HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Report for Foundation DesignI (lA fliffil,ffi1Tf#trf nvi
*' "
An Employcc Orncd Compony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email : kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit 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
(laurelcatto@me.com)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY....
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION..
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOI-INDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FQLINDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ......
FLOOR SLABS......
PAVEMENT DES IGN RECOMMENDATIONS
SURFACE DRAINAGE...............
LIMITATIONS............
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 I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
I
I
1
.','..'.,.,,.- 2 -
",-L-
.)
............- 3
.....,..'.,.- 3
.'..,.,,,..,- 4
-5
-{
-7 -
-7 -
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ 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 at the 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 classihcation, compressibility 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 recommendations 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 assume
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 currently 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 airport 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
1
FIELD EXPLORATION
The lreld exploration for the project was conducted on April 19 and20,2022. Nine exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conclitions.
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 l% inch and 2-inc,h I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils aL various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30
inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586.
The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the
subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were retumed 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 laycrs of sand and gravel with scattered cobbles down to the drilled
depths of 2l to 3 1feet. 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 perforrned on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and 'Jensity, Aiter-berg iimits, unsonfined compressive strength, anci gradation anaiyses.
Results of swell-consolidation testing perfonned 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 l%-inch fraction) are shown on Figures I and 8. The laboratory
testing is summarizedinTable L
No free \ rater 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
aJ
potential compared to the fine-grained soils but are discontinuous throughout the building area
and the f,rne-grained soils will predominate. Lightly loaded spread footings placed on the natural
soils can be used with a risk of settlement.
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 I 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 l% inches.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for column pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placernent
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
atea.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) The topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing
bearing level extended down to the firm 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 98% of
standard Proctor density.
Kumar & Associates, lnc, @ Project No.22-7-255
-4-
6) A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placernent to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight atttount 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 at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of select onsite granular
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, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surfacc. Thc buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pl'essure 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 90o/o of the maximum
standard Proctor density at near optimurn moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95Yo 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 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. 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 lateral earth pressures and the backfill will help
improve subsurface drainage. Onsite select granular wall backfill should contain less than 25%
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 95oh of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum'
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils and adequately compacted structural filI are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor
slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due
to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be
established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 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 12o/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 modulus value can be increased to I20 pci by placing an additional 6 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 DES IGN RECOMMENDATIONS
A pavement section is designed to distribute concentrated traffic 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 impact pavement perfonnance.
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 erratic. Therefore, pavement
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ 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 amodulus 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 alternative to asphalt pavement and in areas where truck turning 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 wheei 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
irnportant to the satisfactory performance of pavement. Drainage design should provide for the
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o 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.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90Yo 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
2/z 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 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 arca at this 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 area. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of rnold 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 f,rndings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design pu{poses. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. 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 recommendations, 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 recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of sfiuctural fill by a represe,ntative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kunrar & Associateso
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
Reviewed by:
r)I
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
Cc: Adrian Scaife -Gsqq&21@sns:l,sglll)
Kumar & Acsociates, lnc.Project No. 22.7-255
tg
8
GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT
PARCELS A_8 AND A-9
30 60
APPROXIMATE SCALE_FEET
-.1,. r , {
BORING 7
BORING 9
'u!.S
NG2
BORING
;..,.1;,P;.
{,i+**i,;,:,qit-,*:r/'
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig.1
BORING 1
EL. 5549'
BORING 2
EL 5547.5
BORING 3
EL. 5547.5'
BORING 4
EL. 5549'
BORING 5
EL.554a-5'
BORING 6
EL. 5550'
BORING 7
E1.5561'
BORING 8
EL. 5557'
BORING
E1.5551
9
5565
5560 5560
25/12 11 /12
WC=1 7. t
DD=1 08
-200=89
LL=31
A-4 (5)
UC=2,,+OO
13/ 12
27/1 2
5.0 17 /12
WC=7.8
DD=95
5555 DD= 1 07
LL=24
Pl=8
^-4
(4)
41 /12
1o/12
5550 WC=8.4
DD=114
-2O0=67
37 /12
5 550
15/12
WC= 1 0.4
DD=1 1 5
-2OO=76Lt=23
Pl=8
A-4 (4)
26/ 12 8/12
WC= 1 4.5
DD=1 14
-200=53
s6/12 33/ 12
35/12 4s/12 24/ 12
WC=11.0
DD=1 1 4
5545 36/12 5545
20/12
wC=5.2
0D=1 18
81 /12
24/12
WC=8.5
20/ 1
WC=
2
9.2
!
39/12
WC=5.7
DD=1 1 8
-200=59
15/ 12
WC=5.0
DD=1 04
-200= 1 8
DD=1 l l
-200=35
48/12
WC=6.5
DD=1 13
-200=30DD=1 17
-2OO=27
17/12
WC=5.9
5540 11/12
wC=9.9
DD=1 06
+4=1 2
-200=35
46/12' 554038/ 12
19/12
WC=9.9
DD=1 20
-200=6J
3s/12
wC=8-2 15/1 2
WC=8.7
DD=1 1717/12
WC=4.5
DD= 1 05
-20o=4A
4a/12 DD= 1 26
+4=27
-2Oo=34
12/ 12
22/12 15/12
WC=10.5
DD=124
-2OO=73
5535
20/12 so /0.5
44/12
wC=8.9
36/12
wC=6.0
DD= 1 25
+ 4=36
21/12
WC=10.7
DD=1 1 I
14/12
WC=6.8
DD= 1 09
-2OO=92
DD=124
-2AO=21
18/12
16/ 12
v/C=9.8 25/12' 55305530
-200=8321/12
17 /12
WC=11.8
OD=121
-ZOO=74
28/ 12
1 6/12
16/ 12 21/12
21/12
5525
2FigLOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGSPROPOSED HANGERS, PARCELS A_8 AND A-9Kumar & Associates22-7-255
Fig. 3LEGEND AND NOTESPROPOSED HANGERS, PARCELS A_8 AND A_9Kumar & Associates22-7-255
LEGEND NOTES
1, THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON APRIL 19 AND 20. 2022 V,IIIH A 4-INCH
DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
N
N
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
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 OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED,
CLAY (CL); SILTY. SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST
BROWN. LOW PLASTICITY,
LIGHT 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
GRAVEL (GM_GC); SILTY, CLAYEY, SANDY TO VERY SANDY, SCATTERED COBBLES, MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
SAND AND CRAVEL (SM_GM) SILTY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
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
i
BROWN.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8_INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
wc = WATER CoNTENT (%) (ASTM 02216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D6913)
_2OO= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO.2OO SIEVE (ASTM D1140);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D 318):
Pl = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D4318);
NV = N0 LIQUID LIMIT VALUE (ASTM D4318);
a6712 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 56 BLOWS OF A 14O-POUND HAMMER-',.. FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REoUIRED Io DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
A-2-6 (O) = AASHTO CLASSIFICATION (GROUP INDEX) (AASHTO M145);
UC = UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSf) (ASTM D2166);
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:Boringl@5'
WC = 5.2 %, DD = 118 pcf
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
l
I
I
I
l
I
-+
I
I
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF t00
1.0 APPLIED
JJ
UJ
=a
I
zotr
o
Joazo()
2
1
0
-1
-2
bq
JJul
=n
I
zotr
o
Jo
@zo(J
1
0
-1
2
-5
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:BoringS@15'
WC = 10.7 %, DD = 118 pcfl
l
l
I
I
r
l
l
l
j
-+- -'-1..
i
i
il
l
I
i
I
I
i
in
ln
I
I
l
l
i
I
T
L]
l
I
I
I
l
l
j
I
l
l
l
l
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
e
E
I
SAMPLE OF: Cloyey Silty Sond
FROM: Boring 5 @ 10'
WC = 8.7 "1, DD = 117 pcf
<
T
-l
l
I
L
l
l
I
)
l
!
I
l
1
i
I
i
I
I
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
:
J
-JLd
=a
I
zotr
o
=oU'zo(J
1
0
-1
-2
-3
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
)q
-JJ
UJ
=a
I
zo
F
o
Joazoo
0
-1
-2
-3
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF t0 100
SAMPLE OF: Sondy Silty Cloy
FROM:BoringT@20'
WC = 9.9 %, DD = 106 pcf
II
I
ir
I
i
i,liiii
l
l
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
llr
D-4546.
not b. r.prcduc8d,
full, without lh6
22-7 -2s5 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
{
I
E\
I
N
SAMPLE OFr Sondy Cloyey Silt
FROM:Boringg@5'
WC = 7.8 %, DD = 95 pcf
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
b!
I
I
i
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll*
lll
iilitr
j-1
l
ti
i
l
l
i
i
I
I
l
l
I
i
I
I
l
i
l
I
i
I
I
I
i'l
l
l
l
1
0
d\q
l-1
lrJ
=a
t-2
zotr
o
oazoo_4
- KSF t0 00
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
E
I
=
100
90
ao
70
60
50
10
30
20
to
o
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
2,1 HRS 7 HRS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
a/A" alan 1 1/t6 5'6" I
I
I
I
I f i1""' ,,/
I
I 1i'11iil
I
l
1 iii
,',],',,1,i,i
t'l i,
i
I
llil, 1,1, !
0
10
20
40
50
70
80
100
=E
.oot .oo2 .oo5 .300 .500 1.14 2.36
DIAMETER
.425 2,O
PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 36 % SAND 42
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silly Cloyey Sond ond Grovel
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 22 %
FROM: Boring 2@ 15'
0
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
.oo1 .o02 .oo5 .500 .600 1.ta 2.36
.425 2,O
ILLIM ETERSDIAMETER OF LES IN M
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 27 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silty Cloyey Sond ond Grovel
39%
PLASTICITY INOEX
SILT AND CLAY 34 %
FROM: Boring 4 @10'
Thsse lesl rosulls opply only lo lho
sqmplos which w6rs fgsled. Th€
l€sllng report sholl nol b€ r€producod,
sxcopl ln full, wllhoul lhe wrllton
opprovol of Kumor & Associolos, lnc.
Slev6 onolysls l€sllng ls p€rlormed ln
qccordonco wlth ASTM 06913, ASTM D7928'
ASTM C156 ond/or ASTM DI140.
GRAVELSAND
FI NE MEDIUM COARSE FIN E COARSE
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
5"6" I
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
3/8" r/a4 I 1/2"24 HRS 7 HRS
l MIN
TIVE READINGS
60utN teMtN 4MlN
I
I
I
l
l
l
I
l
ll
l
I
I
i
l
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
i
tt
SAND GRAVEL
FIN E MEDIUM COARSE FI NE COARSE
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RTSULTS Fig. 7
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINOS
24 HRS 7 HRSa5 MIN t5 UrN 60UrN
U.S. STANDARO SERIES
41 0d
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
3/a" 3/1b 1 1/r"
i
l I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
l
l
l
I
I
i
I
I
l
I
I
i
I
l
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
t0
0
o
lo
20
50
40
50
50
70
ao
90
loo
z
,o19 .o37 .600 1.12.56
2-O
t 200
IAMETER OF IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 32 % SAND 58
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE 0F: Cloyey Silty Sond ond Grovel
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 30 %
FROM:Boring6@5'
too
ec
80
70
60
50
40
50
lo
o
10
20
50
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
=3L
.oo1 .o19 .o37 ,075 I
.125 t.la I 2.36
2.O
MILLIMETERS
1,
DIA OF PARTICLES IN
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 12 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sond wilh Grovel
53 % SILT AND CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM:Boring8O15'
35%
Th€s6 losl rosulls opply only lo lh6
sompl€s which wero loslsd. Ths
lesllng roporl sholl nol be reproduced,
€xc6pl ln full, wllhoul lhe wrlll€n
dpprovol of Kumqr & Assoclcles, lnc.
Sleve onolysls losllng ls perform€d ln
occordonco wlth ASTM D5913, ASTM 07928,
ASTM Cl36 ond/or ASTM Dtl40.
SAND GRAVEL
FIN E MEDIUM COARSE FI NE COARSE
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I MIN
TIME REAOINGS
SOMIN IgMIN 4MIN
24 HRS 7 HRS
45 MIN I5 YIN
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
150 440 150 .416 rro ra
SIEVE ANALYSIS
*1 00lo
1
i
l
I
i
I
l
l
I
/
!
i
I
I
I
L
l
I
I lrr
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FIN E COARSE
22-7 -255 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 8
rcn *ffiflffifffi*'Y;d**'
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-7-255
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Silty Clay and Sand
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Silty Sand with Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
SOIL TYPE
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
A-4 (4)
AASHTO
CLASS
(psfl
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
8
(o/"1
PLASTIC
INDEX
23
ATTERBERG LIMITS
("/rl
LIQUID LIMIT
JJ
34
78
59
48
22
76
81
PERCENT
PASSING NO,
200 sIEVE
63
42
39
SAND
(/"1
36
27
GRADATION
(%)
GRAVEL
118
105
12s
115
104
118
111
t26
(pcf)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
118
r20
12I
10.4
5.0
t0.7
8.5
8.2
5.2
9.9
811
5.1
4.5
6.0
MI
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
51
2%
5
51
5
01
5
01
20
5
t0
(ft)
DEPTH
4
2
aJ
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING
1
elof3
rcn f.if*,l;#fffi*ri,"i*."
TABLE 1
$UMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-7-255
2of 3
SOIL TYPE
AASHTO
CLASS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
Silty Clayey Sand and
Gravel
Clayey Silty Sand
Slightly Sandy Silt
Clayey Silty Sand and
Gravel
Clayey Silty Sand and
Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Clayey Silt
Very Sandy Silt
Silty Sand with Gravel
A-4 (4)
A-4 (3)2,400
PLASTIC
INDEX
lo/ol
27
8
aJ
ATTERBERG LIMITS
lo/"1
LIQUID LIMIT
24
31
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 stEVE
92
30
2I
82
67
89
53
35
38
53
32
I2
ffit
SAND
V"l
GRAVEL
NATURAL
DRY
DENSlTY
lt7
Tt7
109
lt3
124
t07
rt4
106
108
IT4
{%)
NATURAL
MOI TURE
CONTENT
6.5
8.7
6.8
9.2
8.9
5.0
8.4
9.9
171
14.3
5.9
DEPTHBORING
5
l0
51
5
l5
5
10
20
2%
01
15
SAMPLE LOCATION
5
6
7
8
rcn f.ffilliffiffin'"'Ed**'
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.22-l-255
Clayey Sandy Silt
SOIL TYPE
Clayey Sandy Silt
Sandy Clayey Silt
Sandy Silt
{osfl
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
PLASTIC
INDEX
lo/"1
ATTERBERG LIMITS
lo/"1
LIQUID LIM]T
62
IJ
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 stEvE
83
SAND
(%)
GRADATION
(%)
GRAVEL
r04
95
tt4
r24
(pcfl
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
7.8
11.0
10.5
%l
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
9.825
5
5I
25
(ft)
DEPTH
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING
8
9
3of3