HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils ReportGEOTECH NICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
NUTRIENT FARM
GARFIELD COUNTY, GOI.ORADO
June 6,2019
Prepared For:Prepared By:
GlÊfrmd Sprisos, CO 81€01
P: (9m) 230-9206
Mr. Andy Bruno
Nutrient Farm
5670 Brentwood Drive
Hoffman Estates, lL 60192
Engineering
& Coti:;uÌtilt!¡. Ittc.
ßJn(J
Project No. 18-050G-G1
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT INFORMATION ...........
1.1
1.2 Proposed Construction..................
1.3 SíteConditions...........
1.4 SiteGeology...............
SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Subsurface lnvestigation...............
2.2 Subsurface Conditions2.2.1 Groundwater.............
SITE GRADING........-..
SWELLING AND COLLAPSE SOIL POTENTIAL..
UNDERPINNING EXISTING RESI DENCE ............
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........
6.1 Footing Foundations..
6.2 Drilled Friction Piers .........
6.3 Micropiles.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
1
1
1
1
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Approximate Site Location
Figures 2 and 3 - Approximate Test Hole Locations
Figure 4 * Legend for Exploratory Borings
Figures 5 and 6 - Logs of Exploratory Borings
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Laboratory Test Results
.2
.3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
.7
.7
.8
.9
10
10
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G'l
I.O PROJECTINFORMATION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and recommendat¡ons for
design and construction of multiple commercial structures at the Nutrient Farm parcel in Garfield
County, Colorado (Figure 1). The investigatíon was performed to provide foundation design and
construction recommendations for the structures at the referenced site.
The site investigation consisted of geologic reconnaissance and exploratory test hole drilling to
investigate subsurfacä conditions. Test hole drilling was observed by a representative of RJ
Engineering. Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project
personnel and representative samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine the
engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field
investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations based on
the proposed construction, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and results of the
laboratory testing.
RJ Engineering prepared a report for the site titled "Soils and Geohazard Evaluation, Riverbend
PUD in Garfield County, Colorado" under project no. 18-050G-C1, report dated October 17,
2018. Our previous report was a cursory evaluation of the soils based on available mapping
and site observations. A subsurface investigation was not performed at that time.
1.2 ProposedConstruction
Based on the preliminary plans provided by SGM (dated 1011712018), multiple commercial
structures are pfanned associated wíth a farm to table operation. Structures include but not
limited to RV sites, retreat location, water park, camp sites and livestock areas. The existing
residence in the southeast corner of the site will remain and is planned to be repaired as
needed. Access drives and parking areas are also planned. Grading plans were not available
at the time of this investigation.
1.3 Site Gonditions
The site is located southeast of New Castle along County Road 335 in Garfield County,
Colorado (Figure l). The site is bounded on the north by the Colorado River. The site slopes
up to the north towards the river at grades of relatively flat to as much as 20 percent at the
1
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
slopes along the south side of the property. An existing residence is located in the southeast
corner of the site as shown on F¡gure 2. An additional existing res¡dence is located in the south-
central section of the site west of test hole TH-2 but is not included in this parcel. Existing
vegetation included natural brush, trees and grasses. Areas in the southern sections are
heavily vegel,ated.
1.4 Site Geology
We reviewed the "Geologic Map of the Storm King Mountain Quadrangle, Garfield County,
Colorado by Bruce Bryan, Ralph R. Shroda, Anne E. Harding, and Kyle E. Murray, USGS
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2389, 2002." A detailed discussion of the geology and
geologic hazards is presented in our previous report. The mapping indicates the flatter areas of
the site consist of alluvial deposits generally comprised of sands, silts, clays and gravel of river or
stream origin (map symbol Qfy). Two older landslides are mapped near the base of the slopes
along the south side of the property (map symbol Qls). Colluvial deposits (map symbol Qc) are
mapped in the central and east sections of the site. These materials typically heterogenous and
consist of a mixture of sand, clay and gravel depending on source materials.
The steeper slopes in the central, south and east sides of the site consist of varying bedrock
formations. Bedrock below the west and south sides of the site generally consist of the Mancos
Formation (map symbols Kmu, Kmn and Kml). The Mancos Formation generally consists of fine-
grained shale and claystone bedrock with varying amounts of silt and sand. Bedrock below the
east portion of the site appears to consist of Jurassic age Morrison Formation (map symbol Jm),
and the Triassic age Chinle (map symbol Tc) and State Bridge (map symbol TPs) Formations.
These formations generally consist of fine-grained shale and claystone bedrock with interbedded
sandstone bedrock. The Dakota Formation (map symbol Kd) is mapped in the north-central
section of the site. The Dakota Formation consists of sandstone bedrock and varies from
weathered to very hard and typically forms ridge tops.
2
Nutrient Farm.
Gartield County, Colorado
Project No. l&050G-G1
2.0 S¡TE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Subsurfacelnvestigation
Ten test holes were drilled on May 10, 2019. The approximate locations of the test holes are
presented on Fígures 2 and 3. All test holes were advanced with a Diedrich D90 rubber track
rig using 4-inch continuous flight auger to pre-determined depths where a modified California
sampler was used to record blow counts and obtain samples. Bulk samples were also obtained
at depths indicated on the test hole logs presented on Figures 4 - 6. Table 1 presents the test
holes and associated structures planned at each location.
Table 1 - Test Holes and Associated
To perform the modifíed California penetration resistance tests, a 2.O-inch inside diameter
sampler was seated at the bottom of the test hole, then driven up to 12 inches with blows of a
standard hammer weighing 140 pounds and falling a distance of 30 inches utilizing an "auto"
hammer (ASTM D1586). The number of blows (Blow Count) required to drive the sampler 12
inches or a fraction thereof, constitutes the N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, is
an index of the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Test hole logs and legend
are presented on Figures 4 - 6.
2.2 SubsurfaceConditions
Subsurface conditions generally consisted of 20 to 30 feet of low plasticity clay, The clays
contained varying amounts of sandstone bedrock fragments of gravel to boulder size. The clay
was underlain by sand and gravel containing abundant cobbles and boulders in test holes TH-3
and 5 where practical drill rig refusal was encountered at depths of 12 and 7 feet, respectively.
3
TH-1 Livestock Barn
TH-2 Existing Residence
TH-3 Proposed Residences
TH-4 Green Houses
TH.5 Restaurant, Farm Store and Process Building
TH.6 Storage Building
TH-7 Office and Parking Areas
TH.8 Retreat
TH-9 CommercialSites
TH-10 Cabins
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
l-ill was encountered in test holes l-H-ü and 1ü to depths of 10 and 9 feet. Thê flll was medlum
stiff, the clays were medium stiff to very st¡ff, and the sands and gravels were medium dense to
very dense and contained abundant cobbles and boulders.
Seven silt and clay samples had 52 to 86 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve).
Atterberg limit testing indicated the samples had liquid limits of 27 to42 percent and plasticity
indices of 9 to 23 percent. Six clay samples exhibited low consolidation of -0.4 to -2.1 percent
consolidation when wetted under 1,000 psf. Three clay samples exhibited low swell of 0 to 1.3
percent swell when wetted under 1,000 psf. One sand sample had 27 percent fines and a liquid
limit of no value and plasticity index of non-plastic. The clay samples classified as a silty to
sandy, low plasticity clay (CL) and the sand as silty with gravel (SM) according to the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). Results of the laboratory testing are summarized in
Appendix A in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table.
2.2.1 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. As requested by the client, the test holes
were backfilled for safety reasons. Based on our experience, groundwater may be encountered
during pier or micropile installation if significant penetration into the gravels is necessary.
Variations in groundwater conditions may occur seasonally. The magnitude of the variation will
be largely dependent upon the amount of spring snowmelt, duration and intensity of
precipitation, site grading changes, and the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of
the surrounding area.
3.0 SITE GRADING
Cuts and fills will likely be required to achieve finished grade for the structures, parking areas
and access drives. Based on drilling and our observations, we believe that material can be
excavated by conventional construction equipment. We recommend cut and fill slopes be
constructed at 3H:1V or flatter. lf groundwater or seeps are encountered, flatter slopes will
likely be necessary for stability. lf significant cuts (greater than 10 feet) are planned at the base
of existing slopes, we should be contacted to evaluate the stability. Particularly, if cuts are
planned within mapped landslide areas presented in our previous report. We should also be
4
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
contacted if soft layers or significant discontinuities are encountered during the excavation
process.
The on-site (cut) soils can be used in site grading fills provided the material is substantially free
of organic material, debris and particles are no larger than 6 inches. Areas to receive fill should
be stripped of vegetation, organic soils and debris. Topsoil is not recommended for fill material.
Fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts of I inches thick or less. We recommend fill materials be
moisture conditioned to withín 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Placement and
compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a geotechnical engineer.
4.0 SWELLING AND COLLAPSE SOIL POTENTIAL
The clay subsoils encountered at the site exhibited low swelling to low collapse potential during
laboratory testing. Depending on the changes of moisture content in the subsoils after
construction, we est¡mate differential and total movements on the order of 0 to 2 inches. We
anticipate that increases in moisture content of the subsoils typically occur after final grading,
surface drainage and irrigation practices. The amount of movement depends in part on the
infiltration of surface water and the depth at which the water penetrates the swelling or
collapsible soils.
Structures supported on a deep foundations can be designed not to be affected by swelling or
collapsible soils. However, these soil movements can affect drives, parking areas and utilities.
Total and differential movements cannot be eliminated. To decrease the likelihood of potential
movement to occur, drainage should be designed to prevent ponding of water around
improvements and flatwork during precipítation events. Surface flow should be directed away
from improvements and flatwork as quickly as possible to reduce surface water infiltration.
Additional mitigation, such as lining drainage swales and detention ponds that are uphill or
adjacent to improvements could reduce the likelihood of water infiltration into the subsurface
and reduce the potentialfor settlement.
5 W
Nutrient Farm
Gatfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
5.0 UNDERPINNINGEXISTINGRESIDENCE
The existing residence located at test hole TH-2 has experience foundation movement. We
were informed that settlement of the foundation has occurred. The residence has a basement
with an estimated depth of about 9 feet. Based on our investigation, we believe the residence
can be underpinned using push-piles or micropiles. Both underpinnlng options would require
complete or partial excavation of the foundation to basement level.
Push-piles typically consist of a steel pipe that is hydraulically pushed into the ground with a
hydraulic ram attached to the foundation wall. The push-piles are installed to a depth at which
the structure begins to lift. Monitoring of the structure during installation must be performed to
prevent additional structural damage. ln addition, releveling of the structure could be
performed, however, additional damage to interior finishes is likely when significant releveling
conducted. Design and installation of push-pile systems are typically performed by contractors
experienced in the installation of this systems. RJ Engineering can provide guidance to
experienced contractors, if desired.
Micropiles can also be used for underpinning of structures. Recommendations for micropiles
are presented below. These systems are typically attached tô the foundation walls using
prefabricated steel brackets. However, concrete pads or beams constructed below foundation
walls that span to the underpinning foundation elements have been used.
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The overburden soils near anticipated foundation elevations exhibited low collapse to low
swelling potential during laboratory testing. For structures not sensitive to foundation
movements, a shallow footing foundation could be utilized. For sensitive structures where
movements cannot be tolerated, we recommend a deep foundation such as drilled piers or
micropiles be used to support the structures.
Existing fillwas encountered in test holes TH-8 and 10. We recommend allfill below planned
improvements be removed and replaced with moisture conditioned and compacted fill per the
specifications in Section 3.0. Foundation recommendations for footings, drilled piers and
micropiles are presented below.
6
Nutrient Farm Project No. 18-050G-G{
Garfield County, Colorado
6.1 Footing Foundations
Foundations should be constructed on undisturbed natural soils or properly placed fill provided
the owner understands the risk of potentialfoundation movement due to swelling or collapsible
soils as discussed ín Section 4.0. Existing fill (encountered in test holes TH-8 and 10) or loose,
disturbed soils encountered at foundation level should be removed and replaced with properly
compacted fill, or the foundation should be extended to natural soils. We recommend fill be
placed in accordance with the specifications presented in section 3.0.
Footings should be placed on undisturbed naturalsoils. Foundations can be designed
for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we anticipate
movement of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be about 2 inches
or less as discussed in Section 4.0.
2. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and isolated pads
should have a minimum dimension of 2 feet.
3. The soils below foundations should be protected from freezing. We recommend the
bottom of foundations be constructed at least 3.0 feet below finished exterior grade or as
required by local municipal code.
4. Continuous foundation walls shall be reinforced to span anomalies by assuming an
unsupported distance of 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should
be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in section 6.0 below.
5. All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of a geotechnical
engineer prior to placement of concrete.
6.2 Drilled Friction Piers
Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, we believe the proposed structures could
be supported on drilled pier foundations. The piers could be founded in the very dense gravels,
or depending on the subsoils, piers could be bottomed in the overburden clays, as necessary.
Due to coþble and boulder size material in the overburden clays, penetration of these materials
may be difficult with conventional auger drilling techniques. Recommendations for drilled piers
are presented below.
1. Piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 20,000 psf and an
allowable skin friction value of 2,000 psf for the section of pier in dense gravel or 1,500
1
7
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
psf for the clay so¡ls. The contractor shall mobilize equ¡pment capable of penetrating the
required minimum penetrations according to the structural plans.
2. Piers should have a minimum length of 20 feet and a minimum diameter of 12 inches.
3. Groups of piers will also require appropr¡ate reduct¡on of capacities based on
"shadowing" and other group effects. The minimum spacing requirements between piers
should be three diameters from center to center.
4. Piers can be designed to resist lateral earth pressures assuming a modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction of 50 tcf in the clay and sand subsoils. These moduli values are for a
1-foot diameter pier and should be corrected for various diameters.
5. Care should be taken during drilling not to form bells or mushrooms at the top of piers.
Sonotube may be required during concrete placement to provide a consistent pier
diameter to the ground surface.
6. Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation; however, seepage may
occur within the piers, particularly if significant gravel penetration is required. lf
groundwater cannot be removed prior to concrete placement, the tremie method should
be used after the shaft is cleaned of drill cuttings. Concrete should not be placed by free
fall into holes with more than 3 inches of water.
7. Drilled pier installation should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or representative
thereof
6.3 Micropiles
As an alternative, we believe the proposed structures could be supported on micropile
foundations. Micropile drilling equipment will more easily penetrate the very hard cobbles and
boulders in the overburden clays. The micropiles should be founded in the very dense gravels
or very stiff clays at depth. Recommendations for micropiles are presented below.
1. Typically, micropiles for residential construction are designed for working loads on the
order of 20 lo 4Q kips. lf necessary, loads of up to 100 kips or more can be attained but
will increase installation costs.
2. The grout to ground bond strength for use in design of micropiles should be determined
by the micropile designer based on the type of installation equipment and technique
anticipated
3. Micropiles should have a minimum length of 20 feet and a minimum diameter of 4
inches.
I
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
4. Micropiles should be spaced at least 2 feet apart to avoid group effects
5. Micropile installation should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or representative
thereof.
7.0 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining and basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure. lf onsite so¡ls
are used for foundation wall backfill, for a horizontal backslope with properly placed and
compacted fill, the unfactored earth pressure can be estimated using an equivalent fluid density
of 55 pcf for the active condition and 65 pcf for an at-rest condition. For imported granular
soils, the unfactored earth pressure can be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 40 pcf
for the active condition and 50 pcf for an at-rest condition. ïhe upper 2 feet of backfill can utilize
topsoil or onsite clay soils to provide a lower permeability layer.
Site retaining Walfs which are separate from the structure and can be expected to deflect to
mobilize the full active earth pressure condition could be designed using an equivalent fluid
density of 50 pcf. These values assume that the backfill materials are not saturated. Wall
designs should consider the influence of surcharge loading such as traffic, construction
equipment and/or sloping backfill. Backfill should be placed in accordance wíth the
recommendations presented in section 3.0.' Settlement of deep backfill areas should be
anticipated even if materials are properly placed. Care should be taken not to place
improvements sensitive to foundation settlement on deep backfill areas.
Site walls can be supported on footing foundations provided the owner understands the risk of
potentialfoundation movement due to collapsible or swelling soils as discussed in Section 4.0.
Footings can be designed using an allowable pressure of 2,000 psf. The lateral resistance of
foundations for retaining walls are a combination of sliding resistance of the footing on
foundation materials and passive earth pressure at the toe of the wall. Sliding resistance could
be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure for natural soils or
compacted fill can be determined using an equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf. The coefficient of
friction and passive pressure values are assumed ultimate strengths. Suitable factors should be
applied to these values.
9
Nutr¡ent Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-G1
Retaining walls and structures should be constructed with a drainage system to drain away any
excess water immediately behind the wall. The drainage system may cons¡st of free-draining
gravel, pipes, drain board and/or weep holes are commonly used for wall drainage.
8.0 CONCRETE
Water-soluble sulfate concentrat¡ons of 0.024 and 0.590 percent were measured in two samples
from the site. This concentration of water-soluble sulfates constitutes a negligible (Class 0) and
severe (Class 2) environment for suffate attack on concrete exposed to these materials. The
degrees of attack are based on the scale of "negligible," "moderate," "severe," and "very severe"
or as described in the corresponding scale utilizing Class 0 to Class 3 designations in the
American Concrete lnstitute Guide to Durable Concrete 318-08 R4.3.1. For Class 2, a Type V
cement modified with a pozzolan or slag is recommended with a maximum water to cement
ratio of 0.45 or as presented in Table 4.3.1 of the American Concrete lnstitute Guide to Durable
Concrete 318-08 R4.3.1
9.0 L¡M¡TATIONS
This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and
recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory
test holes, field reconnaissance and anticipated construction. The nature and extent of
subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. lf
during construction, conditions appear to be different from those described herein; this office
should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We
recommend on-site observation of excavations by a representative of a geotechnical engineer.
The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or
identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological
conditions. lf the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or
pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
10
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 18-050G-Gf
The report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of
practice for geotechnicat engineeríng as exist in the site area at the tirne of our investigation.
No warranties, express or ¡mpl¡ed, are íntended or made
Respectfully Submitted:
RJ Engineer¡ng & Consulting, lnc.
Richard D. Johnson, P.E.
Project Manager
11
F¡gur€
Nutriilt Fem18-050G€l
Approximate
Site l-ocation
Approximate
SCALE: 1'-- 100O
0trffiF-------I
2
Figure
Nuhie¡t Farm
Approximate Test Hole
Locations
SCALE: 1" = 500'
0 2s 500T----------
Note: Bâs lñc
.iäôöe-er l'*"' NL'¡e¡tFam
Approxirnate Test llole
Locations
SCALE: 1' = 500'
0æs0t---------.-
ö
Figure
3
Note: Base ftom SGM, fnc.
Sample Types
X Bulk sample obtained lrom auger cuttings at depths indicated.
rl4et12 Modified Califomia Sampler. the symbol 49/12 indicates that 49 blows from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches wâs used to drive a 2-inch LD. sampler 12 inches.
Other Symbols
I tno'*,", practical drill rig refusal'
Soil Lithology
TOPSOIL
m
FILL, clay, silty with sand and gravel, occasional bedrock fagments of cobble to bouldêr size, slightly moist to moist, medium stiff, gray
dark gray, brown (CL)
CLAY, silty to sandy, occasional gravel, mêdium stiff to very stiff, dry to slightly moist, very moist to wet ¡n TH-6, l¡ght brown, brown, tan, gray (CL)
ffi
ffi
ffi
CLAY, sandy, gravelly, sandslone bedrock fragments of cobble and bouldêr size, m€dium stiff to v€ry sliff, dry to slightly mo¡st, light brown,
brown, tan (CL)
SAND, silty to clayey, gravelly, abundant cobbles and boulders, very dense, dry to sl¡ghtly moist, light brown, tan (SM)
GRAVEL, sandyi abundant cobbles and boulders, dense to very dense, sllghlly moist, brown, dark brown, tan
NOTES:
1. Test holes were drilled on May 10, 2019 with 4-inch conlinuous flight auger.
2. Test hole elevations were provided by SGM, lnc.
3. Groundwaterwas notencountered.
4. Test hole descriptions are subject to explanalions contained in this reporl.
LEGEND FOR EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Nutrient Farm, Garfield County, CO
Prolect No.:
18-050G-G1
Figure 4
ïH-1
Et.5639.81
TH.2
Et.5756.54
TH.3
Et.5622.65
TH4
Er. 5632.85
TH.5
Et.5616.13
0 0
2 33112 21112
10 zài'tz 10
20 20
30 50i6 30
oo
-c
o4Uo
oo
!oA^(l)+u (f
50 50
60 60
70 70
BO
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
80
Nutrient Farm, Garfield County, CO
Project No.:
18-050G-Gr
Figure 5
TH-6
EI.5667.24
TH-7
El 5747.44
TH-8
Et.5841.93
TH-9
Et.5655.57
TH.1O
El 5747.29
0 0
2 2 21t12 24112 11112
10 2 36t12 2i¡itL 10
2 1t12
20 30t12 20
30 30
o
o)
Êo_ ,^o rtuo
o
o)
go408
50 50
60 60
70 70
80
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
80
Nutrient Farm, Garfield County, CO
ProlecÎ No.:
18-050G-G1
Figure 6
Nutrient Farm
Garfield County, Colorado
Project No. 1B-050G-G1
APPENDIX A
Laboratory lesf Resulús
RJ Enqineerin g & Consultinq, lnc.
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Project Name: Nutrient FarmProject No 18-050G-G1
tLaboratory testing by others
CA-lndicates modified California sampler
SS-lndicates standard split spoon sampler
Bulk-lndicates bulk sample from auger cuttings or ground surface
NL-l ndicates non-liquid
NP-lndicates non-plastic
Description
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
SAND, silty, gravelly (SM)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
FILL, clay, slightly sandy (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
FILL, clay, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
Swell (+) /
Consoli-dation
(-) at 1,000 psf
(%)
-0.4
-1.8
-1.5
-1.3
0.0
1.3
1.1
-2.1
-0.6
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
o.024
0.590
Atterberq Limits
PI
(Yo)
I
11
18
NP
10
23
10
PL
(Yo)
19
18
18
NP
17
19
17
LL
(Yo)
28
29
36
NL
27
42
27
Grain Size Analysis
Fines
<#200
(%)
52
64
85
27
þb
57
86
52
Sand
("/ù
45
36
Gravel
>M
("/")
28
12
Dry
Density
(pcÐ
101
122
102
103
98
107
110
126
r08
107
90
107
109
99
101
104
101
Moisture
Content
(%)
14.1
6.4
8.0
6.2
6.9
10.9
8.7
3.2
18.9
17.8
7.0
6.1
19.0
18.3
8.7
10.6
5.3
7.2
Sample Location
Sample
Type
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Bulk
CA
CA
Depth (ft)
5
10
5
10
20
5
10
5
5
10
5
10
5
15
10
0-10
10
15
Test
Hole
TH.1
TH-2
TH.3
TH-4
TH-5
TH-6
TH-7
TH-8
TH-9
TH.,IO
Page 1 of 1
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in lnches U.S. Standard Sieves Size in mm
't2" ti' 3" 2" 1" 3t4" 112"318" 4 I 10 16 30 40 50 100 200
100
90
80
70
Ð60g'B
uo
oo-;40co
930o
o-
20
10
0
1 000 100 10 1
Particle Size (mm)
0.1 0.01
Sample Description : SAND, gravelly (SM)Gravel(%)
Sand (Yo)
Silt & Clay (%)
28 Liquid Limit (%)
45 Plastic Limit (%)
27 Plasticity lndex (%)
From: TH-5 at 5 feet
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in lnches U.S. Standard Sieves Size in mm
12" 6' 3' 2" 1 1D"3ß". 4 810 16 30 40 50 100 200
100
90
80
70
o6o
'B
uu(!
o-*40Êo
930oÀ
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel(%)
Sand (7o)
Silt & Clay (%)
0.1 0.01
Sample Description:FILL, clay, gravelly (CL)12 Liquid Limit (%)
3tt Plastic Limit (%)
52 Plasticity lndex (%)
27
1t
10
--_t_---
--]_ -
.-t--ì.
--l-
From: TH-10 at 0-10 teet
SIEVE ANALYSIS Project No,: 18-050G-G1
Figure No.: A-1
-ê.\
e
o
F(n
I
6l€
4.
(r1
I
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
- 1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
tl.t
\ilATER ADDED
I l0
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
+
q)
(n
î.
CBrt
at
Q
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
- 1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
)
*WATER ADDED
0.1 1 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
Graph Test
Hole
Depth
(fr)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Contenl
("/")
Consolidation(-)
/Swell(+)
' e/')
Soil Description
Upper TH.1 5 101 14.1 -0.4 CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
Lower TH-2 5 102 8.0 -1.8 CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION
TESTING
Project No.: 18-050G-G1
Figure No.: A-2
+
c)
Bv)
I
d
Ø
Q
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
WATER ADDEI)
0.1 I 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
+
(¡)
È(n
t
6l
rr)
U
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
<-
ì¡
_ WATER ADDED
0.1 1 10
Äppiied i.{ormai Pressure, ksf
Graph Test
Hole
Depth
(fr)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(o/")
Consolidationþ)
/Swell(+¡
(Yo\
SoilDescription
Upper TH.2 20 98 6.0 -1.5 CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
Lower TH,4 10 110 8,7 -1.3 CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION
TESTING
Project No.: 18-050G-G1
Figure No.A-3
e
é)
(n
I
6l
(À
o
Q
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0:5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
ttl
WATER ADDED
0.1 I l0
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
s
+
4)
È(t)
1
o
6l€
o(^
U
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
- 1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
0.1 1 t0
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
WATER ADDED
\\
\\
\
Graph Test
Hole
Depth
(ft)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Consolidation(-)
/Swell(+)
(o/ol
Soil Description
Upper TH-6 5 108 18.9 0.0 CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
Lower TH-7 10 107 6.1 1.3 CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION
TESTING
Project No.: 18-050G-G1
Figure No.: A-4
\eê\
I
o
È(n
I
c!
o(t)
U
3.0
2.5
2.0
1,5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
- 1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
0.1 I 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
s
+
o)
Fa1
6lE
o
at1
oU
3.0
2.s
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
__-_
€ WATERADDED
0.1 1 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
\ilATER ADDED -\
\\
\\
\
\
\
\
\
I
Graph Test
Hole
Depth
(ft)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Consolidationþ)
/Swell(+)
e/"\
Soil Description
Upper TH-9 10 101 8.7 1 1 CLAY, slightly sandy (CL)
Lower TH-10 10 104 5.3 -2.1 CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION
TESTING
Project No.: 18-050c-c1
Figure No.A-5
s
+
q)
(t)
e
o
GIE
at)
U
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
, /. WATERADDED
0.1 1 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
\ê
+
c)
È(n
I
c
r3
a
oU
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
- 1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
0 1 1 10
Applied Normal Pressure, ksf
Graph Test
Hole
Depth
(fÐ
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%o)
Consolidation(-)
/Swell(+)
e/ol
Soil Description
Upper TH-10 15 101 7.2 -0.6 CLAY, sandy, gravelly (CL)
Lower
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION
TESTING
Project No.: 18-050G-G1
Figure No.: A-6