HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes Applicant 11/21/2024 (2)
Report Cover Page
Raising Cane’s #C1267,
Springfield
Geotechnical Engineering Report
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Prepared for:
Raising Cane’s Restaurants, L.L.C.
6800 Bishop Road
Plano, Texas 75024
700 NE 55th Avenue
Portland, OR 97203
P (503) 659-3281
Terracon.com
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Report Cover Letter
August 16, 2024
Raising Cane’s Restaurants, L.L.C.
6800 Bishop Road
Plano, Texas 75024
Attn: Mr. Robert Vann
P: 817-219 -8266
E: Jrvann61@gmail.com
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield
2720 Gateway Street
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
Terracon Project No. 82245081
Dear Mr. Vann:
We have completed the scope of Geotechnical Engineering services for the above-
referenced project in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P822 45081 dated
July 9 , 24 . This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides
geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of
foundations, pavements, and floor slabs for the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any
questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon
Peyman Chaichi , P.E.
Project Engineer
John Mancini , P.E. (UT)
Senior National Accounts Manager
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i
Table of Contents
Report Summary ............................................................................................ iii
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
Project Description .......................................................................................... 1
Site Conditions ................................................................................................ 3
Geotechnical Characterization ......................................................................... 4
Geology .................................................................................................. 4
Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4
GeoModel ................................................................................................ 5
Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................. 6
Seismic Hazards ....................................................................................... 6
Nearby Faults ........................................................................................... 6
Seismic Considerations .................................................................................... 7
Site Class ................................................................................................ 7
Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................ 8
Liquefaction ............................................................................................. 9
Infiltration ...................................................................................................... 9
Geotechnical Overview .................................................................................. 10
Earthwork ..................................................................................................... 11
Demolition .............................................................................................. 11
Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 11
Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................... 12
Existing Fill ............................................................................................. 12
Subgrade Stabilization .............................................................................. 13
Fill Material Types .................................................................................... 14
Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements ............................................... 16
Utility Trench Backfill ............................................................................... 16
Grading and Drainage ............................................................................... 17
Earthwork Construction Considerations ....................................................... 18
Construction Observation and Testing ......................................................... 18
Shallow Foundations ..................................................................................... 19
Design Parameters – Compressive Loads ..................................................... 19
Footing Drains ......................................................................................... 20
Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads ........................................ 20
Foundation Construction Considerations ...................................................... 21
Deep Foundations .......................................................................................... 22
Drilled Shaft Design Parameters ................................................................. 22
Drilled Shaft Lateral Loading ...................................................................... 23
Floor Slabs .................................................................................................... 24
Floor Slab Design Parameters .................................................................... 24
Floor Slab Construction Considerations ........................................................ 26
Pavements .................................................................................................... 26
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii
General Pavement Comments .................................................................... 26
Pavement Design Parameters .................................................................... 26
Pavement Section Thicknesses ................................................................... 26
Pavement Drainage .................................................................................. 28
Pavement Maintenance ............................................................................. 29
General Comments ........................................................................................ 29
Figures
GeoModel
Attachments
Exploration and Testing Procedures
Photography Log
Site Location and Exploration Plans
Exploration and Laboratory Results
Supporting Information
Note: Blue Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF
version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on
the logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features,
please view your project online at client.terracon.com .
Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iii
Report Summary
Topic 1 Overview Statement 2
Project
Description
The project consists of a free -standing, quick -serve restaurant
facility. The facility will include approximately 58 full-sized parking
stalls and handicapped spaces, as required by code, within 1.57
acres.
Geotechnical
Characterization
Subsurface conditions encountered at t he site consisted of the
following:
■ Undocumented fill ranging from 0.8 to 3 feet deep in our
explorations.
■ Fill was generally underlain by loose to very dense gravel
with different amounts of fine-grained soil mostly clay soil ,
and, occasionally interlayer ed with fat clay or sand layers
to the maximum exploration depths. In the proposed
paving areas, fat clay with variable amount s of sand and
gravel was underlying the fill and extended to a depth of
8.3 feet, which is underlying gravely soil.
■ Groundwater was observed during our exploration s or after
their completions at about 10.5 feet below the existing
grade.
■ Expansive soils are present on this site. This report
provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects of
soil shrinkage and expansion per Earthwork section.
■ Existing fat clays cannot be used for structural fill.
■ Terracon prepared Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
for the site dated July 26, 2024, with Terracon’s project
No: 82247173.
Earthwork
■ Remove the existing fill that was observed or follow our
recommendations in the Existing Fill section.
■ Existing fat clay should not be reused for structural fill.
■ Near-surface fat clay was encountered at the north portion
of the site. The recommendations in the Earthwork section
should be followed to mitigate the shrinkage and expansion
potential of the expansive soil .
■ The removal of the existing building, pavement, and
sidewalk s, and stripping the existing topsoil and grubbing
trees in the landscaping area should be followed by our
recommendations in the Site Preparation section.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iv
Topic 1 Overview Statement 2
Seismic
Consideration
The presence of groundwater in very dense to dense gravel soil is
not susceptible to liquefaction during a design -level earthquake.
the Site Class for the site should be considered Site Class C based
on ASCE 7-16 and CD based on ASCE 7 -22. Lateral spreading
during earthquake is not concern for this site.
Shallow
Foundations
With subgrade prepared as noted in Earthwork. Shallow
foundations are recommended for building support
■ Allowable bearing pressure = 2,500 psf over native non-
expansive soil.
■ Expected static settlements: < 1-inch total, < 2/3-inch
differential .
■ If the encounter subgrade is expansive clay, we
recommend undercutting it to native gravelly soils .
Deep
Foundations
We provide an alternative to shallow foundations for the drive -
thru canopy foundations. Drilled shafts are a common foundation
type in this region and can be used to support the structure loads
through a combination of very dense or dense gravel and skin
friction in the non -liquefiable soils using the parameters contained
herein.
Floor Slabs
Floor slabs should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of
CABS and 6 inches of Select Fill over native subgrades . If
expansive clay was encountered under the floor slab, we
recommend placing a minimum of 24 inches of granular fill under
the floor slab .
Pavements
With subgrade prepared as noted in Earthwork.
For asphalt pavement:
■ 3 inches AC over 6 inches granular base .
For PCC:
■ 5 inches PCC over 4 inches granular base.
If expansive soil was encountered, 12 -inch structural fill is
recommended under base.
General
Comments
This section contains important information about the limitations
of this geotechnical engineering report.
1. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics above can be used to
access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic
itself.
2. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the
entire report for design purposes.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1
Introduction
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and Geotechnical
Engineering services performed for the proposed restaurant to be located at 2720
Gateway Street in Springfield, Lane County, Oregon . The purpose of these services was
to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:
■ Subsurface soil conditions
■ Groundwater conditions
■ Seismic Site Class per ASCE 7-16 & 7-22
■ Liquefaction Analysis
■ Site preparation and earthwork
■ Demolition considerations
■ Foundation design and construction
■ Floor slab design and construction
■ Pavement design and construction
■ Infiltration test results
The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the
advancement of eight borings to depths of 6.5 to 26.5 feet below the existing ground
surface (bgs), laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.
Drawings showing the site and exploration locations are shown on the Site Location
and Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on
soil samples obtained from the site during our field exploration are included on the
exploration logs and/or as separate graphs in the Exploration and Laboratory Results
section.
Project Description
Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed
during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was
initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2
Item Description
Information
Provided
Project information was provided by Robert Vann via email on June
14, 2024, the email included:
■ Site Sketch & Site Aerial dated 1/31/2024 for Raising
Cane’s#C1267, Springfield, OR.
■ New Project Request for Proposal Geotechnical
Investigation Raising Cane’s#C1267, Springfield, OR.
■ Infiltration test requirement from Stormwater
Management Manual for the City of Springfield, Oregon.
■ New Project Request for Proposal PH1 Environmental and
Asbestos Survey for Raising Cane’s restaurant -C1267,
Springfield, OR.
Project
Description
The project consists of a free -standing quick-serve restaurant
facility. The facility will include approximately 58 full -sized
parking stalls and handicapped spaces as required by code
within 1.57 acres.
Proposed
Structure
The project includes a single -story building with a footprint of
about 2,691 square feet. The building will be slab -on-grade
(non-basement).
Building
Construction Wood -framed with a slab -on-grade floor.
Finished Floor
Elevation
The finished floor elevation is expected to be near existing
grades.
Maximum Loads
■ Columns: 60 kips
■ Walls: 3 kips per linear foot (klf)
■ Slabs: 150 pounds per square foot (psf)
Grading/Slopes The proposed finished grade elevation for the building pad is
expected to be at +/- 2 feet of the existing grade.
Below-Grade
Structures None.
Free-Standing
Retaining Walls None.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3
Item Description
Pavements
A paved driveway and parking will be constructed on the south
and west sides of the proposed new building. We assume both
rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt) pavement sections should
be considered.
Anticipated traffic is as follows:
■ Autos/light trucks: 250 vehicles per day
■ Light delivery and trash collection vehicles: 14 vehicles
per week
■ Tractor-trailer trucks: <3 vehicles per week
■ The pavement design period is 20 years.
Building Code
2022 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (2022 OSSC). In May
2024 the State of Oregon issued an alternate method to allow
for the use of the Multi-Period Response Spectrum (MPRS) of
ASCE 7 -22 for determination of design ground motion values
(Statewide Alternate Method No. 24 -03). The alternate method
requires use of the updated Site Class designations found in
Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-22.
Terracon should be notified if any of the above information is inconsistent with the
planned construction, especially the grading limits, as modifications to our
recommendations may be necessary.
Site Conditions
The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association
with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic
maps.
Item Description
Parcel
Information
The project is located at 2720 Gateway Street in Springfield,
Lane County, Oregon . The approximate center of the 1.57 -acre
site is located at the following coordinates:
■ Latitude: 44.0705° N
■ Longitude: 123.0448° W
See Site Location .
Existing
Improvements
The site is currently developed and occupied by a building in the
middle of the property with paving areas around it.
Current Ground
Cover
Big 5 Sporting Goods store, asphalt concrete paving areas and
landscaping.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4
Item Description
Existing
Topography
(from Google
Earth Pro)
The site is relatively flat. The elevation in the paving area is
about 436 feet above Mean Sea Level .
We also collected photographs at the time of our field exploration program.
Representative photos are provided in our Photography Log .
Geotechnical Characterization
Geology
Based on our review of the Geologic mapping 1 of the area , the site is underlain by
Quaternary fan-delta alluvium (Qfd). The alluvium consists of poorly consolidated
sediments ranging from clay to boulder size but is primarily gravel to cobble sized. The
alluvium was deposited by the ancestral Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, and includes
some lahar deposits. The alluvium is up to about 450 feet thick in the vicinity of the site.
The older alluvium is underlain by the Oligocene and Eocene Eugene Formation (Te). The
Eugene Formation consists of tan to brown , thin bedded to massive, micaceous, locally
tuffaceous sandstone, siltstone, and minor volcaniclastic conglomerate beds. This unit is
locally strongly cemented with carbonate or iron oxide.
Groundwater
We observed our explorations while drilling and after completion for the presence and
level of groundwater. The water levels observed in the explorations are provided on the
exploration logs in Exploration and Laboratory Results, and are summarized below.
1 Madin, Ian P. and Robert B. Murray, 2006, Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Eugene East and Eugene West Quadrangles, Lane County, Oregon, Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, OFR -06-17.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5
Exploration
Number
Approximate
Ground Surface
Elevation (feet) 1
Approximate
Depth to
Groundwater
while Drilling
(feet)
Approximate
Depth to
Groundwater at
Completion (feet)
B-01 436 13 11
B-02 436 10.5 NR2
B-03 437 15 10.5
B-04 437 15 10.5
1. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and depth to the observed groundwater
during explorations. Note the assumed ground surface elevation is presented on the
exploration logs.
2. NR indicated that it was not recorded.
Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall,
runoff and other factors not evident at the time the exploration s were performed.
Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the
structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the exploration logs. The
possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the
design and construction plans for the project.
GeoModel
We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon
our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our
understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis o f
our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of the site. Conditions observed at each
exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in
the Exploration and Laboratory Results and the GeoModel can be found in the
Figures attachment of this report.
As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface
profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each exploration location,
refer to the GeoModel.
Model
Layer Layer Name General Description
1 Fill
Asphalt concrete pavement, poorly graded gravel
with clay and sand (GP-GC), gray to black,
moist, medium dense to dense.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6
Model
Layer Layer Name General Description
2 ALLUVIUM
Gravel with variable clay content (GP -GC &
GC), sand (SP & SC) and fat clay (CH): brown,
moist to wet, medium dense to very dense for
coarse grained soil and stiff to soft for fine
grained soil.
Geologic Hazards
Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazards resulting from earthquake motions can include slope stability,
liquefaction, and surface rupture due to faulting or lateral spreading. Liquefaction is the
phenomenon wherein soil strength is dramatically reduced when subjected to vibration
or shaking.
We reviewed the Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) published by the Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Studies (DOGAMI) and available online 2. The viewer
categorizes the expected earthquake shaking from light, moderate, strong, very strong,
severe and violent; and the landslide susceptibility from low, moderate, high, and very
high.
■ Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard: Low
■ Expected Earthquake Shaking: Strong
■ Landslide Susceptibility (due to earthquake): Low
Nearby Faults
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains the Quaternary Fault and Fold
Database containing descriptions and locations of recently active faults within the United
States. The three closest faults to the project site include the Upper Willamette River fault
zone (No.863), the Owl Creek fault (No.870), and the Corvallis fault zone (No.869).
2 Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) published by the Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Studies (DOGAMI) https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/hazvu/,
accessed August 2024
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7
Published information pertaining to each fault or fault zone is provided in the following
table:
Fault Name Upper Willamette
River fault zone Owl Creek fault Corvallis fault
zone
USGS Fault Number 863 870 869
USGS Fault Class B A B
Distance and
Direction of Fault
from the Site
25 mi SE 28 mi NNW 35 mi NW
Length of Fault 28 miles 9 miles 25 miles
Strike (degrees) N52°W N5°E N3°E
Sense of Movement Right lateral Reverse Thrust
Dip Direction 82-90° 60°E NW
Slip -rate Category Less than 0.2
mm/yr
Less than 0.2
mm/yr
Less than 0.2
mm/yr
Most recent
prehistoric
deformation
Undifferentiated
Quaternary (<1.6
Ma)
Middle and late
Quaternary (<750
ka)
Undifferentiated
Quaternary (<1.6
Ma)
Based on our review of the available fault information, the depth to bedrock, and the
site’s proximity to the nearest known faults, it is our opinion that the risk of surface
rupture due to ground faulting is low.
Seismic Considerations
Site Class
Seismic design requirements for structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site
Class is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure. The 2022
OSSC references ASCE 7 -16 for determination of Site Class and seismic design
parameters. ASCE 7-16 Site Class is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile
defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration
resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 -16.
In May 2024 the State of Oregon issued Statewide Alternate Method No. 24 -03, which
allows the use of Multi -Period Response Spectrum (MPRS) of ASCE 7 -22 for
determination of design ground motion values. The amendment requires use of the
updated Site Class designations found in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 -22, which are based on
shear wave velocities within the upper 100 feet of the subsurface materials at the site.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8
Borings were advanced as part of our field exploration and SPT N -values (blow counts)
were collected. SPT N -Values were used to determine the ASCE 7 -16 Site Class. For
determination of the ASCE 7 -22 Site Class, Terracon used published SPT/shear wave
velocity correlations3 to determine the average shear wave velocity. Based on the blow
counts measured in the borings and the shear wave velocity correlations, we recommend
the following Site Class for seismic design:
ASCE 7-16 Site Class ASCE 7-22 Site Class
C CD
Seismic Design Parameters
The following seismic design parameters may be used for design of the proposed
structures:
Description ASCE 7-16 ASCE 7-22
2022 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (2022 OSSC)
Site Class C 1 CD1
Site Latitude 44.0705° N
Site Longitude 123.0448° W
S s Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short (0.2
second) Period 3 0.685g 0.82g
S 1 Mapped Spectral Acceleration for 1 Second
Period 3
0.391g 0.37g
Fa Site Coefficient, 0.2 second 2,4 1.226 1.195
Fv Site Coefficient, 1.0 second 3,4 1.500 1.675
S DS 0.560g 0.65g
S D1 0.391g 0.42g
1. See above for site class discussion.
2. Value determined from 2022 OSSC Table 1613.2.3(2). Must meet criteria per
ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8.
3. Fa and Fv not provided by ASCE7 hazard tool; values back -calculated using F a =
S ms/Ss and F v = S m1/S1
4. Seismic parameter values determined from the Applied Technology Council (ATC)
website referenced in Section 1613.2.1 of the 2022 OSSC and the ASCE 7 -22
online tool (https://asce7hazardtool.online/).
3 Wair, B.R., and Dejong, J.T., 2012, Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity
Profiles, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report 2012/08
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated soils develop high pore -water pressures
during seismic shaking and lose their strength characteristics. This phenomenon
generally occurs in areas of high seismicity, where groundwater is shallow and loose
granular soils or relatively low - to non-plastic fine-grained soils are present.
Groundwater is present at a depth of approximately 10.5 feet bgs according to on -site
logs within very dense to dense gravel . These materials are not considered to be
susceptible to liquefaction.
Lateral spreading is not a concern at this site due to the significant distance to a free
face.
Infiltration
Infiltration test s were conducted in explorations IT-1. The test was performed using the
encased falling head method using 6.25-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers. Prior
to performing the infiltration test, we drilled borehole beside the proposed infiltration
test location to identify underlying soil layers as well as existing groundwater level in our
test location. We c onducted the test in general accordance with the City of Springfield
Stormwater Management Manual - Appendix C, by first performing a minimum soaking
period of 4 hours. At the end of the soaking period, we utilized 12 inches of water head
to perform the infiltration test in approximate 20 -minute increments until a relatively
steady infiltration rate was observed, as provided in the table below. The table below
summarizes the infiltration test data and provides our recommended minimum
correction factor based on the test met hod.
Test ID
Approximate
Exploration
Elevation (ft)
Test
Depth
Below
Grade
(ft)
Approximate
Ground Water
level (ft)
Soil
Type
Measured
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)1
IT-1 437 3.5 11 feet at B-01
Sandy
Fat
Clay
3/16
1. Recommended minimum correction factor of 2 is based on anticipated ambiguities and
the long-term system degradation due to siltation, biofouling, crusting or other factors.
Based on our field test results, we recommend using the measured rates expressed
above for the stormwater facility. The measured rates should be reduced with the code
prescribed correction factors. The long -term infiltration rates will depend on many
factors, and can be reduced if the following conditions are present:
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10
■ Variability of site soils,
■ Fine layering of soils, or
■ Maintenance and pre -treatment of the influent
Geotechnical Overview
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on geotechnical conditions
encountered in the explorations, provided that the recommendations provided in this
report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.
The subsurface materials generally consisted of dense gravelly soil with variable
amounts of fine grain soils and sand with occasionally interbedded fat clay or sand layers
under the existing filled material. The existing filled material depth varied from 0.8 to
3.0 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was encountered as
shallow as 10.5 feet at the completion of drilling.
The underlying subsurface soil is not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the structure
could be supported on Shallow Foundations . While the canopy foundations can be
supported on spread foundations as described above, we provide an alternative drilled
shaft design recommendation in this report. Expansive fat clay (CH) soils in foundation
areas should be removed and replaced with structural fill as discussed in Earthwork .
Support of floor slabs and pavements on or above existing fill materials is discussed in
this report. However, even with the recommended construction procedures, an inherent
risk remains for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material, within o r buried
by the fill, will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated
without completely removing the existing fill but can be reduced by following the
recommendations contained in this report. To take advantage of the cost benefit of not
removing the entire amount of undocumented fill, the owner must be willing to accept
the risk of increased differential performance which can result in increased cracking and
abrupt differential settlement. Should this risk be acceptable, fl oor slabs and pavements
can be supported above the fill.
Expansive fat clay (CH) soils are present on this site mostly at proposed paving area
under the existing fill . This report provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects
of soil shrinkage and expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed, some
movement and (at least minor) cracking in the structure or pavement should be
anticipated. The severity of cracking and other damage such as uneven floor slabs will
probably increase if modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the
expansive soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and distress may not be feasible, but
it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive
measures are used during construction. Some of these options are discu ssed in this
report such as complete replacement of expansive soils or a structural slab.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11
Our opinion of pavement section thickness design has been developed based on our
understanding of the intended use, assumed traffic, and subgrade preparation
recommended herein using methodology contained in ACI 330 “Guide to Design and
Construction of Con crete Parking Lots” NAPA IS -109 “Design of Hot Mix Asphalt
Pavements” and adjusted with consideration to local practice or local/state design
manual. The Pavements section includes our recommended parameters for subgrade
support and minimum pavement thicknesses .
The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and
laboratory testing (presented in the Exploration and Laboratory Results),
engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. The
General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.
Earthwork
Earthwork is anticipated to include demolition, clearing and grubbing, excavations, and
structural fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the
preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical qu ality
criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical
engineering evaluation for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements.
Demolition
The proposed building will be constructed within the footprint of the existing paving
area, which will need to be demolished, as well as exterior sidewalks, the building, and
utilities. We recommend existing foundations, slabs, and utilities be removed fro m within
the proposed building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond the outer edge of the
foundations.
For areas outside the proposed building footprints and foundation -bearing zones,
existing foundations, floor slabs, and utilities should be removed where they conflict with
proposed utilities, retaining walls, and pavements. In such cases, existing foundat ions,
floor slabs, and utilities should be removed to a depth of at least 2 feet below the
affected utility or design pavement subgrade elevation.
Site Preparation
Prior to placing fill, existing vegetation, topsoil, and root mats should be removed.
Complete stripping of the topsoil should be performed in the proposed building and
parking/driveway areas. The soil materials which contain less than 5 percent organics
can be reused as structural fill provided the material is moisture conditioned and
properly compacted.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12
Although no evidence of fill or underground facilities (such as septic tanks, cesspools,
basements, and utilities) was observed during the exploration and site reconnaissance,
such features could be encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or
underground facilities are encountered, such features should be removed, and the
excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.
Subgrade Preparation
We recommend removing all existing fills within the building footprint as recommended
in the Existing Fill section. A ll subgrades should be evaluated by the Geotechnical
Engineer or representative. The subgrade should be proof rolled with an adequately
loaded vehicle such as a fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck or T-probe where not
accessible . The proof rolling should be performed under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer or representative. Areas excessively deflecting under the proof
roll should be delineated and subsequently addressed by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Such areas should either be removed or modified as Subgrade Stabilization section.
Excessively wet or dry material should either be removed or moisture -conditioned and
recompacted.
Because of the presence of expansive soil, we recommend fat clay (CH), if encountered
at footing locations, would be undercut to native gravelly soils. In other areas, if
encountered, fat clay (CH) should be undercut 1 foot at pavement locations and 2 feet at
floor slab locations and replaced with structural fill.
All exposed areas that will receive fill, once properly cleared and benched where
necessary, should be evaluated as described above under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer . Compacted structural fill soils should then be placed to the
proposed design grade, and the moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils
should be maintained until foundation or pavement construction.
Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration,
subgrade soils exposed during construction might not be workable; workability may be
improved by our recommendations in Subgrade Stabilization section.
Existing Fill
As noted in Geotechnical Characterization , our exploration s encountered previously
placed fill to depths ranging from about 0.8 to 3 feet. Terracon prepared Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment dated July 26, 2024. Based on the above -referenced
assessment, the site was undeveloped or was agriculture land prior to 2000. The site is
developed with a commercial building and paved parking area resembling current
configuration .
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 13
We have no records to indicate the degree of control, and consequently, the fill is
considered unreliable for support of shallow foundations or equipment slabs. Support of
pavements on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with
the recommended construction procedures, the inherent risk exists for the owner that
compressible fill or unsuitable material, within or buried by the fill will, not be
discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely
removing the existing fill but can be reduced by foll owing the recommendations
contained in this report.
If the owner elects to construct the floor slabs on the existing fill to reduce initial
construction costs in exchange for increased potential longer -term distress, the following
protocol should be followed. After the planned grading has been completed, th e area
should be undercut 1 foot within the building area and 5 feet beyond the lateral limits of
the building area. Following this overexcavation, the entire area should be proofrolled
with heavy, rubber tire construction equipment, to aid in delineating areas of soft or
otherwise unsuitable soil. Once unsuitable materials have been remediated, and the
subgrade has passed the proofroll test, backfill to finished subgrade elevation can begin.
The existing undocumented fill that was removed can be evaluated for reuse as
structural fill.
If the owner elects to construct pavements on the existing fill, the following protocol
should be followed. Once the planned subgrade elevation has been reached, the entire
pavement area should be proof rolled. Areas of soft or otherwise unsuitable material
should be undercut and replaced with a new structural fill .
Subgrade Stabilization
Methods of subgrade improvement, as described below, could include scarification,
moisture conditioning and re-compaction , removal of unstable materials and
replacement with granular fill (with or without geosynthetics), and chemical stabilization.
The appropriate method of improvement, if required, would be dependent on factors
such as schedule, weather, the size of area to be stabilized, and the nature of the
instability. More detailed recommendations can be provided during construction as the
need for su bgrade stabilization occurs. Performing site grading operations during warm
seasons and dry periods would help reduce the amount of subgrade stabilization
required.
If the exposed subgrade is unstable during proofrolling operations, it could be stabilized
using one of the methods outlined below. Scarification and re -compaction are typically
an option; however, we do not expect this method to be feasible with the native soils.
We provide it as an option below, but not that it will only be feasible where granular
soils are exposed.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 14
■ Scarification and Re -compaction - It may be feasible to scarify, dry, and
recompact the exposed soils. The success of this procedure would depend
primarily upon favorable weather and sufficient time to dry the soils. Stable
subgrades likely would not be achievable if the thickness of th e unstable soil is
greater than about 1 foot, if the unstable soil is at or near groundwater levels, or
if construction is performed during a period of wet or cool weather when drying is
difficult.
■ Crushed Stone - The use of crushed stone or crushed gravel is a common
procedure to improve subgrade stability. Typical undercut depths would be
expected to range from about 12 to 18 inches below finished subgrade elevation.
The use of high modulus geotextiles (i.e., engineering fabric or geogrid) could
also be considered after underground work such as utility construction is
completed. Prior to placing the fabric or geogrid, we recomm end that all below
grade construction, such as utility line installation, be completed to avoid
damaging the fabric or geogrid. Equipment should not be operated above the
fabric or geogrid until one full lift of crushed stone fill is placed above it. The
maximum particle size of granular material placed over geotextile fabric or
geogrid should not exceed 1 -1/2 inches.
■ Chemical Modification - Improvement of subgrades with Portland cement or
class C fly ash could be considered for improving unstable soils. Chemical
modification should be performed by a pre -qualified contractor having experience
with successfully stabilizing subgrades in the project area on similar sized
projects wit h similar soil conditions. Results of chemical analysis of the additive
materials should be provided to the geotechnical engineer prior to use. The
hazards of chemicals blowing across the site o r onto adjacent property should
also be considered. Additional testing would be needed to develop specific
recommendations to improve subgrade stability by blending chemicals with the
site soils. Additional testing could include, but not be limited to, det ermining the
most suitable stabilizing agent, the optimum amounts required, the presence of
sulfates in the soil, and freeze -thaw durability of the subgrade.
Further evaluation of the need and recommendations for subgrade stabilization can be
provided during construction as the geotechnical conditions are exposed.
Fill Material Types
Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as structural fill and general fill.
Structural fill is material used below, or within 10 feet of structures, pavements or
constructed slopes. General fill is material used to achieve grade outside of these areas.
Reuse of On-Site Soil: Excavated on-site soil is not suitable for reuse as Select Fill and
should not be placed beneath settlement sensitive structures and within foundation
bearing zones. Portions of the on -site soil have an elevated fines content and will be
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 15
sensitive to moisture conditions (particularly during seasonally wet periods) and may not
be suitable for reuse when above optimum moisture content.
Fill Materials: Structural fill materials should meet the following material property
requirements. Regardless of its source, compacted fill should consist of approved
materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used,
and fill shou ld not be placed on a frozen subgrade.
Fill Type 1 Specifications
Acceptable Location for
Placement
(for Structural Fill)
Common Fill
Oregon Department of
Transportation Standard
Specifications for Construction
(ODOT SSC) Section 003 30.13
Selected General Backfill
(Maximum PI = 10% and LL =
40%)
Only available for use outside
of the building pad .
Dry weather only acceptable
Select Fill ODOT SSC Section 00330.14
Selected Granular Backfill 2
All locations across the site.
Wet and dry weather
acceptable.
Crushed
Aggregate Base
Course (CABC)
ODOT SSC Section 02630.10
Dense Graded Aggregate
(2”-0 to ¾”-0) 2
All locations across the site.
Wet and dry weather
acceptable.
Trench Backfill
ODOT SSC Section 00405.14 for
Trench Backfill with additional
stipulations 4
Acceptable materials include
Common and Select Fill listed
above.
Subgrade
Stabilization
ODOT SSC Section 00330.14 for
Selected Granular Backfill above
groundwater seepage and OSSC
Section 00330.16 for Stone
Embankment Material with
additional stipulations 4
12-inch compacted lift in wet
or soft subgrades encountered
in subgrade and other utility
excavations.
Bedding &
Haunching
ODOT SSC Section 00405.13,
Pipe Zone Material
Thickness above and below
pipe recommended by
Electrical Engineer
1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free (free = less
than 3% by weight) of organic matter and debris (i.e. wood sticks greater than ½ inch
in diameter). A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotech nical
engineer for evaluation.
2. Material should have a maximum aggregate size of 2 inches, and a minimum laboratory
CBR of 20% for granular soils, and no more than 8% passing the No. 200 sieve by
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 16
Fill Type 1 Specifications
Acceptable Location for
Placement
(for Structural Fill)
weight determined by ASTM D6913. Fines should have a Plasticity Index (PI) of less
than 20% per ASTM D4318. Reclaimed glass will not be accepted.
3. The contractor shall select the appropriate material for use based on the current and
forecasted weather conditions at the time of construction.
4. Maximum aggregate size shall be limited to 2½ inches.
Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements
Structural should meet the following compaction requirements.
Item Structural Fill
Maximum Lift
Thickness
8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self -propelled
compaction equipment is used
4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand -guided equipment
(i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used
Minimum
Compaction
Requirements 1,2
95% of max. above and below foundations and within 2 feet of
finished pavement subgrade
92% of max. when more than 2 feet below finished pavement
subgrade
Water Content
Range 1 -2% to +2% of optimum
1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the modified Proctor
test (ASTM D1557).
2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low
fines content, compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In
this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 70% relative density
(ASTM D4253 and D4254). Materials not amenable to density testing should be placed
and compacted to a stable condition observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or
representative.
Utility Trench Backfill
Any soft or unsuitable materials encountered at the bottom of utility trench excavations
should be removed and replaced with structural fill or bedding material in accordance
with public works specifications for the utility be supported. This recommendatio n is
particularly applicable to utility work requiring grade control and/or in areas where
subsequent grade raising could cause settlement in the subgrade supporting the utility.
Trench excavation should not be conducted below a downward 1:1 projection fro m
existing foundations without engineering review of shoring requirements and
geotechnical observation during construction.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 17
Part of on -site materials are considered suitable for backfill of utility and pipe trenches
from 1 foot above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the material
is free of organic matter and deleterious substances.
Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this
report. Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand -operated tampers or
other lightweight compactors. Where trenches are placed beneath slabs or footi ngs, the
backfill should satisfy the gradation and expansion index requirements of structural fill
discussed in this report. Flooding or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill is
not recommended.
For low permeability subgrades, utility trenches are a common source of water
infiltration and migration. Utility trenches penetrating beneath the building should be
effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow through the trenches, which could
migrate below the building. The trench should provide an effective trench plug that
extends at least 5 feet from the face of the building exterior. The plug material should
consist of cementitious flowable fill or low permeability clay. The trench plug mat erial
should be placed to surround the utility line. If used, the clay trench plug material
should be placed and compacted to comply with the water content and compaction
recommendations for structural fill stated previously in this report.
Grading and Drainage
All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building during and after
construction and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water
retained next to the building can result in soil movements greater than those discussed
in this report. Greater movements can result in unacceptable differential floor slab
and/or foundation movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. The roof should
have gutters/drains with downspouts that discharge onto splash blocks at a distance of
at least 10 feet from the building.
Exposed ground should be sloped and maintained at a minimum 5% away from the
building for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. Locally, flatter grades
may be necessary to transition ADA access requirements for flatwork. After building
con struction and landscaping have been completed, final grades should be verified to
document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structure should also
be periodically inspected and adjusted, as necessary, as part of the structure’s
maintenance program. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, a maintenance
program should be established to effectively seal and maintain joints and prevent
surface water infiltration.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 18
Earthwork Construction Considerations
Shallow excavations for the proposed structure are anticipated to be accomplished with
conventional construction equipment. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should
be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of grade -
supported improvements such as floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over
the completed subgrades should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent
ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Water collecting
over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed. If the subgrade freezes,
desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the
materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor sl ab
construction.
As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part
1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any
applicable local and/or state regulations.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the
means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances
shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.
Excavations or other activities resulting in ground disturbance have the potential to
affect adjoining properties and structures. Our scope of services does not include review
of available final grading information or consider potential temporary grading p erformed
by the contractor for potential effects such as ground movement beyond the project
limits. A preconstruction/ precondition survey should be conducted to document nearby
property/infrastructure prior to any site development activity. Excavation or ground
disturbance activities adjacent or near property lines should be monitored or
instrumented for potential ground movements that could negatively affect adjoining
property and/or structures.
Construction Observation and Testing
The earthwork efforts should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (or others under
their direction). Observation should include documentation of adequate removal of
surficial materials (vegetation, topsoil, and pavements), evaluation and remediation of
existing fill materials, as well as proof rolling and mitigation of unsuitable areas
delineated by the proof roll.
Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, as
recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each
lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at a frequency of at l east one
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 19
test for every 2,500 square feet of compacted fill in the building areas and 5,000 square
feet in pavement areas. Where not specified by local ordinance, one density and water
content test should be performed for every 100 linear feet of compacted utility trench
backfill and a minimum of one test performed for every 12 vertical inches of compacted
backfill.
In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are observed, the Geotechnical
Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.
In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction,
the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project
provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface
conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.
Shallow Foundations
If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in the
Earthwork section, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow
foundations.
Design Parameters – Compressive Loads
Item Description
Maximum Net Allowable Bearing
Pressure 1, 2
2,500 psf - foundations bearing on native gravel soil
Required Bearing Stratum 3 undisturbed native gravel (non-expansive) soil
Minimum Foundation Dimensions
Based on IBC
24-inch for square spread foundation
18-inch for continues footing
Ultimate Passive Resistance 4
(equivalent fluid pressures) 400 pcf (granular backfill)
Sliding Resistance 5 0.45 allowable coefficient of friction - granular
material
Minimum Embedment below
Finished Grade6
Exterior footings: 12 inches
Interior footings: 12 inches
Estimated Total Settlement from
Structural Loads 2 Less than about 1 inch
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 20
Item Description
Estimated Differential Settlement 2, 7 About 2/3 of total settlement
1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Values assume that exterior grades are no
steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure. These values can be i ncreased by 1/3 for short -term
wind and seismic loading condition cases.
2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description. Additional geotechnical
consultation will be necessary if higher loads are anticipated.
3. Fat clay (CH) soils or unsuitable or soft soils should be overexcavated to gravel soils and replaced
per the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section.
4. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation
to be nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical faces or that the footing
forms be removed and compacted structural fill be place d against the vertical footing face. Assumes
no hydrostatic pressure.
5. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials.
Frictional resistance for granular materials is dependent on the bearing pressure which may vary
due to load combinations. For fine -grained materials, lateral resistance using cohesion should not
exceed ½ the dead load.
6. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For
sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of
the structure.
7. Differential settlements are noted for equivalent -loaded foundations and bearing elevation as
measured over a span of 50 feet.
Footing Drains
A perforated rigid plastic drain line installed at the base of footings along the perimeter
of the structures. The invert of a drain line around a building area or exterior retaining
wall should be placed near foundation bearing level. The drain line shoul d be sloped to
provide positive gravity drainage to daylight or to a sump pit and pump. The drain line
should be surrounded by clean, free -draining granular material meeting the
specifications for Select Fill as defined in the Fill Material Types section. The free-
draining aggregate should be encapsulated in a filter fabric. The granular fill should
extend to within 2 feet of final grade, where it should be capped with compacted native
material to reduce infiltration of surface water into the drain system.
Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads
Shallow foundations subjected to overturning loads should be proportioned such that the
resultant eccentricity is maintained in the center -third of the foundation (e.g., e < b/6,
where b is the foundation width). This requirement is intended to keep the en tire
foundation area in compression during the extreme lateral/overturning load event.
Foundation oversizing may be required to satisfy this condition.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 21
Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the
footing and the overlying soils with consideration to the IBC basic load combinations.
Foundation Construction Considerations
As noted in the Earthwork section, the footing excavations should be evaluated under
the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations
should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be
placed soon after excavating to r educe bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to
prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet
or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations
should be removed/recon ditioned before foundation concrete is placed.
Sensitive soils exposed at the surface of footing excavations may require surficial
compaction with hand -held dynamic compaction equipment prior to placing structural
fill, steel, and/or concrete. Should surficial compaction not be adequate, construction o f
a working surface consisting of either crushed stone or a lean concrete mud mat may be
required prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and construction of foundations.
If unsuitable bearing soils are observed at the base of the planned footing excavation,
the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils and should be backfilled up
to the footing base elevation, with describe soil type placed, as recommended in the
Earthwork section .
Item Description
Soil Moist Unit Weight 120 pcf
Soil Effective Unit Weight 1 55 pcf
Soil weight included in uplift
resistance
Soil included within the prism extending up from
the top perimeter of the footing at an angle of
20 degrees from vertical to ground surface
1. Effective (or buoyant) unit weight should be used for soil above the foundation level and
below a water level. The high groundwater level should be used in uplift design as
applicable.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 22
Deep Foundations
Drilled Shaft Design Parameters
Soil design parameters are provided in the table below for the design of drilled shaft
foundations. The values presented for allowable side friction and end bearing include a
factor of safety.
Drilled Shaft Design Summary 1
Depth
(feet)
Stratigraphy 2 Allowable Skin
Friction
(psf) 3
Allowable End
Bearing
Pressure
(psf) 4
No.
Material
0.0-2.0 Sand 0 0
2.0-8.0 Gravel 500 -
>8.0 Gravel 1000 10,000
1. Design capacities are dependent upon the method of installation and quality control
parameters. The values provided are estimates and should be verified when installation
protocol has been finalized.
2. See Subsurface Profile in the GeoModel section for more details on stratigraphy.
3. Applicable for compressive loading only. Reduce to 2/3 of values shown for uplift
loading. The effective weight of the shaft can be added to uplift load resistance to the
extent permitted by IBC.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 23
Drilled Shaft Design Summary 1
Depth
(feet)
Stratigraphy 2 Allowable Skin
Friction
(psf) 3
Allowable End
Bearing
Pressure
(psf) 4
No.
Material
4. Shafts should extend at least one diameter into the bearing stratum (or to a depth equal
to the bell diameter for belled shafts) for end bearing to be considered.
Shafts should be adequately reinforced as designed by the Structural Engineer for both
tension and shear to sufficient depths. Buoyant unit weights of the soil and concrete
should be used in the calculations below the highest anticipated groundwater elevation.
Drilled shaft should have a minimum (center -to-center) spacing of three diameters.
Closer spacing may require a reduction in axial load capacity. Axial capacity reduction
can be determined by comparing the allowable axial capacity determined from the sum
of individual piles in a group versus the capacity calculated using the perimeter and base
of the pile group acting as a unit. The lesser of the two capacities should be used in
design.
A minimum shaft diameter of 18 inches should be used. Drilled shafts should have a
minimum length of 8 feet and should extend into the bearing strata at least one shaft
diameter for the allowable end -bearing pressures listed in the above table.
Post -construction settlements of drilled shafts designed and constructed as described in
this report are estimated to range from about ½ to ¾ inch. Differential settlement
between individual shafts is expected to be ½ to ⅔ of the total settlement.
Based on the embedment soil types, we recommend a factor of safety of at least 2.2
when considering factored loads on the shafts.
Drilled Shaft Lateral Loading
The following table lists input values for use in LPILE analyses. Such analysis should be
considered if lateral loads exceed 10 kips. Modern versions of LPILE provide estimated
default values of k h and E50 based on strength and are recommended for the project.
Since deflection or a service limit criterion will most likely control lateral capacity design,
no safety/resistance factor is included with the parameters.
Stratigraphy1 L-Pile Soil
Model 2 ’ (pcf)2 ε50 K (pci)
Depth Material Static Cyclic
0.0-2.0 Gravel Sand - Reese 34 120 Use Default Value
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 24
Stratigraphy1 L-Pile Soil
Model 2 ’ (pcf)2 ε50 K (pci)
Depth Material Static Cyclic
2.0-8.0 Gravel Sand - Reese 38 125 Use Default Value
>8.0 Gravel Sand - Reese 44 65 Use Default Value
1. See Subsurface Profile in the GeoModel section for more details on stratigraphy.
2. Definition of Terms:
S u: Undrained shear strength
: Internal friction angle
’: Effective unit weight
Floor Slabs
Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements in the Earthwork section
have been followed. Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from
the structure and positive drainage of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.
The subgrade soils under the existing fill at the portion of the site are comprised of high
plasticity clays exhibiting the potential to swell with increased water content.
Construction of the floor slab, combined with the removal of trees, and revising site
drainage creates the potential for gradual increased water contents within the clays.
Increases in water content will cause the clays to swell and damage the floor slab. To
reduce the swell potential to less than about 1 inch, at least the upper 24 inches of
subgrade soils below the floor slab (excluding the floor slab support course) should be
structural fill or prepared natural g ranular soil.
Due to the potential for significant moisture fluctuations of subgrade material beneath
floor slabs supported at -grade, the Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the slab
sub g rades immediately prior to placement of additional fill or floor slabs. Soils below the
specified water contents within this zone should be moisture conditioned or replaced
with structural fill as stated in the Earthwork section .
Floor Slab Design Parameters
Floor Slab Design Parameters
Item Description
Floor Slab
Support1
A minimum of 6 inches of CABC compacted to at least 95% of
the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 .
Subgrade compacted to recommendations in the Earthwork
section .
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 25
Floor Slab Design Parameters
Item Description
If expansive clay is encountered at the subgrade level, a
minimum of 2 feet of non-expansive granular fill is required.
Estimated Modulus
of Subgrade
Reaction 2
180 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads .
1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the
possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and
foundation.
2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the
subgrade condition, the requirements noted in the Earthwork section, and the floor
slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large area loads
the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.
The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade
covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings,
when the project includes humidity -controlled areas, or when the slab will support
equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder,
the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions
regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.
Saw-cut contraction joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and
extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, refer to the ACI Design Manual.
Joints or cracks should be sealed with a waterproof, non -extruding compressible
com pound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet
environments.
Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn -down slabs to meet structural or
other construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between
the walls and slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or fl oor slab
cracks beyond the length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should
account for potential differential settlement through use of sufficient control joints,
appropriate reinforcing or other means.
Settlement of floor slabs supported on existing fill materials cannot be accurately
predicted but could be larger than normal and result in some cracking. Mitigation
measures, as noted in the Existing Fill section, are critical to the performance of floor
slabs. In addition to the mitigation measures, the floor slab can be stiffened by adding
steel reinforcement, grade beams, and/or post -tensioned elements.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 26
Floor Slab Construction Considerations
Finished subgrade, within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab, should be
protected from traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist
condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become damage d or
desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed,
and structural fill should be added to replace the resulting excavation. Final conditioning
of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately prior to pla cement of the floor
slab support course.
The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the condition of the floor slab subgrades
immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel, and
concrete. Attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturb ed
earlier, and to areas where backfilled trenches are located.
Pavements
General Pavement Comments
Pavement designs are provided for the traffic conditions and pavement life conditions as
noted in the Project Description and in the following sections of this report. A critical
aspect of pavement performance is site preparation. Pavement designs noted in this
section must be applied to the site which has been prepared as recommended in the
Site Preparation section .
Pavement Design Parameters
A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 6 was estimated based on the field exploration and
used for the subgrade consisting of compacted site soils for the asphaltic concrete (AC)
pavement designs. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 7000 pci was used for the
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement designs supported on the compacted
subgrade soils. The value was empirically derived based upon our experience with the
fine grain silt/clay subgrade soils and our expectation of the quality of the subgrade as
prescrib ed by conditions outlined in the Earthwork section. A modulus of rupture of 580
psi was used in design for the concrete (based on correlations with a minimum 28 -day
compressive strength of 4,000 psi).
Pavement Section Thicknesses
The following table provides our opinion of minimum thickness for AC sections:
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 27
Layer Thickness (inches)1
AC 2, 3 3
Crushed Aggregate Base Course
(CABC) 6
Structural Fill 12, if expansive clay (CH) is encountered4
1. Designed ESAL based on 60,000 (18-kip ESAL).
2. All materials should meet the Oregon Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Construction (ODOT SSC).
■ Asphaltic Surface - ODOT SSC Type A Asphaltic Cement Concrete: Section 00744
■ Asphaltic Base – ODOT SSC Type B Asphaltic Cement Concrete, Class I: Section
00745
3. A minimum 1.5 -inch surface course should be used on AC pavements.
4. If the expansive clay is encountered at the subgrade level .
The following table provides our estimated minimum thickness of PCC pavements.
Layer
Thickness (inches)1
PCC 2 5
Crushed Aggregate Base Course
(CABC) 4
Structural Fill 12, if expansive clay (CH) is encountered3
1. Designed ESAL based on 70,000 (18-kip ESAL).
2. All materials should meet the current ODOT SSC.
■ Concrete Pavement - ODOT SSC Portland Cement Concrete Type C:
Section 00756
3. If expansive soil is encountered at the subgrade level .
Although not required for structural support, a minimum 4 -inch-thick base course layer
is recommended to help reduce potential for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade
pumping through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent exc essive
slab curling and shrinkage cracking. Joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign
material and doweled where necessary for load transfer. PCC pavement details for joint
spacing, joint reinforcement, and joint sealing should be prepared in acc ordance with
ACI 330 and ACI 325.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 28
Where practical, we recommend early -entry cutting of crack -control joints in PCC
pavements. Cutting of the concrete in its “green” state typically reduces the potential for
micro-cracking of the pavements prior to the crack control joints being formed,
com pared to cutting the joints after the concrete has fully set. Micro -cracking of
pavements may lead to crack formation in locations other than the sawed joints, and/or
reduction of fatigue life of the pavement.
Portland cement concrete pavements should be Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)
which does not use distributed reinforcing steel (i.e., throughout the slab) but must have
proper design and detailing of longitudinal and transverse control joints with ti e bars and
joint dowels. The PCC recommendations presented above require dowel reinforcement in
longitudinal and transverse contraction joints as shown in ACI 330.2R -174. The following
general recommendations are presented for JPCP pavements:
Pavement Drainage
Openings in pavements, such as decorative landscaped areas, are sources for water
infiltration into surrounding pavement systems. Water can collect in the islands and
migrate into the surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement.
Islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near -surface
soils are particular areas of concern. The civil design for the pavements with these
conditions should include features to restrict or collect and discharge excess water from
the islands. Examples of features are edge drains connected to the stormwater collection
system, longitudinal subdrains, or other suitable outlets and impermeable barriers
preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a dep th below the
pavement structure.
Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed
to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to
premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be
graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub -
drainage or connection to a suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water
from the granular subbase.
4 Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Site Paving for Industrial and
Trucking Facilities, American Concrete Institute, ACI 330.2R -17.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 29
Pavement Maintenance
The pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such,
periodic upkeep should be anticipated. Preventive maintenance should be planned and
provided for through an on -going pavement management program. Maintenance
activities are inten ded to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the
pavement investment. Pavement care consists of both localized (e.g., crack and joint
sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Additional
engineering consultation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost -
effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related
cracking may still occur, and repairs may be required.
Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing
preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following
recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:
■ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a
minimum 2%.
■ Subgrade and pavement surfaces should have a minimum 2% slope to promote
proper surface drainage.
■ Install pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent
wetting.
■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.
■ Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture
migration to subgrade soils.
■ Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and
gutter.
General Comments
Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the
geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration.
Variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects
of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become
evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the
Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing
services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide
further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the
absence of our observation and testing services on -site, we should be immediately
notified so th at we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 30
Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or
identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies
should be undertaken.
Our services and any correspondence are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use
of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no th ird-
party beneficiaries intended. Any third -party access to services or correspondence is
solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our
client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client a nd is not
intended for third parties. Any use or reliance on the provided information by third
parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are
intended or made.
Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation
cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost
estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that
could significantly affect excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation
costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the
specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety and cost estimating including
excavation support and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others.
Construction and site development have the potential to affect adjacent prop erties. Such
impacts can include damage due to vibration, modification of groundwater/surface water
flow during construction, foundation movement due to undermining or subsidence from
excavation , as well as noise or air quality concerns. Evaluation of these items on nearby
properties are commonly associated with contractor m eans and methods and are not
addressed in this report. The owner and contractor should consider a
preconstruction/precondition survey of surrounding development. If changes in the
nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and
recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either
verify or modify our conclusions in writing.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Figures
Contents:
GeoModel
410
415
420
425
430
435
ELEVATION (MSL) (feet)Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical
engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as
required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.
Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.
NOTES:
B-01 B-02
B-03B-04B-05
B-06 B-07
IT-01A IT-01B
Legend
This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.
GeoModel
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Portland, OR
Second Water Observation
First Water Observation
Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of
the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible
over time.
Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In
some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence
of groundwater. See individual logs for details.
Asphalt Fill
Clayey Gravel
Poorly-graded
Gravel with Clay
and Sand
Poorly-graded Sand Fat Clay
Clayey Gravel with
Sand Clayey Sand
Fat Clay with Gravel Sandy Fat Clay
Model Layer Layer Name General Description
1 Asphalt, poorly graded gravel with clay and sand (GP-GC),
gray to black, moist, medium dense to dense.
2
Gravel with variable clay content (GP-GC & GC), sand (SP &
SC) and fat clay (CH): brown, moist to wet, medium dense
to very dense for coarse grained soil and stiff to soft for
fine grained soil.
FILL
ALLUVIUM
1
2
11
13
0.83
26.5
1
2
10.5
2
25.1
1
2
10.5
15
0.83
25.9
1
2
10.42
15
3
26.5
1
2
2.5
6.5
1
2
0.83
6.5
1
2
0.83
9
1
2
2.5
8.8
1
2
0.83
3.7
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Attachments
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Exploration and Testing Procedures
Field Exploration
Exploration
Number
Exploration
Type
Approximate
Exploration
Depth (feet)
Location
Latitude Longitude
B-0 1 Drilled Boring 26.5 44.0702°N 123.0448°W
B-0 2 Drilled Boring 25.1 44.0702°N 123.0446°W
B-03 Drilled Boring 25.9 44.0703°N 123.0447°W
B-04 Drilled Boring 26.5 44.0703°N 123.0448°W
B-05 Drilled Boring 6.5 44.0702°N 123.0451°W
B-0 6 Drilled Boring 6.5 44.0707°N 123.0452°W
B-0 7 Drilled Boring 9.0 44.0708°N 123.0448°W
IT-01A Infiltration Boring 8.8 44.0702°N 123.0449°W
IT-01B Infiltration Boring 3.5 44.0702°N 123.0449°W
Exploration Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the exploration
layout using handheld GPS equipment (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±20 feet)
and referencing existing site features. Approximate ground surface elevations were
estimated using Google Earth. If elevations and a more precise exploration layout are
desired, we recommend exploration s be surveyed.
Drilled Borings : We advanced the borings with a track -mounted drill rig using
continuous flight augers hollow stem . Five samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of
each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the thin -walled tube sampling
procedure, a thin -walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge was pushed
hydraulically into the soil to obtain a re latively undisturbed sample. In the split -barrel
sampling procedure, a standard 2 -inch outer diameter split -barrel sampling spoon was
driven into the ground by a 140 -pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30
inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches
of a normal 18 -inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
resistanc e value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N -values, are indicated
on the boring logs at the test depths.
Exploration Logging: All explorations were supervised and logged by a field engineer
who recorded field test data, classified soils, and collect ed the samples from the
explorations. Our exploration team prepare d field exploration logs as part of standard
drilling operations including sampling depths, penetration distances, and other relevant
sampling information. Field logs include visual classifications of materials encountered
during drilling, and our interpretation of subsurface conditions between sample s. Final
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
exploration logs, prepared from field logs, represent the geotechnical engineer's
interpretation, and include modifications based on observations and laboratory tests.
Infiltration Testing: One infiltration test was conducted within the stormwater
management areas at the site. The test was conducted in general accordance with the
1980 EPA Encased Falling Head test method as referenced in the City of Springfield per
Appendix C of the Development Code. Details of the testing are presented in the
Infiltration section of this report. Results of the infiltration testing are presented in the
Exploration and Laboratory Results .
Property Disturbance: We backfilled borings according to local jurisdiction
requirements after the completion of each exploration. Pavements were patched with
cold -mix asphalt. Our services did not include repair of the site beyond backfilling our
boreholes and cold patching ex isting pavements. Excess auger cuttings were dispersed
in the general vicinity of each borehole except the contaminated soil that was collected
in drums and disposed of off the site. Since backfill material often settles below the
surface after a period, we recommend boreholes be checked periodically and additional
backfill added, if necessary.
Laboratory Testing
The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests. The
laboratory testing program included the following types of tests:
■ Moisture Content
■ Grain Size Analysis
■ Atterberg Limits
Laboratory test results are presented on the exploration logs and/or as separate graphs
in the Exploration and Laboratory Results section . The laboratory testing program
often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the results of our
field and laboratory programs, we described and classified the soil samples in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System .
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Photography Log
Boring B-04, Auger Cutting
Showing B-2 Location
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Boring B-03, the asphalt was patched
Boring B-06
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Site Location and Exploration Plans
Contents:
Site Location
Exploration Plan
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Site Location
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Exploration Plan
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER
APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Exploration and Laboratory Results
Contents:
Boring Logs (B-01 through B-07, IT-01A, and IT-01B)
Infiltration Test Results (IT-1)
Atterberg Limits
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
435.58
435.17
432.25
413
409.5
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, moist, dense, {base rock}
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, angular, brown, moist,
loose
medium dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, subrounded, brown, moist, medium dense
moist, very dense
wet
dense
very dense
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace clay, fine to medium grained,
brown, wet, loose
heaving sand
Boring Terminated at 26.5 Feet
Boring Log No. B-01
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel LayerN value at 25 feet is not reliable as the drilling encountered heaving sand.
37
9
2
0.8
17.8
21.7
5.4
5.8
6.6
6.9
12.4
12.6
26.5
0.4
0.8
3.8
23.0
26.5
8-3-3
N=6
2-5-14
N=19
30-40-45
N=85
29-35-41
N=76
15-20-30
N=50
15-15-20
N=35
32-49-49
N=98
1-1-5
N=6
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-24-2024
Boring Completed
07-24-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
At completion of drilling
While drilling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 436 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0702° Longitude: -123.0448°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
435.58
434
431
410.9
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, moist, dense, {base rock}
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, subrounded, brown,
moist, very dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, subrounded, brown, moist, very dense
wet, dense
wet, very dense
lens of fine grained sand.
Boring Terminated at 25.1 Feet
Boring Log No. B-02
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer8
5.3
11.2
7.4
8.5
8.4
9.3
23.5
10.7
0.4
2.0
5.0
25.1
13-25-11
N=36
4-18-40
N=58
15-35-43
N=78
18-28-30
N=58
15-22-25
N=47
20-25-30
N=55
8-38-50
N=88
50/1"
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-25-2024
Boring Completed
07-25-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
While drilling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 436 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0702° Longitude: -123.0446°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
436.58
436.17
432
431
411.1
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, dense, {base rock}
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, angular, brown, moist, medium dense
FAT CLAY (CH), high plasticity, brown, moist, stiff
CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), fine to coarse grained,
subrounded, brown, moist, dense
wet, dense
wet, very dense
Boring Terminated at 25.9 Feet
Boring Log No. B-03
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer23
5.0
12.7
19.6
6.8
8.5
8.4
8.6
9.3
0.4
0.8
5.0
6.0
25.9
15-8-8
N=16
15-20-12
N=32
3-2-6
N=8
20-24-23
N=47
15-25-22
N=47
25-39-48
N=87
18-30-23
N=53
18-50/5"
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-25-2024
Boring Completed
07-25-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
At completion of drilling
While drilling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 437 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0703° Longitude: -123.0447°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
436.58
436.17
434
433.25
416.5
415.5
410.5
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, {base rock}
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, brown, moist, dense
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), subrounded, brown, moist, loose
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, subrounded, brown, loose
wet, very dense
CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine grained, brown, wet, medium dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, subrounded, brown, wet, very dense
Boring Terminated at 26.5 Feet
Boring Log No. B-04
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer6.5
4.5
34.0
8.9
5.2
6.4
8.9
10.5
32.8
6.4
0.4
0.8
3.0
3.8
20.5
21.5
26.5
16-18-19
N=37
12-5-2
N=7
20-25-37
N=62
12-30-26
N=56
24-37-46
N=83
15-4-7
N=11
20-38-42
N=80
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-24-2024
Boring Completed
07-24-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
At completion of drilling
While drilling
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 437 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0703° Longitude: -123.0448°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
436.58
436.17
434.5
432
430.5
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, {base rock}
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, brown, moist, dense
FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CH), high plasticity, brown, moist, stiff,
subrounded gravel
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), trace sand, fine grained, subrounded, brown,
moist, very dense
Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet
Boring Log No. B-05
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer5.8
19.5
0.4
0.8
2.5
5.0
6.5
23-20-15
N=35
5-5-8
N=13
6-27-40
N=67
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-25-2024
Boring Completed
07-25-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
No groundwater was encountered.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 437 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0702° Longitude: -123.0451°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
435.58
435.17
433.5
429.5
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, {base rock}
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), angular, brown, moist, medium dense
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), brown, moist, medium stiff
moist, soft
Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet
Boring Log No. B-06
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer14.6
39.5
41.1 69-27-42
0.4
0.8
2.5
6.5
6-6-4
N=10
5-4-3
N=7
1-1-1
N=2
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-25-2024
Boring Completed
07-25-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
No groundwater was encountered.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 436 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0707° Longitude: -123.0452°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
435.58
435.17
427.75
427
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, {base rock}
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), high plasticity, brown, moist, soft
moist, stiff
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), fine to coarse grained, subrounded, brown,
moist to wet, medium dense
Boring Terminated at 9 Feet
Boring Log No. B-07
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsModel LayerGraphic Log67
28.4
31.7
30.8
13.7
0.4
0.8
8.3
9.0
5-2-3
N=5
1-1-2
N=3
1-1-1
N=2
10-10-18
N=28
70-26-44
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-25-2024
Boring Completed
07-25-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
No groundwater was encountered.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 436 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResultsSee Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0708° Longitude: -123.0448°
1
2
436.58
436.17
434.5
431.5
428.2
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, {base rock}
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, subangular, brown, moist, medium dense
FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CH), low plasticity, brown, moist, medium
stiff, subrounded gravel
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC), fine to
coarse grained, subrounded, brown, moist, very dense
Boring Terminated at 8.8 Feet
Boring Log No. IT-01A
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)5
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer5.2
24.0
20.7
4.9
6.1
0.4
0.8
2.5
5.5
8.8
13-13-12
N=25
1-3-4
N=7
9-22-33
N=55
17-45-50/4"
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
D. Dunn
Boring Started
07-24-2024
Boring Completed
07-24-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
No groundwater was encountered.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 437 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0702° Longitude: -123.0449°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
436.58
436.17
433.3
ASPHALT, 5 inches thickness
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (GP-GC),
fine to coarse grained, angular, gray, moist, {base rock}
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), high plasticity, brown, moist
Boring Terminated at 3.7 Feet
Boring Log No. IT-01B
Water LevelObservationsDepth (Ft.)Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | MaterialsGraphic LogModel Layer6430.0
0.4
0.8
3.7
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081 Portland, OR
700 NE 55th Ave
Drill Rig
Geoprobe 3126 GT
Hammer Type
Automatic
Driller
Terracon
Logged by
C. Stempel
Boring Started
07-24-2024
Boring Completed
07-24-2024
Abandonment Method
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon
completion.
Advancement Method
4-1/4 inch inner diamter hollow stem auger.
Notes
Water Level Observations
No groundwater was encountered.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.
Elevation Reference: Elevations were estimated using Google Earth.
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Sample TypePercentFinesWaterContent (%)Elevation: 437 (Ft.) +/-
Atterberg
Limits
LL-PL-PI
See Exploration PlanLocation:
Latitude: 44.0702° Longitude: -123.0449°
Depth (Ft.)Field TestResults1
2
Infiltration Testing Results
Raising Cane's #C1267 | Springfield, Lane County, OR
Test Date: July 24, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Project Date 7/24/2024 Exploration Number IT-1
Test Method
6 inches Infiltration Test Depth 3 1/2 ft Approximate Elevation1 433-1/2 ft
9:55 PM
1:55 AM
12 inches
Time Interval Measurement2 Drop in Water level Infiltration Rate3
(Minutes)(inches)(inches)(inches per hour)
1:55 AM 59 ---
2:15 AM 20 59 1/16 3/16
2:35 AM 20 59 1/8 1/16 3/16
2:55 AM 20 59 1/5 1/16 3/16
3:15 AM 20 59 1/4 1/16 3/16
3:35 AM 20 59 1/3 1/16 3/16
3:55 AM 20 59 3/8 1/16 3/16
1
2
3
Raising Cane's #C1267
Soil at infiltration test depth
Inner Diameter of Pipe
Sandy Fat Clay
1980 EPA Falling Head- City of Springfield Stormwater Management Manual
Presaturation Start Time
Presaturation Notes Water added periodically to maintain 12 inch headPresaturation End Time
Head During Presaturation
Time Remarks
Water adjusted to maintain 12 inch head
Elevation interpolated from Approx. 437 ft elevation Based on Google Earth Pro
Measured to nearest 1/16 inch from top of pipe
Values calculated are raw (unfactored) rates.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110"A" LineASTM D4318
CH or
O
H
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
42
44 66.7
CH
CH
27
26
42
44 66.7
CH
CH
27
26
69
70
SANDY FAT CLAY
SANDY FAT CLAY
Atterberg Limit Results
"U" LineLiquid Limit
LL PL PI Fines USCS DescriptionFinesPlasticity IndexCL - ML
16
4
7
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
5 - 6.5
5 - 6.5
B-06
B-07
Boring ID Depth (Ft)
700 NE 55th Ave
Portland, ORTerracon Project No. 82245081
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Supporting Information
Contents:
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
Auger
Cuttings
Grab
Sample
Shelby
Tube
Standard
Penetration
Test
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
> 4.00
2.00 to 4.00
1.00 to 2.00
0.50 to 1.00
0.25 to 0.50
less than 0.25
Unconfined Compressive
Strength
Qu (tsf)
Raising Cane's #C1267, Springfield, OR
2720 Gateway St | Springfield, OR
Terracon Project No. 82245081
700 NE 55th Ave
Portland, OR
N
(HP)
(T)
(DCP)
UC
(PID)
(OVA)
Standard Penetration Test
Resistance (Blows/Ft.)
Hand Penetrometer
Torvane
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Unconfined Compressive
Strength
Photo-Ionization Detector
Organic Vapor Analyzer
Water Level After a
Specified Period of Time
Water Level After
a Specified Period of Time
Cave In
Encountered
Water Level Field Tests
Water Initially
Encountered
Sampling
Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the
levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated.
Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In
low permeability soils, accurate determination of
groundwater levels is not possible with short term
water level observations.
General Notes
Location And Elevation Notes
Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are
approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface
elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface
elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.
Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils
consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used. ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of
Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance
with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained
soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference
to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.
Exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this
document. Use of such exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data should not be used independently of this document.
Relevance of Exploration and Laboratory Test Results
Descriptive Soil Classification
> 30
15 - 30
8 - 15
4 - 8
2 - 4
Hard
> 50 Very Stiff
Stiff
Medium Stiff
Soft
Very Soft
30 - 50
10 - 29
4 - 9
0 - 3Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Relative Density of Coarse-Grained Soils
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
Consistency of Fine-Grained Soils
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual
procedures or standard penetration resistance
0 - 1
Relative Density ConsistencyStandard Penetration or
N-Value
(Blows/Ft.)
Standard Penetration or
N-Value
(Blows/Ft.)
Strength Terms
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Raising Cane’s #C1267, Springfield | Springfield, Lane County, Oregon
August 16, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 82245081
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
Unified Soil Classification System
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using
Laboratory Tests A
Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group Name B
Coarse-Grained Soils:
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines C
Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
Cu<4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H
Sands:
50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 sieve
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines D
Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Cu<6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I
Fine-Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than
50
Inorganic: PI > 7 and plots above “A” line J CL Lean clay K, L, M
PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M
Organic: 𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑣𝑑𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑
𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑<0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N
Organic silt K, L, M, O
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or
more
Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic silt K, L, M
Organic: 𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑣𝑑𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑
𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑<0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P
Organic silt K, L, M, Q
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3 -inch (75-mm) sieve.
B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with
cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.
C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-
graded gravel with silt, GW -GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP -GM
poorly graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well -graded
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP -SM poorly
graded sand with silt, SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay.
E Cu = D 60/D10 Cc =
F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or
“with gravel,” whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
“sandy” to group name.
M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
“gravelly” to group name.
N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
P PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q PI plots below “A” line.
6010
2
30
DxD
)(D