Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB15-0274_Soils Report_1438723740.pdf 1 erworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,Inc. 5020 County Road 154 ii► !!!! , Glenwood Springs,Colorado 816)1 - <<. Phone:970-9-15-7958 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Fax:97C'-915-451 email:hp_-ruvithp,eotech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE • LOT 29, BLOCK 7, VAIL VILLAGE 1ST FILING 165 FOREST ROAD VAIL, COLORADO JOB NO. 115 094A MAY 21, 2015 PREPARED FOR: JANA SOBOTOVA 165 FOREST ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 jana.sobotova(?a cimex.cz Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 - FLOOR SLABS - 6 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 - SITE GRADING - 8 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 8 - LIMITATIONS - 9 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 and 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS ' TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 29, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 165 Forest 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 general accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Jana Sobotova dated March 5, 2015 and addendum dated April 8, 2015. 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 properties. 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 residence will be a multilevel, two to four story structure with one to two basement levels cut into the hillside and located on the site as shown on Figure 1. The ground floors will be slab-on-grade. The main floor level will be at about elevation 8243 feet and the lowest basement floor level will be about elevation 8214 feet, see Figure 2. Grading for the structure will require cut depths at the uphill side between about 25 to 30 feet. We assume relatively light to moderate foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. The driveway from Forest Road will lead down into the middle level of the residence. Job No. 115 094A Gegtech - 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 lot is occupied by an older residence that will be removed for the new construction. The terrain is moderately to steeply sloping down to the north at an average grade of about 40%. Elevation difference across the proposed building is about 30 feet and across the lot is about 50 feet. Vegetation consists of aspen and evergreen forest with brush, grass and weed ground cover. About 1 to 2 feet of snow covered the property at the time of our field exploration. There are existing residences on the adjacent lots. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was initially conducted on March 25 and 26, 2015. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME 45B drill rig. Due to shallow auger refusal depths, Boring 1 located at the uphill side of the lot was deepened with rotary hammer (ODEX) drilling method to the final depth shown on Figure 2. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% 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 and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Job No. 115 094A Ge Ptech - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered consist of a variable depth of mainly loose to medium dense, granular fill underlain at depths from about 7 to 12 feet by relatively dense, silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders that extended down to auger drilled depths of 111/2 to 17 feet. Drilling in the coarse granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in all three borings in the deposit. Boring 1, which was deepened by rotary hammer drilling methods, encountered siltstone/sandstone bedrock with possible limestone at a depth of about 16 feet down to the drilled depth of 41 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the fill and natural granular soils are shown on Figures 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. When checked several days following drilling, free water was encountered at a depth of 29'/ feet in Borings 1 and at 131/2 feet in Boring 3. The upper soils were generally moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural coarse granular soils and bedrock possess moderate bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. Spread footings bearing on the natural coarse granular soils or bedrock can be used for foundation support of the residence. Boulders could be encountered in the excavation and should be carefully removed to limit disturbance of the bearing soils. Voids resulting from boulder removal below footing areas should be backfilled with compacted gravel or lean concrete. Job No. 115 094A Ge&ech - 4 - Based on our experience in the area, the granular nature of the subsoils and the proposed excavation depths, groundwater should be expected for deeper excavations made at the site especially during spring and early summer months, and dewatering of the excavation will probably be needed. The dewatering can probably consist of shallow trenches placed outside of footing areas and sloped to gravity outlet or to sumps and pumps for shallow drawdown. We understand that shoring of the upper and intermediate bench cuts will be provided and likely include soil nails or micro-piles. • 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 coarse granular soils or bedrock. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural coarse granular soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Footings placed entirely on bedrock can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior 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 48 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be well reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least Job No. 115 094A Ge Ptech - 5 - 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 debris, fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural coarse granular soils or bedrock. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened 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. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures up to 15 feet in height 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. Foundation walls and retaining structures taller than 15 feet in height which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure of 25H in psf where H is the wall height in feet for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the main 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 45 pcf,for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. The backfill should not contain debris, topsoil or plus 6 inch size rocks. • 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 Job No. 115 094A Gaitech - 6 - 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 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed 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. Use of a select granular imported material such as road base and increasing compaction to at least 98% standard Proctor density could be done to limit the settlement potential. 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 weight of 400 pcf. 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 a suitable granular material 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 topsoil, and bedrock are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with Job No. 115 094A GetPtech - 7 - expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage and have positive connection to the foundation drain. 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 topsoil and oversized rocks or a suitable granular soil can be imported, UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered within the depths of proposed excavation for the building and it has been our experience in the area that the groundwater level can rise and local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, 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 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 %% to a suitable gravity outlet or a sump where the water can be collected and pumped. Several interior lateral drains connected with the drain gravel below the basement floor slab may also be needed. 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 11/2 feet deep and extend to above any seepage level in the adjacent cut face, and covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N. Job No. 115 094A Gtech - 8 - SITE GRADING Excavation for the proposed lower levels of the building will be relatively extensive and there is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site. Cut depths for the below grade levels are proposed to be up to about 25 to 30 feet. Embankment fills placed outside of the building perimeter should be limited to about 10 feet deep and be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into portions of the hillside of 20% grade or steeper. Temporary excavation cut slopes up to about 15 feet high in the natural dense granular soils can probably be cut at 1 (Horizontal) to 1 (Vertical) provided the cuts are dry. Temporary excavation cut slopes higher than 15 feet should be sloped no steeper than 1%2 H to 1 V. If seepage is encountered, flatter slopes could be needed. Steeper cut slopes in the bedrock maybe possible. If the excavation cut slopes cannot be laid back to a stable grade, shoring such as by soil nails or micro-piles will probably be needed. We should review the excavation cut slope conditions if unsupported temporary cuts are planned or if seepage is encountered in the cuts. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Job No. 115 094A Gertech 9 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 12 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 covered with filter fabric and capped with at least 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. 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 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. Job No. 115 094A Gtech - 10 - 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. Al ;,,,e4pY•7 e-,64,11 11 y, Steven L. Pawlak P. : ;. 16222 . . J`J � l; Reviewed by: '1,' ' orM.' °.1107/ Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ksw cc: Berglund Architects—Stephanie Lord-Johnson (stephaniet,,berglundarchitects.com) Job No. 115 094A GeC9tech 1 .fry LOT 26 ! .c_ k• ( ' Fs , p .q' Iif \ t 1, / t.E ! I -maynJ o- �:p, 1. ' i BORING 3 `ti`! •i 'I ' ' \ „EE 77 a . � r • 1•.= i I . � 81 � 1f ,! ,t 1 �,?, 1 111; I �rri `! BORING 2` i'7'-,�-.,,_ 1l. I k • .,, ,z.,,, j A „. . g !,F 1 .., '..: 1 / / �� ---- / f, / 11-5-i '1 I\ •.• : I _ / CI //j/ f 1 BORING 1 1! J , ,1 , I • // r', -�� t l I s� / ,1 t C� _{ g , , , I 1/>i: ' rt , 1 ! 11 C, I I Ye-I 1.// 1 p'-• / : { . •r _/ /1' ; '), / / u LOT 28 , - r r .c ,,,, rt !- , -=. YJ.., _ �1 y 1� 0'r 1 . r,- �/ , /, ., �` , J r ----7.. ;;''. J .` // / : 1 .,. 1 / • ' / ' / * / f.' i N• LOT 30 / F £$' LOT 31 'gs 2 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 30' H 115 094A G Ptech LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 1 HEPWORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 8245 ELEV.= 8244' ELEV.= 8233.5' ELEV.= 8235' 8245 2p; MAIN FLOOR LEVEL=8243' iv _ 34/12 _ 8240 8240 _ _ .4 5/12 WC=22.5 _ DD=90 -200=52 8235 ♦ 8235 _— DD47/7218.7 15/6,50/4 • 5/12 a +4=22 11 . — �� -200=39 ♦ 11 8230 Y8 50/0 , 10/12 we=9.3 /1222 8230 _ -r . • --200'21 . WC=14.0 _ 'ce 15/12 . -200=3 200=33 _ 8225 / 17/12 Iii' — • WC11.5 8225 _ fcu / 50/0 +4=9 WC 212.0 fi 9 200=35 el 15/9,20/0 50/2 _ 8215 29 8215 LOWEST FLOOR LEVEL= 8214' - 50/0 y/ 8210 1 _ 8210 _ / J 8205 _. 8205 A50/0 — ■ Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. 8200 8200 H 115 094A Gec�•Cecl� LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2 Hapwarth—Pawlak Geotechnical LEGEND: 1111 BRICK PAVERS; overlying paver base of silty sand and gravel, medium dense, moist, brown. 4 Inches of asphalt te pp at Boring 1 overlying silty sand and gravel road base. FILL; mixed silty clayey sand and gravel, some cobbles, loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown to brown. pSAND AND GRAVEL(SM-GM); silty, clayey, cobbles, probable boulders, medium dense to dense, moist, light brown to brown. 7 SANDSTONE-SILTSTONE BEDROCK; possible limestone, very hard, with cemented layers, grey-brown. L Minturn Formation. bRelatively 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. 34/12xDrive sample blow count; indicates that 34 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Indicates 1 1/2"slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. A 0'29 Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. TPractical auger drilling refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 25 and 26, 2015 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. Boring 1 was deepened below auger refusal on April 15, 2015 with 6 inch diameter ODEX casing advanced by hammer drilling. 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. 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 (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 115 094AHtteC}•] LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3 Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 w11N.15 MIN.60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/80 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 506" 8" 0 I 100 10 90 20 { 80 Lu CD Z 30 Q 70 Z H � 40CC I 6o Q d Z 1- Z 50 I 50 Z W CC 60 CC W 90 Lu d W O 70 J 30 80 20 90 10 100 I o .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 325 76.2 152 203 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE 1 MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 22 % SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 39 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel - Fill FROM: Boring 1 at 10 Feet HYDROMETER ANALYSISSIEVE ANALYSIS 24 R. 7 HR TIME READINGS I U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 445 MIN.15 MIN.60MIN19MIN.4 MIN.1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 80 100 10 90 70„..a.........."..r.20 I 80 W C Z 30 70 Z Q CO CC 40 I 60 Q F- I D_ H LU 50 { 50 W CC W 60 40 CC CC a I W 70 l 30 80 I 20 90 { 10 100 I 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512 519.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE 1 MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 9 % SAND 56 % SILT AND CLAY 35 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 at 7% Feet H 115 094A Cr1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS I U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 0 45 IN.15 MIN.60MINI9MIN.4 MIN.1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8" 100 I A 10 111111190 20 ' 80 30 1111170 0 Z 40 I 60 Z Q I N Z , Icn 50 50 I— Z z EA 0 a 60 11111111 CCCC0 70 30 I0 80 20 I I 90 II III : ®„"' 10 100 I 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 12.5 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE ICOARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 22 % SAND 45 % SILT AND CLAY 33 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel - Fill FROM:Boring 3 at 5 Feet 115 094A H y� Hepworth—Pawlak GeotCl ,!I GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 5 « j \ / ct to� \ \ \ \ \ j r ) 0 0 0 0 0 ) §§ § + g g + g kM / \ \ \ \ \ 10 CO L) z ) ) / $ b Cl) » § fb b t t b f O 0 O O O -- Cl) Cl) . / © £ , ._ - .- 7 !I! ( d ® §[[ z -J / k ( \) 3 \ COUJ 0 LU e § O Et ( \k Z terIA \ $ � § \ } \ \kZ§ N m N en1/4n enen r 12- } \ I— < 0 (0 enCA 1/40 kn kn 7:1- E 2 k wcc ] o N a 2Z q 2}G0 c c c§2 $ a} 1-MZ * \ § in a \ / <50 ' c Z Lb « © 2 m / CD « \ ) § N en