HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRJ97-0058 B97-0099 f
SOILS AND FOUNVATION INVESTIGATION
TOWN OF VAIL I'UBLIC WORKS
1309 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
I
. VAIL, COLORADO
f •
�
�
I
Koechtein Consu�ting Engineers
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 135 • Lakewood, CO 80228
, MAIN OFFICE AVON SILVERTHORNE
(303) 989-1223 (970) 949-6009 (970) 468-6933
(303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX (970) 468-6939 FAX
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS
SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS
1309 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
VAIL, COLORADO
������t�u u n r u u�i��,i
t►��R EG�s��''�•
O�••'t� Ko'' F''�
� •• •
.• = �
: 15962 : -
��e. .�_
�90••. 7-/q����'�W:
.
.��'.� ���; .
�fi t��'•....••. ```��
4.,u��s/p N'A�`E���.�.
Prepared for:
Susie Hervert
Town of Vail
1309 Vail Valley Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Job No. 95-223 September 28, 1995
DENVER: 12354 Wesl A(ameda Pr6�wy.,Suile 130,Lakewood, CO 80228(303) 989-1223
AVON: P.O. Box 1794,Avon,CO 81620-1794
SILVERTHORNE: P.O. Box 2747,Si(verthorne, CO 80498
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
SITE CONDITIONS 3
RADON GAS 3
INVESTIGATION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
FOUNDATION 5
FLOOR SLABS 6
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION 7
FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 7
LATERAL WALL LOADS 7
CONCRETE 9
SURFACE DRAINAGE 9
COMPACTED FILL 10
LIMITATIONS 11
VICINITY MAP Fig. 1
LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3
GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 4 thru 6
TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 7
TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL Fig. 8
SCOPE
This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investigation for the
proposed expansion of the Town of Vail Public Works facilities located at 1309 Vail
Valley Drive, Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on Fig. 1, Vicinity
Map. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the
site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction.
This report includes descriptions of subsoil and ground water conditions found in
the exploratory borings, recommended foundation systems, allowable soil pressures, and
recommended design and construction criteria. The report was prepared from data
developed during our field investigation, laboratory testing, and experience with similar
projects and subsurface conditions in the area.
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the proposed facility
addition construction. We should be contacted to review our recommendations when the
final plans for the facility additions have been developed. A summary of our findings and
conclusions is presented below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Subsurface conditions encountered in the four exploratory borings were
relatively similar. The subsurface materials encountered consisted of
either 6 inches of topsoil or 2 inches of asphalt underlain by either a sandy
silt to a depth of 6 feet or a roadbase to a depth of 8 inches. Below these
layers, to depths ranging from 3 to 11 feet, the subsurface conditions
consisted of sand and gravel with pockets of clay and silt. Below the sand
and gravel layer, to the maximum depth explored of 39 feet, the subsurface
conditions consisted of cobbles and boulders.
2. At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in
any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 39 feet.
3. The proposed additions may be constructed with spread footing foundation
systems supported by the undisturbed natural soils, as recommended
within this report.
4.� Slab-on-grade floors may be constructed on this site with a low risk of
movement, as recommended within this report.
5. Retaining and foundation walls may be designed and constructed for cut
and fill areas.
6. Drainage around the structures should be designed and constructed to
provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of
water adjacent to foundation walls and to avoid ponding in parking lot
areas.
7. The potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata is a concern. We
suggest that the buildings be designed with ventilation for below grade
areas. �
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
No plans of the proposed additions were available at the time of this investigation.
We anticipate that a single story structure will be constructed as an addition to the
administration building located near exploratory boring TH-1. A single story structure
will also be constructed as a drivers lounge and a general facility building located to the
west of the administration building addition, near exploratory boring TH-2. The final
addition planned for the public works facility is the expansion of the existing bus barn.
The expansion of the bus barn is located by borings TH-3 and TH-4 We anticipate that
this will be a single story, metal frame structure. We anticipate that neither basements or
crawlspaces will be provided for any of the additions. Maximum column and wall loads
2
were assumed to be those normally associated with light commercial construction.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed additions are located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive, Vail, Colorado as
shown in Fig. 1. The site is located northeast of the town of Vail. The site is being used
as the town of Vails public works facility. The public works administration building is
located on the east side of the site. The east side of the site, including the administration
building, is approximately 5 to 7 feet higher than the western side of the property. The
public works shops and bus garage building is located on the west side of the site. The
site is predominately paved. The overall drainage of the property is to the south.
RADON GAS
In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon is a colorless, odorless
gas that is produced when minerals in soil or bedrock decay. Radon gas is typically
found in bedrock formations. The gas is more common in igneous or metamorphic rock
formations than in sedimentary rock formations. Fractures in the earth's crust and the
dryness of the soil allow the radon gas to move to the surface. Radon gas moves more
easily through dry soil because moisture inhibits the movement of radon molecules. We
don't anticipate that any below grade areas will be constructed however, if below grade
areas are planned than ventilation should be provided in these areas.
INVESTIGATION
Subsurface conditions were investigated at this site on September 11, 1995 by
drilling four exploratory borings at the locations shown on Fig. 2. A field engineer from
3
our office was on-site to log the subsurface soils within the borings. Representative soil
samples obtained from the borings were tested in our laboratory. The laboratory testing
included visual classification, gradation classification, and natural moisture content.
Graphic logs which summarize the subsurface materials found in the borings and results
of laboratory tests are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 3 and Gradation
Test Results, Figs. 4 thru 6.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions encountered in the four exploratory borings were relatively
similar. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory boring TH-1 consisted of
approximately 6 inches of topsoil underlain by a moist, dense sandy silt to a depth of 6
feet. Below 6 feet, to a depth of 11 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a moist,
medium dense, cobbly sand and gravel. Below the sand and gravel layer, to the
maximum depth explored of 39 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of cobbles and
boulders. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory borings TH-2 thru TH-4
consisted of 2 inches of asphalt underlain by roadbase to a depth of 8 inches. Below the
roadbase, to depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a
moist, medium dense to very dense, cobbly sand and gravel with pockets of silt. From
the sand and gravel layer, to the maximum depth explored of 18.5 feet, the subsurface
conditions consisted of cobbles and boulders. Drill rig refusal was encountered in each of
these exploratory borings at 18.5 feet in TH-2, 11 feet in TH-3, and 16 feet in TH-4.
At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in any of
the borings to the maximum depth explored of 39 feet. However, the soils may become
very moist to wet during peak runoff times and wet periods of the year.
4
FOUNDATION
The near surface material at potential foundation elevations consisted of either a
sandy silt, sand and gravel or cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, these natural soils
will safely support a spread footing foundation system. The spread footing foundation
system should be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria.
l. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed natural soils or
compacted fill. Soils loosened by machine excavation should be cleaned
from the excavation prior to placing concrete for the footings.
2. We recommend wall and column footings be designed for a maximum
allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 psf.
3. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches square
and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. �
Footing widths inay be greater to accommodate structural design loads.
4. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced to span local anomalies
in the soil.
5. Topsoil is not an acceptable foundation bearing material. The base of all
foundation footings should be founded below organic materials.
6. The base of exterior footings should be established at a minimum depth of
4 feet below the exterior ground surface to protect the footings from
damage caused by frost action.
7. Pockets or layers of soft or loose soils may be found in the bottom of the
completed footing excavations. These materials should be removed to
expose the undisturbed natural soil. The foundations may be constructed
on the undisturbed natural soil or the resulting excavation may be
backfilled with compacted fill or lean concrete.
s
8. Fill should be placed as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of
this report. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and
test the placement and compaction of structural fill used in foundation
construction. It has been our experience that without engineering quality
control, poor construction techniques and habits occur which result in poor
foundation performance.
9. We recommend that a representative of our office observe the foundation
excavation. Variations froin the conditions described in this report which
were not indicated by our borings can occur. The representative can
observe the excavation to evaluate the exposed subsurface conditions.
FLOOR SLABS
The near surface soils at the approxinlate proposed floor slab elevations consisted
of sandy silts, sand and gravels or cobbles and boulders. We believe that the natural soils
will safely support slab-on-grade floors. We recommend the following for the
construction of slab-on-grade floors whether placed on the natural soils or compacted fill: �
1. Slabs should be placed on either the natural soils or on compacted fill.
2. A 4-inch layer of free draining gravel should be placed beneath the floor
slabs to provide a moisture break and a level surface for construction of
the floor slabs.
3. Frequent control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce problems
associated with shrinkage.
4. Any construction area should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil, the
resulting surface scarified, and then compacted. Fill may be required to
establish the grade for slab-on-grade floors after removing the topsoil, or
in excavations beneath slab-on-grade areas. Fill should be placed as
outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and
compaction of fill beneath slabs should be observed and tested by a
representative of our office.
6
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
We do not anticipate that below grade areas will be constructed however, if
excavations are required, conventional excavation equipment should be capable of
completing the required excavation up to 11 feet. Excavations below 11 feet may require
the use of heavy duty construction equipment since refusal on cobbles and boulders was
encountered at this depth. Care needs to be exercised during construction so that the
excavation slopes remain stable. In our opinion, the sandy silts, sands and gravels and
the cobbles and boulders classify as type B soils in accordance with OSHA regulations.
FOUNDATION DRAINAGE
Surface water frequently flows through the relatively permeable backfill adjacent
to buildings and collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils at the foundation .
elevation. To reduce the accumulation of surface inoisture adjacent to foundation walls,
we recommend provision of a foundation drain. The drain should consist of a 4-inch
diameter perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel. The drain should be sloped so
that water flows to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping, or to a positive
gravity outlet. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented in
Fig. 7.
LATERAL WALL LOADS
Walls may be planned which will require lateral earth pressures for design.
Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill and the height and type of wall.
Walls which are free to rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill should
be designed to resist the "active" earth pressure condition. Walls which are restrained
7
should be designed to resist the "at rest" earth pressure condition. Basement walls are
typically restrained.
For design, an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf should be used for the "active"
earth pressure condition and an equivalent fluid weight of 45 pcf should be used for the
"at rest" earth pressure. The fluid weights are for a horizontal backfill condition. A
"passive" equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf can be used to resist the wall loads where the
soils will always remain in place at the toe of the wall. The equivalent fluid weights do
not include allowances for surcharge loads due to hydrostatic pressures or live loads. A
coefficient of friction of 0.5 can be used at the bottom of the footing to resist the wall
loads.
Backfill placed behind or adjacent to foundation and retaining walls should be
placed as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and .
compaction of the fill should be observed and tested by a representative of our office.
To reduce the possibility of developing hydrostatic pressures behind retaining
walls, a drain should be constructed adjacent to the wall. The drain may consist of a
manufactured drain system or gravel. If gravel is used, it should have a maximum size of
1.5 inches and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Washed concrete
a�gregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The gravel drain fill or
inanufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the retaining wall to within 2 feet
of subgrade elevation. The water can be drained by a perforated pipe with collection of
the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet. A typical detail for
a retaining wall drain is presented in Fig. 8.
8
CONCRETE
The soils in the Vail area may contain soluble sulfates. Sulfates can cause
damage to concrete members constructed with ordinary cement that come into contact
with the soil. Type Vi cement is normally recommended for high sulfate areas. However,
a suitable alternative of Type Vi cement is a "modified" Type II cement. The "modified"
Type II cement contains less than 5 percent tricalcium aluminate. Use of a cement rich
mixture (maximum of 0.5 water/cement ratio) and 5 to 7 percent air entrainment further
increases the sulfate resistance. This cement should be used for all concrete members
(slabs, foundation, foundation walls, curb and gutter, and sidewalks) that come into
contact with the soil.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Reducing the wetting of structural soils and the potential of developing
hydrostatic pressure behind below grade walls can be achieved by carefully planned and
maintained surface drainage. We recommend the following precautions be observed
during construction and maintained at all times after the structure is completed:
1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation during excavation should be
minimized during construction.
2. All surface water should be directed away from the top and sides of the
excavation during construction.
3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the structures should be
sloped to drain away from the buildings in all directions. We recommend
a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet.
9
4. Backfill, especially around foundation walls, should be placed as outlined
in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report.
COMPACTED FILL
Fill may consist of the on-site soils free of topsoil or approved imported granular
fill. No gravel or cobbles larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas
should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil and then scarified. Topsoil may be used
in landscape areas. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts, moisture conditioned to
within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and compacted to the recommended
compaction shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the
given use of the fill.
Recommended Compaction �
Percentage of the Standard Percentage of the Modified
Use of Fill Proctor Maximum Dry Proctor Maximum Dry
Density Density
(ASTM D-698) (ASTM D-1557)
Below Structure Foundations 98 95
Below Slab-On-Grade Floors 95 90
Backfill (Non-Structural) 90 90
We recommend that a representative from our office observe and test the
placement and compaction of structural fill. Fill placed below foundations or slab-on-
grade floors is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering
quality control, poor construction techniques and habits occur which result in poor
foundation and slab performance.
10
LIMITATIONS
Although the exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate
determination of foundation conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions are always
possible. Any variations that exist beneath the site generally become evident during
excavation for the structure. A representative of our office should observe the completed
excavation to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the borings and to verify our
foundation and floor slab recommendations. The placement and compaction of fill, as
well as installation of foundations, should also be observed and tested. The design
criteria and subsurface data presented in this report are valid for 3 years from the date of
this report.
If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in
analyses of proposed structures from a soils and foundation viewpoint, please call.
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
By � �
Scott B. Myers, Engineer
`�p�����U W i u i n u i u r�i i
.� 0 REG '��•
a� a4�.....!sj.�•'.
� ��,��''� N. KoF���9�%
p a ;O.• �':E`%
Reviewed by v�� •� �.• _v;� �'�=
William H. Koechlein, P.E., President =,o� 15962 ��_
• , � •�u=
:�p: ? �� ��4.�
F � �
°'�����'••.....••'�G`�``\.
SBM/hk �'''���,s���N�AI,�E��``°
(4 copies sent)
ll
i � � �. �� � � v�� i � .� v
I� ,
i �� ��.. � i.� � , �� , - � � �� �� � 1,� `, -
� r ' -� e � i � � � � ��� � �� � ,��� ;�� 5�.��•�� ,�'� � =� �"-
� I; -- -- -- _ _ /��-
��'/( 1 . � • � ��_— --__�_—' aging St�\� � �,\` SITE � ; — � —�-_ ___
v_ - � _ __ -- _�6� \e_. _ �5. \'\ ��`\�'��\\ _ -_ ;� � _.��`
r
, � y � �'�� sa.. � \ � � � - i;. �\�\
• '' ' - -. ~ \� �' _ \•� �— _ ' �
• : . ` _� � ` -
• . •I •�' � �V a i l \ �,�,�;\ ���\ �' ��__
` . �
. . _ -
. ::�' ,: \ :_. °-°,- ' ;- ��� � �\�. -
�.�.. � ��
� - `�� � �
, �
.—� ,.:- ! ,,,.�� �� _ \�� , _
"�j --- -__ I - �<�►Ir�..t•1• �tiA►� �iA11 -=�tiRP . RUI� � i
/ ����. I�l f _��� •�`�� �/aF,� � __ � i ._--
. ' ��'-- \ �� /. ��� y I,s • '�';-��-• - , --��_- -- _ _= _ -.-�,
=����-, �, � � \� _�••��i '� _ r�-�' _ 'o __
-� \.I� �-_� ��_,�� ���'/ � %�•_�� ♦, �' � -°
% � _ ---: �_- `- - .--= ' - / �.���,:Va�l � __ . � �'-
��-- _--� -.�- \, ��: � ,..� `� %i ' �
/�".�`- � �� - --- . � -- g4\_ ._ _\\ l. ,`���p• \�Q �����1 �J ���
� / � �� I � - - �� � �. i\�\�� � •' �\�v -�' - ' _ __. ��_-��� //✓/'_�
'- %� � � ✓ � _ _ �_ =8��,�\ �� j— _� _ , � ���-�1—
. �
I �� ti �\ \ __� _' � � ��--!
, ��. - -�_ _ � � , , �
, - - � i �
�' - �� _-7 - '; - �- - �°� _ -� — -- �� ' � =�
i � _ Q -- � ` � - - � � ',���
- , � �-_ w ,' I � - ' � � _
�,�'
„ _ _- � ;- _' `� �y , - - ��%
� -- `=B95 � _. � � � `�/ � __✓,j/'-�-�l
� \� \\
,/'�/,\ `\ Q( `_ \ ¢ -\ -- \`\,\\ y'//,/` / / ;� � �������
`��/ - �\��--'I�,� -', _— � `\\���� /, ��r� �,�, I� � �������,
\ .
�/l{- .� �\� .. �.\�—�y�\ \ --_ _i����`.\\�\��\.\\�' ;i��j � ��I 1 .�` ii� �/�/���
/i. \ �� \
1 (_'\ _� ' � _-����� �A��� �1��� � � ,'/� . �� i � r��
I I� nl '� _ �� ��� \ -�i1 Y� � � �\\\ ��, � /\ � " ' i ��
�� . —��-_ �__�r ���/ _ ��-_v� .0 9200 '��. �V� i ,•,� � � �� _
���'�� � I � `_' ��r--\_,�C-.� -�c-,� '�_ �� ��=� /� � � %�''� � ;�'' l ii _
�/,G � �_ � ---1—��� _ ,, ' A f.- �� �� �.� �� . � 'C
�� � ��/� �— �_��_ - �;_---_ �-`���� -\f'/ �--`1'��\ I V'9 � 1 � I / ���
� � �� ���� =c -�� � --- '�� `; � !'p � � �,� ��� �
�� _ -�--`t� , _ �� �� , � �� � I. ' �. 9e�o�
�j,:- - � - t _ ��:_ -_�AA _� �� �;o� ����. �� AA. (n .� ��� \r �
�j / - 97/E_. . _._ 3O _ . �'- `_, �.� ���_. \�� ; � � \\ . .9 ��\ � . ���,
� i"-� \ � i I ��=- ��- _ \\�`�
.�� - ��` �_l� __ ��� V � _ � .- � �� -
,' � -�
' _ �
, = ' ��— �\� � �� Jli ` 9� ' _ °=_ �—�
,� � _, — -- ,� �i _� t'I), —� �
� �_—.- _ _ '.� _ ��� ��� �� ��,��---- _ - ' :_ ;
_�\ \ �� �_
==—�a � /
�-J;" � r-- � � ���--�-°' - ___-- v%'rr'__.
'/ �_.�I'- _ J ,� �� , - �� --
�—�-- � ,r ,. ��—;----�. �
� ��� � '�, ��-��_ � -'i�i � �� �i�'������-�'�,;.�
, . J f
.
� �_ �_ ��� � \ �� 7 �\�\ ����r ��� /�1/
�, �� -�� ,\ z . / � �
/ �1,, ��_ _�„�—�$�� -'�\ � \ �,\\t� � �� �—�f ,�-- �_-��� ;
, � � �� �,�`\%,� f�-� --\
l/ __�� �Yi` ���°������� ` ���/ � ' ���
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HYDROME�ER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READ�NGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR 59UARE OPENINGS
45 MIN.15 MW. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'8 �d 3/8" 3/4' 1'/�' 3' S'6' 8'
100 I I I 0
90 10
80
I ' I 20
70 30
U' I _ � � �
z � qp Z
a � � � �
Z 50 � C
z
� 40 � � � � �
a
30 70
20 � � �
10 qp
� � �
0 100
001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 297 590 1.19 2 0 2.38 4J6 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CIAY(PLASTIC)TO SIU(NON-PIASTIC) SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sompleof GRAVEL,Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 61 % SAND 22 %
From Boring TH-1 at 14 feet SILT&CLAY 17 % L19UIDLIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
HYDROME�ER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR S9UARE OPENINGS
45 MIN.15 MIN, 60 MIN.19 MIN. q MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'8 'd 3!8' 3/4' 1 Yi' 3" 5' ' 8'
100 ' ' I �
90 10
80 � � � �
70 30
� � � � o
vZ-i 60 � ?
� I I � ~
Z `JD $� C
Z
� Qp I I ao �'
a
30 70
20 I ' I 80
i
10 90
� � �
p 100
001 002 O0.5 .009 019 037 074 149 297 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CIAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) �ND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sompleof GRAVEL,Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 54 % SAND 25 %
From Boring TH-2 at 4 feet SILT&CLAY 21 % UQUIDLIMfT %
PLASTICfTY INDEX %
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 9b-223 FI(3. 4
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
7 TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45MIN.15MW, bOMIN.I9MIN. 4MIN. 1MIN. '200 '100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'8 'd 3/8' 3/4' 1Y�" 3' S'6" 8'
100 _ . ' I _ I 0
90 _ _ 10
eo I I I zo
70 30
� _ � � _ � o
Z 60 40 Z
a l I I a
z 50 � C
z
� 40 I I I � �
v
30 70
20 _ I I �
10 _ qp
_ � � �
0 � 100
001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 297 So0 1.19 202.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 762 127 200
0.42 152
� DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COAf2SE FINE CbARSE COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL,Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 69 % SAND 2(l %
From Boring TH-3 at 9 feet SILT&CIAY�L% LIQUIDLIMIT %
PIASTICITY INDEX %
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45MW.15MIN. 60MIN.19MIN. 4MIN. 1MIN. '200 '100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3IB' 314" 1%:' 3' S' " 8'
100 1 I ' �
90 10
80 � � � �
70 30
� � I o
? ap 40 Z
N Q
Q
Z 50 � ( � c
z
� 40 � � � � �
a
30 70
2p � � � BO
10 pp
� � �
0 100
.001 002 005 .009 019 .037 '.074 149 297 So0 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY(PLASTICj TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) $AND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBIES
Sample of SILT,Sandy,Gravelly GRAVEL 27 % SAND 30 0�,
From Boring TH-4 at 4 feet SILT&CLAY 43 % U9UIDLIMfT °�
PIASTICfTY INDEX %
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 9b-223 FIQ. 6
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDAftD SERIES CLEAR S9UARE OPENINGS
45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MttJ. '200 '100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'B '4 3/8' 3/4' 1 h' 3' S'6' 8'
100 _ _ _ � I I 0
90 10
.
80 _ � � � 20
70 30
� � � � o
h � 40 Z
� � � � �
Z 50 50 c
z
� 40 � � � � �
a
30 70
20 _ � � � 80
10 qp
�
0 100
001 002 005 .009 019 1.037 074 149 297 590 1.19 2 0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY(PLASTICj TO SIIT(NON-PLASTIC) SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL,Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 94 % SAND 1 %
FfOm Boring TH-4 at 9 feet SILT&CLAY 5 % LI9UIDLIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR S9UARE OPENINGS
45 MIN.15 MIN., 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 •100 'S0'40'30 '16 '10'8 '4 3/8' 3/4' 1%:' 3' S' ' 8'
100 I I I �
90 10
80 � � � �
70 30
� � � � a
? bp 40 Z
a � � � �
Z 50 50 C
z
� Q� ( � � � �
a
30 70
20 I I ' BO
10 pp
� � �
0 100
001 002 005 .009 019 037 074 .149 .297 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200
0.42 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY(PLASTIC)TO SILT(NON-PLASTIC) SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL % SAND %
From SILT&CLAY °k LJ9UID LIMfT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 96-223 FI(i. 8
12' MIN.
CLAYEY BACKFILL aRAVEL
— — — — — — — — — 2,
=---==== — .q�a o:b� :
— .o .o• • � BELOW GRADE WALL
. . .o U . .
COMPACTED ;oo ' o _o;
BACKFILL o . O. �p''
D .o�� o.
�, o� o
o�
�o o:O' . ,00
GRAVEL ��o4i MANUFACTURED DRAIN
:o:o '
•�o'. .V.°''
(SEE REPORT FOR BACKFILL o���o .•:
RECOMMENDATIONS) .•Q ,. '4��
:fl •�Q� �
.o�.d • o•�'�'
'o
.•� Q. U
.o , o
o•p o 0 Do�
•o' ' . O� .
° �' O'Oo � O
Z �O 'O . , �. O
� �.O� ,� �': G O��p� ' ,
.O O, O• G
• � O� ���
m � O 'O'��.a O
•o
•�o' PROVIDE PLASTIC SHEETING GLUED
4 iNCH DIAME�'ER TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE
PERFORATED PIPE. 12' MIN. MOISTURE PENETRATION.
NOTES:
1. INSTALL EITHER:
A. APPROVED MANUFACTURED DRAtN SYSTEM AND GRAVEL COVERED P{PE OR
B. GRAVEL WITH PIPE
2. DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 6 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE
HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING.
3. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1 /8 INCH
AND 1 /4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN.
4, C�RAVEL SPECIFICATION3: WASHED 1 1 /2 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL
WITH LESS THAN 396 PASSINa THE NO. 200 SIEVE .
TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL
JOB NO. 96-223 F�a' �
12�� MIN..
CLAY BACKFILL
10' ----
1'�__ — —__—--
----------- ------ 2'.
------___—_-- _-- MANUFACTURED DRAIN SYSTEM
------------ •__:0:;.�:p�Q..
------ o:o:...o�.:o
— .,oQ,.ao: 'o-.Q..
a�o Q� �.
O.�.o�:000., .
..o::�:�oo::p..o
; :o�,:• .o
.�••�•
COMPACTED . , ., • ��. .
BACKFILL •� .. .
Op�:;.:.:p:�(�.
��� ���oo��:o...
.:0:0�...0:,0:..�:
o. o�
::����?��=��o:�°�:.
:.�4:`oO:;Q.� .
..o:.o�•:'o•...
:0��.;�o.:Qo:#�. .
(3EE REPORT '�'•O:o�o•'�� �
�•��'�U� ':.
FOR BACKFILL ;•.:Q:.�:o�:o.
RECOMMENDATIONS) �°�(Q.�::'=:`°': �•
..':o':o�:�:��. �.
-QQ�.�:�
:o o��:O
p�� °' �O
.�...•.
p.o.a�;•O.�'•.
O �o�
Q .�;•..
� o'��, .
.° 'O��'.• O
'00; 6:�0:0;.�:
�. �.0
°�` :0.��.'
.�Q.
WASHED 1 1/2 INCH TO
NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS
THAN 3 PERCENT PA331NG 4 INCH DIAME7ER PERFORATED PVC PIPE.
TFiE NO. 200 SIEVE. THE DRAIN LINE SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE
RANCyING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP
PER FOOT OF DRAIN AND LEAD TO A POSITIVE
GRAVITY OUTLET.
NOTE:
INSTALL EITHER
1, APPROVED MANUFACTURED DRAIN 3Y3TEM
AND PIPE OR
2. C�RAVEL WITH PIPE
TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL
JOB NO. 96-223 F�a• 8
I
�
EXISTING BUILDIN(3S
�
' � TH-1
5� �
24, ADM.
A BUILDING
15'
50'� TH-3
TH-4 � TH-2
� EXISTING RETAINING WALL � 25, •
3 0'
' 35' �8�
EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS, SHOPS, AND BUS GARAGE
FR�N�AGE RO AD
1
1
�'1
/
/
/
� / /
/ �
/ �
' ' /
_./
/ �
/ �
/ �
� � '
/ W gE T��VN� � �
/ RgS AZ E �� I ,� �'
� / �N�E �
/ �
/ �
a — f �
, —
_ —
� . _
_
_ _
_ _
�
_
_
_
NOT TO SCALE
� LOCATI4NS OF EXPL4RATORY BORINGS
OB NO. 95-223
FIG. 2
a
-�
_—_ -- �
TH-1 TH-2 TH-3 TH-4
APP.EL. 105.5 APP.EL. 100.0 APP.EL. 100.0 APP,EL. 100.0 LEGEND:
p 0
N
^� TOPSOIL
..�. .4<j �A• �
.4' •q� •Q
50/12 ,Qq. 4q �
23/12 CJ WC=3 16/5 4 12/12
4' •Q; 5 ASPHALT
5 q -zoo=zi wc=s
q 44• -200=43
o: q � �
'p �0• ROADBASE
.�• p q,
.4'•
lo �A 17�12 � O wc=2 �J
� -200=11 � 10
�.
� � � SILT,Sandy,Gravelly,Clayey,Moist,Dense,Brown
Q Q �
CJ h o,
WC=3 V 49/10 '4' SAND and GRAVEL,Cobbles,Pockets of silt,Moist,Medium dense to dense,Brown
15 (J -200=17 � WC=1 15 flQ
^ � -200=5
"V /�
~ v ~ COBBLES and BOULDERS,Gravell Sand Silt y
W 9 W Y� Y� Y.Moi:t,Ver dense,Brown
W W
LL �
? 2o q 20 Z
^ �� Indicates practical dri11 rig refusal .
1 = `'� _
F-
a p a
w Q o
I � DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 23/1"L indicates that �3 blows of a 140 pound hammer
� � falling 30 ir:ches were required to drive a 2.0 i;�ch O.D. sampler 12 inches.
25 (� 25
�
Q DISTiJRBED SAMPLE: Obtained from
4 �I auger cuttings.
Q
i 30 30
�
NOTES:
� 1 . The Exploratory Borings Werr� drilled on Septem�er 11 , 1995 with a 4-inch diameter
continuous flight power aacswr.
� 35 � 35 — �. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained
in this report.
I Qn �
�. No free ground water was measured at the time ot drilling.
V
4. Laboratory Test Results:
7 40 40
WC - Indicates natural moisture content {%o)
-200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 20!1 sieve (%)
�
5. Elevations of borings are based on parking lot drivE*.aay being 100.0.
�
� LOGS 4F EXPL4RA1"ORY BORINGS
JOB NO. 95-223
FIG. 3