HomeMy WebLinkAbout03032 ° r 1 c
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N2 kr"
,i ,I" 109 8th Street Suite 303 A is Parcel No.
i 6 GlenwoPhone od Sprlp
(8 945. Colo8rado 212 81601 F 1
G 1 r
This does not constitute 4 ,
V DIVIDUAL SEWAGE;DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. p
' e
t PROPERTY // I' l / f� s :
1
at i
G b /V • /Q d o I e ?' 4d7 6 /7(0a- N' q
Owne NameL a �� � W 1 � (I G Yv1 Pr esen t Address n ` Plitfne r � `I b
t / System Location jAkebiA3-eit ` ;' t
1i , p nt
I n+ ( ?Sit av\K iLunci1 ( It r\3* 11 t Legal Description of Assessor Parcel No. p I F ?
t SYSTEM DESIGN
4 1 i
r bR S U Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
/ >t
f •
I , + G.wPI Ant /2 Pe o ation Rate (min utes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 4 e . } `
(1) /q,<yc4k , I... ,a t # C3 e c1 / 0 0 y ii
Required Absorption Area -See Attached C s y Z ' t �. � c
z . 11 d ehGll C Q /i'�
r
t il Special Setback Requirements: (3) .& eAc f4 C H A'w b r R 5 tAP7/G H /� /3- 3 *7 cY X l e -1-
... r Date 9/, u/ 9 N Inspector JJ ep i.l sr 4K I Pn ia a p e , G t O, ?. 7) C
t Qt
:I
i P. FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) 3 (
i I Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer (.4111- /2 f; 1
i n
Septic Tank Capacity I a S Q Qop49 i.' ` , '
E Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name PL NX '�
C-D
Y.t
A t
Septic Tank Access within B" of surface ace (
4
Absorption Area , . 9gq E a X / t 7 x / `g t, i
ea 'i
a E 0.44g Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name we JA Q- )( y{- I Top •
e �9
i Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements 9 C S ? •
t
Other i
)i q � `1
Date 3 - 3- y "/ Inspect y yt t p
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CON RUCTION SITE
t'$
E ` *CONDITIONS: "
F 1. All insta mus complywith all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter r
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. (.
; 5 . 2. This permit Is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- t 4
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a a n
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. r k
f.
g 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an Individual seWage disposal system In a manner which involves a knowing and material ( I
variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense (3500.00 fine — 8
) It months in jail or both). ) I t
.1 ! 7
White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
1
41_ e(aSO
9%_ IB - °�8
SEPT(c t A K cc (2S o CAL- Mitta
SCP7 c c F-(ELD
rtocK— LEAca —l= rEcO 909
LEAcW- CR4i,Acea —C3ED = Z9 UUIts _ is
3) i( cr r (Lem c -s = 24 U N'rS --- 1-s4
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
•
OWNER - fr)Lu _ O()
ADDRESS 17!, c, M • (Os"' sc C ( i itt G - PHONE 7/ .�?-1 1p�
2 "
CONTRACTOR 5
ADDRESS DirYnt, PHONE 72,17
PERMIT REQUEST FOR biCTNEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
. Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area,
habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
J.00ATION OF PBrOPOSFFJ) F JTY: -
Near what City of Town �7`.v`n 4'J r) )) bp/5 Size of Lot 1+ d f Qc -
Legal Descriptidn or Address !-err 7/ it,41, 57 i&iteg
L.
WASTES TYPE: ('DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVIC TYPE: _ S le i jM• /..y Av o
Number of Bedrooms y � T Number of Persons
( ) Garbage Grinder k Automatic Washer Dishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: 19 WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: " ALAI_ a"
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System?
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet
Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet
Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL, SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT Wli,l, NOT BE ISSUED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN,
QROI JND CONDITIONS,
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
2
•
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
, (>( SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
(. ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATERPOND
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE?
pPRCOLATION TEST REST II-TS (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does
the Percolation Test)
Minutes per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes per inch in hole NO. 3
Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole NO. _
Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests:
Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system:
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the
applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the
permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations
made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be
represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the
local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further
understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any
permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law.
Signed t D ri ( /F ? .
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
Hrewolrrr't- PAWLAK GE0T8CHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 1S4 -
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
•
3 77 / c,76 Fax 970 945.8454
6 Phone 9709457988
February 3, 1997
gssadsygertli� iuk I Li - ��� _.
162 West Sixth Street lob No. 196 565
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Subject: Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 21, Westbank Ranch
P.U.D., Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. l3arthomeijczuk:
As requested, we conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system. We previously conducted a subsoil
study for design of foundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated
November 26, 1996, Job No. 196 565.
Exploratory Pit 2, excavated for the previous subsoil study, was located in the vicinity
of the proposed leach field and was used as a profile pit. The subsoils exposed in the
profile pit consisted of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying clayey sand and silt with
scattered gravel to the maximum depth explored, 8 feet. No free water was
encountered in the profile pit and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. Three
shallow backhoe pits were dug on January 28, 1997 at the locations shown on Fig. 1.
bottom of the shallow backhoe pits. The test holes dwere by 1 foot in dituneter) protected from freezing the
m
overnight with insulation.
Percolation tests were performed on January 29; 1997 by .a representative of Hepworth -
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. At the time of the tests, the soil temperature was about 34 °F
and no frost was observed in the test bole soils. The percolation test results are
summarized on Table I. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between
7 and 20 minutes per inch. The average percolation rate was 12 minutes per inch.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and percolation test results, the tested
site appears suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
p0 RE049, %,
' i VW 7... P0.6,4 *+ �F/��It
Jord Z. d son, Jr., P.E. ; ¢� d' s t
1° 29707 i
t
Re . by: DEH °
3'LN►cmk
1
h S %ONAI t�
attachments ' IOA —_
• L
APPROXIMATE SCALE
• I = 50'
HUEBINGER ROAD -------"--7—
/
0 •3° 7,-
•
Q 2 P _ 3 /
/ PIT 2 / ear
COO......____ �� • •
/ /en `6
• l •-....„...
ie 41
// 1 N
LOT 21
, —G7se
G
LOT 22 -.� V
LOT 20
4 •• 1 1°
41•
\ l
N v
6296 &17=
--"-- 429
C 614e C
/ f ENVELOPE
196 565 1 GEO NICAL INC 1 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. i
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
- PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 666
1 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL At START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
/MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
(INCHES/ (INCHESI { (INCHES) (MIN./INCH)
P -1 67 1/4 15 13 1/4 8 3/4 4 1/2
I
83/4 61/4 21/2
water added 12 1/4 9 3/4 2 1/2
9 3/4 7 314 2
7 3/4 8 1/4 1 1/2
water added 13 1/4 11 114 2 6
1 59 3/4 16 12 9 3/4 2 1/4
i 9314 81/4 11/2
81/4 71/4 1
7 1/4 6 3/4 1/2
6 3/4 6 3/4
1
water added 10 3/4 9 3/4 1 20
P -3 65 1 /2 16 13 3/4 8 3/4 5 f
8 3/4 6 1/4 2 1/2 I
water added 13 1/4 9 1/2 3 3/4
91/2 71/4 21/4
' 7 1/4 5 1/4 2
water Added 10 8 2 7
a
NOTE: Percolation teat holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on January 28, 1997. The holes were
covered with insulation to protect against freezing overnight. Percolation tests were conducted on January 29, 1997.
.
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4
TABLE 1
•
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 565
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
i (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MINJINCH)
P -1 671/4 15 131/4 83/4 41/2 1
8 3/4 6 1/4 2 1/2
water added 12 1/4 9 3/4 2 112
9 3/4 7 3/4 2
73/4 8 1/4 11/2
1 water added 131/4 111/4 2 8
P -2 59 314 15 12 9 3/4 2 1/4
9 3/4 8 1/4 1 1/2
61/4 7114 1
7 1/4 8 3/4 112
8 3/4 6 3/4
water added 10 3/4 9 3/4 1 20
P-3 66 1/2 15 13 3/4 8 314 6
6 3/4 6 1/4 2 1/2
water added 13 1/4 9 1/2 3 3/4 .
91/2 71/4 21/4
' 71/4 61/4 2
water added 10 8 2 7 i
NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug In the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on January 28, 1997. The holes were
covered with insulation to protect against freezing overnight. Percolation tests were conducted on January 29, 1997.
•
HEPWOI H -PAWL E •CHN1CAL, INC. � / S 5020 Road 154
• • t . Ecc% .,
• ... Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
• eta • 9, ^' 9 x '96 ' ,
Fax 970945 - 8959
•� Phone 970 995 -7988
:► tel -
162 West 6th Street
' Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 196 565
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 21,
Westbank Ranch P.U.D., Garfield County, Colorado.
1 Dear Mr. Barthomeijczuk:
,s� r As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for
-1. F �' design of foundations at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with
U our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated November 5, 1996.
The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and
subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Assessment of potential
g eologic hazard impacts on the site are beyond the scope of this study.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a one story L- shaped wood
. frame structure over a walkout basement level located within the northern portion of the
building envelope shown on Fig. 1. Basement and garage floors will be slab -on- grade.
` i Cut depths are expected to be up to about 10 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of
construction are assumed to be relatively light.
• If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented -'
this report.
1 ,
Site Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground surface
9 / in the building area is strongly sloping down to the north - northeast at grades of about Y
15% with about 8 feet of elevation difference. The hillside to the south of the building
envelope is very steep and forms the west side of the Roaring Fork Valley. A 4 to 6
foot cut is located at the north end of the lot for construction of Huebinger Road and
drainage ditch. Vegetation consists of a relatively thick growth of sagebrush, grasses
O�? and weeds.
r / �- • Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
� a�
�' { "t. excavating two exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs
�� ,� b pf the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 to 1'/
I , /feet of topsoil, consist of low density sand and silt with scattered gravel. Results of
i '/ swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy
` silt, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing low moisture
conditions and light loading and a moderate to relatively high collapse potential
„/ (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The samples showed high
0/ compressibility under additional loading after wetting. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table I. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of
'b / / excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist.
Foundation Recommendations: The natural soils are low density and highl
compressible under light loading when wetted. Considering the subsoil conditions
Stanley Barthomeijczuk
•
November 26, 1996
Page 2
encountered in. the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil can be used for support of the proposed
residence with some risk of post construction - men a a,,,,laiL s to the building.
The magnitude of settlement will depen• • '-y �,.� i j ,1 � ' f any wetting below
the foundation and could be o i ••I' - • NW w ootings should be
designed for an allowable so pearl _ 1e� ^!! •"' t - . minimum width
of 20 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for co u s. , 'sop and d : rbed soils
encountered at the foundation bearing level within th = excay. on should i.e removed
and the exposed subgrade moistened and compacted. 'ii3i¢ for footings s obld be
provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection.
Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in
this area. Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to
limit the effects of potential differential settlement and to span local anomalies such as
by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. The foundation should be
constructed in a "box like" configuration rather than with isolated pads to further help
limit the effects of differential settlement. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on -site soil as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
• lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The silt and fine sand soils tend to collapse
when wetted which could result in slab distress. 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
free - draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate
drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50%
passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% 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.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater may 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.
•
H -P GEOTECH
Stanley Barthomeijczuk
•
November 26, 1996
Page 3
• 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 1' 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.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence 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. Free - draining wall backfill should be
capped with at least 2 feet of the on -site, finer graded soils to reduce
• surface water infiltration.
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 pavement �
and walkway areas. A swale will be needed uphill to direct surface JV
tunoffaround the-residence.
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 the building. Consideration should be given to use of
xeriscape to help limit the risk of wetting the bearing soils.
Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits
excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction, and
our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits 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 at once so re- evaluation of the recommendations may be made. The
site is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite which is prone to developing voids and
•
sinkholes. Evaluation of the potential for future subsidence due to dissolution of the
H - GEOTECH
Stanley Barthomeijczuk
• November 26, 1996
Page 4
• bedrock is beyond the scope of this study.
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.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
PWORTH - PAWLAK GEO t ' W ■
o 9A
CC P
� 2z;:
��// v
• Jordy B
atson, Jr., P.E -
/ o I t ; 2
I 490 '' ` �j.�
Rev ewed By: t, % F SS N
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
JZA /kw
attachments
•
H-P GEOTECH
APPROXIMATE SCALE
I r 50'
•
• HUEBINGER ROAD
• 4t /
//
//
/ PIT 2 / \oz,d
^ •
/
/PT • 1
c2414
1
1 \
/ 1
LOT 21 i �� 5.0
• LOT 22 LO T 20
'✓ � / J
/ 1 ----- .;7-6
��
riVe / -N.\
\ I
� �,
i --- -yip
/ ,
-1
BUI >246
- ---- I ENVELOPE I
•
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
196 565 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. [LOCATION I` I OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. I
PIT 1 PIT 2
• 0 Elev. = 6247' Elev. = 6238' 0
• _ N SS
—
� ; 18 .0 WC -8. — $
u. — DD -86 / DD =85 5 LL
_ 5 200 - es
o 0
—
O we
°. WC I-8726
- 200 - 59 -
DD 2
10 10 _
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; very silty sand with gravel and cobbles, medium dense, moist, dark brown,
moderately organic, highly porous.
/•,:, SAND AND SILT (SM -ML); clayey, slightly gravelly to gravelly, loose to medium dense and medium
stiff, slightly moist, light brown, slight to moderate porosity, slightly calcareous.
I SI 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
• Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on November 14,1996 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on
the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided
and were checked by hand level instrument.
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( %)
• DD = Dry Density (pcf)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
196 565 I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
•
•
• Moisture Content = 7.6 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 82 pcf
a°
Sample of: Slightly Clayey Sandy Silt
'I From: Boring 1 at 8 Feet
0 c
o
c 0
CO
'� 2
1 4 ■■ ,1'I'' 1 I�' 111 Compression „11111
LE v 6
IIIIIIIIIk I X111111 �
111 III
8
10 a 11111
0.1 1.0 10
100
• APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Moisture Content = 6.6 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 85 pcf
Sample of: Slightly Clayey Sandy Silt
o From: Boring 2 at 3 Feet
0 0 -
6
c
co
2 Compression
c < ---- upon
N 4 wetting —
d
E
E
8 6
8
10
• 0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
196 565 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1
• cn
G ;[
T. c co
" \ \ t }
0) ■ . § e b @
a —
z >.
CO / /7 iE G
z 1- .g0|
§
§ c ■ :ii
7 ( -
� / ■
» § fa t
CD Lii CD
— \ ��`
R /}
< . P,0ul 0 6
� �z�
a
0
1 \ i
5 § -,
a. Ill D
|`
( § § ! S G co
Z 0 O N 7\
||I n c m n
• |
KE (.1