Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 04.12.2017H-PKUMAR Geotechnical Engineering 1 Engineering Geology Materials Testing 1 Environmental 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-7988 Fax: (970) 945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING PARCEL A, SHELTON LOT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT COUNTY ROAD 110 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 17-7-198 APRIL 12, 2017 PREPARED FOR: URIEL MELLIN 144 CLIFFROSE WAY GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (ur•ieLmelli rt @hatmail.cam) RECEIVED APR 12 2018 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ori iI'd 91119 12-tpatrf fDv & GotinV►n.wczOti 1 6 l el 6 a GI; v/G14 t d Csoto in .. 91.e (A19dev ktg- b ex roc \)A. -h' o II 0 bow 014 rZ0.4C0 vt 11) 2p I Q TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 2 - GEOLOGIC SETTING -2- SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL. - 2 - RADIATION -3- FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 6 - FLOOR SLABS - 6 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 - PERCOLATION TESTING - 8 - LIMITATIONS - 8 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PROFILE PITS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 and 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 6 — USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2 — PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H -P —KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed commercial building to be located at Parcel A, Shelton Lot Boundary Adjustment, County Road 110, 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 Uriel Mellin dated January 30, 2017. 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 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. Percolation testing was conducted to evaluate septic system feasibility. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed commercial building will be a tall one-story metal frame and sided structure with slab -on -grade floor. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut and fill 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. H-P=• Project No. 17-7-198 -2 - SITE CONDITIONS The property was vacant of structures and free of snow cover at the time of our field exploration. Several dirt trails cross the property. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds in the building area and a pinon and juniper forest with sage brush in the uphill surrounding area. The ground surface has been disturbed in the building area and the site partially leveled with fill placed on the western part of the site. The ground surface slopes down to the west at a grade of about 12 percent in the building area. Several drainage swales are located south and southeast of the building area. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the eastern part of the Roaring Fork River valley and north of the Cattle Creek drainage at an approximate elevation of 6400 feet. Outcrops of Eagle Valley Evaporite are visible on the surrounding hillsides. The Evaporite is overlain by basalt flow deposits in areas to the east of the property. Geologically young faults are not located in the project vicinity. The closest geologically young faults capable of producing large earthquakes, are in the northern section of the Sawatch fault zone in the Rio Grande Rift about 55 miles to the northeast. SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL The Eagle Valley Evaporite is present in the project area and surrounding hillsides. It is made up of gray and tan, gypsum and anhydrite with interbedded siltstone, claystone, and dolomite. The gypsum and anhydrite are soluble in fresh water. The siltstone varies from cemented and hard to non-cemented but firm. The dolomite is cemented and hard. The bedding structure is convoluted because of flow deformation in the plastic gypsum and anhydrite. Joints are commonly present in the siltstone and dolomite. Because of their plasticity, the gypsum and anhydrite are massive and have no joints. Due to the soluble nature of gypsum and anhydrite, subsurface voids and sinkholes are sometimes present in areas underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite in western Colorado. No evidence of subsidence or sinkholes was observed on the property or encountered in the subsurface materials, however, the exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation H -P— KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 -3 - design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it can not be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence at the site throughout the service life of the structure, in our opinion is low, however the owner should be aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted. RADIATION The project site is not located on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high concentration of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to assess future radon gas concentrations in buildings before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas levels could be done when the structure has been completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentration. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the building foundation was conducted on March 23, 2017. Two 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 H -P/ Kumar. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was 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 penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings and Pits, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. H-Pk-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 -4 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 4 to 8 feet of stiff, sandy silt and clay overlying weathered claystone/ siltstone transitioning to hard claystone/siltstone bedrock with depth. The silt and clay soil and weathered claystone/siltstone were calcareous and contained considerable gypsum. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and percent finer then sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the silt and clay soils and weathered claystone/siltstone, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting with generally a low hydro - compression potential under light loading. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The sandy silt and clay soils encountered at typical shallow foundation depth tend to settle when they become wetted. A shallow foundation placed on the sandy silt and clay soils will have a high risk of settlement if the soils become wetted and care should be taken in the surface and subsurface drainage around the building to prevent the soils from becoming wet. The building excavation will also transition into weathered claystone/siltstone increasing the variable bearing conditions. It will be critical to the long term performance of the structure that the recommendations for surface drainage and subsurface drainage contained in this report be followed. Fill placed for foundation and slab support should consists of a granular structural material such as road base. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 -5- claystone/siltstone or structural fill with a settlement and building distress risk. Extending the foundation down into the hard bedrock could be used to achieve a low foundation settlement potential such as with drilled piers. The design and constriction criteria presented below should he observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed claystone/siltstone or structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional settlement of about 1 inch could occur if the bearing soils are wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 24 inches 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 heavily 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 (if any) should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for the onsite soils as backfill. 5) All existing fill, topsoil, at least 3 feet of the natural silt and clay soil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed down to the undisturbed soils or claystone/siltstone. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. Structural fill should be placed in uniform thin lifts and compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. H-P-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 -6 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressure recommended above assumes 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 around below grade areas and behind retaining 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 foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. 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, or structural fill can be used to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction with a risk of settlement and distress similar to below shallow footings. 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 relatively well graded sand and gravel such as road base should be placed beneath slabs for support. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve. H -P- KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 -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 the on- site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM It is our understanding the finished floor elevation at the lowest level is at or above the surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system does not appear required. 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 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 and wall drain system. If the finished floor elevation of the proposed structure has a 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 DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the commercial building 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% 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 2' inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. H-P-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 _g_ 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. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by irrigation. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on March 29, 2017 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. Two profile pits and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pits shown on Fig. 2 and consist of sandy silty silt and clay overlying weathered to hard claystone/siltstone bedrock. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of sandy loam (minus 11/2 inch fraction) obtained from the profile pit at the site are presented on Figure 6. The soil classification based on gradation analysis and percolation testing is Type 2. No free water or evidence of seasonal perched water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist. The percolation test results are presented in Table 2. 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 and pits dug 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 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 pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If H-P-KUMAR Project No, 17-7-198 -9 - 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 nse 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, Louis E. Eller Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P. -p,nNRENC . -., yveaapp k. 5 o' . i_ , 1 °o ay • ;fie 15222 LEE/kac 11% v • •9.S• (hnL e ,' 0 cc: John Taufer jlt@Sop"" --. ' Brian Kurtz (kurtzengineering@yahoo.com) H-P2KUMAR Project No. 17-7-198 COUNTY ROAD 110 TO HWY 8 .v4 BORING 2 'r ux,-Anox 0.¢1 r 'A.V.-+ mei - O' .4. �fdor - PARCEL A SHELTON LOT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PROFILE PIT 2 • •P3 A P2 fl '„4,11 PROFILE PIT 1 60 0 60 120 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET 17-7-198 H-P---KUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PROFILE PITS Fig. 1 - 6385 6360 BORING 1 EL. 6371' FF=6378.5' BORING 2 EL. 6385' - 6375 - 6370 - 6365 6360 - 6355 6350 7 / 14/12 -j WC=6.2 /_I DD=105 / 12/12 WC=6.2 DD=110 -200=86 // f] 25/12 / WC=6.6 / DD=105 56/12 59/12 18/12 WC=5.9 DD=87 -200=69 30/12 WC=7.1 DD=112 6385 -- b38U 24/12 WC=8.9 DD=116 48/12 84/12 6375 - 6370 6365 - 6360 6355 6350 -� 1- w w z 0 �- a > J w PROFILE PIT 1 PROFILE PIT 2 EL. 6410' EL. 6405' d 0 - GRAVEL=6 SAND=47 -i SILT=33 - _i, CLAY=14 5 ----- 10- 15 ....... 20 --- 25 30 W 0 17-7-198 H - P -KU MAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PITS Fig. 2 LEGEND, 7 -7 SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL); SANDY, STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT BROWN. GYPSIFEROUS AND CALCAREOUS FRIABLE. WEATHERED CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE; FIRM TO MEDIUM HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, MIXED BROWN. GYPSIFEROUS AND CALCAREOUS. ICLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK; HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY. EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE, RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2 -INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE. 14/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 14 BLOWS OF A 140 -POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 12 INCHES. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 23, 2017 WITH A 4 -INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. THE PROFILE PITS WERE EXCAVATED ON MARCH 29, 2017 WITH A MINI EXCAVATOR. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PROFILE PITS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. THE BUILDING AND SEPTIC DISPOSAL AREAS HAD BEEN STAKED BY OTHERS. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PROFILE PITS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING AND PROFILE PIT 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 AND PIT 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 OR EXCAVATING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216); DD = DRY DENSITY (PCF) (ASTM D 2216); -200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140); 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 THAN PARTICLE SIZE .002MM. 17-7-198 H -P KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 0 —1 — 2 —3 — 4 — 5 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silt and Clay FROM: Boring 1 ® 2.5' WC = 6.2 %, DD = 105 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION - UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSr Shue. belt re.]the eeDle ally to Ne oo p:ee le.led. The (.IFnq reweel .hyd nyt Lre .aprwduced, eappl Fn Full, eL ho:n 111e written opprwol of Kornernd A..oNet.., Ina Swell Ceevaldelien I..11n ne.00.e In ereee,e0nea with CI -451e. 17-7-198 10 100 SAMPLE OF: Weathered Claystone/Siltstone FROM: Boring 1 CSD 10' WC = 6.6 %, DD = 105 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF H-P%KUMAR 10 100 SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 0 —1 — 2 — 3 SAMPLE OF: Weathered Claystone/Siltstone FROM: Boring 2 ® 5' WC = 7.1 %, DD = 112 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 100 r Thom. s..:ern. w'ihe rIf at xe,.,e, e,w +4.eoa... k.e. s..N C.n+enevu,a www ImaftatIaa In 17-7-198 SAMPLE OF: Weathered Claystone/Siltstone FROM: Boring 2 ® 10' WC = 8.9 %, DD = 116 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE Ksr H -P- KUMAR 10 100 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 45I,M 0 24HR N 7 HR TIME READINGS 1 MIN. U S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 15 MIN. 60MIN.19MIN.4 MIN. #545 4140 060 435 :ib TO k4 $/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" " '$" 8" ...,. PERCENT RETAINED 0 0 0 0 'o 0 o a f /,' / ................. ' 0 0 0 0 0 o c PERCENT PASSING ,- / 1.1111111 001 002 005 009 019 045 106 025 500 1 00 200 4 75 9 5 19 0 37 5 76 2 152 203 U DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY SILT SAND GRA1 M, . V Fl6E' 1 F.NE L ME0UM L Iv MSEP SMALL L_.__l1M IJR0E COBBLES GRAVEL 6 % SAND 47 % SILT 33 % CLAY 14 USDA SOIL TYPE: Sandy Loam FROM: Profile Pit 2 @ 2'-3' 17-7-198 H-PtiKIJMAR USDA GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6 HPE INMAR TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-198 SAMPLE LOCATION —I NATURAL 1 NATURAL MOISTURE DRY CONTENT 1 DENSITY (%) 1 (Pcf) GRADATION PERCENT j USDA SOIL TEXTURE SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE BORING DEPTH (ft) PASSING 1 GRAVEL SAND NO. 200 1 GRAVEL SIEVE (%) j (%) I1 (%) J SAND SILT CLAY (%) (%) (%) 1 21 6.2 105 Sandy Silt and Clay 5 6.2 110 86 Sandy Silt and Clay 10 6.6 105 Weathered Claystone/Siltstone 2 21 5.9 87 69 Sandy Silt and Clay 5 7.1 112 Weathered Claystone/Siltstone 10 8.9 116 Weathered Claystone/Siltstone Profile p t ZE2to3 6 47 33 14 Sandy Loam J A TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 17-7-198 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) 1/2 AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 • 15 5 Water added 71/4 63/4 15 63/4 61/4 1/2 .. 6% 6 1/4 -- 6 51/2 1/2 61/4 6 1/4 6 53/4 1/4 53/4 51/4 1/2 51/4 5 1/4 P-2 37 5 Water added 5 4% 1/4 20 43/4 41/2 1/4 I 41/2 4 1/2 L 5 4% 1/4 4% 41/2 1/4 41/2 41/4 1/4 41/4 4 1/4 4 33/4 1/4 P-3 32 5 Water added 5 43/4 1/4 20 43/4 41/4 1/2 41/4 33/4 1/2 41/2 41/4 1/4 41/4 4 1/4 4 33/4 1/4 33/4 31/2 1/4 31/2 31/4 1/4 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on March 29, 2017. Percolation tests were conducted on March 30, 2017. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.