The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Study for Foundation Design 11.14.16H-P\KUMAR 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945.7988 Fax (070) 94s-8454 Email hpkglenwood@ kumarusa.com Geotechnicãl Engineanng I Engineering Geology tulaleri¿ls ïeslng | [nvkonmenlal Oflice Locations: Park€r, Glenwood Spdngs, and Silverlhorns, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT TT,IRONBRTDGE RIVER BEND TVAY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 16-7-186 NOVEMBER 14,2016 PREPARED FOR: JOE HOUSE 330 WHITEHORSE DRIVE NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 ihglFe5200@aol.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION GEOLOGY I SITE CONDTTTONS.. ..........- 2 - .............- I - .-2 - FIELD EXPLORATION...........-?- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -4- FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ...........- 4 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS DRILLED PIERS FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE FOUNDATION AND RETATNING VYALLS FLOOR SLABS (NON-STRUCTURAL) ................ UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM............ SURFACE DRATNAGE............... LIMITATIONS FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 through 6 - SïVELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 5 5 6 7I I 9 - t0- H-P * KUMAR Project No. 16-7-186 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 77, Ironbridge, River Bend Way, Garfield County, Colorado, The project site is shown on Figure l. 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 Joe House c/o MCK Company, dated August2T ,2016 and amended by Earl McKerrihan to include 2 additional exploratory borings for subsidence risk evaluation. 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 werc 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 subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be located in the front, eastern part of the lot and consist of a 2-story structure above crawlspace with a slab-on-grade garage. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths o"etween about 2 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, Iocation or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notiFred to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H-P \ KUMAR Project No. 16-7-186 SITE CONDITIONS The lot was vacan[ at the time of our field exploration and is located on a strongly sloping alluvial fan along the uphill, western side of River Bend Way. The Robertson Ditch (now in a buried pipe) is located about 100 feet uphill of the lot. The ground surface has been graded relatively flat wìth shallow cuts and fills during the subdivision development and slopes down to the east with about one foot of elevation difference across the building footprint. A dry natural drainage channel borders the north side of the lot. Vegetation consists of grass, weeds and sage brush. GEOLOGY The geologic conditions were described in the previous report conducted for planning and preliminary design of the overall subdivision development by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (now HP/Kumar) dated October 29, 1997, Job No. 197 327. The surficial soils below the fill on the lot mainly consist of sandy silt and clay alluvial fan deposits with interbedded sandy and gravelly layers overlying gravel terrace alluvium of the Roaring Fork River. The river alluvium is mainly a clast-supported deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders typically up to about 3 feet in size in a silty sand matrix which extends down to depths on the order of 35 to 40 feet in the Lot 78 area and overlies siltstonelclaystone bedrock. Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the lronbridge subdivision. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. An apparent sinkhole was observed about 300 feet south of Lot 78 along the south side of River Bend S/ay and River Bank Lane intersection during construction. The sinkhole was excavated and backfilled during construction of the roadway. A sinkhole occurred in the parking lot adjoining the golf cart storage tent in 2005 located about t/¿ mile to the northwest of Lot 78 which was backfilled and compact¡on grouted. Both sinkholes have not shown signs of reactivation such as ground H-PÈ KUMAR Projecl No. 16-7-186 -3- subsidence since the remediation, to or¡r knowledge. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. Possible evidence of an infilled cavity or void consisting of relatively loose soils was suspected at Boring 2 of this study and additional exploratory borings were recommended to Mr. McKenihan for further evaluation of the loose soils. Subsequent Borings 3 and 4 drilled at the west side of the proposed residence did not encounter the loose soils. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 78 throughout the service life of the proposed building, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole developrnent. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted. FIELD EXPLORATION The fisld exploration to evaluate the subsurface conditions for the project initially consisted of drilling 2 exploratory borings (Borings I and 2) on June 30, 2016. A possible infilled sinkhole was indicated at Boring 2 because of the relatively loose soils with depth where dense river gravel alluvium was expected, like that encountered at Boring l. Evaluation of the loose soils was recornmended and we were eventually authorized by Mr. McKenihan to drill2 additional exploratory borings (Borings 3 and 4) at the locations shown on Figure l. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-458 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsurface materials were taken with l116 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 and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penefration 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. H-P\ KUMAR Proiect No, 16-7.186 -4- SIJBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils, below up to 3Vz feet of mixed sandy silt, clay and gravel fill, consist of about 15 to 2l feet of stiff, sandy silt and clay overlying dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at Borings l, 3 and 4. The gravelly soils were loose at Boring 2 which is located outside of the proposed building footprint. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell- consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the sandy silt and clay soils, presented on Figures 4,5 and 6, indicate low to moderate compressibility under relatively light loading and natural low moisture conditions. A low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) and moderate to high compressibility were observed when the samples were wetted and additionally loaded. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table l. Free water was not encountered in Borings l, 3 and 4 to the drilled depths of 22 to 24 feet. At Boring 2, free water was encountered at a depth of 26 feet at the time of drilling. The upper soils were slightly moist to moist with depth. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The subsoils encountered to a depth of about l8 to 2l feet consist of low density, compressible silt and clay. These soils are hydrocompressive and tend to settle under load when wetted. In residential areas there are several sources of potential wetting such as landscape irrigation, surface w¿tter runoff and utility line leaks. A relatively low risk foundation system with respect to potential settlement caused by wetting of the upper compressible soils is straight-shaft drilled piers that extend down into the dense gravel and cobble soils. In addition to their ability to H-P È KUMAR Project No. 16-7-186 5 reduce settlements, the piers have the advantage of providing moderate load capacity with a relatively small settlement potential. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS DRILLED PIERS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend straight-shaft piers drilled into the underlying gravel and cobble soils for building support. The design and construction criteriâ presented below should be observed for a straight-shaft drilled pier foundation system. l) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 10,000 psf and a skin friction of 1,000 psf for that portion of the pier embedded in gravel. Pier penetration through the upper silt and clay soils should be neglected in the skin friction calculations. 2) All piers should have a minimum total embedment length of l0 feet and a minimum penetration into the gravel of I foot. The gravet and cobble soils will tend to cave and penetration into the bearing soils should be limited to about 2 feet. 3) The pier holes should be properly cleaned prior to placement of concrete. The natural silt and clay soils are stiff which indicates that casing of the holes should not be required. Some caving and difficult drilling may be experienced in the bearing soils due to cobbles and possible boulders. Placing concrete in the pier hole the same day as drilling is recommended. 4! The pier drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size to achieve the design pier sizes and depths. We recommend a minimum pier diameter of l2 inches. 5) Crade beams and pier caps should have a minimum depth of 3 feet for frost cover and void form below them is not needed. H-P\ KUMAR Proiect No. '16-7-186 -6- 6)Free water was not encountered in the borings made at the site where the dense gravel and cobble soil was encountered and it appe¡¡rs that dewatering should not be needed. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe pier drilling operations on a full-time basis. FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE As an alternative with a risk of differential settlement and distress, the residence could be supported by a heavily reinforced structural mat or post-tensioned slab foundation bearing on at least 5 feet of compacted structural fill. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a structural slab foundation system. l) A structural slab or post-tensioned slab placed on a minimum 5 feet of compacted structural fill can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. A post-tensioned slab should also be designed for a wetted dist¿rnce of l0 feet but at least half of the slab width whichever is greater. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement to be about I inch or less. Additional differential settlement of about I to 2 inches is estimated if deep wetting of the alluvial fan soils were to occur. 2) Prior to placing structural fill for the foundation support, the area should be stripped of the vegetation and topsoil. Structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not to exceed I inches and compacted to at least 987o of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content within 27o of optimum. Fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation slab a distance at least equal to the depth of fill below the slab. The structural fill should have sufficient fines content to restrict subsurface water flow such as the on-site silt and clay soils. 3) The thickened sections of the slab for support of concentrated loading should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated columns. 7) H-P* KUMAR Project No. 16-7-186 -7- 4)The perimeter turn-down grade beams 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. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate fill placement for compaction and observe the completed excavation prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. 5) FOUNDATION AND RETAINING 1VALLS 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 soils. 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site 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 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 907o of the maximum stândard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95Vo 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 câuse 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. H-P\ KUMAR Project No. 16-7-186 -8- 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. Res¡stance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings or drilled piers can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 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 95Vo of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS (NON-STRUCTURAL) The upper fine-grained soils encountered in the borings possess variable compressibility potential and slab settlement could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. Slab-on- grade construction can be used provided precautions are taken to Iimit potential settlement and the risk of d¡stress to the building is accepted by the owner. Removal and replacement of the natural soils to provide at least 3 feet of compacted structural fill below slabs should be done to reduce the risk of slab settlement. The structural fill should be constructed similar to that described above in "Foundation Alternative" recommendations. To reduce the effects of some differential settlement, nonstructural 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. Slab reinforcement and controljoints should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of base course gravel should be placed immediately beneath slabs-on- grade. This material should consist of minus 2inch aggreg¿¡te with less than 507o passing the H.P* KUMAR Project No. 16.7-186 -9- No.4 sicve and less than l27o passing the No. 200 sieve. The gravel will provide slab support and help break capillary moisture rise. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of the on-site soils, excluding topsoil or a suitable imported granular material such as road base. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95Vo of the maximum standard Proctor density. All topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed and the subgrade moistened and compacted prior to fill placement. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM It is our understanding the finished floor elevation at the lowest level will be at or above the surounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system is not required. An underdrain is not recomrnended around crawlspaee areas at this lot because the drain gravel can act as a conduit to wet shallow soils below the structure. It has been our experience, though, that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as site retaining walls and basement âre¿$ (if provided), be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain and wall drain system. If the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure has a (basement) floor level below the surrounding grade, we should be contacted to provide recommendations for an underdrain system. All earth retaining structures should be properly drained. SURFACE DRATNAGE Providing proper perimeter surface grading and drainage will be critical to the satisfactory performance of the building. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: l) Inundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. H.P + KUMAR Project No. 16.7-186 - t0- z)Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95lo of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 9OVo af the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 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 l0 feet in unpaved areas and a minimurn slope of 3 inches in the first l0 feet in paved areas. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and preferably into subsurface solid drain pipe to gravity discharge. Surface swales should have a minimum grade of 3lo andpreferably 47o. Landscaping which requires regular heavy irigation should be located at least 10 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to the use of xeriscape to limit potential wetting of soils below the building caused by irigation. 3) 4\ LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this ärea at the time of this study. lvVe 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 l, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. 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 extrâpoltrtion of the subsurface conditions identif¡ed at the exploratory borings and vari¡tions in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excûvstion is performed. 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 client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we 5) H-Pe KUMAR Pro¡ect No. 16-7-186 - ll - should provide continued consultation and field scrvices during construction to review and monilor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require 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, H.P\ KUMAR Steven L. Pawlak, P Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ksw cc:MCK Company - Earl McKerihan (earl@mckcompany.com) H-P* KUMAR Projecl No. 16.7.186 /I1099cl(,zÉoEaWaaetËIÈrä38275.;Ëþ"&pIfo.¿sNo.91935s'ßeborcnd CoPw 274.27'sgt'ebar o:¡.d'o,38215G* TSinPlqc€!oSubl¡¡l.¡t!I¡¡¡J()aftL¡F==oco-o-ðLv3tl,(}z.æ.o6otoFot()fL)<l¡lf!c)z.oC)oCt¡l!r'o€II(oa-)Vl//o-II EORINC EL. 59f I z' BORINGEL 5gI 2 2' BORI{G 3 EL 5192' BOR]NG 4EL.59t2' 0 7/12 WC=7.5 DD=79 -200=Eı tt/tz WC=5.6 DD=98 8/12 tlVC=10.2 DD=10,1 5/12 7/t2 $/C=2.4 DO=103 -200=67 o 17 /12 E/12 l{C=10.0 DD=98 s/12 tilC=7,7 DD=lOZ -2OO=7O 1t /12 WC=24,5pt)=96 21/5,5O/1 6/12 8/t2 sl12 WC=7.0 DD=95 8/t2 WC=6.7 DD=97 -200=65t2/tz 7 t2 t0 0D=99 -200=5¡l lo e/12 WD=20.0 20 DD=lOl -200=9 I 33/t2 27/t2 ?o to/12 l¡¡ a¡J I-.-& l¡Jo 50 10/12 50 ,10 10 50 50 60 60 l2 .9 -200=6 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fis. 21 6-7- I 86 ¡¡ ! I LEGE¡\D X r¡u-; sANDy srLT ANo crry wrTn GRAVET. sucr{TLy Morsr, BRowN.X /',,., AND CI.AY (UI.-CU); SANDY TO VERY SANDY, STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, UOHÎ 8ROWN.A lxlgn4yEt (GM)¡-SILTY, S4ì!DY, COEBLES, PosstBLE SMALL BOULDERS, DENSE AT BORtr{cS t, lf.yl 3 AND .4, LOoSE TO lúEolUM DENSE AT BORTNG 2, SLtcHTLy MOIST, WET WTt{ DEPTH AT' I,æIBORING Z. 8ROWN, ROUNDED ROCK, ffi weernenED cuAysToNE¡ FIRM, L{orsr, cRAy. EAcLE vALLEy EvApoRrTE.w REIATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE¡ 2-INCH l.D. cALtFoRNtA LTNER SAMPLE. DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (sPT), 1 3/8 |NCH t.D. SPUT SpOoN SAMPLE, ASTM D-I586. þ I l-' DISTUREED BULK SAMPLE. ¡7712 DRIVE SAMPLE gLOl{ COUNT. INDICATES THAT 17 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER''''- FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REOUIREO TO DR¡VE T}IE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER T2 INCHES. : DEPTH TO 1r{ATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING. + CAVED DEPÍI{ FOLLOWINO DRII.J.ING ON JUNE 50, 2016. I enlcrrcrL AUGER RErusAL. NOTEg I. EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1 AND 2 WERE DRILLEO ON JUNE 50, 2016 ANO BORINGS J ÂND 4 WERE DRILTED ON SEPTEMBER 50, 2016 WITH A 4-INCH DIAI/ETER CONÎINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. TI{E LOCATIONS OF TI.IE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY 8Y TAPING FROM FEATURES SI.IOWN ON THE SITE PI.AN PROVIOED. 3. T}IE ETEVATIONS OF TI{E EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OSTAINED BY INTEßPOI.ATION BETIVEEN CONTOURS ON TI{E S]TE PI-AN PROVIOEO. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATTONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD gE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DECREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED. 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATEFIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY EORING LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNOARIES BETWEEN I.IATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY 8E GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER LEVEIS SI.IOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT IHE TIME AND UNDER CONDIIIONS INDIOATED. FLUCTUATIONS lN THE WATER LEVEL lllAY OCCUR wlIH TIME. BoRlNCsI, 3 AND 4 WEBE DRY. 7. I.AEORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT ('() (ASTM O ZZTO);0D = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); -200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTll D 1140). I 6-7-1 86 -Pt LEGEND AND NOTES FÍ9. 5 ¡ Ia SAMPLE OFI Sondy Sllt ond Cloy FROM:BodngtC5' WC= f0.0!l,DD=98 pcf '. t ADDITIONAL COI¡PRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 0 x -t JL,Btn -¿ I zP-s ê Jo!-to C) -5 -6 o x -l J l¡l3v, -a ¡ z9-¡ e op-* o C¡ -6 SAMPLE OF: Sondy Sllt ond Cloy FROM:Borlng 1 C 15' IVC = 24,5 tÊ, DD = 98 pcf h ADOITIONAL COMPRE5SION UNOER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING SWELL.CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT Fig. 4\H- !:!¡r¡rr\di'] I F' .¡.*¡; rr¡ r¡{ ,.ri1 6-7- 1 86 I II SAMPLE 0F: Sondy Slll ond Cloy FROM: Eorlng ?. O 5' l{C = 5.6 tl, 00 = 98 pct I ADOITIONAL COUPRESSION UNDÊR CONSTANT PRESSUFE DUE TO WETTING 0 N -l t, =u, -¿ I z9-r ct Jo!-to() -6 I 0 Jl¡l.tn I zo o Jo!-so(J x SÀMPLE OF; Sondy Sllt ond Cloy FR0M: Borlng 2 C t0' WC = tO,2 %, DD = lO4 pcl ADOITIONAL COHPRESsION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING -6 16-7-186 -P\ l, i r¡,1çr /q , L ¡,¡ i ¡ u! {}¡ C' rr¡rJ 1 MAR Fig. 55WELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT SAMPTE OFr Sondy Slll ond Cloy FROM:Borlng 4 O 5' lfC = 7.O X, OO = 95 pcf "'....,| 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 ; I t f I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 i i 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 ,'j J : i ', ttr ,l 1 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNÐER CONSTANT PRESSURE OUE TO WETÎING t' r.l hfr ^0¡q j-l l¡¡3vl t_2 o $-sovtzoë-q -5 -b I II-P+KUMAR II r;æmrü g q.¡srr tl f qr*xr4 G,w"y II t¡¡r¡ui tet r; I f {É!rnd.¡ I SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT1 6-7-1 86 Flg. 6 H-PtKUMARTABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSProiect No. f6-7-186solLoRBEDROCKTYPESandy Silt and ClaySandy Silt and ClaySandy Silt and ClaySandy Silt and ClaySandy Silt and ClaySandy Silt and ClaySandy SiltSandy Silt and ClayVery Sandy Silt and CIaySlightly Sandy Silt andClaySandy Silt and CIaySandy Silt and ClayUNCONFINEDco¡rPREsstvESÏRENGTHfPSFIATTERBERGLIMITSPTASTICINDEI(l1/"1L¡OUIDUmITP/"1PERCENTPASSINGNO.200SIEVE7088676454II66SAND(fhtGRAVELl'/"1NATURALuotsTuRECONTENTNAruRALDRYDENSITY98102987998104103929910I9597r0.07.724.57.35.6I0.22.46.95.920.07.06.7SAi¡IPLÊLOCAT¡ONBORINGDEPlH5I0I5)v.5I02A5l0l55I0I234