HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Geotech Investigation 01.11.2008CTLITHOMPSON
INCORPORATED
GEOLOGIC EVALUATION AND
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
GRASS MESA
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
140 G. H. Daniels Boulevard
Gypsum, CO 81637
Attention: Mr. Jody Daniels
Project No. GS05135-115
January 11, 2008
234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE 1
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
SITE EARTHWORK 5
Excavations 5
Fill 55
Pond Construction
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 6
SLAB -ON -GRADE CONSTRUCTION 7
BELOW -GRADE CONSTRUCTION 7
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 8
SURFACE DRAINAGE 8
FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 9
GEOTECHNICAL RISK 9
LIMITATIONS 10
FIGURE 1 —APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 — GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP
FIGURE 3 — APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO SAND AND GRAVEL
FIGURES 4 AND 5 — SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
APPENDIX A - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL IT PROJECT NO. G505135-115
S:\G505135.000\115\2. Reports1GS05135115 R1.tloc
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geologic evaluation and preliminary
geotechnical investigation for the proposed Daniels/Hasenberg Subdivision south of
Rifle on Grass Mesa in Garfield County, Colorado. Our geologic evaluation was
performed to identify geologic conditions at the site and judge their possible
influence on the proposed development and discuss preliminary mitigation concepts.
Our geotechnical investigation involved exploratory drilling operations, laboratory
testing on soils obtained from exploratory borings and engineering analysis to
provide an overview of geotechnical considerations associated with development and
construction at the site. The criteria presented in this report are intended for planning
purposes only and not for design of specific structures. Site-specific geotechnical
investigations will be required to provide design -level geotechnical engineering
recommendations for each building after development and construction plans are
further developed. A summary of our conclusions is presented below.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. We did not observe geologic conditions or geologic hazards that would
preclude development of this site for the intended usage.
2. Subsurface conditions were generally nil to 5 feet of sandy clay
underlain by silty to clayey sand or gravel with scattered cobbles and
boulders. Sandstone bedrock was encountered in boring TH-1 at a
depth of 21 feet. Free ground water was not encountered in our
exploratory borings on the day of drilling.
3. Our laboratory testing and experience indicate the natural clay soils at
this site generally possesses a low compression potential to a low
swell potential when wetted under foundation Toads. Natural sands
posses a low compression potential when wetted and loaded. The
natural soils are suitable for reuse as fill for site grading.
4. Subsoils at the site at anticipated foundation grades consist
predominantly of clayey to silty sand with scattered cobbles and
boulders. We anticipate that most buildings at the site can be
constructed on footing foundations. Design -level soils and foundation
investigations should be performed to develop design and construction
criteria for each residence proposed at the site.
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1T PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
5:\ G505135.000111512. Reports10505135145 R1.tloc
1
5. Our preliminary information indicates that slab -on -grade construction
can be supported by the undisturbed, natural soils with low potential
risk of differential movement. Recommendations for slab -on -grade
construction based on site-specific subsurface conditions should be
developed during design -level soils and foundation investigations for
each residence.
6. Exterior foundation drains should be installed around below -grade
areas in the residences. The recommended drain systems will depend
on the type of construction actually planned for each building.
7. Control of surface and subsurface drainage is critical to the
performance of residence, slab -on -grade construction and road
surfaces. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid
removal of surface runoff away from residences and off of road
surfaces.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The DanielslHasenberg Subdivision is located south of Rifle on Grass Mesa in
Garfield County, Colorado. Quicksilver Way borders the site on the east. The
proposed development consists of two parcels of land that total approximately 80
acres. An existing single-family residence is currently located on proposed Lot 3.
The properties current and historic usage is as pasture land and residential usage.
The majority of the site is a gently sloping field with ground surface slopes
toward the north-northwest. Ground surface slopes are generally 5 percent or less.
The west and north parts of the site (Lots 4 and 5) consist of steeper slopes down to
the north and west at grades of about 30 to 50 percent. Elevations at the site range
from about 6330 feet to 6140 feet. Approximately 1 foot of snow covered the site at the
time of our field investigation.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Based on U.S. Geologic Survey mapping of the Rifle Quadrangle (Shroba and
Scott, dated 1997) and our field observations in the area, bedrock below the site
consists of the Tertiary -aged Wasatch formation. The Wasatch Formation is as thick
G.1-1. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2
DANIELSIHASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL I T PROJECT NO. G505135-115
5:IG505135.000111512. Reports\GS05135 115 R1.doc
as about 5,000 feet and comprises interbedded conglomeratic sandstone, sandstone,
siltstone, mudstone and claystone.
Surficial soils overlying the Wasatch Formation consists of debris flow and
wind blown (Loess) deposits from Pleistocene and Eocene eras. The bedrock will not
be encountered in excavations associated with current development plans.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
We observed no geologic conditions or hazards that would preclude
development of the site as designed in the sketch plans provided to us by High
Country Engineering, Inc. As part of our geologic evaluation, we reviewed geologic
hazards mapping by the Colorado Geologic Survey (Soule and Stover, dated 1985).
The mapping identified potentially unstable slopes and potentially collapsible soils at
the site. Expansive soils were not shown on the mapping but do occur at this site.
The potential geologic hazards based on the mapping, our subsurface information,
and our site reconnaissance are delineated on Figure 2.
Potentially unstable slopes are associated with the steep slopes surrounding
the site at the north and west. The slopes drop down from the planned building
areas. Excavations adjacent to the bases of the steep slopes may require retention
systems. Building set -backs from the crests of the slopes will need to be defined. We
recommend a set back of at least 25 feet from the steep slopes. These criteria will
need to be developed for buildings during site-specific geotechnical investigations.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We reviewed a sketch plan developed by High Country Engineering, Inc. of the
Daniels/Hasenberg Subdivision. The property will be divided into 7 residential lots.
The site will be accessed from a new gravel road that will traverse the site from
Quicksilver Way. An approximately 12 feet deep pond will be constructed between
Lots 5 and 6. We expect minimal site grading will be required to construct the
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1T PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
5:16505135.000111512. Reports\GS05135115 R1.doc
3
residences at this site. Design -level soils and foundation investigations will be
required for each residence after plans are developed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions across the site were investigated by drilling seven (7)
exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Three sub -
grade borings were drilled to obtain likely road subgrade soils. Exploratory boring
locations were chosen by our staff engineer to characterize subsurface conditions
across the site. Our borings were drilled using 4 -inch diameter, solid -stem auger and
a track -mounted drill rig. Exploratory drilling operations were directed by our staff
engineer who logged the soils encountered in borings and obtained samples for
laboratory testing. Graphic Togs of the soils encountered in our borings are
presented on Figures 4 and 5.
Subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings were generally
nil to 5 feet of sandy clay underlain by clayey to silty sand or gravel with scattered
cobbles and boulders. Sandstone bedrock was encountered in our exploratory
boring TH-1 at an approximate depth of 21 feet. Observations during drilling and
results of field penetration resistance tests indicated the clay was stiff and the sand
and gravel were medium dense to very dense. Practical auger refusal occurred at
various depths in our exploratory borings on either boulders or sandstone bedrock
(see Figure 4). Free ground water was not encountered in our exploratory borings the
day of drilling. The borings were backfilled or left open to allow future ground water
measurements.
Samples obtained from our borings were returned to our laboratory where they
were visually classified and typical samples selected for testing. Three samples of
the natural clay soils and one sample of the sand and gravel soils were selected for
one-dimensional, swell -consolidation testing. In the test procedure, the samples at
natural moisture content were loaded with 1,000 psf and then flooded. The resulting
volume change (i.e., swell or consolidation) was then measured. Two of the samples
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL I T PROJECT NO GS05135-115
S:IG505135.000\115\2. Reports1GS05135 115 R1.doc
underwent slight compression (0.5 to 0.6 percent) when wetted. The remaining
samples of the soils swelled 0.4 percent. Atterberg limits on samples of the clay were
liquid limits from 34 to 48 percent and plastic indices of 14 to 27 percent. Samples of
the soil tested contained between 13 to 81 percent silt and clay size particles (passing
the No. 200 sieve). Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix A.
SITE EARTHWORK
Excavations
Excavations in the soils at this site can be made with conventional, heavy-duty
excavation equipment. Large boulders may be encountered.
Sides of excavations and utility trenches should be sloped or shored to meet
local, State and Federal safety regulations. The natural soils at this site will classify as
Type B and Type C soils based on OSHA standards. Excavation slopes specified by
OSHA are dependent upon types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered.
OSHA recommends temporary construction slopes no steeper than 1 to 1 (horizontal
to vertical) in Type B soils and 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) for Type C soils above
the water table. Contractors should identify the soils encountered in excavations and
refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Contractors are
responsible for site safety and providing stable excavations.
Fill
Fill will be required for the planned development, specifically the access road
for the subdivision. Some fill may also be required to obtain grades for driveways on
the lots in building envelope areas. Areas that will receive fill should be stripped of
vegetation, organic soils, debris, fill and building elements. The resulting ground
surface in planned fill areas should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches,
moisture -treated and compacted. The natural soils at the site are generally suitable
for reuse as fill, provided organics, debris and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1T PROJECT 140. G505135-115
SaG505135.000111512. Reports1G505135 115 R1.tloc
5
are removed. Grading fill and road surface fill material should be placed in maximum
10 -inch thick lifts, moisture -conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698)
maximum dry density. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and
tested during construction.
We recommend proof -rolling the access road with a heavy (18 kip/axle)
pneumatic -tired vehicle such as a loaded, tandem dump truck, once grades for the
access road are attained. Soft areas should be reworked or otherwise stabilized prior
to placing fill. For the finalized road surface, we recommend using at least 12 inches
of a Class 6 aggregate base course.
Pond Construction
We understand that an approximately 12 feet deep pond will be excavated for
landscaping purposes between Lots 5 and 6. Excavations in the area of the pond can
likely be accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. Sides
of the excavation for the pond will need to be sloped to meet local, state and federal
safety regulations. Recommended maximum slopes from the Excavations section
should be followed. To minimize infiltration of the pond water to the subsurface soils,
we recommend lining the pond with an impervious plastic membrane. Lining
manufactures recommendations for installation should be followed. Flatter slopes
than suggested above may be required.
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
Subsoils at anticipated foundation levels at the site consist predominantly of
clayey to silty sand and gravel. The approximate depth to the sands and gravels at
the site is shown on Figure 3. Our laboratory testing and experience indicate that the
majority of the natural soil generally possesses a low compression potential to a low
swell potential. We anticipate that buildings at the site can be constructed on footing
foundations with a low potential of differential movement. Design -level soils and
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1T PROJECT NO G505135-115
5:1G505135.000111512. Reports1G505135115 R1.doc
foundation investigations should be performed to develop design and construction
criteria for each residence proposed at the site.
SLAB -ON -GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Floors in garage areas and some living areas are typically constructed as
slabs -on -grade. Exterior concrete flatwork, such as patios, will likely be constructed
adjacent to the residences. Our preliminary information indicates that slab -on -grade
construction can be supported by the undisturbed, natural soils with a low potential
risk of differential movement. Recommendations for slab support will be dependent
on actual grading and construction plans. Recommendations for slab -on -grade
construction for each residence, based on site-specific subsurface conditions, should
be developed during design -level soils and foundation investigations.
BELOW -GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Foundation walls which extend below -grade must be designed for lateral earth
pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides of the
wall. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pressure. These
factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope and drainage of the
backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid
foundation wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at -rest" lateral
earth pressure should be used in design. For walls which can deflect or rotate 0.5 to
1 percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower "active" lateral
earth pressures are appropriate. Our experience indicates basement walis can deflect
or rotate slightly under normal design loads, and that this deflection results in
satisfactory wall performance. Thus, the earth pressures on the walls will likely be
between the "active" and "at -rest" conditions. Actual earth pressure conditions and
values can be developed during design -level geotechnical investigations.
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELSIHASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL IT PROJECT NO. G505135-115
S:\GS05135.000\115\2. Reports\G505135115 R1.doc
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
Water from rain and surface irrigation of landscaping frequently flows through
relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a residence and collects on the
surface of relatively undisturbed soils at the bottom of the excavation. Subsurface
seepage can also infiltrate backfill soils. These sources of subsurface water can
cause wetting of foundation soils, hydrostatic pressures on below -grade walls, and
wet or moist conditions in below -grade areas after construction. We recommend
installation of exterior foundation drains around below -grade areas in the residences.
The exterior foundation drains can likely consist of 4 -inch diameter, slotted, PVC pipe
encased in free draining gravel. A prefabricated drainage composite may be required
adjacent to foundations walls. The drains should lead to positive gravity outlets, or to
sump pits where water can be removed by pumping.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Control of surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor
slabs and concrete flatwork. Poor drainage adjacent to residences will likely result in
damage to concrete slabs and possibly building foundations. The ground surface
surrounding the exterior of residences should be sloped to drain away from the
residences in all directions. The residences should be provided with roof gutters and
downspouts. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extensions should be provided at all
discharge points. Plants used near foundation walls should be limited to those with
low moisture requirements; irrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the
foundations. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of the foundation and
should be directed away from the residences. Impervious plastic membranes should
not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding the residences.
These membranes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from
occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth and allow some
evaporation to occur.
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:1G505135.000\11512. Reports\G505135115 121.Coc
FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of G. H. Daniels and
Associates, Inc. for providing geotechnical criteria for the proposed project. The
information and the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based
upon the considerations of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of
structures proposed, the configuration of the structures, the geologic setting, and the
subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations
contained in the report are not valid for use by others.
It is recommended that CTL 1 Thompson, Inc. be retained to provide general
review of the final design and specifications. Our firm should also be retained to
provide geotechnical engineering and material testing during construction of the site
grading, utilities, and drainage features. The purpose is to observe the construction
with respect to the geotechnical design concepts, specifications or
recommendations, and to facilitate design changes in areas where the subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated before start of construction.
GEOTECHNICAL RISK
The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The
primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical
recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which
geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tempered by
engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or recommendations
presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and,
more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the sols and the
proposed structure will perform as desired or intended. What the engineering
recommendations presented in the preceding sections do constitute is our estimate,
based on the information generated during this and previous evaluations and our
experience in working with these conditions, of those measures that are necessary to
help the development perform satisfactorily. The developer, builder, and future
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELSIHASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. M5135-115
S:1GS05105.000111512. Reports \GS05135115 Rt.Eac
owners muse understand this concept of risk, as it is they who must decide what is
an acceptable level of risk for the proposed development of the site.
LIMITATIONS
Our exploratory borings were spaced across the site to obtain a reasonably
accurate picture of subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions
not indicated by our borings will occur. The recommendations and criteria presented
in this report are intended for preliminary planning purposes and not for design of
buildings or structures. Design -level soils and foundation investigations should be
performed for each residence after construction plans are developed.
This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under
similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is
made. If we can be of further service or if you have questions regarding this report,
please call.
CTL THOMPSON, INC. Reviewed by:
Edward R. White, E.I. John Mechling, P.E.
Staff Engineer Branch Manager
ERW:JM:cd
(5 copies sent)
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL T PROJECT NO. G505135-115
S:\GS05135.000\11512. Reports\GS05135115 R1.doc
10
LOT
75 796.
17 588
1
LO
458,79
10.532
LOT
2,701.
.3108
GH Daniels and Associates
DenlelMleeenberg SubrBWelon
Project No. CbOb f35 -tis
Q ICKSILV . WAY
-quitircr. 37 7 ` 9
Approximate
Location of
Exploratory
Borings
Fig. 1
5135_F2 01/09/06 ERW
GH Daniels and Associates
DanlelefHeeenberg Sub.: Melon
-Prajeci:No. "GSUSt 35-715
Pus
LEGEND
Potentially unstable slopes
Potentially collapsable soil
Geologic
Hazards Map
Rg. 2
SCALE:1' = 200'
LOT
75 796.
17 588
OT 4
5. S.
AC.
LO
458,79
10.532
2
. S.F.
AC.
sting ' =sidence
0
4;569
10.'0 1
LOT
4 2,701.
1 .3108
OT 7
94.
88 A
pose•
Idence
(TYp•)
Q ICKSILV WAY
0
GH Daniels and Associates
DunlelsMesenbero Subdivision
Project No. GS05135-115
LEGEND
2 — Contour of approximate depth to sands and
gravel
Approximate
Depth to Sands
and Gravel
Hg. 3
Depth In Fest
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Project No. GS05135-115
TH-1 TH-2 TH-3 TH-4 TH-5 TH-6 TH-7
EL=6296 EL=6311 EL=6293 EL=6247 EL=6236 EL=6238 EL=6266
33/12
42/12
46/12
50/9
14/12
50/9
50/8
}
50/10
50/8
27/12
16/12
SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
19/12
41/12
0
19/12 5
50/6
10
15
20
25
30
35
MIM
Fig. 4
LEGEND:
0
la -
0.
0
0
D
Clay, sandy, stiff, moist, rust,
brown. (CL)
Sand, gravel, clayey, silty, scattered
cobbles and boulders, medium dense
to dense to very dense, moist, fan,
orange, yellow, black. (SC, GC—GM)
® Sandstone bedrock, cemented, very
hard, moist, tan.
Project No. GS05135-115
0
5
10
S-1
EL=6260
r
S-2
EL=6275
S-3
EL=6274
Drive sample. The symbol 33/12
indicates that 33 blows of a 140
pound hammer falling 30 inches
were required to drive a 2.5 inch
0.D. California sampler 12 inches.
Indicate bulk sample from auger
cuttings.
Indicates practical auger refusal. Symbols
above the bottom of borings indicates that
boring location was moved to advance
auger farther.
0
5
10
SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
1111111111
poi Lit y}dea
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on
December 20, 2007 with 4—inch
diameter, solid—stem auger and a
track—mounted drill rig.
2. Locations and elevations of
exploratory borings are approximate.
3. No free ground water was found
in our exploratory borings at the
time of drilling.
4. These exploratory borings are
subject to the explanations,
limitations and conclusions as
contained in this report.
Fig. 5
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
G. H. DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
CTL 1T PROJECT NO. G305135-115
S:\GS05135.000\11512. Reports\GS05135115 R1.doc
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
z-4
0)
z
4
a
x -5
w
z
O-8
rn
w
2
O
U
-8
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
1.0
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 111 PCF
From TH-1 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 16.1 %
GH DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:\GS05135.O00111515. CaIcsIGSD5135-115.Swell.xls
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-1
2 0 -4
U)
2
4
0
w
0 z-6
0
CO
uJ
a 7
2
0
0
-8
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER
CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO
WETTING
111
plisorilimmus
min
P"
1111111111111
lin lc
111
El id
mak
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
1.0
From TH-4 AT 4 FEET
GUI DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELSIHASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
SMS05135.00011 t5W. Calcs‘GS05135-115.Swell.xls
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 94 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 20.4 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-2
EXPANS ON UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0 z-4
F
z
a
X -s
w
0 z-6
0
w
w
0. -7
2
0
U
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
1.0
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 107 PCF
From TH-6 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 10.6
GH DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:6S55135.000111515. CaIes16S55135-115.SveILxls
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-3
z 4
0
a
a
w _
z
Zsg0
co
w
a
2
0
0
-g
7
ADD ONA COMPRESS ON UNDER
WE NG
CONS AN PRESSURE DUE 0
1111 1 11
1111111 I
ff PI II
11 111111'
Mai° II III
1111111 111111.1 ,
I IN=
° I 11
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)
1.0
From TH-7 AT 4 FEET
GH DANIELS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELSIHASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:\GS05135.006117516. CaIcs1GS05135-115.Swellxls
10
100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 95 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 9.9 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-4
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)
From S - 1 AT 0-5 FEET
GRAVEL 44 % SAND 43 %
SILT & CLAY 13 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX %
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 6D MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. "200 900 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 8 *4 3/8" 3/4" 114" 3' 5'6' 8'
0
100
-
m m m
0 -al f➢ 0 0 w 0 0 N
00
PERCENT RETAINED
-
90
_
--
10
90
60
80
20
z 70
N
i 70
60
co...............................e.......j/
___ _
_
_
30 z
N
EL
Q
60
z
40 K
i
050
0-
K
W
w
w 50
U-
a40
50
U
K
K
W
o- 40
W
60 n
30
30
20
-
70
20
— —
80
10
—'
10
0
.001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 20 238 4.76 9.52 191 361 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
90
CLAY TO SILT
SANDS
GRAVEL
(PLASTIC) (NON -PLASTIC)
FINE I MEDIUM (COARSE
FINE I COARSE I COBBLES
. .
�
100
0
.001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 191 361 76.2 127 200
0A2 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SANDS
GRAVEL
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON -PLASTIC)
FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE
FINE 1 COARSE I COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)
From S - 1 AT 0-5 FEET
GRAVEL 44 % SAND 43 %
SILT & CLAY 13 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)
From S - 2 AT 0-5 FEET
GH DANIELS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:\GS05135.000111516. Ca1cs\GS05135-115.Grntlationxts
GRAVEL 46 % SAND 18 %
SILT & CLAY 36 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
Gradation
Test Results
FIG. A-5
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS
2514R. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 100 '50 *40 '30 *16 "10'8 "4 3/8" 3/4" 134" 3' 5"6' 8"0
100
m m m
0 -al f➢ 0 0 w 0 0 N
00
PERCENT RETAINED
90
60
z 70
N
60
co...............................e.......j/
EL
1-
z
050
K
W
a40
30
20
-
— —
10
0
.001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 20 238 4.76 9.52 191 361 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
SANDS
GRAVEL
(PLASTIC) (NON -PLASTIC)
FINE I MEDIUM (COARSE
FINE I COARSE I COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)
From S - 2 AT 0-5 FEET
GH DANIELS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DANIELS/HASENBERG SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NO. GS05135-115
S:\GS05135.000111516. Ca1cs\GS05135-115.Grntlationxts
GRAVEL 46 % SAND 18 %
SILT & CLAY 36 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
Gradation
Test Results
FIG. A-5
TABLE A -I
0
z
F
W CO r
F r
M
O o
00
•
LO 0
Q Z
LL I-
0 w OW
'O
a
re
N
DESCRIPTION
SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
[CLAY, SANDY (CL)
(CLAY, SANDY (CL)
GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)]
GRAVEL, CLAYEY, SILTY (GC -GM)
CLAY, SANDY (CL)
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
(%)
co
M
81
`r'Mv
PERCENT
SAND
(%)
M
yr
CO
PERCENT
GRAVEL
(%)
(O
M
d'
CO
81 1
44 1
<O
V
SWELL TEST RESULTS*
SWELL
(%)
or
a
ca
o
1 0.4
-0.5
ERG LIMITS
PLASTICITY
INDEX
(%)
v
co
27
ATTERB
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
co
M
v
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
CN,_
r
100
m,
107___.
95
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
N
I--:
r
r
r
r
V
N
N
r
CO
r
a,
CO
r
r
1�
a-
xF
H
w
v„
°�
v
CD
N
v
In
o
0
0
Z
f
0
co
r
2
1-
r
2
F-
(7
2
H
1 TH-4 1
N
r
I-
cc,
2
in
1�
S
1 -
r
N
N
N
o
N
a. a
z
w
O
K
7
W
11.1uJ
0
N
z
0
w
wW
0
w
N
W
CCa
0
c7)
0_
J
a
LI
<0
Wg
CO
0
o CO
r
FO
3g
w
c
0 Q
w
2>_
O
W
Z