HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.08 Geology report) () '" . YALERUS Geology Report u
September 9.2010 Phil Vaughan Construction Management. Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle. ~O 81650 Attention: Mr. Phil Vaughan .C.T L THOMPSON ---........... . Subject: Geologic Evaluation
and Geotechnical Investigation Valerus-Antero Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield County. Colorado Project No. GS05500-125 Revised This report provides the results of our geologic
evaluation and geotechnical investigation at the proposed Valerus-Antero Hunter Mesa Compressor Station site in Garfield County, Colorado. The following sections discuss the site geology
and geologic hazards, describes the subsurface conditions found in exploratory borings and provides recommendations for foundation support of Itle compressor pads and building(s) that
would enclose the compressors. A vicinity map of the site is shown on Figure 1. Site Geology and Geologic Hazards Site geology and geologic hazards were evaluated by David A. Glater.
P.E., C.P.G., using field reconnaissance on August 20, 2010 and a review of pertinent available literature. Literature references are cited at the end of this section. Most of the vacant
1.2 acre site slopes gently north and east toward an ephemeral drainage swale that flows through the northeast corner. The ground surface was covered with thick grasses and shrubs. An
existing Encana Well Pad is uphill to the south. The underground River Run Gathering System is about 300 feet west, On the Range Line. Mapping by the USGS indicates the surficial materials
are QuaternaryHolocene age (Pinedale and Bull Lake) glacial outwash and water and wind-deposited alluvium that formed in a several mile wide glacial outwash valley leading from Battlement
Mesa southwest of the site. Glacial outwash, braided stream flow and wind-deposition over the past 50,000 years formed the local feature known as Hunter
Mesa. which is bound by Mamm Creek at the east side and Dry Creek to the west. The site lies near the northeast terminus of the mesa. Our bo"ngs encountered 30 feet of sandy clay and
clayey sand soils and did not penetrate bedrock. Bedrock materials beneath the alluvium are from the Wasatch Formation. deposited in Eocene and. Paleocene (early Tertiary) time. The
Wasatch is a continental sedimentary deposit comprised of bedded claystone shale. siltstone and sandstone. No bedrock outcrops were present on the site. However. we noted an exposure
of Wasatch shale and sandstone on a hillside about 400 feet to the northwest. We did not prepare a surficial geologiC map of the site due to the simplicity and single unit present. Brief
reconnaissance found no evidence of avalanches. landslides. rockfalls. llllstdble slopes or ground subsidence on the site. Ground water was not encountered in our borings during drilling.
Site slopes did not exhibit signs of Instability or severe erosion. The northeast corner IS lower and adjacent to a seasonal drainage. The Civil Engineer should evaluate the hazard due
to flooding. Site soils should be considered to be somewhat susceptible to erosion. Steep slopes will have higher erosion rates. Re-vegetation. drainage capture or erosion control methods
can reduce potential for soil loss. Expansive soils are present at this site. The presence of expansive soils sometimes referred to as swelling soils. constitutes a geologic hazard.
There is risk that ground heave could move and damage foundations. The risks associated with swelling soils can be mitigated but not eliminated by careful design. construction and maintenance
procedures. Our test results indicate low swell potential. The type of IlUilding construction associated with the planned compressor facility is generally not adversely aHected by the
amount of movement expected related to low swelling soils. Expansive soils as a geologic hazard are judged as a low risk considering the site and the planned site usage. The soil and
bedrock units are not expected to respond unusually to seismic activity. Liquefaction potential is considered nil. Sites with thick deposits of clay soil will likely classify as Site
Class D for seismic design purposes. Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for this site is 0.08g. with about a 1000 year return period. Horizontal response spectral acceleration
for 0.2 sec. period (Ss) can be taken as 0.17g and for 1 sec. period (SI). 0.04g. Only minor damage to relatively new. properly designed and built structures would be expected. Our project
engineer. Mr. Edward R. "Ted" White, visited the site and performed a radiation survey. Our survey consisted of walking along lines the length of the site in a east-west direction. Lines
were spaced approximately 30 to 50 feet apart. We observed radiation measurements that were taken with a Ludlum Instruments. Inc. Model No. 19 Micro-R-Meter carried at arms length (approximately
2 feet above the ground surface). Radiation readings were observed by continuously 91ancing back and forth from the Micro-R-Meter to the line of travel. We observed radiation measurements
averaging approximately 4 microroentgens per hour. Some aroas had readings as low as 0 microroentgens per hour and as high as 10 microroentgens per hour. In our opinion. these readings
on the site are indicative of normal background radiation for the area and do not indicate contamination. PHII_ ',AUf,I1M-l ,;ON5THUCTION MANAGtMENT.INC \jAlU~LlS·MHrHO HUNTER MESA COMPRESSOR
STATION PROJ!:C T NO GSf1550f}·125 REVISEr) 2 .lJl[.
In summary. we find no geologic hazards that preclude development of this parcel for use as a compressor facility. Geology Section References 1. "Surficial Geology, Geomorphology, and
General Engineering Geology of Parts of the Colorado River Valley. Roaring Fork River Valley. and Adjacent Areas, Garfield County. Colorado" by J.M. Soule and B.K. Stover, Colorado Geologic
Survey Open File Report 85-1, Plate 1 A -Surficial Geologic Map. Plate 2A -Geomorphic Features Map, Plate 3AGeologic Hazards Map. and Plate 4A -Construction -Materials Map, 1985, scale
1: 50,000 2. "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land-Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas" by W.P. Rogers, et. al. Special Publication 6. Colorado
Geologic Survey, 1974 3. Aerial Photography dated August 7. 2005 by Google Earth Planned Construction We understand construction at the site will consist of installing five compressors.
The compressors will be enclosed ',y either five separate buildings or one large building will cover all five of the compressors. For purposes of this report we have assumed that each
compressor will be between 10 and 15 feet wide and 25 to 30 feet long. Based on our experience we have assumed the compressors weigh between 75,000 and 100,000 pounds. A gravel roadway
will access the compressors. We anticipate maximum excavation depths of about 10 feet will be required for site development. Compressors are normally delivered to sites attached to structural
steel skids and are placed on a prepared pad by a crane. In some cases the compressor skid is placed on a concrete mat foundation and then bolted to the mat. In some cases the steel
skid acts as the foundation and the unit is placed directly on the ground. The enclosure building is normally supported on a foundation that is separated from the compressor concrete
mat. We should be provided plans when developed that show the planned method of founding the planned compressor and building. If construction will differ significantly from the description
above we should be informed so that we can check that our recommendations are appropriate. Investiqation We drilled three exploratory borings and two subgrade borings at the approximate
locations shown on Figure 1. The exploratory borings were advanced to depths of 30 feet and the subgrade borings were advanced to depths of 5 feet using 4-inch diameter, continuous-flight
solid-stem auger and a track-mounted drill rig. Our PHIl_ VAUGHAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC VALERUS·ANTERO HUNTER MESA COMPRESSOR STATION PROJECT NO GS05500-125 REVISED S 'GS05500
000.125'1 L<'tlN~'GS0550Cr 12S L 1 REVISEO <i')~ 3
project engineer observed drilling. logged the soils encountered in the borings. and obtained samples. Graphic logs of the bOrings. I/lcludlf19 results of field penetration resistance
tests are presented on the Summary Logs of Exploratory Borings on Figure 2. The borings were backfilled after drilling operations were completed. Soils at the site consisted of about
1 foot of sandy clay "topsoil" underlain by sandy clay with lenses of silty and clayey sand and claystone pieces to the maximum explored depth of the 30 feet. The soils were very stiff
based on the results of field penetration resistance tests. Selected samples of the soils were at moisture contents of 4.0 to 21.9 percent and dry densities of 104 to 123 pounds per
cubic foot {pet). Atterberg limits were liquid limits of 26 to 47 percent and plasticity indices of 11 to 25 percent. The samples had 77 to 97 percent silt and clay size particles (passing
the No. 200 sieve). Four samples of the soils were tested for volume change potential using a onedimensional consolidometer. The samples exhibited 0.5 percent to 1.7 percent swell when
wetted under a vertical pressure of 1.000 psf. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix A. The compressor may be placed on a concrete mat or may be placed directly on the ground
surface supported by a steel skid attached to the compressor. The building will likely be supported on a separate foundation. The natural soil is very stiff clay which is expansive.
The clay in it's in-situ state would likely swell if wetted. Significant wetting could result in heave that could adversely affect operations. We recommend that the existing clay soils
be removed to between 3 feet below the existing ground surface at the compressor and enclosure building footprint locations. We believe that a 3 foot excavation backfilled with moistu",
treated and densely compacted structural fill will result in sufficient thickness to support the compressor and building with only small amounts of heave or settlement. Structural fill
should be placed below the compressor footprint and should extend at least 2 feet beyond the planned building. Structural fill can consist of an imported Class 6 aggregate base course
or similar soil or the natural clays. Structural fill should be placed as described below. We believe the use of a Class 6 aggregate base course mixed with the natural clay would provide
better performance and would be easier to place to our recommendations than reuse of only the natural clays. We understand that the compressor manufacturers frequently recommend placing
the compressor foundation on a layer of sand. The sand layer can be placed. as recommended by the compressor manufacturer on the structural fill. Proper drainage should be provided to
prevent excess moisture penetrating the sand layer. Excavations will likely be limited to those required to construct the access road and to subexcavate for the compressor and the building.
Excavations can be accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. Sides of excavations will need to be sloped or braced to meet local. state and federal safety regulations.
We expect the soils in excavations will classify as a Type B soil based on Plill VAUGHAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. INC VAl.fRUS·ANTEIW HUN rER MESA COMPRESSOR S T f, nor~ PROJECT tm GS05500·12S
HE'IISElJ 4
OSHA standards governing excavations. Temporary slopes deeper that 5 feet tlut are not retained should be no steeper that 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils according to
OSHA standards. It is important to properly place and compact structural fill. Class 6 aggregate base course or similar material should be properly moisture treated to within 2 percent
of optimum moisture content. If the natural clays are reused as structural fill the clay soils should be moisture treated to 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum moisture content.
Fill should be placed in loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less. moisture-treated. and compacted to approximately 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maxllnum dry density. We
recommend that density of fill be checked during placement. Foundations Compressor We understand that the compressors may be delivered with structural steel skids that can be set directly
onto the ground. A maximum soil bearing capacity of 4.000 psf is recommended between the skid and the ground. We believe that a steel. concrete filled skid placed on the prepared subgrade.
as described above. will perform adequately. A more positive approach to limit future movement would be to place the compressor on a mat foundation. Differential movement of up to 1
to 2 inches may occur if overexcavation is not performed. We would expect differential movement of less than 1 inch after overexcavation. Gas compressor foundations are often designed
with enough mass to attenuate most machine vibration within the structure. For design of vibrating machine foundations. the subsoils can be considered to be unsaturated very stiff sandy
clay. A low-strain shear modulus of about 15.000 psi is appropriate if the sandy clay soils are not likely to become wetted or softened. or if a thick layer of imported sand and gravel
is placed prior to compressor foundation construction. Should the clay become softened. a shear modulus of 5.000 psi is more appropriate. Poisson's Ration can be taken as 0.45. Criteria
for mat and footing foundations are provided below. Building(s) The compressor building should be founded to mitigate future movements. Differential movement of up to 1 to 2 inches may
occur if excavation is not performed. We would expect less than 1 inch of differential movement after overexcavation. Criteria for footing and mat foundations are provided below. Footings
1. Footing foundations should be supported by the undisturbed. natural soil or densely compacted structural fill. Soils loosened during Plill VAUGHAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMHH l~lC VAl[RUS·ANTERO
HUNTER MESA COMrRESSOR STATiON PROJ(CT NO GS05S0Q·125 REVISED 5 'lIF'
excavation or the forming process for the footings should be removed. or the soils can be re-compacted prior to placing concrete, 2. Footings supported on the natural soils or properly
placed structural fill can be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 3.000 psf. 3. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches. Foundations for isolated
columns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required. depending upon foundation loads. 4. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced
to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural
engineer. Mat Foundation 1. The total applied load averaged across the entire mat should be 1.000 psf or less. To develop design for reinforcement patterns at locations of isolated loads
or along foundation wall (line loads). we suggest assuming an allowable soil pressure of 3.000 psf at the base of the mat. 2. A finite element analytical program should be used to proportion
reinforcement in the mat. Soil is modeled using a "spring constant" when using this type of analysis. We believe a suitable design value for the coefficient of subgrade reaction is 75
pci. 3. Utilities which penetrate the mat foundation will need to be detailed such that movement of the mat is not transferred to the utility line. The mat foundation and utility pipe
penetration need to be able to move separately. ELoor System and Slabs-on-Grade Our subsurface information indicates that slab-an-grade floor construction can be supported by the natural
soils or by an at least 2 feet thickness of structural fill with low potential differentialmovemenl. If the subgrade soils get wet the structural fill alternative will likely result
in less slab movement and cracking. If a slab-on-grade is to be placed on the natural soils the subgrade preparation should involve scarification. moisture treatment and compaction of
at least the upper a inches of subgrade soils. Structural fill below slabs should be placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Earthwork section. If a mat foundation
is chosen. the mat will serve as the floor slab and risk of differential movement will be less than a slab-on-grade. We recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade construction
at this site. 1. Slabs should be separated from wall footings and column pads with slip joints which allow free vertical movement of the slabs. PHIL VAUGHAN CONsmUCllON MANAGEMENT, INC
VAl.EHUS·ANTF.RO HUNTm MESA COMPRESSOR STATION PROJECT NO GS05500·125 REVISED <; '(,SG')~OO 000' 125) l<)II("I~'GS05S00 , 2~, I. 1 W'ViSr.O ,in' 6 .,3IlE, cijltc
2. Underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks before the slabs are poured. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves
an" provided with flexible couplings to slab-supported appliances. 3. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations.
to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. Surface Drainage Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, Ground surfaces should be sloped to direct
runoff away from the compressor buildings, Backfill adjacent to the buildings should be moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended in the Earthwork section, Proposed Drive Section
Based on our exploratory borings, excavations for the access road and other drive areas will be in stiff to very stiff clay, A gravel road surface is preferred. The road will be used
by heavy construction traffic during site development. Moderately heavy trucks will likely utilize the road for maintenance after construction, Fill will be the native clay. The subgrade
soils should be scarified to at least 8 inches, moisture treated and compacted. Road embankment fill should be placed in maximum thickness of 8 inch lifts and compacted to at least 95
percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Our experience is that placement of a geosynthetic material on the prepared subgrade. below the aggregate base course is
beneficial. We recommend a geogrid material. We suggest a minimum 8 inch thickness of COOT Class 3 aggregate base course below at least 4 inches of a Class 6 driving course. Less aggregate
base course would likely result in more than anticipated maintenance. Geotechnical Risk The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason
for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally
empirical and must be tempered I>y engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered
risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as desired or intended. What the engineering recommendations
presented in the preceding sections do constitute is our ostimate, based on the information gcnorated during this and previous evaluations and our experience in working with these conditions,
of those measures that are necessary to help the development perform satisfactorily. Tile owner must understand this PHIL VAUGHAN CONSTRUCTION MANIIGEMEtH. INC VAlERU$·ANTERQ HUNTER
MESA COMPHESSOR STATION flROJEC T NO GS0550Q·125 REVISED S ,{;SOSSOO 000 125'_.1 L'~H(,,~'GSOS50u \2~, [t HfVISFO do' 7
) ) concept of risk. as it is they who must decide what is an acceptable level of risk for this stru cture. Limitations Our exploratory and subgrade borings were located to obtain a
reasonably acc urate I)icture of subsurface conditions below th e s ite. Variations in the subsurface condit ions not indica ted by our bori ngs will occ ur. This investigation was conclu
cted in a manner consistent with tilat level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotec hnical engineers c urrently practicing under similar conditions in the loca lity of this
project. No wa rranty. ex press or implied. is made. If we ca n be of further serv ice in disc ussing the contents of this letter. please call. Very truly yours. CTL i THO '. cc : Via
email tophil@pvc l11i.com PIIIl. VAUGHAn CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC VALERUS AtITEfW HUNTER MESA CQMPREsson S TA liON PIlOJECT NO GSOS500·125 REVISED S 'GSOH GO 000 \253 l ~ItN5 GS05
~OJ IB II REVISED 11')( 8 ) J
) ) ) SCALE: 1'= 200 NOTE: location. of exploratory borfng. are approximate. Phil Vaughn Conatl\lcUon Management, Inc. v~turt:er ...... Project No. 0805500-125 ) Locations of Exploratory
Borings Fig. 1
TH-' TH-' TH-3 s-. s-, 0 rn rn 0 LEGEND: § Sandy cloy ·to~'OIl·. organ'". mollt, brown, an. , 15/1Z 15/12 21/12 • (;I Clc:r' ,andy. I'nn. of .lIty .and an clGy.y .and, clayaton. plKU,
.llft to wry .Hff • .tIghtly mol,t to molat. brown, tgn. (eL) " 37/12 33/12 " P ~n':i:Qr.~m~:t 1~~I~bo~ ~5(l5 pound hom mer foiling 30 Inch .. WIN r'~U'red to dm. a 2.& Inch 0.0. Cal
fomla .ampler 12 Inch ... " 39/12 30/12 43/12 ! " I F • Bulk .ompl. from aUier outtlng •• • t i & " 31/12 33/12 " NOTES: ., Exploratory boring. W'r1I drlll,d on ,,"VIIU.' 5, 2010 with
4-Inch dlam"." " 28/12 25/12 42/12 " conflnuou'-fll~ht lolld-If,m aug" ond a lraek-moun eel drill rig. 2, LocoHon. of exploratory baring. art opproxlmal •• 30 35/12 33/12 37/12 30 "
No 'I'H ground wof., WOI found In our .x~loratOry boring' at th. tim. . of artl ng • , Th .... xploratory borlng. are .ubJItCt to the IxplclnaHon., " " 11m oHon. and oonclullonl 01 conlolnld
In thll report. SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Prallet No. 0505500-125 FTg. 2
z Q til § ... z Q til !3 0:: Il. :;; o u : EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT 2 .-------+----~--~--+-,-:I -H--------:-I----:--I -c-I-:_I PRESS U REDUETO WE TTING , , ·-------f, ----,,, ___,I _
_ !, . I I I I I I I ,, " ,, , , I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1.1. J _______ .1. ___ .1 ___ L _ .1 •• 1 •• ' • .!. .1. L _______ L ___ .l. __ J __ t _ ! _ !. .I.!. I I I " I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 1"'-'-':'::":'::':':':':: _______ .1. ___ oJ. _ .l. •• 1 •• 1 •• 1. J. .I.l. _______ .I.. __ .I.. __ .J __ !.
_.!..1. _,_ L I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I , I I I ,I ,I , ., . _______ I I I I I I I , ~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ L_~_~_'_ _ .... __ 1 _ 1_ .I • .j. .1.1.-_______ ... ____ I-__ __ I-_ ol _ I-_1_
l--2 -3 , I I I , I , ,, 1 I I I I' 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ,, ," I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------9----~--~--r-1-?-I-t~--------I----~---~-~--I-~-t4-~-------t----~--1--
~-.-t~-r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I , • I J I I I I ) 1 I I I I I ,I ,I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------T----r ---,--r-'1 -.--,-T'--------,----,---I"
-,. -,-.,-T -,-I"" -------T ----r --,--,..-T-'" -,-r , I I , I "( I" 1 , , I , I" I I 1 , 1 , I I 1 I I 1 1 I' I I I I I I 1 I , , , ·4~ ____ ~ _ ~~~~~~~ ___ ~ _ ~~~~~~~ ___ ~ _ ~~,
_ ~~~~ 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE· KSF Sample of From CLAY, SANDY (Cll TH-1 AT 14 FEET DRY UNIT WEIGHT= MOISTURE CONTENT= 112 PCF -1-:-C5"'.3-% 3r----¥--~ __ ~ __ ~----__ --____
~~~----__ --____ ~ __ ~ , , ... oz ~ 0:: Il. :;; o u 2 _______ J. ___ _ , , ,,,, ,, , , , --I,--T---, EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT ,-,,------+--+--:-+ PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1 I I ,I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 , I l I I 1 I I I 1 __ ..1 __ 1. _.J. _J.. _1, _ 1I . J, _______ -1I ____ -1I ___ 1 I I I I , I I 1 I I , I I ~ _ -I __ '_.J _ 1. -1_1 _______ I-____ I-__ .t
__ I-_ ~ _I-.J_II I I I , , , 1 I , 1 I I I • • I I I I' I I I I I I I I I , I' I I' I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 I ,I ,I I' ,I I 1 I 11 I 1 I , I I I I' I 1 1 I , I , , -,-T"I-------,,----.,---1--"1--1-'
1-r "1-'--------1-----1---T --I'" -r-I-,-r-I I I I , I I 1 , , t I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I , I I I I I I I I' 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I t -1 --------f ----~ --~ --t -i -r -:-+ ,--------I
---6, ---:1--iI -TI ;t-rI -I :Tt ----i---f -l---:---:I --:-I -rI -:-, :I-:I-I 1 I I , 1 II I I til I I I 1 1 I I , I I , I I II I , I I I I t J I I I' t I 1 I , 1 I I I I I I I I I I
, I I I I I , I I I I 1 I I 1 I , 1 I I I I , I , • _ J_..1 _LJ_I ________ L ____ L __ J. __ '-_L_L ..1_'-, I I 1 I I I 1 I , I 1 , 1 _______ .L ____ L __ J __ .L_1 _.L.L L.J ________
, ____ .J ___ 1._ I I I I I I , I I I I I ·2 1 ,I I ,I 1 ,I 1 I I 'I I I , I I I I ,, , ,, 1, ,I I I 1 , , ttl I I I , 1 ~ .-------+----~--"l--~-._+~-+"I-------~----~---~-~-~-_1-~_1-~-------~----...
--+ __ ~-~-~_1-~ I , , I , I , 1 I tIl I , I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 , I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I I I t I I I til I I 1 I tIl 1 I I 1 , " I I I , .4 L._ _______" "_
___. '_ _. .' _ _. .........~ _______. ._ ___. ._ _. ._ _ .'. ..,. ...,. ..._ _______. .' _ ___. ._ _. ._ _ ~. ._ _ "'. .~ '~ 0.1 APPLIED PRESSURE· KSF Sample of From CLAY, SANDY (CLl
TH-1 AT 24 FEET 1.0 PHIL VAUGHM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. INC. VALERUS·ANTERO HUNTER MESA PROJECT NO. GS05500·125 5 :\GSOS5QO.OOO\125l6. C.IC$\GS0550l).12~.Swall.xts 10 DRY UNIT WEIGHT=
MOISTURE CONTENT= 100 116 PCF --178::-::5:--% -=".-Swell Consolidation Test Results FIG.3
z Q ezn ~ ,, , , , EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT 2 --------+----~--~--~-~ __ . _____ :_. __ ~ ___ ~ __ :_ PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING , , , _______ l, ____ ' ___", __ !.. ,,I I ,, I , ,, ,, ,
,, , I I, I " I L I 'I I I , I I I _ L .'. ~.! ________ , ___ J ___ !.... .' •• '.l.'.'. _____ __ l.. ___ L __ J __ i_ !_!._'. L I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I , tIl I ) I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I ,. I I I o r""'"'~...:..:.::.:: _' • .L.J _______ .1. ___ ..I. __ L _..J •• 1 __ 1_ J. .,.'-___ • ___ .L
____ L. __ .J ____ .1_,1. .1_ L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,I I I I I ,I I I I I , I ·1 _ -I ___ I-__ 1 __ 1_ -1_ ... _I_I-_______ .. ____ __ -I __ ). _ oj. _ l-_1_ L , . I I I
I I I I I I I L [ I ,, ,"" , , , I I I I, I 1 -2 --------... ----~ ---1--t --J -t -1-t -I --------1----"1---t--·1·-I I I I I I I I ~-t~-t--------t----t---"1--t--1-.-,-t-·3 I I I I I
I I I I I I I ,I I I ,I ,I I I , I I I I I ,I ,,I ,,I I I , , I J I I I I I I I " I I t I I, I I I -------T ----r --"1 --T -, -T -,-'f "l --------,----., ---r -,--,--,-T ,-r----~ ---T
----r --, --r -.., -r -1-r I I ! 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 , ,I I 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF Sampleo! From CLAY, SANDY
(Cl) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= MOISTURE CONTENT= 111 peF TH·2 AT 19 FEET --::1:7i-.-47-% 3~ ___ --~ _ ~~~----__ ~~ _ ~~ _ --~--~ ___ ~~ • z Q 0 ezn « ~ ·1 •>! ! Z 0 •• ieini w ~ ·3 11. :::! 0
U ·4 , , -------t----~--~--~-l __ ~l _______ ~ ____ J ___ ~_J_ I I I I I I EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING , , I I I I I , , , , , , , I I I I I I , I I I I' I I I I
I I I ______ ~.I. __ ~ ___ -1 __ L _.l. _ ... I.".L ______ • ~ ____ .... __ ~I __ -I. _I. -I. L. -1.1 _______ I-___ .1-__ .I. __ I--1-.1-_1.1-I I I I I , I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I ,I ,I I ,I , I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I -------~--1--·~-~-~-'-r~-~-------~----~-·~--~-r_-~,-~ I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I ,
I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 1 '-------TI ----rI --i-, -r-I 1"I -II -I-I' . --------1'---I-'--'-,---I1-'i -1r 1I -I -------rI----'-I--T-I
-'-, -rI-1I 1-I ,I-1 I I I I' 1 I I 'I' I I , I I I I I 1 I I I' I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I , I , I I I I , I I I , 1 _______ LI ____ 1L __ J, __ iI _l_I i_I l_I l.I l.I _______ I I
I I I I I I I I I I , I ~_. __ J ___ L __ .I_J.L _______ L ____ L __ L __ L_L_LJ_~ I I I I I I , I, I I I I I I , I 'I I I I I I 1 I I, I I I, I I I I I I 1 I I, I 1 I , I I I I I ,
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -______ •I _ ___ I 1 I I I , I I I I I , I I I I I 1 I ~--~--.-4-.-1-•• _______ ~----_I ___ ~-~-~-~-.~-~-.-----~ ____ ~--+--~-.-~~-~ 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I 1 I I I I , 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF 100 Sampleo! From CLAY,
SANDY (Cl) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= MOISTURE CONTENT= 123 PCF TH·3 AT 9 FEET --71=2-.=7-% PHIL VAUGHM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. VALERUS-ANTERO HUNTER MESA . PROJECT NO. GS05500·125 S:\GS05500.000\125\S.
CalcI\GS05800·125.swell.xl, Swell Consolidation Test Results FIG.4
MOISTURE DRY DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY lOT (FEET) (%) (PCF) TH-1 4 8.2 114 TH-1 9 16.3 115 TH-1 14 15.3 112 TH-1 24 18.5 116 TH-2 9 21.9 104 TH-2 19 17.4 111 TH-3 4 8.6 104 TH-3 9 12.7 123
TH-3 29 13.4 119 8-1 0-5 4.0 8-2 0-5 5.2 -ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID PLASTICITY LIMIT INDEX (%) (%) 34 19 47 25 31 17 26 11 28 14 TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING PROJECT NO. GS0550IJ..125
SWEll TEST RESULTS' SOLUBLE PERCENT SWELL ~UlFATE~ GRAVEL (%) (%J ('Yo) 0.280 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.040 1.7 • SWEll MEASURED WITH 1000 PSF APPLIED PRESSURE, OR ESTIMATED IN-SITU OVERBURDEN PRESSURE.
NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION. T PASSING PERCENT NO. 200 SAND SIEVE ('Yo) (%) DESCRIPTION CLAY, SANDY (Cl) 83 CLAY, SANDY (Cl) CLAY, SANDY-(CL) CLAY, SANDY (Cl) 97 CLAY,SANDY
CL CLAY, SANDY Cl -CLAY, SANDY Cl CLAY, SANDY Cl 77 CLAY, SANDY Cl 86 CLAY, SANDY Cl 83 CLAY, SANDY CL Page 1 of1