HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE QUARRY BY WATERMARK - PDP200019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
SOUTH OF HOBBIT STREET, EAST OF SOUTH SHIELDS STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152075
Prepared for:
Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc.
401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Attn: Mr. Steve Schroyer (steve.schroyer@blueocean-inc.com)
Director of Real Estate
Prepared by:
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
4396 Greenfield Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE
WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
(970) 224-1522 FAX (970) 663-0282
August 21, 2015
Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc.
401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Attn: Mr. Steve Schroyer (steve.schroyer@blueocean-inc.com)
Director of Real Estate
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Shields Mixed Use Development
South of Hobbit Street, East of South Shields Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1152075
Mr. Schroyer:
Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth
Engineering Consultants, LLC personnel for the referenced project. For this study, a total of
eighteen (18) soil borings were drilled on July 29 and August 5, 2015 at the approximate
locations as indicated on the enclosed Test Boring Location Diagram. The borings were
extended to depths of approximately twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) feet below existing site
grades. Individual boring logs, including groundwater observations, depth to bedrock, and
results of laboratory testing are included as a part of the attached report. This exploration was
completed in general accordance with our proposal dated July 14, 2015.
We understand this project involves the development of a 21 acre parcel located east of South
Shields Street and south of Hobbit Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. It is our understanding
import materials from the proposed new Colorado State University (CSU) multipurpose stadium
will be used to raise existing site grades by 3 to 5 feet. We understand this project involves the
construction of multi-unit residential apartments with a small retail component, retail buildings, a
townhome area and a clubhouse with pool. Foundation loads for the structures are expected to
be light to moderate and floor loads are expected to be light. The site is currently vacant land
with gentle slopes generally to the east.
Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be
generalized as follows. A surficial layer of vegetation and topsoil was encountered at all boring
locations underlain by native lean clay to clayey sand. The essentially cohesive materials were
generally underlain by clayey/silty sand and gravel at depths of 5 to 15 feet below existing site
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 2
grades. The essentially granular materials were generally underlain by
sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock at approximate depths of 13 to 19 feet below existing site
grades to the depths explored, approximately 20 to 25 feet below existing grades. Bedrock was
not encountered in borings B-9 and B-14. 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. At the time of drilling, free water was
observed in all of the borings at depths of approximately 9 to 14-feet below site grades.
The cohesive soils varied from medium stiff to very stiff / medium dense in consistency and
generally exhibited low swell potential and low bearing capacity characteristics. The lower
portion of the essentially cohesive zone encroaching into groundwater level, exhibited
soft/compressible conditions with an increase in moisture content. The silty/clayey sand and
gravel materials were generally medium dense with occasional loose zones observed. The
sandstone/siltstone/claystone was generally moderately hard and exhibited moderate to high
bearing characteristics.
Based on the materials observed within the boring locations, the proposed fill materials to be
imported from the proposed new CSU multipurpose stadium location and the anticipated
foundation loads, we believe the apartment buildings, commercial/retail structures, and the
clubhouse could be supported on PT slab-on-grade foundation/floor system or conventional type
spread footings bearing on native materials or a zone of engineered fill material placed and
compacted as described within this report.
In general, it appears the in-situ site materials and proposed import materials could be used for
support of interior slab-on-grades, exterior flatwork, and site pavements. Post-construction
movement cannot be eliminated. Additionally the essentially cohesive subsoil materials may be
subject to strength loss and instability when wetted. Close monitoring and evaluation during the
construction phase should be performed to reduce post-construction movement.
Geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of foundation systems,
support of floor slabs and pavements, and swimming pool construction are provided within the
text of the enclosed report. A final, more thorough subsurface exploration should be performed
for the various buildings after final grades, loads and building footprint/layouts, etc. have been
determined.
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
SOUTH OF HOBBIT STREET, EAST OF SOUTH SHIELDS STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152075
August 21, 2015
INTRODUCTION
The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed Shields mixed use development located
east of South Shields Street and south of Hobbit Street in Fort Collins, Colorado has been
completed. This study was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated July 14, 2015.
For this study, a total of eighteen (18) soil borings were drilled on July 29 and August 5, 2015 within
the proposed building areas at the site. Those borings were extended to approximate depths of 20 to
25-feet below existing site grades.
Based on the information provided to us from Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc., site grades are expected
to be raised 3 to 5 feet and the proposed development will generally include the construction of
multi-unit residential apartments with a small retail component, retail buildings, townhomes, and a
clubhouse with pool. The multi-unit residential apartment buildings are anticipated to be three-
story, wood-frame, post-tensioned (PT) slab-on-grade foundation (no basement) buildings, while the
retail buildings are expected to be single-story and the townhomes to be one and two-story PT slab-
on-grade or conventional spread footing 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. As we understand, some of the apartment buildings will include tuck under
parking. Paved drive and parking for the development is 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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 2
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The test borings were completed using a truck mounted, CME-55 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.
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. 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 and classified in general
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 Shields mixed use development project is located southeast of the intersection of South Shields
Street and Hobbit Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is currently vacant land sloping to the
east with a relief of approximately 6 feet.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 3
Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized
as follows. A surficial layer of vegetation and topsoil was encountered at all boring locations.
Apparent native cohesive lean clay to clayey sand subsoils were encountered beneath the
topsoil/vegetation and extended to silty/clayey sands and gravels at approximate depths of 5 to 15
feet below existing site grades or to sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock at approximate depths of
13 to 19 feet below existing site grades. Sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock was encountered in
all boring except for B-9 and B-14 at approximate depths of 13½ to 20 feet below existing site grade
and extended to the depths explored. Borings B-9 and B-14 were terminated at depths of
approximately 20 feet in silty/clayey sand and gravel subsoils. 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 essentially cohesive soils encountered beneath the surface topsoil/vegetation layer varied
from medium stiff to very stiff / medium dense in consistency and 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 essentially cohesive zone encroaching into groundwater level, exhibited
soft/compressible conditions with an increase in moisture content as evident on the enclosed boring
logs and swell-consolidation curves in the Appendix of this report. The silty/clayey sand and gravel
materials were generally medium dense with occasional loose zones observed. The
sandstone/siltstone/claystone was brown/grey/rust in color, moderately hard and exhibited moderate
to high bearing characteristics. The bedrock materials were highly weathered to 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, free water was observed in all of the
borings at depths of approximately 9 to 14-feet below site grades.
Field slotted PVC piezometers were placed in seven of the open boreholes drilled on July 29, 2015
prior to backfilling to allow for future water level measurements. The piezometers were registered
with Colorado Department of Water Quality as temporary piezometers. A copy of that registration is
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 4
included with this report. Those piezometers will need to be removed within one year and an
appropriate notification provided to the state upon removal.
Groundwater levels were measured 7 days after drilling in the piezometers installed on July 29,
2015, with free water observed at depths of approximately 7½ to 10½-feet below existing site
grades. All borings without piezometers were backfilled on August 5, 2015; therefore subsequent
groundwater measurements are not available for those locations.
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
Swell/consolidation testing is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soil or bedrock to
assist in determining/evaluating foundation, floor slab and/or pavement design criteria. In the
swell/consolidation test, samples obtained directly from the California barrel sampler are placed in a
laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a pre-established load. The swell-index is the
resulting amount of swell or collapse under the initial loading condition expressed as a percent of the
sample’s initial thickness. After the initial monitoring period, additional incremental loads are applied
to evaluate swell pressure and/or consolidation response.
For this assessment, we conducted twelve (12) 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 (+) 1.1 to (+) 6.5%.
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 the 500 psf-inundation pressure),
revealed low swell characteristics ranging from approximately (+) 0.3 to (+) 1.5% with one sample
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 5
exhibiting moderate swell characteristics of (+) 4.1%. The (-) test results indicate the tendency to
consolidate upon inundation with water, while the (+) test results indicate the swell potential
characteristics.
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information 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 I: 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.
Site Preparation
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, fills on the order of 3 to 5 feet may be
completed to achieve design grades. EEC reviewed the Geotechnical Report for the proposed new
Colorado State University (CSU) multipurpose stadium where materials are expected to be imported.
Based on our review, the materials, in general, appear to be acceptable fill materials for the proposed
Shields mixed use development. Occasional zones of higher plasticity fat clays were observed and
should be avoided if possible. Existing fill materials were not identified during our field borings,
however, close observations during construction is advised. After stripping the topsoil/vegetation
cutting any undocumented fill materials, and prior to placement of any fill and/or site improvements,
we recommend the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 9-inches, adjusted in moisture
content to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95%
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 6
of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM
Specification D698.
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 or similar import soils from the proposed new CSU multipurpose stadium
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 to clayey sand soils or similar import materials are used as fill material, care will be
needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying
improvements.
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 avoid
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 within the placed fill materials. Settlement on
the order of 1 to 1.5% of the fill depth would be estimated. The rate of settlement will be dependent
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 7
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:
Conventional spread footings
Post-Tensioned Slab Foundation System
Conventional Spread Footing Foundations
The native undisturbed lean clay to clayey sand generally exhibited low swell potential and low
bearing characteristics. The one (1) moderate swell observed appeared to be an anomaly although
care should be taken to evaluate the subgrade soils during construction. To reduce to potential for
post-construction heaving of the footings subsequent to construction, we recommend the existing
site subgrades and proposed fill materials be worked and placed as recommended in the Site
Preparation section of this report.
Conventional type spread footings could be used to support the proposed slab on grade buildings
provided the footings are placed on approved native subgrade material or moisture/density
controlled fill material and the maximum anticipated wall and column loads do not exceed those
presented herein. If actual design loads exceed the assumed values as previously presented, we
should be consulted to provide supplemental design criteria, possibly including alternative
foundations.
Footings bearing on approved native subsoils or moisture/density conditioned soils could be
designed for a maximum net allowable total load bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. The net bearing
pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure. Total load should include full dead and live loads.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 8
Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. We estimate the total
long term settlement of footings designed as outlined above would be less than one-inch.
The backfill soils adjacent to the foundations should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches
thick, moisture conditioned to ± 2% of the material’s standard Proctor optimum moisture content,
and mechanically compacted to be at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density, ASTM
D698.
After placement of the fill materials, for foundation support, care should be taken to avoid wetting or
drying of those materials. Bearing materials, which are loosened or disturbed by the construction
activities, or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened, should be removed
and replaced or reworked in place prior to construction of the overlying improvements.
Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below
adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have
a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches.
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 bearing capabilities. Based
on the subsurface conditions encountered and the expected fill materials across the site, we expect the
proposed apartment buildings and the townhome buildings/slab-on-grade structures could be supported
by PT slab-on-grade foundations that are supported/bear on a zone of engineered/controlled fill
materials placed and compacted as outlined in the “Site Preparation” section of this report or on
acceptable underlying native soils. The design parameters provided below assume subgrade materials
outlined under “Site Preparation”.
Outlined below are the post tensioned slab (PTS) design criteria based on the subsurface conditions,
the reviewed proposed import materials 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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 9
Table II – 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. 8.6
Edge Lift Condition, ft. 4.3
Differential Soil Movement, ym
Center Lift Condition, Inches 0.4
Edge Lift Condition, Inches 0.8
Slab-Subgrade friction coefficient,
on polyethylene sheeting 0.75
on cohesionless soils – (sands) 1.0
on cohesive soils – (clays) 2.0
Seismic
The site soil conditions consist of approximately 17 to greater than 20-feet of overburden soils
overlying moderately hard/cemented bedrock. For those site conditions, the 2012 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,
tuck under parking, 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, similar CSU stadium
import material, 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
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 10
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.
Table III – Lateral Earth Pressure Design Values
Soil Type On-Site Low Plasticity Cohesive Imported Medium Dense
Granular
Wet Unit Weight 120 135
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 movement, we recommend the proposed floor slab on grade bear upon a properly
placed and compacted engineered fill material as outlined under “Site Preparation”. It is our opinion
the on-site essentially cohesive soils or similar CSU multipurpose stadium import materials could be
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 11
used as fill in these areas, provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are
followed. If the site lean clay to clayey sand soils or similar import materials are used as fill
material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during
construction of overlying improvements. This procedure will not fully 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 compacted on-site or similar import soils. A
modulus of 200 pci could be used for floors supported on non-expansive imported granular
structural fill material.
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.
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 using an
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 12
assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 25 and in automobile/parking areas we are
using an EDLA of 10.
Proof rolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the
aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proof rolling operations should be
undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the site, the subsurface conditions at the proposed new CSU multipurpose
stadium and the laboratory test results, it is recommended the on-site private drives and parking
areas be designed using an R-value of 10.
Three to five feet of moisture conditioned/engineered fill material are expected across the site.
Existing topsoil/vegetation should be stripped and site fill materials should be placed and compacted as
presented in the “Site Preparation” section of this report. Pumping conditions could develop within a
moisture treatment process of on-site or imported essentially cohesive soils. Subgrade stabilization
may be needed to develop a stable subgrade for paving. A stabilized subgrade could also reduce the
overlying pavement structure. Stabilization could include incorporating at least 12 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 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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 13
Recommended pavement sections are provided below in TABLE II. 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 should be an exterior pavement mix with a minimum 28-
day compressive strength of 4000 psi and should be air entrained. HMA pavements may show
rutting and distress in truck loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in
those areas.
TABLE IV – RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Local Residential
Roadways/Parking
Minor Collectors /
Heavy Duty
Roadways
EDLA – assume local residential roadways
Reliability
Resilient Modulus
PSI Loss – (Initial 4.5, Terminal 2.0 and 2.3 respectively)
10
75%
3562
2.5
25
85%
3562
2.2
Design Structure Number 2.60 3.20
Composite Section without Fly Ash – Alternative A
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Grading S (75) PG 58-28
Aggregate Base Course ABC – CDOT Class 5 or 6
Design Structure Number
4ʺ
8ʺ
(2.64)
5-1/2ʺ
8ʺ
(3.30)
Composite Section with Fly Ash – Alternative B
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Grading S (75) PG 58-28
Aggregate Base Course ABC – CDOT Class 5 or 6
Fly Ash Treated Subgrade
Design Structure Number
4ʺ
6 ʺ
12″
(3.02)
4ʺ
8ʺ
12ʺ
(3.24)
PCC (Non-reinforced) – placed on an approved subgrade 5-1/2″ 7″
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 accordance with current ACI criteria. All joints
should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer.
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
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 14
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.
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.
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
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 15
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 clubhouse building. Swimming pool design concepts/plans were not available
prior to preparation of this report, however, we assume similar to other recently completed
development projects that the pool would range anywhere from 4 to 6-feet in depth for lap purposes.
We believe the swimming pool can bear on approved native subgrade material or moisture/density
controlled fill material as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. The construction
and performance of the pool may be affected by the presence of low to moderately expansive
overburden cohesive subsoils. Site soils generally exhibited low swell potential with one moderate
swell observed. Therefore we recommend close observation of the subsoils beneath the proposed
swimming during construction.
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.
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 is expected to 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 according to general industry standards.
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:
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 16
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
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 Site Preparation 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 and proposed import materials can be expected to stand on
relatively steep temporary slopes during construction. However, if excavations extend into the
underlying sand and gravel layers and/or 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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 17
Water Soluble Sulfates
The water soluble sulfate (SO4) testing of the on-site overburden materials taken during our
subsurface exploration at depths of approximately 4-feet are provided in Table V below. Based on
the reported sulfate content test results, this report includes a recommendation for the CLASS of
cement for use for contact in association with the on-site subsoils.
TABLE V - Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Sample Location Description Soluble Sulfate Content (mg/kg) Soluble Sulfate Content (%)
B-3, S-2 at 4’ Sandy Lean Clay/Clayey Sand 390 0.04
B-12, S-2 at 4’ Sandy Lean Clay/Clayey Sand 5,700 0.57
B-15, S-2 at 4’ Sandy Lean Clay/Clayey Sand 330 0.03
Based on the results as presented in Table IV above, ACI 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site
overburden soils have a low to high risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete. Therefore
Class 2 cement and the use of fly ash and/or an equivalent approach to address the high sulfate
results as presented herein should be used for concrete on and below site grade within the on-site
overburden soils. With site grades expected to be raised 3-5 feet, the import materials should be
evaluated to determine the Class of cement needed. Foundation concrete should be designed in
accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. These results are
being compared to the following Table VI.
TABLE VI - Requirements to Protect Against Damage to Concrete by Sulfate Attack from External Sources of
Sulfate
Severity of Sulfate exposure Water-soluble sulfate
(SO4) in dry soil, percent
Water-cement ratio,
maximum
Cementitious material
Requirements
Class 0 0.00 to 0.10% 0.45 Class 0
Class 1 0.11 to 0.20% 0.45 Class 1
Class 2 0.21 to 2.00% 0.45 Class 2
Class 3 2.01 of greater 0.45 Class 3
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
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152075
August 21, 2015
Page 18
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 Blue Ocean Enterprises, Inc., for specific
application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, expressed 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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
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.
Group
Symbol
Group Name
Cu≥4 and 1<Cc≤3
E
GW Well-graded gravel
F
Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3
E
GP Poorly-graded gravel
F
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel
G,H
Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey Gravel
F,G,H
Cu≥6 and 1<Cc≤3
E
SW Well-graded sand
I
Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3
E
SP Poorly-graded sand
I
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand
G,H,I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand
G,H,I
inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above "A" Line CL Lean clay
K,L,M
PI<4 or plots below "A" Line ML Silt
K,L,M
organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay
K,L,M,N
Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt
K,L,M,O
inorganic PI plots on or above "A" Line CH Fat clay
K,L,M
PI plots below "A" Line MH Elastic Silt
K,L,M
organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay
K,L,M,P
Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt
K,L,M,O
Highly organic soils PT Peat
(D30)2
D10 x D60
GW-GM well graded gravel with silt NPI≥4 and plots on or above "A" line.
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay OPI≤4 or plots below "A" line.
GP-GM poorly-graded gravel with silt PPI plots on or above "A" line.
GP-GC poorly-graded gravel with clay QPI plots below "A" line.
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with gravel" to
group name
JIf Atterberg limits plots shaded area, soil is a CL-
ML, Silty clay
Unified Soil Classification System
1
2
B-4
(piezometer)
B-5 B-11
B-18
(piezometer)
B-10 B-12
(piezometer)
B-6
B-3
B-2
B-1
(piezometer)
B-8
B-9
B-13
(piezometer)
B-14
B-15
(piezometer)
B-16
B-17
B-7
(piezometer)
Boring Location Diagram
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project Number: 1152075 Date: August 2015
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC
Approximate Boring
Locations
1
Legend
Site Photos
(Photos taken in approximate
location, in direction of arrow)
SHIELDS MIXED USE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152075
AUGUST 2015
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / red _ _
stiff 2
mottled _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 13 9000+ 12.9 118.9 35 20 67.4 3000 psf 1.5%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 8 4000 21.4
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 18 3000 8.6 131.6
CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GC) _ _
brown / red 16
medium dense _ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 20 2500 15.8
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY / CLAYEY SAND / SANDSTONE / 24
CLAYSTONE; brown _ _
very stiff / medium dense / soft; highly weathered CS 25 20 1000 22.2 105.3
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to medium stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 16 9000+ 10.7 117.5 34 19 75.7 2600 psf 1.9%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 6 1500 28.1
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 13
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 19
grey / brown / rust _ _
soft to moderately hard SS 20 31 3500 21.5
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
stiff to medium stiff / medium dense _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 13 9000+ 8.2 113.3 29 15 55.9 1250 psf 2.8%
_ _
4
_ _
with calcareous deposits SS 5 11 9000+ 13.0
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
brown / red _ _
CS 10 4 1000 21.8 102.9
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 8 2000 20.4
_ _
SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) 16
brown / red _ _
loose to medium dense 17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 16 -- 15.3 114.9
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 24
grey _ _
moderately hard to hard SS 25 50/7" 3500 16.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
CLAYEY SAND / SANDY LEAN CLAY (SC/CL) _ _
brown 2
medium dense / stiff _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 11 3000 6.4 114.7
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 9 1000 23.2
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GC) 14
brown / red _ _
medium dense CS 15 18 -- 12.3 125.0
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 18
brown / grey / rust _ _
soft to moderately hard 19
_ _
SS 20 42 1500 18.6
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
hard _ _
CS 25 50/4" 9000+ 13.8 117.0
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 medium stiff _ _
mottled, with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 9 5500 18.8 106.8
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
brown / red _ _
SS 10 5 500 24.3
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
SILTY SAND & GRAVEL (SM/GM) _ _
medium dense CS 15 21
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 18
grey / rust / brown _ _
soft to moderately hard 19
_ _
SS 20 38 9000+ 16.2
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 _ _
mottled, with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 11 9000 11.0 109.9
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
very soft SS 10 1 -- 33.7
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
medium stiff CS 15 5
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
SANDSTONE _ _
grey / rust SS 20 29 2000 19.6
soft _ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to medium stiff _ _
CS 3 16 9000+ 11.9 112.3 39 23 90.1 6000 psf 4.1%
_ _
4
_ _
brown / tan SS 5 11 9000+ 12.5
mottled _ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
dark brown CS 10 5 1500 25.4 97.9
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
SILTY/CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SM/SC/GM/GC) 14
brown _ _
medium dense SS 15 19 2000 21.2
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 36 9000 18.7 111.5
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _
grey / rust / brown 21
soft to moderately hard _ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
moderately hard to hard _ _
SS 25 50/10" 9000+ 16.2
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 soft _ _
mottled 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 8 9000 12.2 118.9
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 3 1000 29.5
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) 13
brown / red _ _
medium stiff 14
_ _
CS 15 17 -- 12.5
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE SS 20 32 5000 19.8
brown / olive / grey; soft; highly weathered _ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
very stiff / medium dense _ _ % @ 150 psf
mottled CS 3 19 4500 4.7 111.9 26 12 44.7 320 psf 1.1%
_ _
4
_ _
CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GC) SS 5 16 9000 8.1
brown / red _ _
medium dense to dense 6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 30 -- 3.6
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
SS 15 41 1000 15.5
dense to medium dense _ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 21 -- 17.8
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
stiff to medium stiff / loose _ _
3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 9 9000+ 9.2 113.1 33 18 52.5 1200 psf 0.7%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 5 500 31.8
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
SILTY/CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SM/SC/GM/GC) 13
brown / red _ _
medium dense 14
_ _
CS 15 23 -- 12.0 123.5
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 29 -- 9.4
_ _
SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 21
brown / rust / grey _ _
moderately hard to hard 22
_ _
23
_ _
24
wet cave in; auger cuttings _ _
CS 25 50/7" -- 14.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to soft / medium dense to loose _ _ % @ 150 psf
with traces of gravel CS 3 19 9000 8.5 115.5 38 22 49.6 3800 psf 6.1%
_ _
4
_ _
brown / grey / rust SS 5 10 9000+ 15.6
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 4 1000 24.7 99.1
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
with sand & gravel seams SS 15 21 1000 23.3
_ _
16
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 17
brown / grey / rust _ _
moderately hard to hard 18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 50/7" 9000+ 15.0 118.5
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to medium stiff / medium dense to loose _ _ % @ 150 psf
mottled with calcareous deposits CS 3 17 9000 4.7 115.3 30 13 34.5 850 psf 2.0%
with traces of gravel _ _
4
_ _
SS 5 7 7500 18.8
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
dark brown _ _
CS 10 7 1000 26.6 95.7
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GC) 13
dark brown / red _ _
medium dense 14
_ _
SS 15 14 -- 14.4
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 18
brown / grey / rust _ _
moderately hard to hard 19
_ _
CS 20 50/7" 9000+ 14.2 120.1
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
SS 25 50/10" 9000+ 14.2
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC) _ _
brown 2
stiff to medium stiff / moderately hard to loose _ _
mottled 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 11 9000+ 11.2 115.4
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
sand & gravel seams with depth SS 10 5 1000 25.0
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 13 3000 20.6 107.5
brown / rust _ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 30 6500 19.6
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE _ _
brown / grey / rust 21
highly weathered _ _
soft to moderately hard 22
_ _
23
_ _
24
brown / rust _ _
hard CS 25 50/3" 9000+ 16.6
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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
very stiff to stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
mottled, with calcareous deposits CS 3 23 9000+ 9.1 125.4 35 20 65.1 4200 psf 5.2%
_ _
4
_ _
SS 5 12 9000+ 17.2
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 10 4000 22.5 102.1
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
SILTY/CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SM/SC/GM/GC) 14
brown / red _ _
medium dense to dense SS 15 18 -- 12.6
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 41 -- 8.7 133.1
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY / CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC)) 1
brown _ _
very stiff to stiff / medium dense to loose 2
mottled with gravel _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 16 9000 4.4 123.7 26 13 25.1 1000 psf 1.5%
_ _
4
_ _
brown / red SS 5 8 9000+ 13.8
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
CS 10 9 2500 23.0 102.3
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
SILTY/CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SM/SC/GM/GC) 14
brown / red _ _
medium dense SS 15 15 -- 14.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 18
brown / olive / grey / rust _ _
moderately hard to hard 19
_ _
CS 20 50/8" 9000+ 14.8 118.4
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
grey _ _
SS 25 50/4" 9000+ 12.4
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 medium stiff _ _
mottled 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 12 9000+ 12.6 116.9
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
dark brown _ _
SS 10 6 3500 28.7
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GC) CS 15 17 1500 20.2 111.8
brown / red _ _
medium dense 16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
SS 20 36 8500 15.8
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _
brown / olive / grey 21
moderately hard to hard _ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
CS 25 50/3.5" 9000+ 12.7 122.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200
TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _
1
LEAN CLAY / SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to medium stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 18 9000+ 19.1 109.1 44 26 95.8 1000 psf 0.3%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
dark brown / brown _ _
SS 10 5 1500 28.1
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
CS 15 15 4500 14.7 123.0
brown / grey / rust _ _
with calcareous deposits 16
_ _
17
_ _
CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 18
soft to moderately hard _ _
highly weathered 19
wet cave in; no recovery _ _
SS 20 60
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
DATE:
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
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 / SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 2
very stiff to stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf
mottled, with calcareous deposits CS 3 19 9000+ 7.6 116.0 33 18 69.5 3000 psf 6.5%
_ _
4
_ _
SS 5 15 9000+ 16.0
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
dark brown / red _ _
CS 10 6 2500 28.6 94.6
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE _ _
brown / grey / rust SS 15 14 2000 23.0
highly weathered _ _
soft to hard 16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
CS 20 50/9" 9000 15.7 118.3
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
SS 25 50/9" 9000+ 15.6
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown / Red Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 67.4%
Beginning Moisture: 12.9% Dry Density: 122.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.8%
Swell Pressure: 3000 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.5%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing #200: 75.7%
Beginning Moisture: 10.7% Dry Density: 121.8 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.6%
Swell Pressure: 2600 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.9%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 29 Plasticity Index: 15 % Passing #200: 55.9%
Beginning Moisture: 8.2% Dry Density: 107.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.5%
Swell Pressure: 1250 psf % Swell @ 150: 2.8%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 39 Plasticity Index: 23 % Passing #200: 90.1%
Beginning Moisture: 11.9% Dry Density: Ending Moisture: 15.9%
Swell Pressure: 6000 psf % Swell @ 500: 4.1%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Clayey Sand (SC)
Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 26 Plasticity Index: 12 % Passing #200: 44.7%
Beginning Moisture: 4.7% Dry Density: 105.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.4%
Swell Pressure: 320 psf % Swell @ 150: 1.1%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 10, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 33 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 52.5%
Beginning Moisture: 9.2% Dry Density: 122.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.8%
Swell Pressure: 1200 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.7%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Clayey Sand (CL / SC)
Sample Location: Boring 11, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 38 Plasticity Index: 22 % Passing #200: 49.6%
Beginning Moisture: 8.5% Dry Density: 122.4 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.7%
Swell Pressure: 3800 psf % Swell @ 150: 6.1%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Clayey Sand (SC)
Sample Location: Boring 12, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 30 Plasticity Index: 13 % Passing #200: 34.5%
Beginning Moisture: 4.7% Dry Density: 109.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.3%
Swell Pressure: 850 psf % Swell @ 150: 2.0%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 14, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 65.1%
Beginning Moisture: 9.1% Dry Density: 124.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.0%
Swell Pressure: 4200 psf % Swell @ 150: 5.2%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Clayey Gravel (GC)
Sample Location: Boring 15, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 26 Plasticity Index: 13 % Passing #200: 25.1%
Beginning Moisture: 4.4% Dry Density: 120.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.8%
Swell Pressure: 1000 psf % Swell @ 150: 1.5%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 17, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 44 Plasticity Index: 26 % Passing #200: 95.8%
Beginning Moisture: 19.1% Dry Density: 107.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.8%
Swell Pressure: 1000 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.3%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 18, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 33 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 69.5%
Beginning Moisture: 7.6% Dry Density: 115.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.4%
Swell Pressure: 3200 psf % Swell @ 150: 6.5%
Shields Mixed Use Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152075
August 2015
-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)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 7.8'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-18 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-17 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 10'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-16 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 7.4'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 11'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-15 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 10'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-14 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 8.7'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9.5'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-13 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 11'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-12 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-11 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 9.3'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9.5'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-10 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 10.5'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-9 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9.5'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-8 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 8.4'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 11'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-7 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-6 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-5 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 8.8'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 10'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-4 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 11'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-3 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 N/A
FINISH DATE 8/5/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 8/5/2015 WHILE DRILLING 9'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-2 AUGUST 2015
SURFACE ELEV N/A 8/5/2015 10.4'
FINISH DATE 7/29/2015 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 7/29/2015 WHILE DRILLING 14'
SHIELDS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152075 LOG OF BORING B-1 (PIEZOMETER) AUGUST 2015
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests
Sands 50% or more
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 sieve
Fine-Grained Soils
50% or more passes
the No. 200 sieve
<0.75 OL
Gravels with Fines
more than 12%
fines
Clean Sands Less
than 5% fines
Sands with Fines
more than 12%
fines
Clean Gravels Less
than 5% fines
Gravels more than
50% of coarse
fraction retained on
No. 4 sieve
Coarse - Grained Soils
more than 50%
retained on No. 200
sieve
CGravels with 5 to 12% fines required dual symbols:
Kif soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand"
or "with gravel", whichever is predominant.
<0.75 OH
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm)
sieve
ECu=D60/D10 Cc=
HIf fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to
group name
LIf soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand,
add "sandy" to group name.
MIf soil contains ≥30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel,
add "gravelly" to group name.
DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or
both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to
group name. FIf soil contains ≥15% sand, add "with sand" to
GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-
CM, or SC-SM.
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit less
than 50
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit 50 or
more
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
ML OR OL
MH OR OH
For Classification of fine-grained soils and
fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained
soils.
Equation of "A"-line
Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5
then PI-0.73 (LL-20)
Equation of "U"-line
Vertical at LL=16 to PI-7,
then PI=0.9 (LL-8)
CL-ML
HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION:
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