HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH SECOND FILING (TRAILS @ TIMBERLINE) - PDP - PDP120004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
SPRING CREEK FARMS – N/W/C of TIMBERLINE ROAD and DRAKE ROAD
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1122005
Prepared for:
McWhinney
2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue, Suite 200
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Attn: Mr. Chris LaPlante
Prepared by:
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
4396 Greenfield Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE
WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
(970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282
www.earth-engineering.com
January 30, 2012
McWhinney
2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue, Suite 200
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Attn: Mr. Chris LaPlante
Re: Subsurface Exploration Report
Proposed Spring Creek Farms - Multi-Family Development
Northwest Corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1122005
Mr. LaPlante:
Enclosed herewith, are the results of the subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering
Consultants, Inc. for the referenced project. For this study a total of twenty-four (24) soil
borings were drilled on January 17, and 18, 2012 within the proposed multi-family and garage
unit building areas planned for construction across the site. These borings are identified on the
enclosed site diagrams, Figure Nos. 1 and 2, borings B-1 through B-24. Twenty-two (22) of the
borings were extended to depths of approximately 20 to 30-feet below existing site grades, while
two (2) supplemental borings (B-23 and B-24) were extended to an approximate depth of 10-feet
below site grades. This study was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated
January 10, 2012.
We understand this project involves the development of an approximate 16-acre vacant parcel of
land situated at the northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road, west of the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks, and south of Brockman Drive, in east Fort Collins, Colorado. We
understand the development will consist of the construction of 13 three-story, wood-frame, slab-
on-grade (no basement) multi-family structures ranging from 12 to 36 units per building, (3-12
unit buildings, 7-24 unit buildings, and 3-36 unit buildings), for total of approximately 312
residential units. We also understand, the development will include detached garage structures,
(approximately 21 single-story, slab-on-grade garage unit buildings ranging from 6 to 12-stalls
each), along with a welcome center/clubhouse building. Foundation loads for the proposed
structures are expected to be light to moderate with continuous wall loads less than 4 kips per
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 2
lineal foot and individual column loads less than 150 kips. Floor loads are expected to be light.
Paved drive and associated parking areas along with a detention pond are also planned for the
proposed multi-family residential development project.
In summary, the subsurface conditions generally consisted of lean clay with sand and sandy lean
clay overburden cohesive subsoils extending to the depths explored or to the underlying fine to
course granular stratum below. A silty sand with gravel and intermittent cobbles granular zone
was encountered beneath the upper clay soils in the majority of the test borings at approximate
depths of 11 to 23-feet below site grades and extended to the depths explored and/or to the
bedrock formation below. Claystone/siltstone bedrock was encountered at approximate depths
of 19 to 29-feet below site grades in borings B-3, B-4, B-7, B-16, B-17, and B-20 and extended
to the depths explored, approximately 20 to 30-feet below site grades. The majority of the
borings were terminated at depths of approximately 20-feet below site grades within overburden
clay soils or granular zone. At the time of drilling, groundwater was observed in the majority of
the twenty-four (24) at approximate depths of 13 to 21-feet below site grades. Groundwater was
not encountered in borings B-18, and B-21 through B-24 to maximum depths of exploration,
approximately 10 to 20-feet below present site grades at these locations.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings as well as the anticipated
maximum loading conditions, we believe the proposed 3-story, multi-family buildings, and
garage unit buildings could be supported on post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation/floor
systems (PTS) or conventional type spread footings bearing on a zone “engineered” fill material.
Care will be needed to evaluate the anticipated bearing materials to verify that PTS or spread
footing foundations are bearing on approved materials. Footings, if utilized, should be placed on
similar like material to minimize or reduce the potential for differential movement. We
anticipate floor slabs, and exterior flatwork could be supported on newly placed and compacted
approved fill soils. Mitigation of expansive near surface subsoils will be required in the building
and pavement/flatwork areas as described within the text portion of this report.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
SPRING CREEK FARMS – N/W/C of TIMBERLINE ROAD and DRAKE ROAD
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1122005
January 30, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed Spring Creek Farms multi-family
development project planned for construction on an approximately 16-acre vacant parcel of
land situated at the northwest corner of Timberline Road and Drake Road in Fort Collins,
Colorado has been completed. More particularly the site is located in the East ½ of the
Southeast ¼ of Section 19, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th PM., Larimer
County, Fort Collins, Colorado.
For this study, a total of twenty-four (24) soil borings were drilled on January 17 and 18,
2012 within the proposed 3-story slab-on-grade multi-family and single-story slab-on-grade
garage buildings across the site as shown on the site plans included in Appendix A of this
report. Twenty-two (22) of the soil borings were extended to approximate depths of 20 to
30-feet below existing site grades, while two (2) additional borings, (i.e., borings B-23, and
B-24) were extended to approximate depths of 10-feet below site grades. Individual boring
logs and two (2) site diagrams indicating the approximate boring locations are provided with
this report. Site photographs of the property at the time of our exploration are also provided
with this report.
Based on the information provided to us from McWhinney, the proposed development will
generally include the construction of approximately thirteen (13) multi-family housing
structures containing approximately 312 residential units. The multi-family buildings are
anticipated to be three-story, wood-frame, slab-on-grade (no basement) structures with 12 to
36 units per building, (3- 12 unit buildings, 7-24 unit buildings, and 3-36 unit buildings).
Foundation loads for the structures are expected to be light to moderate with continuous wall
loads less than 4 kips per lineal foot and individual column loads less than 150 kips. Floor
loads are expected to be light. We understand post-tension slab-on-grade foundations are
being considered for the proposed buildings. As we understand, the development will
include detached garage structures, approximately 21 single-story, slab-on-grade garage unit
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 2
buildings ranging from 6 to 12-stalls each, and a welcome center/clubhouse building. Paved
drives and parking areas for the proposed development are expected to carry light to
moderate traffic consisting predominately of private autos and light trucks.
The purpose of this report is to described the subsurface conditions encountered in the test
borings, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations
concerning design and construction of foundations, support of floor slabs, exterior flatwork,
and pavements and development of other earth related features for the proposed site
improvements.
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The boring locations were surveyed/pre-marked in the field with the assistance of TST, Inc.
– Consulting Engineers of Fort Collins. Ground surface elevations at each boring location
were provided by TST, Inc. and are recorded on the boring logs included in the Appendix of
this report. Photographs of the site at the time of drilling are included with this report. The
approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagrams.
The locations and ground surface elevations of those borings should be considered accurate
only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements.
The test borings were completed using a truck mounted, CME-45 drill rig equipped with a
hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced
using 4-inch nominal diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the subsurface materials
encountered were obtained using split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures. In
the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are
advanced into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches.
The number of blows required to advance the split barrel and California barrel samplers is
recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a
lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered
bedrock. In the California barrel sampling procedure, relatively undisturbed samples are
obtained in removable brass liners. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and
returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification and testing.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 3
Moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. Atterberg Limits
and washed sieve analysis tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity
and plasticity of fines in the subgrade. Swell/consolidation tests were completed to evaluate
the potential for the subgrade materials to change volume with variation in moisture and
load. Soluble sulfate tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity of
soluble sulfates in the subgrades. Additional laboratory testing procedures included
moisture-density relationship/standard Proctor density (ASTM Specification D698), and
Hveem Stabilometer/R-Value (ASTM Specification D2844) tests on selected composite
samples obtained during the field exploration. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on
summary sheets included in Appendix C of this report. Results of the outlined tests are
indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets.
As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory by an engineer
and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil
Classification System, based on the soil’s texture and plasticity. The estimated group
symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief
description of that classification system is included with this report. Classification of the
bedrock was based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings.
Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The Spring Creek Farms multi-family residential development project is located north of
Drake Road, west of Timberline Road, east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and south
of Brockman Drive in east Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is currently vacant land, sparsely
vegetated, exhibiting gentle yet varying slopes to the south and east.
Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be
generalized as follows. In summary, the subsurface conditions generally consisted of lean
clay with sand, sandy lean clay or clayey sand overburden subsoils extending to the depths
explored or to an underlying granular stratum. Silty sand with gravel and intermittent
cobbles course granular zone was encountered beneath the upper clay soils in the majority of
the test borings at approximate depths of 11 to 23-feet below site grades and extended to the
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 4
depths explored and/or to the bedrock formation below. Claystone/siltstone bedrock was
encountered at approximate depths of 19 to 29-feet below site grades in borings B-3, B-4, B-
7, B-16, B-17, and B-20 and extended to the depths explored, 20 to 30-feet below site
grades. A majority of the borings were terminated at depths of approximately 20-feet below
site grades within overburden clay soils or granular zone. The stratification boundaries
indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and
bedrock types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct.
The upper cohesive soils encountered beneath the surface topsoil layer varied from medium
stiff to stiff consistency cohesive subsoils which exhibited low to moderate swell potential
and typically low bearing capacity characteristics. The swell potentials of these soils are
shown on the enclosed swell-consolidation curves presented in the Appendix of this report.
The lower portion of the cohesive zone encroaching the groundwater levels where
applicable, exhibited soft/slightly compressible conditions with an increase in moisture
content. The granular strata was medium dense to dense in relative density and exhibited
moderate load bearing characteristics. Intermittent cobbles were encountered within the
granular zone at varying depths and caused auger refusal with the drilling equipment at
depths as indicated on a few of the borings as shown in the Appendix of this report. The
claystone/siltstone bedrock was tan/gray/rust in color, moderately hard and exhibited
moderate to high bearing characteristics. The bedrock materials were weathered nearer
surface; however, became less weathered and more competent with depth.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the
presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling, groundwater was
observed in a majority of the twenty-four (24) borings at approximate depths of 13 to 21-feet
below site grades, generally near and/or encroaching the underlying granular strata.
Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-18, and B-21 through B-24 to maximum
depths of exploration, approximately 10 to 20-feet below present site grades. The depth to
groundwater is shown on the upper right portion of the enclosed boring logs included in the
Appendix of this report. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling
operations; therefore subsequent groundwater measurements were not performed.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 5
Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in
hydrologic conditions, and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Longer
term monitoring of water levels in cased wells, which are sealed from the influence of
surface water would be required to more accurately evaluate fluctuations in groundwater
levels at the site. We have typically noted deepest groundwater levels in late winter and
shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Swell – Consolidation Test Results
The swell-consolidation test is commonly performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential
of soils or bedrock for determining foundation, floor slab, and pavement design criteria. In this
test, relatively undisturbed samples obtained directly from the ring barrel sampler are placed in
a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load, generally at 150-
psf, 500-psf, or 1,000 psf. All samples are inundated with water and monitored for swell and
consolidation. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse after inundation,
expressed as a percent of the sample’s initial thickness. After the inundation period additional
incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and consolidation.
For this assessment, we conducted thirty-one (31) swell-consolidation tests at various
intervals/depths throughout the site. The swell index values for the samples analyzed for
pavement design criteria, (i.e., soil samples tested at the 150 psf-inundation pressure), revealed
low to moderate swell characteristics ranging from approximately (+) 2.8 to (+) 9.9%.
The swell index values for the upper level cohesive samples analyzed for foundation design
criteria, (i.e., soil samples obtained within the upper 10-feet and evaluated at either 500 or
1,000 psf-inundation pressure), revealed a slight tendency to consolidate to moderate swell
characteristics ranging from approximately (-) 1.0 to (+) 4.0%. The (-) test results indicate the
tendency to consolidate upon inundation with water, while the (+) test results indicate the swell
potential characteristics. A summary of the laboratory swell-consolidation test results is
presented on the table below.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 6
Table I – Laboratory Swell-Consolidation Test Results
No of
Samples
Tested
Pre-Load /
Inundation
Pressure, PSF
In-Situ Characteristics
Range of Swell – Index Test
Range of Moisture Contents, % Results
Range of Dry Densities,
PCF
Low End, % High End, %
Low End,
PCF
High End,
PCF
Low End
(+/-) %
High End,
(+/-) %
7 150 8.6 13.5 102.9 119.1 (+) 2.8 (+) 9.9
17 500 7.5 17.5 95.6 118.2 (+) 0.5 (+) 4.0
7 1000 9.3 13.7 89.3 117.6 (-) 1.0 (+) 1.1
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information
presented below in Table II, to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical
engineers to provide a relative correlation of performance risk to measured swell. “The
representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values; rather, they are a
judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to influence slab performance.”
Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for
foundation performance based on the risk categories.
Table II - Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding
Slab Performance Risk Categories
Slab Performance Risk
Category
Representative Percent Swell
(500 psf Surcharge)
Representative Percent Swell
(1000 psf Surcharge)
Low 0 to < 3 0 < 2
Moderate 3 to < 5 2 to < 4
High 5 to < 8 4 to < 6
Very High > 8 > 6
Based on the laboratory test results, the samples analyzed for this project were within the
low to moderate range. As further discussed in the “Site Preparation” section of this report,
due to the relatively dry in-situ moisture contents of the overburden subsoils as well as the
low to moderate swell potential exhibited in the laboratory, an over-excavation and
replacement procedure will be required to reduce the potential for movement/heave in the
foundation alignments, floor slab areas, pavements and exterior flatwork areas.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 7
Moisture Density Relationship-Standard Proctor Density
The existing in-situ dry densities for the overburden cohesive soils generally ranged from
approximately 89 to 119 pounds per cubic (pcf), with an average of about 105 pcf. In-situ
moisture contents typically ranged from approximately 8-1/2 to 17-1/2 percent with an
average of about 11 percent. These dry densities and moisture contents correspond to
consistency of medium stiff to stiff materials, which are consistent with the penetration
resistance blow counts, (SPT) indicated on the boring logs included in the Appendix of this
report. EEC also performed standard Proctor density (ASTM Specification D698) tests on
composite samples of overburden cohesive materials from select borings collected during our
field exploration. The results of the soil classification and standard Proctor density tests,
ASTM D698, for the various composite samples collected during our subsurface exploration
are presented in the table below and are included in the Appendix of this report.
TABLE III - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISITCS AND CLASSIFIATION OF SOILS
Sample ID
Standard Proctor Density Soil Classification
Optimum
Moisture
Content, %
Maximum
Dry Density,
PCF
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Index
% (-) No.
200 Sieve
Description
Comp. Sample B-5 17.0 105.0 37 19 69 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Comp. Sample B-6 -- -- 37 19 61 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Comp. Sample B-9 -- -- 36 17 69 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Comp. Sample B-19 -- -- 36 18 68 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Comp. Sample B-22 17.0 106.5 34 16 67 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
The soil classifications for each of the composite samples were relatively consistent
indicating the upper cohesive zones generally is classified as sandy lean clay; although some
variations exist across the site. The standard Proctor density (ASTM Specifications D698)
indicate maximum dry density values ranged between 105 to 106.5 pcf, along with optimum
moisture content of approximately 17 percent. In comparison, the average in-situ dry density
value was relatively close; however several samples were deficient of the maximum dry
density values and several samples appeared well excess of the maximum dry density; thus
the swell-potential characteristics as indicated on the swell-consolidation results. In
correlating the in-situ moisture contents, the average the in-situ moisture content of 11% was
deficient of optimum moisture by approximately 6%. Due to the relatively dry in-situ and
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 8
moderately expansive upper cohesive zone we recommend an over-excavation/moisture
conditioning and recompaction method of the upper cohesive subsoils to specified depths as
described in the “Site Preparation” section of this report be implemented to allow for
placement of foundations, floor slabs and pavement sections and exterior concrete flatwork.
The over-excavation procedure will provide a swell-mitigation plan to reduce the swell
potential of the stiff, moderately expansive cohesive subsoils and create a uniform foundation
bearing zone.
Site Preparation
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it appears small cuts and/or fills
may be necessary to achieve design grades. After stripping and completing all cuts and prior
to placement of any fill and/or site improvements, we recommend the top two (2) feet of the
existing relatively dry, moisture deficient, stiff, low to moderately expansive cohesive
subsoils be removed from within the building foundation areas, (i.e., a minimum of 2-feet
below all post-tensioned-slab components), exterior concrete flatwork, and within all
pavement areas, and replaced as moisture conditioned/engineered fill material. The
overexcavation should extend laterally a like distance beyond the buildings and
pavement/flatwork areas. After removal of the initial 2-feet of lean clay surface material, the
exposed soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9-inches, adjusted in moisture
content to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with ASTM Specification D-698.
Fill soils to develop the building, pavement/flatwork and site subgrades should consist of
approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and debris. It is
our opinion the on-site cohesive soils could be used as fill in these areas, provided adequate
moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. We recommend the fill soils be
placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture content and
compacted as recommended for the scarified soils. If the site lean clay soils are used as fill
material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and
during construction of overlying improvements.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 9
Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade
materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures and pavements to
void wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to
construction of the site improvements can result in unacceptable performance.
As presented on the enclosed boring logs and laboratory test results, low to moderate
swelling soils are present on this site. This report provides recommendations to help
mitigate the effects of soil shrinkage or expansion. Even if these procedures are followed,
some movement and at least minor cracking in the structures should be anticipated. The
severity of cracking and other cosmetic damage such as uneven floor slabs/exterior flatwork
will probably increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of
the site soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and cosmetic distress may not be feasible,
but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive
measures are used during construction. We would be pleased to discuss other construction
alternatives with you upon request.
In areas where excavations will extend below existing groundwater table or the perched
water surface level, such as utility excavation, placement of cleaner granular fill material
would be desirable. Those materials should be placed in lifts and compacted to at least 70%
relative density.
Areas of deeper fills may experience settlement from underlying native soils and within the
placed fill materials. Settlement on the order of 1-inch or more per each 10 feet of fill depth
would be estimated. The rate of settlement will be dependent on the type of fill material
placed and construction methods. Granular soils will consolidate essentially immediately
upon placement of overlying loads. Cohesive soils will consolidate at a slower rate.
Foundation Systems – General Considerations
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on the results of our field
exploration and review of the proposed development plans. The following foundation systems
were evaluated for use on the site:
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 10
Post-Tensioned Slab Foundation System
Post-Tensioned Slab Foundation Systems
The results of our field exploration and laboratory testing completed for this study indicate
the upper cohesive clay subsoils exhibited low to moderate swell potential and low to
moderate bearing capabilities. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we expect the
proposed multi-family development units/slab-on-grade structures and associated garage units
could be supported by post-tensioned slabs (PTS) that are supported/bear on a minimum 2-foot
zone of engineered/controlled fill materials placed and compacted as outlined in the “Site
Preparation” section of this report. Overexcavation and backfill procedures are recommended
below all buildings to develop subgrades for the post tension foundations. We recommend a
consistent layer of at least 2-feet of low volume change fill be constructed below all foundation
bearing levels for all proposed structures. The design parameters provided below assume
subgrade materials outlined under “Site Preparation” to mitigate the near surface higher swell
soils.
Outlined below are the post tensioned slab (PTS) design criteria based on the subsurface
conditions and information provided in the 3rd Edition of the Post-Tensioning Institutes
design manual. Post-tensioned slabs, thickened or turn-down edges, and/or interior beams
should be designed and constructed in accordance with the appropriate design criteria.
Table IV – Post-Tension Slab (PTS) Design Criteria
Post-Tensioned Slab (PTS) – 3rd Edition Design Parameters
Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure, psf 1500
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
Center Lift Condition, ft. 8.2
Edge Lift Condition, ft. 4.2
Differential Soil Movement, ym
Center Lift Condition, Inches 0.2
Edge Lift Condition, Inches 0.7
Slab-Subgrade friction coefficient,
on polyethelene sheeting 0.75
on cohesionless soils – (sands) 1.0
on cohesive soils – (clays) 2.0
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 11
Seismic
The site soil conditions consist of approximately 20-feet to greater than 25-feet of
overburden cohesive to non-cohesive clay and granular soils overlying moderately hard to
hard claystone/siltstone bedrock. For those site conditions, the 2006 International Building
Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D.
Lateral Earth Pressures
For any area of the proposed development having below grade construction, such as
retaining walls, etc., those portions will be subject to lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral
earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall or other similar site
structures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some
movement of the structure is anticipated, such as retaining walls. The total deflection of
structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of
one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at-rest
pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained. Passive
pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of
resistance to movement of retaining walls.
Coefficient values for backfill with anticipated types of soils for calculation of active, at rest
and passive earth pressures are provided in the table below. Equivalent fluid pressure is
equal to the coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are
based on horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially on-site cohesive
subsoils or approved imported granular materials with friction angles of 25 and 35 degrees
respectively. For the at-rest and active earth pressures, slopes down and away from the
structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the structures
resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with slopes
away from the wall. The top 30-inches of soil on the passive resistance side of walls could
be used as a surcharge load; however, should not be used as a part of the passive resistance
value. Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal
force.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 12
Table V – Lateral Earth Pressure Design Values
Soil Type On-Site Low Plasticity Cohesive Imported Medium Dense
Granular
Wet Unit Weight 115 135
Saturated Unit Weight 135 140
Friction Angle () – (assumed) 25° 35°
Active Pressure Coefficient 0.40 0.27
At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.58 0.43
Passive Pressure Coefficient 2.46 3.70
Surcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on
below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis.
The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and
are based on assumed friction angles, which should be verified after potential material
sources have been identified. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems
behind below grade walls to eliminate potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the
walls. Those systems would likely include perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas
or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. Where necessary,
appropriate hydrostatic load values should be used for design.
Floor Slabs
Slab-on-grade construction is feasible for the site provided certain precautions are adhered
to. To reduce floor slab and/or exterior concrete flatwork movement, we recommend the
proposed floor slab on grade, and exterior concrete flatwork including the pool deck areas,
bear a minimum of 2-feet of moisture conditioned engineered/controlled fill material
properly placed and compacted as outlined under the “Site Preparation” section of this
report. It is our opinion the on-site cohesive soils could be used as fill in these areas,
provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. If the site’s
lean clay soils are used as fill material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended
moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. This
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 13
procedure will not eliminate the possibilities of slab movement; but movements should be
reduced and tend to be more uniform. We estimate the long-term movement of floor slabs
with properly prepared subgrade subsoils as outlined above would be about one-inch or less.
For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100
pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floors supported on existing or compacted on-
soils at the site.
Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows:
Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs
and all foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement.
Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent
of cracking.
Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar
manner as previously described for imported structural fill material.
In areas subjected to normal loading, a minimum 6-inch layer of clean-
graded gravel or aggregate base course should be placed beneath interior
floor slabs.
Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.
Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design
Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended.
Pavements
We expect the site pavements will include areas designated for low volume automobile
traffic/parking and areas of heavier/higher volume traffic. For heavier traffic areas, we are
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 14
using an assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 15 and in automobile/parking
areas we are using an EDLA of 7.
Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement
of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling
operations should be undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade
support. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and the laboratory test
results, it is recommended the on-site private drives and parking areas be designed using an
R-value of 10.
Due to the expansive characteristics of the overburden soils a swell mitigation plan will be
necessary to reduce the potential for movement within the pavement section. As presented in
the “Site Preparation” section of this report we recommended over-excavating a minimum of 2-
feet of the in-situ overburden cohesive subsoils and replace these soils as moisture
conditioned/engineered fill material beneath all pavement areas. Pumping conditions could
develop within a moisture treatment process of on-site cohesive soils. Therefore, a subgrade
stabilization will also be needed to develop a stable subgrade for paving. A stabilized subgrade
could also reduce the overlying pavement structure. Stabilization should include incorporating
at least 13 percent, by weight Class C fly ash into the upper 12-inches of subgrade.
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) underlain by crushed aggregate base course with or without a fly ash
treated subgrade, and non-reinforced concrete pavement are feasible alternatives for the
proposed on-site paved sections. Eliminating the risk of movement within the proposed
pavement section may not be feasible due to the characteristics of the subsurface materials; but
it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive
subgrade stabilization measures are used during construction. We would be pleased to discuss
other construction alternatives with you upon request.
Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness
over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can
support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for pavement design do not account for
shrink/swell movements of an expansive clay subgrade or consolidation of a wetted
subgrade. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 15
experience cracking and deformation due to shrink/swell related movement of the subgrade.
It is, therefore, important to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade to reduce
shrink/swell movements.
Recommended pavement sections are provided below in TABLE I. The hot bituminous
pavement (HBP) could be grading SX (75) or S (75) with PG 58-28 oil. The aggregate base
should be Class 5 or Class 6 base. Portland cement concrete for pavements should be a
pavement design mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4000 psi and should
be air entrained. HBP pavements may show rutting and distress in truck loading and turning
areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas.
TABLE VI – RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas
18-kip EDLA
18-kip ESAL’s
Reliability
Resilient Modulus
PSI Loss
7
51,100
75%
3562
2.5
15
109,500
85%
3562
2.0
Design Structure Number 2.47 3.00
Composite with Fly Ash Treated Subgrade
Hot Bituminous Pavement
Aggregate Base
Fly Ash Treated Subgrade
(Design Structure Number)
3"
6"
12”
(2.58)
4"
6"
12”
(3.02)
PCC (Non-reinforced) 5″ 6″
The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be
expected.
Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for
expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the
final pavement geometry. Sawed joints should be cut in general accordance with ACI
recommendations. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and
dowelled where necessary for load transfer.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 16
Since the cohesive soils on the site have some shrink/swell potential, pavements could crack in
the future primarily because of the volume change of the soils when subjected to an increase in
moisture content to the subgrade. The cracking, while not desirable, does not necessarily
constitute structural failure of the pavement.
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the
satisfactory performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal
of water from paved areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils.
Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including
maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The
following recommendations should be considered the minimum:
The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper
surface drainage.
Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden
centers, wash racks)
Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately,
Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture
migration to subgrade soils;
Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter;
and,
Placing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils
with the use of base course materials.
Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement
management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of
pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance
consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global
maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when
implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on
investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering
observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 17
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as
construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction
traffic, desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for
pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be
carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance, such as but
not limited to drying, or excessive rutting. If disturbance has occurred, pavement subgrade
areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the
recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving.
Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the
area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is
recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a
change in the pavement section.
Swimming Pool Design and Construction
As currently planned, the proposed project will include construction of a swimming pool in
conjunction with the welcome center/clubhouse building. Swimming pool design
concepts/plans were not available prior to preparation of this report, however, we assume
similar to other recently completed multi-family development projects that the pool would
range anywhere from 4 to 6-feet in depth for lap purposes. The construction and performance
of the pool may be highly affected by the presence of low to moderately expansive overburden
cohesive subsoils. Similar to the site preparation recommendations we would recommend the
subsoils beneath the proposed swimming also be over-excavated and replaced with moisture
conditioned engineered/controlled fill material to a minimum depth of 2-feet blow bottom of
pool depths.
The following paragraphs provide general geotechnical engineering recommendations based on
the construction of a swimming pool in similar type subsoils. EEC can provide supplemental
design recommendations based on a geotechnical engineering viewpoint when plans are made
available.
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 18
Consideration should be given to the use of reinforced gunnite concrete for pool construction.
This material can normally withstand relatively large soil movements without cracking.
However, because the bottom of the full-depth pool will extend into low to moderate expansive
clays, care should be taken during construction to waterproof the pool so that leakage will not
occur.
A drainage system should be provided around and beneath the pool. The drain should consist
of a minimum six-inch layer of clean gravel (minimum 3/4-inch size) beneath, and along the
sides of the pool. The top of the drain layer should be sealed with 18 inches of relatively
impermeable soil at the surface. The gravel layer beneath the pool should be sloped so that it
will drain into tiles or perforated drain pipe. The layout of the perforated pipe should include at
least one pipe running down the center of the pool lengthwise. Cross-connecting pipes,
spanning with the pool, should be placed at six-foot centers. The cross-connecting pipes
should be joined to the center pipe with solid "tees" or "cross" connections. The center pipes
should be sloped to a positive gravity outlet or sloped to a sump located in the equipment room,
permitting pump discharge.
The bottom of the excavation beneath the gravel layer and the pipe should be lined with an
impervious membrane (polyethylene film or equal) in order to reduce potential moisture
fluctuations in the subgrade soils. Pressure relieve values should be provided in the base of the
pool to prevent excessive uplift pressures from developing in the event of failure of the drain
system.
The soils that will support pool deck slabs around the pool could expand with increasing
moisture content. To reduce possible damage that could be caused by expansive soils, we
recommend:
deck slabs be supported on fill with no, or very low expansion potential
strict moisture-density control during placement of subgrade fills
placement of effective control joints on relatively close centers and isolation joints
between slabs and other structural elements
provision for adequate drainage in areas adjoining the slabs
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 19
use of designs which allow vertical movement between the deck slabs and adjoining
structural elements
Fill, backfill, and surface drainage in the pool area should be placed in accordance with the
recommendations in the Earthwork section of this report. Grading should be provided for
diversion of deck surface runoff away from the pool area. In no case should water be allowed
to pond around the slab perimeter.
Other Considerations
Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures and pavement areas with a
minimum slope of 1-inch per foot for the first 10-feet away from the improvements in
landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping, (if required), adjacent to
the building to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the foundations or
stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in
fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to
site improvements. Irrigation systems should not be placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of
the buildings and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed not to spray water on or
immediately adjacent to the structures or site pavements. Roof drains should be designed to
discharge at least 5 feet away from the structures and away from the pavement areas.
Excavations into the on-site clays can be expected to stand on relatively steep temporary
slopes during construction. However, if excavations extend into the underlying
groundwater, caving soils may be encountered. The individual contractor(s) should be made
responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped
or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current
OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.
Corrosion Protection
The water soluble sulfate (SO4) testing of the site materials indicated sulfate contents of less
than 1 ppm. Sulfate content less than 150 ppm in water or (approximately 0.1 percent in soil)
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
EEC Project No. 1122005
January 30, 2012
Page 20
is considered negligible risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete. These results
indicate that ASTM Type I Portland cement is suitable for all concrete on and below grade.
However, if there is no, or minimal cost differential, use of ASTM Type II Portland cement is
recommended for additional sulfate resistance of construction concrete. Foundation concrete
should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318,
Chapter 4.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information
discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur
between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become
evident until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the
recommendations of this report.
It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and
specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of
our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further
recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during
earthwork phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. Site-specific
explorations should be completed to develop site-specific recommendations for each of the
site buildings.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of McWhinney, for specific application
to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event
that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are
modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer.
DRILLING AND EXPLORATION
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample
ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample
R: Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted
PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit
HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit
DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample
AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter
HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling
WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling
DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal
AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated
levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not
possible with only short term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification
system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained
Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200
sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand.
Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight
retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they
are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic.
Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor
constituents may be added according to the relative proportions
based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained
soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density
and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty
sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM).
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Unconfined Compressive
Strength, Qu, psf Consistency
< 500 Very Soft
500 - 1,000 Soft
1,001 - 2,000 Medium
2,001 - 4,000 Stiff
4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff
8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS:
N-Blows/ft Relative Density
0-3 Very Loose
4-9 Loose
10-29 Medium Dense
30-49 Dense
50-80 Very Dense
80 + Extremely Dense
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK
DEGREE OF WEATHERING:
Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on
joints. May be color change.
Moderate Some decomposition and color change
throughout.
High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely
broken.
HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION:
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 9 9000+ 14.6 102.1 36 16 84.5 1600 psf 0.8%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
light brown / red _ _
with calcareous deposits SS 10 25 9000+ 12.6
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 14
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
SS 15 40 -- 16.0
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 16
_ _
17
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK _ _
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard 18
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 18.5' 19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
medium stiff to stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
CS 5 8 -- 15.1 <500 psf None
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
light brown _ _
with trace gravel SS 10 17 4500 13.7
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 14
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
CS 15 26 -- 11.5 117.9
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 50/10" -- 19.7
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown / tan 2
medium stiff to stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 14 9000+ 10.6 101.5 35 20 89.4 1700 psf 1.9%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
red, increased amounts of sand & gravel with depth _ _
SS 10 16 9000+ 16.5
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 15 4500 18.4 110.8
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 18
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
19
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths SS 20 50/5" -- 12.3
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK 23
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard to hard _ _
24
_ _
CS 25 -- 9000+ 13.6
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 27
grey, hard to very hard _ _
28
_ _
29
_ _
CS 30 50/2.5"
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' _ _
31
_ _
32
_ _
33
_ _
34
_ _
35
_ _
36
_ _
37
_ _
38
_ _
39
_ _
40
_ _
41
_ _
42
_ _
43
_ _
44
_ _
45
_ _
46
_ _
47
_ _
48
_ _
49
_ _
50
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 38 9000+ 13.5 113.0 39 20 80.1 9.9%
_ _
4
_ _
light brown / tan SS 5 13 6500 10.0
with calcareous deposits _ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
CS 10 10 -- 17.9 101.6 1500 psf 0.3%
_ _
11
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 12
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
13
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 14
_ _
SS 15 50/10" -- 10.9
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK _ _
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard CS 20 -- -- 26.5
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
SPARSE VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown / tan 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 23 9000+ 11.1 100.9 4200 psf 3.1%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 19 9000+ 15.1
_ _
11
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 12
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
13
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 14
_ _
SS 15 50/7" -- 3.8
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 20 -- 9.8
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
SPARSE VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown / tan 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
CS 3 20 6000 17.5 109.0 1400 psf 0.5%
_ _
4
_ _
SS 5 6 9000+ 20.1
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
brown / tan / red CS 10 33 9000+ 10.3 118.7
_ _
11
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 12
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
13
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 14
_ _
SS 15 19 -- 10.4
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
*auger refusal within dense to very dense COBBLE zone 18
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 18.0' _ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits CS 3 13 9000+ 9.1 101.2 3500 psf 3.1%
_ _
4
_ _
SS 5 16 6000 10.3
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 50/9" 9000+ 13.4 116.3
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) _ _
tan, grey, medium dense to dense SS 15 36 -- 6.2
_ _
16
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths _ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK 22
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard _ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK 27
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard _ _
28
_ _
29
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _
grey, hard to very hard CS 30 50/2" 9000+ 19.5
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' _ _
31
_ _
32
_ _
33
_ _
34
_ _
35
_ _
36
_ _
37
_ _
38
_ _
39
_ _
40
_ _
41
_ _
42
_ _
43
_ _
44
_ _
45
_ _
46
_ _
47
_ _
48
_ _
49
_ _
50
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 1
brown _ _
stiff to very stiff 2
with calcareous deposits _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
CS 5 16 9000+ 9.3 90.8 2000 psf 1.1%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 5 6500 14.9
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 10 4500 15.8 111.9
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 19
tan, grey, dense to very dense _ _
SS 20 50/11" -- 11.4
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 1
brown / tan _ _
medium stiff to stiff 2
with calcareous deposits _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 19 9000+ 9.1 97.4 3200 psf 5.3%
_ _
4
_ _
SS 5 19 5000 11.6
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 18 9000+ 13.4 110.5 3400 psf 2.0%
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
red, increased amounts of sand & gravel with depth SS 15 13 6000 9.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) _ _
tan, grey, dense to very dense SS 20 50/9" 3000 15.5
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown / tan 2
medium stiff to stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 15 9000+ 8.6 101.1 4500 psf 4.0%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
brown SS 10 17 9000+ 10.9
with calcareous deposits _ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 14 7000 16.4 113.8
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) _ _
tan, grey, dense to very dense SS 20 50/9" -- 17.5
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
CS 3 14 9000+ 9.9 101.9 3800 psf 2.3%
_ _
4
_ _
with calcareous deposits SS 5 7 9000+ 10.5
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 11 9000 13.1 109.8
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
reddish SS 15 4 4500 14.0
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 19
tan, grey, dense to very dense _ _
SS 20 28 -- 10.7
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
SPARSE VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 11 9000+ 9.8 97.5 3400 psf 2.7%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) / CLAYEY SAND (SC) CS 10 10 -- 11.5 108.4 31 17 42.1 <500 psf None
brown _ _
stiff to very stiff 11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 14 4000 15.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 19
tan, grey, dense to very dense _ _
SS 20 37 -- 10.3
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 150 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
with calcareous deposits CS 3 31 9000+ 11.1 110.1 8500 psf 8.0%
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 18 9000+ 9.5 101.1
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 20 9000+ 14.5 103.2
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 14 4500 13.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 19
tan, grey, dense to very dense _ _
SS 20 50/10" -- 9.9
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 20 9000+ 8.1 106.2 2800 psf 2.1%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
brown / red CS 10 16 9000+ 10.4 115.4
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
with traces of gravel SS 15 11 5500 12.3
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) SS 20 50 -- 10.7
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
21
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 22
_ _
23
_ _
24
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 24.0' _ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits CS 3 18 9000+ 13.9 108.4
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 10 9000+ 8.9 95.9 2400 psf 2.1%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
red / brown _ _
CS 10 11 9000+ 9.7 109.8
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
with traces of gravel SS 15 16 5000 16.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) _ _
tan, grey, medium dense to dense SS 20 50 -- 8.8
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
_ _
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 1
light brown / tan _ _
stiff to very stiff 2
_ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 21 9000+ 8.6 103.3 1050 psf 2.8%
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 14 9000+ 9.3 100.5 35 13 70.0 4000 psf 2.8%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
brown / red CS 10 28 9000+ 9.6 112.2
with calcareous deposits & traces of gravel _ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 16 7000 16.5
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 19
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
SS 20 50 -- 9.8
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 27
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
28
_ _
29
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK _ _
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard SS 30 --
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31
_ _
32
_ _
33
_ _
34
_ _
35
_ _
36
_ _
37
_ _
38
_ _
39
_ _
40
_ _
41
_ _
42
_ _
43
_ _
44
_ _
45
_ _
46
_ _
47
_ _
48
_ _
49
_ _
50
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 32 9000+ 7.9 104.9 6000 psf 3.9%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
red / brown 8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 39 9000+ 11.4 125.0
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 21 9000+ 16.2 117.0
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
brown / tan SS 20 20 4000 17.7
with calcareous deposits _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 23
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
24
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths SS 25 50/8" -- 11.0
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 27
tan, grey, medium dense to dense _ _
28
_ _
29
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK _ _
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard SS 30 -- -- 23.8
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31
_ _
32
_ _
33
_ _
34
_ _
35
_ _
36
_ _
37
_ _
38
_ _
39
_ _
40
_ _
41
_ _
42
_ _
43
_ _
44
_ _
45
_ _
46
_ _
47
_ _
48
_ _
49
_ _
50
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 1
brown _ _
stiff to very stiff 2
_ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 13 9000+ 7.5 96.9 3000 psf 2.5%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
brown / red _ _ % @ 1000 psf
with calcareous deposits CS 10 9 9000+ 9.5 115.1 28 14 50 <500 psf None
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
brown SS 15 12 5000 19.4
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
brown / tan _ _
SS 20 9 2500 16.0
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 26 9000+ 8.6 102.3 4200 psf 6.0%
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 16 9000+ 14.4 94.3 3000 psf 2.3%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 9 9000+ 13.7 107.2
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 15 6000 15.4
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 11 1000 18.7
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits CS 3 22 9000+ 7.3 97.9
_ _
4
_ _
traces of gravel CS 5 11 9000 8.6 89.3 36 19 83.3 1700 psf 1.7%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
brown / red CS 10 11 9000+ 10.6 112.3
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 13 6000 20.0
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 16 2000 20.6
_ _
21
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 22
tan, grey, medium dense to very dense _ _
23
_ _
*Intermittent COBBLES with increased depths 24
_ _
SS 25 50/6" -- 9.1
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26
_ _
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM-SW) 27
tan, grey, medium dense to very dense _ _
28
_ _
29
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE BEDROCK _ _
tan, grey, rust, weathered/moderately hard SS 30 -- -- 27.6
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31
_ _
32
_ _
33
_ _
34
_ _
35
_ _
36
_ _
37
_ _
38
_ _
39
_ _
40
_ _
41
_ _
42
_ _
43
_ _
44
_ _
45
_ _
46
_ _
47
_ _
48
_ _
49
_ _
50
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
light brown 2
very stiff to medium stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
CS 5 10 -- 11.2 86.9 <500 psf None
red / brown _ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 11 -- 3.5 116.7
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
brown / tan SS 15 14 5000 18.5
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 10 2000 20.1
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
SPARSE VEGETATION _ _
1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits CS 3 24 9000+ 7.8 101.6
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 16 9000+ 8.9 97.6
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
red / brown SS 10 8 8000 8.6 113.2
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
brown / tan SS 15 13 5000 21.5
with traces of gravel _ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 23 7000 16.8 115.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
light brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
with calcareous deposits CS 3 28 9000+ 11.5 107.7 4500 psf 6.1%
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 14 9000+ 9.2 95.0
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
brown / tan / red 9
with traces of gravel _ _
CS 10 39 9000+ 14.9 118.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.0' _ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
15
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME45
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: MANUAL
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _
brown / tan 2
stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
with calcareous deposits CS 3 24 9000+ 9.2 107.0 2200 psf 4.7%
_ _
4
_ _ % @ 1000 psf
CS 5 14 9000+ 9.4 100.4 <500 psf None
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
red / tan / brown _ _
CS 10 34 9000+ 16.6 116.7
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.0' _ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
15
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants
SPRING CREEK FARMS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Swell Pressure: 1600 psf
Fort Collins, Colorado
0.8%
1122005
January 2012
Beginning Moisture: 14.4% Dry Density: 104.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.9%
Material Description:
Sample Location:
Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 16
Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 4'
% Passing #200: 84.5%
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: <500 psf None
Beginning Moisture: 13.7% Dry Density: 105.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.6%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 1700 psf 1.9%
Beginning Moisture: 10.6% Dry Density: 101.8 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.1%
Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 89.4%
Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown / Light Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: 39 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 80.1%
Swell Pressure: 7850 psf 9.9%
Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 13.5% Dry Density: 119.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.6%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 1500 psf 0.3%
Beginning Moisture: 13.4% Dry Density: 112.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.6%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 3, Depth 9'
Material Description: Brown / Light Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 4200 psf 3.1%
Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 11.1% Dry Density: 103.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.8%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown / Tan Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 1400 psf 0.5%
Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 17.5% Dry Density: 110.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.7%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 3500 psf 3.1%
Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 9.1% Dry Density: 102.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.4%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 2000 psf 1.1%
Beginning Moisture: 9.3% Dry Density: 97.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 27.1%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 8, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 3200 psf 5.3%
Beginning Moisture: 9.1% Dry Density: 104.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.7%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 3400 psf 2.0%
Beginning Moisture: 13.4% Dry Density: 118.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 16.3%
Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 65.8%
Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 3, Depth 9'
Material Description: Brown / Tan Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 4500 psf 4.0%
Beginning Moisture: 8.6% Dry Density: 106.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.1%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 10, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 3800 psf 2.3%
Sample Location: Boring 11, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 9.9% Dry Density: 105.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.9%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 3400 psf 2.7%
Beginning Moisture: 9.8% Dry Density: 106.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.1%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 12, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: <500 psf None
Beginning Moisture: 11.5% Dry Density: 109.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.3%
Liquid Limit: 31 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 42.1%
Sample Location: Boring 12, Sample 2, Depth 9'
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 8500 psf 8.0%
Beginning Moisture: 11.1% Dry Density: 110.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.8%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 13, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Material Description: Light Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 2800 psf 2.1%
Beginning Moisture: 8.1% Dry Density: 102.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.7%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 14, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Light Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Light Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: % Passing #200:
Swell Pressure: 2400 psf 2.1%
Sample Location: Boring 15, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 8.9% Dry Density: 99.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.4%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 1050 psf 2.8%
Beginning Moisture: 8.6% Dry Density: 102.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.7%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 16, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Material Description: Light Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 4000 psf 2.8%
Beginning Moisture: 9.3% Dry Density: 109.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.4%
Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 13 % Passing #200: 70.0%
Sample Location: Boring 16, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Material Description: Light Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 6000 psf 3.9%
Beginning Moisture: 7.9% Dry Density: 113.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.8%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 17, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 3000 psf 2.5%
Beginning Moisture: 7.5% Dry Density: 104.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.6%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 18, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: <500 psf None
Beginning Moisture: 9.5% Dry Density: 117.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.6%
Liquid Limit: 28 Plasticity Index: 14 % Passing #200: 49.9%
Sample Location: Boring 18, Sample 2, Depth 9'
Material Description: Brown / Red Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 4200 psf 6.0%
Sample Location: Boring 19, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 8.6% Dry Density: 107.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.8%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 3000 psf 2.3%
Sample Location: Boring 19, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 14.4% Dry Density: 101.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.9%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Light Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing #200: 83.3%
Swell Pressure: 1700 psf 1.7%
Sample Location: Boring 20, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 9.3% Dry Density: 95.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 28.9%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: <500 psf None
Beginning Moisture: 10.7% Dry Density: 89.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 30.5%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 21, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Material Description: Light Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 500:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Light Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 4000 psf 3.7%
Sample Location: Boring 22, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 8.9% Dry Density: 105.4 pcf Ending Moisture: 24.0%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
1122005
January 2012
Fort Collins, Colorado
Swell Pressure: 4500 psf 6.1%
Beginning Moisture: 11.6% Dry Density: 108.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.3%
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Sample Location: Boring 23, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Material Description: Light Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 150:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: 2200 psf 4.7%
Sample Location: Boring 24, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Beginning Moisture: 9.2% Dry Density: 108.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.5%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
% Swell @ 1000:
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project #:
Date:
Material Description: Brown / Tan Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - -
Swell Pressure: <500 psf None
Sample Location: Boring 24, Sample 2, Depth 4'
Beginning Moisture: 9.4% Dry Density: 95.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 24.3%
Fort Collins, Colorado
1122005
January 2012
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Water Added
Consolidation Swell
Project: Spring Creek Farms - Multi-Family Development
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No: 1122005
Date: January 2012
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot)
Percent Moisture
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship
Curves for 100% Saturation
For Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
Material Designation:
Sample Location:
Description:
Composite Sample No. 1
Boring B-5 @ 1.0 ' - 5.0'
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
37
18
19
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 69.0%
Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698)
Maximum Dry Density:
Optimum Moisture Content:
105.0 pcf
17.0%
Material Designation: Composite Sample No. 1
Sample Location: Boring B-5 from 1.0' - 5.0'
Material Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:
Date January 2012
Plasticity Index: 19
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit: 37
Plastic Limit: 18
1122005
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification
No. 200 69.0%
No. 40
Sieve Size
No. 10
Percent Passing
100%
97%
72%
No. 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Finer by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Material Designation: Composite Sample No. 2
Sample Location: Boring B-6 @ 1.0' - 5.0'
Material Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:
Date January 2012
Plasticity Index: 19
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit: 37
Plastic Limit: 18
1122005
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification
No. 200 61.0%
No. 40
Sieve Size
No. 10
Percent Passing
100%
99%
91%
No. 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Finer by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Material Designation: Composite Sample No. 3
Sample Location: Boring B-9 @ 1.0' - 5.0'
Material Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:
Date January 2012
Plasticity Index: 17
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit: 36
Plastic Limit: 20
1122005
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification
No. 200 68.7%
No. 40
Sieve Size
No. 10
Percent Passing
100%
99%
92%
No. 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Finer by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Material Designation: Composite Sample No. 4
Sample Location: Boring B-19 @ 1.0' - 5.0'
Material Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:
Date January 2012
Plasticity Index: 18
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit: 36
Plastic Limit: 18
1122005
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification
No. 200 67.9%
No. 40
Sieve Size
No. 10
Percent Passing
100%
99%
93%
No. 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Finer by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Project: Spring Creek Farms - Multi-Family Development
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No: 1122005
Date: January 2012
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot)
Percent Moisture
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship
Curves for 100% Saturation
For Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
Material Designation:
Sample Location:
Description:
Composite Sample No. 5
Boring B-22 @ 1.0' - 5.0'
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
34
16
18
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 67.0%
Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698)
Maximum Dry Density:
Optimum Moisture Content:
106.5 pcf
17.0%
Material Designation: Composite Sample No. 5
Sample Location: Boring B-22 @ 1.0' - 5.0'
Material Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:
Date January 2012
Plasticity Index: 16
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318)
Liquid Limit: 34
Plastic Limit: 18
1122005
Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Summary of Laboratory Classification
No. 200 67.2%
No. 40
Sieve Size
No. 10
Percent Passing
100%
99%
93%
No. 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Finer by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
1 1/2" (37.5 mm)
1" (25 mm)
3/4" (19 mm)
1/2" (12.5 mm)
3/8" (9.5 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm)
No. 8 (2.36 mm)
No. 16 (1.18 mm)
No. 30 (600 m)
No. 40 (425 m)
No. 50 (300 m)
No. 100 (150 m)
No. 200 (75 m)
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No: 1122005
Sample Desc.: B-6, S-4 at 14'
Date: January 2012
90
NL
88
78
63
44
11
7.9
26
16
Plasticity Index
Plastic Limit NP
NP
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136)
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
100
20
100
93
Sieve Size
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318)
Liquid Limit
Percent Passing
Project: Spring Creek Farms Multi-Family Development
Project Number:
Sample Desc.: B-6, S-4 at 14'
Date: January 2012
Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)
Coarse Fine
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
1122005
Coarse Medium
Cobble
Fine
Sand Silt or Clay
Gravel
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Finer by Weight (%)
Grain Size (mm)
5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100
6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200
PROJECT: Spring Creek Farms - Multi-Family Development PROJECT NO. 1122005
LOCATION: N/W/C of Timberline and Drake Roads - Fort Collins DATE January 2012
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Sandy Lean Clay (CL) - AASHTO A-6
SAMPLE LOCATION:
LIQUID LIMIT: 36 PLASTICITY INDEX: 17 %PASSING #200: 69
R-VALUE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 23
COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 100 100 100
DENSITY (PCF) 109.1 110.0 110.9
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 17.3 16.3 15.6
EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) 0.00 0.00 0.00
HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 140 135 130
SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.50 2.47 2.52
EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 155.2 299.8 482.0
UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 7.9 10.2 12.6
CORRECTED R-VALUE 7.9 10.2 12.6
R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 10 RESILIENT MODULUS, PSI = 3,562
RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION PRESSURE OF
COMPACTED SOIL - ASTM D2844
Comp. Subgrade Sample - TB No. 9@ 1 -5-feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
R-Value
Exudation Pressure, PSF
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-24
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING None
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-23
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING None
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-22
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING None
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5604 24 HOUR N/A
*Composite Sample 1.0' to 5.0' 34 16 67
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-21
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING None
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5602 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-20
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 21.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5601 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-20
SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 21.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5601 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-19
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 20.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5603 24 HOUR N/A
*Composite Sample 1.0' to 5.0' 36 18 68
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-18
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING None
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5605 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-17
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5606 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-17
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5606 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-16
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 18.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5607 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-16
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 18.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5607 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-15
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5608 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-14
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5609 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-13
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5610 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-12
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5611 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-11
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5612 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-10
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5613 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-9
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 19.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5614 24 HOUR N/A
*Composite Sample 1.0' to 5.0' 36 17 69
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-8
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5615 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-7
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5616 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-7
SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 17.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5616 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-6
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5618 24 HOUR N/A
*Composite Sample 1.0' to 5.0' 37 19 61
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-5
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5617 24 HOUR N/A
*Composite Sample 1.0' to 5.0' 37 19 69
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-4
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 13.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5619 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-3
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5622 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-3
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 15.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5622 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-2
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 13.5'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5621 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1122005 JANUARY 2012
LOG OF BORING B-1
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/17/2012 WHILE DRILLING 14.0'
FINISH DATE 1/17/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SURFACE ELEV 5620 24 HOUR N/A
A-LIMITS SWELL
Limestone and Dolomite:
Hard Difficult to scratch with knife.
Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife.
Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail.
Soft Can be scratched with fingernail.
Shale, Siltstone and Claystone:
Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be
scratched with fingernail.
Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail.
Hard
Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with
fingers.
Sandstone and Conglomerate:
Well Capable of scratching a knife blade.
Cemented
Cemented Can be scratched with knife.
Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers.
Cemented