HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report.pdf,,
·I I
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIG
PROPOSED LODGE ADDITION AND P-OOL
STORM KING RANCH
1541 COUNTY ROAD 132
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOBNO. 114172.A
JUNE 30, 2014
PREPARED FOR:
GRAY BUlLDERS
ATTN: DALE GRAY
P.O.BOX362
NE", CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
colo a s k a @lg m a il.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .......................................................................... - l -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................. - I -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...•.............................................................................. ,.. 1 -
SITE CONDmONS .................................................................................................... -:2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION .............................................................................................. -:2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDlTIONS ................................................................................... ,.. 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ................................................................. -4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. ,.. 4 -
FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................................................... -4 -
FOUNDATION AND RET AIN!NG WALLS ........................................................... 6 -
FLOOR SLAHS ....................................................................................................... - 7 -
UNDERDRAJN SYSTEM ....................................................................................... ~ 8 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................... ., 8 -
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ -9-
FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4-5 -SWfiLL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6-GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUMMARYOFLABORATORYTESTRESULTS
Joh No. 114172A
PURPOSE AN)} SCOPE OF STUDY
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for the proposed lodge
addition and swimming pool to be located at Stonn King Ranch at 1541 County Road 132
(Mitchel Creek Road), Garfield County, Colorado The project site is shown on Figure 1.
The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the fuundation design.
The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement fur geoteclmical engineering
services to Gray Builders dated May 13, 2014. The data obtained and our
recommendations basod on the proposed construction and subsurfaoo conditions
enoountered are presented in tbis reporl
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on tbe subsurface conditions. Samples oftlm subsoils obtained during the
field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results ofthe field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations fur
fuundation types, depths and allowable pressures fur tl1e proposed building and
swimming pool foundations. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study
and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations basod on the proposed construction and the subsurface
conditions encountered.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
We previously performed a subsoil study fur a bath house and spa located in the gene!al
area as our current study and submitted our findings in a report dated August 9, 1994, Job
No. 194 258-1. Infonnation from that report has been reviewed and considered in the
preparation of this report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The lodge addition will be located to the southwest of the existing lodge and be a two
story wood frame structure over crawlspace. The proposed pool will be a 3 to 8 feet deep
Job No. 114 172A
-2-
reinforoed gunnite structure located to the south of the lodge addition, sec Figure L The
existing concrete retaining wall at the site will remain. Cut depths are expected to range
between about 3 to 4 feet for the building and about 3 lo 8 feet for the pool. Foundation
loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the
proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans cha11ge sigllificantly from thDse described
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this ro,port
SITE: CONDITIONS
The site has been graded relatively flat by generally shallow cuts and tills. The cuts are
typically retained by an existing concrete wall located as shown on Figure 1 wit11 some
low stone walls extending from the ends of the 001lcrete wall. Thi:: terrain has a slight
slope down to the southeast in the proposed building and swimming pool areas becoming
strongly sloping beyond the propnsed pool. Elevation diffi:renoo across tlie assumed
building area is about l to 2 feet and across the proposed pool is about 2 to 3 feet
Vegetation is primarily grass witl1 aspon and spruce trees in the 11rea oft11e existing lodge
building.
FlELD EXPLORATION
Tite field exploration for the project was conducted on May 19, 2013. Four exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurfuce
conditions. Borings l and 2 were drilled in the proposed lodge addition area and Borings
3 and 4 where drilled in tlte area of the proposed swimming pool The borings were
advanced with 4 inch diameta-continuous flight augers powcrod by a truck-mounted
CME-45B drill rig. The boring.~ were logged by a :representative of Hepworth-Pawlak
Georocllllical, Inc.
Job No. 114 172A
-3 -
Samples of the subsoils and bedrock were taken wilh 1 % inch and 2 inch 1.D. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils and bedrock at various depths with
blows ftom a 140 pound hammer falling 30 incl1es. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Mclhod D-1586. The penetration resistance values
arc an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the
bedrock Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values
are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were retumed to
our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2.
The subsoils enoounterod were somewhat variable with respect to type, deptl1s and
engineering characteristic.~.
The subsoils at the .lodge addition area oonsisted of3 feet of fill in Boring I underlain by
1 feet of :sandy silty clay, and in Boring 2 consisted of l fuot oftopsoil overlying clayey
silty :sand with gravel and scattered cobbles. Bclow depths from 10 to 13 fuel:, Borings 1
and 2 enoountered clayey silty sand and gravel with cobbles. The subsoils encountered in
the pool area consisted of nil to 1 fuot of sandy silty clay underlain by clayey silty sand
with gravel and cobbles underlain in Boring 3 at 15 fuel deptl1 by SB!ldstone bedrock and
underlain in Boring 4 at 10 feet deptl1 by clayey silty sand with gravel and cobbles. The
sandy silty clay was medium stiff, the clayey silty sand with gravel was medium dense,
the clayey sB!ldy gravel witl1 cobbles was dense, and the bedrock was cemented and hard.
Drilling in the dense granular soils witli auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles
and in the bedrock due to its cemented condition, and drilling refusal was enoountercd in
the deposits.
Laboratory testing perfonned on samples obtainod ftom the borings included natural
moisture content and density, gradation analyses, and Atteilierg limits. Results of swell-
consolidation testing performed on relatively undistmbed drive samples of the silty clay
Job No. 114 172A
-4-
and clayey silty sand soils, ,presented on }'igures 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate
compressibility under conditions ofloading and wetting. One sample of the silty clay
soils (Boring 1 at 5 feet) slmwed a low hydro-compression potential. Results of gradation
analysis performed on small diameter drive samples of the granular subsoils (minus I~
inch fraction) are provided on Figure 6. The laboratory testing is summari7.ed in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to very moist, and the bedrock was slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDJTIONS
Al assumed C11:cavation grades the subgrade soils are expocted to transition from fill to
silty clay to clayey silty sand with gravel. Spread footings bearing on the natural soils
should be feasible fur foundation support with some risk of settlement The risk of
settlement is due to the assumed variable bearing conditions and especially if the bearing
soils become wetted, and precautions should be taken to prevent wetting. The fill below
foundation areas will need to be removed. It slmuld be feasible to re-establisl1 fuundation
bearing elevation with suitable compacted structural fill.
Providing unifunn depths of structural fill below fuotings, typically 3 feet, or extending
tl1e foundation bearing elevation down to the relatively dense coarse granular soils or
bedrock, would provide a relatively low risk offoundntion movement Provided below
are recommendations fur spread footi.ngs bearing on the natural soils and structural fill. If
recommendations fur helical piers, or micro-pile.~, bearing in the dense coarse granular
soils are desired, we should he contacted.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Con.~idering tlte subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and fue
nature of the proposed construction, we :reonmmend tl1c structures be founded with spread
fuotings bearing on fuc natural soils and/or properly placed and compacted stroctural fill.
Job Nu 114 t72A
-5-
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing fuundation system.
l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils and/or compacted
structural fill should be designed fur an allowable bearing pressure of
2,000 psf. .Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed
and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inclt. TI1ere
could be some additional settlement ifthe bearing soils become wetted.
The magnitude of the additional settlement would depend on the
fuundation soil conditions and depth and extent oftl1e wetting but may be
on tlie order of Y.i inch
2) The fuotings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous
waUs and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil oover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement offuundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) Continuous fuundation walls should be well rcinfurced top and bottom to
span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
12 fuel Foundation walls acting as 1-etaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressure.~ as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils slmuld be removed
and tlle fuoting bearing level extended down to the firm natural Silils. The
exposed soils in fuotiog area should then be moistened and compacted.
Structural fill to re-estab.lish design bearing elevation, or to provide a
unifom1 dcplll ofstroctuml fill below footings, should consist ofa well
graded granular material sucl1 as road base or similar soils compacted to at
least l 00% standard Proctor density at a moisture content within about 2%
of optimum.
Job No. 114 171.A
-6-
6) A representative of the geotecbnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations and test structural fill compaction on a regular basis during
placement prior to ooncrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
.Foundation walls and retaining structures (including the swimming pool) which are
laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection
should be designed for a lateral earth pres.~ure computed on the basis of an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at .least 55 pcffur backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered
retaining structures which are separate from the main structures and can be expected to
deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pre.~ure condition should be designed
for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at
least 45 pcffor backfill consisting of the on-site soils. The backfill should not contain
debris, topsoil or oversized rocks.
AU foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent fuotiugs, traffic, oonstruction materials and
equipment The pressures rocommended above assume drained oonditions behind the
walls and a horizontal backfill surmoe. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward
sloping backfill surfiloe will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or
retaining sl111cture. An undcrdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure
buildup behind walls.
Backfill should he placed in unifum1 lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density (SPD) at a moisture oontent near optimum. Backfill in pavement
and walkway areas slmuld be compacted to at least 95% SPD. Care should be taken not
to overoompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause
excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill
should be expected, even if the material is placed oomictly, and could result in distress to
Job No. WI 172A
-7-
facilities ccmstructed on the backfill. Use of a select gnmular material and increasing
compaction to at least 98% SPD could be done lo reduce settlements.
The lateral resistance of fuundatinn or retaining wall fuotings will be a combination of t11e
sliding resistance oftbe footing on tlte foundation materials and passive earth pressure
against the side of the fuotlng. Rcsistanoc In sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be
calculated based on a coefficient of friction of0.35. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against tbe sides of the fuotings can be calculated using ao equivalent fluid unit
weight of350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended
above assume ultimate S<>il strength. Suitable fuctors of safety should be included in the
design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case
of passive resistance. Fill plaoed against tbe sides oftlie footings to resist lateral loads
should be a suitable granular material compacted to at least 95% oftbe maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FWORSLABS
The natural on-site ooils, exclusive oftops1>il, are suitable to support ligbtly loaded slab-
on-grade construction. All fill and tops1>il should be removed below slab areas. To
reduce tlte effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all
bearing walls and columns wilh expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical
movement Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement sliould be
establis11ed by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4
inch layer of road base should be plaoed beneath slabs for support and to facilitate
drainage. This material should consist ofmiaus 2 inch aggregate wilh at least 50%
retained on tltc No. 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials fur support of floor slabs should be compacted to al least 95% of
maximum ~tandard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
Job Nn. l l<l 172A
-8-
consist of the on-site granular soils devoid of debris, topsoil and overnized rocks or a
suitable granular material such as road base can be imported.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Altl1ough free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area and where clayey soils are present that local perched groundwater
can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during
spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade
construction, such as retaining walls, swimming pool walls and basement areas, be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an undcrdrain system. A
fuundation drain around sltallow crawlspace areas (less tban 4 foot deep) should not be
needed with adequate compaction of foundation wall backffil and positive surface slope
away from foundation walls.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom oftlte wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material The drain should
be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum l % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular
material used in tlte underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of2 inches. The
perimeter drain gravel backfill should be at least I~ foot deep.
A blanket drain should also be provided below I.he swimming pool also. The drain sllould
consist of a minimum 6 inches of drain gravel below the pool bottom with an underliner
oonsisling of an impervious membrane such as 20 or 30 mil PVC placed beneath the drain
gravel The blanket drain should outlet with drainpipe (such as with the perimeter drain)
to a suitable gravity outlet We can review the drain design and outlet in the field at the
time of construction if needed.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Job No. 114 172A
-9-
Positive surfuce drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the
bearing soils. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction
and maintained at all times after the building nddition and swimming pool have boon
completed:
I) Inundation oftbe fuundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab aroas and to ntlcas! 90% oftl1emaximum standaro
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surfuce surrounding the exterior ofthc structures should be
sloped to drain away in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope
of 12 inches in the first l 0 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
2'h inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill
should be capped with filter filbric such as Mirafi 140N and about 2 fuel of
the on-site fmer graded soi.ls to reduce surfuce water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 5 feet from foundation walls.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
cxpres.~ or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained fiom the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figure l, the proposed type of construction and our experience in tl1c area.
Our services do not include dctennining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or
other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is
concerned about MOBC, then a profe.~onal in fuis special field of practice should be
Joli N<>. IM 17211
-10-
consulted . Our findings incl ude interpolation nnd extrapo lation oflhe su bsurfat.-e
conditions identifie,d at the exploratory bori ngs and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is perfom1ed . If con di tio ns
encountered during construction appear diffurent from Umse described in tl 1is report, we
s11ould be notified so thnt ~valuation of the rtt0mmendati ons may he mnde,
T his report lias been prepared for the exclusive use by o ur ctien~ for design purposes. \Ve
are not respo nsi bl e fur teclmical int erpretations by others of ou r infom1ation. As t he
project evol ves, we sh ould p rovide continued cons ultation and field services during
co nstru ction to review a nd monitor the implementation of our recommendations,, and to
verify that tlle recommendations bmrc been approp1i atety interpreted. Significant desi gn
changes may require additional analysis o r inod ificatio ns to t11e reco mmendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation ofexcavations and fo und atio n
bearing strata and testing of structural fitt by a representative of the geotedmica1
engineer.
Resp ectfull y Submitted,,
Joo Nt\. 114 172A
0
f8
I
I
J
I
I
I ,,.-
/ I
I I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
EXISTING
TENNIS
OOURT
!:!!
{!ft
I .~
/ <§> I
______ _,,1 1' I ,j
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 "'
0 m ~
// // / (:,~r
I / / ~~~ I l
I ,,,"' / ~~\"' / / e. I i
I I I / .. :.'I.~
I I/ / '<-~"' BOR1NG2 • I i
I I
I i
o I m \
\
\
\ ,-
\ \
I I
PROPOSED ,,,"''~I I
• LODGE / / ,,,, I
BORING 1 AOOITlON-/ / / > I
;"' /A BORING3 /
/PROPOSED ~ / I
( POOL ~ I
\ // I \ ,,. • I
v // BORING4 I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
E)(JSTING
LODGE
§'l
t!J
I
I
I
I
I
,
\ \
\ \
~ \ ,
,"'(r \ I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPROXIMA.TE SCALE
1' = 40'
\ \
' \
\ 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
114 172A LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1
0
5
10
~
c:
0
15 ~ 15
25
114172A
BORING1
ElE\I. = 6595'
1!1!2
WG=!M
00=104
9112
WG=2UI
00=104
·125112
WC=•IL3
+~~47
-:200=18
51l14
6~110
lOOGE
ADDITION
BORlNG2
ELEV.= 6594·
316.511/l
11/n2
WC=ll'.0
-200=38
~=NJ>
11/12
WC=lli5
ll>D=101
53112
u1n2
BORING3
ELEV.= 6589'
11112
91!2
W!>-252
DD=!l6
-?00=83
8112
WC=23.6
DD=85
:. : .. y .. ·~
64/'il2
WC=7.0
00=118
81176
BORlNG4
ElE\1=6589'
5112
8112
WC=21.0
.. : .. : .. 00=98 ·: .. +'4~53 ...: ... .: .. · -200=20 ... ,.
;~
~i ..
2516,0013
wc~4-9
SWIMMING
POOL
Nole: Explanation ol symbC>ls is shown on Figt1re 3.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORlNGS
0
5
10
~
•
15'
J
15 ~
20
25
Figure 2
I
' .
LEGEND:
All; man-placed sarndy silly olay, m~ with topso~. medium sliff, moist to veiy moist, cl!lik brown.
TOF'SOll; organic silly olay. moist, dalk brown.
OLAY (Cl); silly, sandy,, metfll!llifl s~lll. moist, brown. low plasticity. oocasionally calcareous.
SANO (SC..SM); clayey lo si'lly, gravelly •. scattered cobbles. medi\!Jm dense. moist to very moisl. mixed brCMJ, low
io rn:>n-p1aslic firms, occasionally calcareous.
SANO ANO GRAVEL (SC-G:C); with oobb!es, clayey. silty, medium dense to dense, slightly moist grey-brown.
NOTES:
SllNOSTONE BEOROCK; cemented. Im:!, moisl 10 slightly moist, mixed brown.
Drive sample; starn:lald perietration test (SPT}, I 31'8 incih to. split spoon sample, ASTM 0-1586.
Olive samj)le blow count; indicales lhal 39 blows of a 140 pooncl hammer la:Hing 30 imihes were
requimcl to drive the Cali!ornia or SPT sampler 12 lrnoliies.
Prae>tiC!ll dri'mng refusal.
1. Ex.oloraloiy borings were drilled on May 19,, 2014 with 4-iooh diametsr OOlllilillllllJS flighl power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory bOJifl!IS were measured a.t1Proximately by pacing from feBlureS shown on fue s'ile plan
provided.
3. 8eva1ions of oxp!Qf!l!my borings were ne>l measured arnl the ~ogs of explora!Oiy booings are dr!iWll to depth.
4. The exp!omtoiy boriinig local.ions and elevations sroalcl be oonsidemd aooumte only to the degree imptied by the
melhod used.
5. The Hnes between materials shown on lhe exploratoiy boring logs represeril the approximate boondaries betweoo
material types aoo transitions may be gradl!Jal
6. No free waler wes enoountemcl in the borings at the time. of drilling. Auci:oalion in water level may ooour with ~ime.
1. Laboratory Tes~ng Restills:
WC= Water Con\erit (%)
00 = OJ)! OenS11y (pci)
+4 =Percent relalned on the No. 4 sieve
-200 = Peroenl passing No. 200 siare
NP = Non-Plastic
114172A LEGEND AND NOTES ·Figure 3
I I
Moisture Conlerit = 21.8 peroent
Oiy Density = 104 pCll
SaOllJe oT: Sa~dy S'~ty Olay
From: Boring 1 at 5 Feet
0
'
1 * • Compressloo
6 <:: i.-
""-llp!lfl .. wetting "' 2 ' !'! "' a.
~ ' 0 3
" \.
4
'-I
' ' I
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIEO PRESSlJRE -ksf
MDisture Oontent = 16-5 peroenl i
Oiy Density = 101 pct
San\ple o!: Clayey Silty Sam:! With Gravel
! i
From: Bori119 2 al 10 Feel
0
! I
""' -I
:!! I •
! ~ " ( No movement '1
·;;; "' uj)()ll I
"' 2 welting !'! a. \.· E
0 '
'
0
3 ' ' ' I
4
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksl
' o&'~ 114172A I SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4
I H-worth-Pawlak :technical
! Moisture Coll!e11l = 23.6 peroonl ' I
Diy Dimslty = 85 pol
Sample o!: Clayey Silty Sand
From: Boring 3 al 10 Foot
0
~ ~ • 1 t: 0 ""'
0
lll
I'! 2 " a.
E No'movem!m't ') 0
0 ~11
3 wet ling
I
i
0.1 1.0 IO 100
APPliEO PRESSURE -ksf
I 1 Moisture Co111en1 = 21.0 percent
' ' Oiy Oenslty = 98 pc!
Sample ot. Sandy Silty Clay
From: Bciril'IQ 4 at 5 Feel
0
! -..._
!'--. 1-..
1 '~ '
i No movement
l!!.
"""
,._ ~ ' upon
t: c:: '-welling 0 2 -a; !
"' ~ [\. E 3 0
0 \
4 .
' ' ) I
5
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPUEO PRESSURE -ksf
~ I SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
i
114172A Gentech Figure 5
I H••1'orth-l'<Nllak lleo!edlnloal
I HIDJIQNIEl'Elll ANA.tYSIS I ~ANAIYSIS I TIME llEllDWGS US STMDNllDSllfll~ ClEARSOllAREO!'EllllNIGS "if.I , ... #100 #511 3'11' :174' I ·!Jr 3' 5'6' 6' <IS IN.15 W'4. 6!l11111'419MI~~ Milt ·1 t.!IN. #200 t'3ll >i'Ul #6 #{
0 ""' I
10 ., I
0 211 ..
w Cl
I :6 :lll "" z
~ ~ w •a "' I a: i
I-"' !z z Sil w w
u 0
a: 6il ~ «D ffi w
0.. [\.
70 ""
Ill! ..
!il3 ..
103 • ... -.... ... -.... .,. ·'" .m "" '"' ·~ ... Sil as uti .,. ,., ,.. .,, ...
011\METIER OF PAIUICt.l:.S IN MIUIMEIBRS
0-..Jtt""°:sll.ll I l'iiE -''*""' I -I """"-"' I ...... , .. I -GRAVEL 47 % SAND 34 % SILT AND a.AV 18 %
i
UQUlDUMTT % Pl.ASTICITY INDEX %
SAM?LE OF: Olayey Si'l!y Sandy Gravel FROM: BOiing 1 al 10 Foot
nru!IDME1t1cM!M.VSIS I . ~'ft.VI:: At\lA.l'~,.... .... l
lllME READl.'IGS I 11.S. STANDARD SBfllES I OlEAA SOUA!IE O?llNllNIGiS ij
~ ~ 1~ =.. OOMINll9l,100.4 ll'IN. Hl\IN. #200 #100 #00 #30 #16 #8 fl 318' 314' 1112' :r s~si, S"
100
Ill 00
I 0 ~G Ill!
w Cl
z 30 7ll :z
~ (i'j
w 40 6B ~ a:
I-00~ z 00 w
0 0 a: 00 <Ill ffi tu n. n.
' 7~ 30
' SB 20
00 1n
100 0
.001 002 .005 .009 019 .. 007 .07< .lSO .300 -OOll 118 2.30 4.1$ 9.S,u;19.0 3¥.S ra.11 12Jl2 w
I Oll'IME!ffi OF PARTICLES HN MIWMETERS
C:.1l't'TOaJI I ""' I ~~
'"'""' I@# I 111);.S Tm I """"-"'
GRAVEL 53 % SAND 27 % SILT AND a.AV 2{1 %
llQUIDUMlT % Pl.ASTIC!lY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: C!avev Siltv Salldv Gravel FROM: Bcmna 4 al 5 Feel
114172A ~ GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6
HEPWOIUl-1.PAWl.A.'K G£'GT~CA1...
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 1l4172A
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPI.! LOCl\TION NATURAL GRADATION AmRBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOIST URS NATURAL GJIAVil. S4NO P£RCSNT PIJ\STIC COMPRSSSIVe 50/LOR
SORING DSl'TH COllTeNT DRVOSNSITV PASSING NO, UCIUIO LIMIT INDEX STRSNGTH SEDROC>: 1'YPI! (%) (%) 200 SIWE
If\) 1%\ (pot) (%) {%\ (PSFI
1 2 18.4 104 Sandy Clay (Fill)
s 2L8 104 Sandy Silty Clay
10 4.3 47 34 18 Clayey Silty Sandy Gravel
-2 s 12.0 38 NP Silty Sand
10 16.S 101 Clayey Silty Sand with Gravel
-
3 s 25.2 86 83 Sandy Clay (Fil!)
10 23.6 BS Clayey Silty Sand
15 7.0 118 Weathered Sandstone
--
4 s 21.0 98 53 27 20 Sandy Silty Clay
10 4.9 Clayey Silty Sandy Gravel
--
.
=