The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutB13-0552 Soils Report Oct 2012 , . i�lc}ti��udY 1'��13f:t�e��t�:G��i�i�al,In�:. � �ti�l�i�+�riittt {�e7 i.� �7-} CilitistEnn;3 `'j,un.;,l ulixrt�:��ti1�C�C'I �'�1x211r.. t)11��i),��..��i?�ti1 1-7��VY*JtT��^�ttYYt_ri� V�tJIGI.�tVI�!"'4L. }=tt:�:t)7't`��}��,y,:�:� i m�tl:Ij�,�,E t�C�?I��?:;t�rfie�11.i talYl SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT S, BLOCK 4, VAIL ViLLAGE THIRD FILING 463 BEAVER DAM ROAD VAIL, COLORADO JOB NO. 112 330A OCTOBER 25,2012 PREPARED FOR: K. H. WEBB ARCHITECTS ATTN: KYLE WEBS 710 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE, SUITE A VAIL, COLORADO 81657 kyIe(ri7,khwebl�.com � � � � V � D [;EC 2s 2013 TOWN OF VAIL I'at-l:t�r 3t��-�i�{1-7I1�) + C:cf(<�rr�c�o ;��,rirx��s %l�-f33-SS�2 • `�ilt�c>i-t11�:>i-�lc: �-)7t�-={��+�1�1t��) � 1�- 055 � � . TABLE OF CONTENTS PUR�'OSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY................................ ......... - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.................... ............................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS................... ................................................................................-2- FIELDEXPLORATION............................................................................................ 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................... ........................... .............................. - 2 - FOLTNDATI4N BEARING CONDTTIONS ..................... .......................................... - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS............ FOUNDATIONS.................. .................................................................-4- FOUNDATION AND RETATNING WALLS.........................................................-4- FLOOR SLABS....................... ...................................... 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM......................................................................................- 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE............ ......................................................................- 7 - ............................................................................. 7 - LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 8 - FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXl'LORATORY BORINGS FIGURE Z - LOG� Or�XPLORA.TORY BORINQS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4- SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS x • PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be Iocated at Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing, 463 Beaver Dam Road, 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 propQSal for geotechnical engineerin.g services to K. H. Webb Architects dated Septemiber 20, 2012. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtau� infarmatzon on#he subsurface conditions. Samples ofthe subsoils and bedrock obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determizie their classification, compressibility or swell and othez engineering characteristics. The results af the field exploration and Iaboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations foz 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 consideratians based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The existing residence on the lot is planned to be removed and a new residence constructed. At this time, the proposed constx-uction has not been determined. We assume the building wi11 be a two to three story structi,ue over a wa�lcout basement. Grading for the structuz-e is assumed to be relatively minar with cut depths up to one level, about 10 and I2 feet. We assume relatively Iight�oundation loadings, typical ofthe proposed type of construction. When building location and grading inforination have been developed, we should be notified to re-evaluate the rec,ommendations presented in th.is report and perform additional analyses as needed. Job No. I 12 330A C�c�t�Ch -2- SITE CUNDITIONS The site is deveIoped with a two stozy structure over wallc-out basement level. The site has been previously graded with cut and fill depths up to about I O feet posszble. Boulder landscaping features line the driveway and a boulder wall retains a minor cut slope along the south portion of the maui parking area. A retainirng wall about 8 feet tall is located at � the north side of the courtyard area. The ground suxface across the site is generally maderately to strongly stoping down to the north with relatively steep slopes at the boulder wall areas and north of the west side of the pavement. Gore Creek is located about 800 hundred feet to the north ofthe�ot and about 40 to b0 feet lower in elevation. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the praject was conducted on October 2,2012. Three exploratory borings were driiled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advaneed with 4 inch diarneter continuous flight augers powered by a h-uck-mounted CME-45B rig. The boring locations were somewhat lixnited due to the existing features and landscaping. The borings were logged by a representative ofHepworth-Pawlak Geoteclanical, Ine. Samples ofthe subsoils were taken with 13/s inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon sa�iplers. The sarrzplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 in.ches. This tes#is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistamce values are an indication ofthe relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at which the sairaples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of ExpIoratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were retunned ta our laboratory for xeview by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITTONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils at Borings 1 and 2 consisted of about 4%z to 8% feet of sandy silty clay filI Job No. I I2 330A C�GC�StG-'Ch _ 3 _ with scattered gravels and cobbles. The subsoils encountered below the fx�l soils at Boring 1 consisted of dense clayey to silty sand and gravel with cobbles overlying relatively dense, slightly silty to silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders that extended down to the depth explored of 13'h feet. Below tl�e fill at Boring 2, stiff sandy silty clay overlying weathered to very hard claystone/siltstone bedrock was encountered. The subsoils at Boring 3 consisted of about 6 inches �ftopsoil overlying silty sandy gravel and cobUles witll boulders. Drilling zn tl�e dense granular soils and hard bedrock with auger equipment was diffzcult and drilling refitsal was encountered in the borirzgs. Laboxatary testuxg perl'ormed an samples obtair�ed from the borings incIuded natural moisture content and density, gradation analyses, liquid and plastic Iimits, and unconfined compressive strength, Results of swell-consolidation test�ing performed on a relatzvely undisturbed drive sample of the natural sandy silty clay, presented on Figure 4, indicate no expansion potential nnder conditions of light toading and wetting and low compressibility under conditions of additionalloading. Results of swe11-consoiidation testing perfonned on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of weathered claystone, presented on Figure 4, zndicate low coxnpressibility under conditions of loading ar�d wetting and iow expansion potcntial wlie��wetted under constant light surcharge. Results of gradation analyses perfarmed on small dianieter di-ive sample(xninus 1%a inch fractian) ofthe coarse granular suhsoils are shown on Figure S. Results ofthe unconfined compressive strength tesfi per#'ormed on a sample of the natural sandy silty clay show the soils to have stiff consistency. The]aboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The borings were backfilled by others when we returned to check for water on October 9,2012. The subsoils were slightly mozst to moist and the bedrock znateriaIs slightly moist. FOUNDATTON BEARYNG CONDITIONS ' The subsoils encountered during our exploration are variable in type, depths and engineering characteristics across the site. The natural soils and bedrock materials should be suitable for support of spread footings with some risk of differential moverr�ent due to Jo6 No. 112 330A G�tech - 4- variable bearing conditions, Structural fill can be placed beiow the footings in the clay soiIs areas�o reduce the risk of settleznent. We should further evaluate the foundation bearin� conditions and potential#'or differential settlement at the tizxie of construction. No free water was encountered during our field exploration but it has been our experience in the area that groundwater can deveIop during spring run-ofFon the bedrock surface. Sozne excavation de-watering should be expected during spring and eaxly summer const�-uction. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed constructzon, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural soils. The design and consfruction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Foatings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2, 000 psf with the risk of settlennent. Based on experience, settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in tkus section could be on the order of 1 to 1%z inches depending on soil bearing conditions and loadings. 2} The footings shouId have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous � walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3} �xterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exteriar grade is typically used in this area. Job No. i l2 330A G�PtECh -5 - 4) Continuous foundation walls should be well reinfoz-ced top and bottom to span Iocal anomalzes and better withstand the effects of some differential settlement such as hy assuming ar�unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls actitig as retaining structures should also be designed fio resist lateral earth pressures as discussed i.zi the "Foundatian and Retaining Walls" section oftl�is report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the foating bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils or bedrock materials. The exposed subgrade in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. Ifwater seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered be�ore concrete placeznent. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer shouId observe alI footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATTON AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undel�go only a slight amount of deflection�honld 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 retauning structures which are separate froin the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to xnobilize the full active earth pressure conditzon should be designed far a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on--site granular soils. The backfilI should not contain debris, topsoil or oversized rocks. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropxiate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction mateitials and equipment. The pressures recomznended above assunne drained conditzons behind the walls and �hori.zontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wa11 or an upward slopirng backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or Job No. 112 330A �PtGCh - 6 - retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in unifoi�n:lifts and compacted to at least 90%of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content iiear optimum. Sackfill ua.pavement and wallcw�ay areas should ba compacted to at least 95% o�the maximum standard Proctor density(SPD). Care should be taken not to ovezcompact�he back�ill or use large equipment near the wall, since tliis could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundatzon wall backfill should be expected, even if the materiat is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Use of a select Le,ranulax material such as road base and increasing compaction to at least 98% SPD could be done to partly rnitigate the settlement potential. The latezal resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a cornbination of fhe sliding resistance of tlie footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottorns of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calcuIated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of�00 pcE Thc coci�icicnt of friction and passive pressure values rccoiiuneildea above assume ulfiirnate 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. FiII placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a nonexpanszve material eompacted to at least 95% SPD at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils and bedrock materials, exclusive oftopsoil and existing fill, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movennent, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansian joints which allow ut�restrained verticaI 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 7ob No. 112 336A �CP'��Ch - �- designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free- draining gravel shouId be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This rnaterial should consist of muius 2 inch aggregate with at least 50%xetained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%passir�g the No. 20Q szeve. The below slab gr4vel should connect with the perimeter underdrain system discussed beIow. All fill materials for support of f[oor slabs should be compacted to at least 95%of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required iill can consist of the on-site granular soils devoid of debris,topsail and oversized rocks, or a suitable granular material can be imported. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area wl�ere clay soils exist and bedrock is shallow tl�at local perched gxoundwater carz develop duxing times of heavy precipitation ox seasonal nuioff. Frozen gxound during sprirng runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade canstruction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular nnaterial. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at Ieast 1 foot below lowest ac3jacent fuiish grade and sloped at a minimum 1%to a suitable gravity ontlet ox a sump where the water can be collected and pumped. 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 backfiIl should be at least 1% feet deep and extend to above any seepage in the adjacent cut fan. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction aizd maintained at all times after the stz-ucture has been compieted: Job No. 112 330A C�PteCh __ _ _ - 8 - 1) Inundation ofthe foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterioz backfill should be adjusted to nea�-optzmum moisture and compacted to at least 95%ofthe maxzmum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90%of the xnaximum standard Pzoctor density in landscape areas. 3) The gronnd surfac�surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in aIl directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas a��d a zninimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved a�-eas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on- site fine graded soils to reduce sw-face water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all Uackfill. 5) Landscapir�g which requires regular heavy irrigation slaould be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. LTMITATIONS This study has been conducted iri accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineerulg principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or zmplied. The conclusions and recomrrzendations submitted i.n this report are based upon tha data obtained from the exploratozy borings drzlled at the locations indicated on Figure 1,the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our seivices do not include determzr�ing the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other bzotogical contanunants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC,then a professional in this special field of practice should be consuIted. Our fmdings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratoiy borings and variations in the subsurface conditions xnay not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions Job No. 112 330A C�cPt�Ch - 9- encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation af 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. Sigliificant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recoinmer�d on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural f 11 by a representative of the geotechnica] engineer. Respectfully 5ubmitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. , Robert E. Stempihnr Reviewed-by':� `� ��til0 ItPj�lf I o �'' �Ir �� _` � ✓e � s� Z I David A. Yaung, P.�..�� d ; s .. � s -2f6 �� RES/ksw �.r��1o`2G-t2-�' `i` . � �.�......�� . i��,SS+,f�``,`♦�� Job No. 112 330A C�t4Ch r�g�� APPROXIMATE SCALE: �� `,� ..7.� 1 t, _30' .. Y _ ...+ '+..F„� ,"'r„„j �� . �CM4 Mr. `"++�... ' { q 3 �4 e�- �� }_* P�� .k t�. . y<t 1 � . . � ��F � �� a x. i _b' p !.� �� r si,� ar �. - '. t � �,, � . � , � .. ' aif� ��„ x.:�.!7.'�:�"�e ''� ��9•ri f4 4��r' � �� ,e; •"1r,�'. ",�,,• "�"' `� ' ;�- ' `° �y�{ ° BORING 1 � � b ° , ��.t+:�w y � �1 � .�..4 .�yt'� �„p� r' �. } � :.. .,,� .�""� .> a. 4c a.qr.F /['��.94k �q € . � mya �� ,�.'aKaaa�� .r.s;a��" ". „'rr`-�.x' j . ,�``� v.,..b �-:. �v:m ¢�q r,�w .. �eTR , .,G, �. ,� i �. �+ ,x.�e e,� it .. .. .aiw , .. ' a °es� .r� �' - /j ..� � :" m .�. . R'M�. �- . ,. "�: . W `� 4fa�m .^f Y ab�4{ 'i ...,� i S :.�t §. � � � Si` Y k�rv .. ` w !.Y ifF � �1Rji ♦ Cs.rm ""a - ��' iuY�G1� �1 y �} I .... t ' " _ t i �/t�tL�itC p 2 'w \ Y� � . � ' I 4 � � . ' ,vi 463 BEAVER � � � � . � : s;� _..� � +N � �� , �t� ..:�,a` - o g ` '� DAM ROAD � � ` �=' :`� c — _ �.� � �!' '� . .. � �. f . � � ,�� a -�� ,. �'.� ' , � „ ._._.... � �a ;. ; r«. e . � ;,,y . g ., � . , , "� , <" .± ' s i: o ,� - �, �� {� .�.. c� �� ^-- ,��,' , � � . , .. . , j C� � � ,; � �b�r j � � ' : � � „ �, _ � ,� � � 3 y E f >-L. � `� # n x yf a ' � �}�'t'!:r�. . <t �, e � } � i � �� ; #� � 4S .,ril�� t A . : . m � 3 re � � � ��:��.� �� BORIN �. , �, , „�,,,.��.�. ��,�;,�x� :� _ � u ��, .,�, t_�.�� s� �� G 3 ' .� "� .-�•.-�� .� ,. �— tx.. ,. , . �� .. : r f E � �� .� ;�, ,�'� �• � � � �� , P �� A � y�.�� t� � �'G 4B' p m."a�,. —..,"�`+."' k.{`�_�, ��' _ r .*rt�T.�� S w 'q - ar.' t .+s „ ,,. r,a. `" . 'r' i � e � �!n, .. � " . s .� - �� " w� �•...._„ � .k,,. � }�, t hnx��,� �.°`�{ ry a�bk� � . < , � �,..y � - ...i• n.�. ' . t. X , ., . ......_ e,. , m r:� p _,_�„ r,r �� x�. ,-� � .�:4; � �-. `-��. -�` �" �' ��a, }p ' � '� 473 BEAVER„ �: , ,�� k �� :��.'. .. � ` , ., �. � }' `�' � �� OAD < � r.�. �� «�,.N,� ,„,..; ��- �_ rx xu} . DAM R .,� .� . . ; ;.�. r � � „ .. � � �. � ;_� � — - ° �BORING 2 V�' � '��`':�,R m�* � � z �P` y �� i,f i `� �. .=;s x,� ir�. x� �� : `y� , �°a,,` ; �•; s, , � �y,, � �'� �_�� y�� t �r,� "� °� f. t /�i RARi�.�B�` tM . .t+. q�� F �� ;'.a�°P ro;x � �f�4 r J{w>� . ,�,s°,, LL'�a� '�'`�': � {#a ,� ��rytr x �m'� �s t F r r -«..k..��"'`+y„rt.ixr"'�.� �'� , � rD . ✓"� ' � � ,.... r � � d ,, *' . ,F . „ " ;.. ,..�'fi�.: 1 ... '$rj� "�� e . +'�� .t" � �� 5..� t • x. .� . . .._,-.. . . , e �. . _'_.. __._ .�._. � . .,.,s �,..� , .,. +�}., ' -is ..,-e,. _. ._. 'd� , �., . . . . � „�j.<. ,. x..� _ ��+.� .. °��°�. j � . . ^rz.=z,.. . °"'f �'%ixsr.i.+. � . ' . " ,... ^.+v � � a .u�.r fi- � i' � r.. r �«s.Ke. � . .,f � � :�F " .. . .. � 112 330A ,�"�� I.00ATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FlGURE 1 HEPWC7R7'ti-PAWLAK GEQTECfiNICAL BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 ELEV.=8160' ELEV.=8165' ELEV.=8172' 8175 8175 8f70 °�. �°'� 8170 0 'CO � : 50/3 0 00 8 t 65 8165 F w � w � w z 8/12 � � 8160 z j $160 � J 18/12 � w WC=10.7 cu � -200=54 W LL-35 PI=8 2Q/12 8155 WC=13.2 $155 40/12 dQ=115 -zoa=�2 LL=30 Pi=8 �:�= UC=3,400 8150 ':;;• 38/12 48/12 $i50 ••:: WC=5.9 WC=8.2 +4=33 DD=131 '� -200=29 8145 8145 N07E: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. Mp 112 330A C,= ,, t "'� �'p LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND: � FlLL; sandy siity clay with scattered gravel and cobbies, mixed with some topsoil, stiff,slightly moist to moist, dark brown. � TOPSOf�; organic sandy silry clay, moist, dark brown. � CLAY(CL); silty,sandy, stiff, slightly moist, dark brown to grey-brown, medium plastic tines. � SAND AND GRAVEL(SC-GC); cobbles, ciayey to silty, medium dense, moist, mixed browns. ,o0 e o• GFiAVEL AND COBBLES{GM-GP); sandy with boulders, slightiy siity to silty,dense,maist, brown. � WEATHERED CLAYSTONE; medium hard to hard, moist,grey-brown. � CIAYSTONE/SILTSTQNE BEDROCK; hard to very hard, slightly moist, dark grey-brown. Minturn Formation. � Relatively undisturbed drive sample;2-inch I.D. California liner sample. � Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPi), 1 3I8 inch I.D. split spoon sample,ASTM D-1586. 20/12 prive sample blow count; indicates#hat 20 blows ofi a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Practica!drilEing refusal.Where shown above the bottom of the log, indicates multiple attempts to made to � advance the auger. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on October 2, 2012 with 4-inch diameter continuous f(ight power auger. 2. Locations af exploratory borings were measured approxirnately 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. 4. The explaratory 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. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of driiling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (°�) -200 = Percent passing No. 20Q sieve DD = Dry Densify(pc� LL= Liquid Limit (%} +4 = Percent retained on the No.4 sieve PI = Plasticity Index {%) UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength(psfl � 112 330A ��"� LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 3 }(EPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHN3CItL Moisture Content= 13.2 percent Dry Density = 115 pcf ' Sampte af:Sandy Clay 0 From:Boring 2 at 9 Feet -=-�.r ' ' 1 � ' � ° � �� 0 Z 2 ' Q � No movement � � 3 ! upon wetting � � � � i � , i O � �� ' � �� ` �� U 4 5 ' ,: � 0.1 1 A 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) ' Moisture Cantent= 9.2 percent ' Dry Qensity = 1S1 pcf , � , Sampie of:Weathered Claystone 1 ; From: Boring 2 at 14 Feet , , � , z � O : � a 1 ' , , w z 2 O v�i ' Expansion �w upon n. 3 wetting � ' O � U ' ' ' 4 0.1 1.0 1 p i00 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) � 112 33QA ��„�"'� � SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 4 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOT[CHM1lICAL HYDflQMEfER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALY I TfME REAUWGS U.S.STANDARA SERIES CCEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 29 HR. 7 HR 45b1iN. iSMIN. 66MW,t9MIN. 4MU1. 1MIN. �200 i100 /Sp M30 Ni6 MB #4 3IB' 3(4' t 1J7 3° S 5 8' � .. . . . ... ..... .. . ... 100 . . . . � . ._. . . .. �.�.� �� . � .. . . �. ...�. � �.�- I . . �� .' :�.. 10 .._ _ .. . . . . . � "......._ . . . ..:,_ _. ._. . . ...._. . . . ....... ..... �.__ . _. 9Q -_ . � . .. .. .. .._.. . .... .::::_ .�. . .. . ..... :� . .. . . . .. . .., . � .. ...:� _._:. .: ! � . .. t 20 � ........_ . . . ... ... .. � _'":�. _._:�. . . .� . �... :. _. . . . . ......_., _... . . .. ._._.._. . . .. 60 � .,._ ....... . .. .. :. .. .. . :... :� - �� . .... . ". ...I .:. 30 �� .. .. ...� - �-. _ . . � ..:: �. . � . . .. ..�.._ .. ... .:. _. .... .... ._ ._. ,..._. . . .._. . _ . .. � 70 � .:,: ..-.__ ..:.._' � .:.: _ �::. ,,. � . .. �. .: . _ , � � . �. � .�:�.: � . -:_ .'.....:�: . ` .' :i:_ ' _. __ .:_ ��- � qp � C'3 z . - � _ _ f . Z a � � � _� � � � �� , _ Z 50 .. :� �-,� ..� _: � .... 50 � - I- U - I U - -- ° _. - a a fia � _ . w � --. _ .. . .. 40 [L . . .. _ _._ . . ._ � - . .... .._. .:.. . . '� .._ , . :. 70 � .�..��. � . �:�:�' "... . . .. � :w_ - . .. . . ._. .. ......_-- ___. . ... .. . . . .._. 30 �:�: _�-. --::: . .:. . -�. :.�. �..� _�� . ( . ... . .. _ _::_ �_. E : 80 ... .._ .._......... __ ....__. . � . .... ' �:.... . .. . .. ... � ....... - _ _ _ 20 _ � -. 90 �. : �_.�: - �: � �� . - �. .�... . . ..� � . .. .�..... . . .. � . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 10 ��. �.. .... . .. � � � .�.. � � _.� . 100 .._.. . .:.:. . . . ._. _. �� . . �.�. .._ . .:�_ _ 0 .�1 .Op2 .WS .009 ,019 .0.37 .074 .1W .30p .fi0p 1.18 2.36 475 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 782 ��152 203 DIAMETER OF PARTlCLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT �� G�� FIME MC-0IUM COARSE FlNE Cotw.SF C��S Gravel 33 % Sand 38 % Sift and C{ay 29 °� Sampie of:Clayey Silty Gravelly Sand From:Boring 1 at 10 Feet ,.� t� 112 330A �'� � GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE � � HEPW4RTH-!'AWLAK GEOTECHNiCAL � o '1 � � � � � a � � O �� r �Y r�-, F � cd �U (� ,_„ a oo U U � y� � � � b � m � �' � � �, � � � � � U rr� � w �fqF �� LL d o�� a � a Z -y-! �U� �' m � r W � � U � � a� ° °° °° 2 N � �z V V � � � � � °� �� o � d � Q d� ° M M � � � � Y W �� - Q —� O Wzo°u� r� Q Q alloy � rUa � Q H J aaz a u, = O o a o4 ' M . a � o w � � � = y � � o M � r �� Q�W °� .�-� .-Mi � � J��- ��w � � N � QO U � � i/'� � 01 � z x � W � N � � � U � O ' J W .J (� °- z � `a � N `� m