Report 5 JT ciefe,.
r. $.7I/0 mac/ _cc _ 5 0z-
G R Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants
1 9725 SW Beaverton - Hillsdale Hwy, Ste 140 tt?
Portland, on 97005 -3364
Oreg
PHONE 503 -641 -3478 FAX 503 -644 -8034
October 19, 2005 4364 GA 1YNICAL RPT
(REVISE2ISSUED 10-30-06)
Harris- McMonagle Associates, Inc. 1, r 1p
12555 SW Hall Boulevard ��
Tigard, OR 97223 -6287 eJ, .
Attention: Jim Harris, PE ��
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation \
Harris - McMonagle and Associates' Office Building
Tigard, Oregon
At your request, GRI has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the above - referenced project. The
general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The geotechnical investigation
consisted of subsurface explorations, limited laboratory testing, and engineering studies and analyses. This
report describes the work accomplished and provides our conclusions and recommendations for design
and construction of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As presently envisioned, the new office building will be a two-story structure with a footprint of about 43
by 100 ft; a portion of the northwest wall of the building will be embedded up to 8 ft below existing site
grades. A new access driveway and parking areas will be constructed in conjunction with the building.
The project elements are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The maximum height of cuts and fills is
anticipated to be less than 8 ft. In addition, some type of retaining wall will be needed along the eastern
and southern portions of the property. As presently envisioned, the height of the retaining wall will likely
be less than 10 ft.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Topography .
Based on the Site Plan you provided, the existing ground surface across the site varies from about elevation
193 to 171 ft. The property measures about 100 by 250 ft and is currently occupied with a single- family
residence; several large trees are also present on the property. An existing retaining wall with a maximum
height of about 10 ft is located along the southern property boundary.
Geology and Groundwater
The site is likely underlain by soils of the Willamette Silt Formation. In general, Willamette Silt is
composed of unconsolidated beds and lenses of fine- grained sand, silt, and clay, with occasional scattered
pebbles. Stratification within this formation commonly consists of 4- to 6-in. beds, although 3- to 4-ft beds
are present locally. In some areas, the silt is massive and bedding is indistinct or nonexistent. The silt is
typically tan to light brown, but occasionally light gray below depths of about 10 to 30 ft.. The
r
•
groundwater level in the Tigard area is relatively shallow and approaches the ground surface during the
winter.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated on September 21, 2005, with five test
pits, designated TP -1 through TP -5. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2.
All field operations were observed by an engineer provided by our firm, who maintained a detailed log of
the materials and conditions encountered in the excavations and directed the sampling operations. The
test pits were excavated to depths of 5 to 11 ft using a Kobelco SK 60 provided and operated by Greg
Vandehey Soil Sampling of Forest Grove, Oregon. The soils exposed in the test pits were examined in the
field, and representative samples were saved in airtight jars for further examination and physical testing in
our laboratory. A Torvane shear device was used to measure the approximate undrained shear strength of
the fine - grained, cohesive soils encountered in the test pits.
Relatively undisturbed 3.0- in:O.D. Shelby tube samples were obtained by pushing the tubes into
undisturbed soil using the bucket of the excavator. The soil exposed in the ends of the Shelby tube were
examined and classified in the field. The ends of the tube were then sealed with rubber caps and returned
to our laboratory for further examination and physical testing.
•
Detailed logs of the test pits are provided on Figure 3. Each log provides a descriptive summary of the
types of materials encountered and notes the depths at which the materials and/or characteristics of the
materials change. To the right of the descriptive summary, the number and type of samples are indicated,
along with natural moisture content and Torvane shear strength values.
LABORATORY TESTING
General
All samples obtained from the field were returned to our laboratory for examination and testing. The
physical characteristics were noted, and the field classifications were modified where necessary. Natural
moisture content determinations were made in conformance with ASTM D 2216. The approximate
undrained shear strength of relatively undisturbed soil samples was determined using a Torvane shear
device. The Torvane is a hand -held apparatus with vanes that are inserted into the soil. The torque
required to fail the soil in shear around the vanes is measured using a calibrated spring. The dry unit
weight, or density, of undisturbed soil samples was determined in the laboratory in substantial
conformance with ASTM D 2937. The results of the testing program are shown on Figure 3.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
General _
For the purpose of discussion, the materials disclosed by the test pits have been grouped into the following
categories based on their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The terms used to describe
the soils are defined in Table 1.
1. FILL
2. SILT
3. Sandy SILT to Silty SAND
2
1. FILL. Fill and possible fill consisting primarily of brown silt with a trace to some sand and clay was
encountered at the ground surface in test pits TP -3 and TP-4. The thickness of fill ranges from about 1 to 2
ft. Scattered fragments of concrete debris and a thin layer of burned wood were encountered in test pits
TP -3 and TP-4, respectively. The relative consistency of the silt fill is typically stiff, based on a Torvane
shear strength of about 1 tsf. The natural moisture content of two representative samples of silt fill ranges
from about 12 to 13 %.
2. SILT. Brown silt was encountered beneath the fill and at the ground surface in test pits TP -1, TP -2, and
TP -5. The silt is mottled rust and contains a trace to some clay and fine - grained sand. The percentage of
sand typically ranges from a trace of sand to sandy below about 6 ft. The relative consistency of the silt is
stiff to hard based on Torvane shear strength values of about 0.9 to 2.5 tsf and the resistance to excavation.
The natural moisture content of the silt ranges from about 8 to 20 %.
3. Sandy SILT to Silty SAND. Brown, sandy silt to silty sand with a trace of clay was encountered beneath
the silt in test pits TP -1 and TP -3, which were terminated in the sandy soil at a depth of 11 and 8 ft,
respectively. The relative consistency of the silt and sand is stiff and dense, respectively, based on the
visual observation. The natural moisture content of the soil ranges from about 15 to 32 %.
Groundwater
As noted on Figure 3, groundwater seepage was not encountered in the test pits, although the soil in test
pit. TP -1 became very moist at a depth of 11 ft. We anticipate the groundwater level at the site will
approach the ground surface during the wet, winter season.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The test pits indicate the site is mantled with relatively firm silt that becomes sandy below a depth of about
6 to 8 ft. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Support for relatively lightly
loaded foundations can be provided by conventional spread footing foundations. In our opinion, the
primary geotechnical concerns with the site are the moisture - sensitive nature of the fine - grained, silty soils
and the potential for groundwater levels to approach the ground surface during the wet, winter months. In
addition, as discussed below, it will be necessary to maintain a minimum setback for fill placed near the
existing retaining wall on the south property. The following sections of this report provide our conclusions
and recommendations for earthwork, structural fill, and foundation and floor support.
Site Preparation and Grading
The ground surface within building and pavement areas and all areas to receive structural fill should be
• stripped of vegetation, surface organics, and loose surface soils. Stripping in areas of grass should
generally be accomplished to a depth of about 6 in.; deeper grubbing may be necessary in areas of trees
and . heavy brush. In our opinion, strippings should be removed from the site or stockpiled on -site for use
in landscaped areas. Upon completion of the site stripping, the exposed subgrade should be observed by
a qualified geotechnical engineer. Areas of soft subgrade, fill or otherwise unsuitable materials should be
overexcavated to firm soil and backfilled with structural fill. It should be anticipated that some
overexcavation will be required do to the presence of fill as noted in the test pit logs.
3
Due to the moisture - sensitive nature of the fine - grained soils that mantle the majority of the site, the site
preparation and earthwork phases of this project should be accomplished during the dry, summer months,
typically extending from June to mid - October of any given year. It has been our experience that the
moisture content of the upper 2 to 4 ft of the silt soils will decrease during warm, dry weather. However,
below this depth, the moisture content tends to remain relatively unchanged and well above the optimum
moisture content for compaction. As a result, the contractor must employ construction techniques that
prevent or minimize disturbance and softening of the subgrade soils. Stripping and excavation should
accomplished using equipment with smooth cutting edges such as a dozer or trackhoe.
To prevent disturbance and softening of the fine- grained subgrade soils during wet weather or ground
conditions, the movement of construction traffic should be limited to granular haul roads and work pads.
In general, a minimum of 18 in. of relatively clean, granular material is required to support concentrated
construction traffic, such as dump trucks and concrete trucks, and to protect the subgrade. A 12-in.-thick
granular work pad should be sufficient to support occasional truck traffic and light construction operations.
A geotextile strength/separation fabric (Amoco 2000 or equivalent) placed on the exposed subgrade prior
to placement and compaction of the granular work pad may improve the performance of work pads and
haul roads.
Final grading of the areas around the building should provide for positive drainage of surface water away
from the building and exposed slopes to minimize erosion. Temporary excavation slopes should be made
no steeper than about 1 H:1 V, and permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. In
addition, the existing retaining wall along the south boundary of the property does appear to be well
engineered and able to support additional surcharge loads, such as the addition of structural fill. We
recommend not placing any fill within 10 ft of the existing wall.
Structural Fill
In our opinion, the on -site, fine - grained silt soils that are relatively free of organics are suitable for use in
structural fills. As previously mentioned, fine - grained, silty soils are sensitive to moisture content and can
only be placed and compacted during the dry summer and early fall months. During wet conditions,
structural fills should be constructed using granular materials with a maximum size of up to 6 in. and not
more than about 5% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Granular material, such as fragmental
rock, sandy gravel, and sand are suitable for this purpose. Structural fills should be compacted in lifts to at
least 95% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 698 at a moisture content. within 3% of
optimum. However, coarse, granular fill material, i.e., larger than about 1 in., should be compacted
with a vibratory roller until well keyed. Generally a minimum of four passes with a medium weight, 48-
in.-diameter drum, vibratory roller are needed to achieve a well -keyed fill.
Utility trenches within building, pavement, and sidewalk areas should be backfilled with granular
structural fill, such as sand, sand and gravel, or fragmental rock of up to 2 -in. maximum size with less than
5% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Granular backfill should be placed in lifts and
compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Compaction by jetting or
flooding should not be permitted.
4
Foundation Support
Foundation support for the new building can be provided by conventional wall- and column -type spread
footings. Footings should be established at a minimum depth of 18 in. below the lowest adjacent finished
grade. Wall and column footings should have a minimum width of 18 and 24 in., respectively.
Excavations for all footings should be made with a smooth -edge bucket and observed by a geotechnical
engineer. Soft or otherwise unsuitable foundation subgrade should be overexcavated to the limits shown
on Figure 4. During wet weather or ground conditions, we recommend placing a 3 -in. -thick layer of
compacted crushed rock over the footing subgrade to prevent disturbance of the moisture sensitive, fine -
grained silt.
Footings established in accordance with these criteria can be designed to impose an allowable soil bearing
pressure of up to 2,000 psf. This value applies to the total of dead load plus frequently and/or permanently
applied live loads and can be increased by one -third for the total of all loads; dead, live, and wind or
seismic.
We estimate the total settlement of spread footings supporting column and wall loads of up to 100 kips
and 4 kips/ft, respectively, will be less than 1 in. Differential settlements between adjacent comparably
loaded footings should be less than half the total settlement.
Horizontal shear forces can be resisted partially or completely by frictional forces developed between the
base of spread footings and the underlying soil and by soil passive resistance. The total frictional resistance
between the footing and the soil is the normal force times the coefficient of friction between the soil and
the base of the footing. We recommend an ultimate value of 0.30 for the coefficient of friction for footings
established on undisturbed silt subgrade. The normal force is the sum of the vertical forces (dead load plus
real live load). If additional lateral resistance is required, passive earth pressures against embedded
footings can be computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid having a unit weight of 250 pcf. This design
passive earth pressure would be applicable only if the footing is cast neat against undisturbed soil, or if
backfill for the footings is placed as granular structural fill. This value also assumes the ground surface in
front of the foundation is horizontal, i.e., does not slope downward away from the toe of the footing.
Floor SupportlSubdrainage
Slab -on -grade floors that are established at or above adjacent final site grades should be underlain by a
minimum 8 -in. -thick granular base course. The base course material should consist of crushed rock of up
to 1 -in. maximum size with less than about 2% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Crushed rock
of 1 /2- to 1 /2 -in. size is often used for this purpose. The upper 2 in. of this material may be replaced with
relatively clean, 3 /4 -in. -minus crushed rock to facilitate placement and compaction. The base course
• should be installed in a single lift and compacted until well keyed by at least four passes with a medium
weight, 48- in.- diameter drum, vibratory roller.
In our opinion, groundwater levels during the wet, winter season may be expected to rise to near the
existing ground surface. We recommend that structures embedded below existing site grades be provided
with subdrainage systems to reduce hydrostatic pressure and the risk of groundwater entering through
embedded walls and floor slabs. Typical subdrainage details for embedded structures are shown on Figure
5. The figure shows peripheral subdrains to drain embedded walls and an interior granular drainage
5
I,
q
blanket beneath the concrete floor slab, which is drained by a system of subslab drainage pipes. All
groundwater collected should be drained by gravity into the storm sewer system.
In areas where floor coverings will be provided or moisture - sensitive materials are stored, it may be
appropriate to install a vapor- retarding membrane. The vapor- retarding membrane should be installed in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Typical details of a vapor- retarding system that has
worked successfully in similar applications are shown on Figure 5.
Seismic Considerations
Based on our review of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) and the 2004 Oregon Structural
Specialty Code (OSSC), we recommend using Site Class D to evaluate the seismic design of the structures.
Based on our review of available published information (Madin, 1990), the subsurface conditions
disclosed at the site, and the ground motions anticipated at the site by the IBC, it is our opinion the risk
of liquefaction of the soils below the groundwater level is moderate. We estimate that liquefaction -
induced settlement could be on the o rder of several inches, with differential settlements up to half of
the total settlement.
In our opinion, the potential for ground rupture and landslides at the site is low, and the risk of tsunamis
and seiches is absent.
Retaining/Basement Walls
Design lateral earth pressures for embedded walls depend on the type of construction, i.e., the ability of
the wall to yield. The two possible conditions regarding the ability of the wall to yield include the at -rest
and the active earth pressure cases. The at -rest earth pressure case is applicable to a wall that is considered
to be relatively rigid and laterally supported at top and bottom and, therefore, is unable to yield. The
active earth pressure case is applicable to a wall that is capable of yielding slightly away from the backfill
by either sliding or rotating about its base. A conventional cantilevered retaining wall is an example of a
wall that develops the active earth pressure case by yielding.
Yielding and non - yielding walls can be designed using a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid
having a unit weight of 35 and 45 pcf, respectively. These design lateral earth pressures assume that the
wall backfill is completely drained, and the grade behind the wall is horizontal (i.e., non - sloping backfill).
The essential elements of a suggested drainage system for retaining/basement walls are shown on Figure 5.
Lateral pressures due to surcharge loads can be estimated using the guidelines shown on Figure 6.
Additional lateral earth pressures associated with the ground motions anticipated during an IBC seismic
event can be modeled using a seismic resultant force equal to about 40% of the static resultant force based
on the above - mentioned equivalent fluid pressures. The seismic resultant force acts in addition to the
static lateral pressures at a distance above the base of the wall equal to 0.6 times the height of the wall.
Overcompaction of the backfill behind walls should be avoided. In this regard, we recommend
compacting the backfill to about 93% of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). Heavy compactors and
large pieces of construction equipment should not operate within 5 ft of any embedded wall to avoid the
6
buildup of excessive lateral pressures. Compaction close to the walls should be accomplished using hand -
operated vibratory plate compactors.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
We understand MSE walls are being considered for the earth retaining structures needed along the
southern property line, where several feet of fill is required to achieve site grades. In this regard, we
understand you may replace the existing retaining structure along the southern property line with a new
MSE -type retaining wall or, alternatively, install the new retaining wall behind the existing wall. If you
elect to leave the existing retaining wall in place, we recommend locating the base or foundation of the
MSE wall below a 1.5H:1V plane that extends upward from the base of the existing retaining structure.
This recommendation is intended to limit the risk of the new wall adding surcharge loads to the existing
retaining wall, which were likely not included in the design of the existing wall.
MSE walls are typically one of several competing proprietary wall systems and typically use a facing
composed of interlocking blocks and a series of flexible reinforcing layers embedded into the backfill
material. The reinforcing layers are placed in the backfill area between lifts of fill and are structurally
attached to the wall facing. The reinforcing layers act to incorporate the backfill into the structure of the
wall. As such, MSE walls are held in place by the reinforced soil mass instead of by forces acting on the
wall foundation. Wall facing may be constructed of various materials including masonry blocks, gabions,
or concrete. Depending on the system used, reinforcing materials include wire mesh, geosynthetic mesh,
or geotextile fabric.
Design and installation of MSE walls is typically performed by specialty contractors based on criteria
provided by the owner's geotechnical engineer or developed by the contractor. Typical design
considerations are based on the wall system selected, soil properties, site topography, slope stability, and
the acceptable post - construction wall movements (vertical and horizontal). Design criteria include: soil
bearing capacity, active and passive earth pressure, assumed drainage conditions, and soil properties of the
MSE backfill material such as effective internal friction angle W) and wet density (y).
Specific design parameters for MSE retaining walls will be provided as design of the walls progresses and
more information on the desired wall system, dimensions, locations, and acceptable post - construction wall
movement becomes available. However, for preliminary planning and design of MSE walls, we
recommend using the criteria provided in the Retaining Wall section of this report for allowable bearing
pressure and active and passive earth pressures.
Soil properties for the MSE backfill will depend on the type of material selected for construction of the
wall. Typical design values for on -site silty soil placed as structural backfill are a wet density, y, of 110 pcf
and an effective internal friction angle of 4' = 30 °, and cohesion, c' = 0 psf.
Drainage of the wall backfill is a significant consideration for design of the wall. In our experience,
drainage requirements depend on the type of backfill used. When using granular fill, we recommend
placing a drainage blanket of free - draining granular fill between the backfill and the wall. When fine -
grained backfill material is used, such as the on -site silty soils, we recommend constructing a drainage
blanket at the back of the MSE wall reinforcement zone and at the bottom of any excavation required for
the structural backfill, in addition to the drainage blanket constructed between the backfill and the face of
7
the wall. In addition, the MSE wall design should include positive drainage measures to prevent ponding
of surface water behind the top of the wall.
Following the contractor's design of the MSE wall system, the owner's geotechnical engineer should
review the design of the wall, including the assumed soil properties used for the MSE backfill, allowable
bearing pressures, and the estimated post - construction deformation (vertical and horizontal) of the MSE
wall system. In this regard, it must be understood and acknowledged that if on -site silty soils are used,
some post - construction deformation of the MSE wall must be acceptable. Based on the proposed MSE
wall configuration, the owner's geotechnical engineer will need to analyze the effect of the wall on global
slope stability. The owner's geotechnical engineer and the contractor's wall designer should monitor
construction of the wall system.
Pavement
We anticipate that new pavement will be subject primarily to automobile traffic with some light truck
traffic. The following pavement section is based on our experience with similar developments and
subgrade soils and assumes the pavement subgrade consists of on -site silt soils compacted as
recommended for structural fill, or firm, undisturbed silt in cut sections.
Minimum Minimum
Asphaltic Concrete Base Course
Pavement Use Thickness, in. Thickness, in.
Parking and drive lanes for automobiles 3 8
The above - recommended pavement sections are based on the assumption that pavement construction will
be accomplished during the dry season and after construction of the building has been completed. If wet -
weather pavement construction is considered, it will likely be necessary to increase the thickness of
crushed rock base to support construction equipment and protect the moisture - sensitive subgrade soils
from disturbance. It should be noted that the pavement sections may not be adequate for the support of
intense, heavy construction traffic.
We recommend proof rolling the pavement subgrades with a loaded dump truck prior to and after
placement of the base course. Soft areas identified by proof rolling should be overexcavated and
backfilled with structural fill. All workmanship and materials should conform to the applicable standards
of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Standard Specifications for Highway Construction,
2002.
Design Review and Construction Services
We welcome the opportunity to review and discuss construction plans and specifications for this project as
they are being developed. In addition, GRI should be retained to review all geotechnical- related portions
of the plans and specifications to evaluate whether they are in conformance with the preliminary
recommendations and assumptions made in our report. Additionally, to observe compliance with the
intent of our recommendations, design concepts, and plans and specifications, we are of the opinion that
all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations should be observed by a GRI
representative. Our construction -phase services will allow for timely design changes if site conditions are
encountered that are different from those described in this report. If we do not have the opportunity to
•
8
confirm our interpretations, assumptions, and analyses during construction, we cannot be responsible for
the application of our recommendations to subsurface conditions that are different from those described in
this report.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared to aid the engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the
specific project and location - described herein, and our description of the project represents our
preliminary understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to earthwork and design and
construction of the foundations, floor slab, embedded walls, and pavements. In the event that any changes
in the design and location of the proposed structure as outlined in this report are planned, we should be
given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm the conclusions and
recommendations of this report in writing.
The preliminary conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained
from the test pits made at the locations indicated on Figure 2 and from other sources of information
discussed in this report. In the performance of subsurface investigations, specific information is obtained at
specific locations at specific times. However, it is acknowledged that variations in soil conditions may
exist between test pit locations. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between these
explorations. The nature and extent of variation may not become evident until construction. If, during
construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or
encountered, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and
reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
Submitted for GRI,
Q ED PROpp
.. GINgB 0 0
8045 JI
i f OR t•N
6b1' 4 NL EY 1
Exp. 6/07
H. Stanley Kelsay, PE, GE Matthew S. Shanahan, PE
Principal Project Engineer
Reference:
Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan region, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology
and Mineral Industries Open File Report 0 -90-2.
9
•
Table 1
GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL
Description of Relative Density for Granular Soil
Standard Penetration Resistance
Relative Density (N- values) blows per foot
very loose 0 - 4
loose 4 - 10
medium dense 10 - 30
dense 30 - 50
very dense over 50
Description of Consistency for Fine - Grained (Cohesive) Soils
Standard Penetration Torvane
Resistance (N- values) Undrained Shear
Consistency blows per foot Strength, tsf
very soft 2 less than 0.125
soft 2 -,4 0.125 - 0.25
medium stiff 4 - 8 0.25 - 0.50
stiff 8 -15 0.50 -1.0
very stiff 15 - 30 1.0 - 2.0
hard over 30 over 2.0
Sandy silt materials which exhibit general properties of granular
soils are given relative density description.
Grain -Size Classification Modifier for Subclassification
Boulders Percentage of
12 - 36 in. Other Material
Adjective In Total Sample
Cobbles
3 - 12 in. clean 0 - 2
Gravel trace 2 10
1 /4 - 3 /4 in. (fine)
3 /4- 3 in. (coarse) some 10 - 30
Sand sandy, silty, 30 - 50
No. 200 - No. 40 sieve (fine) clayey, etc.
No. 40 - No. 10 sieve (medium)
No. 10 - No. 4 sieve (coarse)
Silt/Clay - pass No. 200 sieve
. •
'-.14........1 .-
''2 F4 r, 0411.41 F. : -,
E 3 f.p...1 5vieirt4 ic 1 ... NI TH c
L .
, „ , ,.. _ .., sf, 4:9 4p , . ., _ a.• : um 's . 1.-- , .,
, 1 i \
0 rr. p,____ i Ipi 14 121, 4 1.4T . i 1 000 . 1 ,... , 4 ,
— F
0 Cj •
ri
g c . -C-D O I if i 4 _tli 1, -k W
e c - tzt E-
....•
1 4 14,t• 47 11 - -L. -..-t/I1 iifiii eir3 , IA
..!....: ......... LI .
1 't ` ...)
1 fik TONfl P:. )
( il ,,,- a =I 1 I --- • _ _ _ .,,,,, „„
....., p •
, _i_ rA A / seekt.tpR s re fili ,Ch?"'. - "'''' ..••
§-
H1
....„, _
•.. :.•••■ ii‘ 1 • f X3 1
, - '4°-*„. S4Vilii 1..E ...,,,,,,,._ —0,-
5^, 1, I ltRIA 1
...-)
..... •
11 . ■
r '') f.. ''',
0 . ......„..,,,
m f • ter 3.) "la e 11 . 3 , .....„
— ...,...--„,„„,-----,..--
_....
Hum t. WM ez
,1 .... .,. 9, 7CCI t /..- „ ■ ” ' ' f ''...
G1 I l NV 40 S . `...
3 !.. '.?s, ;Is — , ,, o , . , ■
/i
,... ,...,
-.,.....ariVi pa r. - ,i -..,..
/ i /.. . . , ..
.-: 0. ,j6 •
/
•.‘ - L ? - ‘42.' • ''' •-,, t , , /41 'El tEtS v4 ti ,
I P r -..., •
_ .,....... „ AP% I% \ ps rioi f itosi 71
116 r. .`.
/ V 1 41. Ze „/ '. 6 j___H ti / t I
1 .4. , iqi.;Na _ .1' , . L. , _,.,..; .,,....... ,., , i .:- ;.. .: , . 2.. , 1 i DI. I ,t XS
' ' $10 - ''''') c- , I S .NIFE SW ft•rtY p,),.. ..,"
I .
lii . g
•
. ., ,8
T j - AV ! ..3 1 _,,,, , ac . ,,, FD
2- -Ivo VE ID 1M . iNl in 41
r, ...Sr
•e
f i U1 . . . . . I 444 4 - - —
j °*, r' "--",-',. ' .. -• ;le IS: c ' gl 1"
6- 4`,,,r( " 4 '
1 ..
ir , e• , t4,44. a k m i
It 1,...1.., %Iv
_
I C•1 1/ , 11C .-
4
,
. a ,.. i 1 • ms• —
„ ck, • 3,,,: ■ 4. ,
,8. • VI j To 4
fit IA If
Woe ,
..A
1 :1E -•-•'" ci.-11 i .43 ,''• ;K ..•-: - - ...il 1-i A s
T _..01 .04- il
—
1 , , s il kjEL_m:4.,
,-- ; 49,1451 - 7;i1-.1,41s ---
v --
, . ... a, 4 .1
.,_ • y ., (.... , 1.7.1 ., ,
I --- i 1
r ' f
fg c., .. 0 T
0 , 3 .....,E
8 _ e:, AN., crmrikr, . u —
'
.,.. •''
f ,,„, •
.r ilre t -14
cm
)
. , ' .
- 5 17giii .. : 0 : 1 01.1 41 : 5 : ''
as
"T , ., • ..."-`-••kt i - lik
t-•-■ 4 4.,g ,.4 ) ,. • i AdililiFF
._ , S TIIII 1 WE h"
Ilk' WET& j • . 1 - 1 - I , '' - .
Y ......,1
/ ..,,
._
. _ _____,, q ,,..—_. A. , •„;T. '
- • „ 9:614 Pt— t 1_,K I / - I. f .
< , 0
,.. _
si fm . _ :.,.: ..„7..t‘s, ., — IP HAI / 1 ..L.•? l 4 ": I 4
, 7 , q- , ./.....
..." w
. • i —
co Z --.. .. ,, ,., v " . " .s. N.-- • --,1 1 — ,-, -_,, ; 1
.„ ., sr Tor 1-, ! , .,z : ..s , -- ,-,-.. ....i.:1 \ .... s
. \ i
o cl t: , v
—. -Ia i ' ' . .., . -- l'I
v f
F
4,
2 rr'
f •VE '--
k' CI •;.2.; ;3! -''' il l'it
6')
r
1,1
oc
A, F-- :8
1p,,5 I-
= .../- Walk `04 ... N. •
Itt "V/ ' ... .N id i ,
1 f I' i ei t
.1 4
r -
4c .,alair..06a. .. .. _ .. - - - '''...,-. • ' or-........4........ , ••■•-,, _,--..-: 7 ' Pt ' i ',.. ' 1 d
-r7-- - Ilmok---"' -(11-1------ iff:.-. 1 , 7 -• ' 4 " IV4
n
.- -- . 1, —...-.,.....,.....
• • ,
— C. 1 .'''''° 11 P' . . rr' :: - '-'" 4 ----- '4 4
1 0 i ,•1 dal S • 0.
p ‘ d _ ,_ 0,
Li i
li tg.xigjr.(13 ,6 '. ,...-T•c 6 - . ,
,
-
asn inis , .61..
I 1 1 1 I :2 1: , --- - ni --3,60,
. .
•
I
1 I i
I \
I
1
1
II -- - - -
EXIST. BLDG
I
- -. - - -
I EXIST. BLDG ,0/
- - - - - - 3....,
P: I- I
-
1 ?
• ' ° .3 -, ° . 1 1,I t• - - .1 1
rirammizmiErmils IrADA—G
_
1r:A ,,y,; lg. L i:--. ,
i
. , ,
--, ;------ 11.
1141■1 1111, n .......... iffuri,-- --- -i-..._.----- - .1 g
5 ■
im- 111E1i R
'.11111111111111611EilMilrail_. 04 NI
iltbilmlienw..0-3 IiiiiiiIiiihrLINAF° ett
. ,...1._,...,..______.?
,..:„....,„,..,,.,.,„,,. ...,...,._ , ,
,,,..
--"„,,„..._._....... --v,_.,,,_. ,,,,
_....... ...... .....--- ....„....,_•.,_":„.,, 1 '
--.. ,v- - IV - ---";:-.-
. TE5T PIT MADE BY GRI
g it i 4■••. N , 0
g '" M . 11W11 k Milli MIN ['MAIN IMMIX l '-- 17114::::: I - \ 5.----(7: .--II 2
■ -:_ ,... •••••!_•••.......w.„--...=2NIMINWIIPir ---- 0 .:
'
. .. - 1
''':::: SITE PLAN FROM FILE BY HARRE.McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES, INC (UNDATED)
-
\ \ i
EXIST. BLDG . ,.. •
- 1
,,,\ 1 .......... ...
EXIST. BLDG , ....... 1
\ .._ -- ... 1
• 1 0 3P 60,FT
\ . 1
itC7g6:52'n 1
' , ...----1 HARR5McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES, INC
. , i
1
, MID HMA OFFICE BUILDING
I
k-I SITE PLAN
OCT. 2035 10B NO. 4364 RG. 2
•
•
TP -1 Bev. 182 ft (t) TP-2 Bev. 181 ft (t) TP.3 Elev. 185 ft (t) TP-4 • Elev. 182 ft (t)
0 0 0 0 .
Stiff to very stiff, brown mottled rust and black Very stiff, brown SILT; trace to some clay and FILL Stiff, brown SILT; trace to some day and POSSIBLE FILL: Very stiff, brown SILT; trace
1 _ SILT; some day, trace finegra red sand 18- 1 — finegramed sand,12in.4tdcb heavily rooted c =1.0 tsf 1 • fine-grained sand, scattered fragments of O S-1 1 — to some fine-grained sand and day, scattered c > 1.0 tsf
in Ilsd heavily cooed zone al O e ground zone al the ground surface �aete tree roots, crumbly structure
surface Tree roots) O S1 w =12% 24n.dhick podkel of burned wood at 2 fl
2 mold blocky structure gray, blo structure O S-1 = 2 — w = 19% 2 — Very stiff, brown mottled rust SILT; some day, c = 1.75Isf 2 O S-1
between 2 and 1ft w =15% o c = 2.5 tsf trace b same fine-grained sand = Very stiff, brown SILT; trace to some day and w =13%
3 _ C =1.015( 3_ S2 3_ 3 _ sand c =2.5tsf '
• w =18% °
4 trace to some sand below 4 ft O S-2 4 — Ij c 2.0tat f, 4 — c = 2.5 tsf 4 — S-2
w = 20% 1-in.-thick sandy layer at 4.5 ft Te = 98 pd g
c O = 0.901sf w = 17%
= w ? 19% 5 — c =1.0 tsf
1 Bottom of lest pit 5 (1(921/05)
5 and 6 ft some sand to sandy below 5.5 ft Yd=
0 8 _ Groundwater not erlcowler a trace may, tram sand to sandy below 6 fl 6 —
7' 7— w315% Bottom otestpitefl(unter
Groundwater not encountered •
Stiff, town, sandy SILT to sely SAND; trace
• 8 — Cl 3-3 8 — clay O S-4
• Stiff, brown, silty SAND to sandy SILT; trace w = 26% Bottom of test pit 8 fl (921105) w =15%
g _ day c = 0.90 tsf Groundwater not encountered
10—
z—moist at 11 f -
11 OS-4
Bottom of test pit 11 ft (921105) w = 32%
Groundwater rot encountered
TP5 Elev. 192 ft (t)
0
Very stiff, brown mottled rust SILT; some day, .
1 _ trace fine- grained sand, 6-11.-thick heavily O S•1
rooted zone at the ground surface . w = 8%
2 — c= 2.5tsf
s
0 3 _
•
4 — 0 5-2w =19%
c > =1.0tsf •
5 OS-3 LEGEND
Bottom of test pit 5 ft (921105) w =19%
Groundwater not encountered O = . GRAB SAMPLE
a = 34N-O0 SELBY TUBE SNAKE
' w = NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
c = TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH
Td = DRY UNIT WEIGHT
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS FROM SrrE PUN, FIGURE a
R HARRISMcMONAGLE ASSOCIATES, INC.
HMA OFFICE BUILDING .
- TEST PIT LOGS
OCT. 2005 JOB NO. 4364 AG. 3
•
•
•. d 7
•
1 i. •
IA. t
d'.
• d .
FOOTING
1 , / VARIES .4:0 2 h // 1
GRANULAR FILL WITH LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE
NO. 200 SIEVE (WASHED ANALYSIS), COMPACTED TO
AT LEAST 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS
DETERMINED BY ASTM D 698
NOT TO SCALE
G n J HARRIS - McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES, INC.
(� HMA OFFICE BUILDING
FOOTING
OVEREXCAVATION DETAIL
OCT. 2005 JOB NO. 4364 FIG. 4
Jr
I I
SEAL WITH ON -SITE I I
IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL
SLOPE TO DRAIN
. .. � �� E • • .. � .
, , . /; /��,,rit� :firz�r������ H _w'w.v 'ei';:;i:%«S'v . i'v' : r CONCRET tus'6: 'v':'I. ,><` i>`.'.Gr: �i"e -� ommIxrirgt
.. ..IT'. GEOTEXTILE �::: -�
...
"� �` „,.').i VARIES VAPOR-RETARDING MEMBRANE SYSTEM
• °. :%` •:' "` =:': SLAB R IN. MIND BIN. (MIND (SEE NOTE 11
ate
■
41N. -DIAMETER PERFORATED PLASTIC I1 VARIES R IN. MIND
RANDOM (AO FIE COMPACTED 1 2 DRAIN PIPE, SLOPE TO DRAIN I FT
TO ABOUT 93% OF THE MAXIMUM MN.) 1
DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY SEE DETAIL A FOR TYPICAI.
ASTM D 698 UNDERSLAB RECOMMENDATIONS CLEAN, CRUSHED ROCK OF UP TO 401 -DIAMETER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPES
• . •�., 1.1W. SIZE WITH NOT MORE THAN ARE TYPICALLY PLACED ON 20. FT CENTERS
2% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE AND SLOPED TO DRAIN
(WASHED ANALYSIS)
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
SLOPE ® DETAIL 'A'
• 9' NOT TO SCALE
CLEAN GRANULAR MATERIAL WITH LESS
THAN 2% PASSING THE N0.2(10 SIEVE •,+
(WASHED A IALYS61 L
UNDERSLAB DRAIN
6 IN. (MIN.) NOTES:
I) A VAPOR - RETARDING MEMBRANE SYSTEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR
MOISTURE - SENSITIVE AREAS.
2) IF A DURABLE VAPOR-RETARDING MEMBRANE 5 USED THE
GRANULAR MATERIAL ABOVE THE MEMBRANE CAN BE OMITTED
AND THE CONCRETE PLACED DIRECTLY ONTO THE VAPOR
PERIMETER DRAIN RETARDING MEMBRANE.
3) DETAILS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE
REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN TEAM
E ®0 HMA O F G O BUILD N ASSSOCATFS, INC
TYPICAL SUBDRAINAGE
DETAILS
OCT. 2005 JOB NO. 4369 FIG. 5
X =mH -H
STRIP LOAD, q
LINE LOAD, QL a VIM!
t ' j
Z =nH p p
For mS0.4:
H 1y = Qi. 0.2n
h
a
H (0.16+n )
Vi For m >0.4: 2
ah = (16 SINS COS 2a)
h a h = QL 1.28m a h
H (m n ) W in radians)
LINE LOAD PARALLEL TO WALL STRIP LOAD PARALLEL TO WALL
X =mH -H
POINT LOAD, Q •
A
Z =nH EMI For m S 0.4:
A4E___ ± r- a = Qp 0.28n
For m >0.4:
ah = Qp 1.77m
j h (m2+ n2)3
a' h =ah COS (1.18) NOTES:
� ah 1. THESE GUIDELINES APPLY TO RIGID WALLS WITH POISSON'S
0 RATIO ASSUMED TO BE 0.5 FOR BACKFILL MATERIALS. 0
2. LATERAL PRESSURES FROM ANY COMBINATION OF ABOVE
a'h LOADS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION.
X =mH >
DISTRIBUTION OF HORIZONTAL PRESSURES
VERTICAL POINT LOAD I G 0 HARRI M cMONAG
HMA OFFICE BUILDIN LE ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURCHARGE- INDUCED
LATERAL PRESSURE
OCT. 2005 JOB NO. 4364 FIG. 6
•