HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 02.23.2015Gtech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
Email: hpgeoehpgeotech.com
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED JOLLEY RESIDENCE
PARCEL B, HUBER EXEMPTION
1793 COUNTY ROAD 245
WEST OF NEW CASTLE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 114 549A
FEBRUARY 23, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
BRETT JOLLEY
1288 COUNTY ROAD 245
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
biolley :soDris.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........... ..... f.. ........ .. •,...... ..- 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION ,..........- 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS .,- 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 -
FLOOR SLABS - 6 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 -
LIMITATIONS - S -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 AND 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 7 - USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2- PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Job No. 114 549A Ggstech
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located
on Parcel B of the Huber Exemption, 1793 County Road 245, west of New Castle,
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 Brett
Jolley dated December 16, 2014.
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,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions,
design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the
proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a one story, wood frame structure over a partial
basement/partial crawlspace with an attached garage. Basement and garage floors will be
slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths
between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light 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.
Job No. 114 549A
-2 -
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is occupied by an existing one story residence over a full basement which will be
razed prior to new construction_ The existing barn will remain. The lot slope is moderate
down to the west toward East Elk Creek at grades of 5 to 15%. There are steeper slopes
along East Elk Creek. Vegetation consists of scattered cottonwood and fir trees with
grass and weeds. There is thick brush and trees along the creek banks below the building
area. Above the building area, the property is mostly open irrigated pasture.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 30, 2014. Four
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 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch 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 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 at the site are shown on Figure 2.
The subsoils consist of up to about 1 foot of topsoil and 7 ". z to 11! i feet of medium stiff to
stiff, sandy silty clay overlying relatively dense, silty sandy gravel with cobbles and
Job No. 114 549A Gatech
-3 -
possible boulders down to the bottom of the borings at 10V2 to 13 feet. Drilling in the
dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders
and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay soils, presented on Figures
4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and
wetting. The five-foot sample from Bring 5 showed a low swell potential when wetted
under light loading. Results of gradation analyses performed on a small diameter drive
sample (minus 1V2 inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 6.
The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked the
following day. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The shallow clay soils encountered at the site are suitable to support lightly loaded spread
footing foundations with some risk of settlement particularly if the clay soils become wet.
A lower settlement risk alternative is to extend the foundations down to the underlying
relatively dense gravel soils.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread
footings bearing on the natural clay or granular soils. The fill around the existing
Job No. 114 549A G - '1
-4 -
residence and debris from the prior development should be completely removed from
below the new residence area.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural clay soils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf and footings bearing
entirely on the dense gravel soils should be designed for an allowable
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement
of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be
about 1 inch or Less, Footings bearing entirely on the gravel soils should
have only minor settlement.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14
feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) All existing fill, debris, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed
clay or relatively dense natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing
arca should then be moistened and compacted. If water seepage is
encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete
placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
Job No. 114 549A Ggestech
5 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral
earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 45 pcf for backfill
consisting of imported granular materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full
active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed
on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of
the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of imported
granular materials.
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 back -fill 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 at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill.
Job No. 114 549A eatech
-6 -
We recommend imported granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining
structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures. Imported granular
wall backfill should contain Less than 15% 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 based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
weight of 325 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% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -
on -grade construction. There could be some potential for movement mainly for slabs
bearing on clay soils. 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 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath
basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch
aggregate with at least 500.o retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No.
200 sieve.
Job No. 114 549A iGegtech
-7 -
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 imported granular soils such as 3/4 inch road base devoid of vegetation, topsoil
and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in this area and where there are clay soils 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, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from
wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
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°o to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular
material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The
drain gravel backfill should be at least 142 feet deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence has 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 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90°,6 of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
Job No. 114 549A Ggrytech
-8-
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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-
site soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Percolation tests were conducted on December 31, 2014 to evaluate the feasibility of an
infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring and three percolation
holes were drilled at locations as shown on Figure 1. The test holes were drilled with 6
inch diameter auger and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils
encountered in the percolation holes are similar to those encountered in the Profile Boring
shown on Figure 2 and consist of clay loam. The results of a gradation/hydrometer test
performed on a combined sample from the Profile Boring are shown on Figure 7.
The percolation test results are presented in Table 2. Based on the subsurface conditions
encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for an
infiltration septic disposal system. We recommend the infiltration area be oversized due
to the relatively slow and variable percolation rate. A civil engineer should design the
infiltration septic disposal system. Additional percolation testing and profile pits may be
needed for design level recommendations.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area.
Job No. 114 549A
-9 -
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 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 purposes. We
are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify 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 structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH/ksw
cc: Jack Palomino iackpalomino55 a amail.com
Job No, 114 549A
5670
1
so. w
WELL
O
5�
P1 A P2 �,--
( �• PROFILE BORING
p 3 PROPOSED
RESIDENC
XISTING
-RESIDENCE
•
BORING 1 /
•
BORING 2 / / Y
1 ' BORING 3•
C:3( EXISTING
BARN
(
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1"= 100'
WELL
CD
(
N.
♦J
568o
1
1
1
1
5710
COUNTY ROAD 245
5710
114 549A
I-1
HBPWORTWPAW LAK GEOTECMNICA1.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 1
Elevation - Feel
BORING 1
ELEV.= 5678'
BORING 2
ELEV.= 5679'
BORING 3
ELEV.= 5682'
BORING 4
ELEV.= 5673'
- 5690 5690
5685
- 5680
5675_
7/12
•
']10/12
WC=20.9
•
DD=103
-200=94
— ,
13/12
r WC=20.7 6/12
' DD=103 WC= 23,2 r
5670 . 4 . ,. DD x:98
90112 ,•
0 ,
WC=2.3 T
— o" +4=59 r
-200=11 ,
5665
r
16/12
18/12
WC=8.3
DD=109
r
r
r
10/12
8/12
7/12
WC 153
DD -111 BASEMENT F.F. 5675
r �
5660
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
7/12
5685
5680
5675
WC=18.9
10/12 GRAVEL=1% --`
SAND=32% 5670
SILT=35%
8/12 CLAY=32% —
7/12
6/12
5665
5660
Elevation - Feet
114 549A
H
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Figure 2
LEGEND:
D
M
10112
T
TOPSOIL; organic sandy silty clay, firm, slightly moist, dark brown.
CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, medium stiff to stiff, moist, brown.
GRAVEL (GM); sandy. silty. cobbles, dense, slightly moist, brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample. ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count: indicates that 10 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical drilling refusal_
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on December 30, 2014 with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided.
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 Togs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the lime of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
Gravel = Percent retained on No. 10 Sieve
Sand = Percent passing No. 10 sieve and retained on No. 325 sieve
Silt = Percent passing No. 325 sieve to particle size .002mm
Clay = Percent smaller then particle size .002mm
114 549A
H
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL,
LEGEND AND NOTES
Figure
Compression %
0
1
2
3
4
2
c
0
c
1
0.
• c
0
0
0
a�
a 1
E
0
U
2
Moisture Content = 20.7 percent
Dry Density = 103 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 1 at 5 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1
.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content = 8.3 percent
Dry Density = 109 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 2 at 5 Feet
cIN\L\\
Expansion
upon
wetting
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
114 549A
F-1
HEPWOR-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 4
Compression %
Compression %
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
01
0 0
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content = 15.3 percent
Dry Density = 111 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 3 at 5 Feet
•
•
/
1
No movement
upon
wetting
No movement
upon
wetting
•
N
f
01
0 0
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
0.1
1 0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
114 549A
1-1
HEPWORT*PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 5
Moisture Content = 23.2 percent
Dry Density = 98 pcf
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 3 at 10 Feet
•
No movement
upon
wetting
f
0.1
1 0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
114 549A
1-1
HEPWORT*PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 5
I K31►laS31/1W2h:
IHYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS R1
22qq ��{{R 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLFASQUARE OPENINGS
0 45 I N 15 MIN.60MIN19MIN 4 MIN. 1 MIN. *200 #100 #50 #30 X16 #f8 #14 318' 314' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 8' 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
so
iaaaa-i
aaa-a -
a-�aaaa-�
a�-
:.Slam ---
Iai aa- =SI
ai as-r----
assa w--asaaa
asoma -a
Saar-rr
asaNOS
aai aa -a
i a lb as
aIMS,
aa—aa--r as
-a-a-wa=Ina MIMIMESIS !
SIM
is
.IAC
a aa-
-a -a- a-assswSION -
--SSiS-i
- a--i-aa-
-a-S—ai--r—
ISISS
- a—a�i-aa-
r-�
aaa-aaaaaaaa-aaa
aaaaaaaa-aaa
aaa-aaaa-aaa-
aaa-a�aaa
�aaaa-aaa
aa-
-a,
Smaate--
aaa-aaaa-aaa
aaa
aaa-
asp^-
aaa-aaaa-
aaa-aaaa-aaa
aiaaar--ate
aiaaaa-aaa
a�aaaa-aaa
aaa-aaaa-aa-
as�as�aw-
-aaaa-aaa
as�asa
saaaa-s
iaaaa-aaa
Sinai
i na
asiaaa
was aa�^-
- SI! — aaa-
- a a a as --a-
- aaaaiaa-aaa-
-a—a aS—ate-ate
!SI III —aii--
ar --
aa—aaa---a-
-`aaa al Sill! aa�
, a—IIl nilaa—a
!Sr
-a- aaaaaaa-aa-a
i-aa-
aa- -----
--j-----
--
- aaaa—Sias
----a
---
ass—aaaaa—aaaalif as aa-
- .a—ssss ---
.
--aiai—aaa-
IMF Sr as-aaa-
al_ aiaal aas-a—a
r wSISIS Si
I MSaSipIli iii
IS waa—a�
i AMIN
a�a--a l Baas--waSaIMIFIS IN
-
-a--a—aa—rarrrar_s ass
rviSISS----
Wiaiaaiaii ai
Iii—ass
Isli
Si !Sail
Elear!iSlail SI Ili
Sw!l a.--aiaiaaa NWi
!Saaa—il ai
Wim—a—ai mills
rat—a—SI! ai
ai-a-a
---
----
----
-------
---
---
----
----
-
SINi
�II a-Iail------- aiaa-I
ais-�a�a�aai �_-
a--
as�as�>_ss
IM, --
SUS -iaiaiai-WS.
a�—iaiaiaiaiV—
�— a aaai—ate—'SI
—
SAM
!- aaa-
asa�a-asses
-
SI
r--
-r✓rissa�iai
ilei
-a-Maar----i
-a-aiaaa-aaa-i
aa- a
-a-aim SI la
!IS in
as --aa-
as---
=�aa�asa-sal
aaa-
ri_ai
-a-aiaaa-iaa�
as--aa-
�r-a ass
!SI in
- aa-
i-'--
==Mas-as�a—aa
as-ai
100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512 519 0 37.5 76.2 152
203
CLAY TO SILT
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
FINE
GRAVEL 59 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
114 549A
I-1
HEPWORTH+PAw1.AK GEOSECHNICAL
1 1IEDMA 1 COARSE
SAND 30 %
GRAVEL
FINE 1 COARSE
SILT AND CLAY 11 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Boring 1 at 9 Y2 Feet
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
.Mi]li7 ^i1 ?
Figure 6
-4213•Tiff*E1E2f+.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS j
q HH TIME READINGS .
0 45 MURN 15 MIN 60MINI9MIN.4 MIN 1 M1#325
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SIEVE ANALYSIS 1
U S_ STANDARD SERIES 1 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I
#140 *60 #35 *18 #10 #4 318' 314' 1112' 3' 5'6' 8' i00
001 002 .005 .009 019
`: AY
114 549A
SILT
GRAVEL 1 %
045 .106 025 .500 1.00 200
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
SAND
V. FINE 1 FRJE 1 MEDNM ICDAR E I1 caffmk.
SAND 32 %
USDA SOIL TYPE: Clay Loam
H
HEPWORTH-PAWL AK GEOTECHNICAL
4.75 9.5 19.0 37 5 76.2 152 203
GRAVEL
SMALL 1 MEDIA 1 LARGE
SILT 35 %
CLAY 32 %
93
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MI2C
FROM: Profile Boring at 2 and 4 Feet Combined
USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 7
Job No. 114 549A
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Silty Clay 11
Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel 11
Sandy Silty Clay 11
Sandy Silty Clay
Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
Clay Loam* II
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
1 ATTERBERG LIMITS
r
u
*
r
F
J xin
171
*
M
PERCENT
PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE
01
.--i
01
0
4
g
0
Z i
30
N
GRAVEL
(%)
O\
In
*
-.
COI
(pd)
AJISN30
AN0
1YHf11VN
103
O
i t
-
.--i
00
ON
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
20.9
N
M
N
M
15.3
N
N
Ch
oci
SAMPLE LOCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
21
vn
9'/z
un
vn
O
2&4
Combined
BORING
—.
N
M
Ill
a
O
a
0
ro
u
H
r.
0
1/7
a
v7
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB N0.114 549A
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
30
20
17%
1735
%
240
17%
17%
34
17%
17%s
0
17%
17%
34
17%
17%
0
17%
17%
0
P-2
32
1
20
18%
18%
'4
1
160
1834
1835
0
1834
18%
4
18%
183.
0
18%
1834
%
18%
18
34
°-3
30
20
18
17%
%
80
17%
1735
3
1734
17%
14
17%
17
34
17
16%
34
16%
1635
34
Note: Percolation test holes were drilled and soaked on December 30, 2014. Percolation tests were
conducted on December 31, 2014. The average percolation rates were based on the last two
readings of each test, except for P-1 which was the average of all the readings for that test.