HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 04.05.2017H-PKUMAR
Geotechnical Engineering 1 Engineering Geology
Materials Testing t 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 RESIDENCE
LOT 80, IRONBRIDGE
1102 RIVER BEND WAY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-236
APRIL 5, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
RICK SAGESER
15878 WEST ELLSWORTH DRIVE
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401
ricksageser@comcast.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS .... 1
GEOLOGY -2-
FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .., - 4 -
DRILLED PIERS - 4 -
FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE - 5 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 6 -
FLOOR SLABS (NON-STRUCTURAL) - 7 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 8 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 9 -
LIMITATIONS - 9 -
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
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H -P KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot
80, Ironbridge, 1102 River Bend Way, 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 agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to Rick Sageser, dated March 16, 2017.
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 subsoil conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be located in the building envelope of the lot as shown on Figure 1
and consist of a single -story structure above a walkout basement with slab -on -grade floors.
Grading for the structure will be relatively minor with minimal cut depths up to about 3 feet for
the basement level and fill depth of about 6 to 7 feet for the garage level. 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.
SITE CONDITIONS
The lot was vacant at the time of our field exploration and is located on a gently sloping alluvial
fan along the downhill, eastern side of River Bend Way. Elevation difference across the building
footprint is about 2 feet. A dry detention basin fed by runoff from River Bend Way and a dry
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-2 -
drainage channel are located immediately north of and parallel to the lot. The ground surface of
the building area appears to have been cleared of brush. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds
with sage brush in the downhill, east part of the lot. The Roaring Fork River level is about 20 to
25 feet below the lot.
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 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 2 to 3 feet
in size in a silty sand matrix which extends down to depths on the order of 35 feet in the Lot 80
area and overlies siltstone/claystone bedrock.
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Ironbridge 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 80 along the south side of River Bend Way and River
Bank Lane intersection during the roadway 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 1/4 mile to the northwest of Lot 80 which was
backfilled and compaction grouted. Both sinkholes have not shown signs of reactivation such as
ground subsidence since the remediation, to our knowledge. Sinkholes possibly related to the
Evaporite were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. An apparent soil piping
cavity was observed in the bottom of the detention basin close to the northwest corner of the lot
which appears to outlet in the adjacent drainage channel. Based on our present knowledge of the
subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes related to the
underlying Evaporite will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 80
throughout the service life of the proposed building, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner
H-PttNMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-3 -
should be made 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.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 23, 2017. 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 H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsurface materials 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 about 91/2 to 131/2 feet of stiff to very 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.
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 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under relatively Tight
loading and natural low moisture conditions. A low collapse potential (settlement under constant
Toad) and moderate to high compressibility were typically observed when the samples were
wetted and additionally loaded. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
H -P KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-4 -
Free water was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the soils were slightly
moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The subsoils encountered to a depth of about 10 to 13 feet typically consist of low density and
compressible silt and clay. These soils are typically hydrocompressive and tend to settle under
Toad when wetted.
The expansion potential measured on the samples is not considered
significant and the overall alluvial fan soils will tend to settle when wetted under load. The
proposed fill below the garage area will add to the variability of a shallow supported foundation.
In residential areas there are several sources of potential wetting such as landscape irrigation,
surface water runoff and utility line leaks. A relatively low risk foundation system with respect
to variable subsurface conditions and 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 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 development plan, we recommend straight shaft piers drilled into the underlying gravel
and cobble soils for building support. The design and construction criteria presented below
should be observed for a straight -shaft drilled pier foundation system.
1) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 12,000 psf
and a skin friction of 1,000 psf for that portion of the pier embedded in gravel.
Pier penetration through fill soils and the upper, natural silt and clay soils should
be neglected in the skin friction calculations.
2) All piers should have a minimum total embedment length of 10 feet and a
minimum penetration into the gravel of 1 foot. The gravel and cobble soils will
tend to cave and penetration into the bearing soils should be limited to about 2
feet.
H-PtKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-5-
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 12 inches.
5) Grade beams and pier caps should have a minimum depth of 3 feet for frost cover
and void form below them is not needed.
6) Free water was not encountered in the borings made at the site where the dense
gravel and cobble soil was encountered and it appears that dewatering should not
be needed.
7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe pier drilling
operations on a full-time basis.
FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE
As an alternative with an increased 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.
I) 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 distance of 10 feet but at
least half of the slab width whichever is greater. Based an experience, we expect
initial settlement to be about I inch or less. Additional differential settlement of
about 1 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 8 inches and compacted to at least 98% of the maximum
H-P't KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-6 -
standard Proctor density at a moisture content within 2% 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.
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.
5) 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.
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 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 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Backfill placed in pavement and
H-P*KUMAR
Projecl No. 17.7-236
FLOOR SLABS I
-7 -
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.
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 0.35. 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 safely 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.
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 limit potential settlement and
the risk of distress to the building is acceptable to the owner. Removal and replacement of the
natural soils to provide at least 2 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
H-PkKUMAR
Project No. 17.7-236
-8 -
cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints 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 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the
No. 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve. The gravel will provide slab support
and help break capillary moisture rise.
Required fill placed 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 95% 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
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area 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 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 I% to
a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should
contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, Tess than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a
maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep. An
impervious membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough
shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils.
The foundation drain should not be placed around the uphill side of the garage nor the downhill
H -P kUMAR
Project No. 17-7-236
-9 -
side of the basement level since the finished floor elevation at the respective level will be at or
above the adjacent surrounding finish grade.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
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:
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 3
inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
4) 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 3% and preferably 4%.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation 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 irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at the time of this study. 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. 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
Fi-P3 KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-286
-10 -
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 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
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 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:
15222 ;*
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ksw
cc: David Berton (david@realarchitecture.com)
H-P3EKUMAR
Prosect No. 17.7-236
1 •6u
SONIIO8 AdOlVdOldX3 JO NOI1V001
&VW K -d -H
9TZ—L—LI
133J-1VZ S 3 VW XOdddd
OT Si 0 SI
BORING 1
EL, 5942.5'
BORING 2
EL. 5943'
BORING 3
EL. 5941.5'
BORING 4
EL. 5941'
5950 5950 --
GARAGE FLOOR LEVEL = 5949'
- 5945
5940
-- 5935
r-
- 5930
5925
19/12
WC=4.7
00=104
29/12
WC=7.3
D0=116
-200=90
21/12
42/5,50/3
BASEMENT FLOOR LEVEL = 5942'
20/12
20/12
WC=8.1
00=107
-200=94
10/12
WC=11.9
00=112
50/5
14/12
WC=3.2
DD=98
18/12
WC=8.4
00=109
-200=91
15/12
WC=5.3
00=104
-200=58
17/12
12/12
WC=9.7
DD=110
80/12
5945 --y
5940 --
5935 -
5930 --
5925
5920 5920
17-7-236
H-P�KUMAR
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
LEGEND
7
F
CLAY AND SILT (CL—ML); SLIGHTLY SANDY TO SANDY, SILTY SAND LAYER BELOW 10' IN
BORING 3, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT BRAWN TO BROWN, SLIGHTLY
POROUS.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM—GP); SILTY TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, SANDY, BOULDERS, DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, ROUNDED ROCK.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/19 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON
SAMPLE, ASTM 0-1566.
19/12 DRIVE SAMPLE OLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 19 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
I PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 23, 2017 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
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 LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROX MATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
OD = DRY DENSITY (pct) (ASTM D 2216);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM 0 1140).
17-7-236
H -P- KUMAR
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION
1
—1
—2
—3
—4
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Sill and Clay
FROM: Boring 1 CO 2.5'
WC = 4.7 %, 0D = 104 pcl
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
I,0 4 PIIi[1 PRESSL'Rt I{SF
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silly Clay
FROM: Boring 2 ® 10'
WC = 11.9 %, DD = 112 pcl
m... 4,11 r..jnr 40.1 mr tS w
Mrphr 1.164. R. 411r, mind
I4004.4M.....a1 n
10..+f..I 1M •Man .pro' -0
Rwna rn.
41......r. +1t- &..n
esv4...0 *Pu o -fl
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
17-7-236
1.0 APPC'ER PRESS':RE KSF I 100
H-P�KUMAR
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Sill and Clay
FROM: Boring 3 0 2.5'
WC = 3.2 %, DD = 98 loaf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
114.7 lid .yu UN! M6k W
I.mptil 1.r.111 Il.. IdI4 $ 1. I
vN M M npnMa.f.
1,4 .imvt 1M Sl.. **Iwo! le
Na.r. IK M..pl...lr, 5.0
Cnr.14d.w1 kltn /1+rrmM
wM. tql WW 11.171t
1.11 APPLICD PRESSURE — xsr fR
tC]
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silly Clay
FROM: Goring 4 0 5'
WC = 9.7 %, DD = 110 pef
1.4 APPLIED PRESSJRE - K5F
EXPANS'ON UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
lo.
! 17-7-236
H-P--15KUMAR
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
H-FKUMAR
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No.17-7-236
SAMPLE LOCATION
GRADATION
1 ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
i NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY(
(pcf)
GRAVEL
"o)
E
SAND
(%1
PERCENT
PASSING
N0.2d0
SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
SOIL TYPE
BORING
DEPTH
(ft)
1
? %
4.7
104
Sandy Silt and Clay
5
7.3
116
90
Sandy Silt and Clay
1
l (l7
g4
Slightly Sandy Silt and
Clay
10
11.9
112
Sandy Silty Clay
2'>
3.1
98
Sandy Silt and CIay
5Clay
4
109
9l
Slightly Sandy Silt and
10
5.3
104
58
Very Sandy Silt
L
4
5
9.7
110
Sandy Silty CIay
1-
_