HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Soils - 08/26/2023
400 North Link Lane | Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Telephone: 970-206-9455 Fax: 970-206-9441
GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Prepared For:
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Attention: Brian Smith
Project No. FC08493-115 REV 5
October 1, 2018
(Revised October 8, 2018)
(Revised November 6, 2018)
(Revised November 7, 2018)
(Revised February 20, 2023)
(Revised August 26, 2023)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE ................................................................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 1
SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2
SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 2
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
Soft Soils ......................................................................................................................... 3
Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 4
Expansive Soils and Bedrock ......................................................................................... 4
Seismicity ........................................................................................................................ 4
Radioactivity .................................................................................................................... 5
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................... 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 6
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6
Site Grading .................................................................................................................... 6
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes ....................................................................................... 7
Utility Construction .......................................................................................................... 7
Underdrain System ......................................................................................................... 9
Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................. 10
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 10
Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................... 10
Preliminary Pavement Thickness Design ..................................................................... 11
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES ........................................ 11
Foundations ................................................................................................................... 11
Slabs-on-Grade and Basement Floor Construction ..................................................... 12
Below-Grade Construction ............................................................................................ 12
Surface Drainage .......................................................................................................... 12
General Design Considerations .................................................................................... 13
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES ....................................................................................... 13
RECOMMENDED FUTU RE INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................. 14
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 14
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont’d
FIGURE 1 – LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 2 THROUGH 4 – SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 5 – GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURS
FIGURES 6 THROUGH 8 – SEWER UNDERDRAIN DETAILS
APPENDIX A – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX B – GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation. The purpose of our investigation was to identify geologic hazards that may exist
at the site and to evaluate the subsurface conditions to assist in planning and budgeting for the
proposed development. The report includes descriptions of site geology, our analysis of the
impact of geologic conditions on site development, a d escription of subsoil, bedrock, and
groundwater conditions found in our exploratory borings, and discussions of site development
as influenced by geotechnical considerations. The scope was described in our Service
Agreement (CTL Project No. FC-18-0242) dated June 6, 2018.
This report was prepared based upon our understanding of the proposed use. The
recommendations are considered preliminary and can be used as guidelines for further
planning of development and design of grading. We should review development and grading
plans to determine if additional investigation is merited, or if we need to revise our
recommendations. Additional investigations will be required to design building foundations and
pavements. A summary of our findings and recommendations is presented below. More
detailed discussions of the data, analysis and recommendations are presented in the re port.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. The site contains geologic hazards that should be mitigated during planning and
development. No geologic or geotechnical conditions were identified which
would preclude development of this site. Shallow groundwater, expansive soils
and bedrock, soft soils, and regional issues of seismicity and radioactivity are the
primary geologic concerns pertaining to the development of the site .
2. The subsurface conditions encountered in our borings were variable across the
site. In general, the soils and bedrock encountered in our borings consisted of 3
to 8 feet of fill over 0 to 12 feet of clayey sand or sandy clay, underlain by sand
and gravel. Claystone bedrock was encountered in six of our borings at depths
ranging from 17 to 23 feet below the existing ground surface.
3. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 3½ to 12 feet below the
existing ground surface. Groundwater levels will likely affect planned
development at this site. A contour map of the groundwater surface is provided
on Figure 5.
2
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
4. We measured consolidation and low swell in samples of clayey sand, sandy
clay, and the fill. Soils exhibited compression of up to 1.5 percent and swells of
up to 2.0 percent. The bedrock was not tested for swell but is judged to have a
minimal influence on the proposed construction. We anticipate footing or pad-
type foundations will be appropriate for most structures. Slab-on-grade floors
can likely be used.
5. Asphaltic pavement sections on the order of 4 to 6 inches over aggregate base
course sections of 6 inches for streets, parking areas, and access drives are
anticipated for preliminary planning purposes.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located north of Horsetooth Road and east of Ziegler Road in Fort Collins,
Colorado. During our investigation, the northern portion of the site was in use as a concrete
plant. The southern portion of the site was vacant during our investigation. In 2014, excess
material from the construction of the adjacent water storage reservoir project was use d to fill
the southern portion of the site. Compaction testing of the fill was conducted by
CTL|Thompson. Groundcover consisted of bare soils on the northern portion of the site and
natural grasses and weeds on the southern portion of the site. The eastern boundary of the
site is roughly the Boxelder Ditch. The building site on the 130+acre parcel has a general slope
to the southeast. The Cache La Poudre River runs southeast approximately a mile east of the
site. Rigden Reservoir is located east of the si te.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We understand the parcel is planned for development of single and/or multi-family
residences. The single and multi-family residences will be 1 to 3-story, wood frame structures.
Apartment structures will be 3 to 4 stories tall. Below grade areas such as basements or crawl
spaces are likely but may be limited due to shallow groundwater.
SITE GEOLOGY
The geology of the site was investigated through review of mapping by Roger B. Colton
(Geologic Map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Colorado, 1978). Our technician
visited the site to assess whether field conditions are consistent with the geologic mapping and
3
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
reports, evaluate specific site features and to look for other geologic concerns. Geology was
further evaluated through review of con ditions found in exploratory borings, and our experience
in the area.
Referenced geologic mapping indicates the site contains primarily alluvial deposits of
sand and gravel. The Upper unit of Pierre Shale was mapped as a narrow band across the
southwest corner of the site and was encountered underlying the fill and alluvium. An area of
eolian deposition is mapped west of the site and in the southwest corner of the site but was not
encountered during drilling.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Our investigation identified several geologic hazards that must be considered during the
planning and development phases of this project. None of the geologic hazards identified will
preclude development of the property.
Planning should consider the geologic hazards discussed below. The hazards require
mitigation which could include avoidance, non -conflicting use or engineered design and
construction during site development. Geologic hazards at the site that need to be addressed
include soft soils, shallow groundwater, flooding, expansive soils and bedrock, regional issues
of seismicity, and radioactivity. The following sections discuss each of these geologic hazards
and associated development concerns. Mitigation concepts are discussed below and in the
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDAT IONS section of the report.
Soft Soils
Some of the soils encountered during drilling were very loose or medium-stiff. While
mitigating groundwater levels may provide some improvement in the soil conditions, areas of
soft or settling soils may still be encountered. Where encountered under proposed
improvements, stabilization of soft soils can likely be achieved by removal and proper
recompaction or crowding 1½ to 3 -inch nominal size crushed rock into the subsoils until the
base of the excavation does not deform by more than about ½-inch when compactive effort is
applied.
4
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at depths of 3½ to 12 feet during this investigation .
Groundwater is expected to fluctuate seasonally, with changing water levels in nearby water
bodies, and may rise due to site development.
The depth to groundwater should be evaluated during Geotechnical Investigations at the
site. In general, grading should be designed to raise the elevations in areas of shallow
groundwater. Construction of underdrain systems with the sanitary sewer trenches is a
commonly employed method to mitigate th e accumulation of shallow groundwater after
construction. A minimum separation of 5 feet is desirable between the groundwater elevations
and the lowest elevation of any below-grade structure.
Expansive Soils and Bedrock
The soils at this site include low-swelling fill and native sandy clays. Much of the
bedrock formation below the site consists of claystone. Due to the depth of the bedrock and
the level of groundwater above the bedrock, we believe the influence of potential swells of the
bedrock will be minimal. We do not anticipate mitigation for expansive soils and bedrock will be
required for the proposed construction.
Seismicity
This area, like most of central Colorado, is subject to a low degree of seismic risk. No
indications of recent movements of any of the faults in the Larimer County area have been
reported in the available geologic literature. As in most areas of recognized low seismicity, the
record of the past earthquake activity in Colorado is somewhat incomplete.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings and our understanding
of the geology, the site classifies as a Seismic Site Class D (2012 International Building Code).
Only minor damage to relatively new, properly designed and built buildings would be expected.
Wind loads, not seismic considerations, typically govern dynamic structural design in this area.
5
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Radioactivity
It is normal in the Front Range of Colorado and nearby eastern plains to measure radon
gas in poorly ventilated spaces in contact with soil or bedrock. Radon 222 gas is considered a
health hazard and is one of several radioactive products in the chain of the natural decay of
uranium into stable lea d. Radioactive nuclides are common in the soils and sedimentary rocks
underlying the subject s ite. Because these sources exist on most sites, there is potential for
radon gas accumulation in poorly ventilated spaces. The amount of soil gas that can
accumulate is a function of many factors, including the radio-nuclide activity of the soil and
bedrock, construction methods and materials, pathways for soil gas , and existence of poorly
ventilated accumulation areas. It is difficult to predict the concentration of radon gas in finished
construction.
During our investigation, we did not detect any radiation levels above normal
background levels for the area. We recommend te sting to evaluate radon levels after
construction is completed. If required, typical mitigation methods for residential construction
may consist of sealing soil gas entry areas and periodic ventilation of below-grade spaces and
perimeter drain systems. It is relatively economical to provide for ventilation of perimeter drain
systems or underslab gravel layers at the time of construction, compared to retrofitting a
structure after construction. Radon rarely accumulates to significant levels in above -grade,
heated, and ventilated spaces.
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Subsurface conditions were further investigated by drilling fifteen exploratory borings
and three piezometers at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The borings and
piezometers were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig and with 4-inch diameter continuous-
flight augers. Our field representative observed drilling, logged the soils found in the borings ,
and obtained samples. Three additional borings were drilled solely to monitor groundwater
levels. Summary logs of the soils and bedrock found in the borings and field penetration
resistance values are presented on Figures 2 through 4.
6
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Samples of soil and bedrock were obtained during drilling by driving a modified
California-type sampler (2.5-inch O.D.) into the soils and bedrock using a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches. Samples recovered from the borings were returned to our laboratory and
visually classified by the geotechnical engineer. Laboratory testing included determination of
moisture content and dry density, swell-consolidation characteristics, Atterberg limits, particle-
size analysis, and water-soluble sulfate content. Laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix A.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions encountered in our borings were variable across the site. In
general, the soils and bedrock encountered in our borings consisted of 3 to 8 feet of fill over 0
to 12 feet of clayey sand or sandy clay, underlain by sand and gravel. Claystone bedrock was
encountered in six of our borings at 17 to 23 feet to the depths explored. Soils exhibited
compression of up to 1.5 percent and swells of up to 2.0 percent. The bedrock was not tested
for swell but is judged to have a minimal influence on the proposed construction . Groundwater
was encountered at depths ranging from 3½ to 12 feet below the existing ground surface.
Groundwater levels will likely affect planned development at this site. A more detailed
description of the subsurface conditions is presented on our boring logs and in our laboratory
testing. A map of groundwater elevation contou rs is presented on Figure 5.
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Grading
At the time of this inv estigation, site grading plans were not available for review in
conjunction with this subsurface exploration program. It is important that deep fills (if planned)
be constructed as far in advance of surface construction as possible. It is our experience that fill
compacted in accordance with the compaction recommendations in this report may settle about
1 to 2 percent of its height under its own weight. Most of this settlement usually occurs during
and soon after construction. Some additional settlement is possible after development and
landscape irrigation increases soil moisture . Delaying construction of structures up to one year
where located on deep fills is recommended.
7
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
The existing onsite soils are suitable for re-use as fill material provided debris or
deleterious organic materials are removed. The existing onsite soils are suitable for re-use as
fill material provided debris or deleterious organic materials are removed. If import material is
used, it should be tested and approved as acceptable fill by CTL|Thompson. In general, import
fill should meet or exceed the engineering qualities of the onsite soils. Prior to fill placement, all
debris should be removed from fill areas and properly disposed. The ground surface in areas
to be filled should be stripped of vegetation, topsoil, and other deleterious materials, scarified to
a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended below.
Site grading fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture conditioned and
compacted. In areas of deep fill, we recommend higher compaction criteria to help reduce
settlement of the fill. The placement and compaction of fill should be observed, and density
tested during construction. Compaction and moisture requirements are presented in Appendix
B.
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
We recommend permanent cut and fill slopes be designed with a maximum inclination of
3:1 (horizontal to vertical). Where fills will be placed on slopes exceeding 20 percent (5:1) the
slope should be benched. Structures should be setback from the top or bottom of cut and fill
slopes. If site constraints (property boundaries and streets) do not permit constr uction with
recommended slopes, we should be contacted to evaluate the subsurface soils and steep er
slopes.
Utility Construction
We believe excavations for utility installation in the overburden soils can be performed
with conventional heavy-duty trenchers or large backhoes. The excavation contractor should
anticipate water in excavations. Dewatering may be accomplished by sloping excavations to
occasional sumps where water can be removed by pumping .
8
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Utility trenches should be sloped or shored to meet local, State, and federal safety
regulations. Based on our investigation, we believe the sand and gravel classifies as Type C
soil, the clay and fill as Type B, and the bedrock classifies as Type A soil based on OSHA
standards. Excavation slopes specified by OSHA are dependent upon soil types and
groundwater conditions encountered. Seepage and grou ndwater conditions in trenches may
downgrade the soil type. Contractors should identify the soils encountered in the excavation
and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Excavations deeper than 20
feet should be designed by a professional engineer.
The width of the top of an excavation may be limited in some areas. Bracing or “trench
box” construction may be necessary. Bracing systems include sheet piling, braced sheeting,
and others. Lateral loads on bracing depend on the depth of excavation, slope of excavation
above the bracing, surface loads, hydrostatic pressures, and allowable movement. For trench
boxes and bracing allowed to move enough to mobilize the strength of the soils, with
associated cracking of the ground surface, th e “active” earth pressure conditions are
appropriate for design. If movement is not tolerable, the “at rest” earth pressures are
appropriate. We suggest an equivalent fluid density of 40 pcf for the “active” earth pressure
condition and 55 pcf for the “at rest” earth pressure condition, assuming level backfill. These
pressures do not include allowances for surcharge loading or for hydrostatic conditions. We
are available to assist further with bracing design if desired.
Water and sewer lines are usually constructed beneath paved roads. Compaction of
trench backfill can have significant effect on the life and serviceability of pavements. We
believe trench backfill should be placed in thin, loose lifts, and moisture conditioned to between
optimum and 3 percent above optimum content for clay soils and within 2 percent of optimum
moisture content for sand. Trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 per cent of
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The placement and compaction of fill and backfill shou ld
be observed and tested by our firm during construction. If deep excavations are necessary for
planned utilities, the compaction requirements provided in Appendix B.
9
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Underdrain System
The use of underdrain systems below sewer mains and services is a common method to
control groundwater in response to development. We recommend an underdrain system be
incorporated into sanitary sewer and sewer collection sy stems. Underdrains should also be
installed below sewer service lines to each residence planned in this area with connection to
residence foundation drains.
The underdrain should consist of free-draining gravel surrounding a rigid PVC pipe. The
pipe should be sized for anticipated flow. Guidelines for underdrain sizing are shown in Table
A. The line should consist of smooth, perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid at a grade of at
least 0.5 percent. A gravel cross-section of at least 2 square feet s hould be placed around the
pipe. A positive cutoff collar (concrete) should be constructed arou nd the sewer pipe and
underdrain pipe immediately downstream of the point the underdrain pipe leaves the sewer
trench. Solid pipe should be used down gradient of this collar to the daylight point. Clean-outs
should be provided along the system. The enti ty responsible for maintenance should be
identified and guidelines developed for maintenance. The underdrain should be designed to
discharge to a gravity outfall provided with a permanent concrete headwall and trash rack, or to
a storm sewer with a check valve to control water backing up into the underdrain system.
Sewer underdrain details are shown on Figures 6 through 8. The underdrain system should be
designed by a professional engineer that is licensed in the State of Colorado. Table A provides
a general guideline for sizing the underdrain system.
10
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
TABLE A
UNDERDRAIN SIZING
Slope = 0.005 (0.5 percent)
Pipe Size (inches) 4 6 8
Maximum Number of Residences 50 100 200
Slope = 0.01 (1.0 percent)
Pipe Size (inches) 4 6 8
Maximum Number of Residences 75 150 300
Slope = 0.02 (2.0 percent)
Pipe Size (inches) 4 6 -
Maximum Number of Residences 100 300 -
Note: Minimum slopes of the underdrains will govern pipe sizes and maximum number of residences serviced.
Retaining Walls
Site retaining walls can generally be constructed on footing foundations, however, some
movement is possible for walls constructed on fill or expansive soil. Due to the preliminary
status of the design process for this project, wall locations have not yet been identified . Once
wall structure locations and configurations have been identified, CTL|Thompson should be
contacted to perform appropriate subsurface explorations and provide de sign
recommendations.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Subgrade Preparation
Based on the borings, the near surface soils on this site will consist of low-swelling
sandy clay fill. Mitigation for swell is not likely. The subgrade soils will likely be moderately to
highly plastic and will provide relatively poor subgrade support below the pav ements. Lime or
fly ash stabilization of these soils may be recommended to improve subgrade support
characteristics, in addition to enhancing the workability of the clays and reducing water
infiltration into the underlying subgrade and the potential movements under the pavements.
11
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Preliminary Pavement Thickness Design
Preliminary guidelines for pavement systems on this site are provided. Final pavement
sections should be determined based a design level geotechnical investigation and anticipated
frequency of load applications on the pavement during the desired design life. Flexible hot
mixed asphaltic concrete pavement (HMAC) over Aggregate Base Course (ABC) or rigid
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements can be used at this site for automobil e and light
truck traffic use. Rigid pavements are recommended in any areas subject to heavy truck traffic.
We anticipate asphalt pavement sections for local residential streets will be on the order of 4 to
6 inches thick. ABC sections will be on the order of 6 inches thick.
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement is recommended in areas subject to any
heavy truck traffic such as garbage pickup and/or dumpster trucks , and any heavy delivery
trucks. We anticipate the use of 5 inches of PCC for general area pavements which are not
subject to truck traffic. A minimum 6-inch-thick section is anticipated in main drives and any
areas subject to some moderately heavy truck traf fic. Any areas subject to frequent heavy
trucks should be designed based on frequency and whee l loads. PCC pavements in this area
are typically reinforced due to the underlying active clays. Properly designed control joints and
other joints systems are required to control cracking and allow pavement movement.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES
The property is currently planned for residential construction. Our field and laboratory
data indicate the soil and bedrock conditions vary across the site. The following discussions
are preliminary and are not intended for design or constructi on. After grading is completed, a
detailed soils and foundation investigation should be performed.
Foundations
Our geologic and preliminary geotechnical inves tigation for this site indicates structures
may be founded on shallow foundations. A design level geotechnical investigation may identify
potential hazards (i.e., higher swelling soils) for specified areas not indicated by our borings
which may suggest the need for a deeper foundation system or mitigation of the subgrade such
as over-excavation may be recommended.
12
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Slabs-on-Grade and Basement Floor Construction
The use of slab-on-grade floors for unfinished basements should be limited to areas
where soils within the depth likely to influence floor performance are consolidating to low -
swelling. We believe most of the lots will be rated with low risk of poor slab performance.
Structurally supported floor systems should be planned in all non -basement finished living
areas and where higher swelling soils are encountered . Slab performance risk should be more
thoroughly defined during the design level soils and foundation investigation.
Below-Grade Construction
Groundwater was encountered during this investigation and will limit below-grade-areas.
A separation of 5 feet is recommended between ground water and the bottom of footings .
Surface water can infiltrate and develop adjacent to foundations walls. To reduce the risk of
hydrostatic pressure developing on foundation walls, foundation drains will be necessary
around all below-grade areas. We suggest foundation drains be tied to the sewer underdrain
system. They may also discharge to sumps where water can be removed by pumping. In our
opinion, underdrain systems offer more comprehensive control of water from the foundation
drain and the impact of swelling soils on foundations, slabs, and pavements. Foundation walls
and grade beams should be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures. The design
pressure should be established during design-level soils investigations.
Surface Drainage
The performance of foundations will be influenced by surface drainage. The ground
surface around proposed residences should be shaped to provide runoff of surface wat er away
from the structure and off of pavements. We generally recommend slopes of at least 12 inches
in the first 10 feet where practical in the landscaping areas surrounding residences. There are
practical limitations on achieving these slopes. Irrigation should be minimized to control
wetting. Roof downspouts should discharge beyond the limits of backfill. Water should not be
allowed to pond on or adjacent to pavements. Proper control of surface runoff is also important
to limit the erosion of surface soils. Sheet flow should not be directed over unprotected slopes.
Water should not be allowed to pond at the crest of slopes. Permanent slopes should be re -
vegetated to reduce erosion.
13
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Water can follow poorly compacted fill behind curb and gutter an d in utility trenches.
This water can soften fill and undermine the performance of the roadway s, flatwork, and
foundations. We recommend compactive effort be used in placement of all fill.
General Design Considerations
Exterior sidewalks and pavements supported above the onsite clays are subject to post
construction movement. Flat grades should be avoided to prevent possible ponding,
particularly next to the building due to soil movement. Positive grades away from the structures
should be used for sidewalks and flatwork around the perimeter of the buildings in order to
reduce the possibility of lifting of flatwork, resulting in ponding next to the structures. Where
movement of the flatwork is objectionable, procedures recommended for slab-on-grade floors
should be considered.
Joints next to buildings should be thoroughly sealed to prevent the i nfiltration of surface
water. Where concrete pavement is used, joints should also be sealed to reduce the infiltration
of water. Since some post construction movement of pavement and flatwork may occur, joints
around the buildings should be periodically observed and resealed where necessary.
Roof drains should be discharged well away from the structures, preferably by closed
pipe systems. Where roof drains ar e allowed to discharge on concrete flatwork or pavement
areas next to the structures, care shoul d be taken to ensure the area is as water tight as
practical to eliminate the infiltration of this water next to the buildings.
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES
Concrete that comes into contact with soils can be subject to sulfate attack. We
measured water-soluble sulfate concentrations in four samples from this site. Concentrations
were measured between 0.08 and 0.12 percent, with two samples having sulfate
concentrations between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. Water-soluble sulfate concentrations between 0.1
and 0.2 percent indicate Class 1 exposure to sulfate attack, according to the American
14
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Concrete Institute (ACI). ACI indicates adequate sulfate resistance can be achieved by using
Type II cement with a water-to-cementitious material ratio of 0.50 or less. ACI also indicates
concrete in Class 1 exposure environments should have a minimum compressive strength of
4,000 psi. In our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly
permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to
resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious material ratio should not exceed 0.50
for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high-
water tables. Concrete should be air entrained.
RECOMMENDED FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS
Based on the results of this investigation and the proposed development, we
recommend the following investigations be performed:
1. Review of final site grading plans by our firm;
2. Construction testing and observation for site development;
3. Subgrade investigation and pavement design after site grading and utility
installation is complete;
4. Design-level soils and foundation investigations after grading;
5. Construction testing and observation for residential buil ding construction and
paving.
LIMITATIONS
Our exploratory borings were located to obtain preliminary subsurface data indicative of
conditions on this site. Although our borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate
picture of subsurface conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated in our
borings are always possible. We believe this investigation was conducted i n a manner
consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by members of the profess ion
currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express
or implied, is made.
15
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
This report was prepared from data developed during our field exploration, laboratory
testing, engineering analysis, and experience with similar conditions. The recommendations
contained in this report were based upon our understanding of the planned construction. If
plans change or differ from the assumptions presented herein, we should be contacted to
review our recommendations.
If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis
of the building and pavement from the geotechnical point of vi ew, please call.
Very truly yours,
CTL | THOMPSON, INC.
John Byers R. B. “Chip” Leadbetter, PE
Staff Geologist Senior Engineer
MW-1 MW-2
MW-3
MW-4 MW-5
MW-6
MW-7 MW-8 MW-9
MW-10MW-11MW-12
MW-13
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16 MW-17 MW-18
Zi
e
g
l
e
r
R
o
a
d
Horsetooth Road
HORSETOOTH RD.
ZI
E
G
L
E
R
R
D
.
WILLIAM NEAL
PKWY.
DRAKE RD.
I-
2
5
SITE
LEGEND:
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORING
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF PIEZOMETER
INDICATES LOT INCLUDED IN THIS
MW-1
MW-13
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
(FT. COLLINS, CO)
NOT TO SCALE
600'300'
APPROXIMATE
SCALE: 1" = 600'
0'
Locations of
Exploratory
Borings
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
19/12
4/12
4/12
50/10
WC=13.6DD=119SW=0.6
WC=15.2DD=109SW=-0.3SS=0.120
WC=22.6DD=104SW=-0.2
WC=4.2-200=8
WC=13.6DD=119SW=0.6
WC=15.2DD=109SW=-0.3SS=0.120
WC=22.6DD=104SW=-0.2
WC=4.2-200=8
MW-1
El. 4886.0
14/12
35/12
50/6
WC=18.0DD=113SW=0.2
WC=18.0DD=113SW=0.2
MW-2
El. 4875.8
9/12
30/12
50/6
WC=15.7LL=45 PI=25-200=51
WC=15.7LL=45 PI=25-200=51
MW-3
El. 4873.2
21/12
9/12
6/12
33/12
WC=11.3DD=120SW=0.4
WC=19.9DD=109SW=-0.2
WC=11.3DD=120SW=0.4
WC=19.9DD=109SW=-0.2
MW-4
El. 4885.2
20/12
6/12
19/12
50/12
WC=28.8DD=95SW=-0.2
WC=11.6-200=9
WC=28.8DD=95SW=-0.2
WC=11.6-200=9
MW-5
El. 4881.5
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
FIGURE 2
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
4,810
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
10/12
4/12
50/12
50/12
WC=18.5DD=108SW=0.0SS=0.090
WC=23.1DD=106-200=41
WC=18.5DD=108SW=0.0SS=0.090
WC=23.1DD=106-200=41
MW-6
El. 4873.8
31/12
11/12
8/12
24/12
50/9
WC=11.1DD=122SW=1.1
WC=22.8DD=103SW=-0.2
WC=23.9DD=102SW=-0.1
WC=7.3-200=8
WC=11.1DD=122SW=1.1
WC=22.8DD=103SW=-0.2
WC=23.9DD=102SW=-0.1
WC=7.3-200=8
MW-7
El. 4883.7
26/12
13/12
5/12
50/7
50/6
WC=9.1DD=115SW=0.7
WC=19.3DD=111SW=0.1
WC=9.1DD=115SW=0.7
WC=19.3DD=111SW=0.1
MW-8
El. 4880.5
6/12
8/12
44/12
WC=13.4DD=107SW=0.0
WC=13.4DD=107SW=0.0
MW-9
El. 4873.4
14/12
6/12
15/12
WC=14.6DD=118SW=0.5
WC=19.5DD=110SW=-0.1
WC=14.6DD=118SW=0.5
WC=19.5DD=110SW=-0.1
MW-10
El. 4870.6
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
FIGURE 3
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
4,900
4,910
4,820
4,830
4,840
4,850
4,860
4,870
4,880
4,890
4,900
4,910
20/12
8/12
32/12
WC=7.3DD=120SW=0.2SS=0.080
WC=20.9DD=106SW=-0.1
WC=7.3DD=120SW=0.2SS=0.080
WC=20.9DD=106SW=-0.1
MW-11
El. 4877.6
15/12
5/12
5/12
5/12
28/12
WC=18.0DD=115SW=0.4
WC=29.3DD=94SW=-0.2
WC=25.1DD=99SW=-0.1
WC=23.8DD=382SW=-0.1
WC=18.0DD=115SW=0.4
WC=29.3DD=94SW=-0.2
WC=25.1DD=99SW=-0.1
WC=23.8DD=382SW=-0.1
MW-12
El. 4880.7
39/12
50/6
WC=0.9-200=4
WC=6.5LL=42 PI=19-200=17
WC=0.9-200=4
WC=6.5LL=42 PI=19-200=17
MW-15
El. 4906.9
21/12
10/12
5/12
8/12
WC=9.4DD=125SW=2.0
WC=21.3DD=107SW=0.4
WC=21.8DD=105SW=-0.2
WC=9.4DD=125SW=2.0
WC=21.3DD=107SW=0.4
WC=21.8DD=105SW=-0.2
MW-17
El. 4877.5
6/12
5/12
35/12
WC=15.0DD=112SW=0.1
WC=23.9DD=101SW=-1.5SS=0.100
WC=15.0DD=112SW=0.1
WC=23.9DD=101SW=-1.5SS=0.100
MW-18
El. 4868.8
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
FIGURE 4
DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 20/12 INDICATES 20 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
F
E
E
T
WATER LEVEL MEASURED SEVERAL DAYS AFTER DRILLING.
CLAY, SANDY, MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, BROWN (CL)
2.
3.
FILL, CLAY, SAND, GRAVEL, MOIST, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, BROWN, DARK BROWN
THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON JULY 30 AND 31, 2018 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG.
1.
LEGEND:
NOTES:
SAND, CLAYEY, MOIST TO WET, LOOSE, BROWN (SC)
SAND AND GRAVEL, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY CLAYEY, MOIST TO WET, DENSE TO VERY
DENSE, BROWN, TAN, GRAY (SP, GP, GW, SW-SC, SP-SC, GP-GC)
CLAYSTONE, SANDY, WITH OCCASIONAL SANDSTONE, CLAYEY INTERBEDS, MOIST TO
WET, HARD, DARK GRAY
WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING.
BORING ELEVATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR FIRM
REFERENCING THE TEMPORARY BENCHMARK SHOWN ON FIGURE 1.
THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN
THIS REPORT.
4.
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
WC
DD
SW
-200
LL
PI
UC
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%).
INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF).
INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%).
INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%).
INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT.
INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX.
INDICATES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF).
INDICATES SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%). ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
Xref .\Surfer Files\contour overlay.dwg
MW-1 MW-2
MW-3
MW-4 MW-5
MW-6
MW-7 MW-8 MW-9
MW-10
MW-112MW-1
MW-13
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16 MW-17 MW-18
Zi
e
g
l
e
r
R
o
a
d
Horsetooth Road
(17.5)
(10.5)
(11)(10)
)(9 (10.5)
(6.5)
(7.5)
(7)(11)
(9.5)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(5.5)
(3.5)
(5.5)
(12)
HORSETOOTH RD.
ZI
E
G
L
E
R
R
D
.
WILLIAM NEAL
PKWY.
DRAKE RD.
I-
2
5
SITE
LEGEND:
INDICATES ESTIMATED
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
ELEVATION
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORING OR PIEZOMETER
INDICATES MEASURED DEPTH
TO GROUNDWATER
MW-1
(10.5) FIGURE 5
Groundwater
Elevation
Contours
VICINITY MAP
(FT. COLLINS, CO)
NOT TO SCALE
600'300'
APPROXIMATE
SCALE: 1" = 600'
0'
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
FIGURE 6
Underdrain
Detail
Sewer
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL\T Project No. FC08493-115 REV 5
FIGURE 7
Underdrain
Cutoff Wall
Detail
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL\T Project No. FC08493-115 REV 5
FIGURE 8
Conceptual
Underdrain
Service Profile
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL\T Project No. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE A-I: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=119 PCF
From MW - 1 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=13.6 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-1
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ANTONSTNDER CUNOSIANXPE
ETTINUE TO WDRU GESSREP
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=104 PCF
From MW - 1 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=20.8 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-2
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=104 PCF
From MW - 1 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=22.6 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-3
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=113 PCF
From MW - 2 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=18.0 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From MW - 4 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=11.3 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-4
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TNASTONER CSION UNDNAPXE
GINTTO WRE DUESU ETSERP
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=109 PCF
From MW - 4 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=19.9 %
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=95 PCF
From MW - 5 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=28.8 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-5
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ONSSIMPRENAL COOIITDDA
EUDRECONSTAR SURESNT PEDNU
TINGWETTO
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ONSSIMPREONAL COIITDDA
EUDRERESNT PCONSTAUN SURED
TINGTO WET
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=108 PCF
From MW - 6 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=18.5 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=122 PCF
From MW - 7 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=11.1 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-6
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
GNTIEEEWETODUE TEMENTMOVON
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=103 PCF
From MW - 7 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=22.8 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-7
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=102 PCF
From MW - 7 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=23.9 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-8
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=115 PCF
From MW - 8 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=9.1 %
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=111 PCF
From MW - 8 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=19.3 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-9
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TNASTONER CSION UNDNAPXE
GINTTO WRE DUESU ETSERP
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=107 PCF
From MW - 9 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=13.4 %
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=118 PCF
From MW - 10 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=14.6 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-10
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
GNTIEEEWETODUE TEMENTMOVON
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=110 PCF
From MW - 10 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=19.5 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From MW - 11 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=7.1 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-11
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ONSSIMPRENAL COOIITDDA
EUDRECONSTAR SURESNT PEDNU
TINGWETTO
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=106 PCF
From MW - 11 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=20.9 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=115 PCF
From MW - 12 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=18.0 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-12
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ONSSIMPRENAL COOIITDDA
EUDRECONSTAR SURESNT PEDNU
TINGWETTO
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=94 PCF
From MW - 12 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=29.3 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-13
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=99 PCF
From MW - 12 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=25.1 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-14
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=382 PCF
From MW - 12 AT 19 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=23.8 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=125 PCF
From MW - 17 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=9.4 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-15
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ONSSIMPRENAL COOIITDDA
EUDRECONSTAR SURESNT PEDNU
TINGWETTO
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
TANSTONER CDSION UNNAPEX
INTETWTORE DUEEEEPRESSU G
0.1 1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=107 PCF
From MW - 17 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=21.3 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-16
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ANTONSTNDER CUNOSIANXPE
ETTINUE TO WDRU GESSREP
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=105 PCF
From MW - 17 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=21.8 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-17
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=112 PCF
From MW - 18 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=15.0 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-18
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ANTONSTNDER CUNOSIANXPE
ETTINUE TO WDRU GESSREP
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=101 PCF
From MW - 18 AT 9 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=23.9 %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
Test Results FIGURE A-19
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RDEUNSIONSCOMPRELANOITIDDA
GNTIRESSURPTA ETWTODUEENSTONC
0.1 1.0 10 100
Sample of GRAVEL, SANDY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (GP-GC)GRAVEL 49 %SAND 43 %
From MW - 1 AT 19 FEET SILT & CLAY 8 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of SAND, GRAVELLY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (SP-SC)GRAVEL 22 %SAND 69 %
From MW - 5 AT 14 FEET SILT & CLAY 9 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
FIGURE A-20
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PERCENT
RET
IA
NED
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sample of SAND, GRAVELLY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (SP-SC)GRAVEL 34 %SAND 58 %
From MW - 7 AT 24 FEET SILT & CLAY 8 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of GRAVEL, SANDY (GW)GRAVEL 69 %SAND 27 %
From MW - 15 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 4 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
FIGURE A-21
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PERCENT
RE
I
T
A
NED
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PASSING WATER-
MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED SWELL NO. 200 SOLUBLE
DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL*PRESSURE PRESSURE SIEVE SULFATES
BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(PSF)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION
MW-1 4 13.6 119 0.6 500 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-1 9 15.2 109 -0.3 1,100 0.12 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-1 14 22.6 104 -0.2 1,800 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-1 19 4.2 8 GRAVEL, SANDY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (GP-GC)
MW-2 4 18.0 113 0.2 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-3 4 15.7 45 25 51 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-4 4 11.3 120 0.4 500 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-4 9 19.9 109 -0.2 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-5 9 28.8 95 -0.2 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-5 14 11.6 9 SAND, GRAVELLY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (SP-SC)
MW-6 4 18.5 108 0.0 500 0.09 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-6 9 23.1 106 41 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
MW-7 4 11.1 122 1.1 500 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-7 9 22.8 103 -0.2 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-7 14 23.9 102 -0.1 1,800 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-7 24 7.3 8 SAND, GRAVELLY, SLIGHTLY CLAYEY (SP-SC)
MW-8 4 9.1 115 0.7 500 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-8 9 19.3 111 0.1 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-9 4 13.4 107 0.0 500 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
MW-10 4 14.6 118 0.5 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-10 9 19.5 110 -0.1 1,100 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
MW-11 4 7.3 120 0.2 500 0.08 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-11 9 20.9 106 -0.1 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-12 4 18.0 115 0.4 500 1,300 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-12 9 29.3 94 -0.2 1,100 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-12 14 25.1 99 -0.1 1,800 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-12 19 23.8 382 -0.1 2,400 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-15 4 0.9 4 GRAVEL, SANDY (GW)
MW-15 24 6.5 42 19 17 SANDSTONE, CLAYEY
MW-17 4 9.4 125 2.0 500 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-17 9 21.3 107 0.4 1,100 2,000 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-17 14 21.8 105 -0.2 1,800 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-18 4 15.0 112 0.1 500 1,000 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
MW-18 9 23.9 101 -1.5 1,100 0.10 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
SWELL TEST RESULTS*
TABLE A-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Page 1 of 1
* NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION.
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
APPENDIX B
GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
B-1
GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. DESCRIPTION
This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, place ment and
compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the
Engineer, as necessary to achieve preliminary street and overlot elevations.
These specifications shall also apply to compaction of excess cut materials
that may be placed outside of the development boundaries.
2. GENERAL
The Soils Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Soils Engineer
shall approve fill materials, method of placement, moisture contents and
percent compaction, and shall give written approval of the completed fill.
3. CLEARING JOB SITE
The Contractor shall remove all vegetation and debris before excavation or fill
placement is begun. The Contractor shall dispose of the cleared material to
provide the Owner with a clean, neat appearing job site. Cleared material
shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material will support
structures of any kind.
4. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED
All topsoil and vegetable matter shall be removed from the ground surface
upon which fill is to be placed. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified
until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other uneven features, which
would prevent uniform compaction.
5. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED
After the foundation for the fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be
disked or bladed until it is free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture
content (0 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content for clays and within 2
percent of optimum moisture content for sands) and compacted to not less
than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with
ASTM D698.
6. FILL MATERIALS
Fill soils shall be free from organics, debris, or other deleterious substances,
and shall not contain rocks or lumps having a diameter greater than six (6)
inches. Fill materials shall be obtained from cut areas shown on the plans or
staked in the field by the Engineer.
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
B-2
On-site materials classifying as CL, CH, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC, and GM
are acceptable. Concrete, asphalt, organic matter and other deleterious
materials or debris shall not be used as fill.
7. MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY
Fill material shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to the criteria in the
table, below. Maximum density and optimum moisture content shall be
determined from the appropriate Proctor compaction tests. Sufficient
laboratory compaction tests shall be made to determine the optimum moisture
content for the various soils encountered in borrow areas.
FILL COMPACTION AND MOISTURE REQUIREMENTS
Soil
Type
Depth from
Final Grade
(feet)
Moisture Requirement
(% from optimum) Density Requirement
Clay 0 to 15 feet 0 to +3 95% of ASTM D 698
Sand -2 to +2 95% of ASTM D 698
Clay Greater than 15
feet
-2 to +1 98% of ASTM D 698
Sand -2 to +1 95% of ASTM D 1557
The Contractor may be required to add moisture to the excavation materials in
the borrow area if, in the opinion of the Soils Engineer, it is not possible to
obtain uniform moisture content by adding water on the fill surface. The
Contractor may be required to rake or disc the fill soils to provide uniform
moisture content through the soils.
The application of water to embankment materials shall be made with any type
of watering equipment approved by the Soils Engineer, which will give the
desired results. Water jets from the spreader shall not be directed at the
embankment with such force that fill materials are washed out.
Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is
too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling and all
work on that section of the fill shall be delayed until the material has been
allowed to dry to the required moisture content. The Contr actor will be
permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to hasten its drying.
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
B-3
8. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS
Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers. After
each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than
the specified percentage of maximum density. Fill shall be compacted to the
criteria above. At the option of the Soils Engineer, so ils classifying as SW,
GP, GC, or GM may be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 or 70 percent relative density for
cohesionless sand soils. Fill materials shall be placed such that the thickness
of loose materials does not exceed 12 inches and the compacted lift thickness
does not exceed 6 inches.
Compaction as specified above, shall be obtained by the use of sheepsfoot
rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other equipment approved by
the Engineer for soils classifying as CL, CH, or SC. Granular fill shall be
compacted using vibratory equipment or other equipment approved by the
Soils Engineer. Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at
the specified moisture content. Compaction of each layer shall be continuous
over the entire area. Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to
ensure that the required density is obtained.
9. COMPACTION OF SLOPES
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable
equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable,
but not too dense for planting, and there is not appreciable amount of loose
soils on the slopes. Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in
increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill is brought to its
total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical).
10. PLACEMENT OF FILL ON NATURAL SLOPES
Where natural slopes are steeper than 20 percent in grade and the placement
of fill is required, benches shall be cut at the rate of one bench for each 5 feet
in height (minimum of two benches). Benches shall be at least 10 feet in
width. Larger bench widths may be required by the Engineer. Fill shall be
placed on completed benches as outlined within this specification.
ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
STRAUSS LAKE DEVELOPMENT
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC08493-115 REV 5
B-4
11. DENSITY TESTS
Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer at locations and depths
of his choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed
to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted
material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the
density or moisture content of any layer of fill or portion thereof is not within
specification, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required
density or moisture content has been achieved.
12. SEASONAL LIMITS
No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen, thawing, or
during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy
precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engine er
indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed materials
are as specified.
13. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING
The Contractor shall submit notification to the Soils Engineer and Owner
advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days in
advance of the starting date. Notification shall also be submitted at least 3
days in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been
stopped for any reason other than adverse weather conditions.
14. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Density tests made by the Soils Engineer, as specified under "Density Tests"
above, shall be submitted progressively to the Owner. Dry density, moisture
content, and percentage compaction shall be reported for each test taken.
15. DECLARATION REGARDING COMPLETED FILL
The Soils Engineer shall provide a written declaration stating that the site was
filled with acceptable materials and was placed in general accordance with the
specifications.