november 15, 2010 attn: mr. gary fox - pavilion construction

November 15, 2010 Icon West Development Attn: Mr. Gary Fox 201 Osprey Lane West The Dalles, Oregon Via email: [email protected] Re: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services Building B – Lone Pine Village Development The Dalles, Oregon RhinoOne Project No. ICO-2010-001 Dear Mr. Fox: RhinoOne Geotechnical Engineering is pleased to submit this report of geotechnical engineering services for the above-referenced project located in The Dalles, Oregon. The project site is located north of Lone Pine Boulevard between Osprey Lane East and Columbia Plaza Drive immediately west of the existing Mid Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles, Oregon. This study was completed to supplement previous studies completed at the site by PBS Engineering and Environmental1,2. This study is conducted to comply with the requirements of HUD as supplied to us via email on October 6, 2010. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Based on a review of preliminary project plans, the proposed project consists of a 12,500 square feet footprint, four- to five- story multi-family apartment building with some one-story parking garages. Infrastructure including minor driveways, parking and utilities will be constructed as part of the project. The building will be wood framed construction. Based on our discussions with you, column and perimeter foundation loads will be on the order of 100 kips and 6 kips per linear foot. The site of building B was previously filled during the construction of the adjacent Mid Columbia Medical Center (MCMC). We were provided with the reports of previous filling at the site. Based on these reports, the surcharge material placed on building A (MCMC) which consisted of granular fill material with some fines was used to fill the pad for Building B. Since this material is variable and has a large percentage of oversize material, the fill acceptance was based on proof rolls rather than nuclear density tests. The elevation of the proposed building pad is approximately ± 105 feet. 100 year flood elevation at the site is ± 101.35 feet. We understand that riprap protection have been placed on the river side of the building pad to prevent erosion during the 100 year flood event. The setback of the building is approximately 30 to 50 feet from the flood plain. The existing pedestrian trail will be extended towards the west during the construction of this building.

Field Explorations and Subsurface Conditions Seven test pits (TP-1 through TP-7) were excavated to depths from 4.5 to 13 feet below the ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan (Figure 1). Crestline Construction of The Dalles, Oregon excavated the test pits using an excavator with an attached 24-inch

1 PBS Engineering + Environmental. (2007). Geotechnical Investigation Report: Lone Pine PUD, The Dalles, Oregon (PBS Project No. 72365). Prepared for Icon West, LLC, of Hood River, Oregon. 2 PBS Engineering + Environmental. (2008). Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation: Mid-Columbia Medical Center Project, The Dalles, Oregon (PBS Project No. 72755). Prepared for Integrity Structures of Vancouver, Washington.

RhinoOne Geotechnical | 1308 Main Street | Vancouver, WA 98660 | phone 360.200.6928 | fax 360.200.6934

bucket on November 04, 2010. Five test pits were excavated in the proposed building area in accordance with HUD guidelines of one test pit for every 2,500 square foot of the building area. The other two test pits were in the proposed single-story garage area. Please note that the site has previously been filled with engineered fill consisting of granular material. Previous investigations, construction observation, review of literature and geologic reconnaissance have revealed that the site is generally underlain by basalt bedrock at various depths. The basalt bedrock is exposed on the river side (north) of the site. Cobbles and boulder are also present at random locations. Previous filling associated with spoil disposal during dam construction has also been identified at this site. We selected test pits as the preferable method of exploration since it provides a more comprehensive look at the heterogeneous materials and helps to identify boulders easily due to the size of a test pit excavation. The subsurface materials encountered were logged and classified in general accordance with the Manual-Visual Classification Method (ASTM D 2488). Disturbed soil samples were collected at selected depths and packaged in moisture-tight bags. The test pits were backfilled with the excavated materials and lightly tamped in place. The soil samples were examined in the laboratory to supplement field classifications. Interpreted test pit logs are presented as attachments. Most of the building area except west of Osprey Lane East is covered with 2- to 4- inch thick layer of ¾ inch gravel cap. Fill was encountered in all of the test pits above basalt bedrock. The depth of fill varies from 4 to 13 feet. The top 4- to 10- feet of fill consists of dense to very dense, gravel with some cobbles, sand and trace silt. In TP-1 this fill is underlain by medium dense to dense brown sand from a depth of 4 to 6.5 feet where bedrock was encountered. In TP-2 and TP-3 the gravel fill is underlain by medium dense gray sand with gravel and some organics. This gray sand with gravel is probably associated with the dam spoils. Minor amount of organics was also observed in the fill. Some 4- to 36- inch cobbles and boulders were observed in the fill. Bedrock was encountered in all the test pits except in TP-3 which was terminated at 13 feet due to caving. We attempted to excavate into the bedrock to confirm that it was bedrock and not boulder with limited success. The track hoe bucket advanced approximately 2 feet in TP-1 and 6 inches in TP-2 and TP-4. The track hoe encountered practical refusal in the other test pits. TP-6 and TP-7 were excavated in the area of the proposed parking garages. As in the other test pits, these areas are covered with 2- to 4- inch thick layer of ¾ inch gravel cap. Dense to very dense, gravel fill with some cobbles, sand and trace silt was encountered to a depth of 6.5 feet in both of these test pits. Refusal in the underlying bedrock was encountered in TP-6 at a depth of 6.5 feet. An additional 5 feet of medium dense gray sand with gravel and some organics fill was encountered in TP-7. This test pit was terminated at a depth of 11.5 feet due to caving. Groundwater seepage was encountered in TP-2 at a depth of 12.5 feet at the interface with bedrock. We did not observe groundwater in any of the other test pits. The gray sand fill material appears to be wet below a depth of 10 feet which indicates that groundwater may be encountered at that depth. We also observed some caving in the deeper sand fill material below a depth of 10 feet which indicates possible groundwater. Foundation Design Recommendations As discussed earlier, we encountered variable soil conditions across the building pad. Bedrock was encountered at depths varying from less than 4 feet to greater than 13 feet. 6- to 10- feet of this fill was placed as engineered fill during the construction of the adjacent MCMC building in spring of 2009. Based on the timing of new fill installation, it is our opinion that the primary and potential secondary consolidation settlements associated with these fills in the underlying sands are essentially over. The new engineered fill was classified as dense to very dense based on the action of the excavator. Based on our discussions with you, the building will be supported on perimeter foundation with a maximum load of 6 kips per linear foot. We have assumed maximum column loads of 100 kip for design purposes. These loads can be supported on shallow spread foundation.

[email protected] | www.rhinooneeng.com

We recommend that a minimum 6-inch thick granular pad be installed below the building foundations to provide a firm bearing surface and to reduce the potential for differential settlements. The granular pad should consist of Dense Graded Aggregate 1”-0” (ODOT - SS 02630.10). Continuous wall and isolated spread footings should be at least 18- and 24-inches wide, respectively. The bottom of exterior strip footings should be at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. The bottom of interior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the base of the floor slab.

Footings bearing on the 6-inch granular pad constructed on previously installed structural fill should be sized for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This is a net bearing pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be disregarded in calculating footing sizes. The recommended allowable bearing pressure applies to the total of dead plus long-term-live loads and may be doubled for short-term loads, such as those resulting from wind or seismic forces. Based on our analysis, total post-construction settlement was calculated to be less than 1 inch, with post-construction differential settlement of less than 0.5 inch over a 50-foot span, for maximum column and perimeter footing loads of less than 100 kips and 6 kips per linear foot. Due to the relatively sandy nature of the underlying materials, these settlements will occur fairly rapidly. Lateral loads on footings can be resisted by passive earth pressure on the sides of the structures and by friction at the base of the footings. An allowable passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for footings confined by the existing structural fills. Adjacent floor slabs, pavements, or the upper 12-inch depth of adjacent unpaved areas should not be considered when calculating passive resistance. For footings in contact with native soils or fill, use a coefficient of friction equal to 0.60 when calculating resistance to sliding. These numbers do not include a factor of safety. A RhinoOne geotechnical engineer should confirm suitable bearing conditions and evaluate footing subgrades. Observations should also confirm that loose or soft material, organics, unsuitable fill, and old topsoil zones were removed. Localized deepening of footing excavations may be required to penetrate any deleterious materials.

Seismic Design Criteria The seismic design criteria for this project are based on the OSSC 2007 (IBC 2006). A soil profile type “C” can be used for the seismic design of the building due to proximity of shallow bedrock. The seismic design criteria, in accordance with the OSSC 2007 (2006 IBC), are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: OSSC 2007 (IBC 2006) Seismic Design Parameters Short Period 1 Second

Maximum Credible Earthquake Spectral Acceleration S = 0.47 gs S = 0.17 g1

Site Class CSite Coefficient F = 1.20a F = 1.63v

Adjusted Spectral Acceleration S = 0.57 gMS S = 0.28 gM1

Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters S = 0.38 gDS S = 0.19 gD1

Design Spectral Peak Ground Acceleration 0.15 g

Floor Slab Recommendations Floor slabs can be supported on the existing structural fill. A minimum 6-inch-thick layer of base aggregate should be placed and compacted to 95 percent maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557 over the prepared subgrade. Base aggregate for floor slabs should be clean, crushed rock or crushed gravel. The base aggregate should contain no deleterious materials, meet specifications provided in ODOT-SS 02630.10 – Dense Graded Aggregate 1”-0”, and have less than 5 percent by


weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. A subgrade modulus of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to design the floor slab.

The design team should evaluate whether a vapor barrier is needed for the building. A vapor barrier will reduce the potential for moisture transmission through and efflorescence growth on the floor slabs. Additionally, flooring manufacturers often require vapor barriers to protect flooring and flooring adhesives and will guarantee their product only if a vapor barrier is installed according to their recommendations.

Retaining Wall Design Recommendations The retaining wall design recommendations are based on the following assumptions: (1) the walls consist of conventional, cantilevered retaining walls; (2) the walls are less than 10 feet in height; (3) the backfill is drained; and (4) the backfill has a slope flatter than 4H: 1V. Re-evaluation of our recommendations will be required if the retaining wall design criteria for the project varies from these assumptions.

Unrestrained site walls that retain native soils should be designed to resist active fluid unit weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where supporting slopes are flatter than 4H: 1V. The active fluid unit weight shall be increased to 55 pcf for restrained walls. For embedded building walls, a superimposed seismic lateral force calculation is based on a dynamic force of 5H2 pounds per lineal foot of wall, where H is the height of the wall in feet, and applied at 0.6H from the base of the wall.

If other surcharges (e.g., slopes steeper than 4H: 1V, foundations, vehicles, etc.) are located within a horizontal distance from the back of a wall equal to twice the height of the wall, then additional pressures will need to be accounted for in the wall design. Contact our office for the appropriate wall surcharges based upon the actual magnitude and configuration of the applied loads. The wall footings should be designed in accordance with the guidelines provided in the “Foundation Design Recommendation” section of this report.

The design parameters provided assume that back-of-wall drains will be installed to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind all walls. A minimum 12-inch wide zone of drain rock, extending from the base of the wall to within 6 inches of finished grade, should be placed against the back of all retaining walls. Perforated collector pipes should be embedded at the base of the drain rock. The perforated collector pipes should discharge at an appropriate location away from the base of the wall. The backfill material placed behind the walls and extending a horizontal distance equal to at least the height of the retaining wall should consist of granular retaining wall backfill material meeting specifications provided in ODOT - SS 510.12. We recommend the select granular wall backfill be separated from general fill, native soil and/or topsoil using a geotextile fabric that meets the requirements provided in ODOT - SS 2320.10 for drainage geotextiles. The wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D 1557. Backfill placed within 3 feet of the wall should be compacted in lifts less than 6 inches thick using hand-operated tamping equipment (e.g., jumping jack or vibratory plate compactors).

Settlements of up to 1% of the wall height commonly occur immediately adjacent to the wall as the wall rotates and develops active lateral earth pressures. Consequently, we recommend that construction of flat work adjacent to retaining walls be postponed at least four (4) weeks after backfilling of the wall, unless survey data indicates that settlement is complete prior to that time.

Pavement Design

Our pavement recommendations are based on the following assumptions:

• A resilient modulus of 6,000 psi for the existing structural fill and 20,000 psi for the base rock • Initial and terminal serviceability index of 4.2 and 2.5, respectively. • Reliability and standard deviation of 85% and 0.45, respectively • Structural coefficient of 0.42 and 0.10 for the asphalt and base rock, respectively.

Pavement designs were calculated using Computer Program DARWin™ based on the 1993 AASHTO pavement design equations. Summary of our pavement design recommendations are in Table 2.


Table 2. Minimum Pavement Sections

Traffic Loading (ESALs) AC (inches) Base Rock (inches)

10,000 3.0 8.0

50,000 4.0 8.0

The asphalt cement binder should be PG 70-22 Performance Grade Asphalt Cement according to ODOT - SS 00744.11 – Asphalt Cement and Additives. The AC should consist of 0.5-inch hot mix asphalt. The minimum lift thicknesses should be 2.0 inches. The AC should conform to ODOT - SS 00744.13 and 00744.13 and be compacted to 91% of Rice Density of the mix, as determined in accordance with ASTM D 2041.

Construction traffic should be limited to non-building, unpaved portions of the project site or haul roads. Construction traffic should be prohibited on new pavements. If construction traffic is allowable on newly constructed road sections, an allowance for this additional traffic is necessary in the design pavement section.

Construction Recommendations Specifications referenced in this report refer to the 2008 Oregon State Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT - SS, 2008) and the latest ODOT Special Provision (SP). We assume that these specifications will serve, in part, as the project specifications for items contained within and for those not included in this report. The building site is currently covered with 2- to 4- inches of ¾ inch gravel. Site preparation will include placement of minor fill and/or fine-grading of the site to bring it to the subgrade elevation. We do not anticipate any stripping at this site unless the grades are lowered. The site is covered with granular material which should provide good trafficability. If soils are disturbed during site preparation activities or soft or loose zones identified during probing or proof rolling, these soils should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Also, please note that the test pit excavations were loosely backfilled and may need over-excavation and re-compaction at the time of construction.

Track-mounted excavating equipment may be required during wet weather. Care should be taken by providing adequate haul roads and staging areas. A 12- to 18-inch-thick mat of stabilization material (4” to 6” minus clean rock) is sufficient for light staging areas. The stabilization material for haul roads and areas with repeated heavy construction traffic typically needs to be increased to between 18 to 24 inches. The actual thickness of haul roads and staging areas should be based on the Contractor’s approach to site development and the amount and type of construction traffic. The stabilization material should be placed in one lift over the prepared, undisturbed subgrade, and compacted using a smooth-drum, non-vibratory roller. Additionally, a geotextile fabric should be placed as a barrier between the subgrade and stabilization material in areas of repeated construction traffic.

Subsurface conditions at the project site shows dense gravel fill underlain by sand. Excavations in the soils may be readily accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment. Excavations into the gravel may require the use of a large, track-mounted excavator. Cuts should stand vertical to a depth of approximately 4 feet, provided no groundwater seepage is encountered in the cut walls. Open excavation may be used to excavate trenches with depths of between 4 and 8 feet—provided the walls of the excavation are cut at a slope of 1H:1V, groundwater seepage is not present, and with the understanding that some sloughing may occur. The walls should be flattened to 1.5H: 1V if excessive sloughing occurs or seepage is present. Please note excavation in the underlying bedrock will be extremely difficult.

Use of approved temporary shoring is recommended for cuts that extend below groundwater seepage or for vertical wall cuts deeper than 4 feet. We recommend that the type and design of the shoring system be the responsibility of the Contractor, who is in the best position to choose a system that fits the overall plan of operation. All excavations should be made in accordance with applicable OSHA and State regulations.


mailto:[email protected]

Key To Test Pit and Boring Log Symbols

SAMPLING DESCRIPTIONS1

SPT

Drive

Sam

pler

Stan

dard

Pen

etra

tion

Test

ASTM

D 1

586

Shel

by T

ube

Push

Sam

pler

ASTM

D 1

587

Spec

ializ

ed D

rive

Sam

pler

s

(Det

ails

Note

d on

Log

s)Sp

ecia

lized

Dril

l or P

ush

Sam

pler

(Det

ails

Note

d on

Logs

)

Gra

b Sa

mpl

e

Rock

Cor

ing

Inte

rval

Scre

en

(Wat

er o

r Air

Sam

plin

g)

Wat

er L

evel

Dur

ing

Drilli

ng/E

xcav

atio

nW

ater

Lev

el A

fter

Drilli

ng/E

xcav

atio

n

LOG GRAPHICS

Geotechnical Testing/Acronym Explanations

PP Pocket Penetrometer SIEV Sieve GradationSC Sand Cone DD Dry DensityDCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ATT Atterberg LimitsSP Static Penetrometer CBR California Bearing RatioTOR Torvane OC Organic ContentCON Consolidation RES Resilient ModulusDS Direct Shear VS Vane ShearP200 Percent Passing U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve HCL Hydrochloric AcidUC Unconfined Compressive Strength kPa kiloPascalPL Plasticity Limit GPS Global Positioning SystemPI Plasticity Index bgs Below ground surfaceLL Liquid Limit MSL Mean Sea LevelHYD Hydrometer Gradation

Environmental Testing/Acronym Explanations

bgs Below ground surface ATD At Time of DrillingCA Sample Submitted for Chemical Analysis NS No SheenPID Photoionization Detector Headspace Analysis SS Slight SheenPPM Parts Per Million MS Moderate SheenND Not Detected HS High Sheen

1Note: Details of soil and rock classification systems are available on request. 11/09/10

Observed contact between soil or rock units (at depths indicated)

Inferred contact between soil or rock units(at approximate depths indicated) Sampler

Type

Sample Recovery Sample

Interval

Instrumentation Detail Sampling SymbolsSoil and Rock

Well Pipe

Piezometer

Piezometer

Ground Surface

Well Cap

Bottom of Hole

Soil

or R

ock

Type

s

Well Seal

Well Screen

0.0

0.3

4.0

6.5

8.5

Very hard excavation

P200 = 28%

P200 = 4%Very hard excavation

No groundwater seepage observed tothe depth exploredNo caving observed to the depthexplored

P200

P200

GRAVEL CAP, 2 to 4 inches thick; ¾-inchminusDense to very dense, brown GRAVEL withsome cobbles, sand, and trace silt; dampto moist (FILL)

Medium dense to dense, brown, SAND;moist (FILL)

BASALT-BEDROCK

Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet bgs due torefusal

MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-1

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE

EXCAVATION METHOD: Excavator with 24" BucketEXCAVATED BY: Crestline Construction Co.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PBS PROJECT NUMBER:ICO-2010-001

1308 Main StreetVancouver, WA 98660Ph: 360.200.6928Fx: 360.200.6934

DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10

COLUMBIA PLAZA AND LONE PINE BLVD.BUILDING B

THE DALLAS, OREGONTEST PIT TP-1 LOCATION:

(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

0.3

6.5

12.5

13.0

Minor caving observed from 9.0 to12.0 feet bgs

Minor groundwater seepage observedat 12.5 feet bgs (on top of bedrock)

GRAVEL CAP, 2 to 4 inches thick; ¾-inchminusDense, to very dense, brown, GRAVELwith some cobbles; damp to moist (FILL)

Medium dense, gray, SAND with graveland some organics; moist to wet (old FILLassociated with dam construction)

organic odor with some 1- to 3-inch roots

BEDROCK

Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet bgs due torefusal

MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-2

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

0.3

10.0

13.0


No groundwater seepage observed tothe depth explored

GRAVEL CAP, 2 to 4 inches thick; ¾-inchminusDense, to very dense, brown, GRAVELwith some sand, cobbles, and trace silt;cobbles are rounded to angular (FILL)

Medium dense, gray, SAND with someorganics and gravel; (old fill associatedwith dam construction)

organic odor

Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet bgs

MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-3

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

9.5

10.0

Very hard excavation


Dense to very dense, brown, GRAVELwith some sand, cobbles, and trace silt(FILL)

BASALT-BEDROCK


MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-4

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

4.5

P200 = 10%


P200

Dense to very dense, brown, GRAVELwith sand and cobbles; damp to moist(FILL)

becomes angular, 4- to 12-inch diametercobbles


MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-5

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

0.3

6.3No groundwater seepage observed tothe depth exploredNo caving observed to the depthexplored

GRAVEL CAP, 2 to 4 inches thick; ¾-inchminusDense to very dense, brown, GRAVELwith sand and cobbles; damp to moist,36-inch-diameter boulder dug out (FILL)

Test pit terminated at 6.3 feet bgs due torefusal on bedrock

MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-6

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

0.0

0.3

6.5

11.5


No groundwater seepage observed tothe depth explored

GRAVEL CAP, 2 to 4 inches thick; ¾-inchminusVery dense to dense, brown, GRAVELwith sand and cobbles; moist (FILL)

Medium dense, gray, SAND with graveland organics (old FILL associated withdam construction)


MOISTURE CONTENT %

STATIC PENETROMETER


COMMENTS

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G -

1 P

ER

PA

GE

IC

O-2

010-

001_

BLD

GB

TP

1-7_

1009

10.G

PJ

RH

INO

ON

E.G

DT

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

TEST PIT TP-7

LOGGED BY: R. Ali

DE

PT

H

TE

ST

ING

SA

MP

LE





DEPTHFEET

COMPLETED: 11/04/10



(See Figure 1)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 50 100

0 50 100

TP-1 3 28

TP-1 4.5 7.1

TP-1 6.5 4

TP-2 2 11.4

TP-2 9 12.9

TP-3 3 13.9

TP-3 11 15.5

TP-5 2.5 11.4 10

TP-7 2.5 11.4

NOTES:

MOISTURECONTENT

(PERCENT)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

SAND(PERCENT)

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

DRYDENSITY

(PCF)PLASTICITY

INDEX(PERCENT)

PLASTICLIMIT

(PERCENT)

LIQUIDLIMIT

(PERCENT)

P200(PERCENT)

ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE

SAMPLEDEPTH(FEET)

ELEVATION(FEET)

EXPLORATIONNUMBER

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA1308 Main StreetVancouver, WA 98660Ph: 360.200.6928Fx: 360.200.6934


THE DALLAS, OREGON

RHINOONE PROJECT NUMBER:ICO-2010-001

LAB

SU

MM

AR

Y

ICO

-201

0-00

1_B

LDG

BT

P1-

7_10

0910

.GP

J P

BS

_DA

TA

TM

PL.

GD

T

P

RIN

T D

AT

E:

11/1

1/10

:RS

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.11101001,000

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS (ASTM E11)

FINE

GRAVEL SAND FINES

D10(MM)

D5(MM)

GRAVEL(PERCENT)

15.9

6.9

11.4

3.0

6.5

2.5

KEYEXPLORATION

NUMBER

CLAYBOULDERS

SAMPLE DEPTH(FEET)

D60(MM)

SAND(PERCENT)

FINES(PERCENT)

D30(MM)

D50(MM)

MOISTURE CONTENT(PERCENT)

3/4"

28

4

10

10 2003" 1 1/2" 1003/8" 404 16 30 50

PARTICLE-SIZE (MM)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

TP-1

TP-1

TP-5

COBBLESFINECOARSE COARSE MEDIUM SILT

TEST METHOD: ASTM C136

1308 Main StreetVancouver, WA 98660Ph: 360.200.6928Fx: 360.200.6934 PBS PROJECT NUMBER:

ICO-2010-001


THE DALLAS, OREGON

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS ICO-2010-001_BLDGBTP1-7_100910.GPJ RHINOONE.GDT PRINT DATE: 11/11/10:RSD

november 15, 2010 attn: mr. gary fox - pavilion construction

Documents