Loading...
10624 (SFD) Geotechnical InvestigationOUTNLgND EOTECHNIC-IL= FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESIDENCE ON LOT 76 LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES, NO. 1 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Report to James Changaris 1535 Richland Road Yuba City, CA 95991 Project P92001 January, 1992 242 NORTH 8TH STREET • EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA 92243 • (619) 352-1242 77-670 SPRINGFIELD LANE SUITE 1A • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • (619) 360-0665 642 EAST 39TH PLACE, SUITE N5 • YUMA, ARIZONA 85364 • (602) 344-8844 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESIDENCE ON LOT 76 LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES, NO. 1 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Report to James Changaris 1535 Richland Road Yuba City, CA 95991 Project P92001 January, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1 A. Project Description.................................................................... 1 B. Purpose and Scope of Work ..................................................... 1 C. Authorization.............................................................................. 2 II. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ........... :..................................................... 3 A. Field Exploration........................................................................ 3 B. Laboratory Testing..................................................................... 4 III. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................... 5 A. Site Conditions........................................................................... 5 B. Geologic Setting.......................................................................... 5 A. C.' Seismicity....................................::............................................... 7 D. Subsurface Soils......................................................................... 9 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS.:.................................................................................. 10 A. Site Preparation........................................................................ 10 B. Foundations................................................................................. 11 C. Slabs on Grade........................................................................... 12 D. Excavations......................................:........................................... 13 E. Lateral Earth Pressures............................................................ 13 F. Seismic Design............................................................................ 14 V. LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ........................................ 15 A. Limitations.................................................................................. 15 B. Additional Services.................................................................... 16 EXHIBITS Plate VicinityMap......................................................................................................... 1 Siteand Exploration Plan................................................................................. 2 SubsurfaceLogs................................................................................................... 3-4 Keyto Logs........................................................................................................... 5 LaboratoryTest Results..................................................................................... 6-7 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 I. INTRODUCTION A. Project Description This report presents the findings of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residence to be built on Lot 76 in the La Quinta Golf Estates, No. 1 Subdivision, La Quinta, California. � The proposed development will consist of a single family residence of about 3,000 sf. The project site is located on the west side of Avenida Fernando at the intersection with San Timoteo (See Vicinity Map, Plate 1). The proposed structure is anticipated to impose footing loads at exterior bearing walls of less than 2000 pounds per lineal foot. Column loads are anticipated to be less than 15 kips. Site development will include site grading, building pad preparation, underground utility installation, and concrete driveway and sidewalk placement. B. Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of this geotechnical study was to investigate the surface and 10 to 15 ft of the subsurface soils in order to evaluate the adequacy of this site for proposed construction. The scope of our services included field investigation and in-situ testing at selected locations of the site soils; laboratory testing for physical characteristics and strength parameters; review of seismicity in the project vicinity; analysis of all data collected; and the presentation of this report with comments, opinions and recommendations regarding: • Site grading • Foundation subgrade preparation • Soil contact pressures • Settlements • Concrete slabs -on -grade • Seismicity/site acceleration i Evaluation of the site for liquefaction during earthquakes or for the presence of potential environmental hazards was not included in the scope of our work. I 1 Southland Geotechnical C. Authorization Report P92001 Authorization to proceed with our work was provided by written agreement with Mr. James Changaris on January 3, 1992 in accordance with our written proposal dated September 27, 1991. PA Southland Geotechnical II. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION A. Field Exploration Report P92001 The subsurface exploration was conducted on January 8, 1992 by drilling two borings to approximate depths of 11 and 16 ft with an 8 -inch diameter hollow, continuous flight auger. The borings were made at the locations shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Boring locations were established by taped measurements and should be considered approximate only. The augers were advanced with a truck mounted, CME 45 drill rig equipped with a rope and cathead hammer for performing Standard Penetration Tests (ASTM D1586). A 3 -inch O.D. diameter, California Split Barrel (ring) sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed, soil samples ahead of the auger tip at selected intervals. Blow counts were recorded (without correction for overburden pressure) to advance the sampler from 6 to 18 inches into undisturbed soil. Blow counts for the ring sampler were adjusted by a factor of 0.67 to account for the larger sampler diameter as compared to the standard 2 -inch O.D. SPT sampler. Logs of the borings were prepared during exploration by a professional engineer and edited after examination of retrieved samples in the laboratory. The subsurface logs were completed in final form after analysis of all data and are presented on Plates 3 and 4 in the Exhibits section of the report. Soils encountered have been classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. A Key to the Logs is presented on Plate 5. The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to another may be gradual over some range of depth since boundaries are not always distinct in nature. 3 Southland Geotechnical B. Laboratory Testing Report P92001 Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to assist in classification and the .establishing engineering properties. The laboratory testing program consisted of the following tests: • Moisture Contents (ASTM D2216) • Unit Dry Densities • Moisture Density Relationship using a 10-1b hammer falling 18 -inches (ASTM D1557) • One-dimensional Consolidation and Collapse Potential (ASTM D2435) • Amount Passing No. 200 Sieve The laboratory test results are presented on the subsurface logs and on Plate 6 and 7 in the Exhibits section of the report. I 4 Southland Geotechnical III. DISCUSSION A. Site Conditions Report P92001 The project site is currently vacant, planar, and has some grass vegetation covering the site. Scattered construction debris litter the site in some areas. Oleander bushes are along the northern and western property lines. The elevation of the site is approximately level to about 0.5 ft. above the street grade. Adjacent properties are planar and approximately level with this site, consisting of single family residences to the north, west, south and across Avenida Fernando to the east. Existing residences (single story wood frame) are set back approximately 10-15 ft. from the side yard property line. The project site is located at the confluence of a mountain cove (La Quinta Cove) and a wide planar valley (Coachella Valley). The site lies about 50 ft above mean sea level. The desert climate of the Coachella Valley is dry with less than 4 inches of annual rainfall. Winter temperatures seldom reach freezing and 4 months of summer range from 100 to 120 degrees F. B. Geologic Setting The Coachella Valley is the northern portion of the Salton Trough, which is part of the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province. The Salton Trough is a geologic structural depression resulting from large scale regional faulting. The trough is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas Fault and the southwest by faults of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. The Salton Trough represents the northward extension of the Gulf of California, which has experienced continual in -filling with both marine and non -marine sediments since Miocene time (30 million years before present). Tectonic activity, which formed the trough, continues at a high rate as evidenced by high levels of seismicity. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in relation to regional faults and physiographic features. 5 d, A N b t �i',pp,� 4"<c 5 ,u;,'.,•c ,.<0 '• j I�. � '' �. -q5 _ '1'O , as �.0, P G 1-1 V 'o-, M lo Qk, Qh c a Z _�ahn S Vd ,Qd .4t I N _dt" "'M X 4i av u jQ' Al q Project Site t W(Y .4- 4n, Ilk 01 Er der 0. 11 C, J." O.P. W tD t1 0 LL.11 Arlt ) :T 100V V1 CAL(♦RF.' kIS f IFA mron It " Z N"" FIRini I -N nL5L'PVAl101`l �cJ LA, A ORyt, 9'. X w 1� -A M 10 I Ool r IRON I n -T J V; G IAIJ O� w w 11W. cc, Dil .0- 7-4 01./�.� 4,,. � . 1,:Y.� 'e � .li'f u' 0''}'� �t'•l _ `�' t � :tc!! C, �.. -� ` \ i' f �� I�.M''i; f J:�d �•�7 /Y it :ft A UTHLAND 130TECI-INIC4L�7- FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS Regional Generalized Figure Project No: P92001 Geologic Map 1 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 The surrounding regional geology includes the Peninsular Ranges (Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains) to the south and west, the Salton Basin to the southeast, and the Transverse Ranges (Little San Bernardino and Orocopia Mountains) to the north and east. In general, the Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits. The eastern part of the Coachella Valley lies below sea level and has been submerged in the geologic past by the ancient Lake Cahuilla. Calcareous tufa deposits may be observed along the ancient shoreline as high as El 45 to 50 MSL along the Santa Rosa Mountains from La Quinta southward. Lacustrine (lake) deposits comprise the subsurface soils over much of the eastern Coachella Valley with alluvial outwash along the flanks of the valley. C. Seismicity The project site lies at a distance of 7.1 and 18.3 miles from the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults, respectively. These faults are potentially capable of generating earthquakes of 8.0 to 7.5M, respectively, and are known to be active. The nearest recent major event (5.9M) occurred on July 8, 1986, along the Banning -Mission Creek segment of the San Andreas Fault (Ref: USGS Open File Report 87-155). The event caused measured horizontal ground accelerations of 0.70 gravity at the N. Palm Springs Post Office (epicentral distance of 5.75 miles) and 0.22g. in Cabazon (epicentral distance of 10.5 miles). The U.S. Geological Survey estimates a 40% chance of a major event along the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas Fault in the next 30 years. By using site attenuation estimates developed by Joyner and Boore (1982) (mean, larger of two components site accelerations were estimated for maximum credible events along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The peak ground acceleration was estimated to be 0.52 gravity from the maximum credible event (8.OM) along the San Andreas Fault. A maximum credible event (7.5M) along the San Jacinto Fault is expected to generate' a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g. at this site. The project site lies within Ground Shaking Zone III as determined from the Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan (see Figure 2). 7 . . . . . . . . .... A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Site': Proi go 1g: 11 N k T INN ME CA CA', J------ T-0 7E ALrON AOAP COMPILED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING1 oErAnTmEH1 , JANUARY 1983. (REVISED APRIL 19885 UTPLAND ECITEICHNICAL777 FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS Excerpt from Riverside County Figure Project No: 092001 Seismic - Geologic Map 2 FAA 19 \ME ��'i`: IN MiNs I . . . . . . . . .... A L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Site': Proi go 1g: 11 N k T INN ME CA CA', J------ T-0 7E ALrON AOAP COMPILED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING1 oErAnTmEH1 , JANUARY 1983. (REVISED APRIL 19885 UTPLAND ECITEICHNICAL777 FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS Excerpt from Riverside County Figure Project No: 092001 Seismic - Geologic Map 2 Southland Geotechnical D. Subsurface Soils Report P92001 The surficial and subsurface soils consist generally of moist, loose to medium dense, Sandy Silt (ML) that is very fine and has clayey silt seams below 2.5 ft. Below the Sandy Silt lies damp to moist, medium dense, fine Sand (SP) that was encountered at a depth of about 10 ft. In climatic regions, granular soils have a potential to collapse upon wetting. This collapse phenomena is the result of the lubrication of soluble cements in the soil matrix causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration during deposition. The standard engineering practice in this area is to test for collapse potential that may result in immediate settlement of the soil upon wetting. A collapse potential test (see Plate 6) indicates 0.8% collapse upon inundation. A collapse potential of less than 2% is not considered' significant. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during the time of exploration. Groundwater in the area is believed to be in excess of 15 ft. deep. The project site does not lie within the liquefaction study zone because of the depth of the groundwater. 0 Southland Geotechnical III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Site Preparation Report P92001 Any construction debris and vegetation such as grass or weeds that may exist on the site at the time of construction should be removed from the construction area. Organic strippings should not be incorporated into any engineered fills. The building pad areas including 5 feet beyond all building wall lines should be flooded or continuously sprinkled to achieve moisture penetration to 36 inches. The surface 12 inches of the native soils should be removed and the exposed surface scarified to a depth of 8 inches and recompacted to 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum density at optimum moisture plus or minus 2 percent. The native granular soil may be used as engineered fill. The native soil should be placed in maximum 8 inch lifts (loose) and compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density at optimum moisture plus or minus 2 percent. All imported fill soils (if required) should be non -expansive, granular soils meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP, or SW approved by the soils engineer prior to hauling to the site. This fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density at optimum moisture plus or minus 2 percent. Positive drainage should be maintained away from the building (5 ft minimum) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the native soils. In areas to receive pavements or concrete slabs, the ground surface should be scarified to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to the criteria for native soils. All site preparation and fill placement must be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Continuous observation by the owner with intermittent testing I 10 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 for compaction by our firm may be substituted with a certified statement by the owner. This is emphasized during the excavation and scarification process in order to detect any undesirable materials or conditions such as soft. areas that may be encountered in the construction area. B. Foundations Shallow spread and continuous wall footings founded on the prepared subgrade are suitable to support the residence. The foundation should be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf for dead and live loads and 1500 psf for dead loads. The allowable soil pressure may be increased by one-third for short term loads induced by winds or seismic events. All exterior foundations should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches for single story structures and 18 inches for two story structures below the engineered building pad for confinement. Interior footings should be embedded at least 12 inches into prepared subgrade for confinement. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Spread footings should have a minimum width of 30 inches. Minimum reinforcement for continuous wall footings should be two, No. 4 Bars; one top and one bottom unless modified by the structural engineer for project loading. Resistance to horizontal loadings will be developed by passive earth pressure on the side of footings and frictional resistance developed along the bases of footings and concrete slabs. Passive resistance to lateral earth pressure may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure footings of 250 pcf to resist lateral loadings. A friction coefficient of 0.25 may also be used beneath footings to resist lateral loadings. Settlements, based on an evaluation of the soil conditions, are estimated to not exceed 3/4 inch with differential settlements of about two-thirds of total settlement for the loading assumptions stated above and when the subgrade preparation guidelines given above are followed. 11 Southland Geotechnical C. Slabs -On -Grade Report P92001 Concrete slabs on grade including any independent flatwork should be placed on 36 inches of moisture conditioned, native soil subgrade or imported non -expansive fill. The concrete floor slab may be monolithically poured. with the foundations or dowelled after footing placement. Concrete slabs/flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. The concrete slabs may be placed on the engineered building pad that has been compacted to 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum density and moistened to approximately optimum moisture just prior.to the concrete pour. If moisture sensitive floor coverings (carpets) or reinforcing bars in the slabs are used in slabs, a 6 mil visqueen vapor barrier should be placed and covered with 2 inches of concrete sand to prevent moisture migration into the slab section. Slab reinforcement should consist of a minimum of 6x6 - 6/6 welded wire mesh (flat sheets) placed at slab mid -height (or alternately, fibermesh reinforcement may be used) to resist crack separation. Steel and slab recommendations are minimums only and should be verified by the structural engineer/architect knowing the actual project loadings. All reinforcing steel in slabs should be continually inspected by the project architect or soils engineer during the concrete pour to insure proper location within the slab. Control points should be provided in all concrete slabs -on -grade at a maximum spacing 10 ft with all joints forming approximately square patterns to reduce randomly oriented contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should be sawcut (1/4 of slab depth) within 8 hrs of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints should either be thickened butt joint with 1/2 inch dowels at 24 -inches on center or a thickened keyed joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All cold/construction joints in exterior flatwork should be sealed to prevent moisture or foreign material intrusion. Precautions should be taken to prevent curling of slabs in this and desert region. All independent flatwork (sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc.) should be dowelled to the perimeter footings of the buildings, and overlie 12 inches of moisture conditioned soils. 12 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 I. D. Excavations Shallow, temporary excavations in the native soils should be sloped no steeper than 1(V):1(H). Any excavations over 5 feet in depth (such as for pools) will require shoring or cut-back tapers in conformance to CAL -OSHA standards. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 1(V):3(H). E. Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral earth pressure for use in retaining wall design acting as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure may be assumed to be: Sand Native Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral pressures. Should any walls be placed adjacent to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge loads should be taken into consideration if loads are applied within a zone from the face of the wall and a plane projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 50% of the surcharge load within this zone. The native sands at this site are naturally free draining which should allow relief of hydrostatic pressure under normal conditions. 13 Backfill Silt Passive Pressure 300 PCF 250 PCF Active Pressure 33 PCF 40 PCF At -Rest Pressure 55 PCF 60 PCF Coefficient of Friction 0.35 0.25 Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral pressures. Should any walls be placed adjacent to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge loads should be taken into consideration if loads are applied within a zone from the face of the wall and a plane projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 50% of the surcharge load within this zone. The native sands at this site are naturally free draining which should allow relief of hydrostatic pressure under normal conditions. 13 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 F. Seismic Design This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to frequent fault movements along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Engineered design and earthquake resistant construction are the common solutions to increase safety and development of seismic areas. Because of the intensity of potential seismic shaking, we recommend that the minimum seismic design factors comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. The 1988 Uniform Building Code assumes that the average area within Seismic Zone 4 has a 10% probability of experiencing an effective ground acceleration (EPA) of 0.4g or greater in 50 years (equivalent to a return period of 475 years). Fault rupture is not anticipated to occur at the project site because of the well delineated fault lines through this area. 14 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 • IV. LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES A. Limitations The recommendations and conclusions within this report are based on current information regarding the proposed residence on Lot 76 in the La Quinta Golf Estates, No. 1 located in La Quinta, California. The conclusions and recommendations are invalid if structural loads change; the additional services section is not followed; the report is used for adjacent or other property; changes of grade and/or changes in groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and construction; or if any other change is implemented that materially alters the project from that proposed at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Our analysis of data and the recommendations presented herein are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific boring locations. However, it is possible that variations in soil conditions could exist between or beyond the exploration points or that groundwater elevations may change. These conditions may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted, geotechnical engineering standards of practice that existed in Riverside County at the time the report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. Due to potential changes in the Geotechnical Engineering Standards of Practice, this report should be considered invalid for periods in excess of 2 years from the report date. The client has responsibility to see that all parties to the project including, designer, contractor, subcontractor, future owners, etc. are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractors option and risk. 15 Southland Geotechnical Report P92001 B. Additional Services The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and inspections will be performed during construction to verify the field applicability of subsurface conditions and compliance of the recommendations, which are the basis of this report. These tests and inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: • Observation and Testing by the soil engineering firm of record during clearing, building pad preparation, grading, and placement of fill; as described on the Site Preparation Section of the report. • Inspection of foundations and reinforcing steel prior to concrete placement; • Consultation as may be required during construction. In addition, the project plans and specifications should be reviewed by us to verify compatibility with our recommendations and conclusions. Additional information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL / Q f Shelton L. Stringer X�, �f'Y 0` Senior Engineer,`. 630. '31921 Tom ' E%P.12.31-92 o1V11y Jeffrey O. Lyon, P.E. Ore CAe&��` Principal Engineer SLS/kmyw 16 f 1 • B-2 Approximate Boring Location (typ) B-1 San I�rno�'�p r-1 UTHL4ND EOTECHNICAL= FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS Plate Project No: P92001 Site and Exploration Plan 2 DATE OBSERVED: '1/8/92 LOCATION: 25' N. x 20' W. of SE property corner LOGGED BY: SLS GROUND ELEV. METHOD OF DRILLING: CME -55 0 t7, LOG- OF BORING B-1 z Cq W L, 9 U o a a v z "— � zV SHEET 1 OF 1 _ v N x Q. v 3- N w � CL r w u Wz �w oo �o D E S C R I P T 1 0 N o a g N a o 0 m LO a sU af o � o SANDY SILT (ML); Tan, loose to medium dense, moist to wet lop 6 inches, then moist, very tine, with clayey silt seams below 2.5 ft. a 11:0 ,diD.O 11 .. 5 — 9 10 13 7,2 92."7 SAND (SP); Tan, medium dense, damp, fine. 15 10 END OF BORING ® 16 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 20- 025303540PROJECT 25- 30- 35- 40— PROJECTNo.: PLATE: P92001 SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL 3 DATE OBSERVED: 1/8/92 LOCATION: 25' S. x 25' E. of NW property , corner LOGGED BY: SLS GROUND ELEV. METHOD OF DRILLING: CME -55 Ln x 0 0 o OF BORING B-2 z "tt w a z 2LOG F z ,. L, Ld ° SHEET 1 OF 1 = a U7 s N J a W C) {_-I 00 �v � D E S C R I P T 1 0 N O 0 �= Q ° W o v m ( a �Q 0 D u c; SANDY SILT (ML); Ton, loose to medium dense, moist to wet top 6 inches, then moist, very fine, with silt seams below 2.5 ft. Sg 5 11 /0.5 /05,(0 9 91(p 2 — With less silt 10 11 SAND (SP); Ton, medium dense, moist, fine END OF BORING @ 11 Fr. NO GROUNDWATER'ENCOUNTERED NOTE: Some miscelloneous construction 15 debris scattered along surface in vicinity of boring. 20- 025303540PROJECT 25- 30- 35- 40— PROJECTNo.: PLATE: P92001 SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL 4 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS LOOSE . 4 — 10 CLEAN 10 — 30 DENSE Well graded gravels, grovel—sond mixtures, little or VERY DENSE GRAVELS GRAVELS o' GW no fines ,n N MORE THAN (LESS TITAN � OVER 32 poorly graded grovels, or gravel—sand mixtures, Zvi HALF OF 57 FINES) GP little or no fines. 3 w COARSE Silly gravels, grovel— sand—sill mixtures, non—plastic FRACTION IS a LARGER THAN GRAVEL GM fines. vJ 3 O No. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES Cloyey grovels, grovel—sand—cloy mixtures. plastic 0 1,0 ut N GC fines. D z SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. z 4z MORE THAN (LESS -11IAN SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no a 7d' HALF OF 5y FINES ) cc a COARSE fines. w r rr FRACTION IS tu SMALLER Ski Sill sands, sond—sill mixtures, non—ploslie fines. y a aw 114AN No. 4 SANDS WITH FINES U SIEVE SC Clayey sands, sand—cloy mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts, clayey sills with slight plasticity. Li SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic cloys of low to medium plasticity, gravelly LIOUID LIMIT IS CL cloys, sandy cloys lean clays. o w 1, LESS THAN 50% R u, a 1 1 1 1 OL Oraonic silts and organic silly cloys of tow plasticity. MH Inorganic silts, micoccous or diolomaceous silly W = a' 0 z z D N SILTS AND CLAYS soils, elastic sills. CH Inorganic clays of high ploslicity, fat cloys. K — a zo LIOUID LIMIT IS W Iw W z GREATER TITAN 50 i OIT Organic cloys of medium to high plasticity. organic 0 a< X sills. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peal and *other' highly organic soils. GRAIN SIZES SILTS AND CLAYS GRAVE COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE LUU 40 lU 4 U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE RELATIVE DENSITY SANDS, GRAVELS AND NON—PLASTIC SILTS LOWS / FOOT' BLOWS/FOOT- VERY VERY LOOSE 0 — 4 LOOSE . 4 — 10 MEDIUM DENSE 10 — 30 DENSE 30 — 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 3/4 3 12_ CLEAR SOUARE SIEVE OPE14NINGS CONSISTENCY CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH" BLOWS/FOOT' VERY SOFT 0 — 1/4 0 — 2 SOFT 1/4 — 1/2 2. — 4 FIRM 1/2 — 1 4 — 8 STIFF 1 — 2 8 — 16 VERY STIFF 2 — 4 16 — 32' HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 • NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30—INCHES TO DRIVE A 2—II4CIi O.D. (1-3/8—INCH I.D.) SPLIT SPOON (ASTM D-1586). •� UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONS/SO.FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D-1586), POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION TYPE OF SAMPLES: R1140 SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I SHELBY TUBE BULK (BAG) SAMPLE DRILLING NOTES: 1. SAMPLING AND BLOW COUNTS RING SAMPLER — NUMBER OF BLOWS PER FOOT OF A 140 POUIJD HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES. (CORRECTED FOR SAMPLER DIAMETER) STANDARD PENETRATION TEST — NUMBER OF BLOWS PER FOOT SHELBY TUBE — 3 INCH NOMINAL DIAMETER TUBE HYDRAULICALLY PUSHED. 2. P.P.= POCKET PENETROMETER (TONS/SO.F00T) 3. NR = NO RECOVERY 4. GWT — GROUND WATER TABLE OBSERVED e SPECIFIED TIME KEY TO LOGS PROJECT No.: p92001SOU11 �Lnt`ID GEOTECHNICAL if�iCnL PI1TE: 5 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 o► -5.0 C -6.0 Ol C A v -7.0 t C m m -8.0 IL -9.0 -10.0 -11.0 SANDY SILT (NIL) from Boring B-2 at 3.5 ft Po .................. ........... j........ ......j.... L....j.. ...}................... ..........7.......:..........y' ...:... ........................ r...........; ....... .... I... r-4.4.. AC# Collapse Pofenfisl - ©.8 % . : . ..::: : : . ....:: : : .................. 1........... 4....... i.....3...•F.. S...i�.:................... ............ J....... 5.....4....i...L..G..j..4................... 4.......... L....... i•.....I....L... i...A..i.. Lab .................. j........... j........ j...... j.... j...q..y..q.y. .... ...... .j.('i..y.....:.'...j..i•................... i ........... ........ j......j.....�... �... i...j.. vttyw i ..................j........... i........ j...... j....i....j...j..p..j................... p........... j....... p..........j...p..p..j..i.................... i........... ... i .................. j........... i........ j...... j........j...j..p..j................... p........... j....... 0.....i.....j...p..p..l..i.................... i........... p... .. .. ...... j.... p... i... i...j.. .................. 1........... i........ I.....5....L..J...3..:.....................L.......... 5....... L ..... i.....1...S..S..1..4................... A.......... 5....... i......1....S... i... i...... .................. j........... i........ j......j .... i....j.. y' .. �:..j................... p...........j ......: �...... j.....j... �.. �.. j.. i.................... i........... ....... i...... j.... p ... i... S...j.. i...........i.......i......i....i....i...i..a..i ...................d...........i....... .....i.....i...3..b..i..i................... a.......... b....... i...... i....b...i...i...i.. ............................. r..:....j.....I.... v ... I ... 1 ..7...................:...........y....... .....;:... ..................... r.......... ;:....... r4-4-- 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Vertical Pressure (ksf) Results from Test: - Initial Final Dry Density, pcf: 75.8 76.6 " water Content, %: 7.6 40.3 Void Ratio, e: 1.038 1.018 Saturation, %: 18.3 99.0 UTHLAND _ EOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND MATERIALS LABS Consolidation Plate Project No: P920e 1 Test Results 6