HomeMy WebLinkAboutB06-0196 Soils Report~;ie Copy
July 19, 2005
Vail Development, LLC
Attn: Douglas G. Hipskind
50 South Sixth Street
Suite 1480
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Job No. 105 291
Subject: Additional Recommendations, Proposed Four Seasons Resort, Vail Road
and South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado
Gentlemen:
As requested by Horon Lee, S.E. with Niskian Menninger, we are providing additional
recommendations for foundations and shoring at the subject site. The recommendations
presented in this letter are in response to Mr. Lee's email dated June 27, 2005. We
previously performed a geotechnical engineering study for the project and presented our
findings in a report dated June 22, 2005, Job No. 105 291.
Groundwater: It has been our experience in the area that the groundwater level could
fluctuate and temporarily rise, mainly during seasonal runoff. A design groundwater
elevation of 8140 feet appears reasonable for hydrostatic pressure and buoyancy
calculations based on the current boring data. Long term monitoring of the groundwater
level could be performed if a more accurate forecast is required.
Mat Foundations: A soil subgrade modulus of 150 tcf (tons per cubic foot) should be
used for design of the mat foundation. Soft wet sand and silt soils at design subgrade level
should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, the same as that
recommended for spread footings.
Foundation Walls and Shoring: In our previous report, we recommended that
foundation walls taller than 12 feet should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure
in psf of 24 times the height of the wall in feet for the restrained condition. We
understand that the excavation cuts will be supported with temporary shoring and the
building will need to be designed for the full lateral earth pressure. The recommended
lateral earth pressure diagram, shown on Figure 1, has been revised from our previous
recommendations to account for the near surface condition. The pressure (Pa) was
calculated using the following formula for tall, restrained walls: Pa = 0.65kaH, where ka =
ytan2(45-(p/2). The formula assumes the on-site granular soils as backfill with the
following properties: a moist unit weight (y) of 130 pcf, an internal friction angle ((p) of
34 degrees and cohesion of zero.
Vail Development, LLC
July 19, 2005
Page 2
We understand that a permanent shoring system cannot be used at the site due to property
limit constraints. Typical temporary shoring systems used in the area consist of soldier
pile and lagging with tiebacks, and soil nails. The soldier piles can be driven or drilled
and set in place. We understand that soil nail walls will not be allowed to extend into
town right-of-way. The shoring should be designed and installed by a contractor familiar
with the subsurface conditions in the area. The groundwater level and boulders
encountered in the subsoils will likely impact shoring construction.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
TLK/ksw
attachment Figure 1 - Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
cc: Niskian Menninger -Attn: Horon Lee, S.E.
Alpine Engineering, Inc. - Attn: Jim McNeil
The John Hardy Group - Attn: David Brooks, Peter Speth
Job No. 105 291
Ge~
RESTRAINED WALL EARTH LOADING
(NO HYDROSTATIC LOADING)
N TS
H = HEIGHT OF WALL IN FEET (GREATER THAN 12 FEET) HEPWORTH I 105 291 I GEO ECHNICALW NLAK C. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM I Figure 1
PRESSURE IN PSF
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED FOUR SEASONS RESORT
VAIL ROAD AND SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO
JOB NO. 105 291
JUNE 22, 2005
PREPARED FOR:
VAIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
ATTN: DOUGLAS G. HIPSKIND
50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
SUITE 1480
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY I -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION I -
SITE CONDITIONS 2-
FIELD EXPLORATION 2-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3-
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS - -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4-
FOUNDATIONS 4-
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 5 -
FLOOR SLABS 7 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 7-
SITE GRADING 8-
SURFACE DRAINAGE 9-
LIMITATIONS 9-
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 2 through 5 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 6 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 7 through 15 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Four Seasons Resort to
be located at the southwest corner of Vail Road and South Frontage Road West, Vail,
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 Vail Development,
LLC dated April 5, 2005.
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 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 above grade portion of the proposed building footprint will cover most of the
property as shown on Figure 1. The proposed building will be multiple stories above
ground with below ground parking located primarily below the north half of the building.
The existing hotel and gas station facilities will be removed prior to the new construction.
Ground floors will be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure, particularly the below
ground parking area, will be relatively extensive, with cut depth of roughly 30 to 40 feet.
Temporary dewatering and excavation shoring will be required for the foundation
construction. We assume moderate to relatively heavy foundation loadings carried by
perimeter walls and interior columns.
Job No. 105 291 G99itecc h
-2-
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 site is currently occupied by an existing hotel and gas station. These buildings and
related facilities will be removed prior to the new construction. The property is bordered
by Vail Road, South Frontage Road West and West Meadow Drive to the east, north and
south, respectively. The ground surface is relatively flat and slightly irregular due to
previous site grading and landscaping, generally with a gentle slope down to the south.
There is about 20 feet of elevation difference across the property. The buildings are
surrounded by asphalt and concrete pavement, and landscaped areas.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted between April 25 and June 6, 2005.
Eighteen exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate
the subsurface conditions. Boring I was advanced with 33/4-inch I.D. hollow stem augers
powered by a truck-mounted Longyear BK-5IHD drill rig. Borings 2 through 17 were
advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by truck-mounted CME-
45B and Longyear BK-51HD drill rigs. Borings 2, 9 and 15 were advanced past initial
auger refusal with 6-inch diameter, rotary/percussion casing advancer (ODEX) powered
by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. Boring 18 was advanced the entire depth with the
ODEX system. The borings were logged by representatives of Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. Slotted PVC pipe, 1% or 2-inch diameter, was installed in Borings I,
2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12 to 16, and 18 for groundwater level monitoring.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with I% 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
Job No. 105 291 G95tech
-3-
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Figures 2 through 5. 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
through 5. The subsoils generally consist of about 3 to 11 feet of typically granular fill
overlying relatively dense, stratified silty sand and gravel containing occasional zones of
cobbles and boulders. Silty sand lenses, varying from 2 to 11 feet thick, were
occasionally encountered in the borings. A shallow depth of topsoil was encountered
above the fill in lawn areas at Borings 1, 9, 10, and 13 through 15. Asphalt or concrete
pavement was encountered above the fill in the remaining borings, except at Boring 3.
Drilling in the dense granular soils with hollow stem and solid flight auger equipment was
difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered at relatively
shallow depths in the deposit at Borings 4, 7, 8, 11 and 17.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content, gradation analyses and Atterberg limits. Results of gradation analyses
performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 %2 inch fraction) of the coarse
granular subsoils are shown on Figures 7 through 17. Atterberg limits tests indicate that
the existing fill soils have low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table
L
Groundwater was measured in the deeper borings between the depths of 20 and 31 feet.
The subsoils above the water level were slightly moist to moist. A summary of the
groundwater level measurements is presented on Table 2.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
The natural granular soils encountered below the existing fill are suitable for support of
spread footings with moderate bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential.
Job No. 105 291 G99itech
-4-
The proposed relatively deep cuts will tend to increase the risk of construction-induced
slope instability. We expect that excavations for below grade areas will require shoring
to maintain cut slope stability. Due to the extensive cuts, underpinning of nearby
buildings or facilities may also be needed depending on the relative bearing elevations.
The building foundation walls will need to be designed to resist appropriate lateral earth
(backfill) pressures. The proposed lower level of the parking garage is near to below the
existing groundwater level. Excavation dewatering will likely be needed for construction
in the dry. An underdrain system should be provided to protect below grade areas of the
building against groundwater level rise or the below grade area should be designed to
resist buoyancy forces.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread
footings bearing on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch and essentially occur during
construction. We should conduct a settlement analysis when design
foundation loads have been determined.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches for continuous
walls and isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Job No. 105 291 G95bech
-5-
Placement of foundations at least 48 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12
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) All existing fill, debris from prior site development, topsoil and any loose
or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level
extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. Silt and sand
soils may need to be subexcavated and backfilled with compacted sand
and gravel or with concrete. The exposed soils in footing areas should
then be moisture treated and compacted. If water seepage is encountered,
the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
7) AN IOC seismic soil type of C can be assumed for the foundation placed
in the relatively dense granular soils.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 12 feet tall 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 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered
retaining structures up to about 12 feet 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 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Foundation
walls and retaining structures greater than 12 feet tall should be designed for a uniform
lateral earth pressure in psf of 24 and 18 times the wall height in feet for the restrained
Job No. 105 291 GgRech
-6-
condition and active condition, respectively. Backfill should not contain debris,
vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock.
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 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill 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. A
higher compaction level of 98% of the standard Proctor density could be used to help
reduce the settlement risk.
We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures
because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and the backfill will help the
subsurface drainage. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed in more detail
in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. Granular wall backfill should contain
less than 15% passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size of 6 inches.
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 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
Job No. 105 291 G99tec h
-7-
weight of 400 pcf for dry backfill and 250 pcf for submerged backfill conditions. 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 existing fill and topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. 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 lower parking level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should
consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on 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 granular soils devoid of debris, vegetation, topsoil and oversized
rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Groundwater was encountered near the expected depths of the excavation and it has been
our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and
Job No. 105 291
-8-
the below ground parking area, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure
buildup by an underdrain system. As an alternative, the structure could be designed to be
watertight and resist potential hydrostatic pressure uplift.
The underdrain should be comprehensive and consist of an underslab free-draining gravel
layer that is connected to perimeter and interior lateral drains. The perimeter drain 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. The interior lateral drains should consist of a
perforated pipe placed in gravel filled trenches on about 20 to 25 foot centers that
connects to the underslab gravel and sloped to a minimum %2% to the perimeter drain
system. The pipe invert of the perimeter and interior lateral drains should be at least 2
feet below the lower finished floor level. 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 Met deep. A drainage mat should be placed against the backside of the
foundation wall that connects to the perimeter drain gravel. A sump and pump system
should be provided to remove the drain water as needed.
SITE GRADING
Excavation for the below grade parking area is proposed to be relatively extensive and
there is a risk of construction-induced slope instability. Temporary cut slopes steeper
than about 1 %2 horizontal to 1 vertical should be supported with shoring or stabilized.
Possible methods of shoring consist of soldier pile and timber lagging, soil nailing and
micro piles. Soil nailing and tiebacks should be feasible where there is adequate distance
or easement back from the face of the excavation wall for nail or anchor embedment of
the reinforcement. The subsoils are stratified alluvial deposits and layers of higher silt
fraction could limit the effectiveness of the nails or anchors. The excavation shoring
should be designed and built by qualified engineers and contractors that specialize in the
selected methods and that are familiar with the subsurface conditions in the area. For
Job No. 105 291 G95tech
-9-
preliminary design, the natural granular soils can be assumed to have an internal friction
angle of 34 degrees, a cohesion of 0 psf and a moist unit weight of 130 pcf. We should
review the proposed grading and excavation shoring plans prior to construction.
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 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of finer
grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
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
Job No. 105 291 G95tec h
-10-
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 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,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
TLK/ksw
cc: Alpine Engineering - Attn: Jim McNeil
The John Hardy Group - Attn: Peter Speth
Job No. 105 291 GV&bech
f
0
BORING
• 91
r
f"
/ i
13
•
oMUr Z
6
BORING 1
EXISTING
HOTEL
PROPOSED
-ABOVE-GROUND
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT
BORING 18
•
S I
•
BORING 17 II
a 9 ~ ;I I ~
0 YbRING 2
i
• y
BORING 7
w
\ tae z
BORING T1
BORING 3
BORING 8
•
BO ING 9
BORING 16/ ,r B0RI 4
EXISTING GAS
09 I
BORING 10
BORING 5
o;o~ /
VAIL ROAD
Note: Site plan provided by Alpine Engineering, Inc. Not for construction, for boring APPROXIMATE SCALE:
location reference only. 1" = 60
105 291 EeCh LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAI
i
o
L
o
V1
BORING 6
BORING 7
BORING 8
BORING 9
BORING 10
ELEV.=8160'
ELEV.=8165.5'
ELEV.=8168'
ELEV.=8165'
ELEV.=8167.5'
8170
(4)
(4) T
T 16/12
18/12
8160 (3) W200=27
TT LL= 28 Q. 24/12
PI=B WC=6.7
+4=11
7/12 32/8,10/0 -200=10
8150 42/12
35/12
WC=3.5
r 200=11
ai 8141 J 16/6,30/4
a~
LL-
.2
Wc
v
~ L813(
812(
8110
8100
22/12
Lower floor level
elevation = 8125'
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 6.
(4)
M 40/12
8170
12/12
8160
' 7/6,20/2
+4=39
200=13
18/6,10/2
8150
20/6,10/1
8140
38/12
LL
'
Q'
.
I
17/6,6/6
0
8130
v
W
12/12
+4=30
28/12 _
-200=7
+4=50
Q:
-200=8
8120
70/12
8110
8100
105 291 ~7C.'~ ctl LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 3
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
BORING 1 BORING 2
BORING 3 BORING
4
BORING 5
ELEV.=8162' ELEV.=8166'
ELEV.=8168.5' ELEV.=81
71.5'
ELEV.=8171'
8175
8175
(7)"
(6)•
7
X
7/12
8165
(4)
WC=20.6
8165
40/12
-200=
43
LL=36
PI=12
7
12/12
18/12
8155
3/12
WC=5.4
° .
45/12
WC=1.7
30/12
8155
+4=40
-200=16
+4=55
WC=7.6
-200=1
0
+4=31
6/12
-200=14
50/12
5/10
•q'
8145
8145
a~
LL
4
LPL
1
4/12
1
-200=62
c
-
-
Q
c
0
22/12
v
135
65/12
WC=8.9
+4=46
8135
0
w
-200=10
w
8125
8115
8105
52/12
36/12
+4=10 -
-200=7
33/12
+4=43
-200=10
50/12
Lower level floor
elevation = 8125'
8125
8115
8105
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 6.
105 291 GC3VI:Qc:h LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2
HEPWORTH'PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
BORING 11
BORING 12 BORING 13
BORING 14
BORING
15
ELEV.=8166'
ELEV.=8158' E
LEV.=8164'
ELEV.=8162.5'
ELEV.=8154.5'
8170
8170
(4)
8160
24/12
20/6,10/0
8160
WC=6.9
27/12
-+4=36
(3)
50/12
J -200=14
~
0•
8/6,10/0
18/6,50/6
12/12
27/12
8150
qP
8150
q;
18/12
13/6,55/3
20/6,10/3
•
51/12
WC=6.6
~
q'
Q:
41/6,10/0
+4=25
-200=15
11/12
'
18/12
WC=5.5
Q;
WC=4.3
+4=22
67/12
8140
•q
+4=31
-200=9
-200=30
; o•
8140
L°'L
=
17/12
T
•
L~
I
Q;
WC=12 5
o'
= pi
p
+4=26 =
-200=8=
50/4
-
C
p
Q;
38/12
8130
•
+4=18
0.
8130
w
-200=8
0
Q•
Lower level floor
•
elevation = 8125'
.o"
20/12
Q
70/9
•Q;
+4=10
-200=9
+4=55
-200=8
8020
8020
q'
_ J +4=17
•
°
-200=5
28/9,10/0
8110
.4
8110
8100
8100
Note:
Explanation of symbols is
shown on
Figure
6.
~
105
291
C7Q
Ch
LOG OF
EXPLORATORY
BORINGS
Figure
4
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
8165
8155
8145
Q)
Ll-
8135
0
v
W
8125 -
8115
5/12
WC=24.4
-200=48
12/12
WC=26.7
-200=75
LL=25
PI=3
8165
8155
8145
.4
~
I
8135
•
0
:
28/12
r
Q
+4=40
W
-200=11
Lower floor level
elevation = 8125'
8125
22/12
8115
12/12
+4=27
-200=5
8105
8105
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 6.
105 291 C~Q~Ch LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 5
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
BORING 16 BORING 17 BORING 18
ELEV.=8162.5' ELEV.=8163.5' ELEV.=8162'
(4)
(3) (4)
20/3
60/12
.Q'
LEGEND:
® ASPHALT or CONCRETE(*); number in parentheses next to log indicates thickness in inches.
® FILL; silty to clayey sand and gravel with cobbles, possible small boulders at Boring 14, firm, moist,
dark brown to brown.
F7A
I
SAND (SM); slightly silty to silty, scattered gravel to gravelly, sandy silt layers at Boring 16, medium
dense, moist to wet below the groundwater level, brown.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); stratified, silty, with scattered cobbles, medium dense to dense, moist
to wet below the groundwater level, brown.
GRAVEL (GM); sandy, with gravelly sand lenses, silty, with cobbles and boulders, medium dense to
o' dense, moist to wet below the groundwater level, brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
7/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 7 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
1-0 Indicated 1Y2 or 2-inch diameter, slotted PVC pipe installed in the boring to the depth shown.
Depth of free water measured in the boring on June 13, 2005. A water level summary is provided in
Table 2.
Depth at which boring caved following drilling.
T Depth of practical drilling refusal with solid flight and hollow stem augers. Borings 2, 9, 15 and 18
were advanced to the bottom boring depth using rotary/percussion casing advancer (ODEX).
NOTES:
1. Boring 1 was drilled on April 26, 2005 with 3 3/4-inch I.D. hollow stem auger. Borings 2 through 17
were drilled on April 25 to 29, and May 12, 2005 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
Borings 2, 9 and 15 were advanced past auger refusal with 6-inch diameter, rotary/percussion casing
advancer (ODEX) on June 3, 6 and 8, 2005. Boring 18 was drilled using only ODEX on June 6, 2005.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the
site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site
plan provided and checked by instrument level.
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 transitions may be gradual.
6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % ) LL = Liquid Limit ( % )
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
105 291 I I LEGEND AND NOTES
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Figure 6
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 H
45 M
R. 7 HR 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' Zr 5'8' 8'
IN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 0100 050 030 #16 #8 #4
100
0
10
90
80
20
0
Lv
30 Z
70 Z
V)
1n
60
W 40
Q'
0
F-
50 H
50 Z
Z
Ld
W
C)
40 W
of 60
LLJ
0_
70
30
20
80
90
10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512 5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 40 % SAND 44 % SILT AND CLAY 16 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 at 5 and 10 Feet, Combined
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24
45
HR. 7 HR
MIN. 15 MIN. SOMIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6" 8'
100
0
10
90
20
80
c
Ld
30
70 Z
Z
N
N
W 40
60 d
h
E-
50
50
Z
U
W
40 W
a' 60
W
a
a_
30
70
80
20
90 10
0
100
001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT A COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 55 % SAND 35 % SILT AND CLAY 10 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 2 at 10 Feet
105 291
<~V- -h
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 7
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
24 HR. 7 HF
45
0
10
20
W
Z 30
Q
W 40
F- 50
Z
W
U
a' 60
W
70
80
90
100
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
OVMII'1. IYMI". 4 MIN. 1 MIN. FLW F1UU fou F-4) F10 0 F4 J/6 J/4- ' '~c v r v v
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
2
4
0
1C
2(
O
W
Z_ 3c
Q
H
W 4(
F- 5c
z
W
U
CE 6c
W
a-
7c
8c
9c
100
12.5 127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE enAwcc
GRAVEL 10 % SAND 83 % SILT AND CLAY 7 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 at 40 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
HR. 7 HR
100
90
60 V
70 Z
(n
(n
60 Q
Q_
50 Z
W
U
40
W
,30
20
10
0
100
90
80
U
70 Z
(n
(n
60 0-
1--
50 Z
W
U
40
W
o_
30
20
10
0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 127
CLAY TO SILT AN GRIM COBBLES 11 FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE rnsecc
GRAVEL 43 % SAND 47 % SILT AND CLAY 10 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 2 at 50 Feet
105 291
GRADATION TEST RESULTS I Figure 8
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 H
45 M
0
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
R. 7 HR 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' S'8' 8'
IN. 15 MIN. BOMIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. i MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 08 #4
100
0
10
9
80
20
Z
70 Z
30
(n
60
W 40
o
CL
H
z 5WO
Z
50 Z
W
CJ
U
40
W
60
W
a
a_
70
20
80
90
10
100 0
.300 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •800 1.18 2.38 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12732 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SANG GRAVEL COBBLES
FlNE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 31 % SAND 55 % SILT AND CLAY 14 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 3 at 15 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24
45
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
HR. 7 HR 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' S'8' 8
MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4
'
100
0
90
10
80
20
Z 30
70 Z
(N
Q
N
W 40
60
a-
Of
F-
50 Z
SO
W
U
W 60
40 W
d
Q_
30
70
80
20
90
10
EEE
rHE
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT AN GRAM COBBLES
I FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 46 % SAND 44 % SILT AND CLAY 10 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 3 at 30 Feet
105 291
eC h
HEPWORTHPAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 9
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24
45
0
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
HR. 7 HR
MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4' 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" B
"
100
10
90
20
80
W
Z 30
U'
Z
70
Q
1n
LLI 4o
60 d
H
H
Z 50
50 Z
60
40
W
LLJ
0
(L
70
30
80
20
90
10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.515 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 11 % SAND 79 % SILT AND CLAY 10 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 8 at 10 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 HR
45 0 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0200 #100 050 030 #16 08 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8"100
10
90
20
80
0
LLI
30
C9
Z
Q
70 Z
1n
40
W
80
~ 50
H
Z
50 Z
60
40
a
a
70
30
so
20
0
90
10
100
p
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT GRAVE COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 50 % SAND 42 % SILT AND CLAY 8 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 9 at 40 Feet
105 291
C7e~ aec~h
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 9
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR.
45 MIN.
7 HR
15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /100 /50
3/8' 3/4' 7 1/2' 3'
IF" /16 #8 /4
5'8' 8'
100
0
10
90
20
80
D
~
W
Z
70
Z
(n
1n
W
4o
60
0
H
50
Z
U
w
U
40
W
60
W
1Z
d
70
80
20
90
10
100
0
.001
.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300
.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2
12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
FlNE
SAND GRAVE
MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 39 % SAND 48
% SILT AND CLAY 13 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel
FROM: Boring 10 at 14 1/2 and
19 1/2, Combined
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MN.
15 MN. 80MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /100 /50
#W /16 /8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3'
5'6' 8'
100
0
10
90
20
80
0
W
Z
70
Z
N
_
Q
1n
W
40
80
a_
O
50
Z
Z
W
W
U
80
W
W
0
a
30
70
80
20
90
10
0
100
.001
.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300
•600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2
12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
FlNE
AN A
MEDIUM COARSE FlNE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 30 % SAND 63
% SILT AND CLAY 7 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand
SAMPLE OF:
FROM: Boring 10 at 39.5 Feet
105
291
C4Rec "1
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 11
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 HR
45
0
10
20
0
W
Z_ 30
Q
F-
LLI 40
N 50
Z
LLI
U
~ 60
LLI
d
70
80
90
24
4:
0
10
100
90
80
U'
70 Z
(n
N
60 Q
H
50 Z
w
U
40 W
Lv
a
30
20
10
100 0
19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SANG GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 36 % SAND 50 % SILT AND CLAY 14 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 11 at 5 1/2 and 10 1/2, Combined
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
HR. 7 HR
OllMln. IaMln. 9 I MIN. /'LW /1W /DU /JV flu to ,4 J~6 )/4
20
0
LLI
Z 30
a
H
LLI 40
LL'
~ 50
Z
LLI
U
~ 80
W
a
70
60
90
100
90
80
0
70 Z
N
(n
60
50 Z
W
U
40
W
a-
30
10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 127
CLAY TO SILT FINE MED ANOIUM COARSE A COBBLES
FlNE (`AARCc
GRAVEL 31 % SAND 60 % SILT AND CLAY 9 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 12 at 15 Feet
105 291
GRADATION TEST RESULTS I Figure 12
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 HR
45 MIN. 15 MIN.
60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /100 050 /30 #16 08 - /4
3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3'
5'6' 8'
100
0
10
90
20
60
C
V
W
Z
30
70
Z
V)
W
40
60
H
50
50
Z
Z
W
W
V
80
40
W
W
I1
0
1
30
70
80
20
90
U
10
100
0
.001 .002
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75
9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2
12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND
MEDIUM COARSE
Fl_N_E
GRAVEL
FlNE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL
_
26% SAND 66 %
SILT AND CLAY
8 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE
OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring
12 at 20 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 HR
45 MIN. 15 MIN.
60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /100 050 /30 /16 /8 /4
3/8' 3/4' 1 1 /2' 3'
S' 6' 8'
100
0
10
90
20
80
0
W
Z
30
70
Z
N
N
W
40
60
a
w
F
H
50
50
Z
Z
W
W
V
60
40
w
W
0
O
70
30
80
20
90
10
0
100
.001 .002
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75
9.515 19.0 37.5 76.2
12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
-
N
~RAVEL
COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
FlNE COARSE
GRAVEL
22% SAND 48 %
SILT AND CLAY
30%
LIQUID
LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE OF: Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring
13 at 20 Feet
105
291
~eCh
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 13
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24
45
0
TIME READINGS
HR. 7 HR
MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /2
U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
00 /100 #50 /30 /16 /8 /4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 8
'
100
10
90
20
80
U
Z 30
70 Z
Q
(n
LLI 40
Q
80
a
z
z 50
50 Z
U
LLI
60
U
40
W
W
70
30
80
20
90
10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512 5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE f`neRCc
GRAVEL 10% SAND 81 % SILT AND CLAY 9 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 13 at 40 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 H
45 O M
TIME READINGS
R. 7 HR
IN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /20
U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
0 /100 /50 /30 /16 /8 /4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 8'
100
10
90
20
~
0
Z 30
70 Z
Q
(n
UJ 40
60 a
I-
Z 50
1--
50 Z
c' 60
40
d
d
70
30
80
20
90
10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203
127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT ED A COBBLES
FINE IUM COARSE FlNE COARSE
GRAVEL 25% SAND 60 % SILT AND CLAY 15%
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 14 at 15 and 20 Feet, Combined
105 =
I.F GtDOLOC h
WOR TH'PAWL W GEOTECHNICAL J
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 14
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 H
45 M
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
R. 7 HR " 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 8
IN. 15 MIN. SOMIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /IDO 050 /30 /16 /8 /4 3/8
'
100
0
90
10
80
20
p
Z
70 Z
N
0
W 40
6
CL
H
I-
50
50
Z
Z
W
W
U
40
' 60
0
W
.
LLII
a
70
30
I
R
E
80
20
10
90
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.515 19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL I COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 18% SAND 74% SILT AND CLAY 8 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 14 at 30 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24
45
r
I TIME READINGS U.& STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
HR. 7 HR 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' S'6' 8'
MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0200 0100 #50 /30 016 #8 /4 100
0
10
90
20
80
LLI
30
70 Z
Z
N
LLI 40
60 d
50
SO
Z
W
U
U
40
60
LLI
W
0
O
30
70
20
80
10
90
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •300 •600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
N
GRAM!
COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 55% SAND 37 % SILT AND CLAY 8 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 15 at 30 Feet
105 291
~Q~+h
HEPWORTH-PAwLAK GEOTECHNICAL
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 15
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 HR. 7 HR
TIME READINGS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN.
60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /100 /50 /30 #16 /8 /4
3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3'
5"6" 8
"
0
100
10
90
20
80
W
C~
Z
30
70
Z
Q
(n
f-
N
O
40
60
Q
a
z
w
50
50
1-
Z
U
W
U
0_
W
60
40
W
o
CL
70
30
80
ElE
Z:
20
90
10
too
0
.001 .002
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75
9.5
19.0 37.5 76.2
152 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
15
127
CLAY TO SILT
SAND
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FlNF COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL
17%
SAND 78 %
SILT AND CLAY
5 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE
OF: Slightly Silty Sand
with Gravel FROM: Boring
15 at 34 to 35 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
24 HR. 7 HR
TIME READINGS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN.
60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. /200 /1DO /50 /30 /16 /8 /4
3/8" 3/4' 1 1/2" 3'
S'6" 8'
0
100
10
90
20
80
W
0
Z
30
70
Z
Q
W
Of
40
60
d
H
W
50
50
W
Of
60
40
W
W
LLI
70
30
80
20
90
10
100
0
.001 .002
.005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75
5 19.0 37.5 76.2
9.512
152 203
DIAMETER
OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
.
127
CLAY TO SILT
AND
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL
40%
SAND 49 %
SILT AND CLAY
11 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX
%
SAMPLE
OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring
18 at 30 Feet
H
105
291
L
R~QCh
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Figu
re 16
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HR. 7 HR 3/g" 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' S'6" 8
0 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0200 0100 /50 030 /16 #8 /4 100
10
20
90
80
30
70
0
L LI 40
Z_
Q
H
w
W
I- 50
z
LLI
U
cr
LLJ
CL 80
80 Z
<n
<n
Q
a
50 F-
z
w
U
Ld
40 a-
70
30
80
20
90
10
0
100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 •3~ •600 1.18 2.38 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 78.2 152 203
127
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT AN A C088LES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 27% SAND 68 % SILT AND CLAY 5 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravelly Sand FROM: Boring 18 at 50 Feet
105 291
GRADATION TEST RESULTS I Figure 17 I
r
N
LO
O
Ir*
O
Z
m
O
7
(3 co
Z
Q W
U_ 0:
Z F'
2 co
U W
W ~
O
w O
C7 r Q
YJ~
-J co CO
QE'J
IL LL
Ix 0:
O Q
a
w
_ (l)
c~
3
Cd
-o
Cd
-b
to
M
-i LU
o.
v
to
(Z
"a
O
r.
cl
~
.
O
N
Cd
0
~
O
'gin
ccl
sue.
~
~
>1
b
A
b
A
bA
to >
>
~
~
t
U
U
W
W ? Z
Z U) F-
lL W z LL
a
s
0 n. gy w
j0co
U
N
U_
F
-
W °
a °
Z
00
J
J
a
O
cr
w
w
°
F-
-
UU'~ o
M
N
a
J J
?
w
N > UU
~O
N
O
O
O
M
p
M O
WaZU
as
O
OZ
z
°
M
00
kn
01)
F-
a
O
a
J
a o
O
W)
O
M
~p
J
j ~ N U
°W
a
Z °
W
a z
°
F- F-
°
o~
~n
F- N Z
ZOU
kn
-
00
O
N
M
Q~
~p
O ~
O
O
=
a
o
O
N
O
-
O
O
kn
kn
O
kn
~
)
p
Q
w°
O
m
«3
U
cn U
to
O
-
J
w
a
0
fj)
O Z
N
M
00
co
r
O
N
LO
O
r
6
Z
m
O
i
U
Z
J
U_
Z
S
U
W
H
O
rW
V
Y
J
Q
a
O
a
W
co
H
J
M
co
w
H
W
H
}
cr.
0
r Q
J Ir
mO
Q M
~ J
U-
0
Q
a
o
~
W
w>_=
z U)
LL~O w
O w aW a
IL)
0
Z
pti
~U
U
QZ
J
J
CL
w
co
w
J
Q
J
~
~ O
Zzow
O W
00
00
OM
.W)-i
00
00
0: Q)
waZW
a
Z
N o
00
C)
110
\O
00
d
00
O
~O
It
t-
r
M
o0
l~
O
a
O
J
Q?
M
M
M
~O
N
N
N
O
v)
ao
Ix
C9
J
Q
j cr N U
W
Q
Z C)
W
0: D W e
°
O\
M
C-i
V'1
\O
H~Z
~p
Vl
QOO
Zr. U
Z
=
b y
'O ~
\
~ v
b
O
O
M
F
-
\
O
O
CA
O
It
p
V
o
o
0
v~ o
M
r.,
O
w
a
C7
<
z
-
N
M
d
v)
-
Z
O
co
M
O
N
N
a
ca
a
Cf)
N O
CO
O y
r
o a
Z
O
7
U
Z
J
U_
Z
W
,W
V
Y
J
Q
a
H
O
W
I-
J
W
W
H
}
0
r Q
J 0:
m0
Q ~
F" J
LL
O
Q
C
M
cd
cd
p Wa
>i
i'
v~
bA
cd
C
bA
on
un
C
5
W
W?S
LLN~ U
.
W
OaW
z ow
~U
0)
U
x
~ ~ o
?
M
J
0:
0.
W
O
W
m 5
C'1
J
N
Q
J
?
W
55 N>
C) W
W
a
00
kr)
l~
. r
z
0. (L
o
a ~
C*)
00
a
~
cx
J
O
> o
O
d•
[l-
N
<
(7
J }
5 ~ ? U
< W
Z o
W
(2
cc DW
<5 Z0
N
N
Z~U
0
S
W
O
O
O
Q
c
U
O
J
W
a
f
O
z
Z
00
N
O
-1
co
1
a~
N
In
O
r
O
Z
m
O
Z U)
J
J W
a >
U_ W
J
Z
U H
o p
W Z
N
W
0
_j Co
Q LL
a o
~ a
o
CL ~
W
M
(D
00
U
U
N
U
U
M
U
00
N
N
O
N
N
N
U
M
W
CG
N
N
00
N
O
O O
Q
0
y
\
00
4
d
4.
O
t}
01
00
~
*
4,
O
N
O
00
N
U
U
N
U
U
~
M
V
~
N
N
C~
cd
«3
m
cd
m
.~i
l-
00
N
N
N
t."4
00
tr.
44
-14
-'4
44
44
-,4
.-H
N
4a
4:
i,
v ~
4:
O
4r
CT
O~
l~
kn
LH
s~
O
N
N
44
b
N
~i
M
N
N
N
O
a
0
z
a
s
Cd
s
°
,
,
a
r~
Q
a
z
O
W
N
~
~
~
b
b
b
~
b
b
A
b
q
~
b
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
'
W)
m
C
Z
i
N
M
~
N
c
~
i
00
"0
-0
-0
i
i
IZI
N
i.
d
LS
O
b
'C3
d
b
'Ci
N
M
O
N
l~
N
~
N
b
T3
N
z
s,
N
Q
N
4
z
z
z
Q
Q
z
z
z
z
Q
z
z
z
z
z
z
Q
z
z
0
z
C
r-+
N
M
v
t n
"o
r-
00
O,
'
i
O
Q~