Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-7-361 (09-10-18)S+F 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 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOTS 14 AND 17,BLOCK 7,VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 307 ROCKLEDGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 18-7-361 SEPTEMBER 10,2018 PREPARED FOR: SOLARIS REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ATTN: BRIAN REDINGER 141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE,SUITE 211 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 (brian @ solarisvail.com) TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 - FOUNDATIONS -4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 5 - FLOOR SLABS - 7 - 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 FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 18-7-361 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lots 14, and 17,Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, 307 Rockledge 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 agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Solaris Redevelopment Corporation dated May 15, 2018. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock 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. 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 An existing residence on the lot is being removed and a new residence constructed in the same general location, see Figure 1. The proposed residence will be a one and two story wood frame structure over walkout basement with attached garage at the main level. Ground floors will be slab on grade. Proposed floor level elevations are shown on Figure 2. Grading for the structure will require cuts up to about 25 feet along the south side daylighting to the north. The excavation will be shored with a permanent type soil nail wall along the south side and vertical micro-pile walls along the west and east sides. We assume relatively light to moderate foundation loadings for the residence, typical of the proposed type of construction. 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. Project No. 18-7-361 - 2 - SITE CONDITIONS The subject site was developed with the existing residence under demolition at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface has been disturbed from the previous construction. The terrain is moderately steep to steep north facing hillside below Rockledge Road. The undisturbed slope grades in the area range from about 30 to 50%. There is a very steep cut for construction of Forest Road adjacent the downhill northern side of the lot. Elevation difference across the proposed building foot-print is about 20 feet and across the lot is about 30 feet. Vegetation consists of landscaped beds and planters. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 11 and August 13, 2018. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Initially, Borings 1 and 2 were drilled on the south side of the building. Boring 3 was later drilled on the north side of the building area when an access road had been graded to the existing building for continued demolition. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock were taken with 1%inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils and bedrock 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 encountered in the borings, below from about 1 to 10 feet of fill, consisted of nil to Project No. 18-7-361 - 3 - about 11 feet of medium dense, clayey silty sandy to very sandy gravel with cobbles. Below depths of from about 1 to 21 feet, hard claystone shale bedrock was encountered down to the maximum depth drilled of 31 feet. The shale bedrock was encountered from 20 to 21 feet depth on the uphill side (Borings 1 and 2) and at 1 foot depth on the downhill side (Boring 3), and is of the Minturn Formation. The fill was loose to medium dense, clayey silty sand with gravel and cobbles mixed with some topsoil. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, gradation analyses, and Atterberg limits. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the claystone shale,presented on Figure 4, indicate low compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting, and a low swell when wetted under a constant 1,000 psf surcharge. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular subsoils (minus 11 inch fraction) are shown on Figure 5. The liquid and plastic limits testing indicates the claystone shale bedrock to have low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or in Boring 1 when checked 1 day later. Borings 2 and 3 were lost due to the demolition process and could not be checked for groundwater or cave depth one day or more following drilling. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist, and the bedrock was slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural coarse granular soils possess moderate bearing capacity and low to moderate settlement potential, and the claystone shale bedrocks possess moderately high bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. At assumed excavation depths, we expect the excavation subgrade will transition from the bedrock to coarse granular soils. Spread footings bearing on these materials should be feasible for foundation support of the residence with some risk of movement. The risk of movement is primarily differential settlement due to the assumed variable bearing conditions and relatively incompressible nature of the hard shale bedrock. The low swell potential encountered in the claystone shale samples is not considered a concern for the foundation design based on our experience in the area. Project No. 18-7-361 -4- Bearing the foundation entirely on the shale bedrock, such as by extending the footings down to bear entirely on the bedrock or use of drilled piers end bearing in the bedrock, would provide a relatively low risk of foundation movement. Provided below are recommendations for spread footings bearing on the coarse granular soils and bedrock. If recommendations for drilled piers are desired, we should be contacted. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we believe the building can be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural coarse granular soils and/or bedrock with some risk of differential settlement. To reduce the effects of some differential settlement, we recommend the foundation walls be heavily reinforced. 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 should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Footings placed entirely on the undisturbed natural bedrock(such as for the uphill, southern foundation wall) can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 to 11/2 inches depending on the subgrade conditions and foundation loadings. 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 heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential such as by Project No. 18-7-361 - 5 - assuming an unsupported length of at least 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 existing fill, topsoil, fine grained soils and any loose disturbed materials should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural coarse granular soils or shale bedrock. The exposed subgrade in footing areas 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 12 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. Cantilevered retaining structures up to 12 feet in height which are separate from the residence 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. For building foundation walls taller than 12 feet, the walls should be designed to resist a uniform lateral earth pressure of 25H psf where H is the wall height in feet. For cantilevered retaining walls taller than 12 feet, the walls should be designed to resist a uniform lateral earth pressure of 22.5H psf where H is the wall height in feet. The backfill should not contain debris, topsoil or oversized (plus 6 inch)rocks. We understand the uphill, southern side excavation cut face has been shored with a permanent type soil nail wall and a reduced lateral earth pressure for design the south side building foundation wall is desired. We have not reviewed the soil nail wall design which is design/build by HTM Construction but the design plans state this portion of the shoring to be a permanent type design. The soil nail wall reportedly will undergo minor movements with most of the movement occurring within about the first month after installation. The backfill between the Project No. 18-7-361 - 6 - foundation and soil nail wall will consist of geo-foam block. For this condition, we believe the southern building foundation wall can be designed for a uniform lateral pressure of 20 psf. 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 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 backfill material such as road base and increasing compaction to at least 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 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 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 well graded granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Project No. 18-7-361 - 7 - FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site granular soils, exclusive of topsoil, and claystone shale should be suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. The laboratory testing indicated the claystone shale bedrock may have a low swell potential when wetted. Floor slabs with subgrade conditions transitioning the coarse granular soils to bedrock may have a risk of differential movement. We should further evaluate the expansion potential of the shale bedrock at the time of excavation and need for subexcavation of a depth (typically 2 feet) of the shale and/or soils and replacement with granular structural fill to reduce the risk of differential floor slab movement. 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 6 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed immediately 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 and well broken bedrock excluding debris, topsoil and oversized (plus 6 inch) rocks. 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 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. Project No. 18-7-361 - 8 - 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 minimum pipe slope can be reduced to 1/2%. Two or three interior lateral drains (on about 20 feet centers) of similar type construction and about 1 foot below bottom of slab may also be needed below the basement floor slab. 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 2 feet deep and covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or 160N. SITE GRADING The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the excavation cut slopes are shored as planned. Embankment fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep, especially at the downhill side of the residence where the slope steepens. 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 existing fill and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 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. We 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 residence has been completed: Project No. 18-7-361 - 9 - 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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 21 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall and geo-foam backfill should be capped with filter fabric about 2 feet of the on-site finer grained 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. Project No. 18-7-361 - 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, H-P KUMAR 9(11"4"1/7' James H. Parsons, P.I. Reviewed by• ``�h��1ie0 U/I/fl i' 7► . moi: - . ./ 0. :. f. FP MO David A. Young, P.Er�� i 4-12 �: JHP/kac �Ayj��‘949/ NAL4 G0��` 1111 cc: Suman Architects—Michael Suman (michael @ sumanarchitects.com) KRM Consultants—Nicholas Ripp (nicholas@krmconsultants.com) Project No. 18-7-361 —-L-- l I \, FOREST ROAD \ \ ) _ \\ - .---.N/^N iNqmw'_. _:-\— - \•,, • nam, ` /�,- f.::;T At - ��`v— ,% iia 327 ROCKLEDGE\ „.,_ — - l . — �� BORING 3 • ` -;-- ` �'- ROAD i -�! L — /! ' \\-Y -...____ ---------_t. I i. ,____ i 1 1 .,..- I ' 307 ROCKLEDGE ROAD — _ r, `l�. 7 7 it /4—= w r �� ' • = BORING 2 1 '-_.e.... ■ • < _____ ---. _.......L_+____):_ BENCHMARK: j V;�� ELECTRIC BOX SLAB �� i r- �"` BORING 1 FOUNDATION ELEV=8290.1' >_ -i /RPOLEDGE ' 267 ROCKLEDGE � ROAD ,�- -\ , /` 1 `_- /% / / 1 `\ NOTE: EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN RED. r. PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN IN BLACK. 2 , 8 a 8 a g E` 10 0 10 20 07 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET 41 Fa 18-7-361 H-PtiKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 - BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 EL. 8290.9' EL. 8286.9' EL. 8262' V I —8295 CA 8295— 0 — (4)imnnu - -8290 rl 8290— 18/12 — UPPER LEVEL EL 8288' 2 // —200=24 ( ) — ♦ a 8 —8285 • 10/12 8285— _ 11 18/12 = § _ ♦ _ 13/12 73 —- 8280 C=47.1 8280 — —200=18 20/12 — ♦ WC=13.5 — +4=21 — 'o —200=35 MAIN LEVEL EL 8276' 50/6 8275— —- 8275 WC8.3 �s — _ +4=36 r9 - -200=39— ; — 40/6, 50/3 ` 50/2 — WC=7.4 — w-8270 • ' LDLD=21717 r8270—F w_ % —PI=9 f t.. z— /9 i O 2 F— 0 —Q >— /� 50/4 _> La 50/1 -- WC=10.9 J —8265 WC=7.0 ==. OD=109 8265—w — DD=128 _ LEGEND (4) CONCRETE, THICKNESS IN INCHES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO LEFT OF THE LOG. FILL: MAN—PLACED CLAYEY SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL WITH COBBLES, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO DARK BROWN, MIXED WITH TOPSOIL. GRAVEL (GC); WITH COBBLES, SANDY TO VERY SANDY, CLAYEY, SILTY, MEDIUM DENSE, °•:"7?SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, LOW PLASTIC FINES. f -= CLAYSTONE SHALE BEDROCK; HARD, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, LOW PLASTICITY. 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. 18/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 18 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES. —► DEPTH BORING 1 CAVED WHEN CHECKED ON JUNE 12, 2018. BORINGS 2 AND 3 WERE LOST AND COULD NOT BE CHECKED FOR WATER 1 OR MORE DAYS FOLLOWING DRILLING. NOTES 1. EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1 AND 2 WERE DRILLED ON JUNE 11 AND BORING 3 ON AUGUST 13, 2018 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE LOCATED BY PACING FROM FEATURES ON THE SITE. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1 AND 2 WERE MEASURED BY INSTRUMENT LEVEL AND REFER TO THE BENCHMARK 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. 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING OR IN BORING 1 WHEN CHECKED ONE DAY FOLLOWING DRILLING. FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME. 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); LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D 4318); PI = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D 4318). 18-7-361 H-P�KUMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 SAMPLE OF: Claystone Shale jI 1 FROM: Boring 1 C0 20' 1 I WC = 7.4 %, DD = 117 pcf I LL = 27, PI = 9 X 1 --t EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT w PRESSURE UPON WETTING 00 - I 1 z 1 O —1 a 0 J (n • —2 0 I 1 .1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100 1 SAMPLE OF: Claystone Shale I FROM: Boring 1 0 25' WC = 7.0 %, DD = 128 pcf I , I \ 1 II J I - EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT I w PRESSURE UPON WETTING 00 J rL____: I z 1 ▪ —1 a 0 J • O 1 N —2 i I O 1 U I I _ I I These teat results apply only to the '' samples tested.The testing report shall not be reproduced.except in l full,without the written approval of Kumar and Associates,Inc.Swell i Consolidation testing performed in accordance with ASTM 0-4546. .1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100 18-7-361 H-P-t4KUMAR SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES ` CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 MRS 7 HRS 100 45 MIN 15 MIN 60MIN 19MIN 41AIN 1MIN 4 00 /100 4 0 440 X30 416 410 48 44 3 8" 3 4" 1 1 2" 3" "6" 8"0 90 10 80 20 70 30 60 40 8 31 1 I 1 50 I I I 50 1 I 1 U 40 I 1 I 60 4 } I I I I 30 I I 70 I I I I I 20 I I eD I 1 U 10 1 90 r I I ( 1 0 I I I I . I I I 1 1 1 I 11 I I 111 I I I I I I I I1 I . I l l 1 100 . .001 .002 .005 .009 .011 9 .037 .0755 .150 .300 I .600 1.18 12.36 4.75 9.5 1 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 36 % SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 39 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 15' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 7 100 45 MIN 13 MIN 6OMIN 19MIN 4MIN 'MIN 42.00 /100 450 4110 30 #1R 10 5"/ 48 44 S/ 3 4" 1 1 2" 3" 5"6" 6"0 I I 9 1 I 0 I I 10 1 1 80 I I 20 I 70 30 61•MIIIIIIIIIIII61•IMIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIIIIIMIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=MIIIIIIIIII TE ° 70 I 20 I 60 I 10 I 90 I 0 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 11 I Il l I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I II I I I 1 ioo .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 17.1 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 32 I iii SAND GRAVEL COBBLES F CLAY TO SILT FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE a GRAVEL 21 % SAND 44 % SILT AND CLAY 35 % To et E LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX Piz SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 2 ® 10' These test results apply only to the samples which were tested. The E; testing report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc. Sieve analysis testing is performed in accordance with ASTM 0422, ASTM C136 o'm and/or ASTM D1140. j? co k > 2 071 + > -0 � § •§ § § I -0 -0 -0 - - ° = c = u g a c a.) z ct t = -J m _ m k « m « / 6 4A - q / / tt � , � ' ( = / / ®- ®� ® 2 2 w- ®- 2 vs j cCi ch( ( j ct j ca U S U w U U U U S U U (,-.3 ]>I (4CD £ §§ § 3 I- k0® -J ° D CCm -x CC \ \§ / 00 < I- • 2- LLi 21 2 § Q� 2 1_ >. 0 § \§ / R W 2 ®oo CO 2 0W W # 00 q / J §}Z� N q n O LL 0 ■ 0 CC § k / In CA 7 2 a - 0• _1 2 / CC \ « - § m R \&k f 00 0 e0Z 5 ,--1 ,-4 _ « z C/ \/§ / 00 - q � © � Q emz - t 06 Q w 2 a a 5 0 z■Q z I k ( - - N N — N q « o Q 0 LU el- Z 2 - -- M q CD 0