. i 7 0 . : i - I `.1 5.0— soft,with sand, trace gravel and organics (wood fragments); sand is fine to to coarse and angular at 5.0 feet • 1. 7.5— • , • P • moist to wet at 9.5 feet i Gravel is Shelby tip at 9-5 10.0 • medium stiff at 10.0 feet 5 A _ _ 138.0 Medium dense, brown-gray with dark 12.0 I 2.5— - • brown and black stained, silty SAND - (SM); wet, fine. • P200= 19% i Iz P200 I I t il interbeds of sand with silt (1 inch thick) • . at 13.8 feet • I Y 15.0 - • I- Ia 0 I- z - . s a • . F ' u 17.5 - gray; interbeds of sand with silt (up to 4 u - inches thick) at 1 7.5 feet I 17 A 0 . - i5' 131.0 '1. Exploration completed at a depth of 19.0 19.0 feet. N 2l]0 0 50 100 o • w DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02/13/15 z 0 BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 718-inch V GEODESIGN? CAPSTONE-11-02 BORING B-5 Z R 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway-Suite 100 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A 5 2 Ponland OR 97224 MARCH 201 S Off S03.968.8787 Fax S03.968.3068 TIGARD,OR Z o O= u w ♦ BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND /-1-- 0- Li ZJ COMMENTS o •MOISTURE CONTENT%MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w < 1FEETaQ u w 1jf I RQD% I//CORE REC% w 1— vl LI 150.0 0 50 100 —0M—III ASPHALT CONCRETE(4.5 inches). 149.6 , . 0c°". AGGREGATE BASE (1 1.5 inches). 0.4 . 4 (O _ .1113,ZMedium stiff, dark brown SILT (ML), 1.3 : T. some clay, trace gravel, sand, and • organics (wood); moist, gravel and • 2.5 - sand are coarse and angular- FILL. - - •— JJ4I • 5.0— 1 . •P • - I I with gravel at 6.5 feet 143..0 LLLj Shelby tip is dented at 6.5 feet;gravel is Shelby tip. { ' Loose, gray, silty SAND (SM); moist, 7.0 s - 7.5— • fine - FILL. .a • - . _ 1 • 10.0 . very loose; wet at 10.0 feet • Lost 100 gallons of mud at 10.0 feet. 3 . - - P200=33% P200 trace to minor gravel; gravel is coarse 1 at 1 1.0 feet ' 12.5— ; _ I _ 136.0 Medium dense, gray, silty SAND (SM); 14.0 - ' • wet, fine. 15.0 interbeds of sand and sandy silt (up to W 2 inches thick) at 15.0 feet 12 1- A 0 _ , with orange staining at_ 16.0 feet !.3.1 Z Medium dense,gray SAND with silt (SP- 16.3 i • SM); wet, fine. I- a 17.5 - - - - - • - z V - - W •o v i1 . V ^, 20.0— 0 _ 50 100 0 • z DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02/13/15 O H 1i' BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 7/8-inch U V GEODESIGN_ CAPSTONE-11-02 BORING B-6 Z o: 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway-Suite 100 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A-6 m Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR z o - z ♦ BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND • DEPTH = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j w — a •MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS FEET o w o w < (,Li] RQD% (v CORE REC% —20.0 u o 50 100 (continued from previous page) l - f Still losing mud at 20.0 feet. • 12 P200= 16% .29.0 P200 AI • Medium dense, gray, silty SAND (SM); 21-0 - wet, fine. 128.0 37 Stiff, gray CLAY (CH), trace sand; moist, 22.° 22.5 / sand is fine. — — — • 25.0— • lu �� — — — 123,5 Exploration completed at a depth of 26-5 26.5 feet. . . - 27.5— I . 30.0 --- — • 32.5— 35.0 W 1- a 0 i- z - a • - 0 37.5 .71 • uJ . u a •N 40.0-- 0 50 100 • Wz DRILLED BY:Western States Soil Conservation,Inc. LOGGED BY:NAK COMPLETED:02/13/15 0 BORING METHOD:mud rotary(see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER:4 7/8-inch z G EO DES I G CAPSTONE-11-02 BORING B-6 (continued) • it 15575 SW Sequoia Parkway Suite 100 m Portland OR 97224 MARCH 2015 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A-6 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR 60 SO CH or OH • • I "A" LINE x 40 Z ' I- u 30 -- - - - -- - H V CL or OL Q J a 20 — ' I i M H or OH 10 • CL-M L j i 1 ML or OL I 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT 1,- Y V1 :7- --%". EXPLORATION SAMPLE DEPTH 1 MOISTURE CONTENT o KEY NUMBER (FEET) (PERCENT) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 1- . cc • B-1 4.0 � 37 64 20 ( 44 r Z B-2 7.5 i 37 NP NP , NP z I 0 w V I 46. V m , ry W z O N CL Q U n N u CAPSIONE-I I-02 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS GEOUESIGN_ W c, 15575 SW Sen and Oaax 503rkwaza Suite 100 MARCH 2015 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT Off 503.968.8787 F .968.3068 TIGARD,OR FIGURE A-7 SAMPLE INFORMATION SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS MOISTURE DRY EXPLORATION SAMPLE ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY GRAVEL SAND P200 LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) (PERCENT) (PCF} (PERCENT) (PERCENT) (PERCENT) LIMIT LIMIT INDEX (FEET) B-1 4.0 149.0 19 64 20 44 B-1 6.0 147.0 30 B-1 15.0 138.0 32 B-2 2.5 150.5 36 B-2 7.5 145.5 37 NP I NP NP B-2 11.0 142.0 32 10 I 4 I 8-3 2.5 I 49.5 32 B-3 7.5 144.5 34 - = B3 - _ --- - -� - - - 15.0 137.0 29 R-3 25.0 127.0 30 B-3 35.0 117.0 28 B-3 ' 45.0 107.0 28 B-4 2.5 149.5 33 7.5 144.5 31 B-4 � F B-4 10.0 142.0 32 44 B415.0 137.0 31 I ' B-5 2.5 147.5 26 - B-5 5.0 145.0 27 Y R•S J S 142.5 29 -- i --- f ----- ----'------ -i - Let . B-5 12.5 137.5 29 19 o B-6 2.5 147.5 23 136 6.7 143.3 32 o B-6 10.0 140.0 33 33 o B-6 20.0 130.0 33 16 o u B-6 25.0 125.0 31 u - ------ -- - - - N O to Z O 1- 6Z CAPSTONE-11-02 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA 2 N 155755WPortSequoia landORrk97224ay Suite 100 MARCH 2015 TIGARD DEVELOPMENT FIGURE A-8 Off 503.968.8787 Fax 503.968.3068 TIGARD,OR - VUUUUSlyF1 I lrr I - I I I ZODU 0 V HSI1 I !yen U Operator: OGE TAJ CPT Date/Time: 2/16/2015 8:44:44 AM Sounding: CPT-1 Location: GeoDesign/CPT-1 /12800 SW Ash Tigard • Cone Used: DPG1211 Job Number: 15017/GeoDesign /CPT-1 /12800 SW Ash Tigard SPT N' Soil Behavior Type' Tip Resistance Local Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure 60%Hammer Zone:UBC-1983 Qt TSF Fs TSF Fs/Qt(%) Pw PSI - 0 80 0 12 0 300 0 8 0 12 -10 70 0 I I I I Ili!M I I I ! 1 I I 2 1! � i i l r l i r r 1 1 I . , sP1 , I I I I I I � , 1 I i , , • , I rri I , • 10 - 11 1 I _ J X71-- 1ii1 Il ^ '1--- 1 5 R I , 11111111 1 1 I + , J, I 1 I I 1EEi c I 1 11111111 I 20 -_ _ _ _ 1111!1!11 ,-_ __ _ -_ _ _ _ .2.:_� _— —. _ • I I I + I I I I 1 1 1 1 t I 1 ' , , 1 I Mi I , , , i 1 I I 1 I �to 'I I ' 1 1 I , 1 L' 30 — .—'--'—'—I _ I _ .)pth f 1 I , — I ,I imiiii ` J — I'l , I I I ( i I 1 1 I , j 1 1,5 1 I i I♦-. 1111111111 ,`, I 4 1 , 1 it I M I 1 1 I 1 1 1 j 1 1 -4,W`•� I I + 1 ' ' I I I 1 , 1 • . , • I 1 1 1 I 1 I c maw . . . . 1 `� 40 L 1 1_.1___- 1 L,L LI 1 L__L J _ �' _ ._l 1__, __.1___. 41t 111 I I 1 Tr:.) ' ; t , , , l 1I I II , ' 11 t . I 1111 1 Ili/ 1 I i I I I , , I I , + 1 ' 60 I , Maximum Depth=51.02 feet Depth Increment=0.164 feet 1 sensitive fine grained II 4 silty clay to clay 17 silty sand to sandy silt U 10 gravelly sand to sand ❑2 organic material ❑5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand ❑11 very stiff fine grained(') •3 clay •6 sandy silt to clayey silt ❑9 sand •12 sand to clayey sand(') c;eouesign I ur I-1 / 1 Ltiuu SW Asn I igara Depth 3.281 ft r r -�- --r - r -T , r- Delay 6.29rne Ref' L- - Velocity' Depth 6.56211 Delay 8.87ms Ref 3.281ft \ � ___ ---- Velocity 948.4411/s Depth 9.843ft ,� Delay 12.07ms Ref 6.562ft ��X _ Velocity 905.6911/s Depth 13.123111 Delay 17.97ms ' Ref 9.84311 ` y_/\I _ Velocity 520.8'/tt/s Depth 16.404ft f-- -fi r - r • ( Delay ?_2.62m:: Ref I3. 123ft -_---..›A I __ • Velocity 677.8111:/5 Depth 19.68511 ' Delay 27.81ms Ref 16.404ft1 -- Velocity 614.48 Wo Depth 22.966ft i i Delay 32.62ms Ref 19.68511 ___ ,_ I !_ �_� Velocity 669.5511/s Depth 26.247ftDelay 36.68ms Ref 22.966Et _ -.„M1 - -__ter- "...=-:, ........ ....___,..„,..._ Velocity 795.73ft/s Depth 29.528[1 Delay 40.00ms Ref 26.247ft Velocity 976.78ft:/s 1 . Depth 32.80811 Delay 43.51ms Ref 29.528fC � �^ �.. __`� yr locity 924.64!',1/5 1 1 I Depth 36.089ft 1Delay 47.07ms RAF -i 7.R0R f t 1�,,, - , , - /'�---""----_ vo l rl,i t y 916.0111/s Depth 39.37011 � Delay 50.70m:: Rel 36.08911 ^ �L _l /, /'- Velocity 89'/.4411/:; Depth 42.815ft ? i Delay 54.57ms Rel 39.37011 --f\\:7 Velocity 886.0911/s Depth 45.932_11 f} Delay 57.81ms Ref 4 2.81 51 t . • -___.: Velocity 956.97t.t/s Dept.f, 49.2131E Delay 61 .13m:-; Ret. 45.93211 , Velocity 984.2211/s 0 10 20 30 40 50 GO 70 80 90 100 Time (ms) Ilammner to Rod String Distance 1.3 (m) - Not Determined . Veoueslyri i • ur- I -L / 1ZODU .7 VV f-k511 I IydnU Operator: OGE TAJ CPT Date/me: 2/16/2015 11:45:41 AM Sounding: CPT-2 Location: GeoDesign/CPT-2/12800 SW Ash Tigard Cone Used: DPG1211 Job Number: 15017/GeoDesign /CPT-2/12800 SW Ash Tigard SPT N- Soil Behavior Type' lip Resistance Local Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure 60%Hammer Zone:UBC-1983 Qt TSF Fs TSF Fs/Qt(%) Pw PSI • 0 80 0 12 0 300 0 8 0 12 -10 70 0 WWI If I i { i 11 I l I 1 i III i --,.. ..I , .I ' f4 l' ' I II 1 (..... . , , , , 1 .�T •I I \., 10 - - - _I- _ l 11--- -'rl-ir" -r .- -l I mp I iiiI I 1 1 , 20 — 444.* — — — — - - — — . • 11111111 . 1 I 1 ' 1 m , ' l 11111111 I 11111111 , )z.pth iiii — — — — L — ;) I I I 11111111 , , , , 1 I � I r 1 I 1 4 I , I 40 1SJ-1--- I�LL1_ - L J - _ - I I I ,1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I i 1 I I I I I , I I 1 111111 , `y_ • I I 1 II 1 I1 I 1 i 1 1 11 I , 1 1 1 1 � I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 60 Maximum Depth=51.18 feet Depth Increment=0.164 feet 1 sensitive fine grained •4 silty clay to clay •7 silty sand to sandy silt •10 gravelly sand to sand ❑2 organic material ❑5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand ❑11 very stiff fine grained(') •3 clay •6 sandy silt to clayey silt ❑9 sand •12 sand to clayey sand(') ' . ; 1•,-: :.. . . . . . ; . , 1 - . _.. . • . • • 2 . i• . iii "C2 -- a) . . . . . . . . • . :. . : : _ .. 0-) — . _.. ,.... N. '. ! ,.,"ti ,a I••/V iC) ' • O , . . t,...2 ' - • -.5 i , , 6,, •••); • i__._) -,). . ..... .. . .._. . _. _ _. -______ ,-,,r-:--• • @ .... . >. .I. -, .- ,'0, -,...i .• I- z a3 11' • • I r i I • , sr", ..., in hi cc) %.S.A tt 3. --''''0" r ' ' 79...v."-i!"-'51!!)—1.,,-\ 1 W it 1,--• : • . ' ' •I . . 41:4/•• ,1- •... .. 1, ,,i • , . . J'' ').'I •'. id, - C.7"-,..•.;',••,-;.• ,•i .,,•--t, -,;:, ' ' t- 1 1 -1-.'1 --'-'- ; i • • . ' . .. ii...'•'i- -.-:.: I• • 1 -', - k Z 1,„ c.-..-_, _ • r a. •„c-,---;-•-_-.:,-.•-,N7 •,......‘,,g . , ,g•••1--.. - . .—„,'"......el....1 i...... t P.'t" • • jc•,..i''''.1... .••• HC ,-,:,)bi•,,.r)17-,-',".., < W .i., , J• - ., n. ,p a ,.,... •Tr,. 1'Y • lri i . -n p, ,, . ci . . IL F • _. ..• 4 % :..... • _ 7Y•Yfi- c'.‘E.-:::'0 .. . - LI V ' -: . I I I-.. " . . . . --• • • . . _ ..•• ...... . ' 0 .-.' . r. .. Ll ma Li -... Z . . ,.. . . • • . c...., . 4-1c.i .--••••.•*!..... — — . •:- .OF,1 . . . . T.2,c-ac.1 ' LI) ,,,_:,'.,L.1' '. ; -7.• •-r"; '1,)/‘ ' .L.' 0 ,.. . . i +•----t !...-,9,•L ... . — ._. . . . . e.---- . • ill T I ai,,i0 ,ot, .4.......vu.1- •-i•-- --- -,:-ks: < .1! o = r-- !, :____ '..y.., , _.4.:.....D ,i,,,,,'•,r•-••0.ci - • - - — -4 Cl) .-4 is-,, ...,-,..i-i .f.v<IIL VI I c, ';•••--v - /1,•ir "r)^ • O h1'" . .__. . .. t N.--.7): ,iol.4 ^'rCC;ii. ..! '711""'t _ . .. .. b. Z z . . — i",.., ...,TC-1-X1..hv•Ts;1... .-.745,11..1c,-.-v.,,,,,,e-• ti4".-,P '•••l!•,n c;•).p•••. CD -'• - - _ ... ; :,.......:',.„ 7•%-•,-,.ii,‘,-If 11,,',: .... . 3 a _ . O z -10.st .6 .(5). , . . _ , . . . . . ..._ .... . ., . : , •,,,, IL W 0 ./14.2i, %0 /= C - . : ,- • • . . , - - ,/ . . • /M\ 7,74s-L• - -..._et • (V3)"1 I' , ...,.. .7e."f"7:'1's''', .. . ._ • • --- • • W - -- Id .. -- •.,,,, r--:..-.....", ,„ . ?--4.7•:•...7 `, e", .?ir::\ii.)..1-?:C•;',.... I:I%.'..-'-. -,11 - I,s' 'r , ;.'-',I(V " - - - - - --Lvyt.'-,. •..V I' ' ' '1", ''roi 1.e.,....,, ,...),,:... z,.,4 ,,,,•......-.:.. r v e'l7L.C.11 -,' .:6"i'l'•V --•""-----"--- . `..t:....:„.......„.............„.„.............. . 2.--,ali I 4”:•• 15 iK..--1.. ,,..-).-'-ci) ... .0 0 i••••).9r.,• 1 "-,- -0 = Z...4I •-c c.i 7__S% 4t_f/•-: _1- 19 _ — .—._. Sla 14/ - (...r. ____ __1, - • • . 4 /f/;5 .50.1--L /10©Ei. / FRE,e EW 71 7!._ 5,,4ir,^LLawe Y7- o /- SOIL MODEL D=PT/Y e- 1/czcr CevJScrVA75!/E P=•7z LEW 7WX Project. Burnham R Ash Apartments Tigard.OR CA yo G£j�cf W E7"Tc_EM6Tl r . _ .A ) Geo Ram -7..,"T,rJATeS, Reference Borings: 8-4 exisang grade= 152 finish floor cloy= 153.6 eln,11rr prolro..nou.'o.Trn..ca.......•...•r„ Depth to OWL = 7 lent erev.=:466 Layer Thickness' = I feet 'Recommend Layer Thickness 1'or 2'for accuracy Depth to Bearing Layer= 20 feet ofev.=133 8 Soils With Internal Frictional Component Sod Unsuhmergon PredominenrN SILTY and SANDY roils IS) CLAY(CI Deter Bebe Over Cornsresstn Inde, jpnnavor yn'1 worm Frimpn Arrn'e Con-son yndrarerd Surma, Parameters For Lower Zone ere"B Sad Stratum FF to Eeoeer Average Cooedde:or Secoa•orecddn Virgo (C4oy.Saeel •pd• Warted Undr-..oed .psi. 'PSI- Settlement Calculations tasaiAdi ;els Number et Stratum Depth Roto Isxan based) (seam hued) CenS tp,r .t1 c S„ E,tp7) E.(i.st) SP1 N 153.6 ML 1 1.00 0.50 /4 i / _ s 110 25 / . r i _------- -_--- _ 0 - - 152.6 ML 2 2.00 1.50 1 / J 1 s _ 110 25 / / O 151.6 ML 3 3.00 2.50 I s 110 --- 25 --- ------- 150.6 AfL 4 _ 4.00 3.50 �- /- -- _ / ' 5 110t0 25 ! 478 69 5 149.6 ML 5 5.00 4.50 r S 110 25 t 478 69 5 _ 148.6 ML 6 6.00 5.50 _i L-L a 110 f-__-_25 652 94 9 -1 L-L 147.6 Ali 7 7.00 6.50 V s110 25 --» ' --- --_- - --'--- 652 94 9 W6.6 M1. 8 8.00 7.50 s 110 25 / 652 94 9 - 145.6 ML --- 9 9.00 8.50 s 110 25 - - - - -/� / 652 94 9 144.6 ML 10 10.00 9.50 i . ' / I 143.6 ML it 11.00 10.50 I / / -- 11(1 ' 25. '-- ------=--: 77-7--------T-3.9-----1.0YIT739106 I t / 5 110 25. i f 142.6 SM 12 12.00 11.50 __ _ _ s 115 29 • 3806 548 11 141.6 SM 13 13.00 12.50 - A(/=%'.fE'__5, -_ s 115.._ 29 1517 218 6 /v,4 77_ V1 140.6 SM 14 14.00 13.50 (jr'aLL0w�sT. __- s 115 29 1517 2W 6 139.6 SM 15 15.00 14.50 s 115 29 1517 218 6 138.6 SM 16 --- 16.00 15.50 ---- ---- »�--- S 115 29 --� ----�1517 218 6 137.6 SA1 17 17.00 16.50 __- s 115 29 - _ 1517 218 _ 6 136.6 SM 18 18.00 17.50 5 115 29 1517 218 6 135.6 SM 19 19,00 18.50 5 115 291589 229 7 134.6 SM 20 20.00 19.50 s 115 29 _- - ---- 1589 229 7 .__._ W....-.._. ... ..�. _.._.»....._......_.._..�.__........_............... _.._._..-�....._.... 133.6 SA1 21 21.00 20.50 a 115 29 - - _ 15887 9 229 7 132.6 SM 22 22.00 21.50 s 115 29 1589 229 7 131.6 SM 23 23.00 22.50 5 115 29 1589 229 7 130.6 SM 24 24.00 23.50 S 115 29 ------ ---- - - 3809 548 11 129.6 SM 25 25.00 24.50 -�- s 115 29 3806 548 11 128 6 CH 26 26.00 25.50 s --_115 29---_-- -----_--- ---�----1528 220 1 1---- 127.6 _ CH _ .27 27.00 26.50 -_- s 1155 29 1528 220 i 1 126.6 CH 28 28.00 27.50 s I15 29 1528 220 II 125.6 C11 29 29.00 28.50 5 115 _ 29 1528 220 11 724.6 CH 30 30.00 29.50 s IIS 29 1528 220 11 NOTE it S onl'f'1'v and C as matured II C 'Ir,and C.or S•aro recurred lit a value is maul ter S.it sucnre0rleS satin':,and Cl Duman•io;.il•10 rooLngs Irempl2o15•00•04) euinhom F Asn lis r of r Sort nr0'Jn • Project:Burnham&Ash Apartments GeoRam F) Location: Tigard,OR Date: Io0162015 ton ..... 5E*5700060 205E SOWER 0.206 5EFE553+760524110.9•0 4 I'.602n43,,.(dl• 30 rn Main,O.a:asa. ,.37.07a. 0 R4 Fttaclno dame..18.1 30 In Berm.076• 125 Pon(lmena Por 0� + 200 03 1O0014 01oo::mtBan• 313 n 0AVn r Sol K_4 15 (0! 1.7.3.A4a'watio Se:'mruna• 100 n Unman FS-15 0,..Um Wmryt 70'••• 135 I..0' •Vanarc. 0n7 rnolanAmte 4s.... 554wn Bom JrMa.yrs. iso nen,aa R.Y.n . 133 In i V,. Compassion Capacey Bean', Settlement Settlemd I30.aual l4.....nnn Slr..q tool Grad 5.wn0Mn 00530:.013, 5nearn, '0.nrert.a! Loovr Zona 144.0Jlonn51/..Ia F19 Oral Cduminvn7 Best, 13050,10 Ore,Shan ;Haan/ 117AV fl yrr.Ixt P*0'C l ArOa 10,o1 14.4 lop of O._05 Pow 5.'.10 Frcta..End 07,5n0 + •r s lm. Sallem*a Total RE.LZ SoIMm•n1 eana.aas LO0I imtr•n F/mm..0 3 Rowe 00F LmOm Mon a n.++ Ia., flat* nal n« rr+ u+.-R.+ Sere Y' C. 02 RZ.C. RZ.E, or F19 My) 101-IL) 53 L 9...., 0, R. 116.1.75d (02.4.250577 p.rin 05... R. 9r 5., 13.... roe.rn30..s.4 tm • c . Oa • S. . 5, -• S. -AV,- 'J n n p- "0 n. II lips IH- W. ..44 1ipc 1.1 4mn F5- FS. FS r m 70- I 131 300 3700 1367 75 00 111 3/ 2 666 015 6470 495 451 1)!• 234 b13 724 11 ' 11'. - 022 0 00' n/. 030 2 400 3200 1100 - 35 70 101 75 2 704 0,1 6200 456 435 543 234 777 673 1, 34 1.15 022 0, 000 n/• 030 3 118 300 3200 1233 35 70 101 34 7 592 015 5839 433 413 533 734 777 679 2I n 7 0.1 020 007 n/. 071 A 53 325 325 5000 75 00 3452.8 061 7204 540 500 570 734 .13 724 7i 025 000 n/. 025 11 t I •.1 a+r 1 Ws - 11 80 300 __400 5000 2B 80 111 28 t 600 944 10,338 15 731 596 737 037 145 1'. 14 1111 036 _nf. n•a 000 36 _ n'a NR m nf. nli nit; n'a rvb /4 n/4 O 00 00 000 0 00 na nl• 0 00 00 000 0 00 N. 01+ 2/a n/. O 00 00 000 0 00 nb Na n/. n7. n/. n/4 O 00 00 000 0 00 0,4 nb 65 07. 674 al4 ria IYa n/4 n/4 O 00 00 000 0 00 ns na nor op •74 1.4nal a nn 4 nn a n7. L/ 1 r .+ . .n u.. 0,+..mM1l�O.n....r.414c•F All Om 10 Othib.006190 Shan Length noted above unless nn .......w.n.Kp-,•I.•.e.,..- 1 ..� NG "°" ••/OWN 4 N r: TO beatrn9 Shutt=.6 006.01010d al N111606et depth. •VCALE- P=E'T LENGTHS TO EXTEND i0 /'1r'/`/..71"?G!!y LE f. �- E'XTc'ND I' 'PE-g- TO FrE-N 7"72, ) - cy/-L- (4-Al i7-e�PA7c , y_16•.L•NArE/a5), '€ 7.HT5 1(026 ro.dfLEG7- TPrc SH,g4 Loo✓EST r�i-L PCPT,/v,-/"7TN_/-/ter/ 5rf•9F7 LETJGj715 /104.7 COtJ5&7 Vf477-r/E c.4i-�c.772 5 o.- >cTTLL?9c/VT- cSTT/ii7iF]� -r Crc%i=r2- (MG/z-E CcnJSF2VR7,, t/E) FZE1,-TO-PX 2, .57'4'NS 77/A/V US EO %N 0ESsGAL rlAXZN114r/ Pr E/2.,-7-0-Pr.-,-I_ s/%2P1< OF /32 TO /.3- C :7ETE2M----/V4-- 747 r4./ Go'"1SuL7 w/ STRv.cTufz, . ETJGING c>; O.C.. S�rc s NG A c cUKNTf r0� /7 i 6)C. 571Z2•4C7L-e.AL 7c/ 7_r!r/ 3.4.=1>G%/IO: i9 BSL--'.7' ' 0l MZN. ,t'krvPq L Psi T/-1P/ZvvEM6-N7 9C 77f-OF"-:.C:72._ ;...,--.77Z 655 E5 FFt-LL. le/EL,,. 0ELOL/ A/ON-OP- ' #V, - 'r Nor-1 -S(4prJE`LGc� 7-e)P-OF-f.ErZ Cr-)P�c:r.7=ES PROVEN BY N;S%O/Z!L /1OPu c_a5 TESTS H` cSTTMATE 0 TCT/•+L df/7SFp'r-?°-NT AL <ET-_ =r!_iv7 1_../EZ-L L9 L.0w r1F7X. n ...r .i72uc7r,Fr AL i oLE'/�An/c. -. ..n. ., ,o.m. '"P=E2 QuA1,77,V Y" Pc-FOIV r,ilNCE C /a7r72r16-; 9 -1r'irlErtFzLE CAL:c.Z-9 =O7\i P'i-L.FcTT777/ 19C7N=iZJ2=2..t