HomeMy WebLinkAboutB18-0067_Sub Soil Study - HP Kumar_1521480174.pdf H-P --il<UMAR- 5020 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
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED FITNESS CENTER/POOL RENOVATIONS
WESTWIND AT VAIL
548 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 17-7-463
OCTOBER 6, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
WESTWIND AT VAIL
ATTN: JEFF JACOBS
548 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
(iiacobs@vail.net)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS -4 -
FLOOR SLABS - 5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 -
LIMITATIONS - g -
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 and 5 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed fitness center and pool area
renovations at the Westwind at Vail, 548 South 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 agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Westwind at Vail dated June 9, 2017.
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, compressibility or
swell 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. Recommendations for site grading are also
included. 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 renovations will include a new fitness center building and spa, located as shown on Figure 1.
The existing pool will remain but the surrounding deck area will be re-constructed which will
include a site retaining wall along the south side. The building will be a single story structure
with a slab-on-grade floor at a finish elevation a few feet below the existing ground surface.
This will require the building foundation wall to retain several feet of soil at the adjacent new spa
area which will be elevated 2 to 3 feet above existing ground surface. The new pool deck area
will require 2 to 3 feet of fill for deck slab-on-grade type construction or a structurally supported
deck slab, partly depending on the findings of our study. The approximate pool deck and
building floor elevations are shown on Figure 2. We assume relatively light foundation loadings
for the building, spa and structurally supported deck, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
H-PkiKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 2 -
If 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 site is currently occupied by Westwind at Vail building and adjacent pool area on the
southeast side, see Figure 1. There is an existing pool and deck with two spas located to the
north of the pool. The proposed fitness area will replace the northern spa. The proposed new
pool deck will replace the current pool deck. The site has been heavily modified during the
construction of Westwind at Vail and facilities, and man-placed-fill is present. The topography
of the area is valley bottom with slopes less than 5%. Vegetation consists of landscaping in
flower beds, lawn, and scattered aspen trees and conifers.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 28, 2017. Three exploratory
borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions.
The borings were advanced with 3-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a mini
drill rig. Access on the site was limited even with the mini-rig due to the existing facilities. The
borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. California spoon sampler. The sampler
was 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.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils encountered, below nil to 2 feet of organic topsoil, consisted of 21 to 61/ feet of man-
H-P-*KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 3 -
placed fill overlying medium dense, clayey silty sand with gravel underlain by relatively dense,
silty sandy gravel and cobbles at depths of from 6 to 7 feet. The fill was generally medium
dense, silty clayey sand with gravel and scattered cobbles. Drilling in the natural dense coarse
granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and probable boulders, and
drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit in all three borings.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on
relatively undisturbed drive samples are presented on Figures 4 and 5. The swell-consolidation
test results indicate the fill and natural sand soils possess low to moderate compressibility under
conditions of loading and wetting with a nil to minor hydro-compression potential. Results of a
gradation analyses performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 11 inch fraction) of the
natural coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 6. 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 moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The existing fill appears fairly well compacted based on our limited information. The fill and
natural sand soils possess low bearing capacity and low to possibly moderate settlement
potential. The underlying dense coarse granular soils possess moderate bearing capacity and
relatively low settlement potential. At assumed excavation depths, the subgrade soils are likely
to transition from the fill to the clayey silty sand and possibly to the dense coarse granular soils
at deeper excavation for the fitness center building. Spread footings bearing on these soils
should be feasible for foundation support of the building, spa and pool deck with some risk of
differential settlement. The risk of differential settlement is primarily due to the assumed
variable bearing conditions and if the fill is not adequately compacted. Bearing the footings
entirely on the dense coarse granular soils would provide a low risk of differential foundation
settlement.
H-PKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
-4 -
To reduce the risk of differential settlement below spread footings in the fill and sand soil
bearing areas, a depth (typically 2 or 3 feet) of imported structural fill, such as CDOT Class 2 or
6 aggregate base course could be placed below footing areas. The suitability of the existing fill
to support footings and the need for structural fill below footing areas should be further
evaluated at the time of construction.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FITNESS AREA FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction,we recommend the building and spa (and the deck if needed)be
founded with spread footings bearing on the natural soils and/or adequately compacted fill. We
should review the foundation and grading plans prior to construction.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on adequately compacted fill and/or the natural soils should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we
expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section
will be up to about 1 to 11/inches depending on the bearing conditions. Imported
structural fill below the footings or bearing the footings on the dense coarse
granular soils would reduce the anticipated settlements.
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 12 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
H-PKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 5 -
lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) All topsoil, unsuitable soils and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended down to firm suitable bearing soils. The
exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
Structural fill below footings should be compacted to at least 98% standard
Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum and extend at least 11 feet
beyond the edges of the footings.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations and test structural fill compaction on a regular basis prior to concrete
placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures 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 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 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. The backfill should not contain
debris, topsoil or oversized(plus 6 inch) 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 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 in pavement and walkway
H-PMKUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 6 -
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 98% standard Proctor density could be done to reduce the
backfill settlement.
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 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 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 well graded granular material
such as road base compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR AND POOL DECK SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade
construction. The existing fill appears suitable to support floor slabs and decks with some risk of
settlement but should be further evaluated at the time of construction. Providing a depth (at least
2 feet) below floor slabs and the pool decks would reduce the risk of settlement and frost
susceptibility of the fill and natural fine grained soils. Providing 2 to 3 feet of imported road
base on the existing fill below the deck area slabs as structural fill should provide a relatively
low risk of settlement and distress. If the natural coarse granular soils are exposed at floor slab
subgrade, such as possibly at the fitness center building, structural fill below the slab should not
be needed.
H-P:.KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 7 -
To reduce the effects of some differential movement, slabs should be separated from all bearing
walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. 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.
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 debris, topsoil and oversized (plus 6 inch) rocks, or a suitable
imported granular material such as road base.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
mountainous areas that 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. We assume a drain will be provided around and/or below the spa.
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. If PVC drain pipe is used (which we recommend), the pipe slope can be
reduced to 1/2%. 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/feet deep and be
covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or 160N.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the fitness building, spa and pool deck improvements have been completed:
H-PWUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 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 and spa 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 21/2 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill
should be capped with filter fabric and about 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.
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.
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
H-P�KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
- 9 -
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,
11-1°- KU MAR
100,4A!p------'
Robert L. Duran, E. I.
Reviewed by: �3�,/�,�, :�
. ��
'' r f qty, .i •.";
a a n
4 w
David A. Young, P E'',-.i.11`.-,3,,1‘. 3,12-21S •°W4
�6�q `�D��Vate.
RLD/kac ,4r '� ''s, o �.
cc: Pierce Architects—Bill Pierce (bill @ vailarchitects.com)
R.A. Nelson&Associates—Jason Morley (jmorely@ranelson.com)
Reynolds Corp—Sean Reynolds (sean.reynoldscorp@gmail.com)
H-P%KUMAR
Project No. 17-7-463
x,�
0.7. I e
10.
ELEC TRANS N PROPOSED FITNESS
ter
CENTER BUILDING AREA
M
X N
ONO.Mt tV
=,•- BORING 1
DECK `x.+ =aiY� sy:fTAIRS - - LOT 1, BLOCK 1
CONC PPD EL=6161.1'
EL-8150.7 env ns; >STAIRPIA S 3
a __�_
DRAIN!:' .A .I.:-- tae .< i Nu .ssc ».. ." iki
�.«,,, a,. PROPOSED NEW
ENTRY' MI'r'a•-EAK'T
EL=8750.STAI s STAIRS SPA AREA
STAI-S .s EL=8164.7' Asa.s, _—_--ems
•'OOF u.33 s-� ve1
., s OVERHANG n:a , F:
EL-8163.5' o„
BUILDING OUTLINE ,s S� +,- x SPLIT RAIL FENCE
-ean • APPROX.4.5'TALL
BORING 3 _ x
TOP OF POST
�. Ix
STAIRS��`•ti_____-'x.---
ys x'z
WESTWIND AT
VAIL BUILDING I
DECK
EL=8160.2' s: _ S
POOL DRAIN
°'F CAP
, EXISTING_____' K.V
POOL TO
REMAIN
4
POOL DRAIN y SPOT ELEV.AT TOP
VENT POP N I OF VARIABLE HEIGHT
',s M' TIE FENCE(TYP)
TV PED
,.„..,••,-----i STAIRS s.,,�.cy,
; ..F+nsz�n.•✓' 3
BORING 2
100
S) NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN
G.
ra
rz
a
U
3
O
IIMININI
111161
3 10 0 10 20
E'
a.
APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET
00
4 17-7-463 H-PvKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
x>
BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3
EL. 8156.5' EL. 8154.5' EL. 8155.5'
8160 8160
PROPOSED POOL DECK = 8156.2' ±
10/12 8155 WC=11.9 8155
_ DD=122
♦ -200=26 —
20/12 . 8/12
9 12 WC=12.4
1
WC=11.4 .] DD=122 ♦ 15/12 —w
_
DD=124 • . WC-9.4 z
32/12 ♦ DD=124•
a- 8150 . 50/6 ♦ 33/12 8150 0
w WC=10.1
w— DD =117 —w
>— w
T � 25/0 �" 150/5
8145
8145
SPA DECK = 8157.3' ± _
9/6,50/4
WC=8.5 44/12 —
00=131 WC=4.2 _
8140 -200=34 DD=113
8140
E�
'a
or
17-7-463 H-1)tiKUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND
' TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SILT AND SAND, LOOSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN.
FILL; MAN—PLACED SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, PROBABLE COBBLES, MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, MIXED BROWN.
, SAND (SC—SM); CLAYEY, SILTY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, RED—BROWN.
X GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM); PROBABLE BOULDERS, SANDY, SILTY, DENSE, MOIST, MIXED
BROWN.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST.
10/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 10 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
T 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 AUGUST 28, 2017 WITH A 3—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 APPROXIMATED BY HAND LEVEL AND
REFER TO SPOT ELEVATIONS ON FIG. 1.
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.
r 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
n 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
`e DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140).
131
3
e
s
o:
1
a^
or
12. 17-7-463 H-P�KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
III SAMPLE OF: Clayeyl Silty Sand with
Irina I Grave
FROM: Boring 1 @ 4'
WC = 11.4 %, DD = 124 pcf
11111111111
1 11111111 DIM , 11111
MI NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
lir"
1101
J -1
W
N
1 -2
Z
O
F-
a
i_7 1 -3
O
N
Z
O
c) -4
1111111111 111111111 MIA
III 11111 1111111
11111111 MEI 11111111
These test results apply only to the
ampler leafed.The testing report
shall not be reproduced,except in
full,without the written approval of
Kumar d Associates,Inc.Swell
Consolidation testing performed in
accordance with ASTM U-4546.
1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
P.
3
E:
d
17-7-463 H-PvKUMAR SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with
Gravel (Fill)
FROM: Boring 2 @ 2'
WC = 12.4 %, DD = 122 pcf
1
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
J UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
N0 DUE TO WETTING
—1
z —2
Z
—3 -----
-4
.1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
SAMPLE OF: Silty Clayey Sand with
Gravel (Fill)
FROM: Boring 3 @ 4'
WC = 9.4 %, DD = 124 pcf
'w
1111111pi ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDERDUE CONSTANTTOWETTING PRESSURE
N O
�Wu
—1 I 1111111"
Z —2
�i.
- o ,
—3
These test results apply only to the
samples tested.The tenting report
shall not be reproduced,except in
full,without the written approval of
Kumar and Associates,Inc.Swell
Consolidation testing performed in
accordance with ASTM D-4546.
Sr •1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
71 17-7-463 H-PtiKUMAR SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
24 HRS 7 HRS
100 45 MIN IS MIN MAIN 19MIN 4/411.1 /MIN #E00 4100 E50#40 30 X16 1110#8 4 3 8" 3 4" 1 1/2" 5'8' 8'0
I 1
90 1 10
• I
80 ' 2
-I 0
r
70 IT
i 30
I—
so 1 1
40
v 1 1 11i t50 1 1 1 50 &
I I
I L 1 `g
n 40 1 _ 60
(— 1
30 1 70
1 L-_
20 _ MI_ 1_ 80
J 1
10 1 - 1
1- I 90
I 1- I
0 11 I I I I 11 I 1 I t I II I I II 1 111 I I I I I I II-I I I I I I II I I1 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200
.425 2.0 152 I
I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL
COBBLES
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
GRAVEL 47 % SAND 44 % SILT AND CLAY 9
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 3 @ 7.5'
I.
G
E
3
These test results apply only to the
samples which were tested. The
testing report shall not be reproduced,
E� except in full, without the written
e approval of Kumar& Associates, Inc.
n
on Sieve analysis testing Is performed In
accordance with ASTM 0422, ASTM C136
and/or ASTM D1140.
L'F
m?
-a 17-7-463 H-PvKUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
co
co
3 3 3 3 3 3 ct
LU
"1❑:i 'CI 'C ^CS 'C3 'CS �"
Z } cd mcC.
wt c�-3 cc c
++ J C) C/7 C1) C/) C/) C/)
ct
U i Uclja) U ami 1 cn
v) C7 UC7
V) C. Ua) C7C7 v)
w
w>i
z(71-
w
aOaw
O�?H
J v
M
W
I- I-w
J az
cc
Lii
2 1._
}CC co
cc W ��
0 Q J J
r Q
W X F-
CD 0
J0 wZN>
0 Q CO m ��Ow N cn CT
I— J W<Z�
Qom U-
0 0
CC
O (/) \ d1-
E Q_
D CC w
O Q N
M
CD
J
CC}} C` N d N
MCC, o N N N c N ,-1 ,M--
Q0 W Cl- •--1 .--i ,-I ,--a •--- ,--i .-1
Z CI
J w I-
<
? HH
d' d. d" N o OU OtZ . .-1
z I
0 W v N N d'
Q
U
O
-J
LU
J O
a Z
2 - N M
En 0