HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 08.09.2017H -PKU MAR Geotechnical Engineering 1 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 ORCHARD CREEK RANCH 150 CANYON CREEK ROAD GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7-555 AUGUST 9, 2017 PREPARED FOR: KIRSTIE F. STEINER c/o HAYES CONSTRUCTION ATTN: DOUG HAYES 1002 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRNGS, COLORADO 81601 (dhayesconstruction @gmail.com) TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 1 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 - FOUNDATIONS - 3 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 4 - FLOOR SLABS - 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 5 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 - SEPTIC DISPOSAL - 6 - LIMITATIONS - 7 - FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 4 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 5, 6, 7 AND 8 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 9 AND 10 - USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-PtKUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at Orchard Creek Ranch, 150 Canyon Creek Road, Garfield County, 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 in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Kirstie F. Steiner dated July 7, 2017. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted 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 be a one story wood frame structure above a partial walkout basement and partial crawlspace. Basement floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 9 feet. We 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 proposed building area is currently vacant irrigated pasture. An existing residence and barn are located in the southeast corner of the property. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds. The H-PKUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -2 - ground surface slopes moderately down to the east. Canyon Creek runs along the east side of the property. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on July 25, 2017. Three exploratory borings were drilled in the building area and two profile borings drilled in the septic disposal area to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring locations are shown on Figure 1. 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 H-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% 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. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils below about six inches of topsoil consist of 5 to 141 feet of sandy silt and clay and silty sandy clay overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel with cobbles down to the maximum depth explored, 17 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, Atterberg Limits testing and gradation analyses. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples from the profile borings (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the sandy loam subsoils encountered in the septic area are shown on Figures 9 and 10. Atterberg Limits testing indicates the silt and clay portion of the subsoils has low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -3 - No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, on the natural soils. we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 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 reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 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) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively firm natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -4 - 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 45 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 near optimum. 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 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 325 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 H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -5 - 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. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, 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. 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 granular soils devoid of vegetation and topsoil. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in this area 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, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. 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 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should H-P�KUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -6 - 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 feet deep. 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. 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 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be 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. SEPTIC DISPOSAL The soil texture and structure conditions in the proposed septic disposal area were evaluated by drilling two profile borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The logs of the borings are presented on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered, below about six inches of topsoil, consist of very gravelly to sandy loam. Results of a gradation analysis performed on samples of gravelly to sandy loam (minus 11/2 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Figures 9 and 10. The soil type based on gradation analysis is 2. No free water or evidence of seasonal perched water was observed in the borings at the time of drilling and the soils were slightly moist to moist. H-PKUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 -7 - 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 borings 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. 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-OKLIMAR Louis E. Eller, Staff Engineer Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E LEE/kac H-Pk•KUMAR Project No. 17-7-555 2 Y n' 200 0 200 400 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET o' 0 o: PROPOSED w BUILDING U AREA 2 O 0 U m r O U O O ORCHARD U CREEK RANCH EXISTING HOUSE AND BARN U.S. HIGHWAY 6 17-7-555 H-PkKUMAR VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 • A PERC 2 PROFILE BORING 2 A PERC 3 ID 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET • BORING 3 ® PERC 1 • PROFILE BORING 1 PROPOSED RESIDENCE DECK BORING 1 • BORING DECK 17-7-555 H -P- ICU MAP LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 1- w r a w 0 0 --5 — 10 15 BORING 1 EL. 104" BORING 2 EL. 100' 5/12 WC=1 4.2 D0=108 8/12 W C =1 6.3 DD=108 6/5, 20/0 9/12 1 WC=30.3 DD=104 BORING 3 PROFILE PROFILE EL. 113' BORING 1 BORING 2 9/6, 25/6 5/12 WC=9.0 DD=106 6/12 WC=1 3.5 DD=112 -200=53 LL=21 PI=2 8/12 WC=18.6 DD=105 69/12 1 35/12 10/12 WC=6.9 lII -200=55 NP / may 130/5 WC=6.3 DD=105 -200=56 11/12 WC=6,2 GRAVEL=19 SAND=31 SILT= 40 CLAY=10 25/12 WC=4.3 DD=108 0 - -200=64 LL=20 PI=8 _ 25/12 27/12 19/12 WC=3.5 DD=105 GRAVEL=2 SAND=52 SILT=37 CLAY=9 5 10 15 20 20 1- w w 2 a a 0 17-7-555 H-PvKUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3 Jin • LEGEND i // J TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN. CLAY (CL); SANDY, SILTY, GRAVELLY, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, BROWN. pSILT AND CLAY (ML—CL); SANDY, GRAVELLY, SOFT TO STIFF, MOIST, REDDISH BROWN. GRAVEL (GM); SANDY, SILTY CLAYEY WITH COBBLES, DENSE, MOIST, MIXED BROWN. DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST. a • 5/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 5 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES' WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES. t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON JULY 25, 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 MEASURED BY HAND LEVEL AND REFER TO THE GROUNDSURFACE AT BORING 2 AS ELEVATION 100±. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS 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 D 2216); —200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140); LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D 4318); PI = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D 4318); NP = NON—PLASTIC (ASTM D 4318); 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. 17-7-555 H-PtiKUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 4 1 0 J J W vii -1 z o -2 1- 0 J O v' 3 z 0 0 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 4 1 0 - 2 - 3 4 17-7-555 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF H -P- KUMAR I0 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 0 100 Fig. 5 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 1 @ 5' SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 1 © 2.5' WC = 16.3 %, DD = 108 pcf WC = 14.2 %, DD = 108 pcf ! If ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING i - I .E Thu= [4,1 rc,W1, a an , 1e 1he *0rnA1» 11,1ed. The Kot ai 04r1 T0* NIP, n1Aw1 N. ,r/L5 nAepprepd 'ol (Kumar and c ! ,ocicle,eInc mSwell n acc00&4enwieAnSp1,45411 ' 1U 1A APPLIrn PRFSSIIRF — c r 10 • 17-7-555 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF H -P- KUMAR I0 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 0 100 Fig. 5 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 1 @ 5' WC = 16.3 %, DD = 108 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING I .E Thu= [4,1 rc,W1, a an , 1e 1he *0rnA1» 11,1ed. The Kot ai 04r1 T0* NIP, n1Aw1 N. ,r/L5 nAepprepd 'ol (Kumar and c ! ,ocicle,eInc mSwell n acc00&4enwieAnSp1,45411 ' 17-7-555 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF H -P- KUMAR I0 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 0 100 Fig. 5 w.ce10.v.V.Q\ Tfaa �� o ea.e.e CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 1 0 1 —2 —3 4 17-7-555 10 APPL1E0 PRE55URi — KSF H -P KUMAR i0 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS S00 Fig. 6 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay FROM: Boring 2 2.5' WC = 20.3 %, DD = 104 pcf I — J� ��-- NO MOVEMENT UPON WETTING -----------___ .. __........ _...�_..—� .t— �_ ......._. 1—_. — _... '"f1 4 – �- Mew last mote owl/ only to the so npleo Siefed. Tha leafing repavl Mali not he ed+adoced.eeplm full, without the written approval of Kumar and Aasoclotea, Inc. Swell lConaehdotian !eating We ned in incca,d rrn. with g 0-4746 17-7-555 10 APPL1E0 PRE55URi — KSF H -P KUMAR i0 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS S00 Fig. 6 1 0 —1 —2 w 3 tn -4 z 0 1- J —5 O 11) z O ° —6 —7 —8 —9 100- 17-7-555 H-P--KUMAR SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 7 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 3 © 2.5' WC = 9.0 %, DD = 106 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 77.ti. eel IviAl! opp1� ny 1r ilK aura reeled. T s... rgiml 1 HM rw«edlIsn ewPl 1 re.. ox 0I rplion Inc..d of Isume AftrNWe. nc. 9wA ro7cdanct III: -ortrid in ocw�ticnce Nm A7N O-4511. 100- 17-7-555 H-P--KUMAR SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 7 3 1 0 —5 —6 17-7-555 .0 Arrl,Ctl rntJ�V6t — H—P---t-KUMAR a SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 Fig. 8 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 3 ® 10' WC = 18.6 %, DD = 105 pcf f 1 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING it .iI.izL _.T ___ 1+ ......_ _ _ __.1... . .-....- Ii_._. Tease feet sults apply only to the a melee !baled. neerOd M. asc t I (hall 1 6t pweviced, p bet In 1u6, r and the i tn. opprpiai of iKumar and Nbacialep, Inc. Swell Cuneolidalion lasting performed in accordance with AS111 0-4546. 1 _._..... .r ....._...__ "[ I -TI: 1 1 I .. ._..___.. _..... —"�" E j I _ . .�.. 17-7-555 .0 Arrl,Ctl rntJ�V6t — H—P---t-KUMAR a SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 Fig. 8 Law.* Oi, 71117 - A6 632w. x VMe11f7f1�VrN7-z' rimm.e Rwtl.esc1Pr ItNOitrM-os la 1e s.s 1 u1 cfl ( 1 Sl1nS315 1 NOI1V I `d0 VOSn 10 WBo1 /pues :2dkL 1IOS dasn 11 0 0 co (0 oar 0 1T 0 m % R6 ONVS 6 n d Jo H J3 NV!O z 1 v (31 -64 PERCENT RETAINED a 0 0 a 0 PERCENT PASSING 0 2 0 m m 0 0 DJ 0 171 N3df? m m 1,, 1 H 1 1 - Hlfllll it 1 I1 i T a n c g Q i r m q ttt E 1 If f I l ry If 2 a 0 PERCENT PASSING 0 2 0 m m 0 0 DJ 0 171 N3df? m m HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 NW. TIME READINGS 7 RH I5AX4 *16t IB1L 4 U.S. STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 1 MIN. . 0325 #140 #60 #35 ATO #10 f4 :Ye' 3l4' 11/? 3" S'8' B' 045Mk ��� 100 __J 10 90 20 60 30 70 0 W z 40 (3 00 Z _ CDd I- _ _ ._._ to W d CL a_ ~ 1- 50 Z 50 z W LJ — 0 U IX W w EL 60 ' 4- 40 70 30 80 20 / 90 ... 10 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 045 - .106 DIAMETER .025 OF .500 PARTICLES 1.00 IN 2.00 MILLIMETERS 4.75 95 190 37.5 76.2 152 203 0 GRAVEL CLAY SILT V. FINE J FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE CQ SA SAWOL MEOW Vy" COBBLES GRAVEL 2 % SAND 52 % SILT 37 % CLAY 9 % USDA SOIL TYPE: Sandy Loam FROM: Profile Boring 2 @ 3' 17-7-555 H -P- KUlVIAR USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 10 U MAR TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-555 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) GRADATION j PERCENT USDA SOIL TEXTURE SOIL TYPE BORING DEPTH (ft) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY PASSING INDEX NO. 200 SIEVE (%) GRAVEL (%) SAND (%) SILT (%) CLAY (%) 1 1 21/2 14.2 108 Sandy Silt and Clay 5 16.3 108 Sandy Silt and Clay 2 21/ 20.3 104 Sandy Silty Clay 3 21/2 9.0 106 Sandy Silt and Clay 5 13.5 112 21 12 53 Sandy Silt and Clay 10 18.6 105 Sandy Silt and Clay Profile _Boring 1 4 6.9 NP 55 Gravelly Loam 6 6.2 19 31 40 10 Gravelly Loam 8 6.3 105 56 Gravelly Loam _rin Profile 2 Boring 1 4.3 108 64 Sandy Loam 3 3.5 105 2 52 37 9 Sandy Loam _ J R TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 17-7-555 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 1 31 10 Water Added 181/2 17 11/2 40/1 17 151/4 19/4 151/4 14 11/4 14 13 1 13 12 1 25 241/4 3/a 241/4 233/4 1/2 233/4 231/2 A 231/2 231/4 '/4 231/4 23 1/4 2 30 10 Water Added 18 16 2 7.5/1 16 141/2 11/2 141/2 131/4 1'/4 131/4 121/4 1 121/4 111/2 3/4 111/2 11 1/2 25 221/2 21/2 221/2 20% 1% 203/4 191/2 1'/4 191/2 181/2 1 3 30 10 Water Added 19 171/2 11/2 6.7/1 171/2 161/2 1 161/z 151/2 1 151/2 149/4 % 14% 14 3A 14 13 1 24 221/4 1% 221/4 20'/2 1% 201/2 19 11/2 19 - —e- 17% 11/4 Note: Percolation test holes were soaked on July 26, 2017. Percolation tests were conducted on July 27, 2017. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.