HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-7-133 (02-27-18) Geotech Study signed.pdf H-P KU MAR5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970)945-7988
Materials Testing I Environmental Fax: (970)945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Denver(HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins,Glenwood Springs,Summit County, Colorado
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED SOLAR VAIL EMPLOYEE HOUSING
501 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 18-7-133
FEBRUARY 27,2018
PREPARED FOR:
SONNENALP RESORT
ATTN: JOHANNES FAESSLER
20 VAIL ROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
jfaessler(asonnenalp.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION -2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -2 -
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 -
FLOOR SLABS - 6 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6
SITE GRADING - 7 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 -
LIMITATIONS - 8 -
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
H-PvKUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Solar Vail
employee housing development located 501 North Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado. The
project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for
geotechnical engineering services to Sonnenalp Resort dated January 29, 2018.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering
characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to
develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed
building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our
conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based
on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The two existing residential buildings on the property will be razed and the new 3 to 5 level
structure built in its place. The uphill, north part of the building will be cut a little further into
the hillside than the existing building and the cut possibly retained with permanent soil nail
walls. The ground level will be a parking structure with slab-on-grade floor. Grading for the
structure is assumed to be relatively minor in the downhill, south part and relatively extensive
from east to west in the uphill part. We assume relatively heavy foundation loadings carried
mainly by continuous walls based on review of the ground level floor plans.
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.
H-PMKUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 2 -
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is located at the change in grade from moderately sloping valley bottom to the steep
hillside to the north. The natural terrain has been modified by the existing development mainly
by a relatively deep cut into the hillside with some filling on the downhill side parking area
supported by a concrete retaining wall around 5 to 6 feet high. The two existing 4-story
buildings are partly underlain by garages in the south part with asphalt paved drives and outside
parking areas to the south. Vegetation consist of landscape bushes and trees adjacent the
buildings and below the parking areas with native brush on the hillside above the property.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 13 and 22, 2018. 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. Boring 1
was drilled with a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig and Borings 2 and 3 were drilled with a
track-mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsurface materials 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 and hardness of the bedrock. 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.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils consist of about 7 to 9 feet of granular fill overlying dense, sandy gravel and cobbles
soils or very hard siltstone/sandstone bedrock. Drilling in the coarse granular soils or bedrock
H-PvKUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 3 -
with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders or cemented rock and drilling
refusal was encountered in the deposits.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive
samples (minus 11/2-inch fraction) of the granular fill soils are shown on Figure 4 and 5. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
The hillside above the building site is steep, at a grade of about 40%but does not show signs of
instability. The natural soils in the lower part, within the existing building area, consist of coarse
granular glacial deposits. The underlying bedrock consists of Minturn Formation with a regional
bedding dip down to the northwest and favorable to slope stability. Based on the soil and
bedrock conditions, relatively extensive cut into the hillside with the planned soil nail wall
retention system should be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The glacial deposits contain
boulders and the bedrock is cemented which will probably make excavation difficult. The
natural coarse granular soils and bedrock possess moderate to high bearing capacity and low
settlement potential and are suitable for spread footings to support the proposed building.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing
on the natural granular soils or bedrock.
H-P-KUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
-4 -
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or bedrock should 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 reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) All existing fill, debris,topsoil and loose disturbed soils or rock should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense
natural 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 shallow depth of structural fill, up to about 5 feet, can probably be used to
reestablish design bearing level. The suitability of structural fill as foundation
bearing material should be evaluated at the time of construction. Structural fill
should consist of relatively well graded granular soils placed in uniform lifts of
about 8 inches and compacted to at least 100% of standard Proctor density at near
optimum moisture content.
7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all foundation
excavations for bearing conditions and evaluate structural fill for compaction
prior to concrete placement.
H-P-KUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 5 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 15 feet high which are laterally supported
and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a
lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate from the building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active
earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of
an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular
soils. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger than 6 inches.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings,traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. 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.
We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because
their use results in lower lateral earth pressures and lower ground settlement potential and the
backfill can be incorporated into the underdrain system. Subsurface drainage recommendations
are discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. Imported granular
wall backfill should contain less than 15%passing the No. 200 sieve and have a maximum size
of 6 inches.
H-PvKUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 6 -
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 450 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 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 granular soils or bedrock, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement,floor
slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due
to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be
established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch
layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage.
This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50%retained on the No. 4
sieve and less than 2%passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils or a suitable imported gravel devoid of vegetation,topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
mountainous areas and where bedrock is shallow that local perched groundwater can develop
during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 7 -
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 1%to
a suitable gravity outlet. 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 1 V2 feet deep.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the uphill
building excavation is supported by soil nail walls as planned. We assume the cut depths for the
parking level will be up to about to 15 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep at
the downhill side of the project. Embankment fills should 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,topsoil and debris and
compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be
benched into slopes that exceed 20% grade.
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. This office should review site grading plans for the project
prior to construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the building has been completed:
H-PvKUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 8 -
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided
during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to
at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to
drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
2'/2 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be
covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site 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.
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 18-7-133
- 9 -
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,
1-P KUMAR
ALr
Steven L. Pawlak, '. ,4, 15 22 2
W w
%/RIi
Reviewed by: ye
,,x rig f:cc aid C'@ r
Sz Xe`.: ,bfl��v.
a yJ
lbC;ye' ��i q`ai yet �'�..
v
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kac
cc: GPSL Architects—Henry Pratt (henry(a,gpslarchitects.com)
JVA—Tom Soell (tsoell@jvajva.com)
H-PtiKUMAR Project No. 18-7-133
rte,.RaAR
N)S]0'.PT RS.' VAIL POTATO PATCH
u PAM,...or
TRACT C
-
NRE7E09'x.6z..-96E' — \``� _
13560 S.F. —�_
._ _ ---_ I.DOQi7CR —__ . ~\ _ _
RED SANDSTONE \\ ; 6 __�_
SCHOOL 1
E < 1 ems-.,\�x- , — BORING 3 ��\ *—, �--
,, �j -� — �,_ - _cn° BORING 2�
_�% -- ",\\�`\ .—�_
t V. J _ �° LSF :�---
•
•
=VI, \ i �, I 1
• /--` BORING 1 ''1 j ,'
EwstatNr ttwrn[-re 7 – _ _ _ \
4
o \
/ 6UARMH\/l- �_ _ i__ . SOLAR VAIL' , .___=,,,,i r �4:
/s a7,..11,="U /. wa �e u;: So'[MUM M.1->. w®io'.r`. - . - \
a _ rAec
• rAupen LS rami 531 LASPlkNT __431 ' .
Ac
' i+`l SRIEMI(K
—
�3 • —:.'- - ,-._1--.-----,—.. :.-- • •�. ,.-- un— — d><25'J 00 NORM lRa+/tE Ro
• te: 'u•-fur • .—
us -- •�_--�� T 100.IB'
` = ` — ROAD WEST C.„B: Js�.-W ,r—
�W \ FRONTAGE ---__--
SOF —— —
— ,, ''.�' RAv.6105, RTH T009J' - - -
BLNr,Ru,zr NO ———— — —
`awwurRaVORS _———
NAN/Ap[ ——
------------
ftLV.�6lYIS 9) —
4. I
i
e
i
i
I-
g
ii
3
A
E d 25 0 25 50
8.7 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET
s`:
jJ 18-7-133 I H—PtiKUMARI I Fig.OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1
BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3
EL. 8220' EL. 8237' EL. 8237.5'
8240
8240
8235 •
8235
APPROXIMATE WC=15 3
LEVEL 1 ♦ +4=41 till 20/12 —
♦ -200=15 WC=7.4
♦ DD=111 —
+4=22
8230 ♦ -200=41 8230
50/6 —
8225
w 8225 !
w—
zI -w
O —Z
— O
w— -Q
APPROXIMATE PARKING —
w
8220 (3)` , LEVEL 8220 w
*18/12
X8215 —
_ 24/12 8215
WC=4.6 —
+4=27
ja -200=15
8210 8210
Al 50/0
8205
8205
i'
42 Ea
18-7-133 H-PtiKUIVIAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND
(3) _; ASPHALT, THICKNESS IN INCHES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO LEFT OF THE LOG.
FILL: SILTY CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL, SCATTERED COBBLES, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, MIXED BROWN.
/o GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM-GC); SILTY, SANDY, BOULDERS, DENSE, MOIST, BROWN.
SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK; VERY HARD/CEMENTED, GRAY-BROWN, MINTURN
FORMATION.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON
SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586.
8/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 8 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
A PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. WHERE SHOWN ABOVE BOTTOM OF BORING, INDICATES THAT
I MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS WHERE MADE TO ADVANCE THE HOLE.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON FEBRUARY 13 AND 22, 2018 WITH A 4-INCH
DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS 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 THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
. WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422);
-200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
s
E
Ea
i.ii
2j $-7-1 33 H-P KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
_
90 .■. 6!•61• -�-111111 �.-�;� 0
6>•� MIIIIIIIIMI■ ■■■---- I 110
--
80 � � MINI_��NI- ; 120
1111111616 IIMIMIIIIIIII11111111111111•=11111111111111111MMIIMMIIIIIM111111111111111111MMIIIIMMIIIIIII
70
IMOIMMANII 1111111 3°
2 so
so
MI II__II 501
II III ..........
40
alMEIN I
30 jr
111111170 20 �' - ' 60
I1
10 U I I I 90
o I I III ! I I 1 1 1 1 111 I II I 1111 I I 1 1 1 1111 I 1 1 1 1 111 I ■ 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.16 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
I
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 27 X SAND 58 X SILT AND CLAY 15 %
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and Gravel (Fill) FROM: Boring 1 0 5'
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 16 MIN 60 IN 19MIN 41514 1MIN 100 8190 8 0 If,Al $ 616 I1)86 4 3/J- 3 4- 1 1 - -. .-0
I I
90 I I I I
10
1
I
I80
20
r I
70
I 30
60 '
I 40 8
t I
p 50 - I 50
f
40
I
60
I I
30 _ L
I � 70
��p- —moom —
20 I 160
1 1 I
I
10 I I
90
I 1 I
0 I I 11 I I D 1 1 1 1 1 11 I - 1 - II I_ 1 111 I I 1 1 1 1 111 I 1 1 1111111 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.1e 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
SAND GRAVEL
k FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
CLAY TO SILT
Et
3
GRAVEL 41 X SAND 44 X SILT AND CLAY 15 X
1
W LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
' SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand and FROM: Boring 2 0 4'
I Grovel (FIII)
These test results apply only to the
S samples which were tested. The
E a testing report shall not be reproduced,
v= except In full, without the written
approval of Kumar& Associates, Inc.
84 Sieve analysis testing Is performed In
accordance with ASTM D422, ASTM C136
b 6 and/or ASTM D1140.
n!
18-7-133 H-P-WUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS ' Fig. 4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN 15 MIN GO AN 1 MIN 4M1N is IN 1290 1100 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 6 II. 6 54 3/8' 3 4' 1 r 3' r 4.0
misemmtmigemie=mosimmomminemmeemmememmemes� ��
.1
90 -��-, �_ 10
-Immo m1mm -180
_...
20
I
L
70 I 30
IIIIIEiIll .
1
60 443
I I 1
t 1 rr
G 50 I I 50
I1
I
40 I 60
• I I
30 I I 70
I
20 I I 60
I I
10 1
I I fro
ISM
0 I I III 1 I I I I I [III I II I IIII I I L I I I I I I I 11 I I I I II I 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.16 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 3e.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
GRAVEL 22 'X SAND 37 X SILT AND CLAY 41 X
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Very Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel (Fill) FROM: Boring 3 0 4'
3
g
i
3
I
E
j
These test results apply only to the
E e t teed. The sting reporthshallenotstbe reproduced,
except In full, without the written
7= approval of Kumar& Associates. Inc.
Sieve analysts testing Is performed In
accordance with ASTM D422, ASTM C136
S and/or ASTM D1140.
06 18-7-133 H-P'vKUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
M
CO
ti .a) ..a
6ccs
cd Tt C/)r
w .a) 'C3 >,
O 0
Z -1 t! V] c0 w
J
p >,' >,^ U
o �' >,w >, w
a U , U •c7-3 C
cc �7 _vC7 v) C
3
ow
w?=
Z fn 1-
IT.W 0
IWC c
o w n.
V) Z0cj
...1 =U
D
CY W _~ ~w ^
E Q o
4 ~ J aZ
Wcc . _
2 H m
>_ cc w oi-
Ce
O a -11
J
W X Flo
issos til N> `n `n ,-'
??)
N
Q W U w
waZz N
H J aa
Os Li0
1 } 0
1 IX
5 a _
2 Q
Q J
Q e C--- N
N dt N
0
J
Q
Qow
Z o
J W F-
jFI- c Cr) 71-
H co z 4- tri
<oo
z2o
Z i
1I- v v, v
Q w
U
0
J
W
J 0
a z
-
.4 CC --- N M
0