HomeMy WebLinkAboutB12-0356 REV1 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY 092812
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
Ford Park East Road Improvements
Vail, Colorado
Report Prepared for:
Mr. Todd Oppenheimer
Town of Vail
530 South Frontage Road East
Vail, Colorado 81657
Project No. 12.143
7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com
Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442
August 21, 2012
CESARE, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
3. SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 1
4. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ............................................................................................................. 1
5. FIELD EXPLORATION .................................................................................................................. 1
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 2
7. LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................... 2
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 2
8.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES ............................................................................................... 2
8.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................................................... 2
8.3 EXCAVATION .............................................................................................................................. 3
8.4 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 3
8.4.1 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 3
8.4.2 SPECIAL CONCERNS ............................................................................................................. 3
8.4.2.1 Frost Heave ................................................................................................................. 3
8.4.3 PAVEMENT THICKNESSES .................................................................................................... 4
8.5 CORROSION ............................................................................................................................... 4
9. CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 5
9.1 RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 5
9.2 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5
10. GEOTECHNICAL RISK ................................................................................................................ 5
11. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5
TABLE
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ....................................................................... TABLE 1
TABLE WITHIN TEXT
TABLE 2. Pavement Thickness Recommendations ......................................................................... 4
FIGURES
SITE PLAN ......................................................................................................................... FIGURE 1
LOGS OF BORINGS (INCLUDES KEY TO SYMBOLS) .......................................................... FIGURE 2
RECOMMENDED LATERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR SURCHARGE LOADS ............................... FIGURE 3
APPENDICES
DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS REVIEWED .................................................................. APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ....................................................................................... APPENDIX B
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 ii
CESARE, INC.
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents results of a geotechnical study for the proposed improvements along the bike
path southeast of the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in Ford Park in Vail, Colorado. The study was
made to assist in determining design criteria for planning, and to present pertinent geotechnical
issues. Factual data gathered during the field and laboratory work is summarized in Table 1,
Figures 1 through 3, and Appendices A and B, attached. Our opinions and recommendations
presented in this report are based on the data generated during this field investigation, laboratory
testing, previous studies in the area, and our experience with similar projects.
2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed improvements along the bike path consist of constructing a concrete retaining wall
and installing waterlines from the parking lot east of the tennis courts to the east side of the
amphitheater and continuing East Betty Ford Way along the existing bike path to enable through-
access to the amphitheater for large vehicles such as semi-trucks. The retaining wall will be
founded on footings at depths of approximately 10 to 18 feet below the existing bike path. The
waterline will be placed behind the retaining wall at a depth of approximately 8 feet below current
grade. The locations of our borings were determined by the Town of Vail and are shown on Figure
1.
3. SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located south of the I-70 South Frontage Road East, from the Gerald R. Ford
Amphitheater on the southwest side to a parking lot on the northeast side. The bike path is
covered with asphalt pavement, is 10 to 12 feet wide, and runs parallel to Gore Creek about 50 feet
to the southeast. Landscaping consists of native trees and shrubs along the path and creek, and
maintained lawn and decorative flowers, shrubs and trees in the remainder of the park, including
lawn and trees within the outdoor amphitheater.
The general topography in the area is moderately sloped from the parking lot at the top of the path
down to the amphitheater at the bottom, with an elevation change of more than 30 feet. Gore
Creek is located at an elevation of approximately 8,190 feet, 20 to 50 feet below the bike path.
4. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Two previous geotechnical reports for this park were provided for our review. Documents and
drawings reviewed are listed in Appendix A.
5. FIELD EXPLORATION
Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling two borings at the locations indicated on Figure
1. The borings were advanced using a 4-inch diameter, continuous-flight auger powered by a truck-
mounted drill rig. Boring 1 (B-1) encountered auger refusal at a depth of 5 feet and was advanced
using air-rotary drilling with a 3-inch tri-cone bit. At depths of 0 and 5 feet in B-1, and in 5-foot
intervals in Boring 2 (B-2), samples of the subsoils were taken using a modified California sampler,
which is driven into the soil by dropping a 140-poind hammer through a free fall of 30 inches. The
modified California sampler is a 2.5-inch outside diameter by 2-inch inside diameter device. The
procedure to drive the modified California sampler into the soil and to record the number of blows
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 1
CESARE, INC.
required to drive the sampler into the soils is known as a penetration test. The number of blows
required for the sampler to penetrate 12 inches gives an indication of the consistency or relative
density of the soils encountered. Results of the penetration tests and location of sampling are
presented on the Logs of Borings, Figure 2 with Key to Symbols. Bulk samples were taken from
each boring. The borings were backfilled after drilling for safety purposes.
6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface materials encountered in B-1 consisted of 6 inches of silty, slightly clayey, loose,
moist sand topsoil overlying 5 feet of silty, slightly gravelly, medium dense, slightly moist, sand
overlying slightly moist gravels with interbedded sands to the total depth explored of 20 feet. The
subsurface materials encountered in B-2 consisted of 4 inches of asphalt pavement overlying 4.6
feet of probable fill that was silty, slightly gravelly, very dense, moist, brown sand. The fill was
overlying well graded sands and gravels that were slightly silty, moist to wet, loose to dense, and
red-brown to pink.
Groundwater was encountered in B-2 at a depth of 14.5 feet. B-2 caved to a depth of 14.5 feet
immediately after drilling. No groundwater was encountered in B-1. We anticipate that the
groundwater will mimic the water level in Gore Creek +/- 3 feet.
7. LABORATORY TESTING
Samples were returned to the laboratory where they were visually classified and appropriate testing
was assigned to specific samples to evaluate pertinent engineering properties. Three gradation
analysis tests and Atterberg limits tests were conducted to evaluate grain-size distribution and
plasticity of the samples. Sulfate reaction potential, water soluble chloride, pH, and laboratory
resistivity testing was conducted on two samples to analyze the corrosion potential to ductile iron
pipes. Test results are presented in Table 1 and Appendix B.
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES
The subsurface conditions at the proposed retaining wall locations consist of loose to very dense
sands and gravels. The material at, and below, the footing elevation in B-2 consisted of loose
sands. Footings should be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per
square feet (psf). This bearing capacity includes a factor of safety of 2.
8.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Lateral pressures on walls depend upon the type of wall, hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, type
of backfill material, and allowable wall movements. We recommend hydrostatic pressures be
minimized by placing a properly designed drain system behind the wall. Walls backfilled with on-site
sands and gravels should be designed for an equivalent lateral earth pressure of 30 pounds per
cubic feet (pcf) for the “active” condition. Passive resistance of 250 pcf can be used. These soil
pressures are for horizontal backfill and no hydrostatic pressures.
The proposed depth of the footing at B-2 is approximately 3.5 feet below the existing water table.
If the wall cannot effectively be drained, the portion of the backfill soil that is below the water table
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 2
CESARE, INC.
should be designed for an equivalent lateral earth pressure of 80 pcf for the “active” condition.
Passive resistance of 160 pcf can be used for the saturated soils. We recommend that saturated
conditions be assumed 3 feet above the elevation of the annual mean water level in Gore Creek.
Surcharge loading due to traffic above the retaining wall should be included in wall design.
Recommended lateral distributions for surcharge loads are presented in Figure 3.
We recommend a coefficient of friction for sliding resistance of 0.7 be assumed in the design.
8.3 EXCAVATION
Difficulty may be experienced in the development of this site. Our subsurface investigation
encountered loose, flowing sands at and below the groundwater table in B-2. In the southwestern
portion of the retaining wall unstable soils may be encountered at and above the proposed footing
elevation. Care should be taken to ensure that foundation support soils are not disturbed or are
properly compacted.
Due to the depth of the proposed footings and the proximity to the existing tennis courts and
amphitheater, it may not be possible to slope the excavation to meet local and state safety codes.
A temporary shoring system should be designed to properly brace the soils.
8.4 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4.1 General Design Criteria
The pavement recommendations contained in this report and Table 2 are based upon the following
design parameters:
• 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design
• A design serviceability Loss of 2.5
• An assumed R-value based on material classification of 40
• Reliability of 90%
• An EDLA of 10
• Strength coefficients for
a) Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) of 0.40
b) Aggregate Base Course (ABC) of 0.10 (R-value>72)
Deviation from the above parameters will require a revision to the recommended pavement section
thicknesses. If the subgrade becomes saturated, the pavement is not properly maintained, and/or
the actual traffic is greater than the EDLA used in the design, then the design service life will be
reduced.
8.4.2 Special Concerns
8.4.2.1 Frost Heave
The silty sand soils encountered on-site show a potential for frost heave. The presence of water is
required for frost heave to occur. Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation to
depths of 14.5 feet below existing grade. It is our opinion, therefore, that surface water will be the
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 3
CESARE, INC.
primary source of moisture. Maintaining surface drainage and sealing of any cracks will keep the
potential for distress due to frost heave low.
8.4.3 Pavement Thicknesses
Most of the shallow subgrade soils consist of silty, gravelly sands. This material is considered good
for pavement subgrade. The recommended pavement sections are shown on Table 2, below.
TABLE 2. Pavement Thickness Recommendations
Hot Mix
Asphalt
(in)
Aggregate
Base
Course
(in)
5.0 --
3.5 6.0
8.5 CORROSION
Laboratory tests were conducted on soil samples to determine the corrosive potential of the on-site
soils and to evaluate any potential impact on proposed construction. Resistivity, pH, water soluble
sulfate and chloride testing was conducted on the anticipated backfill materials.
The sand from B-1 at depths of 0 to 5 feet had a resistivity of 3,100 Ohm-centimeters, a pH of 6.2,
a water soluble chloride concentration of 9.6 mg/L (ppm) and soluble sulfate concentration of 0
ppm. The sand from B-2 at depths of 0 to 5 feet had a resistivity of 4,000 Ohm-centimeters, a pH
of 7.5, a water soluble chloride concentration of 6.2 mg/L and soluble sulfate concentration of 0
ppm. The results of these tests are included in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table 1.
Corrosion potential depends on both the soil and material the soil is in contact with. Chloride
concentrations greater than or equal to 500 mg/L, sulfate concentrations greater than or equal to
2,000 ppm, a pH of less than 5.5, and a resistivity of 1,000 Ohm-centimeters or less indicate a high
corrosion potential for concrete elements that come in contact with on-site soils. In our opinion, no
special cement requirements will be required for cement in contact with the soils.
Chloride concentrations greater than, or equal to, 100 mg/L, sulfate concentrations greater than, or
equal to, 200 ppm, a pH of less than 4.5, or greater than 10, and a resistivity of 2,000 Ohm-
centimeters or less indicate a high corrosion potential for ductile iron elements that come in contact
with on-site soils. A resistivity of between 2,000 and 5,000 Ohm-centimeters indicates a moderate
corrosion potential. Although the pH, sulfates, and chlorides all indicate that the soils are mild to
non-corrosive, the resistivity tests indicate between a strong and mild corrosion potential. The
design engineer should determine whether corrosion protection is needed for water pipelines in
these soils.
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 4
CESARE, INC.
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Report 08.21.12 5
9. CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION
The on-site soils may be used for structural fill behind the retaining wall. The fill material behind
the wall should be placed in 6-inch maximum, loose lifts within 2 percent of optimum moisture
content and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density according to
ASTM D698. All topsoil, frozen material, and soil containing organic material should be removed
prior to placement of fill.
9.2 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of standard Proctor density
according to ASTM D698, and within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. The entire subgrade
should be proof-rolled a maximum of 24 hours prior to paving to locate any soft spots. Soft spots
should be stabilized prior to placement of pavement sections. Approved crushed Aggregate Base
Course materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of modified Proctor density
according to ASTM D1557. Approved HMA materials should be placed in maximum 3-inch thick lifts
and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum Marshall (ASTM D1559) density or 92 to
96 percent of maximum theoretical density (ASTM D2041), within 0.3 percent of optimum asphalt
content. HMA placement specifications should follow industry standards as recommended by the
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) and the Asphalt Institute (AI).
Positive drainage off the paved surfaces should be provided. Construction materials should be
approved prior to use and should be subsequently tested as these materials are being placed.
10. GEOTECHNICAL RISK
The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for
this is that the analytical methods used by geotechnical engineers are generally empirical and must
be tempered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or
recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and,
more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed
foundation will perform as predicted, desired, or intended. The engineering recommendations
presented in the preceding sections constitute our best estimate of those measures that are
necessary to help the foundation perform in a satisfactory manner, based on the information
generated during this and previous evaluations, and our experience in working with these
conditions.
11. LIMITATIONS
The professional judgments expressed in this report meet the standard of care of our profession.
The borings drilled for this study were located to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of
underground conditions for design purposes. Variations frequently occur from these conditions,
which are not indicated by the borings. These variations are sometimes sufficient to necessitate
modification in the design. If unexpected conditions are observed during construction or, if the
location or depth of the water lines or retaining wall foundations should change, we should be
notified to review our recommendations.
pH
B-
1
0
-
5
0
6
.
2
9
.
6
3
.
1
x
1
0
0
0
1
6
4
4
3
9
.
7
2
2
1
Si
l
t
y
S
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
G
r
a
v
e
l
(
S
M
)
B-
2
0
-
5
0
7
.
5
6
.
2
4
.
0
x
1
0
0
0
3
6
4
8
1
5
.
7
N
P
Si
l
t
y
S
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
G
r
a
v
e
l
(
S
M
)
B-
2
1
8
3
0
6
6
3
.
5
N
P
We
l
l
G
r
a
d
e
d
S
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
G
r
a
v
e
l
(
S
W
)
NP
=
N
o
n
-
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
(%
)
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
In
d
e
x
(
%
)
So
l
u
b
l
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
(m
g
/
L
)
So
l
u
b
l
e
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(%
)
Sa
n
d
(%
)
Bo
r
i
n
g
Gr
a
v
e
l
(%
)
La
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
Re
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(o
h
m
*
c
m
)
Si
l
t
/
C
l
a
y
(%
)
At
t
e
r
b
e
r
g
L
i
m
i
t
s
So
i
l
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
T
e
s
t
s
TAB
L
E
1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
T
e
s
t
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Sa
m
p
l
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Material Type
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
Fo
r
d
P
a
r
k
E
a
s
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
1
2
.
1
4
3
12
.
1
4
3
F
o
r
d
P
a
r
k
E
a
s
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
T
e
s
t
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Page 1 of 1
South Frontage Road East
Vail Va
l
l
e
y
D
r
i
v
e
B-1
B-2
FIGURE 1
Site Plan
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT NAME:
12.143
Ford Park Improvements
--
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ERA DRD
DWG DATE:08.10.12 REV. DATE:
B-1
LEGEND:
Cesare Boring Location
N
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
B-1
South of Tennis Court
11/12
50/2
B-2
Southeast of Amphitheater
12/0
35/12
15/12
10/12
10/12
50/8
8230
8220
8210
8200
8190
8180
8170
8160
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
e
e
t
)
8230
8220
8210
8200
8190
8180
8170
8160
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
e
e
t
)
Proposed retaining wall footing location
Proposed retaining wall footing location
FIGURE2
Logs of Borings
PROJECT NO:12.143
PROJECT NAME:Ford Park East Road Improvements
DWG DATE:8/14/2012
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on July 26, 2012 using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight, solid stem auger.
B-1 encountered auger refusal at a depth of 5.5-feet and was advanced using a 3.5-inch diameter air rotary
auger with a tri-cone bit.
2. 10/12 indicates that 10 blows of a 140-pound hammer were required to drive a 2-inch modified California
sampler 12 inches.
4. Locations of the borings were determined in the field by a representative of Cesare using a tape measure and
reference to the structures.
5. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations stated in this report.
Project No. 12.143
Notes:
SymbolDescription
Misc. Symbols
Water table during drilling
Depth to caving
Strata Symbols
Asphalt Pavement
Probable fill-SAND, fine to coarse grained,
silty, gravelly, very dense, moist, brown
(SM).
SAND, very silty, slightly clayey, loose,
moist, dark brown (SM).
SAND, fine to coarse grained, silty,
gravelly, medium dense, slightly moist,
light brown (SM).
SAND, gravelly to GRAVEL, sandy, slightly
silty to silty, dry to slightly moist to wet in
part, medium dense to dense, light
brown, red, gray and pink (SW, GW).
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SURCHARGE DUE TO TRAFFIC OR LINE LOADS
EARTH
PRESSURE
Vh =4q
SH
H
Z = n H
X = mH q
H
X
W
W = TOTAL WEIGHT OF TRUCK
L = LENGTH OF LOAD PARALLEL
TO THE EXCAVATION
X = DISTANCE FROM THE EDGE
OF THE EXCAVATION
H = TOTAL DEPTH OF EXCAVATOIN
q = LINE LOAD PER LINEAL FOOT
q =W
LX
Vh =LOAD AT DEPTH h DUE
TO LINE LOAD q
PðQ
>PðQð@ð
0.203q
H
n
>Qð@ðd
FIGURE 3
RECOMMENDED LATERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR SURCHARGE LOADS
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT NAME:
12.143
Ford Park Improvements
--
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ERA DRD
DWG DATE:08.10.12 REV. DATE:
APPENDIX A
Documents and Drawings Reviewed
CESARE, INC.
12.143 Ford Park East Road Improvements Documents and Drawings Reviewed 2
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
D1. “Geotechnical Report, Proposed Ford Park Complex Redevelopment, 580 South Frontage
Road East, Vail, Colorado”, prepared by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Town of
Vail Department of Public Works, Job No. 09-034, dated September 10, 2009.
D2. “Subsurface Exploration Program and Geotechnical Recommendations, Ford Amphitheater
Improvements, Vail, Colorado”, prepared by Ground Engineering Consultants Inc. for Vail
Valley Foundation, Job Number 11-6029, dated December 30, 2011.
DRAWINGS REVIEWED
DWG1. Water Plan and Profile, Ford Park Phase 1 Improvements Construction Documents,
Sheets C610 to C613, prepared by Martin / Martin Consulting Engineers, Job No.
09030049.01, dated August 1, 2012.
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
Project Number:Date:
Project Name:Technician:
Lab ID Number:Reviewer:
Sample Location:
Description:
AASHTO M 145 Classification:A-4Group Index:(0)
( SM )
Si
e
v
e
S
i
z
e
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"100
GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE
27-Jul-12
JPC/DTB
B-1 at 0 to 5'
1221102 E. Arndt
12.143, Town of Vail
Ford Park East Road Improvements
SAND, silty, with gravel, brown
Silty sand with gravel
Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D 2487):
1.
5
"
1"3/
4
"
1/
2
"
3/
8
"
No
.
4
No
.
1
0
No
.
1
6
No
.
4
0
No
.
5
0
No
.
1
0
0
No
.
2
0
0
No
.
8
No
.
3
0
2"
80
90
100
/
1/2"94
3/8"92
#484
#8
#1074
#1669
#30
#4062
#5058
#10049
#20039.7
M, %:4.0
D, pcf:
LL 22
PL21
PI 1
D60
D30
D10
Cu
Cc
Moisture (M) &
Density (D)
37
.
5
25
.
4
19
.
1
12
.
7
4.
7
5
2.
0
0
1.
1
8
0.
4
3
0.
3
0
0.
1
5
0.
0
7
5
2.
3
6
0.
6
0
50
.
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.
0
1
0.
1
0
1.
0
0
10
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
%
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
(
b
y
d
r
y
m
a
s
s
)
SIEVE SIZE, mm
Rev. 03/12
7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com
Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Gradation 1221102
Project Number:Date:
Project Name:Technician:
Lab ID Number:Reviewer:
Sample Location:
Description:
AASHTO M 145 Classification:A-1-bGroup Index:0
( SM )
Si
e
v
e
S
i
z
e
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"100
GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE
27-Jul-12
JPC/DTB
B-2 at 0 to 5'
1221103 E. Arndt
12.143, Town of Vail
Ford Park East Road Improvements
SAND, silty, with gravel, light brown
Silty sand with gravel
Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D 2487):
1.
5
"
1"3/
4
"
1/
2
"
3/
8
"
No
.
4
No
.
1
0
No
.
1
6
No
.
4
0
No
.
5
0
No
.
1
0
0
No
.
2
0
0
No
.
8
No
.
3
0
2"
80
90
100
/
1/2"86
3/8"78
#464
#8
#1051
#1644
#30
#4032
#5028
#10020
#20015.7
M, %:3.3
D, pcf:
LL NV
PLNP
PI NP
D60
D30
D10
Cu
Cc
Moisture (M) &
Density (D)
37
.
5
25
.
4
19
.
1
12
.
7
4.
7
5
2.
0
0
1.
1
8
0.
4
3
0.
3
0
0.
1
5
0.
0
7
5
2.
3
6
0.
6
0
50
.
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.
0
1
0.
1
0
1.
0
0
10
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
%
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
(
b
y
d
r
y
m
a
s
s
)
SIEVE SIZE, mm
Rev. 03/12
7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com
Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Gradation 1221103
Project Number:Date:
Project Name:Technician:
Lab ID Number:Reviewer:
Sample Location:
Description:
AASHTO M 145 Classification:A-1-bGroup Index:1
( SW )
Si
e
v
e
S
i
z
e
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
2"
1.5"
1"
3/4"100
SAND, with gravel, reddish brown
Well-graded sand with gravel
Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D 2487):
GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE
27-Jul-12
JPC/DTB
B-2 at 18'
1221104 E. Arndt
12.143, Town of Vail
Ford Park East Road Improvements
1.
5
"
1"3/
4
"
1/
2
"
3/
8
"
No
.
4
No
.
1
0
No
.
1
6
No
.
4
0
No
.
5
0
No
.
1
0
0
No
.
2
0
0
No
.
8
No
.
3
0
2"
80
90
100
/
1/2"85
3/8"79
#470
#8
#1058
#1643
#30
#4014
#508
#1005
#2003.5
M, %:12.8
D, pcf:
LL NV
PLNP
PI NP
D60 2.26
D30 0.75
D10 0.34
Cu6.65
Cc0.73
Moisture (M) &
Density (D)
37
.
5
25
.
4
19
.
1
12
.
7
4.
7
5
2.
0
0
1.
1
8
0.
4
3
0.
3
0
0.
1
5
0.
0
7
5
2.
3
6
0.
6
0
50
.
8
2.26 0.75 0.34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.
0
1
0.
1
0
1.
0
0
10
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
%
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
(
b
y
d
r
y
m
a
s
s
)
SIEVE SIZE, mm
Rev. 03/12
7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com
Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Gradation 1221104