HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoil Study for Foundation DesignI (1n [:ffi1['fftffi5:fr'"""d
*u "
An Employcc Ownpd ComPonY
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email : kaglenwood@kumarusa.colll
www.kumarusa.colll
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Splings, Foft Collins, Glenwood Springs, arrd Sumrnit County,Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED HANGER BUILDINGS
PARCELS A-8 AND A-9
GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT
COUNTY ROAD 352
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 22-7-255
JUNE 13,2022
UPDATED AUGUST 17,2022
PREPARED FOR:
ALPENGLOW HOLDINGS, LLC
ATTN: LAUREL CATTO
P.O. BOX 7609
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(t auret cattofa,me. com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .
SITE CONDITIONS..........
FIELD EXPLORATION..
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...
FOLINDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ....
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................
FOUNDATIONS
FOI-]NDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .....
FLOOR SLABS
PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
SURFACE DRAINAGE...............
LIMITATIONS.........
FIGL]RE I - T,OCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 THROUGH 6 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURES 7 AND 8 _ GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1-
1
1
a-L-
n-L-
a
................- 3
...:............- 3
-A
................- 5
................- 5
-,7
-7
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.22-7-255
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed hanger buildings to be
located atthe Garfield County Airport, Parcels A-8 and A-9, County Road 352, 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 Alpenglow Holdings, LLC dated
March 24,2022.
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, colnpressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzedto 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 recotnfilendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed buildings will be slab-on-grade structures constructed in two rows with a private,
asphalt paved access drive between the two rows of hangers. Grading for the structures is
assumed to be relatively minor with cut and fill depths between about 3 to 10 feet. We assulne
relatively light to moderate 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 build area is curently vacant with buried utilities mainly around perimeter areas
and vegetated with sparse grass and weeds. The terrain is mostly gently sloping down to the
north. We understand this area was used for soil borrow and around 8 feet was removed during
prior airporl grading improvements. The elevation change across the build area of Borings 1-6
was about 3 feet then rising up around 8 to 12 feet to building areas of Borings 7, 8 and 9 to the
south and east.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.22-7-255
a
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 19 and20,2022. Nine exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions'
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 Kumar &
Associates.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with l3A inch and 2-rnch 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 ate
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were retutned 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 encountered, below the shallow root zone or topsoil, consist of roughly stratified sand,
silt and clay with zones or layers of sand and gravel with scattered cobbles down to the drilled
depths of 2I to 31feet. The fine-grained soils were typically very stiff and low plasticity, and the
coarse-grained soils were typically medium dense and silty to clayey.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and density, Atterberg limits, unconfined compressive strength, and gradation analyses'
Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the
finer grained soils, presented on Figures 4 through 6, indicate low to moderate compressibility
under conditions of loading and wetting. The soils showed minor expansion or collapse potential
upon wetting under light loading. Results of gradation analyses performed on samples of the
coarse-grained soils (minus llz-tnch fraction) are shown on Figures I and 8. The laboratory
testing is summarizedin Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
typically slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The natural fine-grained soils have low bearing capacity and low to moderate compressibility
under loading. The coarse-grained soils have higher bearing capacity and lower compressibility
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.22-7-255
-3 -
potential compared to the fine-grained soils but are discontinuous throughout the building area
and the fine-grained soils will predominate. Lightly loaded spread footings placed on the natural
soils can be used with a risk of settlernent.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the buildings be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural silt and clay soils'
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure of
eccentrically loaded (retaining wall) footings can be increased by one-third.
Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. There could
be additional differential settlement if the bearing soils are wetted under load.
The magnitude of the settlement will depend on the loading and depth and extent
of the wetting, and could be around I to I% inches.
Z) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for colurnn Pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for fi'ost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
afea.
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
Iateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this rePorl.
5) The topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing
bearing level extended down to the finn natural soils. The exposed soils in
footing area should then be moisture adjusted to near optimum and compacted.
Structural fill placed below footing areas should be compacted to at least 98o/o of
standard Proctor densitY.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No.22-7-255
-4-
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOLINDATION 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 onsite fine-grained soils and atleast 45 pcf for backfrll consisting of select onsite grarniar
soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building 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 onsite fine-grained soils and at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of
select onsite granular soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffrc, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and ahorizontal
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 atnear optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95oh of the maximum standard Proctor density.
Care should be taken not to over-compact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since
this could cause excessive lateralpressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed conectly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on the backfill. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger
than about 6 inches.
We recommend onsite select granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining
structures because their use results in lower laterul earth pressures and the backfill will help
improve subsurface drainage. Onsite select granular wall backfill should contain less than 25o/o
passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 6 inches.
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
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.22-7-255
5
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 350 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 compacted to at least 95%o of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils and adequately compacted structural fill 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 verlical movernent. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce darnage 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 6-inch
layer of relatively well-graded sand and gravel should be placed beneath floor slabs for support.
This material should consist of minus 2-rnch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4
sieve and less than l2o/o passing the No' 200 sieve.
Building floors subjected to relatively heavy loadings such as HS-20 truck loadings can be
designed using a subgrade modulus. Based on a native silt and clay soil modulus value of 50 pci
and 6 inches of imported CDOT Class 6 (%-inch) aggregate base course below the slabs, we
recommend slabs subjected to HS-20 loadings be designed for a subgrade modulus of 70 pci.
The rnodulus value can be increased to l2A pci by placing an additional 5 inches of CDOT
Class 2 aggregate base course below the Class 6 base course'
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95o/o of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
A pavement section is designed to distribute concentrated traff,rc loads to the subgrade'
pavement design procedures are based on strength properties of the subgrade and pavement
materials assuming stable, uniform subgrade conditions. Certain soils such as the fine-grained
soils encountered on this site are frost susceptible and could irnpact pavement performance.
Frost susceptible soils are problematic when there is a free water source. If those soils are
wetted, the resulting frost heave movements can be large and ematic. Therefore, pavement
Kumar & Associates, lnc' o Project No.22-7-255
-6-
design procedures assume dry subgrade conditions by providing proper surface and subsurface
drainage.
Subgrade Materials: The fine-grained soils encountered at the site are mainly low plasticity
sandy silts and clays which are considered a poor support for pavement materials. The soil
classification tests indicate an Hveem stabilometer and'R'value in the range of 8 which has been
selected for design purposes for flexible (asphalt) pavements , and a modulus of subgrade
reaction of 50 pci was selected for rigid (portland cement) pavements. The soils are considered
moderately to highly susceptible to frost action.
pavement Section: Since anticipated traffic loading information was not available at the time of
report preparation, an 18 kip equivalent daily load application (EDLA) of 10 was assumed for
combined automobile and truck traffic areas. This loading should be checked by the project civil
engineer. A Regional Factor of 2 was assumed for this area of Garfield County based on the site
terrain, drainage and climatic conditions.
Based on the assumed parameters, the pavement section in areas of combined automobile and
truck traffic should consist of 4 inches of asphalt surface and 8 inches of CDOT Class 6 base
course.
As an altemative to asphalt pavement and in areas where truck tuining movements are
concentrated, the pavement section can consist of 6 inches of portland cement concrete on 4
inches of CDOT Class 6 base course.
The section thicknesses assume structural coefficients of 0.14 for aggregate base course,0.44 for
asphalt surface and design strength of 4,500 psi for portland cement concrete. The material
properties and compaction should be in accordance with the project specifications.
Subgrade Preparation: Prior to placing the pavement section, the entire subgrade area should
be stripped of organics, scarified to a depth of 8 inches, adjusted to a moisture content near
optimum and compacted to at least 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor density. The
pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavily loaded pneumatic-tired vehicle.
pavement design procedures assume a stable subgrade. Areas which deform excessively under
heavy wheel loads are not stable and should be removed and replaced to achieve a stable
subgrade prior to paving.
Drainage: The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is extremely
important to the satisfactory performance of pavement. Drainage design should provide for the
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.22-7-255
-7 -
removal of water from paved areas and prevent wetting of the subgrade soils. Uphill roadside
ditches should have an invert level at least 1 foot below the road base.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the buildings have been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
Z) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95oh 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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
2Yzrnches 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 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 atthis time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recolnmendations 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 arca. 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 perfonned. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different fiom those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recornmendations 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 infonnation. As the project evolves, we
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No.22-7-255
-8-
should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recorlmendations, and to veriry that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recomrnend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a represe,ntative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfu lly Submitted,
El uix:rsr dL A.sso*i*(es"
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
Reviewed by:
i/tr
#.
!D I
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
Cc: Adrian Scaife - (j:,r,:,,.:,..:.,.;,.,-',:,i::.:,:rtii,,;.:,.)
i: ".: lr\ ;t 1 i. !:., r- :. i ::.).'i.', i..!, . ;i, :.i::r l.r :t,,:.:'r i i{:. ;:.',: "7 -': i-}{:
;f
ir:
E
GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT
PARCELS A_8 AND A-9
300
APPROXIMATE
30 0
SCALE- FEET
Fig. 1LOCATION OF IXPLORATORY BORINGSKumar & Associates22-7 -255
BORING
EL. 5549
EORING 2
EL. 5547.5
BORING 3
EL. 5547.5'
BORING 4
EL. 5549'
BORING 5
EL. 5548.5'
BORING 6
EL. 5550'
BORING 7
EL. 5561'
BORING 8
EL. 5557'
BORING 9
EL. 5551'
5565 5565
5560 5550
25/ 12 11 /12
WC= 1 7.1
13/12
27/12
WC=5.0
DD= 1 07
-20O=42
lL=24
Pl=8
A-4 (4)
DD= 1 08
- 200 =89
LL=3 1
17 /12
WC=7.8
DD=95
5555
,A-4 (3)
UC=2,400
1o/12
5550
41 /12
WC=8.4
DD=114
-2O0=67
37 /12' 5550
WC= 1 0.4
DD=115
-2OO=76
A-4 (4)
26/ 12 8/ 12
WC= 1 4.3
DD=114
-200= 53
F
Izo
F
56/12 33/ 12 35/12 45/12 24/12
WC=11.0
DD=114
-2OO=62
5545 36/12 20/12
WC=9.2
5545
20/ 12
wC=5.2
DD=118
81 /12
24/12
WC=8.5 48/12
WC= 6.5
DD=1 17
-20o=27
DD=113
+4=32
- 200=3039/12
WC=5.7
DD=118
-200=59
15/ 12
wC=5.0
DD= 1 04
-200= 1 8
DD=1 1 1
- 200=33 17 /12
WC=5.9
+4=12
-200=35
5540
11/12
WC=9.9
DD= 1 06
46/12' 5540
38/12
19/12
WC=9.9
DD= 1 20
- 200=63
17/12
WC=4.5
DD= 1 05
-2OO=aA
40/12
3s/12
WC=8.2
DD= 1 26
-2Oo=34
15/12
WC=8.7
DD=117 12/ 12
22/ 12 15/12
WC=10.5
DO=124
-2OO=7320/12 50/o.5 14/12
WC=6.8
DD= 1 09
44/12
wC=8.9
DD=1 24
-2Oo=21s6/12
WC=6.0
21/1 2
10.
18
7 16/ 12
WC=9.8
DD=1 04
- 200=83
DD= 1 25
+4=36
-2Oa=22
DD= l 18/ 12 25/12
5 53U21/12
17/12
WC= I 'i .8
DD=121
-20O=74
28/12 16/12
16/ 12 21 /12
21 /12
5525
Fig. 2LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGSPROPOSED HANGERS, PARCELS A-8 AND A_9Kumar & Associates
LEGEND NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON APRIL 19 AND 20, 2022 \'IIIH A 4-INCH
DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT POWER AUGER,
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY EORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED,
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
N
N
n
n
t!;i
rA
tia
l1$1
H
TOPSOIL, ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
SAND AND SILT (SM_ML); CLAYEY ZONES, SCATTERED GRAVEL, MEDIUM DENSE/STIFF TO
VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT BROWN
CLIY (cL); SILTY, SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, STIFF To VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MolST, LIGHT
BROWN. LOW PLASTICITY.
GRAVEL (GM-GC); SILTY, CLAYEY, SANDY TO VERY SANDY, SCATTERED COBBLES, MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM) SILTY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
BROWN,
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2_INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8_INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDAR]ES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED iN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
I
7- LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM 02216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2215);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D6913);
-200= PERCENTAGE PASSING No.2oo SIEVE (ASTM D1140);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D4318);
Pl = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM 045'18);
NV = NO LIQUID LIMIT VALUE (ASTM D4318);
A_2-6 (O) = AASHTO CLASSIFICATION (GROUP INDEX) (AASHTO M145);
UC = UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSI) (ASTM D2166);..r.. DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 55 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
'"/ '' rlLLtltc 30 TNcHES wERE REeUTRED To DRtvE THE sAMpLER 12 INcHES.
Fig. 3LEGEND AND NOTESPROPOSED HANGERS, PARCELS A_8 AND A-9Kumar & Associates
I
E
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Siliy Cloy
FROM:Boringl@5'
WC = 5.2 "1, DD = 1 18 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
}R
JJtrl
=a
I
zotr
o
=oazoO
2
1
0
-1
-2
1.0 APPLIED - KSF 10 100
JJ
LrJ
=a
I
zotr
o
=oazoO
1
0
-1
2
-1
I 1.0 APPLIED - KSF 10 100
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:BoringS@15'
WC = 10.7 %, DD = 118 pcf
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig.4
SAMPLE OF: Cloyey Silty Sond
FROM: Boring 5 @ 10'
WC = 8.7 %, DD = 117 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
d:q
JJLI
=a
I
zotr
o
=oazoO
1
0
-1
-2
-3
1.0 PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
-JJ
trJ
=a
I
zotr
ofoazoO
1
n
-1
-2
-5
APPLIED PRESSURE -10 100
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:BoringT@2A'
WC = 9.9 %, DD = 106 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig.5
-
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Cloyey Sili
FROM:Boringg@5'
WC = 7.8 %, DD = 95 pcf
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
The
in
D-€46.
1
J
J
LJ
=(n
I
z.otr
o
=oazoO
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
1.0 AP - KSF 10 100
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig.6
Evl
8.1
i!
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SQUARE OPENINGSU,S. STANDARD SEFIES
100
ao
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
o
10
20
50
40
50
60
=
70
ao
90
oo
150 .300 9.5 54.1 76.2
2.O 152
DIAMETER OF IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 36 % SAND 42
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silty Cloyey Sond ond Gravel
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 22 %
FROM:Boring2@15'
too
90
ao
70
50
o
10
20
40
50
60
70
a0
20
10
0
.oo1
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 27 % SAND 39
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silly Cloyey Sond ond Grovel
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 34%
Th€so lesl resulls opply only lo the
somol€s which wer€ l€sled. Th€
leslliro reoorl sholl not be rsDroduced,
"t""pi In full, wilhoul lho written
opprovol of Kumor & Associotes, lnc.
Sieve onolysls t€sllng ls porlormed in
occordonc6 wlth ASTM D5913' ASTM D7928,
ASTM C156 ond/or ASTM Dl140.
FROM: Boring 4 @10'
GRAVELSAND
COARSE FIN E COARSEFIN E MEDIUM
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SQUARE OPENINGSU.S. STANDARD SERIESrIME READINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
GRAVELSAND
FIN E COARSEMEDIUMCOARSEFIN E
Fig. 7GRADATION TEST RESULTSKumar & Associates22-7 -255
ri
;t
:i.:
-t
=
6
to
30
40
50
60
70
ao
90
l
100
.600 1.14
.125 INM
PLASTICITY INDEX
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
.600 a
.125
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 30 %
FROM:Boring6@5'
c
SILT AND CLAYGRAVEL 12 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: SiltY Sond with Grovel
34.1 7 6.2.oo5 .o37 .o75
DIAMETER OF
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 32 % SAND 38
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Cloyey Siliy Sond ond Grovel
DIAMETER OF PARTI SIN
CLAY TO SILT
S
52
COBBLES
=
o
10
20
50
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I
to0
90
a0
70
60
50
40 ---
o _-,, i ... 1 t._= _tl't--t_ I I ,-L-.]-l !=l=l.ou --'.@ .oo5 .oo9 .o19 .O37 'O75 34.76.2
COBBLES
FROM:BoringS@15
35%
Th6s6 lesl r6sults opply only lo lh€
somoles which were l€sl€d. Th€
leslllg reporl sholl nol bo reproduced,
€xcepl ln full, wilhoul lhe wrltlon
ooorovoi of Kumor & Assoclofss, lhc.
Sieve onolysls lestlng is performod ln
dccordonc6 wlth ASiM 05913, ASTM D7928,
ASTM Cl35 ond/or ASTM 01140.
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETER ANALYSIS
s"6" I
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
a/A6 7/a" t 1/)"
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
rcn 4!n 4tn i16 410 4a7 HRS24 HRS
TIME READINGS
60urN rgMrN 4MlN
Jl, l r'
iril
I
i
I
L
!
r
l
l
'I r :t r ttttt I l
GRAVELSAND
FINE COARSEMEDIUMCOARSEFIN E
SIEVE ANALYSISHYDROMETER ANALYSIS
CLEARTIME READINGS
HRS
GRAVELSAND
COARSEMEDIUMCOARSEFIN EFIN E
Fig. 8GRADATION TTST RTSULTSKumar & Associates22-7 -255
rcn Kumar & Associates, lnc.o
Geotechnical and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-7-255
1of 3
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Silty Clay and Sand
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Silty Sand with Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
SOILWPE
A-4 (4)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LISUID LIMIT
AASHTO
CLASSPLASTIC
INDEX
8ZJ76
81
JJ
34
18
s9
48
22
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 stEVE
63
39
42
(%)
SAND
21
36
GRADATION
(%)
GRAVEL
51I
104
118
11i
126
I2I
118
10s
t25
{ocfl
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
118
120
8.2
4.5
6.0
t0.4
5.0
r0.7
8.5
9.9
811
5.7
(o/ol
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
5.2
01
01
5i
2Y,
5
51
5
0I
20
5
(f0
DEPTH
5
4
2
aJ
I
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING
I (+rI *ffi;1ffiip:i5:fr''Isd
*' *
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-7-255
2of 3
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Clayey Silt
53t2
tr4 Very Sandy Silt
Silty Sand with Gravel
53
35
Slightly Sandy Silt
Clayey Silty Sand and
Gravel
Clayey Silty Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Clayey Silty Sand
SOIL TYPE
A-4 (4)
A-4 (3)
AASHTO
CLASS
2,400
(psfl
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
8
J
(o/"1
PLASTIC
INDEX
1J
24
ATTERBERG LIMITS
P/"1
LIQUID LIMIT
89
30
12
82
67
27
92
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 stEVE
38
f/")
SAND
JZ
GRADATION
(%)
GRAVEL
108
109
113
r24
101
114
106
117
tl7
(pcfl
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
s.0
8.4
9.9
171
t4.3
5.9
8.7
6.8
9.2
8.9
(%l
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
6.5
0I
20
2y,
01
51
51
5
5I
5
(f0
DEPTH
5
01
7
8
5
6
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING
I (+rt *r;r*fl'ffiff$trf 'I$ n' * *
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-7-255
3of3
SOIL TYPE
Clayey Sandy Silt
Sandy Clayey Silt
Clayey Sandy Silt
Sandy Silt
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC
INDEX
83
62
/3
PERCENT
PASSING NO,
200 stEVE
r04
95
TT4
124
GRADATIONSAMPLE LOCATION
DEPTHBORING
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
SAND
(%)
GRAVEL
{%)
10.5
9.8
7.8
I 1.0
25
5
15
25
8
9