HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum of Subgrade Modulus to Subsoil Study Reports 09.08.16H-PVIruMAR 5020 County Road 15.4
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 94S,7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
Ëmail: hpkglenwood@kumarusa,oom
ücstechnical Engineering I Engineéring Geolagy
Maler¡als ]-åstlng | Ënv¡rörrnenlål
Office Locations; Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthome, Colorado
September 8,2016
Kevin Emerson
c/o RM Construction
Attn: Blake Piland
5030 Counfy Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
blake'.Êbui ldwithrm.com
ProjectNo. 16-7-3ll
Subject:Addendum of Subgrade Modulus to Subsoil Study Reports, Proposed Residences,
Lots272 andzT3,Ironbridge, Blue Heron Vista, Garfield County, Colorado
Gentlemen:
As requested, we are providing the recommended subgrade modulus for design of structural slab
foundations at the subject site. We previously conducted subsoil studies for design of
foundations at each of Lots 272 and273 and presented our findings in reports dated August 31,
2016, Project No. l 6-7-31 l.
The soils mainly consist of slightly clayey sandy silt with gravel. A subgrade modulus of 100 tcf
can be used for the structural slab design. Other recommendations presented in our previous
reports which are applicable should also be observed.
lf you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
H-P\KUMAR
Steven L. Pawlak, P
SLP/ksw
H.P\IffMAR 5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, C0 81601
Phone: {970) 945-7988
Far (970) 945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
,.,., .1 i ., .,: i...: i t:,1:,11,jl r; I i i ..:;:.:11
',. ] '. ,li ,.,...,.,:i,:,
Office Locations: Pârker, Glenwood Springs, and Sllverlhorne, Coloiâda
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 273,IRONBRTDGE
BLUE HERON VISTA
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 16-7-3lr
AUGUST 31,2016
PREPARED F'OR:
KEVIN EMERSON
C/O RM CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: BLAKE PILAIïD
5O3O COUNTY ROAD I54
GLENWoOD SPRTNGS, CO 8t601
blske(@buildwith rm.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY".........,,,,, ...,...- I _
BACKGROTJND TNFORMATION ........- I -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.............2-
slTE CoNDITTONS ............._ 2 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL -2-
FIELD EXPLORATION 3-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
FOUNDATTON BEARING CONDITIONS ............- 4 _
DESTGN RECOMMENDATIONS................
FOLINDATIONS.........
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS.
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SURFACE DRATNAGE ...............
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINCS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORTNCS
FIGURE 3 . LEGEND AND NOTES
FICURES 4 and 5 - SV/ELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
5
5
6
I
I
I
-9
H-Ê KUMAR
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to bc located
on Lot 273, Ironbridge, Blue Heron Vista, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Figure l. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Kevin Emerson c/o RM Constructíon dated August
8, 2016. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now H-P/Kumar) previously performed a
preliminary geotechnical study for the lronbridge Villas and presented our findings in a
report dated September 14, 2005, Job No. 105 I l5-6.
A freld exploration program consisting of an exploratory boring was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the
fìeld 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed residence is located in the existing lronbridge subdivision development.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now H-P/Kumar) previously conducted subsurface
exploration and geotechnical evaluation for development of Villas North and Villas South
parcels, Job No. 105 I 15-6, report dated September 14, 2005, and performed observation
and testing services during the infrastructure construction, Job No. 106 0367 between
April 2006 and April 2007. The information provided in these previous reports has been
considered in the current study olLot273.
H.Ê KUMAR
7
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a one story, wood frame structure with attached garage
and located as shown on Figure l, Ground floors are proposed consist of a structural
slab-on-grade with no basement or crawlspace. Grading for the structure is assumed to be
relatively minor with cut depths between about 2 to 3 feet. \ilúe assume relatively light
foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
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 lot was vacant at the time of the field exploration. The tenain was relatively flat with
about one foot of elevation difference down to the east- Fill had been placed to elevate
the lot and surrounding area by the previous subdivision grading. The lot was accessed
otÏa driveway coming from Blue Heron Vista to the east. Vegetation consisted of grass,
rveeds and sagebrush.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Ironbridge
development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, hne-grained sandstone
and siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility
that massive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie
portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause
sinkholes to develop and can produce areas oflocalized subsidence. A sinkhole opened
in the cart storage parking lot located east of the Pro Shop and west of the Villas North
parcel in January 2005, Other irregular bedrock conditions have been identified in the
aff'ordable housing site located to the no¡thwest of the Villas North parcel. lnegular
H.F KUMAR
274?
-3-
surface features that could indicate an unusual risk of ground subsidence were not
observed in the Villas North parcel, but localized depths of debris fan soils and
bedrock quality encountered by the previous Septem 14,?A05 geotechnical study in
the Villas North development aÌea could be the ofpasl subsidence. The subsurface
exploration performed in the area of the proposed on Lots 2721273 did not
encounler voids but the alluvial fan depth was considerably greater than
encountered on nearby lots which could indicate ground subsidence. In our opinion,
the risk of future ground subsidence on
service life of the proposed residence is
the Villas North parcel throughout the
similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork
River valley where there have not been indications of ground subsidenee, but the owner
should be made âware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation
of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted.
FIELÐ EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the current project was conducted on August 10, 2016. One
exploratory boring was drilled at the localion shown on Figure I to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. Boring 6 (2005) was drilled for the previous geotechnical study in
July, 2005. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers
powered by a truck-mounted CME-458 drill ríg. 'l'he borings were logged by a
representative of H-Pfl(umar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with l3$ 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 penetratíon resistance values are 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 Log
of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were retumed to our laboratory for review
by the project engineer and testing.
H-Ê KUMAR
4
SUBSURT'ACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2.
The subsoils encountered in Boring I consist of about 8 feet of relatively dense, mÍxed
sandy clayey silt and gravel fill overlying about 71Á feet of stiff, sandy silt with gravel
underlain by about TlVz feetof medium dense/very stiff; silty to very silty sand with
gravel. Below the silty sand at about 37 feet deep, was about 5 feet of medium dense,
silty sand and gravel underlain by claystone and gypsum bedrock to the maximum drilled
depth of 6l feet. The bedrock is Eagle Valley Evaporite and was typically very weathered
and became less weathered and very hard with depth. The Boring 6 (2005) subsurface
profile was similar to Boring I except there was minor fill depth at that time and the
bedrock was hard below the sand and gravel layer.
Laboratory testing perlormed on samples obtained from the boring included natural
moisture content and density and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of
swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented
on Figures 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under loading and low to
minor collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The laboratory
testing is summarized in Table l.
Free water was encountered in Boring I at the time of drilling and when checked I day
Iater at a depth of about 43 feet which is nearly the same elevation of groundwater level
encountered in Boring 6 (2005). The upper soils were slightly moist to moist with depth
becoming very moist to wet near and below groundwater level.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper I feet of soils consist of fill placed mainly in 2006 as part of thé subdivision
development. The field penetration tests (blow counts) and laboratory tests performed for
the current study, and review of the field density (compaction) tests perlormed during the
H-F KUMAR
-5-
fill construction indicate the structural fill was placed and compacted to the project
specified 95% of standard Proctor density. Debris fan soils which tend to collapse (settle
under constant load) when wetted were encountered below the fill. The amount of
settlement will depend on the thickness of the compressible soils due to potential collapse
when wetted, and potential compression of the underlying soíls after wetting. Relatively
deep structural fill will also have some potential for long term settlement but should be
considerably less than the alluvial fan deposit. Sources of wening include irrigation,
surface water runoff and utility line leaks. A heavily reinforced structural slab or post-
tensioned slab foundation designed for significant differential settlements is
recommended for the building support.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOI.JNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded witlr a
heavily reinforced structural slab foundation bearinc on about I feet of comnacted
structural fill. A posþtensioned slab foundation could also be used.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed lor a spread
footing foundation system.
l) A heavily reinforced structuralslab placed on about I feet of structural fìll
should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. A post-
tensioned slab if used should be designed for a wetted distance of l0 feet
but at least half of the slab width, whichever is more. Based on
experience, we expect initial settlement of the slab foundation designed
and constructed as discussed in this section will be about I inch or less.
Additional settlement could occur if the bearing soils were to become
wetted. The magnitude of the additional settlement would depend on the
depth and extent of wetting but may be on the order of I to I '¿ inches.
H-Ê KUMAR
-6-
3)
The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loads should
have a minimum width of 20 inches.
The perimeter turn-down section of the slab should be provided with
adequate soil cover above the bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area. If a frost protected foundation is used, the
perimeter turn-down section should have at least 18 inches of soil cover.
The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather
than with irregular extensions which can settle differentially to the main
building area. The foundation walls, where provided, should be heavily
reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an
unsupported length of at least l4 feet. Fóundation walls acting as retaining
structures (if any) should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures
as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining V/alls" section of this
report.
The organic root zone and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed.
Additional structural fill placed below the slab bearing level should be
compacted to at least 98% of the ma,rimum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the
compaction of fitl materials and observe all footing excavations prior to
concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
4)
5)
FOI.JNDATION AND RETAINING \À/ALLS
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 backfìll consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate liom the building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full
active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed
2)
6)
H-È KUMAR
-7 -
on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of
the on-site soils.
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 backfìll 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 rvalls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least g0% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in
pavement and walkway areas should be ccimpacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, sincê this could cause excessive lateral pressurs on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed conectly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaìning 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 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted
backf¡ll against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
wcight of 300 pcf. The coefäcient 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 a
moisture content near optimum.
H-É KUMAR
-8-
NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR SLABS
Compacted structural l¡ll can be used to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction
separat€ from the building foundation. The hll soils can be compressible when wetted
and result in some post-construction settlement. To reduce the effects of some
differential movement, slabs-on-grade should be separated from the building to allow
unrestrained verlical movement. Floor slab conholjoints should be used to reduce
damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements forjoint spacing and slab
reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended
slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of well-graded sand and gravel, such as road base,
should be placed beneath slabs for support. This material should consist of minus 2-inch
aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No,4 sieve and less than 129å passing the No.
200 sieve.
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 frlt can
consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
L'NDERDRAIN SYSTEM
It is our understanding that the finished floor elevation at the lowest level of the proposed
residence will be at or above lhe surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system
is not required. Although free water was encountered during our exploration wetl below
probable foundation depths, it has been our experience in the area that local perched
groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonat runoff. Frozen
ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade
construction, such as retaining walls, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure
buildup by an underdrain system.
If finished floor elevation of the proposed residence has a floor level below the
surrounding grade, we should be contacted to provid€ recommendations for an underdrain
H.FÈ KUMAR
-9-
system. All earth retaining structures should be properly drained.
SURFACE DRAINACE
Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils, such as proper backfîll construction,
positive backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use of roof gutters need to be
taken to limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions
should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has
been completed:
1) Inundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construetion.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum rnoisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90o't 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
recontmend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 5 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 2Pr inches in the first l0 feet in paved areas.
Graded swales should have a minimum slope of 3o";år.
4\ Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy inigation should be located at
least l0 feet fiom 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. lVe make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated
H-F KUMAR
-10-
on Figure l, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our
services do not include detennining the prcsencc, prevention or possibility olmold or
other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. [f the client is
concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special fielcl 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.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. trlVe
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
clranges 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 geotechnicat
enginecr.
Respectful ly Subnritted,
H-Pt I(UMAR
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SLP/ksw
cc RM Construction - Eric Lintjer (erie@.buildwithn*.coml
frf
¿_
å
H-Ê KUMAR
LOl 271 (BUTLT)
I
tn
zoÉl¡¡Ì
l¡¡¿JE
o
=l¡¡
c.f)
I
I
I
II
II
¡
III
I
LOT 27s
PROPOSEÐ RESIDENCE
o
BoRTNG 6 (200s)
III
II
I
II
I
I
¡I
IIII
LI
BORING I
-----ab
LAl 272 (VACANT)
1
APPROXIMÀTE SCÂLË.FEET
1 6-7-51 r H-P\I(UMARr]'ÁrìÁ,ild LJqiqd!,*,t-\;: \rrj¡rj l¡'n rr
I J,r1!r-iil ì,'!r. ¿ r f, r"x,rrJ#r,t
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
BORINC I
EL. 5958'
BORING
EL.
6 (200s)
5955'
- 5960 59607o/12
WC=6.3
D0=1 29
-2OO=67
E6/12
13/12
YIC=21.7
DD=92
- 5950 5950
t3/12
5e/3
T{C=8.6
- 5940
DD=l l9
-200=49 5940
18/12
WC=E.O
DD=119
t2/12
WC=1O.5
-2OO=50
1e/12
- 5930 5930
13/12
WC=8.9
-200='f5
to/12
WC=18.2
Ð0=lO6
-2OO=73
- 5920 5920
17 /12
- 59t0 591 O
2/12 so/2
- 59OO 5900
50/2
- 5890 9890
1 6-7-3t 1 H-P\KUMAR
l*sr* J ¡rü{ | Tr -$rìj' $rùr¡ãÉ'ì4 í;¡,ir,¡LOGS OF EXPLORAÏORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND
m
a
n
m
ffi
n
ffi
F
I
FILL¡ MIXED SANDY CLAYEY SILT AND GRAVEL, ME0IUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BRoWN
SILT (ML); SL|GI{TLY C[.AYEY, SANDY, SCAITEREII cRAvEL, STIFF, M0|ST, RED0lSl{ BROWN.
SAI{D AND SILT (SM-ML}; SÇATTERED GRAVEL, MEOIUM DENSE/VERY STIFF. MOIST, REOOISH
EROtVN.
SANO AND GRAVEL (SM-GM)¡ SILTY, SOME SANDY SILT I-AYERS, MEDlUll DENSE, EROIVN,
SUEANOULAR TO ROUNDED ROCK.
WEATHERED cLAYsToNE AND GYPSUM; 50FT TO I{ARD WTH OEPTI{, VERY MOIST To wET,
GRAY AND TVH¡TE. EAGLE VALLSY EVÂPORITE.
SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL)¡ SLIGHTLV SANDY TO SANDY, SCATTERED ORAVEL, SoliE SANDY
CI.AY, SIIFF TO VERY STIFF, VERY MOIST ÏO WET WITH DEPTH, MIXED BROWN, SLIGHTLY
CALCAREOUS AND POROUS. LOW PI-ASTICITY.
C|ÀYSIONE AND GYPSUM; MEDTUM HARD TO HARD, MOIST, GRAY AND WHITE. EAGIE VALLEY
EVAFORIIE.
REI.ATÍVELY UNDISTURBED OR}VE SAMPLE¡ 2-INCH I.O. CÀLIFORNIÂ LIN€R SAMPLE.
DR|VE SAMPLE; SÎÄNDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), I 5/E |NCH t.0. SPL|I SFOON
SAMPLE, ASTM D-I586.
7671e DRIVE SAMPLE ELOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 70 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER. -/ .. FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIREO TO DRIVE THE CALIFoRNIA OR sPT SAMPLER 12 INcHEs.
4J o¡prx ro wATER IEVEL AND NUMBER oF DAys AFTER DFTLLTNc MEASuREMENT wAs MADE.
+ DEPTH AT WI{ICH BORING CAVED,
NOTES
r, EXPLORATORY SORING r WAS DRILLEo ON AUGUST t0, 2016 AND 8oR|NG 6 (2005) WAS
ORILLEO IN JULY. 2OO5 WITH A 4.INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF TI{E EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATUFES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDEI'.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY EORINGS WERE MEASURED SY INTERPOLATION EETWEEN
CONTOURS ON TTIË PLAN PROVIDED.
¡1. THE EXPLORÂTORY BORING LocATlONS Al.lD ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIOEREO ACCURÀTE
ONLY TO THE OEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOO USED.
5. TI{E L]NES BETWEEN MATERIATS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORINo LOGS REPRESENT TI{E
APPROXIMATE BOUNOARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURID AT THE TIME AND UNDER
CONDITIONS IN9ICATED. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WÀTER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME.
7. |jEORATORY TEST RESULTS:wc = WATER CONTENT (x) (ASTM D 2216)i
D0 = DRY DENSIÎY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216)t
-2OO= PERCENTÀGE PASSING NO. 2OO SIEVE (AsTM D II,IO).
1 6-7-31 1 H.P*KUMARflny:. i,rrrs È ç{ rsrll 1: *!rér¡{ tli!-1¡t,LEGEND AND NOTES Fí9. 3
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Gloyry Sllt
FROM: Eorlng 1 O 10'
YlÇ = 21.7 H, DD = 92 pcl
h
ADDITIONAL COMFRESSION
UNOER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WËÎTING
I
l
i
t
t
t
!
I
¡
I
I
I
i
I
I
ì
l
t
t
1
ll
l:t:.-.-..:*...
:
ìi
:i
i1lì
iiiiiiij
l:---1*--i"
t:
i
I
I
¡
s
I
j
l
l
¡
{*
1
t
:
t
¡
I
1
_l
t
1
1
I
a
,
I
1
t
I
1
I
¡
t
,
I
I
I
ì
-,1
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
:
-,
It
j
..-.1 ,.
t
t
I
¡
j
:
:
J
I
i
:
l
T
1I
1
t
I
1
1
l
i
I
I
{
,
1
0
N
j-z
l¡,*UI
l-j
otrt-*ovlzc)C)-5
-6
-7
t 6-7-3 1 1 H-P\KUMAR,a 1) ,a t .., i,1..SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT Fig. 4
I
û
È
SAMPTE OF: Vory Sllly Sond wllh Grovol
FROM:Borlng I O 20'
WC = 8.0 X, DD = 119 p€l
I
i
{
I
ì
I¡.
ì
t
ì
t.
i
I
:
Ì
:
I
l
t
I
1
I
.:
I
Ij
I
1
I
!
I
;-
I
t
a
¡
i
I
iril
ll
:t:t
i"".1jl¡:
a
l
ÄDO¡TIONAL COMPRES5ION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
rj,ìri
a
¡
I
¡
t
t
t
:
:
:
t
t,
1
^0x
j-r
l¡,3v,t-z
IF
!-roulz,oeJ -4
16-7-311 H-P*KUMAR SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT Fig. 5
H-P\IruMARTABLE 1SUMI'IARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSProject No. f 6-7-3f ILot 273sotloRBET'ROCKÎYPESandy Clayey Silt withGravelISandy Clayey SiltVery Silty Sand withGravelVery Silty Sand withGravelVery Silty Sand withGravelUNCONFINEDcoirPREsslvESTRENGTH{PSRATTERBERG LIMITSPLASTICINDEX{7olLIQUIDLlftrllT(%lPÊRCENTPASSINGNO.200SIEVE674945GRADATIONSANDt%tGRAVÊLÍY,lHATURALDRYDENSITY{pcfl8.312992119il9NATURALr¡rolsïuRECONTENT(%l2t.78.68.08.9SAMPLE LOCATIONOEPTH(frt2Wl0I52t30BORINGI