Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 02.15.2018Geotechnical 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: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Summit County, Colorado Tc.2-21 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SOUTH OF EXISTING BUILDING CATTLE CREEK CENTER GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7-858 FEBRUARY 15, 2018 PREPARED FOR: WAYNE RUDD 0132 PARK AVENUE BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (waynentdd @ hotmail.com) RECEIVED AUG ; 2 2019 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 2 - SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 4 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 - FLOOR SLABS - 6 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 - LIMITATIONS - 8 - FIGURES 1 and 1A - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURES 2 and 3 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 4 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 5 through 9 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 10 through 12 — GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Pages 2 and 3) H-PKUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for five proposed commercial buildings and two houses to be located south of the existing commercial building, Cattle Creek Center, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figures 1 and 1A. 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 Wayne Rudd dated December 1, 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 foundations. 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 commercial buildings will be pre-engineered metal structures similar to the existing building to the north with slab -on -grade floor and located as shown on Figure 1. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut and fill depths between about 3 to 5 feet. We assume relatively light to moderate foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. The two proposed residences will be located south of the commercial buildings as shown on Figure 1A and likely have a walkout lower level due to the sloping terrain. 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%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -2- SITE CONDITIONS The commercial building property was vacant of structures and free of snow cover at the time of our field exploration. The property has been graded by a relatively deep cut into the steep hillside to the east and filling on the downhill, west side in the access road area as shown on Figure 1. Bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite is exposed in the uphill cut face. Various types of salvage materials and trailers are stored on the relatively flat graded bench of the building sites. Relatively small, dry drainages from the hillside cross through the building areas. The proposed house sites shown on Figure lA are located on the relatively undisturbed hillside slope in between the hillside drainages. Vegetation consists of sparse grass and weeds in the building areas and scattered pinon and juniper trees with brush on the natural hillside. 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 design only. - Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence at the site throughout the service life of the structures, 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. H-P*KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -3- FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the building foundations was conducted on December 14 and 19, 2017. Eight exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figures 1 and lA 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 1%-inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsurface materials 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, Figures 2 and 3. 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 Figures 2 and 3. The subsurface profiles encountered at the borings were variable and consist of about 13 to 38 feet of stiff to very stiff/medium dense sandy silty clay, silty sand with shale and gypsum fragments (colluvial and alluvial deposits) overlying weathered claystone/siltstone/gypsum bedrock. The colluvial/alluvial deposits extended down to the drilled depths of 38 to 66 feet in Borings 11 and 12 at the proposed house sites. The alluvial/colluvial deposits generally increase. in depth from the east to the west and have been totally removed by cut into bedrock at some of the commercial building sites. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the silty clay and sand soils, presented on Figures 5 through 9, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting with H-P*KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -4- generally a low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted and moderate compressibility under additional loading after wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on the more sandy and gravelly soil samples (minus 11/-inch fraction) are shown on Figures 10 through 12. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils and bedrock were slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The sandy silty clay and sand with gravel soils encountered at typical shallow foundation depth tend to settle when they become wetted. A shallow foundation placed on these soils will have a high risk of differential settlement if the bearing soils become wetted and care should be taken in the surface grading and drainage around the buildings to prevent the soils from becoming wet. The building excavations will also likely transition into claystone/siltstone/gypsum bedrock with low settlement potential increasing the variable bearing conditions. It will be critical to the long term performance of the structures that the recommendations for surface grading and drainage contained in this report be followed to help keep the bearing soils dry. Fill placed for foundation and slab support should consists of predominantly granular onsite soils or imported 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 commercial buildings can be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural claystone/siltstone/gypsum bedrock or natural soils with a settlement and building distress risk. Extending the foundation down into the bedrock such as with drilled piers or micro -piles could be done to achieve a low foundation settlement potential. The residences will have a high risk of excessive settlement and distress with a shallow foundation when the bearing soils are wetted and consideration should be give to use of a deep foundation or heavily reinforced structural slab as mitigation to the settlement and building distress risk. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system of the commercial buildings. H-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -5- 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed claystone/siltstone/gypsum bedrock, natural soils 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 differential settlement of about 1 to 2 inches could occur if the bearing soils are wetted depending on the depth of wetted compressible soils. 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 14 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) Any existing fill, topsoil, and loose or disturbed soils should be removed down to the undisturbed natural soils or bedrock. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. The natural silty clay and gravel soil could be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet and replaced compacted to help limit settlement potential. The fill material can consist of the onsite soils excluding rock larger than 6 inches, 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. 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 H-?KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -6- 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. A sliding coefficient of 0.40 and passive earth pressure of 350 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight can be used to resist lateral loading on the foundation. 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 as described above. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, non-structural 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. 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. H-P%-KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 7 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM It is our understanding the finished floor elevation at the lowest level of the commercial buildings will be at or above the surrounding grade. Therefore, a foundation drain system does not appear to be 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 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 structures has a floor level below the surrounding grade (such as a walkout lower level of the residences), an underdrain system should be provided. 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. 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/ feet deep. An impervious membrane such as 30 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. SURFACE DRAINAGE Providing proper grading and drainage around the buildings will be critical to keeping the bearing soils dry and limiting foundation settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after each 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. H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 _8- 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 21 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 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. 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 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 H-PICUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 -9- 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, H-P KUMAR Steven L. Pawlak, P. Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/kac H-PMKUMAR Project No. 17-7-858 2 1 APPROXIMATE SCALE -FEET TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING 50 0 50 100 NOTE: BORINGS 1-4 DRILLED AT PROPOSED BUILDING K TO HOUSE SITES (BORINGS 11 AND 12) TY 17-7-858 H-P- KUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING SITES (BORINGS 5-10) 1 F1 S■ e 30 0 30 60 1 APPROXIMATE SCALE —FEET o< _R r 17-7-858 H-PvKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 A BORING 5 BORING 6 BORING 7 BORING 8 — 0 Y. •{ • — re] 31/12 { .—- .5 Y - 12/12 'l 17/12 :�� WC-fi.2 :t{ - Y DD=96 ?! Y. Y• ./ • Y- — - 10 Y. i6 - %. 28/12 e 27/12 we=7.7 _ Yt, Y r D0=114 YE Yam' Y 1'6 —.7. p Y I. — - 15 Y: _ j, WC=5. 26/12 ''52/6 K DD=115 y,n-200=31 f _ f —20 ya - 20/12 , 50/3 WC=6.8 .7" DD=111 - c W ▪ - Yq _-25 '✓ r 20/12 w WC=7.8 0 . .7 DD=118 Y;-200=61 — 35 — - 40 — 45 — - 50 50/3 fp14 12 we 10.1 �= DD=113 -200=65 Yy Y'. Y' 11 Y' Y7 r: 50/6 25/12 17/12 WC=5.8 OD=111 - 200=30 77 19/12 WC=5.3 rr1 DD=110 Y-200=44 32/12 rf r +i' c„,:] 50/4 e Y • e Y.. 50/3 � 23/12 { WC=4.5 T y DD=112 -200=36 Y, 20 38/12 WC=7. 2 y 32/12 7. DD=111 P'f, 26/12 � 48/12 WC5.3 D0=132 0 5 — 28/12 WC=6.4 DD=124 - 200=35 100/3 10- 15- 30 — 35 - 40- 45 • • 50 — LOGS OF EXPLORTORY BORINGS CATTLE CREEK COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS CO CO wro n ec-13air.Vw1w1 cw..ip ,•31.11WORA'V w�••w*� a..r.= rs-I-n u�vna»:darn no,c•1 • .c. 'ro BORING 9 BORING 10 BORING 11 BORING 12 — 0 — 5 — 10 15 20 7 22/12 �j WC=3.1 J _1OD=100 17/12 3.= WC WC3.7 D0=97 —200=39 22/12 17/12 WC=5.6 DD=111 38/6, 50/2 — - 25 f 1 45/12 -- 30 1 —35 0 — 40 45 — 50 — 55 60 — 65 -- 70 28/12 WC=9.3 +4=37 —200=32 Pv A 91/12 WC=22.5 ✓ —200=70 ✓ Y5 1 N Yp■ 17/12 Y: 27/12 j 14/12 gr i-/ r'r✓✓"■■ 20/12 %� 33/12 WC=11.7 �"' WC=11.3 +4=42 :-. +4=23 —200=32 —200=49 c✓ Y' 29/12 y11 14/6, 50/6 r 1/ 71 43/12 r.' • 71/12 36/12 �? WC=2.9 +4=3 —200=32 Y= a[ [ 50/2 Y9 9 57/12 WC-4.9 7 +4=23 YQ—200=31 711 %q fr ✓ :r r Ya r it J' YP r= .a Al 33/6, 50/5 POSSIBLE BEDROCK 20/12 29/12 WC=3.5 DD=101 — 200=34 34/12 WC=2.4 D0=114 17/12 WC=12.6 DD=90 29/12 WC=3.9 DD=104 — 200=47 89/12 50/3 0- 5- 10- 15 --- 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 ---- 45 — 50 — 55- 60 65 — 70 — LOGS OF EXPLORTORY BORINGS CATTLE CREEK COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3vyC ^� zc-eseccIV.NM1I 4,..,Si a,l!1em4eMfl 1 PN•'•9e8 mwmJ lu-l-h0L41'A9"P".\P ah.l - eei st a - 4 LEGEND T7 TOPSOIL; SANDY SILT, ROOT ZONE. FILL: 3/4—INCH ROADBASE. GRAVEL AND CLAY (GC—CL); INTERMIXED, SILTY, SANDY, SHALE AND GYPSUM FRAGMENTS TO TYPICALLY COBBLE SIZE, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE/STIFF TO VERY STIFF, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWN TO GRAY AND WHITE. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM—GM); SILTY, COBBLES, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN. SAND (SM); SILTY, GRAVEL AND SCATTERED COBBLES, SHALE AND GYPSUM FRAGMENTS, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MIXED BROWN AND WHITE. WEATHERED SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE/GYPSUM BEDROCK; MEDIUM HARD TO HARD, FRACTURED AND BROKEN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, GRAY AND WHITE, EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE. DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST. 31/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 31 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES. f PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON DECEMBER 14 & 19, 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 AND SURVEY STAKES IN THE FIELD. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE NOT MEASURED AND THE LOGS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE PLOTTED TO DEPTH. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS 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 WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216); DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422); —200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). 17-7-858 H - PSI<U MAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 4 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 1 0 —1 — 2 —3 — 4 l 0 —1 — 2 — 3 4 SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum FROM: Boring 5 @ 20' WC = 6.8 %, DD = 111 pcf I I — ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 1 0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 Inr 1 SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Clay with Gypsum FROM: Boring 6 © 10' WC = 7.7 %, DD = 114 pcf 1 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION ' UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING li�� ill I i These lest results apply only 10 The s mples tested. T s testing report hall not be reproduced, escepl in lull, without the is glen approval of Kumar and Associoles, Inc. Swell Consolidation 1es11 g performed in accordance with ASTY D-4546. 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 100 17-7-858 H-P-MaIMAR SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 0 — 2 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum FROM: Boring 7 ® 20' WC = 7.2 %, DD = 111 pcf 1 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING CI` These hail r uIls apply only to the pl tested. T e testing part hall not be produced. exc pl in lull, without the w Klan approval of Kumor and Assaci lea, Inc. Swell Consolidation testing performed in accordance with ASTM D-4546. 10 100 17-7-858 H-P�KUMAR SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6 .y pr. am - po-mam .nr.*dA1Qt1'n-t-8n r.rgatW C.1.•••KW IMeo.p.lO.vlw., ca...ay (N .J Ir,ra. ale al.ewp V I 03 CJI CO 1 eee S11f1S3d 1S31 NOI1d4I1OSN00-113MS (JI CONSOLIDATION — SWELL (%) N CONSOLIDATION — SWELL (%) i 1 a 1 SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Grave! FROM: Boring 8 @ 2.5' WC = 5.3 %, DD = 110 pcf —200 = 44 ,.... C Z D vv my =1 .o5 r0Z —IZ > O (n I— —I mZOi MI -Is x Zm� O�O Z ma. h. toOnmarr z &1° P _ __._+__( 6_1M— ,.a_ -s % Co 1 ■ / c SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS (0 CO CONSOLIDATION - SWELL (%) $ \ 1,3 o / [ 0 0m2 cna, o r §§k Z PO rn 022: jƒ \ :Jo 31dWVS r9AWO y}IM CONSOLIDATION - SWELL CONSOLIDATION - SWELL 1 0 —1 2 —3 —4 1 0 —1 —2 —3 4 SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand FROM: Boring 12 @ 5' WC = 3.5 %, DD = 101 pcf —200 = 34 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING y i 1 _ 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100 SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Clay FROM: Boring 12 @ 15' WC = 12.6 %, DD = 90 pcf ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING II These test results oppy only la the samples tested. i • testing impart shall not be reproduced, eec pl in lull, without the written approval of Kumar and Associates, Inc. Swell Consolidation lesling perform d in accordance with AS11A 0-4546. 1 0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100 17-7-858 H-PtiKUMAR SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 9 100 90 EO 70 60 M 50 a 40 30 20 10 0 .0 100 90 80 70 60 5D 40 30 20 10 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS :14 HRS 7 HRS ... .. ., .. THE READINGS _..... ..... .. • 1. , U.S. _ STANDARD . a. - SERIES . :1 . _ CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS , 1 lr 1 — `, I 4 } i _ L 1 1— I _� I 1 �� I 1 1 1 F r I t d 1 } 3-77-'T- 1 I I 11 1 114 'irrl —I 01 .002 .005 .009 .091 .037 .0 5 I .130 IS 1 .300 I .600 1. Ti—r l l 1 r`1 r—t 11 1111 l / 1 2.36 4,75 16 11 38.1 76.2 12 300 CLAY TO SILT GRAVEL 37 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS SAND FINE I MEDIUM ICOARSEI FINE COARSE SAND 31 % PLASTICITY INDEX GRAVEL SILT AND CLAY 32 % FROM: Boring 10 ® 2.5' 152 COBBLES HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS , .24 HRS 46 I1114 7 HRS 15_41411. 301101 TIME READINGS 19AJN A4 T 14 F� J U.S. IJD JDO STANDARD • I. 13o SERIES • 3 /]� 44 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3 8' 3/4" 1 1 2" • $"6. E 11 I al I T 1 1 s�gggggggg�ssw, w, I 1 I { I— 1 r 1 y" I Imo_ -I I 1 G 1 { _,I_ I I I ; 1 _� _J— I —1 L`.. —_I— 1 1 I L_.. I— .. — 6 I ; 1 1 i 1 r T X T— 1 rr1 T17 it T—fl-u-- 9— t — ..— 01 ,002 .005 .901 ,ON .057 ,970 .180 .300 I .800 1. .425 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS T—t- 6 12.35 4.7E 0 2.0 r— ri'rT.r1-r-1 5 1/ 38.1 78.2 127 152 200 CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 42 % LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel SAND 26 % PLASTICITY INDEX FROM: Boring 10 0 10' SILT AND CLAY 32 % 0 10 20 30 40 5D 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8O 10 100 a These teal results apply only to the samples which were tested. The Testing report shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the wefts approval of 10050r & Associating, Inc. Sleve analysis testing Is performed In aecerdance with ASTIR 0422, ASTIR C136 and/or AMC 01140. 17-7-858 H-P- KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 10 2 i P 2 100 90 60 70 60 8 50 40 30 20 0� 100 90 60 7D 60 2 8 50 40 30 20 0 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIN 6390 U.S. P100_047_140 SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 HRS 7 HRS 45 MIN 15 MIN SD TIME READINGS IN 191NN 46161 STANDARD SERIES D p+G 61p a 14 CLEAR SQUARE 3113" 3/4" 1 OPENINGS J"i}" —1 —1 __ T --I 1---- -I I I— - I - I ! iT' e f s r -- r I ___r L_--.. I -'�T— fi- 1 1�^T-�-T�'�-- 1 01 .D02 1 1 f 1 1 1 .005 .061 .DID 1 1 1 J TJI_ 1 1 f 11 .037 .076 .150 .300 1 .600 1. I 1 rTTT 6 1 2.36 4.73 5 5 19 36.1 70.2 12 20 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT GRAVEL 23 % LIQUID LIMIT SAND GRAVEL FINE SAND 28 % MEDIUM (COARSE PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Very Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel FINE 1 COARSE SILT AND CLAY 49 % FROM: Boring 11 0 10' 152 COBBLES HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS u1N 5 u0N 60MU1 19111N 4MIN 1.11N ADD U.S. PLC P STANDARD 0_1. SERIES L5 1, 4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/0" •" 1 1 /2" . S. ` ✓Q ' li Z— T� l t I-C Ill[[-ISS p 1 AN I I r —11- 1 --7_ --I. �1 I I , sior L_ I. —I I is I i 1 —1- 1 I I _L —1 I I I 1 I -i - 1 - . 1 ��' L 1 1 —1 I L. I 1 t— I— —1I-f- TTTT C TZ h f 1 I TTT12, I 01 .602 .005 .000 .D10 1 1 1 .037 1 1T-li"i— .075 .150 .309 1 .600 1, 1 a 12.36 4.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 I flT PS 19• 36.1 76.2. 127 20 CLAY TO SILT DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM 'COARSE FINE COARSE 152 COBBLES GRAVEL 3 % SAND 65 X SILT AND CLAY 32 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 11 0 25` 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BD 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 e0 90 100 PERCENT RETAINED These lest resulls apply only to the samples which were tested. The Feeling report shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the written approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc. Sieve analysts testing Is performed In accordance with ASTM 0422, ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D1140. 17-7-858 H-P- KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 11 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS too 24 HRS 7 HRS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I, .. - 0 � et_ 90 I 10 _ l BO ! + 20 _T... 70 r 30 ffl1 IJl !di 60 1 I�—r - t s f 40 ei — 50 1 50 1 - - a am, Tr •I „ ' 40 I �J J_ 60 1-- - � 1 30 = i 70 t� 4 20 } 1 BD �. 1 ~. { 10 t 90 I� 0 ,0l1 ""1 r` MT .002 .005 .006 ,019 1 f 1 i'Ir rr t— 1 .037 .075 .150 .300.4125 .600 1.113 V 2.192 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS I 11 L 1 f I J 1 1 .39 4.75 93 1e JTr 1 1 100 1 6.2 177 200 SA ND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM JCOARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES GRAVEL 23 % SAND 46 % SILT AND CLAY 31 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 11 ® 45' These test results apply only to the samples which were Jested. The testing report shall not be reproduced, except In full, without the written approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc. • Slave anclysls testing Is performed In accordance with ASM D422, ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D1140. 17-7-858 H-P---t-KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 12 7-1 PKU 1 KU TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-858 _ SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT {",(pcf) ,} NATURAL DRY DENSITY GRADATION PERCENT PASSING NO.200 SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ({NSF) 4 T ". SOIL TYPE BORING DEPTH (ft) GRAVEL (%) SAND (%) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTIC INDEX (%) 5 5 6.2 96 Sandy Silt and Clay with Gravel 15 5.0 115 31 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 20 6.8 111 Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum 25 7.8 118 61 Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum 6 21/2 10.1 113 65 Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum 10 7.7 114 Silty Sandy Clay with Gypsum 7 10 5.8 111 30 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 20 7.2 111 Silty Sandy Clay with Gravel and Gypsum 30 6.4 124 35 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 8 21/2 5.3 110 44 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 15 4.5 112 1 36 J Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 25 5.3 132 Siltstone/Claystone Fragments TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-858 Page 3 of 3 SAMPLE LOCATION 1 NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) GRADATION PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS i UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF) SOIL TYPE BORING DEPTH j (ft) GRAVEL (%) SAND (oho) LIQUID PLASTIC LIMIT INDEX (%) (%) 9 21/2 3.1 100 Gypsiferous Silty Sand with Gravel 5 3.7 97 39 Gypsiferous Silty Sand with Gravel 15 5.6 111 Silty Sand with Gravel 10 21/2 9.3 37 31 32 Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel 10 11.7 42 26 32 Silty Sand and Gravel 20 22.5 70 Silty Sandy Clay with Gypsum 11 10 11.3 23 28 49 Very Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel 25 2.9 3 65 32 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 45 4.9 23 46 31 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel 12 5 3.5 101 34 Silty Clayey Sand 10 2.4 114 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel and Gypsum 15 12.6 90 Silty Sandy Clay 20 3.9 104 47 Very Silty Clayey Sand