HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil StudyI G rt *:rir*#nürniiiå*'"5020 Coun$' Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email : kaglenwoodl¿lkumarusa.com
wlvw kumarusa.comÅn Ëmplpyçc ÕwÍrçd 0ornprny
RECEIVÉÜce Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Sunlnit Courrty. Colorado
JAN 1 I 2022
GARFIELD COUNTY
COMMUN¡TY DEVELOPMENT
SUBSOIL STUDY
F'OR FOUIIDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
152 RUSTY SPUR TRAIL
NORTH OF CINDY'S WAY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.21-7-306
MAY 4,2021
PREPARED FOR:
CHELA MURILLO
P.O. BOX 885
SILT, COLORADO 81652
cm u rillo2J53@email.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .....
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...
FOLINDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINTNG WALLS
FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SURFACE DRAINAGE.......
SEPTIC FIELD.......
LIMITATIONS..........
FIGURE I . LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4TO 6 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURES 7 AND 8 - USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (USDA)
a
.l
J
aJ
J
4
5
6
7
8
8
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-306
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at
152 Rusty Spur Trail, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure I . The
purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation and septic system design.
The study was conducted in general accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to Chela Murillo, dated March29,2021.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings and pits 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 foundation. 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 building is proposed in the area roughly between exploratory boring locations shown on
Figure l. The proposed residence will be a2,100 square foot, one story wood frame structure
over a walkout basement. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut
depth of one level, about 8 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our
analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and 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 site was vacant at the time of our site visit. An access road had been graded into the site. The
proposed building area slopes down to the south at l0 to l5 percent. Vegetation consists of grass
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21.7-306
1
and weed, sagebrush and alarge cottonwood tree to east of building area. Sandstone/siltstone
bedrock outcrops to the southwest of building area.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on April l, 2021 . Two exploratory borings
were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The
borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-
mounted CME-458 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar &
Associates, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was 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 aÍe 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 and Pits, Figure 2.
The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
Two pits were excavated in the proposed septic area to the south of the proposed house as shown
on Figure I to evaluate subsurface conditions for septic design. The pits were dug with a mini-
excavator backhoe. The pits were logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with disturbed sampling methods. Depths at which the
samples were taken are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings and Pits, Figure 2. The
samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE COI\DITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. Below
about I foot of organic topsoil or 2 feet of clay fill in Boring 1, the subsurface materials in the
house area consist of weathered claystone to hard claystone/siltstone or sandstone bedrock of the
Wasatch Formation. The subsoils encountered in the exploratory pits in the septic area consist of
4 to 7 feet of silty sand and clay. Weathered claystone/siltstone was encountered in Profile Pit 1
at a depth of 5 feet with refusal to backhoe digging at7 feet. Practical auger drilling refusal was
also encountered in the sandstone at Boring 2 at 3y2 feet.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-306
-3-
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural
moisture content, density and grain size analyses. Swell-consolidation testing was performed on
relatively undisturbed drive samples ofthe weathered claystone and claystone/siltstone. The
swell-consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4to 6, indicate low compressibility under
relatively light surcharge loading and a low to high expansion potential when wetted under a
constant light surcharge. Results of USDA gradation analyses performed on the subsoils
encountered in the septic areaare presented on Figures 7 and8. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings or pits at time of our field work. The subsoils were
slightly moist.
FOUI{DATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The bedrock materials encountered at the site possess low to high expansion potential when
wetted. The expansion potential can probably be mitigated by a combination of load
concentration or subexcavation and replacement with structural fill to reduce swelling in the
event of wetting below the foundation bearing level. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and
utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread footings and at
least 3 feet of structural fill placed on undisturbed natural soils/bedrock.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
l) Footings placed on at least 3 feet of structural fill overlying the weathered to hard
bedrock can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The
footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf.
In order to satisflz the minimum dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it
may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad system.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-306
-4-
3)
Wall-on-grade construction is not recommended at this site to achieve the
minimum dead load. The structural fill should consist of imported 34-inch road
base compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
Based on experience, \rye expect initial settlement of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about I inch. There could be
additional movement of around 1 inch if the bearing materials were to become
wet.
The footings should have a minimum width of l6 inches for continuous footings
and 24 inches for isolated pads.
Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of analysis is
to design the foundation wallto span an unsupported length of at least 14 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a
lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
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.
Prior to the footing construction, any existing fill, topsoil and loose or disturbed
soils should be removed to at least lt/z feet beyond footing edges and the
excavation level extended down at least 3 feet below bearing or onto cemented
sandstone for the structural fill placement.
A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions and
provide density testing of the structural fill placed below footing grade.
4)
5)
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
2)
6)
7)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-306
-5-
of the on-site fine-grained 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 fine-grained 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%o of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backfill in pavement
areas should be compacted to at least 95Vo 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 lateralresistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will
occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a nonexpansive material compacted to at
least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The on-site soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur ifthe subgrade
materials were to become wet. Slab-on-grade construction may be used provided precautions are
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-306
6-
taken to limit potential movement and the risk of distress to the building is accepted by the
owner. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the
area, is to construct structurally supported floors over crawlspace.
To reduce the effects of some differentialmovement, 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 1%-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. Placement of the basement slab on 3 feet of structural fill,
similar to the fill placed under footings is also recommended.
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 50Yo
passing the No. 4 sieve and less than2Yo 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.
Required fill beneath slabs can consist of a suitable imported granular material such as road base,
excluding topsoil and oversized rocks. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted
to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least95o/o ofthe maximum
standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed
prior to fill placement.
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.
LINDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience
where bedrock is shallow that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No, 21-7-306
-7 -
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoffcan also create a perched
condition. Therefore, we recommend below-grade construction, such as crawlspace and
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 I foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum
lo/o 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 50o/o passing the No. 4 sieve and less
than 2Yo passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least lVz feet deep. Void form
below the foundation can act as a conduit for water flow. An impervious liner such as 20 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.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the residence has been completed:
l) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas
should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion
potential of the claystone bedrock.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at
least90o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free-
draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about
2 to 3 feet of the on-site clayey soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
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 l2 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first l0 feet in paved areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
Kumar & Associates, lnc, o Project No. 21-7-306
-8-
Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least
l0 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 FIELD
Two profile pits were excavated in the proposed septic area to evaluate the feasibility of an
infiltration septic disposal system at the site. The two profile pits were dug at the locations
shown on Fig. I and to the depths indicated on Figure 2. The soils exposed in the profile pits,
below about 1 foot of topsoil, consist of Sandy Loam, down to the bottom of the pits at 7 to
8 feet.
Based on the subsoils encountered in the pits, the septic area should be suitable for a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system. A civil engineer should design the infiltration
septic disposal system.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this areaat 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 and pits excavated at the locations indicated on Figure l, 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 pits 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
s)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21.7.306
-9-
monitor the implernentation of our recommendations, and to verifu that the rçcommendations
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,
Knnl¿lr & ¡{sso*Í¿r**s, lxrc.
Daniel E. Hardin, P
Rev. by: SLP
DEH/kac
Xumar & Âsco tidl&g, lrtr;.'t Fraj*et No. ä1"T-3*6
F
U''lÉ.
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
21 -7-306 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Fig. 1
F
BORING 1
EL-=97.7'
BORING 2
EL,=92.7'
PtT-'l
EL.=82.5'
PII_2
EL.=78.4'
0 NM
hiffi IVii?:ll
'!:trtlìl¡.iu¡ø
î
0
35/12
WC=5.5
DD=127
-200=81
50/1.5 I GRAVEL=3
I snNo=oa
-l srLT= 1 6
CLAY= 1 3
l
I GRAVEL=2
I s¡¡ro=zz
I stLT= I J
CLAY=1 3
5 5
Fl¡J
tJ
l!
I-t--(L
tdô
10
41 /6, 50/4
WC=3.9
DD= 1 28
40/6, 50/ 4.5
WC=7.1
DD= 1 50
so/ 4.5
WC=4.8
DD= 1 26
10
F--tJ
Ldt!
IrFfLt!o
15 66/12
WC=9.5
DD=126
15
20 50/ 1 .s
20
25 2550/3
50 30
21 -7-306 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Fig. 2
LEGEND
ñ
TOPSOIL: SANDY SILTY CLAY, ROOT ZONE, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
LIGHT BROWN.
FILL: SANDY SILTY CLAY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, ROOTS AND ORGANICS, LOOSE To MEDIUM
DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHTLY BROWN.
SAND AND CLAY (SC-CL); SILTY WITH SCATTERED ANGULAR GRAVEL, HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
MEDIUM BROWN.
l-À
rt
Átl
mmÈ:i#H
VJ:!!Á
I:UT!il
WEAïHERED CLAYSTONE; BLOCKY, CALCAREOUS, HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWNS AND
PURPLE.
CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK; VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO DRY, GRAY.
SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK; VERY HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, GRAY
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
à
I
HAND DRIVE SAMPLE.
-l orsruRaED BULK sAMPLE.
I
_t
\c/1, DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 55 BLOWS OF A 14O-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 50 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
I PRACTICAL AUGER DRILLING REFUSAL OR PRACTICAL DIGGING REFUSAL.
NOTES
1 THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON APRIL 1,2021 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS_FLIGHT POWER AUGER. THE EXPLORATORY PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A MINI
EXCAVATOR ON APRIL 1, 2021,
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY
PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS WERE MEASURED BY INSTRUMENT
LEVEL AND REFER TO THE BENCHMARK ON FIG. 1.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING AND PIT 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 AND PIT LOGS
REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS
MAY BE GRADUÄI.
6, GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS OR PITS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING OR
DIGGING.
7, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (PCt) (ISTU D2216):_2OO = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 2OO SIEVE (ASTM 01140);
GRAVEL = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE;
SAND = PERCENTAGE PASSING N0.10 SIEVE AND RETAINED ON NO.325 SIEVE;
SILT = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 325 SIEVE TO PARTICLE SIZE .002MM
CLAY= PERCENT SMALLER THAN PARTICLE SIZE .O02MM
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTTS Fig.5
ti
SAMPLE OF: Weolhered Cloyslone
FROM:Boringl@5'
WC = 3.9 %, DD = 128 pcf
ft.E tol ru¡ulb opp¡y only to th.ilmpl¡ ù8bd, ftr t ¡tng Epod
rhôll nôt bô râproducd. âxæpt i¡
lull, whôuì thå sdbñ opprovol ol(umor ond À!w¡otÉ. lnc. Sw.ll
lomolidoüon hting Fdormd ìn
rccordonc! wlth ffi D-45æ.
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
2
JJ
Ld
=(n
I
z.o
F-
Õ
=o(nzo
C)
o
-1
-2
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
t
2
I
SAMPLE OF: Cloystone
FROM:Boringl@7.5
WC = 7.1 %, DD = 130 pcf
\
full. wlthod tha *tun opprovol ol
Kumor ond tuedotr, lñc. Swlll
Con¡ol¡doüoñ bt¡ng rdomd indc.oddnc. *lth ffi D-4544-
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
6
5
4
J2IJ
lJJ
=(n
t2
z.oÊ
3'loÎnz.ooo
-1
-2
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF t0 100
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
I
5
2
1
òs
JJ
LJ
=v)
I
zo
F
ô
=C)lnz.oo
0
-1
2
3
4
I.O APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10
SAMPLE OF: Cloystone/Siltslone
FROM: Boring 1 @ 10'
WC = 4.8 7", DD = 126 pcf
)
t ibd. ftr
in
Sw.ll
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TTST RESULTS Fig.6
,.3,
'!. "t.
".. I
i.!..:)n.l
.^ ,g-ðt
,
g
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
ÏIMË READINGS U STANDARD ERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HB. 7 HR 1 MIN.
#325I5 *140 #60 #35 #14 #10 #4 1 tlz' 3" 5'6" 8',
100
10 90
20 80
30 70
ot¡lz
l-l¡J
É,
Fz.
l¡JoÉ.tJ(L
40 60
(,z6
UI
o_
Fz.
UJoÉ.
lJJ(L
50 50
60 40
70 30
80 20
90 '10
100 0.001 .002 ,005 .009 .019 .045 .106 .025 .500 1.00 2.00 4.75
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN N/ILLIMETERS
9,5 19,0 37.5 76.2 152 203
CLAY
I
I sANp I cRAu r II v.flNr I flNr I MroruM lcoARSrlv.coaRSEl SMALL I uEo¡ur¡ I uncr ì
COBBLES
GRAVËL 2 %SAND 72 %SILT 13 %CLAY 13 %
USDA SOIL TYPE: Sandy Loam FROM: PP-1 @ 2'Io 4'
t
I
I
i I
I
/I
I
t
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fis. 7
.:t
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROIVETER ANALYSIS
U.S, STANDARD SERIES
#14A #60 #35 #18 #10
CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
24ËF. 7HR I MIN,
#325 #4 3/4' 1 tl¿" 3" 5',6" 8',
100
't0 90
20 80
30 70
ô
UJz
¡-
t¡JÉ.
l-z
LdoÉl¡lÈ
40 60
()zı(n
o_
FzIJ()u
L¡lfL
50
40
70 30
80 20
10
100 .04s .106 .025 .500 1.00 2.00 4.75 9.5 19,0 37,5 76.2 152 203
DIAMETER OF PAHTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY COBBLES
GRAVEL 3 %SAND 68 %SILT 16 %CLAY 13 %
USDA SOIL TYPE: Sandy Loam FROM: PP-2 @ 1,5'to 3'
//lt
I
I
t
I
,
T
/
''-r-^'
t ti
I ...
I
/
tt
S¡LT COARSE SMALL MÊDIUM URGE
21 -7 -306 Kumar & Associates USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. I
r.
I $rt i-iË*fi:ffir;ffi :i5ü -. "TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSNo. 2l-7-306SOIL TYPEWeatheredClaystone/SiltstoneWeathered ClaystoneClaystoneClaystone/SiltstoneClaystone/Siltstone(o/olEXPANSION1.46.20.2losflEXPANSIONPRESSURE4,000000)51,200f%ìPLASTICINDEXÀTTERBERG LIMITS{%tLIQUID LIMITPERCENTPASSING NO.200 slEvEIISAND(%)GRADATION(%)GRAVELlocf)NATURALDRYDENSITYt27128130126126f%tNATURALMOISTURECONTENT5.33.97.14.89.5{f0DEPTH2y,57%0Il5SAMPLE LOCATIONBORINGI
l{+rtåi€r,ffi:;llrFxriiå'*"TABLE 2SUMMARY 0F LABoRAToRY TEST RESULTS (USDA)No.21-7-306SAMPLE LOCATIONNATURALMOISTURECONTENT(%)NATURALDRYDËNSITY{pcf}GRADATIONUSDA SOIL TEXTUREPITDEPÏH(ft)GRAVEL{%)SAND("/6)SILT&CLAY{%)GRAVEL{%)SAND$tSILTt%lCLAY$tSOIL TYPEI2-427213l3Sandy Loam2lYz-3J68t613Sandy Loam