Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 05.22.2017H-PKUMAR 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©kurnarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthome, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE AND SHOP BUILDING TRACT SC, SCUTTER GULCH SUBDIVISION 1181 COUNTY ROAD 259 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7-282 MAY 22, 2017 REVISED MAY 26, 2017 PREPARED FOR: MARK SAGE 1181 EAST 19th STREET RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 (Mdsage200I @yahoo.com) TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - I - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - I - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 - FOUNDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 7 - FLOOR SLABS - S - 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 a proposed residence and detached shop building to be located on Tract 5C, Scutter Gulch Subdivision, 1181 County Road 259, north 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 Mark Sage, dated April 4, 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 will be a one story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level located in the area of our Boring 2 as shown on Figure L The shop building will be a tall single story steel frame and metal sided structure located in the area of our Boring 1 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. SITE CONDITIONS The property is 39.785 acres in size. The ground surface in the proposed building areas appears mostly natural. A gravel road trends through the site (see Figure 1). There are several sheds and H -P k KUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -2- a shipping container located on the property. The terrain is relatively flat and strongly sloping down to the southwest in the proposed shop building area and becomes hilly and moderately sloping down to the west in the area of the proposed residence. There is a bedrock outcrop about 150 feet north of the shop site. Vegetation consists of scattered juniper and sage brush with grass and weeds. A pond is located in the northwestern part of the property as shown on Figure 1. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 13, 2017. One exploratory boring (Boring 1) was drilled at the proposed shop building site and one exploratory boring (Boring 2) was drilled at the proposed residence 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 subsoils and bedrock 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 [he 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' to 1 foot of organic topsoil, consisted of very stiff to hard, sandy to very sandy clay overlying interbedded sandstone, claystone and siltstone of the Wasatch Formation. Primarily sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of about 15 feet at the shop building site and primarily claystone bedrock was encountered ata depth of about 4 feet at the residence site. H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -3 - Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content and density, and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Swell - consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils and bedrock. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate low compressibility under relatively light surcharge loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant Iight surcharge. Swelling pressures of up to about 20,000 psf were measured in samples of the clay at the shop building site. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling and the subsoils and bedrock were slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The clay subsoils and claystone bedrock materials encountered at the site possess moderate bearing capacity and low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. The soils at the residence site possess generally low expansion potential, and the soils and claystone bedrock at the shop site possess generally moderate expansion potential. The sandstone bedrock does not possess an 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 load 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. The piers can be constructed relatively quickly and should experience a relatively small amount of movement. Spread Drilled footings may be acceptable tor support of the proposed residence as described below. piers appear needed for the support of the shop building due to the expansive clay soils. H-PINMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -4 - Spread footings can be used for support of the buildings with the understanding of a risk of foundation movement and building distress. To reduce the risk of foundation movement and building distress, we recommend 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 the bearing materials and distress to the building. We should further evaluate the expansive potential of the clay soils and claystone bedrock at the time of construction. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Provide below are recommendations for spread footing and drilled pier foundation systems. Other relatively deep foundation systems such as helical piers may also be feasible with proper design and construction. Spread Footings: The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) 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. 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 V2 to i inch at the residence site and 1 to 2 inches or more at the shop building site. 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 M-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -5 - 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, any existing fill, 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 ail footing excavations and lest structural fill compaction on a regular basis prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. Drilled Piers: The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a straight -shaft drilled pier foundation system: I) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 25,000 psf and an allowable skin friction value of 2,500 psf for that portion of the pier in bedrock. 2) 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. H -P KUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -6- 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 5 feet into the bedrock and a minimum pier length of 20 feet are also recommended. The 20 feet 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 be placed in more than 3 inches of water. 1) 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 operations on a full-time basis. H-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 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 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils and well broken bedrock. 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 and well broken bedrock. 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 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 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The H-P€KUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 - g - 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 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 3 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 becomes 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 immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material 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 free -draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system. H-PieKUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -9 - Required fill placed beneath slabs should consist of a suitable imported granular material, excluding oversized rocks, or road 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 Ioose 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 11/2 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%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 -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: 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the 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. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the Iocations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of H-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 4 At -11- 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, David A. Young, P.E. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DA Y/kac H-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-282 250 0 250 500 APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET 17-7-282 EXISTING POND 10 BORING 1 o (SHOP SITE) BORING 2 0 (HOUSE SITE) TRACT 5C H -P KUMAR TRACT 5B TRACT 5A LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 ---- 0 —10 25 17-7-282 BORING 1 BORING 2 f 20/12 ✓ WC=6.4 ✓ D• D=113 /-- -200=59 / A 38/12 WC=8.7 r/ D0=125 r / 1 4• 2/12 / WC=6.0 f D0=126 f _ r 50/3 1 5• 0/3 SHOP HOUSE SITE SITE H-P-KUMAR 21/12 WC=6.0 DD=113 50/4 WC=4.6 DD=135 54/6 WC=6.5 00=111 50/1 50/1 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 0 5 •---- 10 15 20 25 - Fig. 2 LEGEND ti —7 / —7 4/ TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN. CLAY (CL), SANDY TO VERY SANDY, VERY STIFF TO HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. SANDSTONE BEDROCK; VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, GRAY. CLAYSTONE BEDROCK; HARD TO VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN. hRELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2 -INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. 20/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 20 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 APRIL 13, 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 NOT MEASURED AND THE LOGS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE PLOTTED TO DEPTH. 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 a WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216); DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); --200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 S'EVE (ASTM D 1140). 17-7-282 H-PkIKUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 4 3 1 — 1 — 2 — 1 I.0 11es. 1r1I .rnfle led? G 1/ to 1e* tlerlkr tested The tntnq Weet Wed not be trt.:ederd, n:ept n I✓, eltheet Ito written epetyvpt M 14.04 eM essec410, VL s.ee tMeyAet•en IuLnrpp prter.e4 in KeMQMee .-u AV. a.046 17-7-282 SAMPLE OF: Sondy Clay FROM: Boring 1 @ 5' WC = 8.7 %, DD = 125 pcf APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING SAMPLE OF: Sondy Clay FROM: Boring 1 Ca, 10' WC - 6.0 %, DD = 126 pc f EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING I 0 APPLIED PRESSJ H-PtiKUMAR 1,5 IOU SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 1 a CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL - 3 - 4 2 0 - 2 SAMPLE OF: Very Sandy Clay FROM: Boring 2 @ 2.5' WC = 6.0 %, DD = 113 pcf I .IL EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING r.• APPLIED PRESSURE - KSr 10 rac SAMPLE OF: Claysfone Bedrock FROM: Boring 2 @ 5' WC = 4.6 %, DD = 135 pcf infer 1r.! 1r11/I1 .,rt T.•, 1. 1n1 1w1W1•. irHrd 1Tr 1.040 npv.1 7s 141 tie es 4 1. 0,11rxl 1 .M1 P 4Dro.p 01 04.44 414 Anw€1lr. 1rc S.rL . as.MMlan llLGM1� et.11.••`.0 c001d1401 In APPY G-f3N 17-7-282 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 H—P KU MAR EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 H-P�INMAR TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-282 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (a/o) _ NATURALPERCENT DRY DENSITY(aha) (pci) GRADATION PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ATrERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH {FSF} SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE BORING DEPTH (ft) GRAVEL SAND (aha) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTIC INDEX (4) 1 2'YY 6.4 113 59 Very Sandy Clay 5 8.7 125 Sandy Clay 10 6.0 126 Sandy Clay 2 2% 6.0 113 Very Sandy Clay 5 4.6 135 Claystone Bedrock 10 6.5 111 Claystone Bedrock