HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 10.14.2019I I[Associates„naa &Associates„ Int:. °
- K r and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scentisfs 5020 County Road 154
Glenwood
Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood(cOumarusa,com
An Employee Owned Company
www.kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, For! Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
RECEIVED
1)(';1 2 7011.
GARFIELD COUNTY SUBSOIL STUDY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED GREENHOUSE AND TECH BUILDING
DRY HOLLOW AND COLORADO RIVER ROADS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 19-7-561
OCTOBER 14, 2019
PREPARED FOR:
SPRINGBORN GREENHOUSES
ATTN: CHARLES BARR
2000 BROADWAY, APT. 203
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94115
ch arks (aicltarks barr.net
,1 .
Atfeds
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 -
FLOOR SLABS -6-
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 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
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-561
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed greenhouse and tech building
to be located south and east of Dry Hollow Road and Colorado River Road, 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 Springhorn Greenhouses dated September 16,
2019.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during
this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed development consists of a 1 and 2 -story tech building attached to the east end of
the greenhouse structure as shown on Figure 1. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for
the structure will be moderate with cut and fill depths up to around 5 feet. Building column load
estimates provided range between about 5 to 10 kips for the greenhouse and 20 to 55 kips for the
tech building.
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 building site consists of an irrigated field crossed by irrigation ditch laterals. The ground
surface is gently sloping down to the northwest at about 2% through the middle and west part to
about 3% in the southeastern part. Vegetation consists of field grass.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7.561
-2
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 24 and 25, 2019. Seven
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 Kumar
& Associates.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 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, below about one foot of topsoil, mainly consist of slightly sandy to sandy silty clay
overlying dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles below depths of about 13 to 181/2 feet in the
borings. The clay was medium stiff within the upper few feet to soft with depth. At Boring 1,
loose silty sand was encountered below the topsoil to a depth of about 11 feet. Drilling in the
deeper coarse granular subsoils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and
possible boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at Boring 1.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and density, finer than sand size gradation analyses and unconfined compressive
strength. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive
samples, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under light
loading and high compressibility under additional loading.
The unconfined compression testing
shows the clay soils to have soft to medium stiff consistency. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-561
3
Free water was typically not encountered in the borings and the subsoils were moist to very
moist with depth. Free water was encountered in the sand layer of Boring 1 at a depth of about
6 feet at the time of drilling.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The clay soils encountered throughout the development area have low bearing capacity and
moderate to high compressibility potential. The unconfined compressive strength testing
The consolidation testing indicates
the compressibility rate (steepness of the compression curve on Figures 4 and 5) increases
significantly at a loading pressure greater than around 1,000 psf. Considering the design load
range, spread footings placed on the upper natural soils could be used for the greenhouse column
loadings but a higher bearing pressure (and reduced compressibility) is needed for the tech
indicates an allowable bearing capacity of around 1,000 psf.
building column loadings. A way to achieve improved ground support is to place at least 21/2 feet
of compacted structural fill below the column footing pads. Structural fill can consist of the
onsite soils with moisture content near optimum or imported granular soil such as road base. As
an alternate to shallow footings, a deep foundation such as helical piers or micro -piles extended
down into the underlying dense gravel could be used. If a deep foundation is desired, we should
be contacted for additional analysis and recommendations. We expect the natural soils or
compacted structural fill can be used for the floor slab support with a risk of differential
movement similar to the shallow foundations.
The clay soils will also be a poor support for pavements and ground improvements such as
geogrid and subbase layer will probably be needed.
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 a
combination of compacted structural fill for the tech building and spread footings placed on the
natural soils for the greenhouse with a risk of differential settlement.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-561
4
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1)
Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils or compacted structural fill at the
greenhouse should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf.
Footings placed on compacted structural fill at the tech building should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.
Based on the loadings
provided and soil conditions encountered, we estimate settlement of footings
designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 to 2
inches.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed to expose the firm
natural soils. In the tech building, the clay soils should be sub -excavated as
needed to provide at least 21/2 feet of structural fill below the footings. The
structural fill should be compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor density at
near optimum moisture content and extend beyond the footing edge a distance of
at least 2'h feet. The exposed soils in footing area should be moisture adjusted to
near optimum and compacted. If water seepage is encountered, we should be
contacted for evaluation and possible mitigations methods.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate structural fill
compaction and observe all footing excavations for bearing conditions prior to
concrete placement.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7-561
5
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of imported granular
materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building and can be
expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be
designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of
at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils and at least 40 pcf for
backfill consisting of imported granular materials.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
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
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. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger
than about 6 inches.
We recommend imported granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures
because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill will improve the
subsurface drainage. Imported granular wall backfill should contain less than 15% passing the
No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 4 inches.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-561
construction with a risk of settlement.
6
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 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 95% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, can be used to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
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 gravel such as road base should be placed beneath interior 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.
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 with moisture content near optimum devoid of vegetation and topsoil.
Where floor slabs are covered with moisture sensitive materials, we recommend vapor retarders
conform to at least the minimum requirements of ASTM E1745 Class C material. Certain floor
types are more sensitive to water vapor transmission than others. For floor slabs bearing on
angular gravel or where flooring system sensitive to water vapor transmission are utilized, we
recommend a vapor barrier be utilized conforming to the minimum requirements of ASTM
E 1745 Class A material. The vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with the
manufacturers' recommendations and ASTM E1643.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19-7-561
-7-
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was typically not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience where there are clay soils that local perched groundwater can develop during times of
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and crawlspace
areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above
the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to
a suitable gravity outlet or sump and pump. Free -draining granular material used in the
underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing
the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at
least 11/2 feet deep.
PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
A pavement section is designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the subgrade.
Pavement design procedures are based on strength properties of the subgrade and pavement
materials assuming stable, uniform subgrade conditions. Certain soils, such as the upper, fine-
grained soils encountered on this site, are frost susceptible and could impact pavement
performance. Frost susceptible soils are problematic when there is a free water source. If those
soils are wetted, the resulting frost heave movements can be large and erratic. Therefore,
pavement design procedures assume dry subgrade conditions by providing proper surface and
subsurface drainage.
Subgrade Materials: The fine-grained soils encountered at the site are mainly low plasticity
sandy silty clays which are considered a poor support for pavement materials, especially with
their high moisture content. The soil classification tests indicate an Hveem stabilometer 'R' value
of about 5 and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 50 pci for rigid (portland cement) pavements.
The soils are considered moderately susceptible to frost action.
Pavement Section: Since anticipated traffic loading information was not available at the time of
our study, an 18 -kip equivalent daily load application (EDLA) of 10 was assumed for combined
Kumar & Associates, Inc. Project No. 19.7-561
8
automobile and truck traffic areas and 2 was assumed for automobile only traffic. These loading
should be checked by the project civil engineer. A Regional Factor of 1.5 was assumed for this
area of Garfield County based on the site terrain, drainage and climatic conditions.
Based on the assumed parameters, the pavement section in areas of combined automobile and
truck traffic should consist of 8 inches of CDOT Class 6 base course and 4 inches of asphalt
surface. The pavement section in areas of only automobile traffic should consist of 7 inches of
CDOT Class 6 base course and 3 inches of asphalt surface.
As an alternative to asphalt pavement and in areas where truck turning movements are
concentrated, the pavement section can consist of 6 inches of portland cement concrete on 4
inches of CDOT Class 6 base course.
The section thicknesses assume structural coefficients of 0.14 for aggregate base course, 0.44 for
asphalt surface and design strength of 4,500 psi for portland cement concrete. The material
properties and compaction should be in accordance with the project specifications.
Subgrade Preparation: Prior to placing the pavement section, the entire subgrade area should
be stripped of topsoil, scarified to a depth of 8 inches, adjusted to a moisture content near
optimum and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The
pavement subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavily loaded pneumatic -tired vehicle.
Pavement design procedures assume a stable subgrade. Areas which deform excessively under
heavy wheel loads are not stable and should be removed and replaced to achieve a stable
subgrade prior to paving. Use of a geogrid such as Tensar TX 140 and at least 12 inches of
CDOT Class 2 (minus 3 -inch) base course could be needed for subgrade stabilization. Universal
use of the geogrid and subbase layer to provide a higher reliability and long-term pavement
performance should also be considered.
Drainage: The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is extremely
important to the satisfactory performance of pavement. Drainage design should provide for the
removal of water from paved areas and prevent wetting of the subgrade soils. Uphill roadside
ditches should have an invert level at least 1 foot below the road base.
Kumar & Associates, Inc. "' Project No. 19-7-561
-9
SURFACE DRAINAGE
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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 21/2
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.
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 5
feet from foundation walls.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
Kumar & Associates, Inc.Project No. 19-7-561
- 10 -
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kumar & Associates
Steven L. Pawlak,
Reviewed by:
g,
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
cc: SGM, Inc — Jerry Burgess 'e bas =m-�nc.com
SGM, Inc — Mindy Nastal (mindyn?sgrn-inc.com)
Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 19-7-561
ISHCCE
LYMINCE
•
. 77 :4 IC°11H
.._, • •
.„... . - ......
774--4"*."
.
.. COLORADO RIVER ROAD — •
. I. ••
• • Inforeld'.-.
• . -
" 0=4B ••
GINIBIG
// iiitiirini(iii
•
Gam t
: tf. ••••$ •
44: •
50 0 50 $00
APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET
Kumar & Associates
ROMIG 2
BORING 5.
ereofaffE
BORING 3
•
riga
411 atiOli 7
SPRINGBORN GREENHOUSES
•
WIWI° 4 •
•
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
5460
= - 5455
- 5450
5445
- 5440
5435
L 5430
BORING 1
EL 5450'
6/12
WC=16.6
D0=109
-200=28
7/12
6/12
82/12
BORING 2
EL. 5452.5'
/
BORING 3 BORING 4
EL 5458' EL 5455'
may,
`� 5/12
/ 7 WC=18.2
/-1130=107
D0=107
/
//
13/12 F
/ 22/12 / / 6/12
WC=22.0 f/
00=99
/
-200=69 J , / 3/12
WC=18.1
DD=103
2/12 3/12 f/
WC=27.4 WC=25.4 l
DD=93 r DD=96 ✓ ,
-200=98 / -200=97
UC=900 / UC=900 /'.i
3/12
4/12 9/12 ,
2
15/12
75/12 31/12
50/4
50/2
BORING 5
EL. 5452'
ti
//j 7/12
f
5/12
WC=19.1
F , DD=105
/ J 9/12
A37/6, 50/4
BORING 6
EL 5449'
5/12
WC=13.6
DD=110
-200=89
LL=28
PI=12
3/12
2/12
BORING 7
EL. 5456'
4/12
WC=1$.;
00=105
-240=75
LL --28
PI=11
5460
5455 -1
-1
5450 --
i<
5445 t
- W
5440
5435 -
5430
19-7-561
Kumar & Associates
SPRINGBORN GREENHOUSES
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND
iTOPSOIL; ORGANIC, SANDY SILT AND CLAY, VERY MOIST, DARK BROWN.
7
1
6/12
CLAY (CL); SILTY, SLIGHTLY SANDY TO SANDY, MEDIUM STIFF TO SOFT, MOIST TO VERY
MOIST, LOW PLASTICITY, BROWN.
SAND (SM); SILTY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, LOOSE, VERY MOIST TO WET, BROWN.
GRAVEL (GM); SILTY, SANDY, COBBLES, PROBABLE BOULDERS, DENSE, MOIST, BROWN,
ROUNDED ROCK.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 6 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED FOLLOWING DRILLING.
PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON SEPTEMBER 24 AND 25, 2019 WITH A
4—INCH—DIAMETER CONTINUOUS—FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY TAPING
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
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME AND UNDER
CONDITIONS INDICATED. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2216);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D1140);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D4318);
PI = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM 04318);
UC = UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) (ASTM D2166).
19-7-561
Kumar & Associates
LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
2
4
u
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 3 ® 2.5'
WC = 18.2 %, DD = 107 pcf
I
7huo ion rind' apply anh hi D.
complex. leeleti. The Imlind noon
.ball not be nproduc'd, except. In
}yll, without the .Allen npprnrnl of
humor anti Mandate.. lnc. SHB
oon,n7de110n IHtlnc wltomtd In
ocerdence 1.ilh Ail)) P-4 4O
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
f �
f
1 0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSf 10 100
19-7-561
Kumar & Associates
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
9Tssf—Oa b 6y.d.a
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
2
0
—2
— 4
—6
— 8
—10
2
—2
— 4
— 6
—8
—10
10 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSP
Throf le.t neolle copy only {p IMO
w+nplee Sealed. TO* tooling heparl
shp0 nut 6e reproduced, emu* in
CO, without th► written opproeal of
!tumor and Aaeoelaf... Inc. Sw.0
CpyWldetlan taping par/armed In
aaeprdanae rllhAVM
7 p—ayea-
10
100
1 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 5 0 5'
WC = 19.1 %, DD = 105 pcf
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
i
10 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
19-7-561 1 Kumar & Associates I SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
!
SAMPLE OF: Sandy
} FROM: Boring 4 ®
WC = 18.1 %, DD
Silty Clay
5'
= 103 pcf
....-
NO
MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
•
I
I
l
I
. 1, .
10 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSP
Throf le.t neolle copy only {p IMO
w+nplee Sealed. TO* tooling heparl
shp0 nut 6e reproduced, emu* in
CO, without th► written opproeal of
!tumor and Aaeoelaf... Inc. Sw.0
CpyWldetlan taping par/armed In
aaeprdanae rllhAVM
7 p—ayea-
10
100
1 SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay
FROM: Boring 5 0 5'
WC = 19.1 %, DD = 105 pcf
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
i
10 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
19-7-561 1 Kumar & Associates I SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
K+A
Kumar & associates, km.°
Geotechniud and Materials Engineers
and Environmental Scientists
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project No. 19-7-561
SAMPLE LOCATION
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITYCIO)
(pd)
GRADATION
PERCENT
PASSING 200 NO.
E .
ATTERBERG LIMITS
UNCONFINED I
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(psf)
SOIL TYPE
BORING
DEPTH
GRAVEL
SAND
(%Lff1
_
LIQUID LIMB
(%)
PLASTic
INDEX
(%)
1
21/2
16.6
109
28
1
Silty Sand
2
21/2
22.0
99
69
Sandy Silty Clay
5
27.4
93
98
900
Silty Clay
3
21/2
18.2
107
Sandy Silty Clay
10
25.4
96
97
900
Silty Clay
4
5
18.1
103
Sandy Silty Clay
5
5
19.1
105
Sandy Silty Clay
6
1
13.6
110
89
28
12
Sandy Silty Clay
7
3
18.4
105
75
26
11
Sandy Silty Clay