HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 06.26.2017H-PKUMAR
Geotechnical Engineering l Engineering 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 AND SHOP BUILDING
TBD COUNTY ROAD 331
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-443
JUNE 26, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
INTEGRATED MOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE
ATTN: JIM GORNICK
P.O. BOX 908
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
(i gornick @ gmai l.corn)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 4 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 7 -
FLOOR SLABS - 8 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 9 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 10 -
LIMITATIONS - 10 -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 and 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Esgar residence and shop
building to be located at TBD County Road 331, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, The
project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Integrated Mountain Maintenance, dated June 2, 2017.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock 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 foundations. This report
summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, recommendations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the
subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The residence is proposed to be a two-story wood frame structure with a walkout lower level and
located in the area of Boring 1 as shown on Figure i. The shop building will be a detached
structure located in the area of Boring 2 as shown on Figure 1. Ground floors are planned to be
slab -on -grade for both buildings. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor
with cut depths between about 2 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings,
typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those described
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
H-P-kKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-2 -
SITE CONDITIONS
The property consists of irrigated pasture located immediately north of 5882 County Road 331.
A gravel driveway trends roughly east -west through the property from the county road about
1,000 feet to the building site. The ground surface slope is irregular at the residence site with
two nearly east to west ridges about 5 feet high. The ground surface in the shop building site is
gently sloping down to the southwest. Vegetation consists of field grass.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 4, 2017. One exploratory boring
(Boring 1) was drilled at the residence site and one exploratory boring (Boring 2) was drilled at
the shop building site to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring locations are shown on
Figure 1. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a
truck -mounted CME -45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils and bedrock were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler
was driven into the subsurface materials 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 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 returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils encountered, below about 1 foot of organic topsoil, generally consisted of very stiff,
sandy silty clay with scattered gravel overlying weathered claystone and siltstone of the Wasatch
Formation. The clay soil was about 10 feet deep at Boring 1. At Boring 2, the clay was about 4
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-3 -
feet deep and underlain by about 3 feet of silty clayey sand and gravel above the weathered
claystone.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural
moisture content and density, and percent finer than sand size grain size analyses. Swell -
consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay soils and
claystone bedrock.
The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate
low compressibility under relatively light surcharge loading and a moderately high expansion
potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Swelling pressures of about 8,000 to
12,000 psf were measured in the samples. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling and below moist topsoil, the
subsoils and bedrock were slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The clay soils and claystone bedrock encountered at the site possess moderate bearing capacity
and moderately high expansion potential when wetted. The less weathered and very hard
siltstone bedrock encountered with depth could possess low expansion potential.
Shallow foundations placed on the expansive materials similar to those encountered at this site
can experience movement causing structural distress if the clay or claystone is subjected to
changes in moisture content as adequate dead load to resist uplift can typically not be achieved
with a lightly loaded structure.
A drilled pier foundation can be used to penetrate the expansive
materials to place the bottom of the piers in a zone of relatively stable moisture conditions and
make it possible to Toad the piers sufficiently to resist uplift movements. In addition to their
ability to reduce differential movements caused by expansive materials, straight -shaft piers have
the advantage of providing relatively high supporting capacity and should experience a relatively
small amount of movement. Drilled piers are recommended for support of the residence and
could also be used for support of the shop building. Spread footings may be suitable for support
of the shop building with limitations as described below.
H -P 48. KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-4 -
Spread footings can be used for support of the shop building with the understanding of a risk of
foundation movement and building distress. To reduce the risk of foundation movement and
building distress, we recomme}td spread footings bear on a minimum 3 feet of compacted road
base. The road base can consist of CDOT Class 5 or 6 material, or other similar material
approved by us prior to construction. It is imperative that foundation backfill be adequately
compacted, exterior surface be graded with positive slope away from the foundation walls and
irrigation near foundation walls be limited to reduce the risk of wetting to the bearing materials
and distress to the building.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Provide below are recommendations for drilled pier and spread footing foundation systems.
Drilled Piers: The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
straight -shaft drilled pier foundation system for both the residence and shop building.
1) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 30,000 psf
and an allowable skin friction value of 3,000 psf for that portion of the pier in
bedrock.
Piers should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 psf
based on pier end area only. If the minimum dead load requirement cannot be
achieved, the pier length should be extended beyond the minimum penetration to
make up the dead load deficit. This can be accomplished by assuming one-half
the allowable skin friction value given above acts in the direction to resist uplift.
3) Uplift on the piers from structural loading can be resisted by utilizing 75% of the
allowable skin friction value plus an allowance for the weight of the pier.
4) The piers should be at least 12 inches in diameter and should penetrate at least
three pier diameters into the bedrock. A minimum penetration of 10 feet into the
bedrock and a minimum pier length of 20 feet are also recommended. The 20 feet
2)
W-PKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
operations on a full-time basis.
-5 -
minimum depth is measured from the ground surface near the top of pier or
adjacent excavation depth, whichever is greater.
5) Piers should be designed to resist lateral loads assuming a modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction of 50 tcf in the clay soils and a modulus of horizontal subgrade
reaction of 200 tcf in the bedrock. The modulus values given are for a long, 1 -
foot -wide pier and must be corrected for pier size.
6) Piers should be reinforced their full length with at least one #5 reinforcing rod for
each 14 inches of pier perimeter to resist tension created by the swelling
materials.
7)
A 4 -inch void form should be provided beneath grade beams to prevent the
swelling soil and rock from exerting uplift forces on the grade beams and to
concentrate pier loadings. A void form should also be provided beneath pier caps.
8) Concrete utilized in the piers should be a fluid mix with sufficient slump so that
concrete will fill the void between the reinforcing steel and the pier hole. We
recommend a slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches.
9) Pier holes should be properly cleaned prior to the placement of concrete. The
drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size to effectively drill
through possible cemented bedrock zones.
10) Although free water was not encountered in the borings drilled at the site, some
seepage in the pier holes may be encountered during drilling. If water cannot be
removed prior to placement of concrete, the tremie method should be used after
the hole has been cleaned of spoil. In no case should concrete free fall into more
than 3 inches of water.
11) Care should be taken to prevent the forming of mushroom -shaped tops of the
piers which can increase uplift force on the piers from swelling soils.
12) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe pier drilling
Spread Footings: The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for
a spread footing foundation system of the shop building.
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-6-
I) Footings placed on a minimum 3 feet of properly placed and compacted road base
can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. It may be feasible
to eliminate some of the structural fill below spread footings where gravel soils
are encountered pending further evaluation at time of construction.
2) Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be
some additional movement if the bearing materials below the structural fill were
to become wetted. The magnitude of the additional movement would depend on
the depth and extend of the wetting but may be on the order of 1 to 2 inches.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings
and 24 inches for isolated pads.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential movement
such as assuming an unsupported length of at least 15 feet. Foundation walls
acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this
report.
5) 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 the exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and the required depth of
soil/bedrock should be removed to provide for at least 3 feet of structural fill, and
the subgrade moistened to slightly above optimum and compacted. The road base
placed as structural fill below the footings should be compacted to at least 98%
standard Proctor density at a moisture content within about 2% of optimum. The
structural fill should extend at last 2 feet beyond the edges of the footings.
7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations and test structural fill compaction on a regular basis prior to concrete
placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
H-PkINMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
7
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 60 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the buildings 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 50 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
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.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backfill placed in
pavement areas should be compacted to at Ieast 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to overcompact 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 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 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
H-P%KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-8 -
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 Ioads should be compacted to at least 95% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
Floor slabs present a problem where expansive materials are present
near floor slab elevation
because sufficient dead load cannot be imposed on them to resist the uplift pressure generated
when the materials are wetted and expand. We recommend that structural floors with crawlspace
below be used for the floors in the residence that will be sensitive to upward movement.
Slab -on -grade construction may be used (such as in the garage and shop building areas) provided
the risk of distress is understood by the owner. We recommend placing at least 2 feet of road
base as structural fill below floor slabs in order to help mitigate slab movement due to expansive
soils. Some heave of slabs -on -grade floors should be expected if the subgrade below the
structural fill were to become wetted and precautions should be taken to prevent wetting.
To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Interior non-bearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with
a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the movement cannot be
transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also important for wallboards, stairways and
door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least 11/2 inches of vertical movement are
recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints 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 iminediately beneath basement
level slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with Iess than 50%
passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. Required fill placed beneath
slabs should consist of a suitable imported granular material, excluding oversized rocks, or road
H -Pk KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
-9 -
base. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. All
vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill placement and the
subgrade moistened and compacted.
The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs -
on -grade become wet, however, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave
occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the
potential for wetting.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area where clay soils are present and bedrock is shallow, 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. Therefore, we recommend below -grade construction,
such as basement areas, be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain should
also act to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls.
The underdrain system should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free -draining granular
material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level
of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum
1% grade to a suitable gravity outlet, Free -draining granular material used in the drain system
should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less
than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least 1' feet deep and be
covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N. Void form below the foundation can act as a
conduit for water flow. An impervious liner such as 20 or 30 mil PVC should be placed below
the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall above the void form with
mastic to keep drain water from flowing beneath the wall and to other areas of the building, and
prevent wetting of the soils and bedrock.
H -P E KU MAR
Project No. 17-7-443
- 10 -
It is our understanding the finished floor elevation of the shop building at the lowest level is at or
above the surrounding grade. Therefore, a perimeter foundation drain is not required. If the
finished floor elevation of the proposed shop has a floor level below the surrounding grade, we
should be contacted to provide recommendations for an underdrain system. All earth retaining
structures should be properly drained.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Positive surface drainage is a very important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the
bearing materials below the buildings. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the residence and shop building have been
completed:
I) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas
should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion
potential of the clay soils and claystone bedrock.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at
least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings 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 3
inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as lawn, and sprinkler
heads should be located at least 10 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 express or implied.
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
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 borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
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 of 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 4- KUMAR
r.
Steven L. Pawlak, P. "'k: 16227
Reviewed by: 4/-
•
:-.. ;'1P CC,,
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
H-P*KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-443
+... N, ne.$ - .0:r11.
r �w�r.ni pl>�f-i-�•1 r..prry •..qr.� f.a % $..�..qu 7.NY.4n
0
to
70
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
1333-31V05 31VYlX08ddd
0
0
w4
L!1
Top-hai!
6053,67
N8g"34'16"W
Top Nail
6057.94
375.00'
Hr
41.
XM:r PS, IGNS AO
)r6aosed
steaohop
hto ingi
t - -~
I%SLPS• " 3X ROT
C% -up. drnremw
6
Fra
E=x: trees
7
- 0
5
- 10
LJ
, 15
w▪ -
— 20
25
— 30
17-7-443
BORING 1
EL. 6060'
/ 27/12
WC=7.9
/ DD=124
29/12
7J 41/6.50/3
WC=6.0
DD=138
/./1 50/5
/1 50/3
/51 1 50/1
RESIDENCE
H-Pk4KUMAR
BORING 2
EL. 6065'
28/12
WC=8.9
DD=127
45/6,50/3
WC=5.9
DD=123
-200=37
50/4
50/3
SHOP
0 1
5 --=
10
15
20
25
30 • —
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
w
w
a
Fig. 2
LEGEND
ITOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILTY CLAY, FIRM, MOIST, BROWN.
—7
7
CLAY (CL); SANDY, SILTY, SCATTERED ROCK FRAGMENTS, VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN,
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, CALCAREOUS STREAKS.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SC—GC); SILTY, CLAYEY, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, GRAY—BROWN, ROCK
FRAGMENTS.
WEATHERED CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE; MEDIUM HARD TO VERY HARD WITH DEPTH, SLIGHTLY
MOIST, RED—BROWN—PURPLE, WASATCH FORMATION.
11 RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
27/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAI 27 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON JUNE 9, 2017 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS 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 THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM 0 2216);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM 0 1140).
17-7-443
H-P-tiKUMAR
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silly Clay
FROM: Boring 1 ® 2.5'
WC = 7.9 %, DD = 124 pcf
4x.!` �+r t• Ir.
m.Wk I..l.A. Th. [..Ili -
NN ,. b. myna...ad, .went .n
TR. *nowt V.. wino. cq.re.d .1
*ant. VA M.xk4., b.,- iM/
CannaLaibn Lndin l.•i.maa it
.4:..yme..b. A5tU D-4540
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
17-7-443
1,6 APPUED PRESSURE — Ksr 10
H-P--A5KUMAR
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
IOQ
Fig. 4
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
3
2
0
— 1
— 2
3
SAMPLE OF: Weathered Claystone
FROM: Boring 1 ® 10'
WC = 6.0 %, DD = 138 pcf
.. I
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
2
1
oI—
— 2
3
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF s0
111.4 5.1 S.H roil 9007 .44Y t. W
NY :v.wa w r.tm.. nwe,.a a
rv.wr 0.4 Rn9eMr...c, 5 1
Cor'o.fy., emr.a ,
9e 6 .."' i q' Feu
17-7-443
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 2 0 2.5'
WC = 8.9 %, OD = 127 pci
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
100
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 �0
H-Pk4KLlMAR
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
H-PKUMAR
TABLE 1 —
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 17-7-443
SAMPLE LOCATION
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
ipcf)
GRADATION
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
SOIL TYPE
BORING
DEPTH
(ft
GRAVEL
SAND
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
1
2'!4
7.9
124
Sandy Silty Clay
10
6.0
138
Weathered Claystone
2
2'%
8.9
127
Sandy Silty Clay
5
5.9
123
37
Clayey Sand and Gravel
r
1