Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Report (160)
1 1 OFFICE COPY 1 1 1 1 „00/1\ itic as Engineering, Inc. 1 Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support 1 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report 111 72nd Avenue Apartments 1 11720 & 11750 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 P Geo aclflc Engineering, Inc. Job No. 17-4626 July 24, 2017 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax(503) 941-9281 I oe Pacific I G Engineering,Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions IInvestigation • Design •Construction Support TABLE OF CONTENTS IList of Appendices i List of Figures i PROJECT INFORMATION 1 I SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 2 REGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING 3 I Portland Hills Fault Zone 3 Lacamas Creek/Sandy River Fault Zone 3 Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone 4 Cascadia Subduction Zone 4 I FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 Soil Descriptions 6 Groundwater and Soil Moisture 7 ' Infiltration Testing 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Site Preparation Recommendations 8 Engineered Fill 8 I Excavating Conditions and Utility Trench Backfill 9 Erosion Control Considerations 10 Wet Weather Earthwork 10 Spread Foundations 11 I Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 13 Footing and Roof Drains 13 Permanent Below-Grade Walls 14 I PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN 15 SW 72nd Avenue— East Lane: Existing Pavement Evaluation 15 SW 72nd Avenue: New Pavement Design For Street Widening 18 Flexible Pavement Design — Private Parking Areas 20 I Rigid Pavement Design — Private Parking and Drive Areas 21 Subgrade Preparation 22 Wet Weather Construction Pavement Section 22 I SEISMIC DESIGN 23 Soil Liquefaction 24 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS 26 REFERENCES 27 I CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION 28 APPENDIX I I I I I17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 GeoPacific ' Engineering,Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support List of Appendices ' Figures Exploration Logs Laboratory Test Results Liquefaction Assessment Infiltration Testing Calculations Pavement Design Calculations Site Research Photographic Log I List of Ficlures 1 Site Vicinity Map ' 2 Site Aerial and Exploration Locations 3 Site Plan and Exploration Locations 4 Site Plan and Foundation Loads 5 Typical Perimeter Footing Drain Detail 1I 1 i17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT i GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 ' GeoPacific Engineering,Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support July 24, 2017 ' Project No. 17-4626 72nd Avenue Property, LLC do Hill Architects ' 1750 Blankenship Road, Suite 400 West Linn, Oregon 97068 Phone: (503) 305-8033 SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 72ND AVENUE APARTMENTS 11720 & 11750 SW 72ND AVENUE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 ' PROJECT INFORMATION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study conducted by GeoPacific ' Engineering, Inc. (GeoPacific) for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site development. This geotechnical study was performed in accordance with GeoPacific ' Proposal No. P-6092, dated May 24, 2017, and your subsequent authorization of our proposal and General Conditions for Geotechnical Services. ' Site Location: 11720 & 11750 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Washington County Parcel No. R285587 & R285596 Hill Architects Architect: 1750 Blankenship Road, Suite 400 ' West Linn, Oregon 97068 Phone: (503) 305-8033 Jurisdictional Agency: City of Tigard, Oregon ' GeoPacific Engineering, Inc 14835 SW 72n Avenue Prepared By: Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel (503) 598-8445 Fax (503)941-9281 1 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION As indicated on Figures 1 through 3, the subject site is located at 11720, and 11750 SW 72nd Avenue, in Tigard, Oregon. The site is comprised of Washington County Parcel No. R285587, and R28596, totaling approximately 0.67-acres in size, and is roughly rectangular in shape. The site latitude and longitude is 45.435202, -122.750626, and the legal description is the SW 1/4 of Section 36, T1S, R1W, Willamette Meridian. The regulatory jurisdictional agency is the City of Tigard, Oregon. The site is bordered by SW 72nd Avenue to the west, and by existing residential properties to the north, east, and south. The properties contain two existing residential homes, driveways, and ornamental lawn areas which include landscaping retaining walls, gardens, and planter areas. The property owner has indicated to GeoPacific that an extensive dewatering system was installed across the site which includes drains, culverts, and gravel. The drive areas in the front of the house are surfaced with asphalt and gravel. Topography at the site is generally relatively flat to gently sloping to the west with site elevations ranging from approximately 234 to 244 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Vegetation at the site primarily consists of grass, landscaping plants, and some trees. Based upon communication with the client, and review of preliminary project plans, GeoPacific 1 understands that the proposed development at the site will consist of construction of a five-story, mixed-use building, with retail and parking spaces on the ground level, and multi-family residential units on the upper levels. The building will have a footprint of approximately 9,906 square-feet, 1 and will be located on the western portion of the site (see Figure 3). We understand that the development will also include construction of private parking areas and drive areas, a trash enclosure, and a public street improvement to the eastern margin of SW 72nd Avenue along the property frontage. Associated underground utilities, and stormwater disposal systems will also be installed. We anticipate that site grading will include cuts and fills which will be on the order of five feet or less. Based upon review of information provided by Hill Architects, it is our understanding that the proposed building will be designed as Type V construction, with slab-on-grade, post and pier, or spread footing foundations on the ground level, a post-tensioned concrete slab at the second level, and wood framing above. Based upon structural loading information provided by DCI Engineers (see Figure 4), we anticipate maximum structural loading on column footings and continuous strip footings on the order of 100 to 225 kips, and 4 to 10 kips respectively. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 1 Regionally, the subject site lies within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound lowland, a broad structural depression situated between the Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. A series of discontinuous faults subdivide the Willamette Valley into a mosaic of fault-bounded, structural blocks (Yeats et al., 1996). Uplifted structural blocks form bedrock highlands, while down-warped structural blocks form sedimentary basins. According to the Lidar-Based Surficial Geologic Map of the Greater Portland Area, Clackamas, 111Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington, 2012 (State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-12-02), the site is underlain by late Pleistocene-aged (21,000 to 12,000 years ago) fine- 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 2 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 1 Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. Igrained Missoula Flood Deposits (Mff). The fine-grained sediments were deposited by outburst flooding of glacial Lake Missoula, a catastrophic flood deposit associated with repeated glacial I outburst flooding of the Willamette Valley (Yeats et al., 1996), and consist of white, tan, and brown, unconsolidated, sand and silt that were deposited in a series of distinct layers, a few inches to a few feet thick, each of which represent an individual flooding event. IREGIONAL SEISMIC SETTING I At least four major fault zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes are thought to exist in the vicinity of the subject site. These include the Portland Hills Fault Zone, the Lacamas Creek/Sandy River Fault Zone, the Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone, and the ICascadia Subduction Zone. Portland Hills Fault Zone IThe Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW-trending faults that include the central Portland Hills Fault, the western Oaffield Fault, and the eastern East Bank Fault. These faults occur in a Inorthwest-trending zone that varies in width between 3.5 and 5.0 miles. The combined three faults reportedly vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene (approx. 780,000 years) sediment (Madin, 1990). The 1 Portland Hills Fault occurs along the Willamette River at the base of the Portland Hills, and is located approximately 5.6 miles northeast of the site. The Oatfield Fault occurs along the western side of the Portland Hills, and is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the site. The East IBank Fault occurs along the eastern margin of the Willamette River, and is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the site. The accuracy of the fault mapping is stated to be within 500 meters I (Wong, et al., 2000). According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, the fault was originally mapped as a down- to-the-northeast normal fault, but has also been mapped as part of a regional-scale zone of right- lateral, oblique slip faults, and as a steep escarpment caused by asymmetrical folding above a south-west dipping, blind thrust fault. The Portland Hills fault offsets Miocene Columbia River I Basalts, and Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks of the Troutdale Formation. No fault scarps on surficial Quaternary deposits have been described along the fault trace, and the fault is mapped as buried by the Pleistocene aged Missoula flood deposits. No historical seismicity is correlated I with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake occurred on a NW-trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although there is no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is assumed to be potentially Iactive (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Lacamas Creek/ Sandy River Fault Zone I The Lacamas Creek Fault intersects the northeast trending Sandy River Fault north of Camas, Washington at Lacamas Lake, approximately 20 miles northeast of the subject site. The Lacamas I Creek Fault extends northwest to southeast, intersecting the northeast, southwest trending Sandy River Fault. According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program the fault has been mapped as a normal fault with down-to-the-southwest displacement, and has also been described as a steeply 1 northeast or southwest-dipping, oblique, right-lateral, slip-fault. The trace of the Lacamas Lake I17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 3 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoP i Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. fault is marked by the very linear lower reach of Lacamas Creek. No fault scarps on Quaternary , surficial deposits have been described. The Lacamas Lake fault offsets Pliocene-aged sedimentary conglomerates generally identified as the Troutdale formation, and Pliocene to Pleistocene aged basalts generally identified as the Boring Lava formation. Recent seismic reflection data across the probable trace of the fault under the Columbia River yielded no unequivocal evidence of displacement underlying the Missoula flood deposits, however, recorded mild seismic activity during the recent past indicates this area may be potentially seismogenic. Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone The Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50-mile-long zone of discontinuous, NW-trending faults that lies about 14.3 miles southwest of the subject site. These faults are recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al., 1996; Werner et al., 1992). A geologic reconnaissance and photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh et al., 1994). No seismicity has been recorded on the Gales Creek Fault or Newberg Fault (the fault closest to the subject site); however, these faults are considered to be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner et al. 1992; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, the Mount Angel fault is mapped as a high- angle, reverse-oblique fault, which offsets Miocene rocks of the Columbia River Basalts, and Miocene and Pliocene sedimentary rocks. The fault appears to have controlled emplacement of the Frenchman Spring Member of the Wanapum Basalts, and thus must have a history that predates the Miocene age of these rocks. No unequivocal evidence of deformation of Quaternary deposits has been described, but a thick sequence of sediments deposited by the Missoula floods covers much of the southern part of the fault trace. Cascadia Subduction Zone I The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680-mile-long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4 cm per year (Goldfinger et al., 1996). A growing body of geologic evidence suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4) geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred seismogenic portion of the plate interface lies approximately along the Oregon Coast at depths of between 20 and 40 kilometers below the surface. ' 1 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 4 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. ' Version 1.0,July 24,2017 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ' Our subsurface explorations for this report were conducted on July 3, 2017. A total of three exploratory soil borings (B-1 through B-3) were drilled at the site using a trailer-mounted, solid- stem auger drill rig subcontracted by GeoPacific to a depth of approximately 41.5 feet bgs. At ' each boring location, SPT (Standard Penetration Test) sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586 using a 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler and a 140-pound hammer equipped with an auto-hammer mechanism. During the test, a sample is ' obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil at the target test depth with the hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance ("N-Value") of the soil is calculated as the number ' of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. If 50 or more blows are recorded within a single 6-inch interval, the test is terminated, and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches driven. This resistance, or N-Value, provides a measure of the relative density of ' granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. GeoPacific conducted infiltration testing within some of the boreholes at various depths to determine if infiltration of stormwater is geotechnically feasible at the subject site. Infiltration test procedures, test locations, and infiltration results are presented below. ' GeoPacific conducted an evaluation of the existing pavement sections in the eastern lane of SW 72nd Avenue along the property frontage. The pavement evaluation included drilling three core holes (RC-1 through RC-3), through the existing pavement sections at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The results of the existing pavement evaluation of SW 72nd Avenue are presented below. ' Explorations were conducted under the full-time observation of GeoPacific personnel. During the explorations, GeoPacific observed and recorded pertinent soil information such as color, stratigraphy, strength, and soil moisture content. Soil samples obtained from the explorations were placed in relatively air-tight plastic bags. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence was recorded. Soils 1 were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). At the completion of each test, the soil borings were backfilled with bentonite chips. The pavement cores were re-patched with concrete. The approximate locations of the explorations are indicated on Figures 2 and 3. It should be noted that exploration locations were located in the field by pacing or ' taping distances from apparent property corners and other site features shown on the plans provided. As such, the locations of the explorations should be considered approximate. Summary ' exploration logs are attached. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations ' reported, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. Soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the explorations are summarized below. ' Soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the explorations are summarized below. 1 ' 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 5 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPaccific Project No. 17-4626, 72ndAvenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. Soil Descriptions I Topsoil: At the locations of soil boring explorations B-1, and B-3, the ground was surfaced with lawn grass, with an underlying organic horizon consisting of organic Lean CLAY (OL-CL), extending to a depth of approximately 10 inches bgs. Asphalt Parking: At the location soil boring B-2, the ground was surfaced with an asphalt ' driveway. The pavement section was observed to consist of approximately 3 inches of asphalt, underlain by approximately 6 inches of crushed aggregate base. Lean CLAY: Underlying the topsoil and pavement sections at the locations of our soil borings, soils were observed to consist primarily of brown and dark gray, containing sparse angular gravel and trace charred organic material, medium stiff, moist, moderately plastic, Lean CLAY (CL). The soil type extended to an approximate depth of 10 feet bgs within our soil borings. Laboratory soils testing indicated that the soil type classified as Lean CLAY (CL) according to the USCS soil classification system, and as A-7-6(24) according to AASHTO standards. Sieve analysis indicated 92.3 percent by weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and moisture content of 28.2 percent. Atterberg Limit testing indicated a liquid limit of 46, and a plasticity index of 23. SPT blow counts indicated N-values ranging from 6 to 12 within the soil layer. SILT: Underlying the Lean CLAY soil type at the locations of our soil borings, soils were observed , to consist primarily of brown, medium stiff, very moist to wet, low plasticity, SILT (ML). The soil type extended to approximate depths of 20 to 30 feet bgs within our soil borings. Laboratory soils testing indicated that the soil type classified as SILT (ML) according to the USCS soil classification I system, and as A-4(0), A-4(2), A-4(7), and A-4(9) according to AASHTO standards. Sieve analysis indicated 85.3 to 94.8 percent by weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and moisture content of 32.5 to 39.5 percent. Atterberg Limit testing indicated a liquid limit of 26 to 34, and a plasticity index of 0 to 8. SPT blow counts indicated N-values ranging from 2 to 11 within the soil layer. Elastic SILT: Underlying the SILT soil type at the locations of our soil borings, soils were observed to consist primarily of light brown to blue gray, stiff to very stiff, wet, micaceous, highly plastic, Elastic SILT (MH). The soil type extended to approximate depths of 37 to 38 feet bgs within our soil borings. Laboratory soils testing indicated that the soil type classified as Elastic SILT (MH) according to the USCS soil classification system, and as A-7-5(34) according to AASHTO standards. Sieve analysis indicated 94.6 percent by weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and moisture content of 41.6 percent. Atterberg Limit testing indicated a liquid limit of 61, and a plasticity index of 28. SPT blow counts indicated N-values ranging from 7 to 27 within the soil layer. Fat CLAY: Underlying the Elastic SILT soil type at the locations of soil borings B-1 and B-3, soils were observed to consist primarily of blue gray, stiff to very stiff, wet, highly plastic, Fat CLAY (CH). The soil type extended to the maximum depth of exploration within our soil borings. Laboratory soils testing indicated that the soil type classified as Fat CLAY (CH) according to the USCS soil classification system, and as A-7-5(64) according to AASHTO standards. Sieve analysis indicated 89.0 percent by weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and moisture content of 41.2 percent. Atterberg Limit testing indicated a liquid limit of 94, and a plasticity index of 62. SPT blow counts indicated N-values ranging from 11 to 25 within the soil layer. ' 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 6 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. ' Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I „(8/410006. Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoP Me Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. IGroundwater and Soil Moisture I On July 3, 2017, observed soil moisture conditions were generally moist to wet. Groundwater seepage was observed at depths ranging from approximately 12.5 to 15 feet bgs within our soil borings which extended to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet bgs. According to the Estimated Depth I to Groundwater in the Portland, Oregon Area, (United States Geological Survey, Snyder, 2017 website), groundwater may be encountered at an approximate depth ranging from 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the I season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site utilization, and other factors. Perched groundwater may be encountered in localized areas. Seeps and springs may exist in areas not explored, and may become evident during site grading. If the seasonal fluctuation of the static I groundwater table underlying the subject site require detailed understanding, piezometers may be installed and periodically monitored. Infiltration Testing Soil infiltration testing was performed using the open-borehole method within soil borings B-1, and IB-2 in accordance with the methodology of the 2016 City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual. The approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are indicated on Figures 2 and 3. The test locations were pre-saturated prior to testing. During testing the water level was Imeasured to the nearest 0.01 foot (1/8 inch) from a fixed point, and the change in water level was recorded at regular intervals until three successive measurements showing a consistent infiltration rate were achieved. Table 1 summarizes the test locations and results of the infiltration testing. Infiltration rates have Ibeen reported without applying a factor of safety. Soils at the test locations were observed and sampled in order to characterize the subsurface profile. Tested native soils classified as Lean CLAY, and SILT. Groundwater was encountered within our soil boring explorations at depths 1 ranging from 12.5 to 15 feet bgs. Infiltration testing data tables are presented in the appendix of this report. Table 1 -Summary of Infiltration Test Results I Percent Infiltration Hydraulic Depth to Test Exploration Depth Soil Passing U.S. Location Designation (feet) Type No. 200 Rate Head Range Groundwater Sieve (inches/hr) (inches) (Feet) IB-1 IT-1.1 10 CL 85.3 0 12 15 B-1 IT 1.2 20 ML 94.8 0 12 15 B-2 IT-2.1 5 CL - 0 12 12.5 IB-2 IT-2.2 10 ML 0 12 12.5 B-2 IT-2.3 20 ML - 0 12 12.5 IThe results of our subsurface exploration and testing indicate that due to the lack of measured infiltration at the test locations, the presence of fine-grained soils, and the shallow depths to static 1 groundwater, infiltration of stormwater is not geotechnically feasible at the subject site. I 1 17-4626.72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 7 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0.July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Our site investigation indicates that the proposed construction is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The primary geotechnical concerns associated with development at the subject site are: • The presence of liquefiable soil conditions underlying the subject site which have the potential for up to 8 inches of dynamic settlement, and 7 feet of lateral spreading during a large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake; • The potential for up to 3 inches of static settlement to occur under the building loading; • The lack of infiltration at the subject site; and • Shallow groundwater. 1 Site Preparation Recommendations The subject site is currently occupied by two existing homes which include driveways, and landscaping areas. It is unclear whether or not the homes contain basements. Areas of proposed construction and areas to receive fill should be cleared of landscaping, existing retaining walls, vegetation, and any organic and inorganic debris, and unsuitable soils. The current property owner indicated that an extensive dewatering system was installed across the site which includes drains, culverts, and gravel. Inorganic debris and organic materials from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic-rich soils and root zones should then be stripped from construction areas of the site or where engineered fill is to be placed. Depth of stripping of organic soils is estimated to be approximately 8 to 24 inches across the majority of the site, however depth of organic soil layers may increase in areas where trees are present, or where existing utilities such as culverts have been installed. If encountered, basement debris should be thoroughly removed and the excavations backfilled with approved engineered fill. The final depth of soil removal will be determined on the basis of a site inspection after the stripping/excavation has been performed. Stripped topsoil should be removed from the site. Any remaining topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. Prior to placement of engineered fill, subgrade soils should be aerated and re-compacted to minimum depth of 12 inches below the existing topsoil layer. If encountered, undocumented fills and any subsurface structures (dry wells, basements, driveway and landscaping fill, old utility lines, septic leach fields, etc.) should be completely removed and the excavations backfilled with approved engineered fill. Engineered Fill I All grading for the proposed construction should be performed as engineered grading in accordance with the applicable building code at the time of construction with the exceptions and additions noted herein. Areas proposed for fill placement should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation Recommendations section. Surface soils should then be scarified and recompacted prior to placement of structural fill. Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 8 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. ! Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. 1 Onsite native soils consisting of Lean CLAY and SILT, appear to be suitable for use as engineered fill. Soils containing greater than 5 percent organic content should not be used as structural fill. 1 Imported fill material must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. 1 Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of 1 the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) or equivalent. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically, one 1 density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd3, whichever requires more testing. Because testing is performed on an on-call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for test scheduling and frequency. During 1 periods of wet-weather site earthwork may be impacted by soil moisture. 1 Excavating Conditions and Utility Trench Backfill We anticipate that on-site soils can generally be excavated using conventional heavy equipment. 1 Bedrock was not encountered within our soil borings which extended to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet bgs. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be 1 determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The 1 existing native soils classify as Type B Soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1 H:1 V may be assumed for planning purposes. These cut slope inclinations are applicable to excavations above the water table only. 1 Shallow, perched groundwater may be encountered during the wet weather season and should be anticipated in excavations and utility trenches. Vibrations created by traffic and construction 1 equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. 1 Underground utility pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321 and City of Tigard standards. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted 1 to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained by the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thicknesses for a %"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness 1 should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction 1 equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. 1 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 9 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPatme Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended 1 relative compaction is achieved. Typically, at least one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 100-lineal-foot section of trench. Erosion Control Considerations During our field exploration program, we did not observe soil conditions that would be considered highly susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the primary concern regarding erosion potential will occur during construction in areas that have been stripped of vegetation. Erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan, which should include judicious use of straw waddles, fiber rolls, and silt fences. If used, these erosion control devices should remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re-vegetating exposed areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed-mulch-fertilizer mixture. Wet Weather Earthwork Soils underlying the site are likely to be moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet-weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact areas where fill may be proposed to the recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications. I • Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic; • The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water; • Material used as engineered fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The fines should be non-plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on-site soils may be performed to facilitate wet weather placement; • The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials; 17-4626.72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 10 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0.July 24.2017 I _ %,_ Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. I • Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site drainage is Iachieved; and • Geotextile silt fences, straw waddles, and fiber rolls should be strategically located to I control erosion. If cement or lime treatment is used to facilitate wet weather construction, GeoPacific should be contacted to provide additional recommendations and field monitoring. ISpread Foundations IBased upon communication with the client, and review of preliminary project plans, GeoPacific understands that the proposed development at the site will consist of construction of a five-story, mixed-use building, with retail and parking spaces on the ground level, and multi-family residential I units on the upper levels. The building will have a footprint of approximately 9,906 square-feet, and will be located on the western portion of the site (see Figure 3). We anticipate that site grading will include cuts and fills which will be on the order of five feet or less. I Based upon review of information provided by Hill Architects, it is our understanding that the Iproposed building will be designed as Type V construction, with slab-on-grade, post and pier, or spread footing foundations on the ground level, a post-tensioned concrete slab at the second level, and wood framing above. Based upon structural loading information provided by DCI Engineers I (see Figure 4), we anticipate maximum structural loading on column footings and continuous strip footings on the order of 100 to 225 kips, and 4 to 10 kips respectively. I GeoPacific conducted static settlement analysis for the proposed five-story building at the subject site using the Terzaghi and Peck method to calculate vertical displacements. Settlement analysis was conducted based upon review of the soil profile encountered in our subsurface explorations, I SPT blow count N-Values obtained at sampled depth intervals, and foundation and structural loading information provided by the project structural engineer. Calculations for long-term static settlement are based upon placement of structural building loads on the existing soils, which I increases the vertical effective stress in subsurface soils and can induced soil settlement. A variety of footing dimensions and loads were analyzed. Due to natural variations in soil conditions across the site, and the range of potential structural loading, the settlement values provided below should I be considered as estimates only. Actual induced settlement during construction may vary greatly over short-distances. If actual structural loading will vary or increase beyond the conditions analyzed, GeoPacific should be contacted to review and revise our estimations accordingly. I Following completion of foundation planning GeoPacific should be provided with the final foundation plan and the assumptions made during this evaluation should be confirmed. Estimation of time rate of settlement is beyond the scope of this investigation. IThe results of our settlement analysis indicated the potential for 2 to 3 inches of static settlement under the proposed structural loading. In order to determine if static settlement can be reduced to 1 inch or less, GeoPacific analyzed construction of the proposed foundation on compacted crushed aggregate pads. Our analysis indicated that anticipated static settlement can be reduced to 1 inch or less if the proposed column and strip footings are overexcavated and replaced with 1.5"-0 Icrushed aggregate compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by I17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 11 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. This analysis was conducted for static settlement , only, and does not include an analysis of, or recommendations for dynamic settlement which may occur during an earthquake. The proposed structures may be supported on shallow foundations bearing on stiff, native soils and/or granular engineered fill, appropriately designed and constructed as recommended in this report. Foundation design, construction, and setback requirements should conform to the applicable building code at the time of construction. For maximization of bearing strength and protection against frost heave, spread footings should be embedded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below exterior grade. If soft soil conditions are encountered at footing subgrade elevation, they should be removed and replaced with compacted crushed aggregate. The anticipated allowable soil bearingpressure is 1,500 lbs/ft2 for footings bearing on competent, p native soil and/or engineered fill, adequately aerated and recompacted as described above. The anticipated allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 lbs/ft2 for footings bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of 1.5"-0 crushed aggregate, compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. The anticipated allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,500 lbs/ft2 for footings bearing on a minimum of 48 inches of 1.5"-0 crushed aggregate, compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. Crushed aggregate pads should extend 24 inches beyond the edges of the footings on all sides. If over-excavation is needed, it should be conducted under the direction and supervision of the geotechnical engineer or designated representative. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short-term transient conditions such as wind and seismic loading. For heavier loads, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.42, which includes no factor of safety. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and 3/4 inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are applied. Excavations near structural footings should not extend within a 1 H:1 V plane projected downward from the bottom edge of footings. Footing excavations should penetrate through topsoil and any disturbed soil to competent subgrade that is suitable for bearing support. All footing excavations should be trimmed neat, and all loose or softened soil should be removed from the excavation bottom prior to placing reinforcing steel bars. Due to the moisture sensitivity of on-site native soils, foundations constructed during the wet weather season may require over-excavation of footings and backfill with compacted, crushed aggregate. Our recommendations are intended only for the above described structure. After site development, a Final Soil Engineer's Report should either confirm or modify the above recommendations. 17-4626.72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 12 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. 1 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 1 Preparation of areas beneath concrete slab-on-grade floors should be performed as recommended in the Site Preparation Recommendations section. Care should be taken during excavation for foundations and floor slabs, to avoid disturbing subgrade soils. If subgrade soils have been 1 adversely impacted by wet weather or otherwise disturbed, the surficial soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to engineered fill specifications. Alternatively, disturbed soils may be removed and the removal zone backfilled with additional crushed rock. For evaluation of the concrete slab-on-grade floors using the beam on elastic foundation method, a 1 modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 kcf (87 pci) should be assumed for the medium stiff, fine-grained soils anticipated to be present in the upper four feet at the site. This value assumes the concrete slab system is designed and constructed as recommended herein, with a minimum 1 thickness of 8 inches of 11/2"-0 crushed aggregate beneath the slab. The total thickness of crushed aggregate will be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction, and should be 1 verified visually by proof-rolling. Under-slab aggregate should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. 1 In areas where moisture will be detrimental to floor coverings or equipment inside the proposed structure, appropriate vapor barrier and damp-proofing measures should be implemented. A commonly applied vapor barrier system consists of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier placed 1 directly over the capillary break material. Other damp/vapor barrier systems may also be feasible. Appropriate design professionals should be consulted regarding vapor barrier and damp proofing systems, ventilation, building material selection and mold prevention issues, which are outside ' GeoPacific's area of expertise. Footing and Roof Drains 1 Construction should include typical measures for controlling subsurface water beneath the buildings, including positive crawlspace drainage to an adequate low-point drain exiting the 1 foundation, visqueen covering the expose ground in the crawlspace, and crawlspace ventilation (foundation vents). The client should be informed and educated that some slow flowing water in the crawlspaces is considered normal and not necessarily detrimental to the structure given these 1 other design elements incorporated into its construction. Appropriate design professionals should be consulting regarding crawlspace ventilation, building material selection and mold prevention issues, which are outside GeoPacific's area of expertise. 1 Down spouts and roof drains should collect roof water in a system separate from the footing drains to reduce the potential for clogging. Roof drain water should be directed to an appropriate 1 discharge point and storm system well away from structural foundations. Grades should be sloped downward and away from buildings to reduce the potential for ponded water near structures. Perimeter footing drains should consist of 3 or 4-inch diameter, perforated plastic pipe embedded in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of clean, free-draining drain rock. The drain pipe and surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non-woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved 1 equivalent) to minimize the potential for clogging and/or ground loss due to piping. A minimum 0.5 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 13 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoP Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. Figure 5 ' presents a typical perimeter footing drain detail. In our opinion, footing drains may outlet at the curb, or on the back sides of lots where sufficient fall is not available to allow drainage to meet the street. Permanent Below-Grade Walls Lateral earth pressures against below-grade retaining walls will depend upon the inclination of any adjacent slopes, type of backfill, degree of wall restraint, method of backfill placement, degree of backfill compaction, drainage provisions, and magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads. At-rest soil pressure is exerted on a retaining wall when it is restrained against rotation. In contrast, active soil pressure will be exerted on a wall if its top is allowed to rotate or yield a distance of roughly 0.001 times its height or greater. If the subject retaining walls will be free to rotate at the top, they should be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 40 pcf for level backfill against the wall. For restrained wall, an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf should be used in design, again assuming level backfill against the wall. These values assume that the recommended ' drainage provisions are incorporated, and hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to develop against the wall. Duringa seismic event, lateral earth pressures acting on below-grade structural walls will increase by an incremental amount that corresponds to the earthquake loading. Based on the Mononobe-Okabe equation and peak horizontal accelerations appropriate for the site location, ' seismic loading should be modeled using the active or at-rest earth pressures recommended above, plus an incremental rectangular-shaped seismic load of magnitude 6.5H, where H is the total height of the wall. We assume relatively level ground surface below the base of the walls. As such, we recommend passive earth pressure of 300 pcf for use in design, assuming wall footings are cast against competent native soils or engineered fill. If the ground surface slopes down and away from the base of any of the walls, a lower passive earth pressure should be used and GeoPacific should be contacted for additional recommendations. A coefficient of friction of 0.42 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the wall footing and subgrade soils. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values do not include a safety factor, and an appropriate safety factor should be included in design. The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure computations unless it is protected by pavement or slabs on grade. The above recommendations for lateral earth pressures assume that the backfill behind the subsurface walls will consist of properly compacted structural fill, and no adjacent surcharge loading. If the walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall, the walls should be designed for the additional horizontal pressure. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure of 0.3 times the surcharge pressure should be added. Traffic surcharges may be estimated using an 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 14 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. additional vertical load of 125 to 250 psf (1 to 2 feet of additional fill), depending on anticipated traffic loads. The recommended equivalent fluid densities assume a free-draining condition behind the walls so that hydrostatic pressures do not build-up. This can be accomplished by placing a 12 to 18-inch ' wide zone of sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve against the walls. A 3-inch minimum diameter perforated, plastic drain pipe should be installed at the base of the walls and connected to a suitable discharge point to remove water in this zone of sand and ' gravel. The drain pipe should be wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or other as approved by the geotechnical engineer) to minimize clogging. ' Wall drains are recommended to prevent detrimental effects of surface water runoff on foundations — not to dewater groundwater. Drains should not be expected to eliminate all potential sources of ' water entering a basement or beneath a slab-on-grade. An adequate grade to a low point outlet drain in the crawlspace is required by code. Underslab drains are sometimes added beneath the slab when placed over soils of low permeability and shallow, perched groundwater. Water collected from the wall drains should be directed into the local storm drain system or other suitable outlet. A minimum 0.5 percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non- perforated pipe outlet. Down spouts and roof drains should not be connected to the wall drains in order to reduce the potential for clogging. The drains should include clean-outs to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Grades around the proposed structure should be sloped such that ' surface water drains away from the building. GeoPacific should be contacted during construction to verify subgrade strength in wall keyway ' excavations, to verify that backslope soils are in accordance with our assumptions, and to take density tests on the wall backfill materials. Structures should be located a horizontal distance of at least 1.5H away from the back of the retaining wall, where H is the total height of the wall. GeoPacific should be contacted for additional foundation recommendations where structures are located closer than 1.5H to the top of any wall. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN GeoPacific conducted an evaluation of the existing pavement sections in the eastern lane of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, new flexible pavement design for widening of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, and new flexible and rigid pavement design for ' construction of private parking areas and drive lanes within the development. The results of our pavement analysis and design are presented below. 1 SW 72nd Avenue— East Lane: Existing Pavement Evaluation The existing pavement in the east lane (northbound) of SW 72nd Avenue was found to be in relatively good condition. During the investigation, we did not observe evidence of heavy wear or damage such as extensive rutting, or cracking. Minor transverse cracks were observed in some locations. In the pavement cores drilled in the east lane of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, we encountered 6.5 to 10.5 inches of existing asphalt. Beneath the asphalt we 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 15 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific I Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. encountered 4 to 7 inches of 1.5"-0 basaltic crushed aggregate. Subgrade soils underlying the 1 base aggregate were found to consist of stiff, moist, Lean CLAY. Table 2 summarizes our collected data from the investigation. I Table 2 -Summary of Existing Pavement Sections in Exploratory Pavement Cores Road Core Designation Total Pavement Base Rock Subgrade I Thickness(in) Thickness(in) RC-1 10.5 5 Lean CLAY(CL) I RC-2 10 4 Lean CLAY(CL) RC-3 6.5 7 Lean CLAY(CL) I We performed in-place field testing of subgrade soil strength at the pavement core locations using I a portable dynamic cone penetrometer (PDCP). Table 3 summarizes the results of our PDCP testing. Table 3 - PDCP Field Test Results and Representative CBR Values Field Test Depth Interval of Average Correlated CBR Material Tested Penetration Per Designation Test(inches) Value Blow (mm) RC-1 Lean CLAY(CL) 17.75-38.5 41.28 10.55 RC-2 Lean CLAY(CL) 18.0-35.5 37.34 5.66 I RC-3 Lean CLAY(CL) 16.25-30.25 8.0 42 Based on the results of PDCP testing, we estimate that the subgrade exhibits a resilient modulus I ranging from 7,500 psi to 63,000 psi. For analysis and design purposes, we assume that the subgrade exhibits a resilient modulus of 7,500 psi, which correlates to a CBR value of 5, the lowest I of values measured during our investigation. PDCP calculations are attached to this report. Based upon the results of our pavement investigation we analyzed the existing section of the east lane (northbound) of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property for 20-years of remaining design life. Based upon City of Tigard, Oregon 2016 Traffic Count Data for SW 72nd Avenue and Baylor Street, we assumed an Average Daily Traffic Count (ADT) of 4,250. Traffic count data is I attached to this report. We assume that traffic will primarily consist of light duty residential cars, and eight percent heavy trucks, school buses and occasional fire trucks weighing up to 75,000 lbs. Anticipated traffic was calculated over 20 years assuming 3 percent population growth per year. I Based upon our understanding of the anticipated vehicle traffic in the east lane of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, we calculated an 18-kip ESAL count of approximately 3,829,800 over 20 years. Tables 4 through 6 present our flexible pavement design input factors and required structural numbers to support 20 years of remaining design life for SW 72nd Avenue at each pavement core location. Pavement design calculations are presented in the appendix of this report. I I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 16 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report GOO' Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. ITable 4- Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Factors for SW 72nd Avenue Existing Pavement Core RC-1 1 Input Parameter Design Value 18-kip ESAL Initial Performance Period (20 Years) 3,829,800 IInitial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 IReliability Level 90 Percent Overall Standard Deviation 0.5 I Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) 15,000 Structural Number 3.41 ITable 5- Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Factors for SW 72nd Avenue Existing Pavement Core RC-2 IInput Parameter Design Value 18-kip ESAL Initial Performance Period (20 Years) 3,829,800 IInitial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 I Reliability Level 90 Percent Overall Standard Deviation 0.5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) 7,500 IStructural Number 4.40 ITable 6- Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Factors for SW 72nd Avenue Existing Pavement Core RC-3 IInput Parameter Design Value 18-kip ESAL Initial Performance Period (20 Years) 3,829,800 IInitial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 90 Percent IOverall Standard Deviation 0.5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) 50,000 IStructural Number 2.14 I Tables 7 through 9 present our data from core locations of the existing pavement section with estimated structural coefficients calculated into a structural number. Pavement design calculations are attached to this report. I I17-4626.72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 17 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report Geo Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Table 7-Analyzed Section of Existing Asphalt Pavement of SW 175th Avenue- RC-1 I Material Layer Section Thickness(in.) Structural Coefficient Existing Asphaltic Concrete(AC) 10.5 4.20 I 1.5"-0 Crushed Aggregate Base 5 0.50 Subgrade Lean CLAY 15,000 PSI I Calculated Structural Number 4.70 Table 8-Analyzed Section of Existing Asphalt Pavement of SW 175th Avenue- RC-2 Material Layer Section Thickness(in.) Structural Coefficient i Existing Asphaltic Concrete(AC) 10 4.0 I 1.5"-0 Crushed Aggregate Base 4 0.40 Subgrade Lean CLAY 7.500 PSI I Calculated Structural Number 4.40 TableyExisting Asphalt 9-Analyzed Section of As halt Pavement of SW 175th Avenue- RC-3 I Material Layer Section Thickness (in.) Structural Coefficient I Existing Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 6.5 2.6 1.5-0 Crushed Aggregate Base 7 0.70 Subgrade Lean CLAY 50,000 PSI I Calculated Structural Number 3.30 the observed conditions and structural analysis of the existingpavement section at the I Based upon y east lane (northbound) of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, the existing asphalt I and pavement section appears to be suitable for supporting anticipated traffic loading for a 20-year period. SW 72nd Avenue: New Pavement Design For Street Widening I We understand that the eastern margin of SW 72nd Avenue will be widened along the frontage of I the property. For the new pavement section we conservatively assume that the subgrade will exhibit a resilient modulus of at least 7,500, which correlates to a CBR value of 5. Based upon City of Tigard, Oregon 2016 Traffic Count Data for SW 72nd Avenue and Baylor Street, we assumed an I Average Daily Traffic Count (ADT) of 4,250. Traffic count data is attached to this report. We assume that traffic will primarily consist of light duty residential cars, and eight percent heavy trucks, school buses and occasional fire trucks weighing up to 75,000 lbs. Anticipated traffic was I calculated over 20 years assuming 3 percent population growth per year. Based upon our understanding of the anticipated vehicle traffic in the east lane of SW 72nd Avenue along the frontage of the property, we calculated an 18-kip ESAL count of approximately 3,829,800 over 20 I years. Table 10 presents our flexible pavement design input parameters. Table 11 presents our recommended minimum dry-weather pavement section for the proposed roadway, supporting 20 I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 18 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report YY Ne Geo Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregonirr jai Iyears of vehicle traffic per City of Tigard, Oregon standards. Pavement design calculations are attached to this report. I Table 10—Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Factors for SW 72nd Avenue Input Parameter Design Value I 18-kip ESAL Initial Performance Period (20 Years) 3,829,800 Initial Serviceability 4.2 e Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 90 Percent IOverall Standard Deviation 0.5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) 7,500 IStructural Number 4.40 I Table 11 - Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section SW 72nd Avenue, East Lane Widening Material Layer Section Thickness Structural Y (in.) Coefficient Compaction Standard I Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 8 0.42 92% of Rice DensityAASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate Base2 10 95%of Modified Proctor I 3/4"-0(leveling course) AASHTO T-180 Crushed Aggregate Base 10 .10 95% of Modified Proctor 1W-0 AASHTO T-180 I Subgrade 12 7,500 PSI 95%of Standard Proctor AASHTO T-99 or equivalent Calculated Structural Number 4.36 I I I I I I 1 I17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 19 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacifilt Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. Flexible Pavement Design — Private Parking Areas I We understand that development at the site will include construction of private parking and drive I areas surfaced with asphalt. For the new flexible private pavement section, we conservatively assume that the subgrade will exhibit a resilient modulus of at least 7,500, which correlates to a CBR value of 5. Based upon our understanding of the anticipated traffic which includes light-duty I passenger vehicles, weekly trash pickups, and occasional fire trucks weighing up to 75,000 lbs, we calculated an anticipated 18-kip ESAL count of approximately 100,000 over 20 years. Table 12 presents our flexible pavement design input parameters. Table 13 presents our recommended I minimum dry-weather pavement section for the proposed pavement section, supporting 20 years of vehicle traffic. Pavement design calculations are attached to this report. Table 12— Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Parameters for Private Parking and Drive Areas I IInput Parameter Design Value I 18-kip ESAL Initial Performance Period I 100,000 (20 Years) Initial Serviceability 4.2 I Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 90 Percent I Overall Standard Deviation 0.5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) 7,500 , I Structural Number 2.43 I Table 13 - Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section for Private Parking and Drive Areas I Material Layer Section Thickness Structural Compaction Standard (in.) Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete(AC) 3.5 in. .42 91%/92%of Rice Density AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate Base 3/4"-0 2 in. 10 95% of Modified Proctor I (leveling course) AASHTO T-180 I Crushed Aggregate Base 1'/z"-0 8 in. .10 95% of Modified Proctor AASHTO T-180 I Subgrade 12 in. 7,500 PSI 95%of Standard Proctor AASHTO T-99 or esuivalent I Total Calculated Structural Number 2.47 I I I I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 20 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report COOP . 1 Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. IRigid Pavement Design - Private Parking and Drive Areas I We understand that portions of the proposed private parking and drive areas will be constructed with Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. For the new private rigid pavement section, we conservatively assume that the subgrade will exhibit a resilient modulus of at least 7,500, which I correlates to a CBR value of 5. Based upon our understanding of the anticipated traffic which includes light-duty passenger vehicles, weekly trash pickups, and occasional fire trucks weighing up to 75,000 lbs, we calculated an anticipated 18-kip ESAL count of approximately 100,000 over I 20 years. We anticipate that near surface soils which may become disturbed during construction, or which 1 are observed to pump and rut, will be over-excavated and backfilled with granular engineered fill. Under these assumptions, a PCC slab thickness of 6 inches is adequate. Therefore, our recommended pavement design is 6 inches of 4,000 psi minimum compressive strength concrete over 8 inches of crushed aggregate base rock, over an undisturbed, competent subgrade or engineered fill. Table 14 presents the recommended minimum road section for the proposed rigid I pavement. Pavement design calculations are attached to this report. Table 14— Flexible Pavement Section Design Input Parameters for Parking and Drive Areas Section ' Material Layer Thickness Standard (in) I Portland Cement Concrete Concrete should be sampled and tested per the requirements of ACI 318. Pavement 4,000 psi 6 4,000 psi compressive strength at 28 days I (PCC) Maximum Air Content 4 percent. Maximum Slump 6 inches. Crushed Aggregate Base 2 95% of Modified Proctor 3/4" 0 (leveling course) ASTM D1557 Crushed Aggregate Base 95% of Modified Proctor 1/2"-0 6 I 1ASTM D1557 Competent Subgrade N/A Visual Inspection (Proofroll) I I I I I I174626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 21 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report Geo Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon [NAM. L Subgrade Preparation 1 The roadway and parking area subgrade should be compacted and inspected by GeoPacific prior to the placement of crushed aggregate base for pavement. Typically, a proofroll with a fully loaded water or haul truck is conducted by travelling slowly across the grade and observing the subgrade for rutting, deflection, or movement. Any pockets of organic debris or loose fill encountered during ripping or tilling should be removed and replaced with engineered fill (see Site Preparation Recommendations section). In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof-rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet weather, the subgrade and construction plan should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of construction so that condition specific recommendations can be provided. The moisture sensitive subgrade soils make the site a difficult wet weather construction project. General recommendations for wet weather ' pavement sections are provided below. During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify 111 compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Wet Weather Construction Pavement Section This section presents our recommendations for wet weather pavement sections and construction for new pavement sections at the project. These wet weather pavement section recommendations are intended for use in situations where it is not feasible to compact the subgrade soils to project requirements, due to wet subgrade soil conditions, and/or construction during wet weather. Based 1 on our site review, we recommend a wet weather section with a minimum subgrade deepening of 6 to 12 inches to accommodate a working subbase of additional 1W-0 crushed rock. Geotextile fabric, Mirafi 500x or equivalent, should be placed on subgrade soils prior to placement of base rock. In some instances, it may be preferable to use a subbase material in combination with over- excavation and increasing the thickness of the rock section. GeoPacific should be consulted for additional recommendations regarding use of additional subbase in wet weather pavement sections if it is desired to pursue this alternative. Cement treatment of the subgrade may also be considered instead of over-excavation. For planning purposes, we anticipate that treatment of the onsite soils would involve mixing cement powder to approximately 6 percent cement content and a mixing depth on the order of 12 to 18 inches. With implementation of the above recommendations, it is our opinion that the resulting pavement section will provide equivalent or greater structural strength than the dry weather pavement section currently planned. However, it should be noted that construction in wet weather is risky and the performance of pavement subgrades depend on a number of factors including the weather conditions, the contractor's methods, and the amount of traffic the road is subjected to. There is a potential that soft spots may develop even with implementation of the wet weather provisions recommended in this letter. If soft spots in the subgrade are identified during roadway excavation, 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 22 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. Ior develop prior to paving, the soft spots should be over-excavated and backfilled with additional crushed rock. IDuring subgrade excavation, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade soils. Removals should be performed using an excavator with a smooth-bladed bucket. Truck traffic I should be limited until an adequate working surface has been established. We suggest that the crushed rock be spread using bulldozer equipment rather than dump trucks, to reduce the amount of traffic and potential disturbance of subgrade soils. Care should be taken to avoid over- t compaction of the base course materials, which could create pumping, unstable subgrade soil conditions. Heavy and/or vibratory compaction efforts should be applied with caution. Following placement and compaction of the crushed rock to project specifications (95 percent of Modified IProctor), a finish proof-roll should be performed before paving. The above recommendations are subject to field verification. GeoPacific should be on-site during Iconstruction to verify subgrade strength and to take density tests on the engineered fill, base rock and asphaltic pavement materials. ISEISMIC DESIGN The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), Oregon HazVu: 2017 I Statewide GeoHazards Viewer indicates that the site is in an area where very strong ground shaking is anticipated during an earthquake. Structures should be designed to resist earthquake Iloading in accordance with the methodology described in the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) with applicable Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) revisions (current 2014). We recommend Site Class D be used for design per the OSSC, Table 1613.5.2 and as defined in I ASCE 7, Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1. Design values determined for the site using the USGS (United States Geological Survey) 2017 Seismic Design Maps Summary Report are summarized in Table 15. I Table 15 - Recommended Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters (USGS 2017) Parameter Value Location (Lat, Long), degrees 45.435, -122.750 I Probabilistic Ground Motion Values, 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs Peak Ground Acceleration PGAm 0.459 g Short Period, SS 0.981 g I1.0 Sec Period, S1 0.424 g Soil Factors for Site Class D: Fa 1.108 IF, 1.576 0 SD, = 2/3xFax Ss .7248 SD, = 2/3xF,xSi 0.445g r _Seismic Design Category D I I r17-4626.72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 23 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0.July 24.2017 fIc Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoP Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. Soil Liquefaction 1 The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), Oregon HazVu: 2017 Statewide GeoHazards Viewer indicates that the site contains areas considered to be at low risk for soil liquefaction during an earthquake. However, the site is bordering a large area to the west which DOGAMI has identified to be at high risk for soil liquefaction during an earthquake. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to ground shaking caused by strong earthquakes. Soil liquefaction typically occurs in loose sands and granular soils located below the water table, and fine-grained soils with a plasticity index less than 15, and SPT N-Values lower than 15. The subsurface profile observed within our subsurface explorations, which extended to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet bgs, indicated that the site is underlain by medium stiff to stiff, low to moderately plastic, Lean CLAY; soft to medium stiff, low plasticity SILT; stiff, highly plastic, Elastic SILT (MH); and stiff, highly plastic, Fat CLAY (CH). On July 3, 2017, observed soil moisture conditions were generally very moist to wet. Groundwater seepage was observed within our soil borings at depths ranging from 12.5 to 15 feet bgs. According to the Estimated Depth to Groundwater in the Portland, Oregon Area, (United States Geological Survey, Snyder, 2017 website), groundwater ' may be encountered at an approximate depth ranging from 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. The liquefaction potential at the subject site was analyzed for the soil profiles encountered within soil boring B-1 using LiqSVs version 1.0.1.59, by Geologismiki, and the Boulanger & Idriss (2014) method of analysis. The depth of analysis was 41.5 feet bgs. Based upon subsurface exploration the groundwater table during an earthquake was estimated to be 15 feet bgs during an earthquake. Using a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.46g, and an earthquake moment magnitude of 7.75 based upon data obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2017 Earthquake Hazards Program, the factor of safety was less than 1 for some soil layers, indicating the potential for liquefaction during an earthquake. Based upon our analysis of the existing soil profile, potentially liquefiable layers are most prevalent ' underlying the subject site at depths ranging from 15 to 30 feet bgs. Soils meeting the criteria for potentially liquefiable soil layers during an earthquake at this site include the non-plastic SILT soils located below the static groundwater table. See the attached boring logs. Without improving the soil to reduce the liquefaction potential of subsurface soil layers for the design earthquake event presented above, total dynamic settlement expected at the subject site due to soil liquefaction at the location of B-1 is anticipated to be approximately 6 to 8 inches. We anticipate that differential settlement would be approximately one-half of the total estimated settlement, measured between two adjacent building foundation components. Without improving the soil to reduce the liquefaction potential of subsurface soil layers for the design earthquake event presented above, total lateral spreading displacement expected at the subject site due to soil liquefaction at the site is anticipated to be on the order of 7 feet. The depth of analysis for lateral spreading was 30 feet, based on site topography and geology. Results of the liquefaction analysis conducted from the soil profile obtained from soil boring B-1 are presented as an attachment to this report. I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 24 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0.July 24,2017 Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering.Inc. 1 Our analysis of lateral spreading at the site included evaluation of site topography extending to the west of the site, across SW 72nd Avenue, where the ground surface slopes steeply, becoming vertical, measuring approximately 18-feet-high. The free slope face is located approximately 80 to 90 feet west of the western edge of the proposed building. The slope on the neighboring property is retained with an approximately 12-foot-high rockery retaining wall, which appears to be subjected to traffic surcharge loads from SW 72nd Avenue. In our opinion, the existing rockery wall does not appear to have been designed to resist lateral spreading during a seismic event, and should be ignored for the purposes of our seismic assessment. The design team and structural engineer should work together to determine the maximum allowable settlement that is considered to be tolerable to the structure during a strong seismic event. If determined necessary, soil liquefaction and lateral spreading may potentially be reduced to within tolerable limits with deep ground improvements. Methods such as installation of rammed aggregate piers (GeoPiers), stone columns, or deep soil mixing columns (DSM), may be feasible options. The geotechnical engineer should work closely with the design team to develop appropriate recommendations for the site. In addition, if deemed necessary, additional subsurface ' soil exploration consisting of electronic cone penetrometer testing (CPT) could be conducted at the site to provide higher resolution subsurface soil data. CPT data provides information of soil type, soil strength, pore water pressure, and seismic velocity on approximately 2-inch intervals. The data may be utilized to conduct a CPT based liquefaction analysis which typically provides a more comprehensive assessment of soil liquefaction when compared to SPT based analyses. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 25 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 1 `rL Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacific Project No. 17-4626, 72" Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon num Imo. UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS I We have prepared this report for the owner and his/her consultants for use in design of this project only. The conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a 111 warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, GeoPacific should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. 111 Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by subsurface explorations. The checklist attached to this report outlines recommended geotechnical observations and testing for the project. Recommendations for design changes will be provided I should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, GeoPacific executed these services in I accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. I We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, I GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I � GiSTE � ,sR CI PROFS ¢ ,, �(aIN -F /ate OREG•N , ,. INJAMIN !Con 1474M, `__. Rif a IV. MiOl'l-il,,,. /! OREGON ,�� .4 ! �vN23.\ OLOG\ 9MSD.II* I EXPIRES: 06/30/20 I Benjamin L. Cook, R.G. James D. Imbrie, G.E., C.E.G. Senior Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer I 17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 26 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 1 Version 1.0.July 24,2017 I ei . *._ _ Geotechnical Engineering Report GeoPacilic Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon Engineering,Inc. IREFERENCES Atwater, B.F., 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis River, southern I coastal Washington:Journal of Geophysical Research,v. 97, p. 1901-1919. Carver, G.A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists-SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May,1992. I Gannet, Marshall W., and Caldwell, Rodney R., Generalized Geologic Map of the Willamette Lowland, U.S. Department of the interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1998. Geologic Map of the Camas Quadrangle, Multnomah County, Oregon, and Clark County,Washington, U.S. Geological ISurvey, Evarts and O'Connor,2008. Geologic Map of the Vancouver Quadrangle, Phillips,W.M., Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 87-10, 1987. IGeomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation, Personal Services Contract 11688,January 1995. I Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D.,Yeats, R.S.,Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996,Active strike-slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction-Zone plate boundary and forearc in central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 223-256. I Lidar-Based Surficial Geologic Map of the Greater Portland Area, Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Clark County,Washington, State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open File Report 0-12-02, 2012. Ma, L., Madin, I.P., Duplantis, S., and Williams, K.J., 2012, Lidar-based Surficial Geologic Map and Database of the I Greater Portland, Oregon, Area, Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Clark County,Washington, DOGAMI Open-File Report 0-12-02 Mabey, M.A., Madin, I.P., and Black G.L., 1996, Relative Earthquake Hazard Map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle, I Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon Department of I Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-90-2, scale 1:24,000, 22 p. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Statewide Geohazards Viewer,www.oregongeology.org/hazvu. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Madin, Ian P., Ma, Lina,and Niewendorp, Clark A., Open-File Report 0-08-06, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Linnton 7.5'Quadrangle, Multnomah and Washington I Counties, Oregon, 2008. Peterson, C.D., Darioenzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris,W.K., 1993, Field trip guide to Cascadia paleoseismic evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin: I Oregon Geology,v. 55, p. 99-144. United States Geological Survey, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Website (earthquake.usgs.gov). Unruh, J.R.,Wong, I.G., Bott,J.D., Silva,W.J., and Lettis,W.R., 1994, Seismotectonic evaluation: Scoggins Dam, I Tualatin Project, Northwest Oregon: unpublished report by William Lettis and Associates and Woodward Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, CA,for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO (in Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture 2015 website. (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.). IWerner, K.S., Nabelek, J.,Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992, The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic-reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon,earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology, v. 54, p. 112-117. Wong, I. Silva,W., Bott,J.,Wright, D., Thomas, P.,Gregor, N., Li., S., Mabey, M., Sojourner,A., and Wang, Y., 2000, I Earthquake Scenario and Probabilistic Ground Shaking Maps for the Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Area; State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; Interpretative Map Series IMS-16 Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P.,Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the Willamette Valley, I Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest,v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183-222,5 plates,scale 1:100,000. Yelin, T.S., 1992,An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills(Oregon): More speculations on the seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 24, no.5, p. 92. I Snyder, D.T., 2008, Estimated Depth to Ground Water and Configuration of the Water Table in the Portland, Oregon Area: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5059, 41 p., 3 plates. I17-4626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 27 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Version 1.0,July 24,2017 I Geotechnical Engineering Report Coo Project No. 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Tigard, Oregon + " CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION I Item Procedure Timing By Whom Done I No. Prior to beginning site Contractor, Developer, 1 Preconstruction meeting work Civil and Geotechnical I Engineers Fill removal from site or Soil Technician/ 2 sorting and stockpiling Prior to mass stripping Geotechnical Engineer I 3 Stripping, aeration, and root- During stripping Soil Technician I picking operations Compaction testing of During filling, tested I 4 engineered fill (95% of Soil Technician every 2 vertical feet Standard Proctor) Compaction testing of trench During backfilling, I o tested every 4 vertical 5 backfill (95% of Soil Technician feet for every 200 lineal StandardProctor) feet Prior to placing base I 6 Street Subgrade Inspection course Soil Technician Prior to paving, tested I Base course compaction P 97 , Soil Technician (95% of Modified Proctor) every 200 lineal feet Footing Over-Excavation I Backfill, 1.5"-0 Crushed 8 Aggregate During Placement Soil Technician (95% of Modified Proctor) 1 9 Final Geotechnical Engineer's Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer Report I I I I I I 174626,72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT 28 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I Version 1.0,July 24,2017 f\tr_ 1 GeoPacitic Engineering,Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design •Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax(503) 941-9281 IMO I V — M NM M I 11111 r N r r M r O i MO _ �� 14835 SW 72nd Avenue GeoPocfic Portland,Oregon 97224 TYPICAL PERIMETER FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL EnMtmow. Tel: (503)598-8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 FOOTING BACKFILL ZONE NATIVE SOIL FOOTING \ , . •....-......... .. . ctnae• -le :cin .... ` oeivrairiAr t.�t?i iiidi•vr..„.. .... .„... ! m 1 • or ... ,o, f .,, //////77,/,//////z,/ ", , , .. . NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FREE DRAINING, OPEN GRADED MIRAFI 140N or EQUIVALENT PERFORATED OR SLOTTED 3-INCH FLEXIBLE PLASTIC PIPE 1 1/2"-3/4" DRAIN ROCK Notes: 1) Drain rock should contain no more than 5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. Date:7/18/2017 2)Trench bottom and drain pipe should be sloped to drain to approved discharge location. Drawn by: BLC Project: 72nd Avenue Apartments 1 Tigard, Oregon Project No. 17-4532 FIGURE 5 1 GeoPitic Engineering,Inc. ' Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXPLORATION LOGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 ' Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 941-9281 1 3 ` 14835 SW 72nd Avenue I GeoPacific Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG Tel: (503)598-8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 Project: 72nd Avenue Apartments Project No. 17-4626 BoringNo. B-1 ITigard, Oregon a) a) °>: cp O0)O m o 0 I I— 7 .(.7 C7 at 7 4—• �N , E z a z , 2 o Material Description to U m I Topsoil. Grassy lawn surface. Organic Lean CLAY (OL-CL), brown with roots - extending to aJ2roximatelY 10 inches. N 6 Lean CLAY (CL), brown and dark gray, with some angular gravel and with trace charred organic material, medium stiff, moist, moderately plastic. I 5-- I] 8 92.3 28.2 AASHTO Soil Classification = A-7-6(24), Liquid Limit =46, Plasticity Index= 23 10 Infiltration test IT-1.1 conducted at-10 feet bgs. 10 Measured infiltration rate = 0 inches per hour. I 5 85.3 32.5 SILT (ML), brown, medium stiff, very moist becoming wet, low plasticty. - AASHTO Soil Classification = A-4(7), Liquid Limit= 34, Plasticity Index= 8 I15 15 N s 6 92.3 34.6 % Groundwater encountered at-15 feet bgs. AASHTO Soil Classification = A-4(0), Liquid Limit= 26, Plasticity Index= 0.3 20 1 I 2 94.8 39.5AASHTO Soil Classification = A-4(2), Liquid Limit = 28, Plasticity Index =2 Infiltration test IT-1.2 conducted at-20 feet bgs. Measured infiltration rate = 0 inches per hour. 25— 6 99.0 33.7 AASHTO Soil Classification =A-4(9), Liquid Limit= 32, Plasticity Index = 8 I 30— ill 27 94.6 41.6 - ' Elastic SILT (MH), light brown to blue gray, micaceous, stiff to very stiff, wet, high plasticity. AASHTO Soil Classification =A-7-5(34), Liquid Limit =61, Plasticity Index= 28 35 III I 26 / IFat CLAY (CH), blue gray, stiff to very stiff, wet, high plasticity. 40 AASHTO Soil Classification = A-7-5(64), Liquid Limit = 94, Plasticity Index = 62 25 89.0 41.2 // Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. I Groundwater encountered at 15 feet bgs. LEGEND _ DateLogged Drilled:By: BGA 07/03/17 I M2 0,000{ — 4 1 g Static Water Table Surface Elevation: -239 ft iBag Sample Split-Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone I \ 14835 SW 72nd Avenue GeoPacific Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG imi:,„„,,I,ir;111111 Tel: (503)598-8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 1 Project: 72nd Avenue Apartments Project No. 17-4626 Boring No.B-2 Tigard, Oregon i v _ a) >),- 0, �o a w FN C O LN = Yi O > .- C N f. o g 2 § m .` Material DescriptionI a E Z o Z o co aa) U) U m Asphalt Parking Lot. 3 Inches A/C, underlain by 6 inches of crushed aggregate._ I Lean CLAY(CL), brown and dark gray, with some angular gravel and with trace Nill 12 charred organic material, medium stiff, moist, moderately plastic. 5 Infiltration test IT-2.1 conducted at-5 feet bgs. I 8 Measured infiltration rate = 0 inches per hour. Q 6 1 10 N - 4 12.5 SILT (ML), brown, medium stiff, very moist becoming wet, low plasticity. I Z Infiltration test IT-2.2 conducted at-10 feet bgs. _ Ill 6 NMeasured infiltration rate = 0 inches per hour. 15 / III 4 N 3 20 3 Infiltration test IT-2.3 conducted at-20 feet bgs. Measured infiltration rate = 0 inches per hour. I 25 Elastic SILT (MH), light brown to blue gray, micaceous, stiff to very stiff, wet, high I ill23 plasticity. Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 12.5 feet bgs. 30-- I 35 I I 40 I LEGEND11 Date Drilled: 07/03/17 ,00h1 [il a Logged By: BGA I to 1,0008 / Surface Elevation: —240 ft Static Water Table Bag Sample Split-Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone 1 ` y14835 SW 72nd Avenue I GeoPacific Portland, Oregon 97224 BORING LOG tttlneates Inc. Tel: (503)598-8445 Fax: (503)941-9281 Project: 72nd Avenue Apartments Project No. 17-4626 BoringNo. B-3 I Tigard, Oregon a) a) aan o o co 2v o N 7 N O ' w@ N co cn o a z 0 z�, 2 0 .@ Material Description No 0 u U m ITopsoil. Grassy lawn surface. Organic Lean CLAY (OL-CL), brown with roots - extending to aPej uroximat10 inches. Lean CLAY(CL), brown and dark gray, with some angular gravel and with trace 6 charred organic material, medium stiff, moist, moderately plastic. 1 5 -_ 111 111 8 I I 11 10 ---- N 1 10 SILT (ML), brown, medium stiff, very moist becoming wet, low plasticity. 11 15 I 15 111 6 1 [Shelby tube pushed at depth of 17.5 feet, easy to push sampler first 12 inches but stiffer for last 6 inches, full recovery] - 20 7 I Elastic SILT(MH), light brown to blue gray, micaceous, medium stiff to very stiff, wet, high plasticity. I 25— id7 1 30— 7 I gi 35 ll I 27 IFat CLAY (CH), blue gray, stiff, wet, high plasticity. 40 11 / 1 11 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 15 feet bgs. LEGEND I Date 4 Logged Drilled:By: BGA 07/03/17 I M ,00 to` ..si 1,,000 g III 11 Static Water Table Surface Elevation: -237 ft 1 Bag Sample Split-Spoon Shelby Tube Sample at Drilling Static Water Table Water Bearing Zone 1 Cooracitic Engineering,Inc. ' Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design •Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72"d Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 1 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 941-9281 I Particle Size Distribution Report .__ o 0 a o o a 100 m ' — 0 Q fc •• N o# # # # # a 90 10 1 80 � � 20 I CL LLJ Z 6070 30 M 40 m ii z IH z 50 w 0 40 50 CC 60 > W cn a m I 30 70 Z7 20 80 10I i 1 1 1 90 0 I 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I +3" %Gravel GRAIN SIZE- mm. %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0 11 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 6.3 92.3 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.' Pass? Lean Clay I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) .75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 23.4 LL= 46.8 PI= 23.4 I .25 100.0 #4 100.0 #10 99.9 USCS(D 2487)= CL Classification AASHTO(M 145)= A-7-6(24) #20 99.4 Coefficients 111 #40 98.6 Dgo= D55= #100 96.8 D50= D30= D15= #200 92.3 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Moisture 28.2% Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: I x Title: (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC I Sample Number:S17-200 Depth: 5' G E O PAC I F I C Client: Hill Architects Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. project No: 17-4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 I'.?d dine int�l°Y::xtes the approximate per limit boundary for natural soils 50 x40— w ' 0 30— -- I U H Q • J a. 20— �ON- G"o 10— ,% 111Z/Z af`Zr / ML or OL MH or OH 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT 48.6 48.2 I 47.8 47.4 H til 47 Hz OU 46.6 I w Q 46.2 45.8 I 45.4 45 I 44.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS I • Lean Clay 46.8 23.4 23.4 98.692.3 11 CL Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects Remarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments Location:B-I 1 Sample Number: S17-200 Depth:5' GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Figure Tested By: SJC I I I Particle Size Distribution Report epo t . . 0 OMN - ^ r100 � . . _ 00o 000 o## # # 0 0 90I i 10 80 i_ 20 70 30 -0 W m X Z 60 40 0 m ii I z z 50 50 H w 0 D W 40 600 X Cn 0- 7 m I 30 70 X 20 7 80 90 I 10 0 1'II 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I +3" %Gravel GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Sand %Fines Coarse _ Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt _ Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 10.5 85.3 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Silt with Sand I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 26.4 LL= 34.5 PI= 8.1 I .25 100.0 #4 100.0 #10 99.8 USCS(D 2487)= ML Classification AASHTO(M 145)= A-4(7) #20 97.4 Coefficients 1 #40 95.8 D90= 0.1037 D85= D60= #100 94.0 050= D30= D15= #200 85.3 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Moisture 32.5% Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: I I Title: (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC Sample Number:S17-201 Depth: 10' I GEOPACIFIC Client: Hill Architects Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. Project No: 17-4626 Figure I I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 :::‘,1 "--4 gine indicates the approximate I u .tsE.: ._lit boundary for natural soils /' 50 c�o,00 x40 -- w 0 z U 30 w a a 20— 1 O 10 7I• /��z.`��:"������� ML or OL MH or OH 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 111LIQUID LIMIT 36.8 36.4 I 36 35.6 H 35.2 z O0 34.8 I ccw Q 34.4N. 34 33.6 33.2 I 32.8 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS _ I— MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL _ PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS _ • Silt with Sand 34.5 26.4 8.1 95.8 85.3 ML Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects I1Remarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments Location:B-1 111 Sample Number: S17-201 Depth: 10' II GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 9 11 ure Tested By: SJC I I 1 Particle Size Distribution Report I100 C = _C ` CC C O O O O O O O N • 46 iiiit . it ; it it 0 0 90 10 I 80 20 I 70 30 U Z m Z so 40 o I m z z 50 1LU 0 50 H CC 40 60 0 LU 0- Cr) I m 30 j 70 :L7 20 80 I 10 90 0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. +3" °/0 Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse _ Fine Coarse Medium _ Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.5 92.3 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening 1 Percent Spec.* Pass? Silt I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) .75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 25.9 LL= 26.2 PI= 0.3 I .25 100.0 #4 100.0 USCS(D2487)= ML Classification(M #10 100.0AASHTO 145)= A-4(0) #20 100.0 Coefficients #40 99.8 D90= D85= D60= I #100 99.2 D30= #200 92.3 D10= C = D15= Remarks Moisture 34.6% I Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: I * (no specification provided) Title: Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC Sample Number:S17-202 Depth: 15' IG E O P /� C I F I C Client: Hill Architects l'1 Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. project No: 17-4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 50 --'- ,ON'' G�o x 40— w o z I U 30- 1 0 I J � 20 _. 004 G'- I�/1/4 ���i�/ ML or OL MH or OH 0 • 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 I LIQUID LIMIT 27.2 27 I 26.8 26.6 111 z H 26.4 z 026.2 I cc w Q 26 25.8 I 25.6 25.4 1 25.2 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 I USCS I • Silt 26.2 25.9 0.3 99.8 92.3 ML I Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects IRemarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments Location:B-1 Sample Number: S17-202 Depth: 15' GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Figure Tested By: SJCI I I Particle Size Distribution Report I • • 100 I C c c c C c 5 _0 O O - C C'S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ti a u `t 0 90 II 10 I I I 80 I 20 70I 30I CC 13 m W C _Z 60 40 n Li 1 z H H I Z 50o I 'I I I I I I I I I I I 111 50 W1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 O CC 40 I I I I I I I D W W CD rn I 30— 70 77 20 Y Y , 80 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I i I I I I 10 I I 90 I 0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.1 94.8 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Sill I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 26.2 LL= 28.1 P1= 1.9 I 25 100.0 #4 100.0 USCS(D 2487= Classification ) ( ) #10 100.0 ) ML AASHTO(M 145)= = A-4 2 #20 99.9 Coefficients #40 99.9 D90= D85= 060= I #100 99.5 _ #200 94.8 D10= CUO C�=- Remarks IMoisture 39.5% I Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: I * (no specification provided) Title: Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC Sample Number:S17-203 Depth:20' IG E O PAC I F I L Client: Hill Architects Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. project No: 17-4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 1 60 I Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils ,--' 50 G�'o�O x 40— w >- ' z r U 30 ¢ , J a20 0�O C,'" 10 I/����""L�����Z ML or OL MH or OH • 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 I LIQUID LIMIT 28.9 1 28.7 28.5 28.3 z z Ui 28.1 z o 27.9 I cc w Q 27.7 27.5 1 27.3 27.1 I 26.9_ 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • Silt 28.1 26.2 1.9 99.9 94.8 ML Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects I Remarks: , Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments 1 I Location:B-1 Sample Number: S17-203 Depth:20' GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Figure Tested By: SJC I I I Particle art cle Size Distribution Report I 0 C c N \ \ W • V N t7 V t0 a N 100 • 0 ' 0 90 10 I 80 ; 20 70 30 I CC LU m X Z 60 40 n 1 m Z Z so so n —+ LLJ U OD G' 40 60 �1 W a m I 30 70 70 20 80 I 10 90 0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I +3" %Gravel GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 j 99.0 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Silt I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) .75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 24.5 LL= 32.5 Pl= 8.0 t .25 100.0 #4 199.9 99.9 USCS(D 2487)= ML Classification AASHTO(M 145)= A-4(9) #10 #20 99.9 Coefficients I #40 99.9 D90= D85= D60= #100 99.8 #200 99.0 Dip= 0= C�= C�5- Remarks I\loiture 33.7% I Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: Title: * (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC Sample Number:S17-204 _ Depth: 25' IGEOPACIFIC Client: Hill Architects Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. project No: 17-4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 I Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils ,-' 50— I OG� °\'‘ t x 40 w ' a z - 30— o cn J 0 d 20 c)0V 0- 10 A ____ - �Z/,'5"f%� Z ML or OL MH or OH 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT I 34.6 34.2 I 33.8 33.4 I H Z 1.11 33 QU 32.6 IN ccw Q 32.2 31.8 I 31.4 31 I 30.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL r PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS I • Silt 32.5 24.5 8.0 99.9 99.0 ML Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects Remarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments Location:B-1 Sample Number: S17-204 Depth:25' GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Figure111 Tested By: SJC I I I Particle Size Distribution Report I C C C C .C C 0 0 0 0 (0 00 a 00 t0 M N \ V N M 7 # ik 4k ik 100 6 -0 f`r C -'t I 0 I i 90 I 10 II 1 80 , 20 I 1i i I I 70 i i I 30 10 I w XI Z 60 40 m m z I- -1 I z 50 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I III 50 LL 1 1 n 1 1 1 III p cC 40 D W 60 X7 C m I30 70 77 20 80 I I 10 90 0 i I 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I +3" %Gravel GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 94.6 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Elastic Silt I Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 32.4 LL= 61.0 PI= 28.6 I .25 100.0 #4 100.0 USCS(D 2487)= MH Classification AASHTO(M 145 = A-7-5 34 #10 100.0 )- ) #20 100.0 Coefficients I #40 100.0 D90= Dg5= D60= #100 99.2 #200 94.6 D10_ Cu== C1c5= Remarks 1 Moisture 41.6% I Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: STC Checked By: I Title: (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC I Sample Number: S17-205 Depth: 30' G E O P /` C I F I C Client: Hill Architects /'1 Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments IENGINEERING, INC. Project No: 17-4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 I Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 50 x 40 w ' 0 z I U 30 F to Q ' J w 20_ <©v G�-o 10 ' -1 I �4-;c7 / ML or OL MH or OH 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT I 66 65 ' 64 63 • I Z H 62 z OU 61 w C 60 59 I 58 57 I 56 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 ' USCS I •1 Elastic Silt 61.0 32.4 28.6 100.0 94.6 MH I Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects •Remarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments Location:B-1 I Sample Number: S17-205 Depth:30' GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. H Figure Tested By: SJC I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report I C C C :. C C O 0 0 0 0 7 0 100 '7 N Q Q C N F xt a CV I I I I I I • 0 I I I I I I I I I 90 1 I I I I I 1 I I 10 I 1 80 20 i I 70I I 0' 30 m W X Z 60 40 0 ti m z LU 50 i 50 W 0 40 60 0X1 a (n 1 30 m 70 7) 20 80 I 10 90 100 100 I 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I +3" %Gravel GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10.0 89.0 ITEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Fat ClaI y Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 75 100.0 5 100.0 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) .375 100.0 PL= 31.7 LL= 94.4 PI= 62.7 I .25 100.0 #4 100.0 USCS(D 2487)= CH Classification (M 145)= A-7-5 64 #10 100.0 ( ) #20 99.7 Coefficients #40 99.0 D90= 0.0806 D85= D60= I #100 97.2 _ #200 89.0 D10= Cu= D15= Remarks IMoisture 41.2% I Date Received: Date Tested: 7/10/2017 Tested By: SJC Checked By: I Title: (no specification provided) Location:B-1 Date Sampled: 7/3/2017 BLC Sample Number:S17-206 Depth:40' IG E O PACIFIC Client: Hill Architects Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments 1 ENGINEERING, INC. Protect No: 17_4626 Figure I I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 120 1 100 Dashed line indicates the approximate W 80 upper limit boundary for natural soils 0 z II E-7 60— • U N R- CN°t o a 40 -- I 20 CL or OL /�—� s%������—�� M L or OL M H or OH 0 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 I LIQUID LIMIT 100 99 I 98 97 I z H 96 z O 95 w Q 94 93 I 92 91 90 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40 OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL NUMBER PL PI %<#40 %<#200 1 USCS t • Fat Clay 94.4 31.7 62.7 99.0 89.I) CH Project No. 17-4626 Client: Hill Architects Remarks: Project: 72nd.Avenue Apartments I Location:B-1 Sample Number: S17-206 Depth:40' lit GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Figure Tested By: SJC I I 1 /,/Y\e, Y\e, GeoPa Engineering,Inc. 1 Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 1 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503)941-9281 IThis software is registered to: Benjamin Cook I ::Field input data:: Test SPT Field Fines Unit Infl. Can Depth Value Content Weight Thickness Liquefy (ft) (blows) (%) (pcf) (ft) I2.50 6 92.00 110.00 2.50 No 5.00 8 92.00 110.00 2.50 No I 7.50 10 90.00 110.00 2.50 No 10.00 5 85.00 110.00 2.50 No 15.00 6 92.00 110.00 5.00 Yes I 20.00 2 95.00 110.00 5.00 Yes 25.00 6 99.00 110.00 5.00 Yes 30.00 27 95.00 110.00 5.00 Yes 35.00 26 90.00 110.00 5.00 Yes I40.00 25 89.00 110.00 5.00 Yes Abbreviations I Depth: Depth at which test was performed(ft) SPT Field Value: Number of blows per foot Fines Content: Fines content at test depth(%) Unit Weight: Unit weight at test depth(pcf) Infl.Thickness: Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis(ft) ICan Liquefy: User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure ::Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)calculation data:: Depth SPT Unit a„ u, a'„o m CR CE Cg CR Cs (N1)60 FC £(N1)60 (N1)60cs CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%) Value (pcf) I 2.50 6 110.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.47 1.70 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 8 92.00 5.51 14 4.000 5.00 8 110.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.44 1.70 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 10 92.00 5.51 16 4.000 7.50 10 110.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.44 1.51 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 12 90.00 5.51 18 4.000 I 10.00 5 110.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.50 1.39 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 6 85.00 5.53 12 4.000 15.00 6 110.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.52 1.14 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 6 92.00 5.51 12 0.132 20.00 2 110.00 1.10 0.16 0.94 0.57 1.07 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 2 95.00 5.50 8 0.105 I 25.00 6 110.00 1.38 0.31 1.06 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 6 99.00 5.49 11 0.125 30.00 27 110.00 1.65 0.47 1.18 0.35 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 26 95.00 5.50 32 4.000 35.00 26 110.00 1.93 0.62 1.30 0.37 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 90.00 5.51 30 0.485 1 40.00 25 110.00 2.20 0.78 1.42 0.38 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22 89.00 5.52 28 0.384 Abbreviations aY: Total stress during SPT test(tsf) I uo: Water pore pressure during SPT test(tsf) dvo: Effective overburden pressure during SPT test(tsf) m: Stress exponent normalization factor CN: Overburden corretion factor CE: Energy correction factor Ce: Borehole diameter correction factor CR: Rod length correction factor Cs: Liner correction factor Nubo): Corrected NsPT to a 60%energy ratio I t,(N1)60 Equivalent clean sand adjustment N1(60)cs: Corected Ni(w)value for fines content CRR7 s: Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5 I ::Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: Depth Unit cr.,.. uo,.y a',,d,cg rd CSR MSF... (N1)60., MSF CSReq,Ma7.5 I(..„,. CSR* FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) I (PO 2.50 110.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.299 1.29 14 0.98 0.307 1.10 0.279 2.000 I LiqSVs 1.0.1.59-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:3 Project File:Z:\Projects 2017\17-4626-72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT\Geotechnical\Liquefaction\17-4626,Liquefaction Assessment B-1.Isys This software is registered to: Benjamin Cook I ::Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation(CSR fully adjusted and normalized):: I Depth Unit av,eq u0,eq a'va,aq ra CSR MSFinax (N1)sun MSF CSReq,M.i.s Kaigma CSR' FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (Pat) 5.00 110.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 1.00 0.298 1.35 16 0.97 0.307 1.10 0.279 2.000 0 I 7.50 110.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.99 0.296 1.42 18 0.97 0.307 1.10 0.279 2.000 0 10.00 110.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.99 0.295 1.24 12 0.98 0.300 1.06 0.282 2.000 0 I 15.00 110.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.97 0.291 1.24 12 0.98 0.296 1.02 0.289 0.458 • 20.00 110.00 1.10 0.16 0.94 0.96 0.334 1.15 8 0.99 0.338 1.01 0.334 0.313 • 25.00 110.00 1.38 0.31 1.06 0.94 0.364 1.21 11 0.98 0.370 1.00 0.370 0.338 • I 30.00 110.00 1.65 0.47 1.18 0.92 0.386 2.12 32 0.91 0.424 0.98 0.434 2.000 0 35.00 110.00 1.93 0.62 1.30 0.91 0.400 2.00 30 0.92 0.435 0.96 0.454 1.067 40.00 110.00 2.20 0.78 1.42 0.89 0.410 1.88 28 0.93 0.442 0.95 0.467 0.821 • I Abbreviations ov.ed: Total overburden pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) uo.eq: Water pressure at test point,during earthquake(tsf) o"..eq: Effective overburden pressure,during earthquake(tsf) I ra: Nonlinear shear mass factor CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor CSRe,.Ma7 s: CSR adjusted for M=7.5 I ma: Effective overburden stress factor CSR': CSR fully adjusted FS: Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction ::Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki:: Depth FS F wz Thickness IL (ft) (ft) 1 2.50 2.000 0.00 9.62 2.50 0.00 5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 2.50 0.00 I 7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 2.50 0.00 10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 2.50 0.00 15.00 0.458 0.54 7.71 5.00 6.37 I 20.00 0.313 0.69 6.95 5.00 7.28 25.00 0.338 0.66 6.19 5.00 6.25 30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00 35.00 1.067 0.00 4.67 5.00 0.00 40.00 0.821 0.18 3.90 5.00 1.06 Overall potential Ii: 20.96 I IL=0.00-No liquefaction I,between 0.00 and 5-Liquefaction not probable IL between 5 and 15-Liquefaction probable I I. > 15-Liquefaction certain ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: I Depth (Nj)60 T., P Gmax a b y Els Nc EN, Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (oh) (ft) (in) 2.50 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 I 5.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 7.50 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 10.00 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.000 LiqSVs 1.0.1.59-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page:4 I Project File:Z:\Projects 2017\17-4626-72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT\Geotechnical\Liquefaction\17-4626,Liquefaction Assessment B-1.Isys This software is registered to: Benjamin Cook ::Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands:: Depth (N1)60 T. p G,, 0 a b y Els Nc ENt Ah AS (ft) (tsf) (We) (ft) (in) Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000 Abbreviations ' T,: Average cyclic shear stress p: Average stress Maximum shear modulus(tsf) a,b: Shear strain formula variables ' y: Average shear strain £15: Volumetric strain after 15 cycles No: Number of cycles Eric: Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nt(%) ' Ah: Thickness of soil layer(in) AS: Settlement of soil layer(in) ::Vertical&Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands:: ' Depth (N1)60. y10,, F0 FSiiq ymax ev d2 Sv.lo LDI (ft) (We) (We) (We) (ft) (in) (ft) ' 15.00 12 38.03 0.86 0.458 38.03 3.34 5.00 2.005 1.90 20.00 8 59.22 0.94 0.313 59.22 4.23 5.00 2.536 2.96 25.00 11 42.40 0.89 0.338 42.40 3.53 5.00 2.118 2.12 30.00 32 3.50 -0.22 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00 35.00 30 4.65 -0.09 1.067 3.07 0.61 5.00 0.367 0.15 40.00 28 6.08 0.04 0.821 5.07 1.08 5.00 0.648 0.25 Cumulative settlements: 7.673 7.39 Abbreviations y;,,„: Limiting shear strain(%) F°/N: Maximun shear strain factor yn,,,: Maximum shear strain(%) Post liquefaction volumetric strain(%) Sv.1o: Estimated vertical settlement(in) LDI: Estimated lateral displacement(ft) 1 1 I ' LigSVs 1.0.1.59-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 5 Project File:Z:\Projects 2017\17-4626-72nd Avenue Apartments GRPT\Geotechnical\Liquefaction\17-4626,Liquefaction Assessment B-1.Isys References 1 • Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009.Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 135,No.6,June 1 • Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL&ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS • Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/ • Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian,J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F,, Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127,October, pp 817-833 • Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the C.1-01, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180 • Zhang,G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE,Journal of Geotechnical &Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 130, No. 8,861-871 • Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical& Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 124, No.4, 364-368 • R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M.Thompson, R. B. Seed, K.O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian,Y.Tanaka, K.Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear- Wave Velocity—Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1 I I 1 LiqSVs 1.0.1.59-SPT&Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 CeoPacitic Engineering,Inc. ' Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 INFILTRATION TESTING CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax(503) 941-9281 I \i IGeoPacific Engineering, Inc. oleo i , .... - , i .148535 SW 72nd Avenue I Portland, Oregon 97224 Real World Geotechnical Solutions I INFILTRATION TESTING DATA TABLE Project #: 17-4626 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Project Name: 72nd Avenue Apartments Engineer/Geologist: BLC ' Date: July 3, 2017 Test Method: Open Borehole Method Infiltration Test ID: IT-1.1 Test Depth: -10 Feet Test Location: Soil Boring B-1 Casing Diameter: 6 inch I Soil Description: CL Embedment Depth: N/A Elapsed Initial Head 1 Head Height Infiltration Rate Time Time Height at Time Measured 1 g (Inches Per (Hours) Drop (Inches) (Minutes) (Inches) H1 (Inches) H2 Hour) 30 0.5 12 12 0 0 60 1 12 12 0 0 1 120 2 12 12 0 0 180 3 12 12 0 0 I 240 4 12 12 0 0 Trial #1 Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour): 0 I Notes: Test conducted in the bottom of soil boring. Measurements obtained with a water whistle measuring tape I Presoak period conducted prior to testing I I I I I 1 I17-4626, Infiltration Testing Calculator 070317 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. IO0P Engineering.Inc. I 148535 SW 72nd Avenue Portland, Oregon 97224 Real World Geotechnical Solutions 1 INFILTRATION TESTING DATA TABLE I Project #: 17-4626 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Project Name: 72nd Avenue Apartments Engineer/Geologist: BLC Date: July 3, 2017 Test Method: Open Borehole Method I Infiltration Test ID: IT-1.2 Test Depth: -20 Feet Test Location: Soil Boring B-1 Casing Diameter: 6 inch Soil Description: ML Embedment Depth: N/A I Elapsed Initial Head Head Height Infiltration Rate Time Measured Time Height at Time (Inches Per (Hours) Drop (Inches) (Minutes) (Inches) H1 (Inches) H2 Hour) 30 0.5 12 12 0 0 60 1 12 12 0 0 I 120 2 12 12 0 0 180 3 12 12 0 0 240 4 12 12 0 0 Trial #1 Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour): 0 1 Notes: I Test conducted in the bottom of soil boring. Measurements obtained with a water whistle measuring tape Presoak period conducted prior to testing I I I I I I I I 17-4626, Infiltration Testing Calculator 070317 I I IGeoPacific Engineering, Inc. 148535 SW 72nd Avenue IPortland, Oregon 97224 Real World Geotechnical Solutions I INFILTRATION TESTING DATA TABLE Project #: 17 4626 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Project Name: 72nd Avenue Apartments Engineer/Geologist: BLC I Date: July 3, 2017 Test Method: Open Borehole Method Infiltration Test ID: IT-2.1 Test Depth: -5 Feet Test Location: Soil Boring B-2 Casing Diameter: 6 inch ISoil Description: CL Embedment Depth: N/A Elapsed , Initial Head Head Height Infiltration Rate Time TimeHeight at Time Measured (Inches Per 1 (Minutes) (Hours) (Inches) H1 (Inches) H2 Drop (Inches) Hour) 30 0.5 12 12 0 0 60 1 12 12 0 0 I120 2 12 12 0 0 180 3 12 12 0 0 I 240 4 i 12 12 1 1 0 0 Trial #1 Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour): 0 I Notes: Test conducted in the bottom of soil boring. Measurements obtained with a water whistle measuring tape IPresoak period conducted prior to testing I I I I I I I I17-4626, Infiltration Testing Calculator 070317 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. GeoP -e^f4a I 148535 SW 72nd Avenue Engineering,Inc. I Portland, Oregon 97224 Real World Geotechnical Solutions I INFILTRATION TESTING DATA TABLE Project #: 17-4626 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Project Name: 72nd Avenue Apartments Engineer/Geologist: BLC Date: July 3, 2017 Test Method: Open Borehole Method I Infiltration Test ID: IT-2.2 Test Depth: -10 Feet Test Location: Soil Boring B-2 Casing Diameter: 6 inch Soil Description: ML Embedment Depth: N/A I Elapsed Initial Head I Head Height Infiltration Rate Time Measured Time (Hours) Height at Time Drop (Inches) ' (Inches Per (Minutes) (Inches) H1 (Inches) H2 Hour) I 30 0.5 12 12 0 0 60 1 12 12 0 0 1 120 2 12 12 0 0 180 3 12 12 0 0 240 4 1 12 12 0 0 Trial #1 Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour): 0 Notes: I Test conducted in the bottom of soil boring. Measurements obtained with a water whistle measuring tape Presoak period conducted prior to testing I I I I I I I I 17-4626, Infiltration Testing Calculator 070317 I I ,_ I GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. GOOPèItiC--.11f '''''' 148535 SW 72nd Avenue Engineering,Inc. IPortland, Oregon 97224 Real World Geotechnical Solutions I INFILTRATION TESTING DATA TABLE Project #: 17-4626 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Project Name: 72nd Avenue Apartments Engineer/Geologist: BLC I Date: July 3, 2017 Test Method: Open Borehole Method Infiltration Test ID: IT-2.3 Test Depth: -20 Feet Test Location: Soil Boring B-2 Casing Diameter: 6 inch ISoil Description: ML Embedment Depth: N/A Elapsed Time Initial Head Head Height Infiltration Rate Measured Time Height at Time (Inches Per I Minutes (Hours) Drop (Inches) ( ) (Inches) H1 (Inches) H2 Hour) 30 0.5 12 12 0 0 60 1 12 12 0 0 I120 2 12 12 0 0 180 3 12 12 0 0 I 240 4 12 12 0 0 Trial #1 Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour): 0 I Notes: Test conducted in the bottom of soil boring. Measurements obtained with a water whistle measuring tape IPresoak period conducted prior to testing I I I I I I I I17-4626, Infiltration Testing Calculator 070317 1 GeoPacific Engineering,Inc. 1 Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design •Construction Support i 1 1 1 1 1 PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72"d Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 1 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 941-9281 IGeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions I Investigiation,Design,Construction Support 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel(503)598-8445 Portland,Oregon 97224 Fax(503)941-9281 Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(PDCP)/California Bearing Ratio(CBR)Correlation IProject:72nd Avenue Apartments Date:7/5/2017 Existing A/C Thickness: 10.5 Test:RC-1 Project No.17-4626 Engineer:MTB Existing Base Aggregate Thickness:5 inches 1.5"-0 Crushed Location:See Figure 2,5 Feet West of Fog Line Subgrade:Lean CLAY Notes:Test Location-Figure 2 I Length of shaft I Height(from ref)at start Depth below ground at start Length of shaft Height(from ref)at start Depth below ground at start cm cm cm in in in 132.08 90.805 41.275 52 35.75 16.25 I Blows Height(from ref)in Helght(from ref)cm Depth(below ground)cm Depth(inches below ground) Depth(feet below ground) mm/blow CBR 5 34.25 87.00 45.09 17.75 1.48 7.62 35 5 32.5 82.55 49.53 19.50 1.63 8.89 30 5 28.25 71.76 60.33 23.75 1.98 21.59 10 Ii 25.5 64.77 67.31 26.50 2.21 69.85 2.5 1 21.75 55.25 76.84 30.25 2.52 95.25 1.8 1 19 48.26 83.82 33.00 2.75 69.85 2.5 1 17 43.18 88.90 35.00 2.92 50.80 3.7 1 15.75 40.01 92.08 36.25 3.02 31.75 6 1 14.5 36.83 95.25 37.50 3.13 31.75 6 1 13.5 34.29 97.79 38.50 3.21 25.40 8 Average 41.28 10.55 I This table for PDCP measurements recorded in inches Measurements are after each blow. Mm/blow is difference between previous and current blow I I I I I I I I I I I 17-4626,SW 72nd Avenue Subdivision PDCP 070517 1 GeoPacific Engineering,Inc. GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigiation.Design,Construction Support 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel(503)598-8445 Portland,Oregon 97224 Fax(503)941-9281 Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(PDCP)/California Bearing Ratio(CBR)Correlation Project:72nd Avenue Apartments Date:7/5/2017 Existing A/C Thickness: 10 Test:RC-2 Project No. 17-4626 Engineer:MTB Existing Base Aggregate Thickness:4 inches 1.5"-0 Crushed Location:See Figure 2,4 Feet West of Fog Line Subgrade:Lean CLAY Notes:Test Location-Figure 2 Length of shaft I Height(from ref)at start Depth below ground at start Length of shaft Height(from ref)at start Depth below ground at start I cm cm cm in in in 132.08 95.25 36.83 52 37.5 14.5 Blows Height(from ref1 in Height(from ref)cm Depth(below ground)cm Depth(inches below ground) Depth(feet below ground) mm/blow CBR I 5 34 86.36 45.72 18.00 1.50 17.78 12 3 28.75 73.03 59.06 23.25 1.94 44.45 4.2 1 26.5 67.31 64.77 25.50 2.13 57.15 3.2 1 25 63.50 68.58 27.00 2.25 38.10 5 1 23.75 60.33 71.76 28.25 2.35 31.75 6 1 22.25 56.52 75.57 29.75 2.48 38.10 5 1 21 53.34 78.74 31.00 2.58 31.75 6 1 19.75 50.17 81.92 32.25 2.69 31.75 6 I 1 18 45.72 86.36 34.00 2.83 44.45 4.2 1 16.5 41.91 90.17 35.50 2.96 38.10 5 Average 37.34 5.66 This table for PDCP measurements recorded in inches Measurements are after each blow. Mm/blow is difference between previous and current blow I I I I I I I I I I 17-4626,SW 72nd Avenue Subdivision PDCP 070517 2 GeoPacific Engineering.Inc. II IGeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions I Investigiation,Design.Construction Support 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel(503)598-8445 Portland,Oregon 97224 Fax(503)941-9281 Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(PDCP)/California Bearing Ratio(CBR)Correlation IProject:72nd Avenue Apartments Date:7/5/2017 Existing NC Thickness:6.5 Test:RC-3 Project No.17-4626 Engineer:MTB Existing Base Aggregate Thickness:7 inches 1.5"-0 Crushed Location:See Figure 2,6 Feet West of Fog Line Subgrade:Lean CLAY Notes:Test Location-Figure 2 I Length of shaft I Height(from ref)at start Depth below ground at start Length of shaft Height frontEreti at start Depth below ground at start cm cm cm in in in 132.08 95.25 36.83 52 37.5 14.5 I Blows Helght(from ref)In Height(from ref)cm Depth(below ground)cm Depth(inches below ground) Depth(feet below ground) mm/blow CBR 5 35.75 90.81 41.28 16.25 1.35 8.89 30 5 34.75 88.27 43.82 17.25 1.44 5.08 50 5 33.5 85.09 46.99 18.50 1.54 6.35 40 I 5 32.75 83.19 48.90 19.25 1.60 3.81 80 5 31.5 80.01 52.07 20.50 1.71 6.35 40 5 30.5 77.47 54.61 21.50 1.79 5.08 50 5 29.5 74.93 57.15 22.50 1.88 5.08 50 5 28.25 71.76 60.33 23.75 1.98 6.35 40 I 5 26.25 66.68 65.41 25.75 2.15 10.16 20 5 21.75 55.25 76.84 30.25 2.52 22.86 20 Average 8.00 42 I This table for PDCP measurements recorded in inches Measurements are after each blow. Mm/blow is difference between previous and current blow I I I I I I I I I I I 17-4626,SW 72nd Avenue Subdivision PDCP 070517 3 GeoPacific Engineering,Inc. 1 IIDARWin(tm) - Pavement Design A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) II Computer Software Product 1 Flexible Structural Design Module II Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Existing Pavement Evaluation of East Lane II - 72nd Avenue - RC-1 Flexible Structural Design Module Data 18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period: 3, 829,800 1 Initial Serviceability: 4.2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.5 Reliability Level (%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .5 1 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) : 15,000 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Structural Number: 3.41 1 Specified Layer Design Layer: 1 Material Description: Existing Asphalt II Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .4 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 10.50 Calculated Layer SN: 4.20 1 Layer: 2 Material Description: Existing Crushed Aggregate 1 Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 5.00 Calculated Layer SN: .50 ITotal Thickness (in) : 15.50 Total Calculated SN: 4.70 II II 1 1 1 1 DARWin(tm) - Pavement Design A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) Computer Software Product ' Flexible Structural Design Module I Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Existing Pavement Evaluation of East Lane - 72nd Avenue - RC-2 Flexible Structural Design Module Data 18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period: 3, 829,800 Initial Serviceability: 4.2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.5 Reliability Level (%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) : 7, 500 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Structural Number: 4.40 Specified Layer Design Layer: 1 Material Description: Existing Asphalt Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .4 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 10.00 Calculated Layer SN: 4.00 Layer: 2 Material Description: Existing Crushed Aggregate Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 4.00 Calculated Layer SN: .40 Total Thickness (in) : 14.00 Total Calculated SN: 4.40 I 1 1 IIDARWin(tm) - Pavement Design _ A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) II Computer Software Product IIFlexible Structural Design Module II Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, Existing Pavement Evaluation of East Lane 11 - 72nd Avenue - RC-3 Flexible Structural Design Module Data 18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period: 3, 829, 800 II Initial Serviceability: 4.2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.5 Reliability Level (%%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .5 II Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) : 50, 000 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Structural Number: 2.14 11 Specified Layer Design Layer: 1 I Material Description: Existing Asphalt ral Coefficient (Ai) : .4 age Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 6.50 Calculated Layer SN: 2.60 II Layer: 2 Material Description: Existing Crushed Aggregate 1 Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 7.00 Calculated Layer SN: .70 IITotal Thickness (in) : 13.50 Total Calculated SN: 3.30 1 DARWin(tm) - Pavement Design , A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) Computer Software Product Flexible Structural Design Module , Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, New Pavement, Streeet Widening 72nd Avenue, East Lane, 20 Year Pavement Design Flexible Structural Design Module Data 18-kip ESALS Over Initial Performance Period: 3,829, 800 Initial Serviceability: 4.2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.5 Reliability Level (%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .5 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) : 7,500 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Structural Number: 4.40 Specified Layer Design Layer: 1 Material Description: New Asphalt Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .42 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 8.00 Calculated Layer SN: 3.36 Layer: 2 Material Description: 3/4"-0 Crushed Aggregate Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 2.00 Calculated Layer SN: .20 Layer: 3 Material Description: 1.5"-0 Crushed Aggregate Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 10.00 Calculated Layer SN: 1.00 Total Thickness (in) : 20.00 Total Calculated SN: 4.56 1 1 1 DARWin(tm) - Pavement Design A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) Computer Software Product Flexible Structural Design Module Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, New Pavement, Private Parking Areas, 20 ' Year Pavement Design Flexible Structural Design Module Data 18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period: 100,000 ' Initial Serviceability: 4.2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.5 Reliability Level (%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .5 ' Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (PSI) : 7,500 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Structural Number: 2.43 ' Specified Layer Design Layer: 1 Material Description: New Asphalt Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .42 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 3.50 Calculated Layer SN: 1.47 Layer: 2 Material Description: 3/4"-0 Crushed Aggregate ' Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 2.00 Calculated Layer SN: .20 ' Layer: 3 Material Description: 1.5"-0 Crushed Aggregate Structural Coefficient (Ai) : .1 ' Drainage Coefficient (Mi) : 1 Layer Thickness (Di) (in) : 8.00 Calculated Layer SN: .80 ' Total Thickness (in) : 13.50 Total Calculated SN: 2.47 1 DARWin(tm) - Pavement Design A Proprietary AASHTOWARE(tm) Computer Software Product Rigid Structural Design Module I Project Description 17-4626, 72nd Avenue Apartments, New Pavement, Concrete Pavement, Private Parking Areas, 20 Year Pavement Design Rigid Structural Design Module Data Pavement type: JPCP 18-kip ESALs for initial performance period: 100, 000 Initial Serviceability: 4 .2 Terminal Serviceability: 2.1 28-day mean PCC Modulus of Rupture (psi) : 650 28-day mean Elastic Modulus of Slab (psi) : 3, 500, 000 Mean Effective k-value (pci) : 38.65 Reliability Level (%%) : 90 Overall Standard Deviation: .42 Load Transfer Coefficient: 3 Overall Drainage Coefficient: 1 Stage Construction: 1 Calculated Design Thickness (in) : 4.90 ' Additional Pavement Layers Layer Number: 2 Material Type: 3/4"-0 Crushed Agg Description: Leveling Course Thickness (in) : 2.00 Layer Number: 3 Material Type: 1.5"-0 Crushed Agg Description: Base Course Thickness (in) : 6.00 1 1 1 -1\An1/4. 1 CeoPacilic Engineering,Inc. Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design •Construction Support 1 1 1 1 1 1 SITE RESEARCH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 ' Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 941-9281 Soil Map—Washington County, Oregon MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:20,000. 4 Stony Spot Soilsvery Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Map Unit Polygons gin, Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause r t Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil 5 Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of 0 Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed .• Special Line Features Special Point Features scale. Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation :14 Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service + ++ Web Soil Survey URL: Closed Depression -,r, Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) • Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the • Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. �; Background 44, Marsh or swamp II Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. a : Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Washington County,Oregon • Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 14,Sep 16,2016 O Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. • Saline Spot Date(014s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 3,2014—Aug Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor 0. Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. :02, Slide or Slip oa Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/17/2017 _ me wrvativice_ um gm _ Nilo Coo(ae Soiy no mu miff 2 _ ISoil Map—Washington County, Oregon I Il Map Unit Legend Washington County,Oregon(OR067) IMap Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 37B Quatama loam.3 to 7 percent 11.1 100.0% slopes ITotals for Area of Interest 11.1 100.0% I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ,,i)\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/17/2017 40" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 I7/17/2017 Design Maps Summary Report M USGS Design Maps Summary Report I User-Specified Input Report Title 17-4626, SW 72nd Avenue Apartments Tue July 18, 2017 00:21:11 UTC ii Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard 111 (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 45.43526°N, 122.75089°W ISite Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III ,gills or ` C I tortl d 1 � � � Gresha m� 1 Beaverton. II - , c.. . '''''''Y: '. ';''.1 ,:',A AP I • Tgar. , `� ,. a ` � IShe + od :� e ,70. '6, IUSGS-Provided Output SS = 0.981 g SMS = 1.087 g S05 = 0.724 g ISi = 0.424 g SMi = 0.668 g Spl = 0.445 g For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and Ideterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the"2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. I MC Res:pL ise Specs-.,-n Ups Resporis Sir ct,.1m, aa� a tia a72 I ac.a ax AA 13: Q.24. I 11 a N 3�Y 3 _w _. u _:�a. i 1 ..✓_' _.L.i 's.fi4. ii a3� f_ :.�"_ i.d� �.id.1 �..�i :.4 I Peru.T(se*_-) Period.T(sec) For PGA,,,, T„ CRs, and CRI values, please view the detailed report. I Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. Ihttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/summa h ?tem late=minimal&latitude=45.435255&Ion itude=-122.750894&siteclass=3 ri k ryP P P g & s catego. . 1/1 a 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Design Maps Detailed Report • ASCE 7-10 Standard (45.43526°N, 122.75089°W) 111 Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III ISection 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal Ispectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. IAdjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 [1] S5 = 0.981 g 1 From Figure 22-2 tel S1 = 0.424 g Section 11.4.2 — Site Class IThe authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification I Site Class v5 N or NC,, S. A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf I E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: I • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w > 40%, and • Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1 analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 I I I Ihttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=45.435255&Ion itude=-122.750894&siteclass=3&riskcate o =... 1/6 9 9 rY 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE ) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11,4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period I SS <- 0.25 55 = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >- 1.25 I A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 I E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 I Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S5 I For Site Class = D and SS = 0.981 g, Fa = 1.108 Table 11,4-2: Site Coefficient Fv I Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period I S1 _50.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S, = 0.40 Sl >_ 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 I B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 I D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 I F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 I Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S, For Site Class = D and S1 = 0.424 g, F„ = 1.576 I I I I https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn 1/designmaps/us/report.ph p?template=minimal&latitude=45.435255&longitude=-122.750894&siteclass=3&riskcategory=... 2/6 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.108 x 0.981 = 1.087 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = F„S1 = 1.576 x 0.424 = 0.668 g 1 - Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters I Equation (11.4-3): SDS = 2A SMS = 2/3 x 1.087 = 0.724 g IEquation (11.4-4): S = 2/3 S = 2/3 x 0.668 = 0.445 D1 M1 g Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum IFrom Figure 22-12[3] T, = 16 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T<To:S,=S� 4 (0. +0.BT/To) 3.721- ' a5T5Ts:S =S o D5 Ts<TTL:So=S3t1T T>T :S =S T /T2 f1 C 0,4.{_. a 1 cn ' I :12:5 T -0.515 1.00: Period T I https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/report.ph ?tem late=minimal&latitude=45.435255&Ion it =- - _ P P g ude de= -3&riskcategory ... 3/6 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. Fs a , 0.668 c. 1 3 1 .123 5.615 1:Da) 1 Period T(sec) 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 https://earthquake.usgs. ov/cn1/desi nma s/us/re ort. h ?tem late=minimal&latitude=45.435255&longitude=-122.750894&siteclass=3&riskcategory=... 4/6 I 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design ICategories D through F From Figure 22-7[43 PGA = 0.428 I Equation (11.8-1): PGA,, = FPGAPGA = 1.072 x 0.428 = 0.459 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA tSite Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA 5 PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA >_ I0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 ID 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 IE 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 INote: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.428 g, FPGA = 1.072 ISection 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) IFrom Figure 22-17[5] CRs = 0.899 From Figure 22-18[6] CRS = 0.871 I I I I I Ihitps://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=45.435255&longitude=-122.750894&siteclass=3&riskcategory=... 5/6 7/17/2017 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter ' RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF Sos I or II III IV Sos < 0.167g A A A 0.167g 5 Sos < 0.33g 0.33g5S„ < 0.50g C C D 0.50g <_ Sps D D D For Risk Category = I and SOS = 0.724 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF Sol I or iI III IV SDI < 0.067g A A A 1 0.067g <_ S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g <_ Sol < 0.20g 0.20g <_ S01 D D D For Risk Category = I and SDI = 0.445 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When Si is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category "the more severe design category in accordance with I Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References ' 1. Figure 22-1: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-17.pdf 6. Figure 22-18: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-18.pdf 1 1 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=45.435255&longitude=-122.750894&siteclass=3&riskcategory=... 6/6 -11\ t CeoPacitic Engineering,Inc. ' Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support i I I PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG I I I I 1 I 1 14835 SW 72nd Avenue Tel (503) 598-8445 111 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax(503) 941-9281