foundation engineering, inc. draft professional...

820 NW Cornell Avenue • Corvallis, Oregon 97330 • 541-757-7645

7857 SW Cirrus Drive, Bldg 24 • Beaverton, Oregon 97008 • 503-643-1541

Foundation Engineering, Inc. Professional Geotechnical Services Memorandum

Date: September 7, 2017

To: Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Corvallis

c/o Chris Bentley

From: James K. Maitland, P.E., G.E.

Erin J. Gillaspie, P.E.

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation - DRAFT

Project: UUFC Addition

Project 2171085

We have completed the geotechnical investigation for the above-referenced project.

Our findings and recommendations are summarized below.

BACKGROUND

The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Corvallis (UUFC) is planning to expand their

facility located at 2945 NW Circle Blvd in Corvallis, Oregon. The expansion includes a

single-story, ±4,000 SF addition located north of the existing facility and an extension

of the parking lot in the northeast corner of the property. The planned addition includes

a social hall, kitchen, and storage area. The site location is shown on Figure 1A

(Appendix A).

UUFC retained Foundation Engineering to complete a geotechnical investigation and

infiltration testing for the planned addition. Per the Oregon Structural Specialty Code

(OSSC), the occupancy of the addition does not require a site specific seismic hazard

study. Our scope of work was outlined in a proposal dated August 15, 2017, and

authorized by a signed purchase order dated August 25, 2015.

FIELD EXPLORATION

We dug three exploratory test pits (TP-1 through TP-3) near the footprint of the

planned addition using a Hitachi 60 USB mini tracked excavator. Two additional test

pits (TP-4 and TP-5) were dug north of the addition for infiltration tests. The

approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2A (Appendix A).

The test pits extended to depths of ±3 to 9 feet. Representative soil samples were

obtained at selected depths for possible laboratory testing. Where feasible,

undrained shear strength measurements were made using a Field Vane shear device.

At most locations, the soil was too dry and stiff for vane shear tests.

DRAFT

UUFC Addition September 7, 2017

Geotechnical Investigation 2. Project 2171085

Corvallis, Oregon Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Corvallis

At each test pit, the soil profiles were logged and the absence of ground water was

noted. The soil profiles, sampling depths, and strength measurements are

summarized on the test pit logs (Appendix B). Upon completion of the excavations,

the test pits were backfilled with the excavated materials and the surface was graded

relatively smooth. No topographic information was available to estimate ground

surface elevations at the test pits.

DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS

Site Topography and Surface Conditions

The proposed addition will be built immediately north of the main building. The site

slopes gently uphill to the north and is covered with grass and scattered trees. We

estimate a ±4 to 5 foot difference in the ground surface elevation within the

footprint of the proposed addition.

The parking lot addition is planned at the northeast corner of the parcel, adjacent to

the existing parking that encompasses the northwest portion of the property. The

parking lot addition will be constructed over an area that is presently covered

primarily by an existing lawn.

The Benton County GIS office has prepared a map of historic streams that have been

filled in or altered. The map available online indicates a stream ran diagonally through

the parcel and crossed the footprint of the addition. Therefore, we expect to find fill

within the foundation area of the addition, once the site excavation is completed.

Subsurface Conditions

A general discussion of the soils encountered in the test pits is presented below. A

more detailed description of the subsurface conditions is provided on the test pit logs

(Appendix B).

Topsoil

Topsoil was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-3, TP-4, and TP-5 to a depth of ±4 to

6 inches. The topsoil consists of very stiff to hard, dry silt with scattered organics and

gravel, and trace sand.

Site Fill

Site fill (or possible fill) was encountered to depths of 2.5 to 6 feet. The fill typically

consists of brown, very stiff to hard, dry, low plasticity silt with scattered small gravel

and trace sand. The appearance of the site fill was similar to the underlying soil,

possibly because it was generated from on-site grading. Therefore, the contact

between site fill and native soil is inferred and approximate. The site fill may have been

placed when the historic stream (described above) was filled in.

DRAFT

cbentley

Highlight

cbentley

Sticky Note

Please show location of historic stream on site map




Fine-Grained Alluvium

The native soil consists of brown, very stiff to hard, low to medium plasticity silt. A

vane shear test recorded at 3 feet in TP-1 indicated an undrained shear strength of

1.5 tsf. However, the soil was typically too stiff for vane tests.

Residual Soil

At TP-2, a 2-foot thick layer of residual soils was encountered at ±4 feet. The residual

soil represents material that has weathered in place from the underlying parent

formation. The residual soil consists of brown, hard, low plasticity silt with relict

sandstone/siltstone structure.

Bedrock

Extremely weak (R0), highly weathered to decomposed sandstone was encountered in

TP-2 at ±6 feet. The sandstone is part of the Spencer Formation, which underlies

much of the Witham Hills area. We anticipate it underlies the entire parcel at relatively

shallow depths. The upper portion of the bedrock could be readily excavated with the

small excavator.

Ground Water

No ground water or seepage was observed to the maximum depth of the test pits.

However, the soils moisture increased with depth. The mapped historic stream now

buried by site fill may be a conduit for subsurface seepage during periods of prolonged

wet weather.

LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory work was limited to index tests (natural water content and Atterberg

limits) to classify the soils and estimate their engineering properties. Laboratory

index test results are summarized in Table 1C (Appendix C). Field vane shear test

results are summarized on the test pit logs.

INFILTRATION TESTING

Infiltration testing was performed on September 2, 2017 using the Encased Falling

Head infiltration test procedure outlined in Appendix D of the City of Corvallis

Stormwater Design Standards (2015). The tests were completed in TP-4 and TP-5 at

a depth of ±3 to 3.5 feet. Upon completion of the infiltration testing, the test pits and

trenches were backfilled with the excavated materials.

The results of the infiltration testing are provided in Appendix C and summarized in

Table 1.

DRAFT




Table 1. Infiltration Test Results

Test

Designation

Test Depth

(feet)

Soil Description

at Test Depth

Infiltration Rate

(inches/hour)

TP-4 ±3.0 Very stiff to hard silt ±0.72

TP-5 ±3.5 Very stiff silt ±0.72

Notes: 1. Tests based on Falling Head Infiltration Test as outlined in the City of Corvallis

Stormwater Design Standards (2015).

2. Tests were conducted on September 2, 2017 in pre-saturated test pits.

3. See Figure 2A for approximate test locations.

4. All test results are unfactored.

The test results were consistent for both locations. Based on the observed soil

conditions, we believe the infiltration rate will be relatively consistent across the site

at similar depths. The 2015 Stormwater Design Standards recommends applying a

factor of safety of 2, resulting in a design infiltration rate of ±0.36 in/hr for facility

design.

We did not encounter a permanent water table with the limits of our exploration

(±9 feet). However, a perched condition could develop during periods of sustained

rainfall.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

Seismic Response Spectrum

A site response spectrum was developed for the parcel in accordance with the

Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC 2014), which is based on Section 1613 of

the International Building Code (IBC 2012). The design maximum considered

earthquake ground motion maps in the IBC (2012) are based on modified

USGS (2008) maps with a 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years

(i.e., a ±4,975-year return period). The modifications include factors to adjust the

spectral accelerations to account for directivity and risk.

The site is underlain by relatively shallow bedrock (Spencer Formation), which is known

to extend to great depth. Based on these conditions, we recommend a Site Class C

(i.e., very dense soil and soft rock) for seismic design. The seismic design parameters

and OSSC response spectrum are shown on Figure 3A (Appendix A).

Liquefaction

Liquefiable soils typically consist of saturated, loose sands and non-plastic or low

plasticity silt (i.e., a PI of less than 8). These conditions are not found at this site.

The risk of liquefaction is negligible due to the stiffness and plasticity of the

near-surface soils and the presence of shallow bedrock.

DRAFT




ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Proposed Foundations and Loads

The planned addition will be a single-story, wood-framed structure with a

slab-on-grade concrete floor. Conventional continuous and spread footings are

planned. Foundation loads were not available at the time this report was prepared.

For the purpose of this report, we assumed maximum column loads would be in the

range of ±25 to 50 kips.

Bearing Capacity

The foundation soils were relatively dry and very stiff at the time of our exploration.

For these conditions, a very high theoretical bearing pressure could be calculated.

However, we believe the soils could soften during wet weather. Therefore, we have

recommended a presumptive (allowable) bearing pressure of 2,000 psf based on

assumed conditions during the winter and spring. This value assumes the base of the

foundation will be set at least 18 inches below the surrounding grade and will be

underlain by at least 6 inches of Select Fill extending at least 6 inches beyond the

footing edges. We have also assumed any unsuitable fill encountered during

construction will be removed and replaced with compacted Select Fill (defined below).

Settlement

A formal settlement analysis was not performed. However, due to the limited

thickness of existing site fill and native overburden, and the stiffness of the existing

foundation soils, we anticipate the total settlement of the building footings will be

less than ±½ inch, if foundation preparation is completed as recommended herein.

We estimate the maximum differential settlement between building footings will be

approximately half of the total settlement, or ±¼ inch.

Sliding Coefficient and Passive Resistance for Footings

We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.5 between the base of the footings and

the crushed rock fill for sliding analysis. An equivalent fluid density of 150 pcf is

recommended to represent the potential passive resistance against the vertical face

of the footings. This assumes limited horizontal movement (i.e., less than 1 inch)

for service-level design. This presumptive (allowable) value assumes all footings will

be backfilled with compacted Select Fill extending at least 6 inches beyond the edge

of the footings.

Pavements

Pavement design was not part of the scope of work. We have provided the below

recommendations for subgrade preparation beneath the new parking lot expansion.

However, we assume the pavement section will match the existing one.

DRAFT




RECOMMENDATIONS

UUFC indicated they would like to start construction of the planned addition in the

spring of 2018, but construction is more likely to occur during next summer.

Therefore, we have assumed site preparation and foundation construction will occur

during dry weather. We should be contacted if wet weather construction is

anticipated so we can make appropriate modifications to our recommendations.

General Earthwork and Materials Specifications

1. Select Fill as defined in this report should consist of ¾, 1, or 1½-inch

minus, clean, well-graded, crushed gravel or rock. We should be provided

a sample of the intended fill or a gradation curve for approval, prior to

delivery to the site.

2. Granular Site Fill as defined in this report should consist of 3 or 4-inch

minus, clean, (i.e., less than 5% passing the #200 U.S. Sieve),

well-graded, angular, crushed quarry rock. A material gradation should

be provided to us for approval prior to delivery to the site.

3. Fine-grained soil generated from on-site grading and demolition debris

should not be placed beneath new slabs or foundations, and should be

hauled from construction areas.

4. Drain Rock should consist of 2-inch minus, clean (less than 2% passing

the #200 sieve), open-graded crushed gravel or rock. The actual

gradation and maximum aggregate size will depend on availability by local

suppliers. We should be provided a sample of the intended fill and

gradation curve for approval, prior to delivery to the site.

5. Filter Fabric as defined in this report should consist of a non-woven

geotextile with a grab tensile strength greater than 200 lb., an apparent

opening size (AOS) of between #70 and 100 (US Sieve) and a permittivity

greater than 0.1 sec-1.

6. The Separation Geotextile (if required) should meet the minimum

requirements of an AASHTO M 288-06 geotextile for separation and have

Mean Average Roll Value (MARV) strength properties meeting the

requirements of an AASHTO M 288-06 Class 2, woven geotextile. We

should be provided a specification sheet on the selected geotextile for

approval prior to delivery to the site.

7. Moisture condition and compact all imported granular fill in loose lifts not

exceeding 12 inches. Thinner lifts may be required if light or

hand-operated equipment is used for compaction. Compact the subgrade

(during dry weather only) and all fill to a minimum of 95% relative

compaction. The maximum dry density of ASTM D 698 should be used

as the standard for estimating relative compaction.

DRAFT




Field density tests should be run frequently to confirm adequate

compaction. The completed subgrade and building pad should be

proof-rolled using a loaded, 10-yd3 dump truck or another approved

vehicle. Adequate compaction based on proof-rolling should be confirmed

by a Foundation Engineering representative. Areas of pumping or

deflection observed beneath the truck wheels should be reworked, or

overexcavated and replaced with compacted Select Fill and proof-rolled

again.

8. Shoring should be provided in trenches according to OR-OSHA Standards

to protect workers from sloughing or caving soils. The site fill and native

overburden correspond to OR-OSHA soil Type B. However, the soil may

degrade to Type C during the winter or in the presence of perched ground

water. Shoring and worker safety are the sole responsibility of the

contractor.

Site Preparation and Foundation Construction

9. Strip the site to remove surface vegetation and roots. Deeper grubbing

may be required to remove roots from larger bushes or trees. Haul all

stripping from the site.

10. Excavate to the required grade. The extent of unsuitable fill (if any) due

to the filling of the original stream is not currently known. Therefore, the

depth and limits of the required overexcavation should be confirmed by

Foundation Engineering during construction. Replace the over-excavated

site fill with compacted Granular Site fill or a combination of Granular Site

Fill and Select Fill. We recommend a line item in the bid documents for

any overexcavation and replacement with granular fill under the footprint

of the building.

11. Compact the exposed subgrade as specified in Item 7 (dry weather only).

A Separation Geotextile is not required during dry weather, but is

recommended if slab and foundation construction extends into wet

weather.

12. Place and compact a minimum of 12 inches of Select Fill to create the

building pad. The building pad thickness may need to be increased to

24 inches in areas used by construction traffic or during wet weather

conditions.

13. Provide a minimum of 6 inches of compacted Select Fill beneath building

footings. Select Fill should extend at least 6 inches beyond the edge of

the footings. Overexcavation will be required for footing excavations

terminating in soft material or unsuitable fill. The limits and depth of any

overexcavation should be confirmed by Foundation Engineering.

DRAFT




Foundation Design

14. Design all footings using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.

15. Assume a total settlement of up to ±½ inch and a differential settlement

of ¼ inch between adjacent footings.

16. Use a coefficient of friction of 0.5 for new footings bearing on Select Fill

for sliding analysis.

17. Use an allowable passive resistance of 150 pcf if the building footings

are backfilled with compacted Select Fill extending a minimum of 6 inches

beyond the edges of building footings.

18. Design new structures using the response spectra, Site Class and seismic

parameters summarized in Figure 3A.

19. Use a modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) of 250 pci for slab design. This

value assumes the slab will be underlain by at least 12 inches of

compacted Select Fill placed over a compacted subgrade.

Drainage

20. Install foundation drains along the perimeter of the new addition. The

drains should consist of 3 or 4-inch diameter, perforated or slotted, PVC

pipe wrapped in a Filter Fabric. The pipe should be set at the base of the

perimeter building footing. The pipe should be bedded in at least 4 inches

of Drain Rock and backfilled full depth with Drain Rock. The entire mass

of Drain Rock should be wrapped in a similar Filter Fabric that laps at least

12 inches at the top.

21. Provide clean-outs at appropriate locations for future maintenance of the

drainage system.

22. Discharge the water from the drain system into the nearest catch basin,

manhole or storm drain. Water should not be discharged directly onto

the sloping terrain to the east of the facilities.

Pavement Construction

We have assumed pavement construction will occur during dry weather. If pavement

construction extends into wet weather, we should be contacted to offer revised

recommendations. Wet weather construction will likely require 24 inches of Select

Fill over a Separation Geotextile to support construction traffic through the wet

construction season.

DRAFT




Subgrade preparation and pavement construction during dry weather should be

completed as follows:

23. Excavate to the required subgrade elevation. Compact the subgrade

during dry weather as recommended in Item 7.

24. Place a Separation Geotextile on the prepared subgrade. The geotextile

should be placed as recommended in Item 6.

25. Provide a pavement section matching (at a minimum) the base rock and

asphaltic concrete thicknesses of the adjacent, existing parking area.

DESIGN REVIEW/CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION/TESTING

We should be provided the opportunity to review all drawings and specifications that

pertain to site preparation and foundation construction. Site preparation will require

field evaluation of the soil conditions during excavation and the extent of any

unsuitable site fill. Construction observation should be provided by a Foundation

Engineering representative. Frequent field density tests should be run on all

compacted subgrade and Select Fill. We recommend that we be retained to provide

the necessary construction observation.

VARIATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS, USE OF THIS REPORT, AND WARRANTY

The analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained herein assume the

subsurface profiles encountered in the test pits are representative of the site

conditions. No changes in the enclosed recommendations should be made without

our approval. We will assume no responsibility or liability for any engineering

judgment, inspection or testing performed by others.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Unitarian Universalist

Fellowship Corvallis, and its design consultants for the UUFC Addition project in

Corvallis, Oregon. Information contained herein should not be used for other sites or

for unanticipated construction without our written consent. This report is intended

for planning and design purposes. Contractors using this information to estimate

construction quantities, production rates, or costs do so at their own risk.

Climate conditions in western Oregon typically consist of wet weather for almost

half of the year (typically between mid-October and late May). The recommendations

for site preparation are not intended to represent any warranty (expressed or implied)

against the growth of mold, mildew or other organisms that grow in a humid or moist

environment.

Our services do not include any survey or assessment of potential surface

contamination or contamination of the soil or ground water by hazardous or toxic

materials. We assume that those services, if needed, have been completed by

others. Our work was done in accordance with generally accepted soil and

foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Attachments

DRAFT

cbentley

Highlight

cbentley

Sticky Note

We should ask about approx cost, and check with DiL about their capacity to perform this observation




REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2006, Geotextile Specification for Highway Applications: American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), M

288-06, 21 p.

IBC, 2012, International Building Code: International Code Council, Inc., Sections

1613 and 1803.3.

OR-OSHA, 2011, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 437, Division 3 -

Construction, Subdivision P – Excavations: Oregon Occupational Safety and

Health Division (OR-OSHA).

OSSC, 2014, Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC): Based on the International

Code Council, Inc., 2012 IBC, Sections 1613 and 1803.3.

USGS, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, US Seismic Design Maps:

USGS website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

DRAFT

Appendix A

Figures

Professional Geotechnical Services

Foundation Engineering, Inc.

DRAFT

2171085

NO SCALE

SITE

Note: Base map obtained from Oregon Department of Transportion website.

DRAFT

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIGURE NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVIS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DWN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

FILE NAME:

AutoCAD SHX Text

820 NW CORNELL AVENUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BUS. (541) 757-7645 FAX (541) 757-7650

AutoCAD SHX Text

CORVALLIS, OR 97330-4517

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

AutoCAD SHX Text

VICINITY MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

UUFC ADDITION

AutoCAD SHX Text

CORVALLIS, OREGON

AutoCAD SHX Text

1A

AutoCAD SHX Text

AUG 2017

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJG

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG 1A

TP-4

TP-5

TP-1

TP-2

TP-3

2171085

402010

SCALE IN FEET

0

DRAFT

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIGURE NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

820 NW CORNELL AVENUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BUS. (541) 757-7645 FAX (541) 757-7650

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

AutoCAD SHX Text

CORVALLIS, OR 97330-4517

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVIS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DWN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

FILE NAME:

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC.

AutoCAD SHX Text

SITE LAYOUT AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS

AutoCAD SHX Text

UUFC ADDITION

AutoCAD SHX Text

CORVALLIS, OREGON

AutoCAD SHX Text

2A

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEPT. 2017

AutoCAD SHX Text

MPR

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIG 2A

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTES:

AutoCAD SHX Text

1. TEST PIT LOCATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BY PACING AND ARE

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE.

AutoCAD SHX Text

2. SEE REPORT FOR A DISCUSSION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

3. BASE MAP WAS PROVIDED BY DI LORETOARCHITECTURE, INC.

Notes:1. The Design Response Spectrum is based on IBC 2012 Section 1613.

2. The following parameters are based on the modified USGS 2008 maps provided

in IBC 2012/OSSC 2014:

Site Class= C Damping = 5%

SS = 0.97 Fa = 1.01 SMS = 0.98 SDS = 0.66

S1 = 0.48 Fv = 1.32 SM1 = 0.63 SD1 = 0.42

3. SS and S1 values indicated in Note 2 are the mapped, risk-targeted maximum considered

earthquake spectral acclerations for 1% probability of exceedence in 50 years.

4. Fa and Fv were established based on IBC 2012, Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2)

using the selected SS and S1 values. SDS and SD1 values include a 2/3 reduction on

SMS and SM1 as discussed in IBC 2012 Section 1613.3.4.

5. Site location is: Latitude 44.5869, Longitude -123.2850.

Corvallis, Oregon

FIGURE 3A

UUFC AdditionIBC 2012/OSSC 2014 SITE RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Project 2171085

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Spec

tral

Acc

eler

atio

n, S

a(g

)

Period (seconds)

IBC 2012/OSSC 2014Response Spectrum

DRAFT

Appendix B

Test Pit Logs



DRAFT

1.40

1.50

0.3

1.3

3.0

6.0

8.5

9.0

0.3

1.3

3.0

6.0

8.5

9.0

0.3

1.3

3.0

6.0

8.5

9.0

Surface: grass.

No ground water or seepageencountered to the limit of exploration.

Very stiff to hard clayey SILT, some organics (ML); brown, dry,low to medium plasticity, organics consist of fine roots, (topsoil).Dense silty GRAVEL, some sand (GM); grey-brown, dry to damp,low plasticity, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular tosubrounded gravel, (fill).Very stiff SILT (ML); brown, damp, low plasticity, (possible fill).

Very stiff SILT (ML); light brown and iron-stained, damp, lowplasticity, (possible fill).

Stiff to very stiff SILT (ML); brown, moist, low plasticity,(alluvium).

Stiff silty CLAY (CL); brown, moist, low plasticity, (alluvium).BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION

S-1-1

S-1-2

S-1-3

S-1-4

S-1-5

S-1-6

S-1-7

0.3

1.3

3.0

6.0

8.5

9.0

0.3

1.3

3.0

6.0

8.5

9.0

Corvallis, Oregon

Surface Elevation:

Date of Test Pit:

Project No.:

Ele

v. D

epth

Sym

bo

l N/A (Approx.) UUFC Addition

August 31, 2017

2171085 Test Pit Log: TP-1

Comments

Dep

th,

Fee

t

Sam

ple

#

Lo

cati

on

Soil and Rock Description

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9C

, TS

F

>2.0

0.8

4.0

6.0

7.0

0.8

4.0

6.0

7.0

0.8

4.0

6.0

7.0

Surface: duff/bark chips.


Very stiff to hard gravelly SILT, some sand (ML); grey-brown, dry,low plasticity, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse angular torounded gravel, (fill).Very stiff to hard SILT (ML); brown to light brown. iron-stained,damp, low plasticity, (fill).

Hard SILT (ML); light brown and iron-stained, damp, lowplasticity, relict sandstone structure, (residual soil).

Extremely weak (R0) SANDSTONE; light brown, highlyweathered, fine sand, (Spencer Formation).

BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION

S-2-1

S-2-2

S-2-3

0.8

4.0

6.0

7.0

0.8

4.0

6.0

7.0

Corvallis, Oregon

Surface Elevation:

Date of Test Pit:

Project No.:

Ele

v. D

epth

Sym

bo

l

N/A (Approx.) UUFC Addition

August 31, 2017


Comments

Dep

th,

Fee

t

Sam

ple

#

Lo

cati

on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

C, T

SF

DRAFT

2.00

>2.5

0.5

2.5

6.0

8.0

0.5

2.5

6.0

8.0

0.5

2.5

6.0

8.0

Surface: grass.


Very stiff SILT, some gravel and organics, trace sand (CL);brown, dry, low plasticity, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarsesubangular to subrounded gravel, organics consist of roots up to±½-inch diameter, blocky structure, (topsoil).Very stiff to hard SILT, some gravel, trace sand (ML); brown,damp, low plasticity, (fill).Hard SILT (ML); light brown to brown, iron-stained, damp, lowplasticity, (alluvium).

Very stiff SILT (ML); brown and iron-stained, moist, low plasticity,(alluvium).


S-3-1

S-3-2

S-3-3

S-3-4

S-3-5

0.5

2.5

6.0

8.0

0.5

2.5

6.0

8.0

Corvallis, Oregon

Surface Elevation:

Date of Test Pit:

Project No.:

Ele

v. D

epth

Sym

bo


August 31, 2017


Comments

Dep

th,

Fee

t

Sam

ple

#

Lo

cati

on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9C

, TS

F

0.3

3.0

0.3

3.0

0.3

3.0

Surface: grass.


Very stiff SILT, some organics (ML); brown, dry to damp, lowplasticity, organics consist of fine roots, blocky structure,(topsoil).Very stiff SILT (ML); light brown to brown and iron-stained, damp,low plasticity, (alluvium).


0.3

3.0

0.3

3.0

Corvallis, Oregon

Surface Elevation:

Date of Test Pit:

Project No.:

Ele

v. D

epth

Sym

bo

l

N/A (Approx.) UUFC Addition

August 31, 2017


Comments

Dep

th,

Fee

t

Sam

ple

#

Lo

cati

on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

C, T

SF

DRAFT

0.3

3.5

0.3

3.5

0.3

3.5

Surface: grass.


Very stiff SILT, some organics (ML); brown, dry, low plasticity,organics consist of fine roots, blocky structure, (topsoil).Very stiff SILT, scattered organics (ML); brown, damp, lowplasticity, organics consist of roots up to ±1-inch diameter andwood debris, (alluvium).


0.3

3.5

0.3

3.5

Corvallis, Oregon

Surface Elevation:

Date of Test Pit:

Project No.:

Ele

v. D

epth

Sym

bo


August 31, 2017


Comments

Dep

th,

Fee

t

Sam

ple

#

Lo

cati

on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9C

, TS

F

DRAFT

Appendix C

Field and Laboratory Test Results



DRAFT

Foundation Engineering, Inc. UUFC Addition Project 2171085

Table 1C. Natural Water Contents and Atterberg Limits

Sample Number

Sample Depth (ft)

Natural Water Content (percent)

LL PL PI USCS

Classification

S-1-2 2.0 – 2.5 16.4 41 29 12 ML

S-1-4 4.5 – 5.0 18.6

S-1-5 6.5 – 7.0 35.7

S-1-7 8.5 – 9.0 34.1

S-2-1 2.5 – 3.0 13.2

S-2-2 4.5 – 5.0 22.0

S-3-3 4.5 – 5.0 20.5 36 27 9 ML

S-3-4 6.5 – 7.0 22.2

S-3-5 7.5 – 8.0 26.4

DRAFT

Foundation Engineering, Inc.UUFC AdditionProject 2171085

Test Hole Number: TP-4

Trial Number: 1Time: Timer Interval Measurement Drop in water level Infilteration Rate Remakrs

(min) (feet) (feet) (in/hr)7:17 AM 0 3.98 - - Filled with 6'' of water

20 4.03 0.05 1.8040 - - -60 4.11 0.08 1.4480 4.15 0.04 1.44

100 4.19 0.04 1.449:17 AM 120 4.22 0.03 1.08

Adjusted to 6'' level for Trial 2



20 4.00 0.04 1.4440 4.03 0.03 1.0860 4.06 0.03 1.0880 4.09 0.03 1.08

100 4.12 0.03 1.0811:24 AM 120 4.15 0.03 1.08




20 4.02 0.03 1.0840 4.05 0.03 1.0860 4.08 0.03 1.0880 4.11 0.03 1.08

100 4.14 0.03 1.081:27 PM 120 4.16 0.02 0.72 Test Infiltration Rate

DRAFT

Foundation Engineering, Inc.UUFC AdditionProject 2171085

Test Hole Number: TP-5



20 3.89 0.06 2.1640 3.95 0.06 2.1660 4.00 0.05 1.880 4.04 0.04 1.44

100 4.08 0.04 1.449:23 AM 120 4.11 0.03 1.08




20 3.93 0.04 1.4440 3.97 0.04 1.4460 4.01 0.04 1.4480 4.05 0.04 1.44

100 4.08 0.03 1.0811:23 AM 120 4.10 0.02 0.72




20 3.92 0.03 1.0840 3.95 0.03 1.0860 3.98 0.03 1.0880 4.00 0.02 0.72

100 4.02 0.02 0.721:28 PM 120 4.04 0.02 0.72 Test Infiltration Rate

DRAFT

foundation engineering, inc. draft professional...

Documents