HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 07.12.2016H-PKUMAR
Geotechnical Engineering 1 Englneering Geology
Materials Testing 1 Environmental
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthorne, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
SIMPSON PARCEL
MIDLAND AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 16-7-151
JULY 12, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
MIKE SIMPSON
P.O. BOX 1281
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
(si m pson miked @ gma il. corn)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REVIEW - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 4 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 5 -
FOUNDATIONS - 5 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 6 -
FLOOR SLABS - 7 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 8 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 8 -
LIMITATIONS - 9 -
REFERENCE -10-
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located
on the Simpson parcel, Midland Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The project site
is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted according to the agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Mike Simpson dated June 2, 2016. Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical (now H-P/Kumar) previously provided a geologic hazards supplement for
the proposed Simpson parcel development and presented the findings in a report dated
June 2, 2016, Job No. 116 231A.
Exploratory borings were drilled to obtain information on the subsurface conditions.
Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory
to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering
characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed
to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the
proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study
and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface
conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will consist of one and two story wood frame construction with
an attached slab -on -grade garage located as shown on Figure 1. Grading for the residence
will be relatively extensive due to the steep slope above the building site. The driveway
access and garage area will require cut and fill walls or fill embankments up to about 10
feet high. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction. The abandoned Atkinson ditch which crosses the residence area will be
backfilled or excavated for the new construction. The septic disposal system will be
located north of the residence in the backfilled ditch area.
H-PkKUMAR
-2 -
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed building and septic disposal system are sited on the abandoned Atkinson
ditch which has been partly backfilled in the proposed septic disposal area. Ground
surface slopes above and below the building area are steep up to Midland Avenue and
down to the Roaring Fork River, both with elevation difference of about 25 feet relative
to the building site. Properties to the north and south are occupied with single family
residences. Vegetation consists of mainly weeds along the ditch and heavy brush and
trees on the steep slopes uphill and downhill of the ditch.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REVIEW
The site is located near the bottom of coalescing debris fan deposits of Basin W-13
(Lincoln-DeVore, 1978). The steep valley side, where rock of the Eagle Valley
Formation outcrops, is located a few hundred feet west of Midland Avenue. Two small,
closely spaced drainages of Basin W-13 above Midland Avenue are potential sources of
debris flow impact to the project site. No evidence of recent debris fan flooding was
observed during the current site review on the property. We understand that thunderstorm
flooding including debris flow recently occurred on the small drainage Located about 500
feet to the north but flows did not reach the project site. No indications of massive
instability were observed on the steep slopes above or below the building site.
The site is impacted by potential geologic hazards consisting of debris flooding, slope
instability and hydrocompressive soils. None of these hazards are considered to be severe
at this site and can be mitigated by proper grading and structural designs normally used
for this type of development. Grading of the driveway into the building site and grading
around the building needs to accommodate potential debris flow impacts. For example,
-3 -
the potential flows down from Midland Avenue need to be intercepted by the driveway
and discharged down the slope to the north or to the south of the residence. The garage
and site walls need to be high enough to take potential flow impact and divert flows
around the residence. The driveway grading plan and typical details of the proposed
concrete retaining wall along the uphill side of the garage/residence shows the wall to
extend 11/2 to 2 feet above grade intended to deflect possible debris flows. Your civil
engineer may need to consider other potential impacts from debris flow in their grading
design. You should also be aware that there could be potential cleanup of mud and debris
from a large debris flow event. The structure foundation and septic disposal system
should be set back from the steep down slope to not adversely impact slope stability.
Recommendations for the foundation and grading designs and slope setback criteria are
presented in the Design Recommendations section of this report.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 30, 2016. Two exploratory
borings were drilled in the proposed building area and two borings were drilled in the
proposed building septic disposal area at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight
augers powered by a truck -mounted CME -45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a
representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1'/s inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The
samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described
by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the
relative density or consistency of the subsoils. 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 returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer
and testing.
-4 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2.
The subsoils, below about 3 to 6 feet of loose organic fill, consist of medium dense, silty
to very silty clayey sand to silty clayey sand and gravel (alluvial fan deposits) to a depth
of about 33 feet overlying relatively dense, silty sandy gravel with cobbles and probably
boulders (river alluvium). The profile borings in the septic areas encountered similar fill
and natural soils to the depth drilled of 10 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation
testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the sand soils, presented on
Figure 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and
wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus
11/2 inch fraction) of the soils are shown on Figures 5 and 6. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
No free water Was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 8
days later and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist with depth.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural silty clayey sand and gravel soils can be used for support of lightly loaded
spread footings with a risk of settlement mainly if the bearing soils become wetted. Fill
material and organics from previous site development should be completely removed
from beneath building areas. The alluvial fan soils tend to settle if they become wetted.
A shallow foundation placed on these soils will have a risk of settlement if the soils
become wet and care should be taken in the surface and subsurface drainage around the
house to prevent the soils from becoming wet. It will be critical to the long term
performance of the residence that the recommendations for surface drainage and
subsurface drainage contained in this report be followed. The amount of settlement, if the
-5 -
bearing soils become wet, will be related to the depth and extent of subsurface wetting
and would likely cause building distress. Mitigation of the settlement risk, such as with
structural fill below footings or a deep foundation, such as piles or piers extending down
into the river gravel alluvium at roughly 30 to 35 feet deep could be used to support the
proposed residence. If a deep foundation is desired, we should be contacted to provide
further design recommendations.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread
footings bearing on the natural soils below topsoil or fill from previous development.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on
experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less.
Additional settlements of 1 to 2 inch could occur depending on the depth
and extent of wetting.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom
to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at
H-PtKUMAR
-6 -
least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also
be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as presented in the Foundation
and Retaining Walls section of this report.
5) The existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to undisturbed
natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened
and compacted. The footing bearing level on the downhill side of the
residence should be placed below an imaginary line extended up from the
toe of the slope at a grade of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral
earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full
active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed
on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of
the on-site soils. Backfill should not contain organics or rocks larger than about 6 inches.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and
equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the
walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward
sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or
retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure
buildup behind walls.
-7 -
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement
and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard
Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use Targe
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 correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure
against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be
calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended
above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors 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 placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at near
optimum moisture content.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -
on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, non-
structural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
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 should be established by the designer based on experience
and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -draining gravel should be
placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of
minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve.
H-PKUMAR
_g -
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and
basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an
underdrain system. an underdrain should not be needed around shallow crawlspace areas
provided backfill is properly placed and compacted as recommended in the Surface
Drainage section of this report.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the 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 170 to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular
material used in the 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 of 2 inches. The
drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep. An impervious membrane, such as a
30 mil PVC liner, should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and
attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
H-PkKUMAR
-9-
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 areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 21/2 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free -draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped
with about 2 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface 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 10 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use
of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building
caused by irrigation.
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
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area.
Our services do not include determining 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 professional in this special field of practice should be
consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory boring and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during
construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
H-PEKUMAR
-10 -
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We
are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
H-P-KUMAR
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ksw
cc: Red House Architecture — Bruce Barth(bruce@redhouscarchitecture.com)
Mountain Cross Engineering — Chris Hale (chris@mountaincross-eng.cam)
REFERENCE
Lincoln-DeVore, 1978. Geologic Hazards of the Glenwood Springs Metropolitan Area,
Garfield County, Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 78-10
61
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1"=30'
6103
/
/
/
/ PROFILE
/ BORING 2
0
/ BORING 2
0
/
6110
6760_-i
i
0
PROFILE -
BORING 1 7
/
VER
ROARINGFORKRl
i
/
/
/
i
16-7-151
H-Pt-KUMAR
GOCtvchrl.G11 L ,r I n"erII Q I FmpliemrfoU GcxjY
Materi !s Task^j 1 E 1 iranmcnal
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 1
Elevation - Feet
6780
BORING 1
ELEV.= 6776'
11/12
WC -2.8
DD -100
+4-36
-200-33
24/6
WC -35
DD -128
-200- 42
11/6
WC -6.3
DD- 130
-200 =54
6740
BORING 2 PROFILE BORING 1 PROFILE BORING 2
ELEV. 6776' ELEV.= 6775' ELEV.= 6775'
13/12
21/12
WC=13 2
DD=101
16/12
WC = 7.2
DD=101
-200 -56
33/12
WC- 4.1
DD=123
+4=37
-200-27
72/12
23/6
WC=4.4
DD=125
-200-32
21/12
WC 11 3
DD 106
-200- 30
50/3
9/12
23.'12"
26/12
2912 -
WC -5 9
DD=117
GRAVEL=37
SAND=19
SILT= 37
CLAY=7
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
6780
6775
13/12
17/12 -. 6770
WC -50
DD=115
GRAVEL -49
23/12 ' SAND -12
SILT -33
CLAY -=6
42/12 J 6765,
6760
0
a)
w
6755
6750
6745
674D
16-7-151
H-P-tICUMAR
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 2
LEGEND:
® FILL; mixed sand, silt and clay with gravel and organics, loose, slightly moist to moist, mixed brown.
h
8/12
SAND (SM); silty to very silty, clayey, gravelly, cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist to moist with depth, brown.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM -GM); silty to very silty, clayey, cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist to moist with
depth, brown.
GRAVEL (GM); silty, sandy, cobbles, dense, moist to very moist, brown, rounded rock.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.O. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 8 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Caved depth when checked on July 8, 2016.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on June 30, 2016 with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 8 days later. Fluctuation in
water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
Gravel = Percent retained on No. 10 Sieve
Sand = Percent passing No. 10 sieve and retained on No. 325 sieve
Silt = Percent passing No. 325 sieve to particle size .002mm
Clay = Percent smaller than particle size .002mm
16-7-151
H-P`KUMAR
LEGEND AND NOTES
Figure 3
Compression %
0
1
2
3
4
Moisture Content = 13.2 percent
Dry Density = 101 pcf
Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel
From: Boring 2 at 5 Feet
Compression
<i� upan
wetting
L
L_
r
01
1.0
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
10
100
16-7-151
H-PKUMAR
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 4
RETAIN
HYDROMETER ANALYSES
TIME READINGS
741-R 1.
45 M
-RMIN 15 MIN 60MIN19MFN 4 MIN 1 MIN #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
60
90
100
•
#100
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
#50 #30 #16 #8
#4 3/8' 3;4' 1 1/2 3' 5' 6 8'
r
of
COI
21,
002 DOS 01) 011 C_7 Ola 1:43 ,O0 800 1 18 , 38
11 AY •o•
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL 36 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and Grave'
1
Lc/)>,.
{
4`S 051,5 1?0 110
4 11
70 ]
•
GOBBLES
SAND 31 % SILT AND CLAY 33 %
PLASTICITY INDEX 90
FROM: Boring 1 at 10 Feet
ENT PAS IN
HYDROME IEA ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 IR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
405 V N 15 MIN 60MINI9MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 318 3/4 1 112 3 5 6 8
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
r
NE -
a
l
90
80
70 Z
60 a
Z
50
U
40 W
30
20
10
100 0
001 002 005 009 019 037 074 150 300 600 1 18 2 36 4 75 9 512 519 0 37 5 76 2 121752 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
LIAY i1)
GRAVEL 37 %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel
18 • -.41
C.
001311115
SAND 36 SILT AND CLAY 27 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Boring 2 at 15 Feet
16-7-151
H -P KUMAR
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 5
`ERCEN - AIN •
HYDROMETER ANALYSES k
1
21 f9F�� 7 HR TIME READ NGS 1 MIN
0 45 MIN 15 MIN 60M NI9MIN 4 MIN #325
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
SIEVE ANALYS S
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
#140 460 #35 #18 #10 #4
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
3'8 34 11rc 3 5'6 8 100
}
1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100 - 0
001 002 005 .009 019 045 106 .025 .500 1 00 200 4 75 9 5 19 0 37 5 76 2 152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
sI„
I �m
L•F 1 w= 1 &IFFARA 1[1:0,1,171 1
Fiats #1 j
SJ.tU. 1 f.rF,IMLa.I 1 LHG[ 1
LCX../N.
GRAVEL 37 %
SAND 19 % SILT 37 % CLAY 7 %
USDA SOIL TYPE: Very Gravelly Sandy Loam FROM: Profile Boring 1 at 5, 71/2 and 10 Feet Combined
HYDROMETER ANALYS 5 l S EVE ANA# YSIS
24 I�R 7 HR TIME READ NOS 1 M NI U.S STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15 MIN 60MINI9MIN,4 M'N. #325 #140 #60 #35 #18 #10 #4 3'8 314 1 1/2 a 5 6 8
0 1-
010
20
30
40
50
70
90
100
100
90
80
70
60
1111MaMMI _BM50
r^
r.w■
mimRr�.
��. 0
001 002 005 009 .019 .045 .106 .025 .500 100 200 4 75 9 5 19 0 37 5 76 2 152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
40
30
20
GRAVEL 49 %
5R![
Ik1' 1 I 4, 1111 .akA,CO I*t I- •0
f.rwrl I
F.W. 1 It] I 1..71 1 IONI'A
SAND 12 % SILT 33 %
CLAY 6 %
0
rAllACCilfiZN
10:0421,1■1.6aisiP.L
USDA SOIL TYPE: Very Gravelly Sandy Loam FROM: Profile Boring 2 at 5, 71/2 and 10 Feet Combined
16-7-151
H -P KU MAR
USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 6
Job No. 16-7-151
CO
1-
_J
ice o
W
re
H
co
W
1_
cc
w°
aIX
(U ~a
- J
atl.
1 O
IOC
a
2
2
M
Cl)
SOIL TYPE
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
C7
ms
eta
v)
>,
U
C
e3
0
>,
in
IVery Sandy Silt with Gravel
Silty Clayey Sand with
Gravel
Very Sandy Silt with Gravel 11
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Very Gravelly Sand Loam
Very Gravelly Sandy Loam
USDA SOIL TEXTURE
at NN
U
vz
0
N --
N
M
115
(avg) 49 12 33
a
en
0\
GRAVEL
174
N
M
PERCENT
PASSING
NO.200
SIEVE
en cce)
42
in
'0
N
M
M
GRADATION
o
N '
m
re)
GRAVEL ,
(%)
re)
N
m
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(pci
O
128
130
il
0
n.4
0
N
(Ni
O
To
->
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
00
en
m
N
N
—1
d'
en
r—I
al V)
WI CS
SAMPLE LOCATION J
DEPTH
(ft)
O
N
0
cr9
'
0
.--+
N
M
5, 71 &
Combined
11 BORING
^-
N
Profile
Boring
1