HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsurface Study for Foundation Design 3.31.14HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTCCHNICAL
I I'" I '·I 1•d l ocdllllc 1 , I ll
... _ ' t ., t 1' \ I ~c t t ;4
( ' ' .,1 ~, Ill • ' ri (. ~' '"
I : 1 \. •7'-' 145 ;' "'""
f • ' t • ,.,. .. ~ ") ..
, ,, I h, :::• •'1r .. 1 ...... h. ,,
SUBSURFACE STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED URIBE RESIDENCE
LOT 6, CEDAR HILLS
521 CEDAR HILL DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 114 072A
MARCH 31, 2014
PREPARED FOR:
DOUG HARR ARCHITECTURE
ATTN: DOUG HARR
806 Yl BENNETT AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
ar<:hitect(ivdoughnn·.com
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .......................................................................... -I -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. ~ .............. :-1 -
SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... -2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION .............................................................................................. -2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................... :-3 -
FOlJNOATJON BEARING CONDmONS .......•.......................•.............................. -.-4-
DESIGN RECOIVl1vlENDATIONS .............................. : ................................................ -4 -
FOUNDATIONS ................•..................................................................................... -4 -
FLOOR SLABS .............................................................. _ ....................................... -6 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 7 -
SITE GRADING ...................................................................................................... -7 -
SURF ACE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................ 8 -
PERCOLATION TESTING ....................................................................... : ............. : 9 -
LIMITATIONS ............................................................. -........................................... -10 -
FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 - 7 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 8 -USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsurface study for the proposed Emero and
Margaret Uribe residence to be located on Lot 6, Cedar Hills Subdivision, 521 Cedar
Hills Drive, 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 general accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Doug Harr Architecture, dated March I 7, 2014 . Additional
percolation testing was verbally authorized by Mr. Uribe on March 31, 2014.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock obtained
during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundations.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions,
design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the
proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Percolation testing at the
proposed on-site septic disposal field area was also performed.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The residence will be a two story wood frame structure with the ground floor structurally
supported over crawlspace, located on the site as shown on Figure l. The detached
garage will be a single story wood frame structure with a slab-on~grade floor. The
residence site will be cut down about 5 feet. The garage area will be filled up to about 5
feet We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction. The driveway from Cedar Hills Drive to the garage will have from about 1
to 5 feet of filJ to subgrade elevation. The driveway will not be paved . The on-site septic
disposal field is planned to the south of the garage.
Job No. 114 072A
If buii ding 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 lot is vacant and the ground surface appeared mostly natural. Some site grading was
done by the client to allow access for our drill rig onto the site. The terrain is a low ridge
at the proposed residence and strongly sloping hillside down to the south in the garage
and septic disposal field areas. Slope grades range from about 15 to 25%, becoming
slightly steeper on the sides of the low ridge at the residence. Elevation difference across
the proposed res idence is about 6 to 7 feet and across the proposed garage is about 5 feet.
To the east and northeast of the proposed residence and garage is a moderately steep to
steep, southwesterly facing hillside with considerable hard sandstone bedrock exposed.
Vegetation consisted of grass and weeds with scattered sage brush and cedar trees. Some
of the cedar trees are large. The topsoil had been removed at the residence site as part of
the grading for drill rig access.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration fo r the project was conducted on March 21 and 22, 2014. Three
exploratory borings (Borings I through 3) were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I
to evaluate the subsurface conditions. A fo urth boring (Profile Boring) was drill ed at the
proposed on-site septic disposal field. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter
continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME -45B drill rig. A shallow cut
and fill trail to the bori ng sites was needed for the drill rig access . The borings were
logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samp les of the subsoils and bedrock were taken with a 2 inch l.D. spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven into the subsoils and bedrock at various depths with b lows from a 140
pound hamm er fallin g 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test
Jo b No. 114 072A
-3 -
described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication
of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Depths
at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the
Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for
review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings at the site are shown
on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered Borings l through 3 at the building areas consisted
of nil to about 3 feet of generally stiff, very sandy silty clay and very clayey silty sand
overlying claystone/siltstone shale bedrock. The upper few feet of the claystone/siltstone
were weathered and medium hard becoming less weathered and hard within a few feet of
depth. Below depths from 15 to 22 feet very hard sandstone bedrock was encountered.
Drilling in the very hard sandstone with auger equipment was difficult due to its
cemented condition and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit after a few feet or
less penetration. Boring 3 apparently refused on the very hard sandstone at 14 feet depth.
A few inches depth of topsoil was encountered in Boring 3 (and the Profile Boring)
overlying the soils.
Laboratory testing perfonned on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content and density, gradation analyses, and Atterberg Limits. Results of
consolidation testing performed on samples of the claystone/siltstone bedrock, presented
on Figures 4 through 7, indicate generally low to moderate compressibility when loaded
and wetted with a low hydro-compression potential. One sample (Boring 2 at 8 feet)
showed a low expansion potential when wetted under a constant 1,000 psf surcharge. The
claystone/siltstone samples that showed moderate settlement potential and hydro~
compression were apparently due to being partly disturbed. The liquid and plastic limits
testing indicated the claystone/siltstone bedrock to have low plasticity. The laboratory
testing is summarized in Table I.
Job No. I 14 072A
-4 -
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time or when checked one or more
days later. The subsoils and bedrock were slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The claystone/siltstone bedrock at the residence site apparently has a nil to low swell
potential when wetted. Spread footings can be used for support of the residence (and
garage) with some risk of movement The risk of movement is primarily if the soils
and/or claystone/siltstone bearing materials become wetted. Sources of wetting include
irrigation, surface water runoff and utility line leaks. A drilled pier foundation bearing in
the very hard sandstone bedrock would provide a low risk of foundation movement and
may be approptjate for the foundation support of the resi dence. Spread footings for
foundation support of the garage appear feasib le with some risk of movement.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUND ATIONS
Provided below are recommendations for drilled piers and spread footing foundation
systems. Spread footings for support of the residence may also be feasible provided some
risk of foundation movement is acceptable to the owner and precautions are taken to
prevent wetting of the bearing materials. A minimum dead load pressure for footings
bearing on the claystone/siltstone bedrock should also be provided.
Drilled Piers: The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed
for a stra ight-shaft drilled pier found ati on system.
1) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of
25,000 psf and a skin friction of2,500 psffor that portion of the pier
embedded in b edrock. Pier penetration through the upper 5 feet of should
be neglected in the skin friction calculations.
2) Piers should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 5,000
psfbased on pier end area only. If the minimum dead load requirement
cannot be achieved , the pier length should be extended beyond the
Job No. 114 072A
-s -
minimum penetration to make up the dead load deficit. This can be
accomplished by assuming on~-half the allowable skin friction valu~ given
above acts in the direction to resist uplift.
3) All piers should have a minimum total embedment length of 15 feet and
also end bear in the very hard sandstone bedrock.
4) . The pier holes should be properly cleaned prior to placement of concrete.
The claystone/siltstone is hard which indicates that casing of the holes
should not be required. Placing concrete in the pier hole soon after drilling
is recommended to prevent caving or slough from entering the hole.
4) The pier drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size to
achieve the design pier sizes and depths.
5) Free water was not encountered in the borings made at the site and it
appears that dewatering will probably not be needed.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe pier drilling
operations on a full-time basis.
Spread Footings: The design and construction criteria presented below should be
observed for a spread footing foundation system.
l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils or bedrock, such as for the
garage and other outbuildings or site retaining walls, should be designed
·for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. If spread footings are used
for foundation support of the residence, an allowable bearing pressure of
3,000 psf and a minimum dead load pressure of 800 psf can be used: Based
on experience, we expect movement of footings designed and constructed
as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Some additional
movement could occur if the bearing materials become w~tted. The
magnitude of the additional movement would depend on the depth and
extent of the wetting but may be on the order of~ to 1 inch.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
Job No. 114 072A
-6-
3) Exterior footin~ 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 exterior grade is
recommend~d for this area of Garfield County.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom
to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some
differential movement such as by assuming an unsupported length of at
least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also
be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for on-site soils and well broken
bedrock as backfill.
5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended down to the finn natural soils or
bedrock. The exposed subgrade in footing area should then be moistened
and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotecbnical engineer should observe al l footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils and bedrock, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. We understand floor slab-on-grade is planned at the
garage where several feet of fill is needed below the slab. The fill should be properly
placed and compacted.
To reduce the effects of some differential moveme nt, 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 4
Job No. 114 072A
-7-
inch layer of-% inch (Class 6) road base as well as 8 inches of 3 inch (Class 2) road base
should be provided directly below the slab .
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
consist of the on-site soils and well broken bedrock devoid of topsoil and oversized rocks
or a suitable granular material can be imported.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploratio~ it has been our
experience in the area and where bedrock is shallow that local perched groundwater can
develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during
spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade
construction, such as retaining walls basement areas, be protected from wetting and
hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. An underdrain around shallow
(less than 4 feet deep) crawlspace areas should not be needed with adequate compaction
of foundation backfill and positive surface slope away from the foundation walls.
If foundation drains are used, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom
of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material.
The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest
adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-
draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain Jess than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum
size of2 inches. TP,e drain gravel backfill should be at least I V1 feet deep.
SITE GRADING
Fill for driveway and below the garage floor slab can consist of the onsite soils and well
broken bedrock and should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard
Job No. 114 072A
-8 -
Proctor density (SPD) at a moisture content within about 2% of near optimum. Prior to
fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and
topsoil, scarifying to a depth of about 8 inches, moistening to near optimum and
compacting to 95% SPD . The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside
exceeding 20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2
horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other
means.
For the driveway and directly below garage floor slab, a minimum 8 inches of COOT
Class 2 (minus 3 inch) base course should be placed and compacted to 95% SPD. Four
inches of% or 1 ~ inches of base course (CDOT Class 6 or 5, respectively) should be
placed on the sub-base material. It should be feasible to delay placing the % or 1 ~ inch
base course on the driveway until after construction of the buildings.
SURF ACE DRAINAGE
Considerable surface runoff should be expected from the bedrock slope to the
east/northeast. Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent
wetting of the bearing materials. The following drainage precautions should be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the res idence and garage 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 ~t least 95% 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 buildings should be
sloped to draii:i away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first I 0 feet in paved areas.
Job No. 114 072A
-9-
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of aU
backfill .
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 5 feet from foundation walls . Consideration should be given to the
use of xeriscape to limit potential wetting of soils below the building
caused by irrigation.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Percolation tests were conducted at the site on March 21 and April 1, 2014 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. Initially one Profile Boring
and three percolation test holes (P-1, P-2 and P-3) were dri1led at locations as shown on
Figure 1. After one slow percolation test at the P-3 location was obtained, four additional
percolation tests (P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7) were perfonned on April 1 to further evaluate the
infiltration characteristics. The test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger at the
locations shown on Figure I and were soaked with water one day prior to testing.
The soils encountered in the Profile Boring, shown on Figure 2, consisted of very clayey
silty sand to very sandy silty clay underlain at 9 feet depth by sandstone bedrock. No free
water was encountered in the Profile Boring. Results of a gradation/hydrometer analyses
perfonned on a sample of the soils from the Profile Boring at a depth of2 feet ind icates
the soil is a Sandy Loam based on USDA soil classification system. Based on our
observation of the cuttings from the percolation test holes, some of the soils are more
clayey and silty, and some of the soils are more sandy.
The percolation test results, presented in Table 2, indicate percolation rates ranging from
about I 0 to 180 minutes per inch (mpi). The slower percolation rate of 180 mpi was
obtained in Test Hole P-3 where the soils were observed to be more clayey and silty. The
faster percolation rates were obtained in Test Holes P-1 and P-5. The auger drilling may
have smeared the soils of the test holes especially in the more clayey soils. Overall
Job No. 114 072A
-10-
average percolation rate was about 45 mpi, and was 22 mpi not including the P-3 test
results.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, we
believe a portion of the tested area shoul d be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic
disposal system . The system should be located to the south and east of percolation Test
Hole P-3. For the on-site Sandy Loam to Loam so ils and the variable percolation rates,
we recommend a long term acceptance rate of 0.50 gallons per square foot per day be
used for sizing the soil treatment area (STA). We can design the septic disposal system if
needed .
· LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with a encral ly accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
express or impl ied . The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data ob tained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area .
Our servi ces do not include determining the presence, preventi on or possibility of mold or
other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is
concerned about MOBC, then a professional in th is 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 perfomted. 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 cli ent for design purposes. We
arc not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our infonnation . As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and fieJd services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
Job No. I 14 072A
-11 -
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may requ ire additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations
presented herein . We recommend on-site observation of pier drilling, excavations and
foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
DAY/ksw
cc: Emero and Margaret Uribe (ejuribe@mnail.com)
Jul> Nu. 114 072A ~tech
114 072A
\
\
/
,/
/
85
\
\
\
1P7
'.6. \
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
~
HEPWORTH•PAWLAK G~HNICAL
95
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
90 : \
\ I
\
P2\ 133 I .61 ~ I
I PROFILE I
P 1 e BORING I r P4
.6 'l .6. I I I
I P5 I
P~ .6. I
I I
"' I
I
~
I
95
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
\
\
\
\
BORING3\
'%-
LEGEND
' \.
\ ~~
\ /
\ /
\. / g
' \
-/ .,...
\
\
\
/
/
105
I
I
/ ,.,..
!\)~
""/
/
PROPOSED
GARAGE
e EXPLORATORY BORING
.6 PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Figure 1
0
5
10
iD
QJ
LL
I
,r; a.
QJ
D 15
20
25
114 072A
BORING1
ELEV.=104'
65/6
WC=7.9
00=115
4513
50/1
BORING2
ELEV.=105'
50/6
WC•5.6
00.:122
65/6
WCclO.O
00=125
60/2
50/1
50/1
BORING3
ELEV.=97'
~12 =8.4
00=109
·200=57
LL=25
Pl=7
5011
50/1
Note : Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
PROFILE BORING
ELEV.=90'
13/12
WC=9.4
00=120
S=59
M=29
C•12
19/12
25/0
~ LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Hr;l'WORTH·PAWLAK GEOnCHNICAI.
0
5
10
Q)
{f
I
.c. a
15 Q)
0
20
25
Figure 2
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; organic sandy silty clay, slightly moist, brown.
CLAY (Cl-SC); very sandy to very clayey sand, sllty, stiff, slightly moist. Qfey-brown, low plasticity.
ClAYSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK: upper few feet weathered and medium hard becoming less weathered
and hard with depth. occaslonal sandstone layers or zones, slightly moisl , mixed grey and brown, low plasticity.
Wasatch Formation.
SANDSTONE BEDROCK ; cemented, very hard, slightly moist , light tan . Wasatch Formation .
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch f .D. Cal ifornia liner sample.
20 ,12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 20 blows of a 140 pound hammer faling 30 inches were
1 required to drive the California sampler 12 inches.
T Practical driNing refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 20 and 2 1, 2014 with 4-in ch diameter continuous flig ht power auger.
2. Loca~ons of exploratory bo rings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the sile plan
provided .
3. Elevat ions o f exploratory borings were obtained by Interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided.
Boring logs are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be conside red accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual .
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 1 or more days later.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. laboratory Testing Results :
WC -= Water Content (%)
DD • Dry Density (pcf)
-200 =Percent passing No . 200 sieve
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
Pl = Plasticity Index (%)
S = USDA Sand Content (%)
M = USDA Silt Content (%)
C = USDA Clay Content (%)
114 072A ~
HEPWOIU'H-PAWLAIC G llOTl!CHNICAL
LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3
Moisture Content = 7.9 percent
Dry Density = 115 pct
Sample of: Claystone/Siltstone
From: Boring 1 at 5 Feet
0
~
!"-.... 1 -'"" Compression
~ " / --upon -I wetting z 2 ' 0 " I (j) 'r-.. (/) t'l) ) w
Ir 3 n. ""-v ~
0 ~ 0 4
""' 5 '" )
6 \
7 ~\
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf)
114072A ~tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 4
HEPWORTH-PAWL.AK GEOTECHNICAL.
Moisture Co nten t = 5.6 pe rcent
Dry Density = 122 pcf
Sample of: Claystone/Slltstone
From: Boring 2 al 3 Feet
0 -----------1 -'4' -Compression
tft ~ upon .._""' ,./ -wetting z 2
0 I ~~ i"'-... I.;' ....
(j) -
fa 3 a: n.. '\ ::E
0
""'
()
4 ' I t"
5 I\. t,
6
7
0 .1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf )
114072A ~ech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5
HEPWORTH-PAWLA K GEOTECH NICAL
Moisture Content == 10.0 percent
Dry Density = 125 pct
Sample of: Ctaystone/Siltstone
From: Boring 2 at B Feet
1 '~
"-._ -0 '-#. ) """" -z ·o \) 0 1 en
~ ( ~ 2
I ~ z
0 en 3 m t:Xpan: Ion a:
0. upo1
~ 4 wetth ,g 0
0
5
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf)
114 072A ~ech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAl.
I: Moisture Con tent = 8.4 pe rce nt
Dry Density = 109 pcf
Sample of: Very Sandy Clay
From : Bori ng 3 at 1 Feet
0 r---r--r--t-i---~ 1 ~I;!) -Compression
*--V upon ----"" z 2 i..-wetting
0 I~~ i'-.... _ i,..-.....
Ci) -
"' w 3 a: n. " ~
0
"" 0 4 ('\
5 \.
Ii)
6
7
' .
0 .1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf)
114072A ~ech SWELL-CONSO LI DATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 7
HEPWO RTI+f>AWLAK GEOTECH NICAL
I HYOROt1EiERANALYSIS I SIE.VEANALYSlS
Cl.EAR SQUARE OPENINGS
7 HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I
O ~~ ~~. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 318" 314" 11/2' 3' 5'6' 8" 100
10
20
30
0
~ 40
~ a::
I-50
~
ffi
tl. 60
70
80
90
100
001 .002
QAT I
.005 .009 .019
GRAVEL O %
.037 .074 .160 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 11.5 19.0 37.5 76 .2 152 203
12.5 127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMEiERS
SAND 59 % SILT 29 % CLAY 12 %
USDA SOIL iYPE: Sandy Loam FROM: Profile Boring at 2 Feet
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
C> z
ii)
(/)
< a..
1-:z w
()
ffi
Q_
114 072A USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No.114 072A
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PERCENT LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY
(0/o)
SILT AND LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SOIL TYPE (•/o) CLAY
(ft) (%) (ocn 1%l (%) tPSFI
1 5 7.9 11 5 Claystone/Siltstone Bedrock
2 3 5.6 122 Claystone/Siltstone Bedrock
8 10.0 125 Claystone/Siltstone Bedrock
3 1 8 .4 109 57 25 7 Very Sandy Silty Clay
Profile 2 9.4 120 O* 59* 31* Sand Loam*
• Based on USDA Soil Classification .
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
P-1 36
P-2 24
P-3 30
P-4 23
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
LENGTH OF WATER WATER
INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT
(SEq START OF END OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
15 8 sy.
6V.. SY.t
Water added 8¥4 7%
PA 6V..
6!4 4¥.I
4% 3Y.t
15 5 .P/ ..
4% 4Y.i
Water added 61/i 6
6 51/i
51/i s
5 4¥.I
rs 7 7
7 6
6V• 6¥..
6¥4 6%
6Y. 6 Vi
61/i 61/i
10 12 11 V.
I IY4 101/i
I 01/i 91/i
91/i BY.
8¥4 8
8 7
7 6V ..
6V.. 5>1.4
5¥4 sv.
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
P.4
%
I
I Y.t
I Y.t
IV..
v.
v.
Vi
Vi
Vi
v..
0
v..
0
0
v.
0
3,4
3'4
I
%
%
I
y.
Vi
Vi
JOB NO. 114 OTlA
Page I of2
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MINJINCH)
11
36
180
17
Note: Percolatlon test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and soaked on March 31 , 20 14.
Percolation tests were conducted on April I, 2014. The average percolation rates were based
on the last three readings of each test.
!
HO LE NO . HOLE DEPT H
(INCHES)
P-1 36
P-2 24
P-3 30
P-4 23
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
j
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
LENGTH OF WATER WATER
INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT
(SEq START OF ENO OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) ONCHES)
IS 8 6~
6V. 5~
Water added 8'-4 ]Jt.
7'-4 6V..
6'.4 4%
4% 3\li
15 5 4%
4% 4'h
Water added 6\li 6
6 S\li
5 Vi 5
! s 4:Y4
15 7 7
7 6
6% 6't.
6% 6%
6% 6\li
6\li 6 \li
10 12 llV.
I IY4 10~
10\li 9\li
9\li Slit
8% 8
8 7
7 6V.
6V-4 5%
5% sv.
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(I NCHES)
1%
%
I
l\li
l\li
I V.
v.
v.
Vi
Vi
Vi
V4
0
v.
0
0
v.
0
%
l/.t
I
lt.
Jt.
I
%
Vi
Vi
JOB NO. 114 072A
Page I ofl
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./J NCH)
11
36
180
17
Note: Percolation test holes were drilled with 6 Inch diameter auger and soaked on March 31, 2014.
Percolation tests were conducted on April I , 2014. The average percolation rates were based
on the last three readings of each test.
I
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH
ONCHES)
P-5 26
.
P-6 22
P-7 25
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
LENGTH OF WATER WATER
INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT
(SEq START OF END OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) QNCHES)
10 13 11
11 9!h
9Yl S!h
8!h 7!h
7!h 6!h
6!h S!h
S!h 4!h
4Vi 3V.
3:Y. 3
10 a 7!h
7Yl 7
7 6!h
6Yi 6
6 5¥..
53A S!h
SVi sv.
SY.. 5
s 4¥.
10 12 11
11 IO!h
IO!h 9V.
93A SY.
93A av..
av. 73.4
7¥.t 7V..
7!4 6Vi
6Vi 6
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
QNCHES)
2
I !h
I
I
I
I
I
v.
¥.
!h
!h
!h
!h
v..
v..
v..
v..
v..
I
!h
¥.
I
!h
!h
!h
v.
!h
JOB NO. 114 071.A
Page 2of2
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
12
40
17
Note: Percolation test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and soaked on March 31, 2014.
Percolation tests were conducted on April I, 20 14. The average percolation rates were based
on the last three readings of each test.